Whose brain is it anyway?

[DBT]

No, no, no and no....your mantras have no substance. The whole point of electrical brain stimulation is to learn about brain function. That you deny this means nothing. In your own words, the Emperor has no clothes...and the Emperor is you.

The point of brain stimulation is to learn what areas of the brain may have an association with certain functions.

It does not tell us one thing about how the brain functions.

Brain activity is global. There are no understood lines of demarcation.

The visual experience is associated with many areas all over the brain.

Finding an area of association does not mean it is the locus of control.

The VERY point of the experiments is to learn how the brain functions. But you are not interested in learning. You have your subjective experience of agency and base your beliefs on the surface experience while ignoring the underlying production of your subjective experience of conscious agency....an illusion that is revealed by these experiments and any time the underlying activity of the brain fails to function normally. But of course that is of no interest to you. You have your own beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

The point of brain stimulation is to learn what areas of the brain may have an association with certain functions.

It does not tell us one thing about how the brain functions.

Brain activity is global. There are no understood lines of demarcation.

The visual experience is associated with many areas all over the brain.

Finding an area of association does not mean it is the locus of control.

The VERY point of the experiments is to learn how the brain functions. But you are not interested in learning. You have your subjective experience of agency and base your beliefs on the surface experience while ignoring the underlying production of your subjective experience of conscious agency....an illusion that is revealed by these experiments and any time the underlying activity of the brain fails to function normally. But of course that is of no interest to you. You have your own beliefs.

I would love to learn. If there were something real to learn.

You don't have a clue as to the limitations of these kinds of experiments.

They do not tell us how anything happens.

Only generally where.

And just because something is happening in one place in the brain, like the visual experience which is scattered all over the place, it does not mean that is the only place in the brain involved in that activity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Every neuron in a human brain could have a different genome from all the others (albeit mainly single nucleotide variations, but with many larger differences).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-surprised-to-find-no-two-neurons-are-genetically-alike/?linkId=37171391

If our brains favour our gregariousness maybe some genome variability across neurones makes our respective brains more likely to have overlapping DNA across the species, and therefore to be more generic, and so in a sense not so 'personal' as our bodies probably are.

If genome variability was a straightforward disadvantage, why would it have persisted during for example the something like 8 million years of hominid evolution. If it was a more recent invention, it won't show up in for example chimps or at the extreme in some of the more isolated human populations. The more recent, the more likely to be dicey but the fact may have both advantages and disadvantages.

Also, functionality in our brain's cells is of a very different nature as functionality in cells in the rest of our bodies. Genome variability may well be necessary to the way neurons develop or to our overall cognitive performance. Similarly, the immune system typically has to deal with all sorts of possible intrusions coming from the outside and its cells have the phenotypical variability necessary to the functionality of the immune system itself. Something of that order maybe be involved in the case of the brain. Maybe there's a redundancy value in variability for example.

Disclaimer: all of the above is pure speculation at this stage.

Maybe I should read the paper.
EB

 

[DBT]

You don't have a clue as to the limitations of these kinds of experiments.

On the contrary, you don't have a clue as to the significance of these experiments.....which the researchers themselves outline in their articles. But of course you cannot even consider what is being said because you know better. So you think.

 

[untermensche]

You don't have a clue as to the limitations of these kinds of experiments.

On the contrary, you don't have a clue as to the significance of these experiments.....which the researchers themselves outline in their articles. But of course you cannot even consider what is being said because you know better. So you think.

Claims by researchers are something to strongly challenge.

Not take as gospel.

 

[DBT]

On the contrary, you don't have a clue as to the significance of these experiments.....which the researchers themselves outline in their articles. But of course you cannot even consider what is being said because you know better. So you think.

Claims by researchers are something to strongly challenge.

Not take as gospel.

You don't have the means to challenge researchers. You have no evidence. You ignore the evidence that is available. You just assert your beliefs and imagine that you are offering some sort of challenge.

 

[untermensche]

Claims by researchers are something to strongly challenge.

Not take as gospel.

You don't have the means to challenge researchers. You have no evidence. You ignore the evidence that is available. You just assert your beliefs and imagine that you are offering some sort of challenge.

You argue conclusions by using the evidence people use to make them.

You've never even taken one course on the examination of published research, have you?

It's a big part of pharmacy school because so much pharmaceutical research is skewed by the profit motive.

The last thing anybody with intelligence does is take the conclusions of researchers at face value.

 

[DBT]

You don't have the means to challenge researchers. You have no evidence. You ignore the evidence that is available. You just assert your beliefs and imagine that you are offering some sort of challenge.

You argue conclusions by using the evidence people use to make them.

I am pointing to the research, the experiments, their results and what the results are telling us as described by the researchers who designed these experiments, carried out these experiments and analyzed their results. There is no comparison to pharmaceutical research, this is pure research undertaken for the purpose of developing a better understanding of the brain and how it works.

So it is clearly you who literally cannot accept any evidence that contradicts your chosen beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

You argue conclusions by using the evidence people use to make them.

I am pointing to the research, the experiments, their results and what the results are telling us as described by the researchers who designed these experiments, carried out these experiments and analyzed their results. There is no comparison to pharmaceutical research, this is pure research undertaken for the purpose of developing a better understanding of the brain and how it works.

So it is clearly you who literally cannot accept any evidence that contradicts your chosen beliefs.

You're not going to convince me.

The only rational way to approach any published research is with extreme skepticism.

And the research on human consciousness is so lacking in facts and full of opinion it is some of the worst out there.

 

[DBT]

I am pointing to the research, the experiments, their results and what the results are telling us as described by the researchers who designed these experiments, carried out these experiments and analyzed their results. There is no comparison to pharmaceutical research, this is pure research undertaken for the purpose of developing a better understanding of the brain and how it works.

So it is clearly you who literally cannot accept any evidence that contradicts your chosen beliefs.

You're not going to convince me.

The only rational way to approach any published research is with extreme skepticism.

And the research on human consciousness is so lacking in facts and full of opinion it is some of the worst out there.

I know that no one and nothing is likely to convince you of anything because you are fixed rock solid in your own beliefs regardless of the quality and volume of evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Nobody is denying the need for healthy skepticism, but that's not what you are using. You go way, way beyond skepticism because you are absolutely fixed and immovable in your own faith regardless of whatever is said or whatever evidence is being provided.

It's a pity that you can't apply your much touted skepticism to your own beliefs, but of course that is out of the question for you because it's completely out of bounds, being your own sacred beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

You're not going to convince me.

The only rational way to approach any published research is with extreme skepticism.

And the research on human consciousness is so lacking in facts and full of opinion it is some of the worst out there.

I know that no one and nothing is likely to convince you of anything because you are fixed rock solid in your own beliefs regardless of the quality and volume of evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Nobody is denying the need for healthy skepticism, but that's not what you are using. You go way, way beyond skepticism because you are absolutely fixed and immovable in your own faith regardless of whatever is said or whatever evidence is being provided.

It's a pity that you can't apply your much touted skepticism to your own beliefs, but of course that is out of the question for you because it's completely out of bounds, being your own sacred beliefs.

I'm tired of the stupid lectures.

Simply labeling "activity" that is not understood does not give you understanding.

Knowing when activity that is not understood occurs does not give you understanding.

But I doubt you understand this.

 

[DBT]

I know that no one and nothing is likely to convince you of anything because you are fixed rock solid in your own beliefs regardless of the quality and volume of evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Nobody is denying the need for healthy skepticism, but that's not what you are using. You go way, way beyond skepticism because you are absolutely fixed and immovable in your own faith regardless of whatever is said or whatever evidence is being provided.

It's a pity that you can't apply your much touted skepticism to your own beliefs, but of course that is out of the question for you because it's completely out of bounds, being your own sacred beliefs.

I'm tired of the stupid lectures.

Simply labeling "activity" that is not understood does not give you understanding.

Knowing when activity that is not understood occurs does not give you understanding.

But I doubt you understand this.

Not tired enough of the lectures to actually stop engaging though, isn't that right Mr Untermensche?

Simply labeling "activity" that is not understood does not give you understanding.

That is not what I do. I explained what I am doing in previous posts....did you miss that or is it more convenient to ignore what was actually said and substitute what I said with your own little version of virtual reality.

Knowing when activity that is not understood occurs does not give you understanding.

You repeat that like a mantra even though it doesn't relate to what I said and then proceed to assert your proclaimed understanding of what consciousness is (a decision maker) and what it does, making conscious decisions independently from the very brain activity that is forming and generating consciousness....yet never seeing the irony of your position.

 

[untermensche]

I'm tired of the stupid lectures.

Simply labeling "activity" that is not understood does not give you understanding.

Knowing when activity that is not understood occurs does not give you understanding.

But I doubt you understand this.

Not tired enough of the lectures to actually stop engaging though, isn't that right Mr Untermensche?

Well, 15 seconds of my time is what it's worth.

Simply labeling "activity" that is not understood does not give you understanding.

That is not what I do.

It is all you can do. You have no understanding of what any activity is actually doing. You cannot point to any specific activity and say "This is that which is aware of the color blue".

All you can do with the activity is place labels upon it and then pretend you understand something about it.

 

[fromderinside]

BS. Go look at some CIE chart and you'll be aware of the color blue.

 

[DBT]

Not tired enough of the lectures to actually stop engaging though, isn't that right Mr Untermensche?

Well, 15 seconds of my time is what it's worth.

Yet you yourself said that you are tired of my so called lectures (pointing out your erroneous beliefs) , so this 15 seconds of your time appears to be tiring to you, as you said. You find this 15 seconds of your time tiring because you have nothing but faith and faith is always a tiring thing to defend.

 

[untermensche]

Well, 15 seconds of my time is what it's worth.

Yet you yourself said that you are tired of my so called lectures (pointing out your erroneous beliefs) , so this 15 seconds of your time appears to be tiring to you, as you said. You find this 15 seconds of your time tiring because you have nothing but faith and faith is always a tiring thing to defend.

If I show you some brain activity can you tell me what the person is experiencing?

You are under the impression you understand something about intention.

You don't know anything about it beyond you know you can lift your arm at will.

Labeling activity you do not understand is not knowing what the activity is actually doing or how it arose.

What I am tired of is your pose.

It is ridiculous.

 

[untermensche]

BS. Go look at some CIE chart and you'll be aware of the color blue.

The color blue is something created by the brain that is experienced by consciousness.

Something experiences blue.

So blue is an experience.

Not a chart.

A chart is external to the brain. Blue is created "internally", created somehow.

How the experience of blue is created by a bunch of neurons is the question.

You won't find that on a CIE chart.

 

[DBT]

Yet you yourself said that you are tired of my so called lectures (pointing out your erroneous beliefs) , so this 15 seconds of your time appears to be tiring to you, as you said. You find this 15 seconds of your time tiring because you have nothing but faith and faith is always a tiring thing to defend.

If I show you some brain activity can you tell me what the person is experiencing?

You are under the impression you understand something about intention.

You don't know anything about it beyond you know you can lift your arm at will.

Labeling activity you do not understand is not knowing what the activity is actually doing or how it arose.

What I am tired of is your pose.

It is ridiculous.

You are tired of desperately defending your own pose (or perhaps trolling) tired of ignoring everything that shows the errors of your claimed beliefs, tired of being wrong but pretending to be right. Your ''I'll show you some brain activity can you tell me what the person is experiencing'' has been shown to be a strawman, yet like everything else, you just repeat the same fallacies....hoping that nobody will notice and actually accept what you say has some merit when, according to all evidence, your claims have no merit. Cheers.

 

[untermensche]

If I show you some brain activity can you tell me what the person is experiencing?

You are under the impression you understand something about intention.

You don't know anything about it beyond you know you can lift your arm at will.

Labeling activity you do not understand is not knowing what the activity is actually doing or how it arose.

What I am tired of is your pose.

It is ridiculous.

You are tired of desperately defending your own pose (or perhaps trolling) tired of ignoring everything that shows the errors of your claimed beliefs, tired of being wrong but pretending to be right. Your ''I'll show you some brain activity can you tell me what the person is experiencing'' has been shown to be a strawman, yet like everything else, you just repeat the same fallacies....hoping that nobody will notice and actually accept what you say has some merit when, according to all evidence, your claims have no merit. Cheers.

You've demonstrated nothing.

Hint: Posting a study you don't understand and can't defend in any way is not demonstrating anything beyond a kind of ignorance.

 

[DBT]

You are tired of desperately defending your own pose (or perhaps trolling) tired of ignoring everything that shows the errors of your claimed beliefs, tired of being wrong but pretending to be right. Your ''I'll show you some brain activity can you tell me what the person is experiencing'' has been shown to be a strawman, yet like everything else, you just repeat the same fallacies....hoping that nobody will notice and actually accept what you say has some merit when, according to all evidence, your claims have no merit. Cheers.

You've demonstrated nothing.

Hint: Posting a study you don't understand and can't defend in any way is not demonstrating anything beyond a kind of ignorance.

On the contrary, I have posted numerous studies that refute your beliefs, so it demonstrates ignorance to dismiss studies, their results and what researchers themselves say about the studies and results....all the while maintaining a position that has no foundation whatever, a position not supported by any studies, any evidence and not entertained by any researcher in the field except for a few eccentric fringe dwellers.