Comments by "terrytees" (@terrytees) on "Big Think" channel.

yuptydoo He's being more of a philosopher than a scientist. Dennett most likely isn't even aware of the "hard problem" and it's connotations or simply denies it. "Big Think" is mostly full of martialist gush. Neuroscientists like Dr Peter Fenwick or Professionals like Dr. Sam Parnia and the Aware project show scientific evidence not philosophical wish full thinking. Remember what the great minds of our time like the nobel prize wining neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles believed about the mind and he was actual far more qualified to speak on the subject. Dennet is propagating the seduction of the gullible with zero evidence. If anyone out there thinks that there is suitable evidence for the current model of consciousness there fooling themselves. The models floored.
1
***** LMAO Show us the empirical evidence proving Qualia is mechanistic.
1
***** What a intelligent response.. I guess i wouldn't expect anything less from someone who's prepared to believe a theory on face value with zero evidence.
1
***** You have shown no evidence what so ever, all you have done is get defensive and insulting which is a unusual response for someone who refutes freewill :D Again were is the evidence? It's no good just calling people names when they challenge you. Show us scientific proof if your claiming it's fact & not philosophy and how about dropping the insecurity complex responses. (you do realise there a dead give away of freewill :) My guess is you believe anything your told by a so called expert just based on there popularity & not reading the research data. Explain how this research below would fit into a mechanistic model of consciousness? http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38 Do you know what the term "hard problem" means?
1
***** Its not your fault your unable to post any. LMAO
1
***** Your offering no evidence what so ever only a philosophy argument based on zero data. I have posted links to data from peer reviewed journals by medical professionals and neuroscientists giving examples of consciousness still functioning with a flatlined brainstem :) http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_nav_pages.php?cat_id=13
1
***** LMAO do you have any idea what that means? Your argument that free will is illusionary is based on it having to be a mechanistic construct. The fact that your getting pissed off is a great example of free will btw. :D
1
Devin Dubuque I think you will find that when the brainstem is flatlined any form of consciousness, hallucination or not, is a physical impossibility with a mechanistic anwser. It won't matter if there a release of DMT or not, everything is shut down and thats a observable fact that occur within a matter of seconds So we have a very large number of accounts confirming activity, and lets say for arguments sake, 30-60 minutes in to flatline. There confirmed by valid and accurate discription of conversations & activity. This is telling us that and form of consciousness isn't DMT slowing down a 1-3 second window of serge to a perceived 60 minutes plus space of time. Also the DMT argument isn't even counter claim argument on the table from any challenging research outside armchair speculation BTW, it's simply illogical and i have yet to see and scientific paper put forward that hypothesis. You should have read of the research. DMT is well researched and can be tried by your self during awake consciousness. (it can be fun you should try it) it's clearly not the same and this is confirmed by many factors including the type of clarity in thought process, or lack of. People don't rapidly forget there NDE experience which would be a occurring if it was that same chemical thats released when your dreaming.
1
Devin Dubuque "Athene's theory of everything" LMAO I wouldn't exactly call a internet celebrity in to gaming on the cutting edge of neuroscience SMH it's a youtube 45 minutes long documentary that tells you "you have to watch this many times to get it" faceplam. Remind me again which peer reviewed journals has this ex youtube gamer been published in? Not only is his basic history of physics complete and utter NONSENSE but to suggest it's a valid argument from a man who simply makes stuff up is clutching at straws. I guess you have noticed that he has disabled comments on his video ...ummmm yes.
1
Devin Dubuque Let see what "the NEW REDDIT JOURNAL of SCIENCE" has to say about internet trolls thinking there the new Einstein SMH http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/f8021/biggest_troll_on_the_internet_solves_all/ You clearly have some sort of belief system going on here and refuse to look a the evidence, thats fine but if your going to back it up with data do so from reputable sources not gamers thats don't understand the difference between science and a record holder in World of Warcraft and online poker. Thinking Athene has the answers already & changeling 30 years of research and valid data from neuroscience, which you clearly didn't bother to read, with a internet troll is nonsense. In summary it's a empty statement without any theory to back it up If your going to dispute free will, once and for all, you need to back up your claim with evidence of a working provable model, which it hasn't been. It's just a theory based on a concept that wishes everything to be explain in a nice and easy mechanistic mannor that simple enough for a idiot to grasp. Now am not saying it can't be like that but i am pointing out the evidence to the contrary which is some what of a paradox for the current model that has no evidence and is based of a philosophy that say, "it's all mechanistic..... but i know we don't have the data to prove this but i can assure you it's just round the next conner". SMH. Thinking that the current model maybe incorrect isn't a new idea, we have had everybody from nobel prize winners to world leader neuroscience believing this. None of those people are internet gammers tho.
1
Devin Dubuque NDE.. If your claiming it's all attention seekers, ranging from christians to atheist's & 3 year olds with no social understanding of that concept to the very elderly, making it all up. At that point you would need to also claim that all the medical professionals & scientists were also in on the scam validating made up details about consciousness observing actions of others while the brainstem is inoperative. What your saying at that point is those same highly paid professionals are going out of there way to confirm lies as the truth about actions that took place that they were involved in & risking ridicule, loss a working licences & incarceration in prison all to proegate a theory. Your clutching at straws at that point. Thats very far fetched and has never been a vaild counter claim thats been put forward even from the hardest skepist... again stop with the belif system and atcual do some invesagtion look at data..... read the reseach and don't make judgments without investigation first. And to sugest am projecting when your using a internet troll gamer as a valid source of science is bullshit. Finding a alternative explanation is one am open to and in-fact invite. But am not going to entertain any old bullshit just because the ramifications of activity with a flatlined brain are unsettling to me.
1
Devin Dubuque From now on if you wish to be took seriously can please give examples of theories or observations from people that are at best qualified to have a basic understanding of physics and youtube gammers who get to C(consciousness) = hf .... but hell we could all do with a good laugh tho, lets pretend that quantized unit of spacetime is in-fact a abstract concept of consciousness in order to make it sound convincing. :D
1
***** Oh no here we go again, the dude on top of the tree for intellectual response like "STFU Dumbass" SMH Yeah i get it you believe it's impossible to have free will as it's all down to genetics and environment (of which yours must be poor quality) & true free will is impossible. Unfortunately for you it's a theory and not fact which can be proven by mathematics it's simply a philosophy that one can reject or subscribe to using free will as a determining factor. BTW if it was a accepting way of dealing with things it would say someone that is predetermined to commit more crime than others & there's a high chance it's not just environment but also genetics. So lets look what happens in the extreme end game situation & that would be to wipe out those problematic genetics. Fascism anyone?
1
Devin Dubuque Yeah he's clutching at straws by highlighting OBE within NDE instead of looking at wholly at cardiac arrest case's which are clearly to one's i pointed your attention to and also the only one's covered in scientific research as we know for a fact that the whole functionally of the brain shuts down. He's not pointing out that ecg's show this or that patient's don't have any reflex actions once a tube is forced down the wind pipe. There is no brain activity and again this is a well know medical fact that he's dancing around only because some are resuscitated. Sounds to me like he's not aware of the basic biology going on here. Just because your engine in your car fails and you have to jump start it and it gets going again do you believe that the engine never really stopped and was in-fact running all time ???? I don't think so. Nobody in the medical field and neuroscience refutes the fact that within a mater of seconds the brain completely shuts down when the heart stops beating and therefore no blood flow can can into the brain. It's basic medicine. You shine a light into someones eyes get no response and sign the death certificate. He's making it up to fit his argument. Everybody has a total loss of brain functionally at this point (no exceptions) and a scientific fact thats proven and observable and never been refuted. We are made up of organic mater & that mater start the decaying process as soon as this occurs. If Harris felt it was BS he should debate it with the heavy weight neuroscientists in this field. Nice try :D If he truly believes it's a huge conspiracy by a few neuroscientists and Dr's and med staff he needs to address the matter legally and those Dr's need to struck off for good and put in jail. Whens he going to that? oh thats right he's more than likely never read the research on the grounds that it's impossible within the model he subscribes to.
1
Devin Dubuque Devin what is your understanding of cardiac arrest? It's doesn't mean heart attack, it's the medical term used for when the heart stops completely, this can arise from heart attack yes but also infection seriously accident. It's the pinnacle point before death in the vast majority of cases unless your are decapitated i guess. There is no blood flow getting into the brain if the hearts not beating, if it's beating it's not a cardiac arrest. The heart can be started up again yes and that can take place anywhere up to a hour after it stops. The information gathered for NDE in those situations in mainly of relevance when there is no beating of the heart and even in the very few cases of resuscitation, vast majority of people don't make it, theres only 5-10% of the required blood by the brain being pumped in and thats only if the heart does start again. Read up on the research it's pretty interesting. Again theres no true speculation about when brain death occurs although it's legality does vary from country to country. Over here in the UK it's pretty strict but still a death certificate can be signed from simple examination as it can in the US. The biology of the brain requiring blood flow thats constant is very factual and can be check out from a wide variety of sources but you can get a almost flit-lined ECG with Anaesthesia but lets remember that the heart is still working and the blood flow is good. After a prolonged period of time resuscitation is generally not done due to the decay of organic mater. It' would seem that theres millions upon billions of cases if you take a percentage figure as accurate, and a good amount documented by pretty good reasech, showing very rational forms of consciousness occuring within brain death. The type of activity that occurring really doesn't warrant the current model and would be impossible even with incredibly low levels of blood flow. To me that would rise a red flag that the model we have for the mind may, like many scientists past and present believe, be in-fact incorrect.
1
Devin Dubuque What your talking about there is resuscitation, the patient still has had a cardiac arrest, and that could have continued for even up to a hour be for any intervention. Once resuscitated yes they no longer are under cardiac arest. But thats not the point of interest with the research it's the space of time in-between which can be extensive. There is no significant amount of blood to create any form of consciousness thats required after the cortex and brainstem is no longer responding & if that was the case, no mater how small, you would see response from the patient. It's very simple. This is the whole criteria for how a death certificate is signed Devin. Again it feels like your going back to the argument that because the cars engine stopped and you had to jump start it once the engine came back to life it's evidence that the engine never stopped.. You may have highlighted a case of not being able to locate pulse and reflex response coming from the patient but one case isn't even good enough to be called anecdotal. We could speculate many reasons why this occurred including faulty data or incorrect readings. That type of stuff would be typical pratice and noticed all the time plus the energy require to make physical movement is biology impossible without a form of circulation. Again your not going to able to forward a valid argument unless less you should read all the research into the subject before jumping the gun. . http://scot.org.sa/en/images/stories/pdf/declaration_of_death_by_brain_function_criteria.pdf
1
***** Yeah am not surprised you got the most intelligent reaponses like "STFU Dumbass" when someone disagrees with you.. well done Masta, still on top form i see.
1
***** The point is unlike you am not philosophising am look at all possible angles and saying maybe we have missed something when it boils down to the current model of consciousness, which is complete unproven and has no evidence, and am basing that on well documented research data from respected sources. But when your not putting forward a philosophy and claiming it as fact Masta your simply saying "STFU Dumbass" as a defence response.
1
Devin Dubuque Have you read the research yet? I can tell by your comments your ill informed on the subject, it's not about false memories, it's about the observable ones that are confirmed by all the parties included that are of main interest. You can't have any opinion on this subject unless your prepared to read the research and if not your have to admit your closed mined to new information or so incredibly fragile your scared of influence to do with the possibility of some as stupid as a after life. I can't believe your that child like tho. If not your making assumptions that someone is researching a subject that could potential get them in hot water without financial rewarded from it. EMMMM by not looking at the research your the one clearly playing on beliefs tho. It's not about death Devin and if you think so your missing the point..... all it's about the model we have for the consciousness. It's all about understand the brain and thats the point of reading the research, it's not about prove god or a after life or any crap like that. It's childish and insecure of you to start using terms like pseudoscience or paranormal for things that are not clear with the current understanding. Plenty of neuroscientists belived that mind isn't just a mechanical model. In-fact it's a very new concept that it's all materialism and imo thats just patch work. Lets look at it like this Dennett says that the mind is a super computer, can't wait for the algorithm to come out dan....Now the distinguished nobel prise winning neurologist Sir John Eccles rejects this theory, saying that it never goes beyond vague generalities; materialists believe that the problems will be resolved when we have a more complete scientific understanding of the brain, perhaps in hundreds of years, a belief which Eccles ironically terms "promissory materialism." Eccles feels that this "impoverished and empty" theory fails to account for "the wonder and mystery of the human self with its spiritual values, with its creativity, and with its uniqueness for each of us." (How the Self Controls Its Brain, pp. 33, 176.) He criticizes identity theory for allowing no real scope for human freedom. Extensive experimental studies have shown that mental acts of attention and intention activate appropriate regions of the cerebral cortex. An intention to move, for example, initiates the firing of a set of neurons of the supplementary motor area about 200 Milli-seconds before the intended movement takes place. If the mind is the brain, this would mean either that one part of the brain activates an other part, which then activates another part, etc., or that a particular region of the brain is activated spontaneously, without any cause, and it is hard to see how either alternative would provide a basis for free will. By your thinking Eccles, a none believer in materialism, is now a psedosciencst. SMH Am sorry but the man contributed far more to the science of mind than most. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist) People having active consciousness about meeting supernatural beings doesn't prove anything apart from he current model of the mind being incorrect. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of god or life after death BTW They could have had interaction with a pot of coffee and it doesn't prove anything nor that would prove that it lasts very long but what it does say is that the current model seems floored. Very Simple really.
1
Devin Dubuque Great you may believe in life after life, i personally don''t BTW. It's a observable fact that life is defined by organic material and once the heart stops pumping the mater begins to decay at a rapid pace. Consciousness i can't really comment on, ether way, as we clearly don't have a good grasp on it if you prepared to read the research :) "Determinism dates back thousands of years too....." errrr......well so does female circumcision, that doesn't make it right tho LOL
1
Devin Dubuque The current mechanistic model of consciousness, your the one thinking am arguing for life after death with all your skeptic hot words like "pseudoscience" which is just a get out clause for, "this is far to challenging to my point of view so i need to shut down". And it's nice to now you just brought Christ into the conversation. Is that what you believe serious scientific research into NDE is about then ... the after life. It's about the workings of the human mind and consciousness not god. SMH
1
Devin Dubuque Lets get it straight tho am not convinced that the mind is purely explainable via materialism. I don't believe we will have a algorithm for human consciousness ever!. There are plenty of respected scientist around the world who don't share the materialist point of view, look at Sir Roger Penrose Or Orch model for as a example and how he links it to aspects in quantum gravity.
1
Devin Dubuque Not happy about giving my hard earn money to anyone but to save going to prison i pay tax. If this is a deterministic argument your setting off forget about it. LOL
1
Devin Dubuque TAX? LMAO why is this a problem for you... If your trying to say your a student i don't pay tax i would like to point out to you that any basic physics undergraduate would laugh there ass off at "Athene's theory of everything" concepts with regards to science. So If you are a student i hope it's not physics. And if i sound condescending it's maybe because your giving generic answers and not being prepared to read any research on the topics being covered but fully convinced that you understand whats happening & that anything contradictory to materialistic science is simply not possible even if theres no evidence for a mechanistic cause.
1
Has this bearded old man got Dementia??? He seems to think he's a scientist.
1