Posted: Dec 07, 2016 11:07 am
Little Idiot wrote:In seriousness awareness is not (only) the process that generates things to be aware of, it is also the awareness which is aware of the products of the process.
This was pointed out loads of times, but it never sinks in. I don't hold out much hope now that the closed minded set will accept that there are two coherent ways to interpret the world, not one.
Yes, but not all interpretations are equally coherent. I could say that I believe there are elves living in a rock in my garden. Is that coherent? To me, it's on a par with your belief that conscious awareness is not solely a product of the physical processes going on in a brain and that awareness continues after death, without any substrate. Your problem is that every single piece of reliable, testable evidence suggests this, in a multitude of ways and you have nothing to set against it other than blind belief, which is why elves would be on a par.
You don't even have personal experience of it to tell us an anecdote about the last time you yourself had awareness without any brain activity. Do you?
This is the equivalent of saying that not only are there elves but that they have never been detected, even by the person saying they exist. How coherent is that?
Basically, you've been coming in here for goodness knows how long saying the equivalent of 'there's elves you know' and taking sustenence from nothing more than no one can prove there aren't elves and wondering why no one takes you seriously. That you can't tell anyone a single thing about the elves is not helping either, though hardly surprising since you've never detected or experienced them. We might as well re-arrange the letters and assert that there are veels. It's as coherent. What's a veel? I don't know, but they exist. Or something.
Just because something can't be disproven does not make it a coherent explanation, especially when it's not consistent with evidence. See: elves.
Here's a question for you. How come, in certain neuroscientific experiments, the experimenters can tell, from looking at patterns of 'pre-conscious substrate' brain activity on a screen, what a subject is going to consciously think before the subject consciously thinks it? This has been demonstrated in repeatable experiments. I'd be interested to hear what you think is happening.
I won't necessarily accept 'elves did it' as an explanation.