On 14 mei, 02:26, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <pba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:593a4c7c-f2e9-42a3-8d08-88f35c8467ca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 13 mei, 04:45, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <pba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:a6d4cc78-92f1-4eac-8ed9-9e9402844299@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On 12 mei, 12:47, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > "Lorrill Buyens" <buye...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > >news:gsre24p6427ubqrb5j5t79jqedqrj4n4vt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > On Fri, 9 May 2008 10:49:53 +1000, Tem****al Voyager "Seon
Ferguson"
> > > > <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, in a desperate attempt to change the
sci.skeptic=
> > > > timestream,
> > > > said:
>
> > > >>"Therion Ware" <autodel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > >>news:huq52415uqs9usgf15r2lmecm97dqiamrf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 01:41:58 -0700 (PDT), HVAC
<MR.H...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > >>> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:48225d4c
> > > >>>>$0$31648$5a62a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > >>>>> nothing more than this physical
> > > >>>>> plane and everyone who saw Ghosts, aliens, had past life
memorie=
s,
> > > >>>>> NDE's
> > > >>>>> and OBE's are just what all having delusions?
>
> > > >>>>Pretty much that wraps it up.
>
> > > >>>>The immortality you seek is in your children.
>
> > > >>> I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to
> > > >>> achieve it through not dying.
> > > >>> Woody Allen
>
> > > >>Good quote and very relevant. However we will achieve immortality
ev=
en
> > > >>if
> > > >>we
> > > >>don't do squat our entire lives. We don't need religion, to do
good
> > > >>works
> > > >>etc.
>
> > > > So you died, found this out and then came back to tell us about
it?
> > > > Neat
> > > > trick.
>
> > > Nope I just agree with Plato. I'm not sure if there is a God but
that
> > > doesn't mean we cant have a immortal soul or infinite
consciousness.-
> > > Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> > Sure it doesn't mean that, but scientific knowledge is such that those
> > ideas are contrary to about everything we found out about the subject.
>
> > All "spiritual" things we do, are done with our brain, and scans can
> > even point out in which part of the brain what spiritual process goes
> > on. consciousness is temperarily lost every time we sleep and on
> > occasions where we suffer a concussion, and is permenantly lost in
> > cases of sever brain-damage.
>
> > Without a brain, both are lost, period.
> > Our identity is not defined by an elusive soul, but by the combination
> > of unique genes and a spatial body (including a working brain).
>
> > Yes, the fact that God does not exist has nothing to do with it
> > but,
> > No, we can't have an immortal soul or an infinit conscoussness
>
> > Peter van Velzen
> > Atheist#1107
> > May 2008
> > Amstelveen
> > The Netherlands
>
> > Cut the crap(the crop(circles))
>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---=AD=AD------------------
>
> > So are you saying when I'm conscious we can actually look at our
> > consciousness using a machine? this is the first I've heard about it.
I
> > mean
> > I know about the left and right side of our brain but can we actually
se=
e
> > which part of the brain makes us think or which part makes us desire
and=
> > do
> > other human things one would contribute to a "soul" or consciousness?
> > Maybe
> > I've been reading the wrong books and websites.- Tekst uit
oorspronkelij=
k
> > bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> Brain Scans can detect brain activities, and scientist know more or
> less what part of the brain is doing what process. But the knowledge
> is very rough. Locations in the brain are active when a person does
> this or that, so these locations probably are needed to do this or
> that. But they only know about brain regions that are connected to
> input and output (speech, hearing, sight, muscles etc)
> however "thinking" is to general. Say "thinking about a map" or
> "thinking about ***" and a specialist may show you a brain region,
> (thought no two brains are the same) but "thinking" in general, not
> that I know. It might not even exist!
>
> I read somewhere that the region for *** is active also when gay-
> bashers look at homo***ual ****. Some claim that therefore that gay-
> bashers are closet homo***uals, but of course the region for
> irrational hate may be to close to the *** region to be seperated:-)
>
> The latest I saw on TV was that being in love shows a greater
> activitiy in regions where certain hormones are being made. The brain
> is a chemical plant rather than an electrical circuit we must
> remember! And it processes parallel hardly sequential.
>
> In fact making sentences that need sequencing is a very odd job for
> the human brain! I sometimes fail :-)
>
> Peter van Velzen
> May 2008
> Amstelveen
> The Netherlands
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD-------------
>
> Interesting maybe the brain really does make us think and do what we do
> without "us" making that decision. After all our brain does make the
> decision to do something 3 minutes before we "Think" about it.
> I'd like to experiment with the gay bashers looking at homo***ual ****
> thing. Maybe we should get a KKK member to look at footage of a inter
raci=
al
> couple being married and see if the same area of the brain is affected.
If=
> it is we know that hate also comes from the same area. If not then gay
> bashers really are closet gay's.
> I always thought the chemicals that made us "fall in love" were in the
> heart. I know falling in love with someone is just when we both have
simil=
ar
> chemical reactions about each other but try telling that to a couple
that =
is
> in love. Love is as real to people as say having a Religious experience
is=
> to those who have had them or a supernatural experience.-
"us" is a part of the brain that does the story-telling. As such it
is connected to our memory (wich seems to be like a hologram) and to
our speech centre.
That part does indeed not make descissions. It just re****ts decisions.
The experiment which showed a great delay in peoples awareness of
their descissions (you do read the right stuff sometimes!), was about
a very unim****tant descission (left or right hade use). It was so
trivial that it was problably decided right away. However as the
participants were instructed to make the descission in a moment of
their choice, the awareness of the descission was postponed, until the
descission about when to make the descission was taken. Once that
happened another part of the brain that had to make the decission was
granted access to awareness, and the decission that was already taken
minutes ago, was finally allowed to be known!
So far Daniel Dennett' s theory about consioussness has not been
falsified. Actually his theory is sup****ted by this experiment. We are
aware about the time at which things happen outside the brain, but we
are not aware of the time at which things happen inside the brain,
unless it happens consciously! (read "consciousness explained")
He explained it like a book being reviewed. Take the previous alinea
for instance. The last word I inserted was not "explained", it was
"happen". However to the reader it has to be "explained". This is
exactly what happens in the experiment,
The decission "when" became conscious before the decision "what hand",
but because the decission "when" couldn't be made in advance (we do
not have a clock in our brain, so "when" can only be a later "now"),
that decission had to be postponed, while "which hand" could be made
at any convenient time.
Apperantly it ws convenient to do it early!
Understand what I am arguing?
Hm, I forget to mention that the brain is a paralel processor. If the
same part of the brain had to process "when" first and "which hand"
later, we would become rather slow animals, therefore the task at hand
is split into several paralell sub-processes, that become synchronized
later. (so far Daniel C Dennett)
It is only the synchronized outcome that becomes conscious of course
for else we would be totally schyzofrenic.
Now I might have made myself clear.
Peter van Velzen
May 2008
Amstelveen
Then Netherlalnds
|
