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.

there is nothing to take personal in these threads. Semantics, definitions and counter views of ones opinions (be them supported by fact or not is nothing to be bothered by. The mind is merely the seat of the conciousness. Having had a near death exprience and surviving a diabetic comatose i can speak to the individual having a brain but lacking a sense of mind as it were. Since i went into a coma my brain lost its conciousness but the brain continued to function and support the body. Yet i have memories of sensations and experiences despite my brain not having its mind as it were. We arrive at a paradox here. If memories are part of the mind and since my mind was absent during the comatose, is it not plausible to state then that the mind can also be absent from the brain. My sensei told me this when i put the question to him. The brain and body are like a car. They merely act as a place for our mind(thoughts,intents,memories)to reside and interact with the physical world. He then asked me,"Can you not exit the car and still continue to travel on?" The point i think he was trying to make was that the brain and the body can be independent of the mind and the soul.

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.

there is nothing to take personal in these threads. Semantics, definitions and counter views of ones opinions (be them supported by fact or not is nothing to be bothered by. The mind is merely the seat of the conciousness. Having had a near death exprience and surviving a diabetic comatose i can speak to the individual having a brain but lacking a sense of mind as it were. Since i went into a coma my brain lost its conciousness but the brain continued to function and support the body. Yet i have memories of sensations and experiences despite my brain not having its mind as it were. We arrive at a paradox here. If memories are part of the mind and since my mind was absent during the comatose, is it not plausible to state then that the mind can also be absent from the brain. My sensei told me this when i put the question to him. The brain and body are like a car. They merely act as a place for our mind(thoughts,intents,memories)to reside and interact with the physical world. He then asked me,"Can you not exit the car and still continue to travel on?" The point i think he was trying to make was that the brain and the body can be independent of the mind and the soul.

Consciousness is a function of the brain which is not required in the short term to sustain the organism, where as breathing, blood flow, and metabolism are . . .

That is because you have a different idea about just exactly what consciousness is. You claim the word and define it as having an awareness (perhaps human awareness) of what you also define as 'reality."

Unfortunately there is no other word to describe what I mean as consciousness except spirit, and because that word has a "religious" overtones it is not taken seriously.



That is a perfect example of how you don't use the word consciousness the way I do. You believe it is a function of the brain. I'm not so sure that can be proven, but it is the common assumption of science.

But I think consciousness is required to sustain the organism, it is just not waking consciousness.

jb

JB, you should just create your own words. Otherwise you are just creating confusion and asking to be rebuked.

Spirit is closer to what you are talking about . . . and at least its a word without a specific definition unlike consciousness . . . .

Myths About Aging and the Brain

We acquire knowledge, gain wisdom, and finely tune our skills as we age. But we may also come across incorrect information. You may have gathered some incorrect information about aging and the brain.

This page will help you dispel four common myths and find answers to your questions about how our brains age.

Brain Myth #1: You can't change your brain.

Your brain is constantly changing in response to your experiences, and it retains this basic "plasticity" well into old age.

Everything we do and think about is reflected in patterns of activity in our brains. Scientists can see these patterns in brain-imaging scans that show which parts of the brain are functioning during specific tasks.

Changing our thinking or changing the way we behave causes corresponding changes in the brain systems involved. This is why therapy that teaches people to alter negative patterns of thought and behavior (like cognitive therapy, for example) can be effective in treating some mental disorders.

Brain Myth #2: People lose brain cells every day and eventually just run out.

Actually, most regions of the brain do not lose brain cells as you age. And while you may lose some nerve connections, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be part of the reshaping of the brain that occurs with experience.

It's also possible that you can even grow new brain cells and create new connections, or prevent the ones you have from withering, if you exercise your brain.

Brain Myth #3: The brain doesn't make new brain cells.

This myth was widely believed for generations, but has recently been proven false. We now know that certain areas in the brain—including the hippocampus (where new memories are created) and the olfactory bulb (the scent-processing center)—regularly generate new brain cells. Many of these cells go on to become working parts in brain-cell connections.

Brain Myth #4: Memory decline is inevitable as we age.

Many people reach very old age and are still sharp as ever. Genetics clearly plays a role in "successful aging," but how we live our lives on a day-to-day basis is also critical. To help your brain age well, you can:

* Perform physical exercise (especially aerobic exercise)
* Engage in intellectually stimulating mental activity
* Eat a healthy diet
* Maintain social connections (spending time with friends and family members, for example)
* Learn to manage stress
* Develop a positive attitude toward yourself and your world

Some of the above information is from Memory: Remembering and Forgetting in Everyday Life and Intelligent Memory: Improve the Memory That Makes You Smarter by Barry Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., and Lisa Berger

so in 20 years we have learned enormous amounts of falsifiable data about the brain . . . any thing falsifiable come out of the paranormal research?

Your obfuscating the issue.

Lets go one at a time.

Paranormal: Lets list some things that can fall under this column.

-Levitation
-Channeling the dead
-Healing via spiritual energy.

Here are three anyone care to help me list some more?

Of these three examples each claim can be falsified and tested

I don't see where you are going with this except to try to obfuscate and deny that science can and will determine these things. . . . also aesthetics can be mapped scientifically . . . where have you been? After mapping the brain and its decision making process we accurately "guess" your reaction to different visual, audio, and tactile information . . . this is very accurate, and means we can predict what you will like or dislike by the structure and network of communication of your brain. (this is new and we are getting better and better at it the more we know) even if it is a thing which was not witnessed during the initial analysis . . . (believe it or not our reactions are very predictable . . . this jives with my experience of people btw, and probably everyone as well)

I think I understand, no one wants someone to tell them there great intellect can be boiled down to a sophisticated computer. Ego ego ego.

Jeremy your arguement is flawed becuase you presume that conciussness is hardwired to the brain

I have to go with Jeremy on this one. He has given definitions and evidence. The evidence agrees with his definition, so there can be no doubt that his argument is flawless.

He defines consciousness as a function of the brain. Therefore, consciousness is, by definition housed in the brain. There is no flaw in that logic.

The only grounds for disagreement is in the definitions.

I see no flaws in my logic, and you have not pointed out any. The only assumption is that consciousness is NOT housed within the brain.

I have made no assumption, what I have stated has been tested, and is the standard accepted fact among the neuroscience community.

I respect your opinion and your experience, just not your conclusion.

I respect both jeremy and your views however i disagree ...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I use his definitions when speaking of consciousness. Just that I see no flaw in his logic when his definitions are used. Personally, I define consciousness differntly from the way he does and so his logic is flawed when my definitions are used.

I don’t think you do understand. The whole point is that it is ego based. It is always ego based. It cannot be anything but ego based.

It is always about whether or not the individual is personally satisfied with an answer, regardless of where it came from or how it was arrived at or who presented it or who agrees with it. The bottom line is whether or not it satisfies the individual’s desire for satisfaction. Anything else is unimportant because it is that desire for satisfaction that assigns importance.

You just jumped to that conclusion because you can't seem to let go of a misunderstanding from the past. So let it go.