What came before the Big Bang?

[Bunyip]

You do realize that me saying "it's not" is no different from what you're saying? With the exception that i've not actually even explained my own view regarding consciouness and thoughts to you. I am merely pointing out the fact that you are not right. Or wrong. You simply don't know.

And you have no evidence, nor proof.



Show it. I've asked this many times. Show it to me. Then i might consider your view as anything more than a narrow-minded opinion.

All you are doing is ignoring the facts, the only objections you appear able to muster are either childish insults or denial. Can you engage past that point to an actual reason?

The evidence I gave is direct, empirical and 100% reliable.

It demonstrates that thought is a product of mind.

You gave thought as an example of something atemporal, thoughts are temporal.

 

[Darkstorn]

All you are doing is ignoring the facts,

Your posts do not count as fact. Simple as that.

the only objections you appear able to muster are either childish insults or denial. Can you engage past that point to an actual reason?

I've objected all your points so far: With success i believe. At least you still have yet to provide evidence.

The evidence I gave is direct, empirical and 100% reliable.

But you are by definition not reliable: I don't know you. You could be lying. You could be trolling. You could be dumb as ****. I'm leaning towards the last option.

Plus no, there is no direct empirical evidence. This is fact.

It demonstrates that thought is a product of mind.

What is the mind a product of then? Don't say the brain again. Still no evidence nor proof.

Here's my actual view: Your thoughts are 100% based on previous phenomena. You have no original thoughts. None.

Neither do I.

You gave thought as an example of something atemporal, thoughts are temporal.

No i didn't. I merely posited that it's possible given the fact that we don't really have any evidence either way. Nor proof.

That being said, my ACTUAL view is a THIRD option. So HA. I believe thoughts are in fact the product of previous phenomena and have nothing to do with yourself: They are not truly your thoughts to begin with. There is no original thought.

 

[Bunyip]

Your posts do not count as fact. Simple as that.



I've objected all your points so far: With success i believe. At least you still have yet to provide evidence.



But you are by definition not reliable: I don't know you. You could be lying. You could be trolling. You could be dumb as ****. I'm leaning towards the last option.

Plus no, there is no direct empirical evidence. This is fact.



What is the mind a product of then? Don't say the brain again. Still no evidence nor proof.

Here's my actual view: Your thoughts are 100% based on previous phenomena. You have no original thoughts. None.

Neither do I.



No i didn't. I merely posited that it's possible given the fact that we don't really have any evidence either way. Nor proof.

That being said, my ACTUAL view is a THIRD option. So HA. I believe thoughts are in fact the product of previous phenomena and have nothing to do with yourself: They are not truly your thoughts to begin with. There is no original thought.

You are indeed objecting, but seem unable to supple a reason.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are indeed objecting, but seem unable to supple a reason.

I gave you the reason: No evidence, no proof.

I didn't make outstanding claims because of that very simple reason. I have no evidence nor proof. Because... No one does.

You made claims. I said you cannot consider said claims as fact because you really do NOT know. Neither did Descartes. Or Einstein. Or any new neuroscientist. There simply is no TRUE answer yet.

Get over yourself: I specifically avoided showing my own view because i know it cannot be proven. Do yourself a favor and consider your own posts with the same criticality as i did mine: I could say any number of random things and they'd have just as much evidence as your statements.

Prove to me that there is no flying Spaghetti Monster in space. Prove to me that your thoughs aren't in fact from that thing. Show us evidence that you even have thought processes of any kind: You cannot.

Your posts do not count as evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

I gave you the reason: No evidence, no proof.

I didn't make outstanding claims because of that very simple reason. I have no evidence nor proof. Because... No one does.

You made claims. I said you cannot consider said claims as fact because you really do NOT know. Neither did Descartes. Or Einstein. Or any new neuroscientist. There simply is no TRUE answer yet.

Get over yourself: I specifically avoided showing my own view because i know it cannot be proven. Do yourself a favor and consider your own posts with the same criticality as i did mine: I could say any number of random things and they'd have just as much evidence as your statements.

Prove to me that there is no flying Spaghetti Monster in space. Prove to me that your thoughs aren't in fact from that thing. Show us evidence that you even have thought processes of any kind: You cannot.

Your posts do not count as evidence.

As I said, the evidence is clear, demonstrable, testable and falsifyable.
100% of the time thoughts can be demonstrated to be the product of a brain. 100% of the time when the brain is destroyed, the thoughts cease.

That is evidence and no degree of bluster changes that.

Alternatively we have no experience of thought to emerge from anything other than a physical brain.

It is evidence, it is reliable, the results perfectly consistent.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure. But they still only think when they have a physical brain. I was not suggesting that you can not have a brain without thought, but that you can not have a thought without brain.

Not everyone agrees that thought originates in the brain:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/5343

Also, science states that the mind is created by the brain. This is called 'emergent theory', but is at best only a hypothesis.

The TV is the reciever, if you turn off the transmitter the signal stops.
The brain is the transmitter, not the reciever.

The brain is a storehouse of information via memory. That information was not originally there. It acted as a receiver to accumulate that information. The hard wired information, such as that which regulates heart beat, breath, hunger, digestion, etc., was provided by consciousness so that consciousness did not have to attend to these functions up front when more immediate matters presented themselves, such as an approaching tiger.

 

[Bunyip]

The brain is a storehouse of information via memory. That information was not originally there. It acted as a receiver to accumulate that information. The hard wired information, such as that which regulates heart beat, breath, hunger, digestion, etc., was provided by consciousness so that consciousness did not have to attend to these functions up front when more immediate matters presented themselves, such as an approaching tiger.

Well thankyou for the response. I think that is an interesting interpretation.

The brain does store information, information is not thought.

And yes, that sensory data does come to us from outside of the brain. There is a distinction between thought and information.

Thought is the act of thinking, it is a temporal phenomenon. Thought takes place in time and is a product of the brain - a brain albeit informed by sensory data.

When we think, it is our brain doing the thinking. And that is occuring in space and time.

That was my point.

By the way, another powerful evidence that thought is a product of mind is that if you damage the mind, the thoughts change. You can show the direct effect of physical changes to the brain on thought.

 

[Darkstorn]

As I said, the evidence is clear, demonstrable, testable and falsifyable.

Show it. Now. Or shut up about it already. There is no evidence unless you can supply it. And we both know you cannot. Stop this charade now: Only ignorance can breed here.

100% of the time thoughts can be demonstrated to be the product of a brain. 100% of the time when the brain is destroyed, the thoughts cease.

First of all, you don't know this. No one does. There is no evidence. Second, that claim contradicts with almost all religions and philosophical points of view. This is a religious forum.

If you want people to agree with you here, you will need evidence. I DO NOT believe in spirituality. In fact i like not to believe anything. Which is why i cannot believe what you are saying. There is no evidence. Certainly not enough for me to consider it knowledge. But even if there were:

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE IT. I thus logically conclude that even you cannot bring evidence to prove your point. Prove me wrong.

That is evidence and no degree of bluster changes that.

NO. It's you making a claim. You are not 100% reliable. And i'm still convinced that you will never find any evidence or proof even if you wanted to. You're still wasting everyone's time: Stop parroting yourself. I demand evidence and proof and all you give are more false claims.

Martians exist and are related to Earth-ponies. Also, human thought is actually caused by their hooves touching each other when the planets align.

That is equivalent to your evidence.

Alternatively we have no experience of thought to emerge from anything other than a physical brain.

Says you. I say experience is prerequisite for thought. Not the other way around.

It is evidence, it is reliable, the results perfectly consistent.

Show me. Now. End this stupid game.

 

[Bunyip]

Show it. Now. Or shut up about it already. There is no evidence unless you can supply it. And we both know you cannot. Stop this charade now: Only ignorance can breed here.



First of all, you don't know this. No one does. There is no evidence. Second, that claim contradicts with almost all religions and philosophical points of view. This is a religious forum.

If you want people to agree with you here, you will need evidence. I DO NOT believe in spirituality. In fact i like not to believe anything. Which is why i cannot believe what you are saying. There is no evidence. Certainly not enough for me to consider it knowledge. But even if there were:

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE IT. I thus logically conclude that even you cannot bring evidence to prove your point. Prove me wrong.



NO. It's you making a claim. You are not 100% reliable. And i'm still convinced that you will never find any evidence or proof even if you wanted to. You're still wasting everyone's time: Stop parroting yourself. I demand evidence and proof and all you give are more false claims.

Martians exist and are related to Earth-ponies. Also, human thought is actually caused by their hooves touching each other when the planets align.

That is equivalent to your evidence.



Says you. I say experience is prerequisite for thought. Not the other way around.



Show me. Now. End this stupid game.

I did show you.

And as I said in my last post - you can demonstrate experimentally that physical damage, pharmaceuticals and trauma for example all have a direct influence on thought. You are refusing to engage on the evidence, fair enough.

Thought can be shown to be brain dependant, that is a fact. Thought ceases with the destruction of the brain. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Darkstorn]

I did show you.

According to empirical observation, your posts are inadequate as evidence of any kind not least because you are by definition not a reliable source.

If you try to make a point about empiricism, at least be consistent and stop using it for your gains: But you're being so obvious about it. Do you honestly think people are going to accept what you say without ANY critical thought even though your claims are not only:

A. Not proven, nor falsifiable.

B. Contradictory to accepted philosophical views. My view of Buddhism completely obliterates your points. But it does it the same way as you which is why i'm avoiding disclosing them here. Still, i find it much more logical.

There is no direct first hand evidence because that would require a person being able to describe it AFTER HAVING HIS / HER BRAIN KILLED. There will never be direct evidence because of the very definition of the word direct.

I'll make a prediction: Less than 1% of this forum agrees with your view because their views are so different. Mine is different from yours as well.

And as I said in my last post - you can demonstrate experimentally that physical damage, pharmaceuticals and trauma for example all have a direct influence on thought. You are refusing to engage on the evidence, fair enough.

No you can't demonstrate it in an empirical way. You can make assumptions and correlations but that's it: It's not been proven. It only proves that people with such conditions are incapable of perhaps transforming their thoughts into words of actions: It does NOT prove us that their actual thought process changes.

Thought can be shown to be brain dependant, that is a fact. Thought ceases with the destruction of the brain. Why is that so hard to accept?

No it can't. Unless you can now show me a reputable source. You are not a reputable source, therefore i have no reason to believe anything you say to be anything beyond pointless garbage.

Why is it so hard to accept that people will not believe statements without proof?

What you've shown here, is not what i consider evidence. I need a reputable source, from a reputable scientific journal. THAT is the only way.

 

[Bunyip]

According to empirical observation, your posts are inadequate as evidence of any kind not least because you are by definition not a reliable source.

If you try to make a point about empiricism, at least be consistent and stop using it for your gains: But you're being so obvious about it. Do you honestly think people are going to accept what you say without ANY critical thought even though your claims are not only:

A. Not proven, nor falsifiable.

B. Contradictory to accepted philosophical views. My view of Buddhism completely obliterates your points. But it does it the same way as you which is why i'm avoiding disclosing them here. Still, i find it much more logical.

There is no direct first hand evidence because that would require a person being able to describe it AFTER HAVING HIS / HER BRAIN KILLED. There will never be direct evidence because of the very definition of the word direct.

I'll make a prediction: Less than 1% of this forum agrees with your view because their views are so different. Mine is different from yours as well.



No you can't demonstrate it in an empirical way. You can make assumptions and correlations but that's it: It's not been proven. It only proves that people with such conditions are incapable of perhaps transforming their thoughts into words of actions: It does NOT prove us that their actual thought process changes.



No it can't. Unless you can now show me a reputable source. You are not a reputable source, therefore i have no reason to believe anything you say to be anything beyond pointless garbage.

Why is it so hard to accept that people will not believe statements without proof?

What you've shown here, is not what i consider evidence. I need a reputable source, from a reputable scientific journal. THAT is the only way.

Seriously? You wan't a reputable scientific source that shows thought stopping when the brain is destroyed? That is easy, Every medical testbook on earth would refer to that fact. Brain activity stopping is used as the very definition of death. There is no evidence of thought after death.

 

[Darkstorn]

Show me.

Also: I'll make the claim that NO school textbook would make that claim. None of mine did for example. And i'm from a country consistently voted in the top 3 in terms of education quality.

 

[Bunyip]

Show me.

Also: I'll make the claim that NO school textbook would make that claim. None of mine did for example. And i'm from a country consistently voted in the top 3 in terms of education quality.

The science of neuropsychology defines consciousness as a product of the brain. It is defined as such in all of their textbooks, would you like a citation to a slecific one?

 

[Darkstorn]

The science of neuropsychology defines consciousness as a product of the brain. It is defined as such in all of their textbooks, would you like a citation to a slecific one?

Yes. Now.

/E: Aha. You said neuropsychology. I misread it as psychiatry. Remember kids: Psychiatry = field of medicine. Psychology = NOT.

 

[Bunyip]

Rosenburger, Peter B et al Big Brain Smart Brain 2001

No mental life after brain death: The argument from the neural localisation of brain functions. 2011

Brain tumor causes uncontrolled paedophilia.

The emergence of human consciousness from foetal to neonatal life.

My apologies for the incomplete citations, but all will connect through google to the articles.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes. Now.

/E: Aha. You said neuropsychology. I misread it as psychiatry. Remember kids: Psychiatry = field of medicine. Psychology = NOT.

neuropsychology is the appropriate scientific field to the topic, and as I said it is their definition.

It is the study of the structures and functions of the brain as they relate to specific behaviours - thinking for example.

 

[godnotgod]

Well thankyou for the response. I think that is an interesting interpretation.

The brain does store information, information is not thought.

And yes, that sensory data does come to us from outside of the brain. There is a distinction between thought and information.

Thought is the act of thinking, it is a temporal phenomenon. Thought takes place in time and is a product of the brain - a brain albeit informed by sensory data.

When we think, it is our brain doing the thinking. And that is occuring in space and time.

That was my point.

By the way, another powerful evidence that thought is a product of mind is that if you damage the mind, the thoughts change. You can show the direct effect of physical changes to the brain on thought.

That still does not mean thought originates in the brain. The brain is a processor of information, but not necessarily the source of thought. That a damaged brain changes thought may only mean that the processor that receives thought patterns changes the them.
There is some work being done on the non-locality of the brain. One now famous study showed that two conditioned subjects later isolated from each other had similar brain wave responses when only one brain was stimulated. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJ9I9Oh9Tc

Also: recent studies of long term meditators, esp Buddhist monks, demonstrate their brains have actually grown thicker cerebral cortexes. Consciousness grows the brain, and not the other way around, as science has it.

 

[Darkstorn]

Rosenburger, Peter B et al Big Brain Smart Brain 2001

No mental life after brain death: The argument from the neural localisation of brain functions. 2011

Brain tumor causes uncontrolled paedophilia.

The emergence of human consciousness from foetal to neonatal life.

My apologies for the incomplete citations, but all will connect through google to the articles.

I fail to see how any of those address the issues we're talking here. Beyond the following: If you kill the brain, you experience physical death. And indeed, end of brain functions...

One important aspect to look for here: Neuropsychology is NOT concerned about what happens AFTER the death of brain. Therefore it has NO ANSWERS PERTAINING TO THAT QUESTION.

Unlike, say, religion or many philosophies. What are you doing on these forums? Almost no one will agree with your view: Except those who equate atheism and science as religion themselves. Are you such a person?

If that's your evidence, then this is going nowhere, real fast.

Additionally, my main point is that it has not been proven that thought is the result of a brain in the first place. I was very clear about this. And it remains such: You can try to waste your time finding evidence to the contrary. But you won't find any.

Still: Better than nothing. Now i see there's a real "cause" for your thought process: Misunderstanding plain words which give rise to your views. The stuff you just quoted doesn't prove anything you've said except that people die.

 

[Bunyip]

That still does not mean thought originates in the brain. The brain is a processor of information, but not necessarily the source of thought. That a damaged brain changes thought may only mean that the processor that receives thought patterns changes the them.
There is some work being done on the non-locality of the brain. One now famous study showed that two conditioned subjects later isolated from each other had similar brain wave responses when only one brain was stimulated. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJ9I9Oh9Tc

I can accept that we see it differently. I do admit that I tend to rely on the neuropsychological determination that thought does indeed originate from the brain. I also believe that to be very clearly demonstrated.

If thought does come from an external source, there is no evidence for and not for what that source may be. Even in your example of non locality, there is still a physical brain producing the thoughts.

 

[godnotgod]

I can accept that we see it differently. I do admit that I tend to rely on the neuropsychological determination that thought does indeed originate from the brain. I also believe that to be very clearly demonstrated.

If thought does come from an external source, there is no evidence for and not for what that source may be. Even in your example of non locality, there is still a physical brain producing the thoughts.

No. In the example given, the brain is not producing thoughts, but receiving electrical impulses. It is a processor.

When thoughts stop because a person dies, it may only mean that the brain has ceased processing the thoughts it receives from a non-local source. In my example, if subject B had died during the experiment, of course his brain would not receive the impulses from subject A's brain, and there would be no detectable signal. But the experiment made clear that the subject B's brain did indeed receive signals from subject A's brain as evinced by the EEG responses.