This is not possible for explanation because near death consciousness is bright and after cardiac arrest the electrical in the brain falls out within less then 30 seconds... after this period people experience near death...I guess I just put all speculation of this sort in the same box with Zeus throwing lightening bolts. There is usually a more reasonable explanation. I am currently leaning towards the research that shows that consciousness is found in the electrical workings of the brain. That is wondrous enough for me.
My grandfather very much was, but there are still things I wouldn't want him to see! lol The step-grandmother was NOT! She was my step-dad's mother, so no relation to my grandfather.It doesn't sound as though they were loved ones!
But that is a mystery within a million mysteries! That is just one question answered in a long line of philosophical questions that we have yet to solve scientifically. We are living in a time when many of the BIG questions are on the brink of being answered. Where did life begin? How? When?Not very cool, I like a mystery.
Please define "bright". If I understand what you said correctly, it in no way contradicts current scientific thought and evidence that consciousness is centered in the brain/ nervous system.This is not possible for explanation because near death consciousness is bright and after cardiac arrest the electrical in the brain falls out within less then 30 seconds... after this period people experience near death...
Questions that were purely philosophical are becoming empirical as we technology increases and we can observe more and more phenomenon, so exciting!
I disagree, for example, we are now able to map emotions in the brain, that is fantastic! The pieces have been falling into place astoundingly fast over just the past decade.On the contrary: the more we are able to observe the more UNable we are to truly understand. Quantum phenomena being just one example. 100 years of detailed observations and we are still not even close to making any sense of it
I disagree, for example, we are now able to map emotions in the brain, that is fantastic! The pieces have been falling into place astoundingly fast over just the past decade.
I disagree, for example, we are now able to map emotions in the brain, that is fantastic! The pieces have been falling into place astoundingly fast over just the past decade.
Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain, we don't have a complete picture yet, but the puzzle pieces are stacking up quickly.Technically, we aren't mapping emotions. We are mapping the blood flow to the parts of the brain that are active when various emotions are experienced. From this we infer that neural transmissions are occurring there. But these neural transmissions are merely electrical currents, and electrical currents are not happy, sad, angry, compassionate, etc. However, since they happen in conjunction with these feelings, these currents are known as "neural correlates of consciousness", or NCC, by neuroscientists. There is correlation there, but not an identity; what emotions and consciousness are is still completely unknown from the point of view of neuroscience. Some people like to say that they are an epiphenomenon of brain activity, but there is no evidence or precedent for that; everything else that can be labeled "epiphenomena" can by scientifically tied back to its source using standard laws of physics. Not so for consciousness and its various aspects.
From a strictly scientific point of view, what consciousness and its various aspects are is completely unexplained at this point.
I don't agree,to say such a thing, denies the possibility that what we are being told by some of these researchers. could be correct, there is no way for you to know this. So the best you can say is SOME evidence is pointing towards to consciousness residing in the brain.Again, I disagree. It all seems to be pointing to consciousness residing in the brain, we don't have a complete picture yet, but the puzzle pieces are stacking up quickly.
I believe you are right Natasa Though it does go both ways.On the contrary: the more we are able to observe the more UNable we are to truly understand. Quantum phenomena being just one example. 100 years of detailed observations and we are still not even close to making any sense of it
I don't agree,to say such a thing, denies the possibility that what we are being told by some of these researchers. could be correct, there is no way for you to know this. So the best you can say is SOME evidence is pointing towards to consciousness residing in the brain.
Not ALL as you suggest ?
I didn't say all, but the preponderance does seem to be that way.I don't agree,to say such a thing, denies the possibility that what we are being told by some of these researchers. could be correct, there is no way for you to know this. So the best you can say is SOME evidence is pointing towards to consciousness residing in the brain.
Not ALL as you suggest ?
Completely agree. you might as well listen to my theories. As they probably have as much validity. As other best guesses, at this total mysteryThis reminds me I recently watched an hour long presentation by a leading neuroscientist, hottest name in the field, titled something along the lines of 'neuroscientific explanation of consciousness'. Turns out it was all about her theories and interpretations of what might-could-may be happening, trying to prop her belief that brain does create consciousness, but without much proper evidence. An epic let down. If that was really the closest we are to scientifically proving how brain creates consciousness... well we'll sooner figure out time travel and how to fly spaceships on antimatter fuel before we put our finger on consciouness.