What came before the Big Bang?

[atanu]

Of course I know the difference - brain death can be readily established, as of course can viability.
.....

Why would I need to make a zombie brain?

Tell you what - here is a better, and less pointless challenge; Why don't you give an example of a consciousness that is not emerging from a living brain.

But I told you. I will tell again, if only to keep a record, since from your posts it is evident that you do not wish to evaluate sincerely what the other person is trying to say. Your conclusions are made.

......

Who or what keeps track of half life of radioactive decay? How does a paired photon, separated by a large distance from its pair, instantaneously know the state of its partner? How to explain the Double Slit experiment result without acknowledging that intelligence/information/consciousness is inherent in nature?

The following is a summary of what was earlier said.

1. You said brain generates consciousness. That is wrong. You now say dead brain does not generate consciousness. So, I am asking what is that which animates a brain?

A dead person's brain does not impel him to say "Let me live".

2. No one has ever seen a brain in an unconscious state. Nothing can be seen or known in absence of consciousness.

3. There has never been an end of "I am" consciousness. Death of an ego self does not mean death of "I Am" consciousness, which continues unabated.

4. If your brain chemicals generated your intelligence deterministically, then your proposition cannot have any truth value .. since it is pre-determined.

5. Conscious individuals can volitionally control state of brain.

6. Correlation of structures of brain and emotions etc. is not proof of causation.

7. Brain is a seen object .. a representation created by mind-senses. Some, in a circular fashion, claim that the 'Representation' is the creator of the 'Representation' ..... That the seen is the Seer.

.............

 

[idav]

There are two parts to the researcher's statement, the second of which says that the phenomenon that is being observed is

"not the result of a transmission using local signals from one brain to the other"

If that is the case, and it is , then such transmission must be nonlocal.

I am pretty sure all this has been debunked. We now understand that a non-local collapse has everything to do with cause and effect and not some sort of transmission. The pseudo-science that tries to persist with this would have you believe that mere observer can collapse the wave function but this simply is not true and has been well tested and debunked, so no, no transmission necessary even if the brain is non-local, it collapses simply by being a brain, by being matter under the weight of laws of physics.

 

[Bunyip]

That is a position of the utmost stupidity, to use how you perceive me as a basis for a false victory. You don't like the fact that I point out the truth, so you call it a tantrum in a cheap effort to degrade what I am actually saying, and most importantly, to divert attention away from your inability to think correctly.

Listen mate, I know you got it wrong - and you know it.

You are just flinging mud because you know that you have misrepresented the experiment and it does not in fact claim to have proven non-locality, or that brains are in any way recieving external stimuli beyond the normal senses. At best it posits non-locality as a hypothetical explanation of the results. A HYPOTHETICAL EXPLANATION, AS YET UNPROVEN.

Insult me all you like, I have schoolage children, a little bad behaviour is hardly going to offend me. Ileft the schoolyard decades ago.

 

[godnotgod]

The collapse happens because of cause and effect. Non-locality doesn't persist under the weight of the forces of laws of nature. The brain is no different. The non-locality isn't enough to make an affect on our brain to allow for thoughts or consciousness to be a factor outside the brain.

That is not a response to my statement to Bunyip, which is about thoughts coming into the brain from the outside.

 

[godnotgod]

Listen mate, I know you got it wrong - and you know it.

You are just flinging mud because you know that you have misrepresented the experiment and it does not in fact claim to have proven non-locality, or that brains are in any way recieving external stimuli beyond the normal senses. At best it posits non-locality as a hypothetical explanation of the results. A HYPOTHETICAL EXPLANATION, AS YET UNPROVEN.

Insult me all you like, I have schoolage children, a little bad behaviour is hardly going to offend me. Ileft the schoolyard decades ago.

So did I, but someone who is lying is a liar. That's all.

 

[atanu]

The collapse happens because of cause and effect. Non-locality doesn't persist under the weight of the forces of laws of nature. The brain is no different. The non-locality isn't enough to make an affect on our brain to allow for thoughts or consciousness to be a factor outside the brain.

You confuse thoughts (an effect) to be consciousness.

 

[idav]

There are two parts to the researcher's statement, the second of which says that the phenomenon that is being observed is

"not the result of a transmission using local signals from one brain to the other"

If that is the case, and it is , then such transmission must be nonlocal.

And do notice that these experiments require physical interactions.

edit: it requires stimuli

 

[icehorse]

godnotgod:

You assume there must be a logical, rational explanation. That is the limit of Reason and Science.

Scientists in general make no such assumption.

 

[idav]

You confuse thoughts (an effect) to be consciousness.

Consciousness is the effect, I don't think I am the one confused.

 

[godnotgod]

I am pretty sure all this has been debunked.

You're sure of a lot of things. Show me where this experiment claiming that the brain is capable of nonlocal communication has been debunked.

There was no local connection of any kind between Subject A and Subject B, and yet, whatever response subject A exhibited to a stimulus, was also duplicated by subject B's brain. It's as simple as that.

 

[atanu]

I am pretty sure all this has been debunked. We now understand that a non-local collapse has everything to do with cause and effect and not some sort of transmission. The pseudo-science that tries to persist with this would have you believe that mere observer can collapse the wave function but this simply is not true and has been well tested and debunked, so no, no transmission necessary even if the brain is non-local, it collapses simply by being a brain, by being matter under the weight of laws of physics.

When has wave function collapse been debunked?

Can you kindly explain, in plain english, why collapse occurs? If observation does not cause collapse of wave function then what causes it? And what are the implications?

 

[Bunyip]

But I told you. I will tell again, if only to keep a record, since from your posts it is evident that you do not wish to evaluate sincerely what the other person is trying to say. Your conclusions are made.

......

Who or what keeps track of half life of radioactive decay? How does a paired photon, separated by a large distance from its pair, instantaneously know the state of its partner? How to explain the Double Slit experiment result without acknowledging that intelligence/information/consciousness is inherent in nature?

The following is a summary of what was earlier said.

1. You said brain generates consciousness. That is wrong. You now say dead brain does not generate consciousness. So, I am asking what is that which animates a brain?

But this is obvious. A brain is animated by our metabolism of course.

A dead person's brain does not impel him to say "Let me live".

Correct. Dead people no longer think, they are dead.

[/quote]2. No one has ever seen a brain in an unconscious state. Nothing can be seen or known in absence of consciousness.[/quote]

Of course, we need to he conscious to see another persons brain.

3. There has never been an end of "I am" consciousness. Death of an ego self does not mean death of "I Am" consciousness, which continues unabated.

4. If your brain chemicals generated your intelligence deterministically, then your proposition cannot have any truth value .. since it is pre-determined.

What? Who said that my brain chemicals did anything deterministically?

5. Conscious individuals can volitionally control state of brain.

Well to an extent they can yes.

6. Correlation of structures of brain and emotions etc. is not proof of causation.

7. Brain is a seen object .. a representation created by mind-senses. Some, in a circular fashion, claim that the 'Representation' is the creator of the 'Representation' ..... That the seen is the Seer.

.............[/QUOTE]

 

[godnotgod]

And do notice that these experiments require physical interactions.

edit: it requires stimuli

Yes? And?

(Actually, it does NOT require any such physical interaction. It requires only conscious interaction via meditation, with no physical contact)

You, like Bunyip, did not read the actual experiment, did you?

 

[atanu]

Consciousness is the effect, I don't think I am the one confused.

Effect of what?

 

[atanu]

But this is obvious. A brain is animated by our metabolism of course.

Smart pants. Try animating a dead brain by feeding glucose or try injecting metabolism.

Correct. Dead people no longer think, they are dead.

Although such dead people have a brain.

Any genuine scientific person will pause and think. But I am sure that you will not.

2. No one has ever seen a brain in an unconscious state. Nothing can be seen or known in absence of consciousness.

Of course, we need to he conscious to see another persons brain.

No. You need to see and perceive your "I" first. Then you perceive other objects.

What? Who said that my brain chemicals did anything deterministically?

If brain generates consciousness, then obviously it is deterministic.

5. Conscious individuals can volitionally control state of brain.

6. Correlation of structures of brain and emotions etc. is not proof of causation.

7. Brain is a seen object .. a representation created by mind-senses. Some, in a circular fashion, claim that the 'Representation' is the creator of the 'Representation' ..... That the seen is the Seer.

.............

Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

[Bunyip]

Smart pants. Try animating a dead brain by feeding glucose or try injecting metabolism.

Tell you what. Why don't you and godnotgod cut out the schoolyard bahaviour and grow the hell up. I have politely and sincerely answered a great many of your remarkably stupid questions, so get over yourself and think harder instead.

If brain generates consciousness, then obviously it is deterministic.

No that does not follow. Consciousness can be a product of the mind without being necessarily deterministic.
If you want to claim that it must therefore be deterministic, see if you can think up a rationale for that.

 

[idav]

Effect of what?

Brain functioning properly.

 

[idav]

When has wave function collapse been debunked?

Can you kindly explain, in plain english, why collapse occurs? If observation does not cause collapse of wave function then what causes it? And what are the implications?

It does collapse but the reason is because any time we observe we have to use physical interactions which cause the collapse. Its physics that causes it. QM is physics.

 

[idav]

Yes? And?

(Actually, it does NOT require any such physical interaction. It requires only conscious interaction via meditation, with no physical contact)

You, like Bunyip, did not read the actual experiment, did you?

All experiments amount to cause and effect and always require stimuli, something causes something else to occur, how would it not.

 

[idav]

Yes? And?

(Actually, it does NOT require any such physical interaction. It requires only conscious interaction via meditation, with no physical contact)

You, like Bunyip, did not read the actual experiment, did you?

I believe the EPR paradox is resolved by use of special relativity cause we are talking about particles that go the speed of light and thus bends space-time outside of it so that typical laws of physics as we know it don't apply, but there is still physics involved.