Who wants a soul?

[chaz wyman]

Today's answers in RED

No, Descartes' point was that there had to be a substance outside the material. I'm not making that point.

Well, that's the conclusion he drew. Before that he made the point that he was thinking.
You claim that 'consciousness is thing experienced'. I'm not sure that's true; in proper Humean style, all we can be certain of is that there are experiences, that does not imply a 'consciousness' to which they are happening. Any claim that there is such a thing as consciousness is metaphysical.
No, it is an experiential claim, not a metaphysical one. You say I am conscious, and I say yes I know what you mean, and we do. The metaphysical one comes when fools try to control and describe their experience.

You are utterly wrong about the code of consciousness being difficult to destroy.

I've no idea what you mean by the code of consciousness. I was just referring to the states of fields engendered by states of matter.

Yet you are wrong about there being difficult to destroy. Outside the brain they are nothing but waste heat. COnsciousness is a property of living grey matter.

A thought is nothing is not based on it the organisation of the physicality of the brain

You may be right, but where's the physics? Can you cite a law, rule, theory or hypothesis other than your personal gut feeling that says so?

Why should I need to? Physics is only a description of the universe. Any law or description is nothing but a series of metaphors. When I have direct experience, a metaphor is paltry.

- this is plug easy to destroy. A poke in the arm is enough to change it utterly and a bullet in the brain is enough to disorganise it thoroughly.Nothing of what makes us , is is remotely immortal. Any electo-magnetic wave from the brain does not contain any information about the quality or content of thinking, and is soon dissipated as heat.

Information (states of fields) reguarding states of matter that have changed is available way beyond the duration of the state of matter. For example; Betelgeuse is going to go nova, for all we know it already has, but for now, to us, it is Orion's right shoulder.
How do you think you can advance your argument (whatever that is) my talking about Betegeuse?

If you think matter is a doddle then tell me what it is like to have matter!

Look around, Chaz; what can you see that isn't matter?
Excuse me, you are CONSCIOUS that matter exists, but you don't know what it is. Consciousness is primary.

Twists and knots!! You are kidding!

No, I'm quite serious.
I'm not conscious of twists and knots, but I am conscious.

What rabbits?

The bunniverse is one of my threads; it's something I'm working on.

Oh yeah - Something I'd tried to forget.

[tillingborn]

Today's answers in RED

Okey-dokey.

No, it is an experiential claim, not a metaphysical one. You say I am conscious, and I say yes I know what you mean, and we do. The metaphysical one comes when fools try to control and describe their experience.

Since physics cannot currently account for it, consciousness, for the time being is metaphysical in that sense. Besides, what you experience is experience; if by conscious you mean experiencing, fair enough, but any claim that goes beyond that is metaphysical. I love the idea that some people make no effort to control their experience. Do you really mean that?

Yet you are wrong about there being difficult to destroy.

So you keep saying. How do you know? What does one do to destroy an electromagnetic field?

Outside the brain they are nothing but waste heat.

Well at least by describing the product of brain states as waste heat you acknowledge that it is radiated electromagnetically.

COnsciousness is a property of living grey matter.

Indeed; and what is it that gives grey matter the property of life?

Why should I need to? Physics is only a description of the universe. Any law or description is nothing but a series of metaphors. When I have direct experience, a metaphor is paltry.

Well you said earlier 'Without the physics there is nothing to 'explore'.' Granted the context was different, but without any processing, a series of metaphors if you like, all you have is the direct experience. This makes you sound like a naive realist, which I doubt you are.

How do you think you can advance your argument (whatever that is) my talking about Betegeuse?

The point about Betelgeuse is that it may no longer exist, but we can still discover information about it. For example spectral analysis will tell us what it is or was made off. We could in theory do the same with dead people, including some states of their brain.

Excuse me, you are CONSCIOUS that matter exists, but you don't know what it is.

Not if you believe a series of metaphors is paltry. In that instance all there is a sequence of experiences.

Consciousness is primary.

I disagree, I think it's experience.

I'm not conscious of twists and knots, but I am conscious.

Without a series of metaphors, there is no 'you'.

The bunniverse is one of my threads; it's something I'm working on.

Oh yeah - Something I'd tried to forget.

Well then, I'm sorry to remind you; better luck next time.

[chaz wyman]

Today's answers inBLUE

Okey-dokey.

No, it is an experiential claim, not a metaphysical one. You say I am conscious, and I say yes I know what you mean, and we do. The metaphysical one comes when fools try to control and describe their experience.

Since physics cannot currently account for it, consciousness, for the time being is metaphysical in that sense. Besides, what you experience is experience; if by conscious you mean experiencing, fair enough, but any claim that goes beyond that is metaphysical. I love the idea that some people make no effort to control their experience. Do you really mean that?

NO, no, no. All the pronouncements which include law like assertions of the discipline of physics are in fact metaphysical.
What I mean by control is that physics and the biological sciences create a metaphysical structure which includes rules and laws, in order that it controls what we ordinarily experience.
But the experience of consciousness IS what it is. Science only ever provides abstractions.
In this is it NO different to what it says about matter and energy.

Yet you are wrong about there being difficult to destroy.

So you keep saying. How do you know? What does one do to destroy an electromagnetic field?

Thoughts and experience are not solely electromagnetic. All thoughts soon turn to waste heat, they self destroy. They are only preserved by changing neuronal connections

Outside the brain they are nothing but waste heat.

Well at least by describing the product of brain states as waste heat you acknowledge that it is radiated electromagnetically.
No- I'm saying that causation is not the same as correlation. What you can observe outside the brain is nothing more than the heat out of the back of a TV can tell you about the meaning of the News story that is currently being transmitted.

COnsciousness is a property of living grey matter.

Indeed; and what is it that gives grey matter the property of life?

You can pursue ANY question to an infinite regress back to the start of the (highly speculative Big Bang), all you end up with is a description. What it is that gives ANY matter its properties; what is it that gives light its properties?
At some point you have to stop as say it is what it is; matter, energy, sound, quarks, charm...
The logical conclusion is that physics cannot account for anything at all!

Why should I need to? Physics is only a description of the universe. Any law or description is nothing but a series of metaphors. When I have direct experience, a metaphor is paltry.

Well you said earlier 'Without the physics there is nothing to 'explore'.' Granted the context was different, but without any processing, a series of metaphors if you like, all you have is the direct experience. This makes you sound like a naive realist, which I doubt you are.

Indeed not, but what do you mean by "all you have" in experience? There is no mere about it. None of this makes me sound like a realist at all, but an existentialist if anything. And existentialist that realises that our lived world is a construct of ideas about a real world.

How do you think you can advance your argument (whatever that is) by talking about Betegeuse?

The point about Betelgeuse is that it may no longer exist, but we can still discover information about it. For example spectral analysis will tell us what it is or was made off. We could in theory do the same with dead people, including some states of their brain.

That is because it is very big and a long way away; not so with the subject at hand. SO what the hell did you mention is for?

Excuse me, you are CONSCIOUS that matter exists, but you don't know what it is.

Not if you believe a series of metaphors is paltry. In that instance all there is a sequence of experiences.

That 'all there is' thingy is all we have and all we will ever have. We experience physics through learning, we experience everything that is the basis of our world. "All there is" is not a limitation but that which enables.

Consciousness is primary.

I disagree, I think it's experience.
Consciousness is the basis of experience. Without being aware of experience we can only experience the world like a pebble experiences the sea wearing it away.

I'm not conscious of twists and knots, but I am conscious.

Without a series of metaphors, there is no 'you'.
Rubbish. A cat that has no metaphors in its life has to be aware of itself to eat and predate.

The bunniverse is one of my threads; it's something I'm working on.

Oh yeah - Something I'd tried to forget.

Well then, I'm sorry to remind you; better luck next time.

Good luck with your rabbit stew.

[tillingborn]

NO, no, no. All the pronouncements which include law like assertions of the discipline of physics are in fact metaphysical.

Yes yes yes. I'm not sure how you are defining physics and metaphysics, but since at least the time of Newton stating 'hypotheses non fingo' there has been an understanding that there is a difference between saying what nature does and what it is. For anyone interested 'hypotheses non fingo' means 'I frame no hypotheses'. Newton said it in relation to gravity; having described the action of gravity with his inverse square law, he held up his hands and admitted he had no idea what caused it. In other words he was dead good at physics, but a lousy metaphysician. We all 'know' we have experiences which we quite legitimately call consciousness, but there is usually an assumption that we therefore have 'a consciousness', more or less as Descartes said. In this instance the experience is the physics, such a 'consciousness' the metaphysics.

What I mean by control is that physics and the biological sciences create a metaphysical structure which includes rules and laws, in order that it controls what we ordinarily experience.

Most scientists I'm sure have ontological beliefs, but when they're on the job, they get on with describing what nature does, not what it is. "in order that it controls what we ordinarily experience." is either a mighty claim or not thought through.

But the experience of consciousness IS what it is.

The experience of experience is what it is.

Science only ever provides abstractions. In this is it NO different to what it says about matter and energy.

Well yes, when scientists do frame hypotheses they are abstractions, because no one knows what matter and energy are, nor can anyone give a full account for consciousness.

Thoughts and experience are not solely electromagnetic.

I think that is almost certainly true. Got any theories?

All thoughts soon turn to waste heat, they self destroy.

You're making stuff up, Chaz. I'm sure you believe it, but all thoughts would only turn to waste heat if they were exclusively electromagnetic, exactly as you just said they weren't and as you contradict thus:

They are only preserved by changing neuronal connections

No- I'm saying that causation is not the same as correlation. What you can observe outside the brain is nothing more than the heat out of the back of a TV can tell you about the meaning of the News story that is currently being transmitted.

It is not the heat at the back of the telly we are interested in, it is the electromagnetic information at the front. The screen is glass, the skull is bone, which is transparent enough to brain activity to make remote scanners viable.

You can pursue ANY question to an infinite regress back to the start of the (highly speculative Big Bang), all you end up with is a description. What it is that gives ANY matter its properties; what is it that gives light its properties?
At some point you have to stop as say it is what it is; matter, energy, sound, quarks, charm...
The logical conclusion is that physics cannot account for anything at all!

You're quite right, but as I've said above, that's not what physics is about.

Indeed not, but what do you mean by "all you have" in experience?

The experience we have is of light, sound, taste, touch, smell and a few others we don't often consiously recognise. We then organise that information into something like, 'There is a cup'. A naive realist just thinks we see a cup, because there is a cup and is oblivious to all the remarkable things that need to occur for us to have such an experience.

There is no mere about it. None of this makes me sound like a realist at all, but an existentialist if anything. And existentialist that realises that our lived world is a construct of ideas about a real world.

That's not for you to say, Chaz. You know a great deal more about what and how you think, I've only got what you write to go on.

That is because it is very big and a long way away; not so with the subject at hand. SO what the hell did you mention is for?

Size and distance are irrelevant,it is a body of matter that emits electromagnetic radiation that we can see. The field it generated exists even though it might not.

That 'all there is' thingy is all we have and all we will ever have. We experience physics through learning, we experience everything that is the basis of our world. "All there is" is not a limitation but that which enables.

Yes, precisely because 'a series of metaphors' is not 'paltry'.

Consciousness is the basis of experience. Without being aware of experience we can only experience the world like a pebble experiences the sea wearing it away.

On the contrary, experience is the basis of consciousness; what would it mean to be conscious of absolutely nothing?

Without a series of metaphors, there is no 'you'.

Rubbish. A cat that has no metaphors in its life has to be aware of itself to eat and predate.

That depends on what you mean by aware of itself.

Good luck with your rabbit stew.

Thanks; it's coming along nicely.

[chaz wyman]

NO, no, no. All the pronouncements which include law like assertions of the discipline of physics are in fact metaphysical.

Yes yes yes. I'm not sure how you are defining physics and metaphysics, but since at least the time of Newton stating 'hypotheses non fingo' there has been an understanding that there is a difference between saying what nature does and what it is. For anyone interested 'hypotheses non fingo' means 'I frame no hypotheses'. Newton said it in relation to gravity; having described the action of gravity with his inverse square law, he held up his hands and admitted he had no idea what caused it. In other words he was dead good at physics, but a lousy metaphysician. We all 'know' we have experiences which we quite legitimately call consciousness, but there is usually an assumption that we therefore have 'a consciousness', more or less as Descartes said. In this instance the experience is the physics, such a 'consciousness' the metaphysics.

What I mean by control is that physics and the biological sciences create a metaphysical structure which includes rules and laws, in order that it controls what we ordinarily experience.

Most scientists I'm sure have ontological beliefs, but when they're on the job, they get on with describing what nature does, not what it is. "in order that it controls what we ordinarily experience." is either a mighty claim or not thought through.

But the experience of consciousness IS what it is.

The experience of experience is what it is.

Science only ever provides abstractions. In this is it NO different to what it says about matter and energy.

Well yes, when scientists do frame hypotheses they are abstractions, because no one knows what matter and energy are, nor can anyone give a full account for consciousness.

Thoughts and experience are not solely electromagnetic.

I think that is almost certainly true. Got any theories?

All thoughts soon turn to waste heat, they self destroy.

You're making stuff up, Chaz. I'm sure you believe it, but all thoughts would only turn to waste heat if they were exclusively electromagnetic, exactly as you just said they weren't and as you contradict thus:

They are only preserved by changing neuronal connections

There is no contradiction here.
What did you think at 4:30 23rd March 2003? Can't remember? That thought has self destructed. If you remember anything from that year, or have learned something then that is remembered by a change is the physicality of neuronal connections.
Neurones make connections, this is the basis of a theory of memory.
Aside from that, Cogito ergo..

No- I'm saying that causation is not the same as correlation. What you can observe outside the brain is nothing more than the heat out of the back of a TV can tell you about the meaning of the News story that is currently being transmitted.

It is not the heat at the back of the telly we are interested in, it is the electromagnetic information at the front.

What information? There is no information about the contents of the brain outside the brain unless you have a massive MRI or CT/PT scanner. Even then the information is limited to a few pixels of a different colour

The screen is glass, the skull is bone, which is transparent enough to brain activity to make remote scanners viable.

You can pursue ANY question to an infinite regress back to the start of the (highly speculative Big Bang), all you end up with is a description. What it is that gives ANY matter its properties; what is it that gives light its properties?
At some point you have to stop as say it is what it is; matter, energy, sound, quarks, charm...
The logical conclusion is that physics cannot account for anything at all!

You're quite right, but as I've said above, that's not what physics is about.

So what is it about? What is it that you think is missing ?

Indeed not, but what do you mean by "all you have" in experience?

The experience we have is of light, sound, taste, touch, smell and a few others we don't often consiously recognise. We then organise that information into something like, 'There is a cup'. A naive realist just thinks we see a cup, because there is a cup and is oblivious to all the remarkable things that need to occur for us to have such an experience.

There is no mere about it. None of this makes me sound like a realist at all, but an existentialist if anything. And existentialist that realises that our lived world is a construct of ideas about a real world.

That's not for you to say, Chaz. You know a great deal more about what and how you think, I've only got what you write to go on.

Not for me to say? What???

That is because it is very big and a long way away; not so with the subject at hand. SO what the hell did you mention is for?

Size and distance are irrelevant,it is a body of matter that emits electromagnetic radiation that we can see. The field it generated exists even though it might not.

I have to repeat- so what?

That 'all there is' thingy is all we have and all we will ever have. We experience physics through learning, we experience everything that is the basis of our world. "All there is" is not a limitation but that which enables.

Yes, precisely because 'a series of metaphors' is not 'paltry'.

Consciousness is the basis of experience. Without being aware of experience we can only experience the world like a pebble experiences the sea wearing it away.

On the contrary, experience is the basis of consciousness; what would it mean to be conscious of absolutely nothing?

Without a series of metaphors, there is no 'you'.

Rubbish. A cat that has no metaphors in its life has to be aware of itself to eat and predate.

That depends on what you mean by aware of itself.
No really. It means that sensational living does not require metaphors

Good luck with your rabbit stew.

Thanks; it's coming along nicely.

[tillingborn]

There is no contradiction here.
All thoughts soon turn to waste heat, they self destroy.
They are only preserved by changing neuronal connections.

It’s either/or, Chaz. Thoughts can’t both all ‘turn to waste heat’ and be ‘preserved by changing neuronal connections’.

What did you think at 4:30 23rd March 2003? Can't remember? That thought has self destructed.

No idea, but whatever I was thinking, I’m confident it was me thinking it.

If you remember anything from that year, or have learned something then that is remembered by a change is the physicality of neuronal connections.
Neurones make connections, this is the basis of a theory of memory.

No doubt, but what has memory got to do with it?

Aside from that, Cogito ergo..

Sorry Chaz, I’ve no idea what I’m supposed to infer from this.

What information? There is no information about the contents of the brain outside the brain unless you have a massive MRI or CT/PT scanner. Even then the information is limited to a few pixels of a different colour

Make your mind up, is there information or not?

So what is it (physics) about? What is it that you think is missing ?

Well Chaz, it’s all that stuff I said earlier about Newton and the hypotheses non fingo. Physics is about describing what reality does, not what it is.

That's not for you to say, Chaz. You know a great deal more about what and how you think, I've only got what you write to go on.

Not for me to say? What???

Of course not. You can’t insist that people interpret your words in the way that you hope they will.

Size and distance are irrelevant,it is a body of matter that emits electromagnetic radiation that we can see. The field it generated exists even though it might not.

I have to repeat- so what?

And I have to repeat-the electromagnetic field generated by a living brain does not vanish because the brain is dead; there is no more generated, but the stuff that resulted from the material states of the living brain persists, for all practical purposes forever.

No really. It means that sensational living does not require metaphors

I’m quite certain that the vast majority of living things thrive perfectly well without any metaphors at all. What is your point?

[chaz wyman]

There is no contradiction here.
All thoughts soon turn to waste heat, they self destroy.
They are only preserved by changing neuronal connections.

It’s either/or, Chaz. Thoughts can’t both all ‘turn to waste heat’ and be ‘preserved by changing neuronal connections’.

AS memories. Memories are not thoughts as such.
Had you read my last reply to this point you would not have needed to ask again.

And I have to repeat-the electromagnetic field generated by a living brain does not vanish because the brain is dead; there is no more generated, but the stuff that resulted from the material states of the living brain persists, for all practical purposes forever.

This is bollocks.
I think we have reached the limit of our discussion, if you persist in this fantasy for which you have no evidence.

[tillingborn]

AS memories. Memories are not thoughts as such.
Had you read my last reply to this point you would not have needed to ask again.

Well just to remind you Chaz, this is how I responded to your last reply:

It’s either/or, Chaz. Thoughts can’t both all ‘turn to waste heat’ and be ‘preserved by changing neuronal connections’.

What did you think at 4:30 23rd March 2003? Can't remember? That thought has self destructed.

No idea, but whatever I was thinking, I’m confident it was me thinking it.

If you remember anything from that year, or have learned something then that is remembered by a change is the physicality of neuronal connections.
Neurones make connections, this is the basis of a theory of memory.

No doubt, but what has memory got to do with it?

Aside from that, Cogito ergo..

Sorry Chaz, I’ve no idea what I’m supposed to infer from this.

I read it, I just couldn't see the point you were trying to make.

And I have to repeat-the electromagnetic field generated by a living brain does not vanish because the brain is dead; there is no more generated, but the stuff that resulted from the material states of the living brain persists, for all practical purposes forever.

This is bollocks.
I think we have reached the limit of our discussion, if you persist in this fantasy for which you have no evidence.

What fantasy? The brain of any living creature is emitting electromagnetic energy, even you say so.

[chaz wyman]

AS memories. Memories are not thoughts as such.
Had you read my last reply to this point you would not have needed to ask again.

Well just to remind you Chaz, this is how I responded to your last reply:

It’s either/or, Chaz. Thoughts can’t both all ‘turn to waste heat’ and be ‘preserved by changing neuronal connections’.

What did you think at 4:30 23rd March 2003? Can't remember? That thought has self destructed.

No idea, but whatever I was thinking, I’m confident it was me thinking it.

If you remember anything from that year, or have learned something then that is remembered by a change is the physicality of neuronal connections.
Neurones make connections, this is the basis of a theory of memory.

No doubt, but what has memory got to do with it?

Aside from that, Cogito ergo..

Sorry Chaz, I’ve no idea what I’m supposed to infer from this.

I read it, I just couldn't see the point you were trying to make.

And I have to repeat-the electromagnetic field generated by a living brain does not vanish because the brain is dead; there is no more generated, but the stuff that resulted from the material states of the living brain persists, for all practical purposes forever.

This is bollocks.
I think we have reached the limit of our discussion, if you persist in this fantasy for which you have no evidence.

What fantasy? The brain of any living creature is emitting electromagnetic energy, even you say so.

Yes, and a TV emits EM rads too. But not in a way that contains information, and the further away it gets the less information it contains.
My grand dad who died in 1957 is still here. The calcium that made his bones is in the soils, in milk and in the bones of other people, His carbon is distributed across the earth in CO2, and many forms of vegetable and animal matter. But he is not here in any meaningful sense.
In fact you are not here either, as you were 10 years ago. There is not a single atom in your body now that constituted your body 10 years ago. When you die those atoms with be dispersed too.
We are what we are only because you are an arrangement of atoms.
Your thoughts are even more temporary, they dissipate the moment they are thought, if they change a neuronal connection , then you have a memory. And when you brain rots you loose even that.
This entire thread is based on a misconception, that a thought is the same as an EM wave, or that those waves are indestructible.
EM waves are not thoughts and em waves are ephemeral.

[tillingborn]

Yes, and a TV emits EM rads too. But not in a way that contains information, and the further away it gets the less information it contains.

And a TV works because it receives information carried on EM waves. You may have heard it pointed out that some of the static on TV screens originated when particles first condensed roughly 300 000 years after the (speculative, but very well supported theory of the) Big Bang. One potential fate for our universe is that the expansion of space will stretch the wavelength of EM so much that it can no longer carry any viable information, a process called Heat death. That is reckoned to happen in a few trillion years.
So the information carrying potential of EM is limited, but I wouldn't call several trillion years ephemeral.

My grand dad who died in 1957 is still here. The calcium that made his bones is in the soils, in milk and in the bones of other people, His carbon is distributed across the earth in CO2, and many forms of vegetable and animal matter. But he is not here in any meaningful sense.

Sorry to hear that Chaz.

In fact you are not here either, as you were 10 years ago. There is not a single atom in your body now that constituted your body 10 years ago. When you die those atoms with be dispersed too.

I think you're overstating it, but I know the story. I don't see what it has to do with the current argument though.

We are what we are only because you are an arrangement of atoms.

I've been around a bit Chaz, but it's not all my fault.

Your thoughts are even more temporary, they dissipate the moment they are thought, if they change a neuronal connection , then you have a memory. And when you brain rots you loose even that.

I don't think I'll care by then.

This entire thread is based on a misconception, that a thought is the same as an EM wave,

I think perhaps your contributions are based on the misconception that that is what I am claiming.

or that those waves are indestructible.

Beyond the likelihood that they will eventually be stretched flat, they pretty well are.

EM waves are not thoughts and em waves are ephemeral.

Probably not the former, definitely not the latter. The original post said:

The brain creates an electromagnetic field; it’s very weak, but nonetheless real. Like all electromagnetic fields it spreads out, influences and is influenced by everything it encounters. So there is a sphere of influence centred on our head as wide in light years as we are old, which will continue to be part of the universe long after we are dead. It doesn’t seem very likely, but what if that is our soul?

Yep; I'll stand by that.

[chaz wyman]

Yes, and a TV emits EM rads too. But not in a way that contains information, and the further away it gets the less information it contains.

And a TV works because it receives information carried on EM waves. You may have heard it pointed out that some of the static on TV screens originated when particles first condensed roughly 300 000 years after the (speculative, but very well supported theory of the) Big Bang. One potential fate for our universe is that the expansion of space will stretch the wavelength of EM so much that it can no longer carry any viable information, a process called Heat death. That is reckoned to happen in a few trillion years.

The TV signal is designed and encoded with signals for the use of a receiver. No matter how much you might imagine it, the brain does not do this.

You might have become confused by a misunderstanding of exactly what MRI and PET scanners actually do. They can only image brain activity by bombarding it with radiation. They are not passive detectors.
Brains are other wise completely in detectable and transmit NO information on the content of thought.

Enjoy your delusion.

There is nothing more to say.

[tillingborn]

The TV signal is designed and encoded with signals for the use of a receiver. No matter how much you might imagine it, the brain does not do this.

Well actually Chaz, I think it's just you imagining that I imagine it. I'm fairly certain that the brain 'signal' is not "designed and encoded with signals for the use of a receiver." I have never said I do. I'm even more certain that the electrical activity of the brain generates an electromagnetic field, brain electricity would be unique in nature if it did not, and that the structure of this field is a product of the structure of the activity that generated it. In other words there is theoretically retrievable information about the electrical activity of anyone's brain. You are wasting your time denying it. The issue is whether the field generated by the actual physical electrical activity of the brain that really, really exists has any role in consciousness; you are adamant it doesn't, I doubt it, but I'm not so certain as you. It is ironic, don't you think, that we understand so little about the one thing we are absolutely certain of.

You might have become confused by a misunderstanding of exactly what MRI and PET scanners actually do. They can only image brain activity by bombarding it with radiation. They are not passive detectors.
Brains are other wise completely in detectable and transmit NO information on the content of thought.

Bit of a red herring Chaz; the fact that we haven't the technology to detect brain waves at any distance (why bother if you can attach electrodes to the skull?) doesn't mean they are not there. You can stamp your feet and insist they don't exist and in best panto fashion I can shout back 'Oh yes they do'. Because they do, so there.

Enjoy your delusion.

No part of anything I have said is delusional. I am stating that there is something we know exists, experience, you might prefer consciousness, that is associated with something else we know exists, an EM field, Oh yes it is. I'm just playing with the idea that the two might be related; what then? It's clearly an idea that you find ridiculous, fair enough, don't play.

There is nothing more to say.

Do you really mean that?

[chaz wyman]

The TV signal is designed and encoded with signals for the use of a receiver. No matter how much you might imagine it, the brain does not do this.

Well actually Chaz, I think it's just you imagining that I imagine it. I'm fairly certain that the brain 'signal' is not "designed and encoded with signals for the use of a receiver." I have never said I do. I'm even more certain that the electrical activity of the brain generates an electromagnetic field, brain electricity would be unique in nature if it did not, and that the structure of this field is a product of the structure of the activity that generated it. In other words there is theoretically retrievable information about the electrical activity of anyone's brain. You are wasting your time denying it. The issue is whether the field generated by the actual physical electrical activity of the brain that really, really exists has any role in consciousness; you are adamant it doesn't, I doubt it, but I'm not so certain as you. It is ironic, don't you think, that we understand so little about the one thing we are absolutely certain of.

You might have become confused by a misunderstanding of exactly what MRI and PET scanners actually do. They can only image brain activity by bombarding it with radiation. They are not passive detectors.
Brains are other wise completely in detectable and transmit NO information on the content of thought.

Bit of a red herring Chaz; the fact that we haven't the technology to detect brain waves at any distance (why bother if you can attach electrodes to the skull?) doesn't mean they are not there. You can stamp your feet and insist they don't exist and in best panto fashion I can shout back 'Oh yes they do'. Because they do, so there.

Enjoy your delusion.

No part of anything I have said is delusional. I am stating that there is something we know exists, experience, you might prefer consciousness, that is associated with something else we know exists, an EM field, Oh yes it is. I'm just playing with the idea that the two might be related; what then? It's clearly an idea that you find ridiculous, fair enough, don't play.

There is nothing more to say.

Do you really mean that?

Yes I think so. When anyone says a thing might exist because no one can prove it does not, it is usually time to leave the area.
Other wise you end up talking about Fairies, Unicorns and Jovian teapots.
The fact is we have no reason and certainly no evidence to assume that 'brain waves' have any significance outside the body in terms of content or even existence, and whilst you persist in this fantasy there is nothing more to say.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Wittgenstein

[tillingborn]

There is nothing more to say.

Do you really mean that?

Yes I think so. When anyone says a thing might exist because no one can prove it does not, it is usually time to leave the area.

Straw man that, Chaz. My position has always been that the electrical activity in the brain generates a detectable electromagnetic field, because it is made of the same stuff that all other matter is made of and that's what matter does.

Other wise you end up talking about Fairies, Unicorns and Jovian teapots.

Ouch, Chaz! That's a bit below the belt; what's worse that simply isn't my argument. I have said that the field generated by the electrical activity is in principle detectable. If someone had the will they could build a detector sensitive enough to do so, filtering the thimble full of pertinent EM from the ocean it's a part of would be quite a challenge, but it is theoretically do-able. Who knows, maybe one day you'll get to see your grandad on telly. I wouldn't hold your breath though.

The fact is we have no reason and certainly no evidence to assume that 'brain waves' have any significance outside the body in terms of content or even existence, and whilst you persist in this fantasy there is nothing more to say.

So you keep saying. Blimey Chaz, what are you like? Don't say it then.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Wittgenstein

His famous last words. Until he changed his mind and started doing philosophy again. It does not apply in this instance; I am not making any claim that cannot in principle be verified. There is nothing supernatural about anything I've said. If we have anything that might be mistaken for a soul, it is in principle detectable and it is empirical evidence that will decide, not a pair of old pantomime dames having a silly argument. In the meantime toying with the idea is fair game; call it freedom of expression if you will.

[chaz wyman]

There is nothing more to say.

Do you really mean that?

Yes I think so. When anyone says a thing might exist because no one can prove it does not, it is usually time to leave the area.

Straw man that, Chaz. My position has always been that the electrical activity in the brain generates a detectable electromagnetic field, because it is made of the same stuff that all other matter is made of and that's what matter does.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

Other wise you end up talking about Fairies, Unicorns and Jovian teapots.

Ouch, Chaz! That's a bit below the belt; what's worse that simply isn't my argument. I have said that the field generated by the electrical activity is in principle detectable. If someone had the will they could build a detector sensitive enough to do so, filtering the thimble full of pertin...

Blah blah - see above! Exaclty what I mean IF only there were some evidence!!!If only we had detectors strong enough we could find those fairies and jovian teapots!!

The fact is we have no reason and certainly no evidence to assume that 'brain waves' have any significance outside the body in terms of content or even existence, and whilst you persist in this fantasy there is nothing more to say.

So you keep saying. Blimey Chaz, what are you like? Don't say it then.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Wittgenstein

His famous last words. Until he changed his mind and started doing philosophy again. It does not apply in this instance; I am not making any claim that cannot in principle be verified. There is nothing supernatural about anything I've said. If we have anything that might be mistaken for a soul, it is in principle detectable and it is empirical evidence that will decide, not a pair of old pantomime dames having a silly argument. In the meantime toying with the idea is fair game; call it freedom of expression if you will.

It's fantasy, not philosophy, not science, not reasonable.