Do abstract things and spiritual things exist in addition to
10 Apr 2017, 11:27 am
Something I see as related is that as best I can find out, we do not know, as in Know, how conscious comes to be.
But it clearly exists.
We think were getting closer, yet we do not know for certain.
http://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-sci ... sciousness
Quote:
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed the Physical Source of Consciousness
This is where awareness lives.
FIONA MACDONALD
8 NOV 2016
To figure this out, the team analysed 36 patients in hospital with brainstem lesions - 12 of them were in a coma (unconscious) and 24 were defined as being conscious.
...
It's a pretty exciting first step, but the researchers acknowledge that they now need to verify their find across a larger group of patients.
Independent teams will also need to confirm their results before we can say for sure that these three regions are the physical source of consciousness in our brains.
In the meantime, the research will hopefully lead to new treatment options for patients in comas and vegetative states, who might have otherwise healthy brains but simply can't regain consciousness.
"This is most relevant if we can use these networks as a target for brain stimulation for people with disorders of consciousness," said Fox.
"If we zero in on the regions and network involved, can we someday wake someone up who is in a persistent vegetative state? That’s the ultimate question."
This is where awareness lives.
FIONA MACDONALD
8 NOV 2016
To figure this out, the team analysed 36 patients in hospital with brainstem lesions - 12 of them were in a coma (unconscious) and 24 were defined as being conscious.
...
It's a pretty exciting first step, but the researchers acknowledge that they now need to verify their find across a larger group of patients.
Independent teams will also need to confirm their results before we can say for sure that these three regions are the physical source of consciousness in our brains.
In the meantime, the research will hopefully lead to new treatment options for patients in comas and vegetative states, who might have otherwise healthy brains but simply can't regain consciousness.
"This is most relevant if we can use these networks as a target for brain stimulation for people with disorders of consciousness," said Fox.
"If we zero in on the regions and network involved, can we someday wake someone up who is in a persistent vegetative state? That’s the ultimate question."
Where our knowledge used to be at one point along the path to now;
Quote:
What is Consciousness?
Philosophy behind the mind
Posted Mar 01, 2013
The hard problem, by contrast, may never be solved. Specifically, the hard problem is determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter. What makes it hard is that we cannot just point to some physical mechanism to solve it, for that would be the solution to the easy problem. Instead, our goal is to explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of something else or nothing at all. Consider an analogy from physics: knowing every equation predicting how mass and gravity interact does not tell us why they interact in the way they do. To understand why mass and gravity interact, we must appeal to highly esoteric explanations involving relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory.
But while theoretical physicists have produced some pretty specific models that are ready to be tested with the likes of the Large Hadron Collider, consciousness lacks the sort of general consensus that would allow us to move on and test our theories. And for good reason—the hard problem is tricky.
Some argue that the hard problem simply is unsolvable. The argument for this view can take two different forms. The first argument is that our puny brains aren’t capable of coming up with a solution, for our brains do not have the ability to process the complicated information that would lead to an understanding of consciousness. The second argument is that a solution to a problem requires that you aren’t a part of the problem. What does this mean? To solve a problem, or so goes the argument, you must have a bird’s eye view of all the facts. But since we are all conscious, we can never have such a view. We simply cannot solve the hard problem because we don’t have access to the level of information necessary to piece everything together.
Philosophy behind the mind
Posted Mar 01, 2013
The hard problem, by contrast, may never be solved. Specifically, the hard problem is determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter. What makes it hard is that we cannot just point to some physical mechanism to solve it, for that would be the solution to the easy problem. Instead, our goal is to explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of something else or nothing at all. Consider an analogy from physics: knowing every equation predicting how mass and gravity interact does not tell us why they interact in the way they do. To understand why mass and gravity interact, we must appeal to highly esoteric explanations involving relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory.
But while theoretical physicists have produced some pretty specific models that are ready to be tested with the likes of the Large Hadron Collider, consciousness lacks the sort of general consensus that would allow us to move on and test our theories. And for good reason—the hard problem is tricky.
Some argue that the hard problem simply is unsolvable. The argument for this view can take two different forms. The first argument is that our puny brains aren’t capable of coming up with a solution, for our brains do not have the ability to process the complicated information that would lead to an understanding of consciousness. The second argument is that a solution to a problem requires that you aren’t a part of the problem. What does this mean? To solve a problem, or so goes the argument, you must have a bird’s eye view of all the facts. But since we are all conscious, we can never have such a view. We simply cannot solve the hard problem because we don’t have access to the level of information necessary to piece everything together.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... sciousness
Quote:
Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview (1). According to Searle (2) it can be defined as “inner, qualitative, subjective states, and processes of sentience or awareness.” This includes “one's autobiography and mental time” together with the capacity to introspect and report about one's mental state by verbal and nonverbal means. Consciousness emerges from special neuronal features in the brain or “neuronal correlates” of consciousness according to Koch (1). Tononi and Edelman (3) propose that there is a dynamic core of several neurons distributed across many brain regions. Merker (4) claims that conscious function cannot be confined to the thalamocortical complex alone, but also to lower structures, which is of particular interest from a developmental point of view. We deliberately restrict our discussion to a “global neuronal workspace” (GNW) model (5), or metaphorically “a theater of mind” according to Baars (6). In the GNW, multimodal perceptions, emotions and feelings (present), evoked memories (past), together with anticipations of actions (future) become subjectively integrated in a continuously changing and dynamic “flow of consciousness” (7–9). This then leads to the distinction between the states of consciousness (wakefulness, sleep, coma, general anesthesia) and the content of the conscious experience. The states of consciousness are under vertical control of the brain stem and diencephalic subcortical structures and mediated by the corticothalamic relationships (10). The content of conscious experience (11) is then viewed as being processed through a recurrent horizontal network of cortical pyramidal neurons with long-distance connections assembling thalamocortical regions, particularly prefrontal and higher association areas, parietotemporal and cingulate cortices (12) referred to here as GNW circuits (8,9). This model has been corroborated by neural network simulations and experimental evoked response potentials recordings showing reverberating activity within the GNW circuits as corresponding to consciously reportable states. Our working hypothesis will thus be that such mobilization of the GNW circuits constitutes an objective sign of access to consciousness (8). This is in contrast with the subliminal mobilization of underlying automatic and nonconscious processors (Fig. 1) (5).
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3 ... 0950a.html
And then there's the question of when does consciousness begin?
It seems to progressively develop, but when does it start?
Quote:
Summary
The newborn human infant is conscious at a minimal level. It is aware of its body, itself and to some extent of the outside world. It recognizes faces and vowels to which it has been exposed. It expresses emotions like joy. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the newborn brain shows highest activity in the somatosensory, auditory, and visual cortex but less activity in association area and the prefrontal cortex as compared with adults. There is an incomplete default mode network which is assumed to be related to consciousness. Although the fetus reacts to pain, maternal speaking, etc., it is probably not aware of this due to the low oxygen level and sedation. Assuming that consciousness is mainly localized in the cortex, consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established. Thus the limit of legal abortion at 22–24 weeks in many countries makes sense. It should also be possible to withdraw or withhold life-saving therapy of extremely preterm infants, especially if they are severely brain-damaged. This may also apply to full-term infants with grade III hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy, who show no signs of consciousness.
The newborn human infant is conscious at a minimal level. It is aware of its body, itself and to some extent of the outside world. It recognizes faces and vowels to which it has been exposed. It expresses emotions like joy. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the newborn brain shows highest activity in the somatosensory, auditory, and visual cortex but less activity in association area and the prefrontal cortex as compared with adults. There is an incomplete default mode network which is assumed to be related to consciousness. Although the fetus reacts to pain, maternal speaking, etc., it is probably not aware of this due to the low oxygen level and sedation. Assuming that consciousness is mainly localized in the cortex, consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established. Thus the limit of legal abortion at 22–24 weeks in many countries makes sense. It should also be possible to withdraw or withhold life-saving therapy of extremely preterm infants, especially if they are severely brain-damaged. This may also apply to full-term infants with grade III hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy, who show no signs of consciousness.
http://www.sfnmjournal.com/article/S1744-165X(14)00054-7/abstract
It is possible, may or may not be probable, but it is possible that just like how at one time we had no way to measure where consciousness comes from we may just simply not yet have developed a way to measure the spiritual.
_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
10 Apr 2017, 4:13 pm
kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:
Something I see as related is that as best I can find out, we do not know, as in Know, how conscious comes to be.
But it clearly exists.
We think were getting closer, yet we do not know for certain.
http://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-sci ... sciousness
Where our knowledge used to be at one point along the path to now;
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... sciousness
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3 ... 0950a.html
And then there's the question of when does consciousness begin?
It seems to progressively develop, but when does it start?
http://www.sfnmjournal.com/article/S1744-165X(14)00054-7/abstract
It is possible, may or may not be probable, but it is possible that just like how at one time we had no way to measure where consciousness comes from we may just simply not yet have developed a way to measure the spiritual.
But it clearly exists.
We think were getting closer, yet we do not know for certain.
http://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-sci ... sciousness
Quote:
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed the Physical Source of Consciousness
This is where awareness lives.
FIONA MACDONALD
8 NOV 2016
To figure this out, the team analysed 36 patients in hospital with brainstem lesions - 12 of them were in a coma (unconscious) and 24 were defined as being conscious.
...
It's a pretty exciting first step, but the researchers acknowledge that they now need to verify their find across a larger group of patients.
Independent teams will also need to confirm their results before we can say for sure that these three regions are the physical source of consciousness in our brains.
In the meantime, the research will hopefully lead to new treatment options for patients in comas and vegetative states, who might have otherwise healthy brains but simply can't regain consciousness.
"This is most relevant if we can use these networks as a target for brain stimulation for people with disorders of consciousness," said Fox.
"If we zero in on the regions and network involved, can we someday wake someone up who is in a persistent vegetative state? That’s the ultimate question."
This is where awareness lives.
FIONA MACDONALD
8 NOV 2016
To figure this out, the team analysed 36 patients in hospital with brainstem lesions - 12 of them were in a coma (unconscious) and 24 were defined as being conscious.
...
It's a pretty exciting first step, but the researchers acknowledge that they now need to verify their find across a larger group of patients.
Independent teams will also need to confirm their results before we can say for sure that these three regions are the physical source of consciousness in our brains.
In the meantime, the research will hopefully lead to new treatment options for patients in comas and vegetative states, who might have otherwise healthy brains but simply can't regain consciousness.
"This is most relevant if we can use these networks as a target for brain stimulation for people with disorders of consciousness," said Fox.
"If we zero in on the regions and network involved, can we someday wake someone up who is in a persistent vegetative state? That’s the ultimate question."
Where our knowledge used to be at one point along the path to now;
Quote:
What is Consciousness?
Philosophy behind the mind
Posted Mar 01, 2013
The hard problem, by contrast, may never be solved. Specifically, the hard problem is determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter. What makes it hard is that we cannot just point to some physical mechanism to solve it, for that would be the solution to the easy problem. Instead, our goal is to explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of something else or nothing at all. Consider an analogy from physics: knowing every equation predicting how mass and gravity interact does not tell us why they interact in the way they do. To understand why mass and gravity interact, we must appeal to highly esoteric explanations involving relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory.
But while theoretical physicists have produced some pretty specific models that are ready to be tested with the likes of the Large Hadron Collider, consciousness lacks the sort of general consensus that would allow us to move on and test our theories. And for good reason—the hard problem is tricky.
Some argue that the hard problem simply is unsolvable. The argument for this view can take two different forms. The first argument is that our puny brains aren’t capable of coming up with a solution, for our brains do not have the ability to process the complicated information that would lead to an understanding of consciousness. The second argument is that a solution to a problem requires that you aren’t a part of the problem. What does this mean? To solve a problem, or so goes the argument, you must have a bird’s eye view of all the facts. But since we are all conscious, we can never have such a view. We simply cannot solve the hard problem because we don’t have access to the level of information necessary to piece everything together.
Philosophy behind the mind
Posted Mar 01, 2013
The hard problem, by contrast, may never be solved. Specifically, the hard problem is determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter. What makes it hard is that we cannot just point to some physical mechanism to solve it, for that would be the solution to the easy problem. Instead, our goal is to explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of something else or nothing at all. Consider an analogy from physics: knowing every equation predicting how mass and gravity interact does not tell us why they interact in the way they do. To understand why mass and gravity interact, we must appeal to highly esoteric explanations involving relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory.
But while theoretical physicists have produced some pretty specific models that are ready to be tested with the likes of the Large Hadron Collider, consciousness lacks the sort of general consensus that would allow us to move on and test our theories. And for good reason—the hard problem is tricky.
Some argue that the hard problem simply is unsolvable. The argument for this view can take two different forms. The first argument is that our puny brains aren’t capable of coming up with a solution, for our brains do not have the ability to process the complicated information that would lead to an understanding of consciousness. The second argument is that a solution to a problem requires that you aren’t a part of the problem. What does this mean? To solve a problem, or so goes the argument, you must have a bird’s eye view of all the facts. But since we are all conscious, we can never have such a view. We simply cannot solve the hard problem because we don’t have access to the level of information necessary to piece everything together.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... sciousness
Quote:
Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview (1). According to Searle (2) it can be defined as “inner, qualitative, subjective states, and processes of sentience or awareness.” This includes “one's autobiography and mental time” together with the capacity to introspect and report about one's mental state by verbal and nonverbal means. Consciousness emerges from special neuronal features in the brain or “neuronal correlates” of consciousness according to Koch (1). Tononi and Edelman (3) propose that there is a dynamic core of several neurons distributed across many brain regions. Merker (4) claims that conscious function cannot be confined to the thalamocortical complex alone, but also to lower structures, which is of particular interest from a developmental point of view. We deliberately restrict our discussion to a “global neuronal workspace” (GNW) model (5), or metaphorically “a theater of mind” according to Baars (6). In the GNW, multimodal perceptions, emotions and feelings (present), evoked memories (past), together with anticipations of actions (future) become subjectively integrated in a continuously changing and dynamic “flow of consciousness” (7–9). This then leads to the distinction between the states of consciousness (wakefulness, sleep, coma, general anesthesia) and the content of the conscious experience. The states of consciousness are under vertical control of the brain stem and diencephalic subcortical structures and mediated by the corticothalamic relationships (10). The content of conscious experience (11) is then viewed as being processed through a recurrent horizontal network of cortical pyramidal neurons with long-distance connections assembling thalamocortical regions, particularly prefrontal and higher association areas, parietotemporal and cingulate cortices (12) referred to here as GNW circuits (8,9). This model has been corroborated by neural network simulations and experimental evoked response potentials recordings showing reverberating activity within the GNW circuits as corresponding to consciously reportable states. Our working hypothesis will thus be that such mobilization of the GNW circuits constitutes an objective sign of access to consciousness (8). This is in contrast with the subliminal mobilization of underlying automatic and nonconscious processors (Fig. 1) (5).
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3 ... 0950a.html
And then there's the question of when does consciousness begin?
It seems to progressively develop, but when does it start?
Quote:
Summary
The newborn human infant is conscious at a minimal level. It is aware of its body, itself and to some extent of the outside world. It recognizes faces and vowels to which it has been exposed. It expresses emotions like joy. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the newborn brain shows highest activity in the somatosensory, auditory, and visual cortex but less activity in association area and the prefrontal cortex as compared with adults. There is an incomplete default mode network which is assumed to be related to consciousness. Although the fetus reacts to pain, maternal speaking, etc., it is probably not aware of this due to the low oxygen level and sedation. Assuming that consciousness is mainly localized in the cortex, consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established. Thus the limit of legal abortion at 22–24 weeks in many countries makes sense. It should also be possible to withdraw or withhold life-saving therapy of extremely preterm infants, especially if they are severely brain-damaged. This may also apply to full-term infants with grade III hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy, who show no signs of consciousness.
The newborn human infant is conscious at a minimal level. It is aware of its body, itself and to some extent of the outside world. It recognizes faces and vowels to which it has been exposed. It expresses emotions like joy. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the newborn brain shows highest activity in the somatosensory, auditory, and visual cortex but less activity in association area and the prefrontal cortex as compared with adults. There is an incomplete default mode network which is assumed to be related to consciousness. Although the fetus reacts to pain, maternal speaking, etc., it is probably not aware of this due to the low oxygen level and sedation. Assuming that consciousness is mainly localized in the cortex, consciousness cannot emerge before 24 gestational weeks when the thalamocortical connections from the sense organs are established. Thus the limit of legal abortion at 22–24 weeks in many countries makes sense. It should also be possible to withdraw or withhold life-saving therapy of extremely preterm infants, especially if they are severely brain-damaged. This may also apply to full-term infants with grade III hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy, who show no signs of consciousness.
http://www.sfnmjournal.com/article/S1744-165X(14)00054-7/abstract
It is possible, may or may not be probable, but it is possible that just like how at one time we had no way to measure where consciousness comes from we may just simply not yet have developed a way to measure the spiritual.
I do believe in a spiritual dimension in conjunction with the physical, and I believe the spiritual world interacts with the physical. In fact, I KNOW beyond any doubt this is true.
Can I prove that it exists? No, or rather, more/less yes. I KNOW this is true through my experience. The hard empiricist will claim that personal experience isn't enough and that it's unreliable, thus I can't possibly have experienced what I experienced and there must be another naturalistic, materialist explanation. I would struggle to accept that premise because denying what happened to me would make me delusional. Empiricist reasoning would fail on that point.
And it would fail, anyway, because consistent empiricism would ultimately be forced to deny itself and render itself absurd.
No, the main unresolvable issues in determining whether spiritual things exist lie in whether one side of the argument is willing to accept the premise of the other. Any Christian who accepts the premise "there is no God" cannot possibly win an argument to the contrary. "Burden of proof" arguments, for instance, are rife with this kind of thing. A believer who asserts "God exists" bears the burden of proof? Fair enough. But what about the unbeliever making the opposite claim? Nope. And there can be no reasonable discussion with that kind of person since they are willfully blind to how burden of proof works. Sorry, I don't play with cheater babies who stack the deck, move goalposts, and engage in personal attacks when their opponent just keeps coming back and calls them out.
You cannot prove that a spirit world exists to someone who presupposes there's not one, nor can you prove to a Christian Jesus never existed because Jesus' existence is axiomatic to our faith.
Maybe it isn't science, but to the believer there's much more to the universe than the material world. By the nature of what a spirit being is, it cannot be physically captured and examined. And even if it were possible, we still fall victim to our own presuppositions. Just because we see something won't make us actually believe it. We might look or grasp at any possible alternative explanation and write that person off as delusional.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| If these things didn't exist then I wouldn't be missing out |
14 Mar 2024, 1:01 pm |
| Name five things that you won't eat. |
13 Feb 2024, 11:10 pm |
| Name five things you won't drink |
13 Feb 2024, 11:05 pm |
| Learning too many things at once |
17 Mar 2024, 9:21 pm |
