Re: What would you say to something like this? (Consciousness)

Your Eternal Self Forum

Message written by

Craig
May 31, 2010 at 01:06:41:

In Reply to
What would you say to something like this? (Consciousness)
posted by Bryant Harris
May 30, 2010 at 11:55:00:

Hello Bryant,
Here's what Pinker writes in the article: "The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution might look like or even whether it is a genuine scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly, everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) remains a mystery."
Read Chapter 1 from my book at http://youreternalself.com/chapter1textlink.htm.
A statement like the following shows the writer to be beyond simply misinformed; he is completely ignorant. "Attempts to contact the souls of the dead (a pursuit of serious scientists a century ago) turned up only cheap magic tricks, and near death experiences are not the eyewitness reports of a soul parting company from the body but symptoms of oxygen starvation in the eyes and brain."
That outworn argument about NDEs died years ago. Many patients are being administered oxygen during the trauma, so they have abundant oxygen in their systems; and their brains are flatlined, they're dead, so any perception that would require a functioning neurosystem to occur couldn't happen for any reason, oxygen deprivation included, and no memory could be stored in brain that is flatlined dead, but people have vivid recollections; and the NDE experiencers see events in other rooms of the hospital, hear the words their relatives are speaking in waiting rooms, and describe sights they couldn't see even if they were fully awake and lucid, but they remember them vividly and are accurate. Pinker is speaking from pure ignorance throughout the article.
Read Chapter 2 of my book at http://www.ebook.youreternalself.com/chapter2textlink.htm.
Go to scepcop.com. It's important reading for anyone who plans to read Shermer, Pinker, Randi, Dawkins, and the rest of their tribe. They are grossly ignorant and prefer to remain in that state. They're remarkably misinformed, uninformed, and malinformed. They share misinformation among themselves just as the conspiracy fanatics share misinformation about whether anyone really landed on the moon or whether the Nazi holocaust took place. Shoddy thinking comes to have a life of its own among them and be accepted as truth because they hear each other say it repeatedly.
I listened to a fascinating discussion of the challenges facing neuroscience on Charlie Rose the other night. The consensus is that the neuroscientists can't find consciousness in the brain. The misinformed pseudoskeptics are convinced that the mind is confined to the brain, without evidence, and because of that, they are convinced that soon neuroscience will find the mind in the brain, and since they are convinced that neuroscience will soon find the mind in the brain, they're assured that the mind is in the brain.
Man is not a rational being. However, there is no excuse for irrationality in the face of evidence and rational thinking.
Love and peace, Craig

Messages written in reply to Re: What would you say to something like this? (Consciousness):

Your Reply
Write your message below in reply to Re: What would you say to something like this? (Consciousness):

Your name:

Your e-mail address:
Subject of your message:

Comments:
: Hello Bryant, : Here's what Pinker writes in the article: "The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution might look like or even whether it is a genuine scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly, everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) remains a mystery." : Read Chapter 1 from my book at http://youreternalself.com/chapter1textlink.htm. : A statement like the following shows the writer to be beyond simply misinformed; he is completely ignorant. "Attempts to contact the souls of the dead (a pursuit of serious scientists a century ago) turned up only cheap magic tricks, and near death experiences are not the eyewitness reports of a soul parting company from the body but symptoms of oxygen starvation in the eyes and brain." : That outworn argument about NDEs died years ago. Many patients are being administered oxygen during the trauma, so they have abundant oxygen in their systems; and their brains are flatlined, they're dead, so any perception that would require a functioning neurosystem to occur couldn't happen for any reason, oxygen deprivation included, and no memory could be stored in brain that is flatlined dead, but people have vivid recollections; and the NDE experiencers see events in other rooms of the hospital, hear the words their relatives are speaking in waiting rooms, and describe sights they couldn't see even if they were fully awake and lucid, but they remember them vividly and are accurate. Pinker is speaking from pure ignorance throughout the article. : Read Chapter 2 of my book at http://www.ebook.youreternalself.com/chapter2textlink.htm. : Go to scepcop.com. It's important reading for anyone who plans to read Shermer, Pinker, Randi, Dawkins, and the rest of their tribe. They are grossly ignorant and prefer to remain in that state. They're remarkably misinformed, uninformed, and malinformed. They share misinformation among themselves just as the conspiracy fanatics share misinformation about whether anyone really landed on the moon or whether the Nazi holocaust took place. Shoddy thinking comes to have a life of its own among them and be accepted as truth because they hear each other say it repeatedly. : I listened to a fascinating discussion of the challenges facing neuroscience on Charlie Rose the other night. The consensus is that the neuroscientists can't find consciousness in the brain. The misinformed pseudoskeptics are convinced that the mind is confined to the brain, without evidence, and because of that, they are convinced that soon neuroscience will find the mind in the brain, and since they are convinced that neuroscience will soon find the mind in the brain, they're assured that the mind is in the brain. : Man is not a rational being. However, there is no excuse for irrationality in the face of evidence and rational thinking. : Love and peace, Craig

Optional link to a Web URL:

Title of the above link to a Web URL:

Internet URL for an optional image: