Man raised back to life in Jesus' name

Brenna, may I suggest that if you do not want to discuss your dreams that you not bring them up in a discussion forum?

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Understanding each other is good. Has anyone been able to produce intelligence via computer networking on the level seen within humans?If what you say is true, it seems as though one could simply increases the level of calculations in order to arrive at a virtual intelligence rivaling that of human intelligence. But it does seem to indicate it.In other words, one has to invoke a theoretical premise in order to explain away the fact that one's consciousness can act independantly of the brain's funtions.I'm not saying that we know everything concering the brain's functions. I'm sure there will be many more amazing discoveries over the next century. However, what's being sought after by invoking this premise notwed above is an explanation as to why our consciousness is not what it quite plainly appears to be -- something which can act independently of our brain.I'll read more of this information later on tonight (I've got to pick up my youngest from a birthday party at the YMCA). However, it seems as if the information you've supplied will be interesting reading.

How about you answer my question? I'll check to see if you answered this later on tonight.

Not having read the book, I can't comment. I disagree with that.A few years ago, while driving, I was applying the breaks. The car was pretty slow. It should have stopped within another six inches. It didn't. It lurched into the car in front, causing significant damage to both.Did my car have a mind independent of its physical components? No, it was just that somebody crashed into the rear of my car, and the force of the collision overrode what would normally have been able to control it.It is the same with the experiments you are describing. Electrical signals were injected, and these directly stimulated motor neurons, causing the movement. The injected signals overrode the volitional control signals from other parts of the brain. I really don't think there is any mystery here. That only shows that we do not yet fully understand the basis for consciousness. It isn't evidence against material causation. I'm not familiar with her work. The titles of her publications do not raise any eyebrows.

The short answer is, no.The long answer is that it takes more than just computing power. It takes understanding of very low-level processing in the brain. We don't really have the tools to understand it to the level that we can simulate it.We've done an OK job simulating parts of human cognition--specifically, the things I mentioned that were localized. The things that are distributed, we understand less specifically, and so are left 'guessing' in our simulations.I don't see any impediment to simulation in the future. When we have the knowledge, we'll be able to simulate it.Note that I fully concur with nwr that the full body, and not just part (brain) needs to be considered to properly understand cognition. I would HIGHLY recommend using this set of talks by Ramachandran as a good starting point for you. sidelined provided the link for it originally at EvC, here. That might also be a good place to move this discussion, because we're pretty well off-topic for this thread.

Just an aside for the less psy/cog knowledgable. These lectures are fascinating and definately done at a level that even laypersons can easily understand.

Your question doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't appear to be on topic.In fact it doesn't appear to be anything but a dodge. How about you answer my questions now? Or is nonsense the best you're capable of?

The above sure seems to be representitive of many (most?) of your messages here at . Peppering topics with trite irrelevant one liners.If you are not going to post relevant messages of substance, please stop posting.This situation has been going on for quite a while.I'm serious about this. As in, follow my suggestion or a suspension may well be coming.To other members - If you are also doing these "brennikimi type" postings, please stop.Any replies to this message should go the "General . " topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

Crashfrog and Mr. ExNihilo Your posts associated with Message 212 have not served to further this discussion.Remember to argue the position and not the person.Mr. ExNihilo, you did not address crashfrog's post (Message 212) in a manner that added to the discussion.Please direct any comments concerning this post to the appropriate link listed below.Thank you

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

quote:

---

oh go away.

---

LOL!

it did not seem to me that she was discussing it, but rather harassing me for an unrelated topic. i do not appreciate harassment and do not respond well to it. i did not bring the topic up to her and was not discussing the importance of the dreams so much as the idea of genetic memory as opposed to reincarnation.

http://EvC Forum: Man raised back to life in Jesus' name -->EvC Forum: Man raised back to life in Jesus' name

quote:

---

it did not seem to me that she was discussing it, but rather harassing me for an unrelated topic.

---

Let me explain why I think it was relevant. You were giving an example of something that you thought gave credence to various "miraculous" or "supernatural" ideas discussed in this thread. I was not "harassing" you, but pointing out reasons your example was not very compelling. I do understand that my thoroughness can be offputting, but I simply can't agree that it was irrelevant.

i was not giving evidence. i was discussing an anecdote. i also described it as being caused by what i thing of as a very natural phenomenon that we just don't understand yet rather than the supernatural one of reincarnation of a soul. your 'thourougness' was in response to an unrelated discussion and both completely irrelevant and insulting.but then i forget that you can do no wrong.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-08-2006 09:44 PM

No. Quite the opposite.I'm suggesting a theory that human souls might be detectable with the hypothesis that they produce a Casimir effect. In other words, I'm suggesting a theory that human souls can produce a 'vacuumn tension' effect. I also think that this hypothetical soul effect will someday be linked with a human consciousness that can exist independantly of its own brain.Edit: clarified some points.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 10:44 PM