I agree that there are many people who hold those same beliefs and opinions. I just don't happen to be one of them.

We have already extracted the memories from a person's conversation with another person a few minutes after having said conversation using FMRI scans.

This is not sci fi. Once we understand enough of how the brain talks to other parts of the brain we can do amazing stuff.

The brain is always talking to itself about things that have happened, things that might happen, and preparing itself for the things that happen all the time.

In fact I have become so interested in this topic I think I may minor in biology just to get a little closer to it.

I would agree except I believe the final sentence has it backwards. It is the mind that projects the brain which is a hologram. The brain is the image. (You can't see the mind can you?)



Perhaps the brain does not encode anything. If memory has been associated with protein sequences these could just be mechanisms manifested that are necessary to hold the information temporarily. (like read only memory in your computer) That memory is associated with protein sequences does not prove without a doubt that the brain is responsible for initiating the the encoding.

Pribram's holonomic model, developed in collaboration with quantum physicist David Bohm, theorizes that memory/information is stored not in cells, but rather in wave interference patterns.

Also, when you finally look at a particle, you will find that it is simply a standing wave.



Theoretically, what if the brain was removed and kept alive like so many organs? Could information be extracted from it then?




Too many people think.....? Science does not lack understanding, scientists do. Science will eventually be able to explain everything correctly, but I don't think they are there yet.

I agree that the only limitations of science are the ones we impose. Hence if you limit your understanding to the idea that there is no human energy field that contains the thinking mind you are imposing a limitation.

Science can continue to learn as much as possible about the brain without imposing these limitations. There is evidence that the mind does indeed operate within this human energy field in conjunction with the brain. And why not?

The universe is indeed nothing but energy and information. Yet some scientists insist on drawing a hard line between what they can touch and see and other valid possibilities.

As I understand it, what has actually been "extracted" is simply a record of the changes in blood flow within the brain. And although that is indicative of changes in neural connections, the specifics of those changes are as yet unknown. (Although I could be wrong in this.)

In any case, we may have determined that there are semi-permanent changes in neural connections, and that those changes are associated with sensory input. But assuming that those changes constitute a complete record of all sensory input of the entire organism is a bit of a stretch for me.

Personally, I think trying to reconstruct a memory (meaning full motion audio, visual, olifactory and tactile plus all changes in mental and emotional states) from neural connections, is like trying to reconstruct the thoughts of the players during the course of a footbal game, by examining the football field after the game. Sure, with detailed enough infomation about the composition of the football field it would theoretically be possible to figure out many of the actions of many of the players. But the information about their thoughts is just plain not there to be had.

You guys are a hoot. As if we where neuroscientists.

I wonder if you did a survey of scientists, the worlds most elite researchers on the brain what they think . . . . I wonder what they would say . . .

Sky,

You wrote...



10-0...

Don't take everything to heart. All joking removed...

When engaging with you, spider, JB, Abra, and others whose beliefs and/or opinions differ from my own, I actually enjoy the conversations up until the point where someone, myself included, addresses the person who posts rather than the post itself. At that point in time, the focus changes in a way which completely negates what would be considered as a polite exchange between differing stances.

What would life be like if everyone agreed?

I love this topic, and your addition to this forum is appreciated by myself.

Just so ya know!





That information is readily available...

One thing is pretty well guaranteed - it wouldn't be even close to what a group of the worlds most elite researchers on the paranormal would say.

I think we have different views as to what constitutes "polite".

If you would actually practice what you are preaching above then I think we would get along better.

That would be your side of the argument, not ours. Why should we do all your research for you? You should do the survey of the worlds most elite researchers and scientists, not us.

Let us use our sources, you can use yours. The problem with your sources is that most of them work with the premise that there is no spiritual forces at work, only the things they can see and touch. That itself is a limitation for them and if they are not even willing to consider the possibilities and do any research in that area at all, they are not up to my standards as scientists. Sorting through the good ones and the ones who spew endless bullsh*t would take years. I have better things to do.

So I guess if we mere mortals can't have a meeting of the minds we can't expect scientists and Philosophers to.

jb

Sky...



Perhaps...

None-the-less, a substantiated argument warrants recognition.Time and time again, I have witnessed dissection(s) of another's statement(s) in what was claimed to be an attempt to gain clarity and/or understanding without a supporting counterclaim.

JB...



Did I not say "myself included"?

You have no actual knowledge of me nor my person, and this has been demonstrated since your joining this forum with your repeated wrongful conclusions about me as a person. I suspect those are a defense mechanism resulting from the inability to accept and/or logically refute the content of that which I write.

I just play the "devil's advocate" most of the time to generate cause for furthered thinking and understanding.

On the other hand...

My deliberate and intentional sarcasm comes directly from the worldly fingerprint(ego) which your words successfully offend and that from which I will always be attempting to separate. The removal of those personal behaviours of response which do not fit well within me as a result of my conscious pursuit to be a "better" human being.

From where do you speak?

I don't believe in the devil and I have no desire to speak to his advocate or anyone 'playing' his advocate.

From the very beginning of our communications I have doubted the sincerity of your posts and I could not feel or see the real person behind them. But my only goal was to simply discover who you are and get to know you, and to extract the point you were attempting to make in what ever conversation you were engaged in.

If I have no knowledge of you or your person it is because you keep yourself well hidden behind your mask. You do not reveal yourself. Then when someone misunderstands you or where you are coming from, you get offended.

On the other hand, I have been an open book in my communications to people on this club and to you. Probably way more than I should be. I do this because I want people to know me and who I am. If they don't like me, so be it. If they do, then I have a friend who likes me for who I am and not for who they think I am.

But you are correct. I don't know you. I only know of you by how you speak to others and me via this forum and the feelings and impressions I have gotten from that. If you would be real, then I could know you, but if you hide behind platitudes and pros and sarcasm, that is all I can see. Then I have to wonder what is it about yourself that you are hiding?

I suspect there is a really great person behind all of what you present to the world, but I have my doubts if I will ever know or see that person.

There is not much that I consider to be "real" in this world except people. But if they are not being real, then they become meaningless and lost within the rest of the illusion.

jb

it is not a competition

it is a cohabitation

the mind is your thought processes

and the brain is the vehicle that permits it

JB...

Your response was eloquent and appreciated. There is only one thing contained within it that I would care to extrapolate on.



This statement is quite misleading actually. People misunderstand me more often than not when an attempt to gain a personal understanding of me is based entirely upon the position I am holding within a topic of debate. There are an infinite number of other factors which help to determine who a person is and why.

So, just because another misrepresents my personal character as a consequence from drawing a conclusion which has been based upon too little information does not mean that I am offended as a result of that alone. However, when there have been repeated attempts on my part to either clear up or ignore such things, and those attempts go completely unnoticed or disregarded, then I sometimes get offended. It is then a deliberate matter of respecting another's dignity.

Is it unreasonable for one to dislike being misrepresented by another's interpretation and wrongful conclusion?

A non-personal discussion should revolve around the content of the authors' words not the content of the author's character as viewed by one who holds a position on the other side of a debate.

No argument there. But we also seem to have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes “substantiation”. What I consider to be substantiation, you obviously do not. And what you consider to be substantiation, I obviously do not.

So to me, it seems best that we keep the debate on the level of personal opinion and experience”.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand that. Can you rephrase it?

Hmmmm.... The way I "see" it, making a claim which is supported with relevant evidence for that claim is, by definition, providing warrant to believe that the claim is true(substantiation). If one then chooses to refute that claim then it should be done clearly and logically with some type of evidence which supports the counterclaim while effectively negating the plausibility of the original claim.

Just saying "That is false.", or "I don't agree.", does not constitute an acceptable refutation(substantiation of refutation). If there is reason to believe that a claim is true or untrue, then that reason can, and should be shown.

What good is opinion, when and if it is contradicted by that which we know is true?

I wonder.

in 1492 it was thought the earth was flat

by nearly all

but a few

did this make the world flat

does the not believing it is possible to circumnavigate the earth make it impossible

just because the human can not do something today

does not make it impossible

if columbus listened and everyone else listen

maybe the north american indian would be the world power now

oh wait there is no north american indian

there was no north america -- silly me

just a thought

but hey

what do i know

I cant participate! Im brain dead and have lost my mind..Please return if found. REWARD

oh hummingbird

is this wisdom or fear you show

to stand for nothing is to far for anything ]](and we aint talkin cuties here)

Ok, so we can use the term “relevant evidence” instead of “substantiation”. It doesn’t really matter what it is called. If it is the key to the dialog, and it is not agreed upon, then what can be accomplished by continuing the dialog? Is not agreement the ultimate goal of the dialog? It is for me, how about you?

These are not rhetorical questions for me. I really would like to know the answers, if you wish to answer them.