Considering your 1300 posts in one month you seem to be in a manic mind state, like euphoric missionaries were when bringing the gospel truth to the ignorant pagans in the new world. Transforming reality into a scientific materialistic view, devoid of that which it tries to explain in the first place is means that this approach is incapable of explaining consciousness. It can only describe consciousness, meaning it can tell if it's present in a system of particles interacting with the world around it. — EugeneW
And you all appear as Pharisees condemning wlhat you don't like to hear, — Garrett Travers
Who says I don't like to hear it? I'm very interested in the physical worldview. I got a nice theory about elementary particles, cosmological genesis, creatures arising in it, and about the brain. It misses a thing though. I have proof and evidence of what is missing but you don't accept that as proof or call it an epiphenomenon or emergent property. — EugeneW
I don't know what you are talking about. — Garrett Travers
The divine magic inside of matter. The constant divinity running around in our brains like millions parallel mini lightings on the neuron pathways on paths of least resistence. — EugeneW
Cut out the heart and the brain dies. Therefore, we're just hearts. — theRiddler
Yeah, neuroscience and sociopathy have got to be closely linked. It amounts to emotional slavery. — theRiddler
"just" — theRiddler
You can't just explain the empirical nature of a body, though. The brain included, of course, but it seems less obvious that it's abstract. — theRiddler
The brain controls the heart. — Garrett Travers
Their charges. All massive particles comes from massless particles. They posses two or three kinds of charge, which couple them to intermediate virtual condensates to interact with other massless basics. I will not go deeper into this (it's not a physics site), but the true nature of charge is unknown. Our brain gives us, as the bodies we are, a means to consciously exist in the world, which is constantly projected into our inner world by the senses of our body. — EugeneW
The beating of the heart is autonomous. — EugeneW
Ah, that explains it. — Janus
It wasn't an insult. Your being a fervent believer in Christianity explains your current status as fervent believer in what you think neuroscience has to show us. Proselytizing mindsets don't seem to change, but at most shift from one crusade to another: I've seen this phenomenon so many times. — Janus
I accept everything you write and all the links you gave. I mean, those things are going on. But I don't think it's the whole story. — EugeneW
You should have led with that. — Garrett Travers
I did. I wrote many times that it's what inside the material you refer to that counts. We are not our brain but our body, in between what's outside of us and inside of us. — EugeneW
I have no argument with the results of neuroscience, as far as they go. — Janus
That'd be an appropriate comment if I had insulted you. — Janus
Well, your speculation failed to be in accord with the facts. If you felt insulted that would be a different thing, but that would not be a matter of speculation. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.