That's not proven by science and it is just one possibility. I have never seen a neuroscientist claim it's a fact that consciousness is emergent. We don't know if it is emergent or transmitted or magical or what. People choose to believe all sorts of things but reality is nobody knows what is anything is after and that's why it's so difficult to conceive of and be calm about.
-
Hey Guest,
If you want to donate, we have a thread with updated donation options here at this link: About Donations
That's not proven by science and it is just one possibility. I have never seen a neuroscientist claim it's a fact that consciousness is emergent. We don't know if it is emergent or transmitted or magical or what. People choose to believe all sorts of things but reality is nobody knows what is anything is after and that's why it's so difficult to conceive of and be calm about.
accidentaldeath
Student
- May 29, 2018
- 107
Thats a matter of beliefs. Like some people believe in god. If you believe that conscious is not linked to a specific brain I won't convince you, and nobody will. I personally think that it is, and it has been scientifically proven multiple times and in a lot of studies that affecting the brain electrically or chemically can affect consciouness and the only way that consciouness can work is via sensor inputs. For example consciouness can be chemically extinguished with anesthesia.
agreement
Mage
- Mar 26, 2018
- 544
Affecting the brain's function and altering consciousness doesn't prove consciousness comes from the brain. If you affect a radio's function it affects what comes out of the speakers, so by that logic you could say the brain is a receiver and consciousness transmitted to it but the signal comes out jumbled if you mess with the receiver. Just as plausible a theory as emergent consciousness. Again we don't know and it's that simple. Anything anyone declares on the issue is just "belief" and there is nowhere near enough conclusive evidence to state anything as fact.
Last edited:
accidentaldeath
Student
- May 29, 2018
- 107
It's a completely different thing, you can affect a receiver as the radio, but that won't change the message on it's origin, where it is transmitted. It's far proven that conscious can be supressed or altered, and emotion, feelings and thoughts are a product of chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Just because you turn off the radio the signal is not stopped from beign broadcasted, if you turn off the brain, there is no signal, impulse or conscious and this can actually be recreated and happens frequently, brain deaths, anesthesia, coma, etc.
So for the sake of argument say the brain IS a receiver and consciousness is transmitted. How do you know there is no signal broadcast once that brain/radio is shut off? There are all sorts of signals flying through the air that you don't know about as you don't have the equipment to check them. In this theory it's not like it's a broadcast that anyone with a brain can tune in to. You are making the mistake of declaring a truth because it sounds logical to you and you are fitting evidence using that bias. That's no more valid than what religious people do when claiming they KNOW there is a god. Neither are proven. Both are theories that people choose to believe and none of the evidence for either side proves something yet. Maybe one day...but not yet.
Last edited:
accidentaldeath
Student
- May 29, 2018
- 107
As you say, there are lot of signals that can't be checked, but how can you alter a signal (consciouness) on the receiver (the brain). You can't change the song it's been transmitted just by modifying the radio, but you can alter consciouness with chemical reactions.
You can damage parts in the radio and the sound comes out garbled or occasionally or even not at all. Same idea if a brain is altered and explains alterations in consciousness and behavior. Maybe the signal is fine but the damaged or altered brain isn't receiving/outputting through the speakers correctly. I am not saying I believe this is true...It's one possible theory. I am saying the only thing I think is a reasonable answer....I don't know. Lots of things are possible and theorizing is fine but it rubs me the wrong way when people declare they KNOW things they cannot know and use bad logic and evidence to prove that stuff.
accidentaldeath
Student
- May 29, 2018
- 107
I've never said that I know it. I actually don't know what's behind the brain to.produce consciouness because I'm not neuroscientist, I just believe in science and there are actually some clues and studies on how the brain PRODUCES the consciouness and what alters it. Eg: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002433
You talk about a possible theory, it's fine. God turning water into wine is another possible theory, with no scientific background or prove at all. I prefer to believe in theories that at least have some scientifical background.
"I prefer to believe"
And that's my entire point. Nobody knows. All we have are theories and people CHOOSE to believe various ones. Nothing is settled and it's open science.
And that's my entire point. Nobody knows. All we have are theories and people CHOOSE to believe various ones. Nothing is settled and it's open science.
FadedMemory
Student
- Aug 5, 2018
- 133
Probably a time turner to correct all the mistakes. Though I'm not sure would it count as compensation since then all the problems would be deleted.
If not that, then I'd love to be permanently stuck in a virtual reality where I can create my own path, until I peacefully die in the real world.
If not that, then I'd love to be permanently stuck in a virtual reality where I can create my own path, until I peacefully die in the real world.
