Sure. But then why even have nukes at all? — Manuel

Exactly.

Thank you for confirming exactly what I said. — Garrett Travers

You said nowhere how memory is formed. How then?

Yes it is. — Garrett Travers

No it isn't. There is no memory formation discussed. Memory formation happens in the whole brain.

But how can a true theory be falsified?

Most theories aren't really theories until they can face the crucible of falsification — Garrett Travers

What if the theory is true?

No, that's not what happens in memory formation.

All it takes in one mistake — Manuel

Yes. I asked that some time ago on a forum. Before this situation. There are about 10 000 of these damned nuclear warheads active. A small thing or mad mind can make it happen. I was told not to worry. Complementarity, MAD, balanced power, etc. Nothing can go wrong. I wonder what they tell now...

Neither of those is illusory. — Daemon

The material world is an illusion. Thus are brain functions.

The fact of Phase Change is undeniable ─ you can feel snow melt on your tongue ─ but explaining the mechanics of how it happened in terms of known physical laws proved impossible. — Gnomon

That is no proof that it's impossible. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is still in infancy shoes.

What do you actually know about the brain and its connection to the body? Explain to me how a memory is formed. What happens when I recognize a face?

"The unequivocal triumph of Garrett Travers"
or
"How a new thread leads to his defeat"

Do you deny my evidence? If I feel pain, depression, fear, despair, melancholy, and have a sense the end is near, you can explain these feelings rationally by pointing how these feelings might benefit your survival and how these feelings can stimulate me as an organism to take proper action to evade the bad situation giving me that bad feelings but it's exactly that rational approach and its impact on physical reality that caused that feelings in the first place. And the feelings an Sich can't be explained by definition if you leave feeling out in the first place. That is, looking at it as a byproduct of material processes to somehow ensure material survival.

Well, it depends what your emphasize. Matter or soul. There is also something inside of matter. The evidence is that I feel pain.

I get argued with in a manner devoid of any evidence — Garrett Travers

You accept only your own evidence. Such an explaining materialistic theory exists in the face of your theory only. Materialism can explain consciousness if you give matter a human face (or that of a canary). And add an extra ingredient. Of course I won't feel depressed if certain materials miss, needed in the processes going along with depression. Like consciousness is said to be epiphenomenal to the human brain, you can just as well say the material brain is the epiphenomenon and that the material brain needs an explanation on the basis of consciousness.

The brain alone can't produce consciousness. It needs a body to live in and give consciousness to. No body no consciousness.

There is no understanding consciousness without introspection either.
— RogueAI

Another function provided by the brain. — Garrett Travers

The function doesn't explain what is seen. If I dream about a bird flying, you can describe that by the shape of a bird flying around on my neural structure and the looking at it by pointing at structures surrounding that, but that still doesn't explain me seeing the bird. You might conclude I see a bird by seeing a correlated structure of a bird in my brain, but that still doesn't explain the visual experience of the bird I dream of, nor your visual experience of neurons you see firing collectively.

It depends what he meant with things not created. Everything is indirectly created.

We are always thrown into a "baked-in" social reality. In some circles, this is referred to as "situatedness". — schopenhauer1

That's what the ruling powers tell you.

My romantic involvement with the ladies has led to a lot of pain and war. Restricted sexuality though can give birth to worlds of terror.

Mind is merely the function of the Brain. No argument there. — Gnomon

Well, a lot of argument, arguably . Wind is not the function, nor the functioning matter. That leaves out that what's to be explained. Consciousness.

It says that an important component of consciousness is wakefulness. But sleepfullness is just as important. In dreams consciousness is pretty present. The strange think with dreams is that you can be conscious while you don't remember a thing about it. Dreams don't leave that many memory traces. Which is understandable.

You can have a material picture of a depression, but that doesn't explain the feeling.

Appears to me that "consciousness" is merely a term, long in use, to describe — Garrett Travers

Now here you're right. It appears to describe. But it's not consciousness itself residing in the process. So what is missing in the description is consciousness itself. I can give you a materialistic description of what happens when you recognize something, to the neurons level and even deeper but that excludes one thing. The conscious experience itself. So it can't be an explanation. A description of the material epiphenomenon at most.

Not according to the evidence — Garrett Travers

The evidence that they don't explain it is that these processes miss a key ingredient.

Consciousness is not the zillions of parallel ion peak currents running continuously around on the neuronal network from the early stages of embryonic development changing, growing, evolving in time due to new connectivity and connection strength (memory), and stepping in tandem with the physical world we live in, while mentally shaping that world simultaneously. That's the physical description. It doesn't explain consciousness. It can describe the physical epiphenomena though.

Are his metaphysics still valid in today’s world? — Dermot Griffin

If you consider everything created, only what is created can create. That what's created by what's created might create or not but it can never reach the level of that what's created by the primary creatures.
The primary creatures have their idiosyncratic creations, non-reproducable by other creatures.

Take care.

No relevance detected between myself and people denying reality in the face of evidence. — Garrett Travers

You value evidence. I don't.

That's what the church said too back then. They punished Galileo on rational grounds. His view was illegitimate. As is one against yours, as you said.

No, reality cannot be argued against with any sort of legitimacy. — Garrett Travers

You see? Like the church said to Galileì.

Don't know what you'd argue against. — Garrett Travers

Aha! So your reality can't be argued against? It's the one and only reality? Like the church said...

I didn't say such. I'm basing my reality on my senses, distributed cognition, tools that enhance sensory data quality, experimentation, independent verification, historical analysis, logic, and every other option available to me to provide, or clarify evidence from which to abstract. — Garrett Travers

Well, if you think that gives you a good view of reality, who an I to argue?

Okay. You are basing your realism on your senses. Why?

I'm still waiting to detect something of that nature. It hasn't happened yet. — Garrett Travers

That's because there is nothing to challenge. Yet.

church was rational. — EugeneW

More than you wrt to me.

See what I mean? How predictable. I can temporarily accept scientific reality.

I'm challenging your intellectual rigor. For sure you now write about me saying "in fact".

In fact they can extent all over space. What has neoplatonism got to do with this thread? You act like the church once acted vis a vis Galileo. Except, the church was rational.

You seem rather hot about it. What do you know about elementary particles?

This is still not argument. — Garrett Travers

An argument is needed in your reality. Not in mine.

Just the one you exist in. — Garrett Travers

Indeed. And that's very different from the scientific.