State your question succinctly without demeaning and perhaps whatever your great question is may get more attention. I didn't see any such questions lately. If so, I would have answered them myself. "Just saying" 'blah, blah; it's not true' is not a question. Provide material that directly counters CTD.
Great, and let's hope the mods will ban you because insults are against the rules, no matter what, and the mods stand in place to enforce the rules. Surely you've put enough insults to not be a borderline case.
BadgerJelly » March 8th, 2018, 9:20 pm wrote:You didn't really answer my question either. Does the relation betwenn brain and body (human biology) have anything to do with consciousness? If so, which would be hard to argue agaisnt, then would it make sense to look at the way the body transfers information?
Further still, given that the brain is considered important for consciousness (to say the least!) wouldn't it be worth looking at the structure of the brain?
It's all there in the Edelman material; pay attention; don't make double work for responders. Plus, you reformulated the question.
No brain, no consciousness; a faint, no consciousness; a blow to the head, no consciousness; anesthesia, no consciousness. A brain is needed for consciousness to appear. The objects of C have to be formulated by C' and they correlate, with C' having made some adjustments to better paint the face of the phenomenal transform to be more useful via the distinctions employed. Consciousness is a brain process. C is sequential to C' and fairly instant thereafter.
The body's nerves connect to C' via the spine; C' can tell the body to move through the spine and whatnot.
What is in our delayed consciousness can't directly cause anything right then and there. C' using this symbol/qualia or already having it internally to use later on is fine, however that goes.
The stream of continuous C seems to be of short term memories seamlessly stiched together.
It's called experience and learning. C' is dynamic and can change from learning/experience and thus improve its methods, whether for good or for bad.
Your and Mitches's folk psychology notions have grave problems more than just in this thread. See Patricia Churchland and her husband's dismissals to it. See Galen Strawson and his "When were you ever responsible" type papers once referenced by Braininvat. See Religion trying to present its "free will"; there are five variation to it, indicating, as usual, that it is being made up.
Ad hominems won't make problems you don't like go away; those attempts fail and don't work in intelligent debates, they being called "drops" and "failures", indicating also a low-life approach, a kind of a last resort of those who can't sustain their position. It doesn't fly; it's a primitive brain stem level thing. Its like a duck smashing into a brick wall. It hurts the one posting and doesn't help at all, demonstrating nothing.
We don't all like what gets discovered, but true searchers want the truth and aren't afraid of it, which is why they look for it in the first place. It's an ugly universe in many ways but for some good scenery and some good times.
Forget the nonsense talk, lest you distract from the thread and have others call you on it time and time again. Just a suggestion. Show your proof just as well as Edelman and RJG showed theirs.
If you have another method for C to run the show, then show it, and also say why those things running C (Say, brain waves from others) aren't just another input to C, along with those from C', etc., and also showing how C is a mini first cause.
Actually answer some of this stuff, and undo it, and then replace it.
If you can't, then you can't. Denial is a poor substitute. Denial/preaching/generalizing is dishonest; it says that some possible unknown is true when you think it's only a 'maybe', by hopes, wishes, faith, or wanting. Say why it even qualifies as a maybe.
Doogles was right on; "gut feeling" shows nothing of any proof. Of course one lives a kind of a second story, the first story/storey of the neurological subconscious below is in the dark to our introspection.
I suppose you can't really insult too much any more because it got all talked about and wouldn't look so good, or get you ignored, or banned, or booted down in more insult discussion. Live and learn is what C' can do.
