Can you demonstrate that consciousness emanates from the brain?
"The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. The mind also changes the brain. People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions."
Surely, the idea that consciousness emanates from the brain is also a belief. It's just one of the ways we try to make sense of the things we don't really understand.
Spirituality is like consciousness: we have trouble grasping it, defining it, or filling a jug with it. We may try - perhaps by conceptualising it as contained in the heart, or brain.
Conceptualising that something we can't grasp in our hand is not an object, is not necessarily spiritual. A thought, or an idea isn't the same as organised religion, either.
Is there any reason why consciousness can't exist outsde the brain?
Maybe we just find that difficult to conceptualise: we are most familiar with things we are aware of being contained, like water in a jug.
A magnet has a field which exists beyond itself and we are made of bits of positive and negative charge.
I'm not sure how we might explain out of body experiences, or dissociation without considering that consciousness might extend beyond the physical self.
There are a lot of species other than humans on this planet.
We don't treat our pet dogs like a cat playing with a mouse because it would be considered inhumane.
Talking of ethics and humanity, Elon Musk's fantasy of becoming a multi-planet species probably doesn't include considering the welfare of the most vulnerable people on the planet Earth. The elderly, sick and disabled won't be doing any strenuous space travel, and neither will the poor.
That would be an interesting skew on natural selection, this 'master race' that gets to populate the galaxy and beyond.
The majority would be subject to the Earth's extinction event in his fantasy. Maybe we'll all be gassed when the permafrost melts; maybe creating the means to get the master race off the planet will help global warming along.
Tell me again what the definition of madness, and humanty, is.
Any intrusion which creates change is an invasion.
It doesn't have to be a violation of other life in the present to impact upon future potential.
I don't think we intended to trash the planet Earth, but we have done a fairly good job of that all the same.
It's odd that, as a species, we have a culture of expecting that we plan for our own future, that we have pension funds and ther resources for our old age, but we also plan to bleed other planets dry n the same way we've broken our own.
I find the thought of people invading other planets saddening, given it's clear we're not mature enough to be trusted with the gem of an orb we've been privileged to be the guardians of.
I wouldn't wish a painful, or distressing end on any living creature, but given the choice between invading the universe in an ecolgical time bomb and returning to a more simplistic way of life here on Earth, I'd take the 12 years of trying to be a better human being.
I'm not afraid to no longer exist; my ego really isn't that big.
I'm guessing there's more to Elon Musk's personal fantasy than is shown in the clip you cited, as the time frame isn't explained. Given here in the UK the entire island shuts down for 48 hours if we have three flakes of snow, I find it hard to believe we'd manage to keep on schedule (and budget) for an apocalypse/exodus within 12 years.
I've seen one in the distance and felt another go down my street here in Wales, but like everything in the UK, and especially Wales, they were miniature versions.
Big enough to be a little disconcerting, but no harm done.
Our rare thunder and lightening compared with everyone else's is like the difference between a Disney display and indoor fireworks. A single flash and boom in the night is the topic of conversation the next day.
Even tiles coming off the roof, or trees coming down in high winds are a fairly rare events.
Flooding is our nemesis. It rains a bit here in the UK.
She's had at least one, but there has been no public confirmation of any others.
Charles has had three and he's been mildly infected twice.
The Queen has mild symptoms and is carrying out light duties this week.
This would be a fairly rubbish time for her to pop off with so many people grieving for their own loved ones. I imagine blaming Andrew for some of her frailty would result in a bit of grief anger and mud-slinging, too.
If you are happy you are doing the right thing according to your own values, then why do you feel guilt?
Something is not true to your authentic self because of the contradiction of feeling guilt, or shame for doing what you view as the right thing.
I come back to the feelings of guilt being the dishonest bit. Not that you're lying about feeling gulty, but that the feelings of guilt have been falsely created and/or learned.
I'm trying to point out the difference between interpreting from our own value framework and knowledge; the difference between sympathy and empathy; and how trying to do the right thing is not necessarily the same as doing the right thng if we are not being our true authentic selves.
I'm not trying to get you to accuse me of something.
My point was that neither assuming everyone is here for love, nor assuming everyone has their own reasons for being here has anythng much to do with empathy.
Having said that, how can we empathise with others if we don't have any idea of what we're empathising with, or if we assume incorrectly about their circumstances?
Just take a look at the things you've said on this thread: you think people who PM you are looking for love and are irritated when you say you're here for the forums; you thought BBSnickers was irritated with you; you thought I was tryng to get you to accuse me of something.
What if none of these assumptions and interpretations are true?
When we try to make sense of our worlds, we draw on our knowledge and experience. If someone's mum dies we might assume they're devastated, or relieved, or unaffected, etc. depending upon our own realtnship with our mum, but that's not really empathy: it's simply interpretng from our own value framework.
True empathy is relating to somene else's total experience and for that we need information, not assumptions. Your guilt and 'empathy' are rather wasted on cold-callers and as BB tried to point out, are to do with you, not them.
You have choices: you can enter into relationships you're not interested in, so as to not hurt randomers' feelings, but that might get complicated depending upon how many relatinships that you get embroiled in; you can give an honest reply and remain your true authentic self; or you can not open mail from cold callers.
Not feeling guilty, as BB suggested is a matter of self-care. There are a number of ways you can explore and resolve that little chestnut. This is the bit you're really respnsible for, not other people's reactions to you saying you're a member because you enjoy the forums. They are responsible for their reactions.
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: Have you ever experienced a Manifestation?
Can you demonstrate that consciousness emanates from the brain?"The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. The mind also changes the brain. People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions."
Surely, the idea that consciousness emanates from the brain is also a belief. It's just one of the ways we try to make sense of the things we don't really understand.
Spirituality is like consciousness: we have trouble grasping it, defining it, or filling a jug with it. We may try - perhaps by conceptualising it as contained in the heart, or brain.
Conceptualising that something we can't grasp in our hand is not an object, is not necessarily spiritual. A thought, or an idea isn't the same as organised religion, either.