— NOVEMBER 22, 2022
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement Maybe the brain isn't "classical" after all.
Credit: Annelisa Leinbach, local_doctor / Adobe Stock
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Most neuroscientists believe that the brain operates in a classical manner. However, if brain processes rely on quantum mechanics,
it could explain why our brains are so powerful.
A team of researchers possibly witnessed entanglement in the brain,
perhaps indicating that some of our brain activity, and maybe even consciousness, operates on a quantum level.
-------
Our brains are amazingly powerful computers, using not just neurons
but the connections between the neurons to process and interpret information. Some scientists suspect that quantum processes, including entanglement,
might help us explain the brain’s enormous power, and its ability to generate consciousness.
#
Quantum processes in the brain
Amazingly, we have seen some hints that quantum mechanisms are at work in our brains.
Despite such intriguing findings, the brain is largely assumed to be a classical system.
If quantum processes are at work in the brain, it would be difficult
to observe how they work and what they do.
--------- https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/ ----------

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 13:10:10 UTC+2, socrat...@gmail.com wrote:

— NOVEMBER 22, 2022
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement Maybe the brain isn't "classical" after all.
Credit: Annelisa Leinbach, local_doctor / Adobe Stock
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Most neuroscientists believe that the brain operates in a classical manner. However, if brain processes rely on quantum mechanics,
it could explain why our brains are so powerful.
A team of researchers possibly witnessed entanglement in the brain,
perhaps indicating that some of our brain activity, and maybe even consciousness, operates on a quantum level.
-------
Our brains are amazingly powerful computers, using not just neurons
but the connections between the neurons to process and interpret information.
Some scientists suspect that quantum processes, including entanglement, might help us explain the brain’s enormous power, and its ability to generate consciousness.
#
Quantum processes in the brain
Amazingly, we have seen some hints that quantum mechanisms are at work in our brains.
Despite such intriguing findings, the brain is largely assumed to be a classical system.
If quantum processes are at work in the brain, it would be difficult
to observe how they work and what they do.
--------- https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/ ----------

Maybe someone has brains that work in amazingly powerful manner ... but I've never met them. 86 billions of neurons and so pitifully crappy performance.
I don't think that is because some kind of quantum woo messing in there.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 13:05:11 UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 13:10:10 UTC+2, socrat...@gmail.com wrote:

— NOVEMBER 22, 2022
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement
Maybe the brain isn't "classical" after all.
Credit: Annelisa Leinbach, local_doctor / Adobe Stock
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Most neuroscientists believe that the brain operates in a classical manner.
However, if brain processes rely on quantum mechanics,
it could explain why our brains are so powerful.
A team of researchers possibly witnessed entanglement in the brain, perhaps indicating that some of our brain activity, and maybe even consciousness, operates on a quantum level.
-------
Our brains are amazingly powerful computers, using not just neurons
but the connections between the neurons to process and interpret information.
Some scientists suspect that quantum processes, including entanglement, might help us explain the brain’s enormous power, and its ability to generate consciousness.
#
Quantum processes in the brain
Amazingly, we have seen some hints that quantum mechanisms are at work in our brains.
Despite such intriguing findings, the brain is largely assumed to be a classical system.
If quantum processes are at work in the brain, it would be difficult
to observe how they work and what they do.
--------- https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/
----------

Is this just human brains, and if so, why?
Or are brains of chimpanzees, cats, mice, ants,
also relying on quantum whatever?

Maybe someone has brains that work in amazingly powerful manner ... but I've never met them. 86 billions of neurons and so pitifully crappy performance. I don't think that is because some kind of quantum woo messing in there.

And isn't quantum entanglement an instantaneous
event, while the real physical speed of thought is
slow compared to other physical processes?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Robert Carnegie wrote:

Is this just human brains, and if so, why?
Or are brains of chimpanzees, cats, mice, ants,
also relying on quantum whatever?

It needn't have anything to do with the brain. It's not so much
"Thinking" as it is "Consciousness" that is at issue here.

Your brain seems to work fine without your consciousness. Like,
have you ever just sort of realized that you've gotten halfway to
your destination without you paying the least bit of attention?

A more common problem for me, when it comes to the brain
operating independently, is when I'm heading for Location-A and
turn towards Location-B.

There's also sleepwalking.

There's even supposedly been instances of death! People were
killed, their consciousness gone, and their brain still got the
body up to perform some task..

And isn't quantum entanglement an instantaneous
event, while the real physical speed of thought is
slow compared to other physical processes?

There's no reason why the consciousness would even need to be
located in the brain. Most pre "Science" people believed it was in
the heart. And that kind of makes sense. The heart is inside the
ribcage -- "Cage" -- the best protected part of the body. And although
the skull is fairly well protected, our bigger brains are pretty damn
recent in the grant scheme of things. So if there were science behind
such concepts then the more likely place to look for it would be in
the heart or vicinity thereof.

Not that it matters. This isn't science, it's a matter of faith. Like SETI
or abiogenesis.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/708063715696820224

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It is very obvious that the brain requires entanglement, because that is neccessary for making decisions. The superposition represents alternatives which then can be decided on.

And most probably the decisionmaking is centered in the heart, not the brain, because that provides the most immediate action potential over the body. Also it makes for more cool decisionmaking, away from the business of the brain. To centralize
decisionmaking in the brain, that is like putting parliament inside the stock exchange.


Op woensdag 1 februari 2023 om 12:10:10 UTC+1 schreef socrat...@gmail.com:

— NOVEMBER 22, 2022
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement Maybe the brain isn't "classical" after all.
Credit: Annelisa Leinbach, local_doctor / Adobe Stock
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Most neuroscientists believe that the brain operates in a classical manner. However, if brain processes rely on quantum mechanics,
it could explain why our brains are so powerful.
A team of researchers possibly witnessed entanglement in the brain,
perhaps indicating that some of our brain activity, and maybe even consciousness, operates on a quantum level.
-------
Our brains are amazingly powerful computers, using not just neurons
but the connections between the neurons to process and interpret information.
Some scientists suspect that quantum processes, including entanglement, might help us explain the brain’s enormous power, and its ability to generate consciousness.
#
Quantum processes in the brain
Amazingly, we have seen some hints that quantum mechanisms are at work in our brains.
Despite such intriguing findings, the brain is largely assumed to be a classical system.
If quantum processes are at work in the brain, it would be difficult
to observe how they work and what they do.
--------- https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/ ----------

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

And most probably the decisionmaking is centered in the heart, not the brain, because that
provides the most immediate action potential over the body. Also it makes for more cool decisionmaking,
away from the business of the brain.

So do people with artificial hearts lose their free will? What are the implications for artificial hearts, pacemakers, and heart transplants (including xenotransplants) under the Creationist Heart Decision-making Theory?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:36:14 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Abner
<abnerinfinity@gmail.com>:

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

And most probably the decisionmaking is centered in the heart, not the brain, because that
provides the most immediate action potential over the body. Also it makes for more cool decisionmaking,
away from the business of the brain.

So do people with artificial hearts lose their free will? What are the implications for artificial hearts, pacemakers, and heart transplants (including xenotransplants) under the Creationist Heart Decision-making Theory?

IMHO that's not a Creationist thing, it's a Nando thing;
most Creationists understand that hearts are muscles and
don't make decisions. But don't expect a rational answer;
after all, Nando believes that rocks think.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It's not entirely hardwired, to an extent you can choose to centralize decisionmaking elsewhere. But obviously when the hardwire is removed, then yes the organization of the decisionmaking is changed. But I don't know, and don't think that the nerves go
straight into the heart, but that they are more around the heart.

You continue to be just oblivious to the fundamental reality of the universe, that everyting in it is chosen.

Op vrijdag 3 februari 2023 om 13:40:13 UTC+1 schreef Abner:

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

And most probably the decisionmaking is centered in the heart, not the brain, because that
provides the most immediate action potential over the body. Also it makes for more cool decisionmaking,
away from the business of the brain.

So do people with artificial hearts lose their free will? What are the implications for artificial hearts, pacemakers, and heart transplants (including xenotransplants) under the Creationist Heart Decision-making Theory?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

That's a strawman. I don't say rocks think, I say that there are spontaneous processes in rocks, and that decisionmaking is essentially spontaneous.

You are saying that decisions require calculation in terms of what is the best option, I just requre that a decision can turn out A or B in the moment.

So you are just projecting your (wrong) idea of choosing on me, to conclude that I have said that rocks think.


Op vrijdag 3 februari 2023 om 15:55:12 UTC+1 schreef Bob Casanova:

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:36:14 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com>:

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

And most probably the decisionmaking is centered in the heart, not the brain, because that
provides the most immediate action potential over the body. Also it makes for more cool decisionmaking,
away from the business of the brain.

So do people with artificial hearts lose their free will? What are the implications for artificial hearts, pacemakers, and heart transplants (including xenotransplants) under the Creationist Heart Decision-making Theory?

IMHO that's not a Creationist thing, it's a Nando thing;
most Creationists understand that hearts are muscles and
don't make decisions. But don't expect a rational answer;
after all, Nando believes that rocks think.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/2/23 4:02 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 13:05:11 UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 13:10:10 UTC+2, socrat...@gmail.com wrote: >>> — NOVEMBER 22, 2022

Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement >>> Maybe the brain isn't "classical" after all.
Credit: Annelisa Leinbach, local_doctor / Adobe Stock
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Most neuroscientists believe that the brain operates in a classical manner. >>> However, if brain processes rely on quantum mechanics,
it could explain why our brains are so powerful.
A team of researchers possibly witnessed entanglement in the brain,
perhaps indicating that some of our brain activity, and maybe even
consciousness, operates on a quantum level.
-------
Our brains are amazingly powerful computers, using not just neurons
but the connections between the neurons to process and interpret information.
Some scientists suspect that quantum processes, including entanglement,
might help us explain the brain’s enormous power, and its ability to generate consciousness.
#
Quantum processes in the brain
Amazingly, we have seen some hints that quantum mechanisms are at work in our brains.
Despite such intriguing findings, the brain is largely assumed to be a classical system.
If quantum processes are at work in the brain, it would be difficult
to observe how they work and what they do.
---------
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/ >>> ----------

Is this just human brains, and if so, why?
Or are brains of chimpanzees, cats, mice, ants,
also relying on quantum whatever?

I also wonder if the researchers will find the same hints of
entanglement if they look at the liver, pancreas, or ab muscles.

Maybe someone has brains that work in amazingly powerful manner ... but I've >> never met them. 86 billions of neurons and so pitifully crappy performance. >> I don't think that is because some kind of quantum woo messing in there.

And isn't quantum entanglement an instantaneous
event, while the real physical speed of thought is
slow compared to other physical processes?

Appealing to quantum mechanics to explain consciousness has a long
history. "Here's something we don't understand, so let's claim to
explain it in terms of something else we don't understand." It has a
strong smell of pseudoscience to me, even though a couple reputable
scientists have supported it.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ...
without recourse to the concept of consciousness.''
/ Eugene Wigner /

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

israel socratus <socratus1944@gmail.com> wrote:

— NOVEMBER 22, 2022
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement Maybe the brain isn't "classical" after all.
Credit: Annelisa Leinbach, local_doctor / Adobe Stock
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Most neuroscientists believe that the brain operates in a classical manner. However, if brain processes rely on quantum mechanics,
it could explain why our brains are so powerful.
A team of researchers possibly witnessed entanglement in the brain,
perhaps indicating that some of our brain activity, and maybe even consciousness, operates on a quantum level.
-------
Our brains are amazingly powerful computers, using not just neurons but
the connections between the neurons to process and interpret information. Some scientists suspect that quantum processes, including entanglement,
might help us explain the brain's enormous power, and its ability to
generate consciousness.
#
Quantum processes in the brain
Amazingly, we have seen some hints that quantum mechanisms are at work in
our brains. Despite such intriguing findings, the brain is largely assumed
to be a classical system. If quantum processes are at work in the brain,
it would be difficult to observe how they work and what they do.
--------- https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/ ----------

Complete nonsense,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

That is such nonsense. For free will, I obviously go look for the events that can turn out A or B in the moment. It happens to be the case, this is supported in quantummechanics.

And, quantum mechanics scales up to macro objects. Some scientist went looking for the paper that this quantum entanglement and superposition is limited to the subatomic level, which is the common understanding. But he came up empty, meaning no such
paper exists. So that is completely without proof.

The understanding that freedom is just limited to the subatomic level, is I guess, just because the freedom generally averages out on the macro level. There is no barrier between micro and macro.

Disgusted again with the morons who are clueless about how the universe actually works, which is creationism. You are just complete clown scientists, being more ignorant than everyone else in history.



Op vrijdag 3 februari 2023 om 16:50:12 UTC+1 schreef Mark Isaak:

On 2/2/23 4:02 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 13:05:11 UTC, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 13:10:10 UTC+2, socrat...@gmail.com wrote:

— NOVEMBER 22, 2022
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement
Maybe the brain isn't "classical" after all.
Credit: Annelisa Leinbach, local_doctor / Adobe Stock
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Most neuroscientists believe that the brain operates in a classical manner.
However, if brain processes rely on quantum mechanics,
it could explain why our brains are so powerful.
A team of researchers possibly witnessed entanglement in the brain,
perhaps indicating that some of our brain activity, and maybe even
consciousness, operates on a quantum level.
-------
Our brains are amazingly powerful computers, using not just neurons
but the connections between the neurons to process and interpret information.
Some scientists suspect that quantum processes, including entanglement, >>> might help us explain the brain’s enormous power, and its ability to generate consciousness.
#
Quantum processes in the brain
Amazingly, we have seen some hints that quantum mechanisms are at work in our brains.
Despite such intriguing findings, the brain is largely assumed to be a classical system.
If quantum processes are at work in the brain, it would be difficult
to observe how they work and what they do.
---------
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/
----------

Is this just human brains, and if so, why?
Or are brains of chimpanzees, cats, mice, ants,
also relying on quantum whatever?

I also wonder if the researchers will find the same hints of
entanglement if they look at the liver, pancreas, or ab muscles.

Maybe someone has brains that work in amazingly powerful manner ... but I've
never met them. 86 billions of neurons and so pitifully crappy performance.
I don't think that is because some kind of quantum woo messing in there.

And isn't quantum entanglement an instantaneous
event, while the real physical speed of thought is
slow compared to other physical processes?

Appealing to quantum mechanics to explain consciousness has a long
history. "Here's something we don't understand, so let's claim to
explain it in terms of something else we don't understand." It has a
strong smell of pseudoscience to me, even though a couple reputable scientists have supported it.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

It's not entirely hardwired, to an extent you can choose to centralize decisionmaking elsewhere.

So you believe that some people can choose to decide things with their brains, but others choose to decide things with their hearts. You presumably decide things with your heart, leaving your brain ... without any apparent function?

But obviously when the hardwire is removed, then yes the organization of the decisionmaking is changed.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. What is the *testable* consequence of an artificial heart if your belief was correct? Exactly what change would you predict that could be used to falsify your belief if it is incorrect?

But I don't know, and don't think that the nerves go straight into the heart, but that they are more around the heart.

OK, so the heart itself in Nandoism does not have anything to do with decision-making, it is the nerves around the heart. So if Nandoism is correct, anything which causes nerve damage to the nerves around the heart should affect decision-making badly,
while anything affecting the brain shouldn't affect decision-making unless the person has somehow decided to use their brain to think instead of using the nerves around their heart ... yeah, this doesn't sound remotely testable. If the brain affects
decision-making and the heart doesn't in any conceivable test, he will just use the excuse that the people tested had decided to use their brains instead of their hearts.

Nando's decision not to use his brain is unfortunate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bob Casanova wrote:

IMHO that's not a Creationist thing, it's a Nando thing;
most Creationists understand that hearts are muscles and
don't make decisions. But don't expect a rational answer;

Nando thinks he speaks for all creationism. And no, I certainly don't expect a rational answer. :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is all a nonsense discussion, because if you just think straightforwardly on the basis that decisions are real, then you can come very easily to the answers to the question of how it globally works. And ofcourse using knowledge from common discourse
talking about decisions, experiencing decisionmaking, as a guide.

The decisionmaking in the brain is just subservient to the decisionmaking in the heart, when the decisionmaking is centralized in the heart. duh. Very obvious, and all what you say, the answer is totally obvious.

So really this all about denying choice is real in the first place. Which is just about the psychological pressure to define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option. The madness that now when there are actually proven events which can turn out
A or B in the moment, people still deny free will is real. The possiblity not chosen, proven to be real, which was thought to be impossible to prove. Evolution theory does not have so much evidence as free will does, not at all. Not even a million years
worth of history can be incontrovertibly proven.

It is just only the psychological pressure to do your best, that is corrupting the definition of choosing, and then loads of mad scientists / intellectuals, arguing based on that corrupt understanding of choosing. Which makes these intellectuals /
scientists to be clowns, not having the faintest clue about how the universe really works.

And it is not going to work out well for the emotions of the people who very seriously deny free will. Because emotions are solely attributes of a decisionmaker, and they are essentially subjective. So it all just completely nuts destruction of science
and humanity.



Op vrijdag 3 februari 2023 om 22:40:13 UTC+1 schreef Abner:

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

It's not entirely hardwired, to an extent you can choose to centralize decisionmaking elsewhere.

So you believe that some people can choose to decide things with their brains, but others choose to decide things with their hearts. You presumably decide things with your heart, leaving your brain ... without any apparent function?

But obviously when the hardwire is removed, then yes the organization of the decisionmaking is changed.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. What is the *testable* consequence of an artificial heart if your belief was correct? Exactly what change would you predict that could be used to falsify your belief if it is incorrect?

But I don't know, and don't think that the nerves go straight into the heart, but that they are more around the heart.

OK, so the heart itself in Nandoism does not have anything to do with decision-making, it is the nerves around the heart. So if Nandoism is correct, anything which causes nerve damage to the nerves around the heart should affect decision-making badly,

while anything affecting the brain shouldn't affect decision-making unless the person has somehow decided to use their brain to think instead of using the nerves around their heart ... yeah, this doesn't sound remotely testable. If the brain affects
decision-making and the heart doesn't in any conceivable test, he will just use the excuse that the people tested had decided to use their brains instead of their hearts.

Nando's decision not to use his brain is unfortunate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

This is all a nonsense discussion

It most certainly is, but at least this time you have brought new nonsense to the table, so you are not being as boring as you have been lately. Please continue to bring new nonsense forward instead of rehashing your old nonsense over and over. Perhaps
next time you can explain that it is obvious that all Democrats are lizard men and that the Earth is clearly shaped like a cat?

The decisionmaking in the brain is just subservient to the decisionmaking in the heart, when the decisionmaking
is centralized in the heart. duh. Very obvious, and all what you say, the answer is totally obvious.

I guess to Nandos the word 'obvious' means 'I believe it to be true without any good reason to do so'.

So really this all about denying choice is real in the first place.

And sadly this is back to your old nonsense, which has been beaten to the point that it makes a dead horse look fresh. Please continue to come up with new nonsense if you want any responses! I am confident in your ability to do so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 07:45:16 -0800 (PST), israel socratus <socratus1944@gmail.com> wrote:

"The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ...
without recourse to the concept of consciousness.''
/ Eugene Wigner /

Children's introduction to the wholly unconscious laws of quantum
mechanics:

<https://www.vedantu.com/physics/quantum-physics>

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You've got nothing, and yet you drone on.

It's established scientific fact that there are these events which can turn out A instead of B in the moment. Then we have common discourse about making choices, which uses this logic of events that can turn out A or B in the moment. And ofourse in
common discourse we have subjectivity in respect to a decisionmaker.

Yet then you just dismiss it all out of hand, as ridiculous. While you have absolutely nothing, no argumentation.

If decisionmaking would be real, then it would make perfect sense for the decisionmaking to be centralized in the heart, to provide a more immediate action potential over the body. It is just logical.

Your opinions about what is ridiculous are not an argument.





Op zaterdag 4 februari 2023 om 02:25:13 UTC+1 schreef Abner:

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

This is all a nonsense discussion

It most certainly is, but at least this time you have brought new nonsense to the table, so you are not being as boring as you have been lately. Please continue to bring new nonsense forward instead of rehashing your old nonsense over and over. Perhaps

next time you can explain that it is obvious that all Democrats are lizard men and that the Earth is clearly shaped like a cat?

The decisionmaking in the brain is just subservient to the decisionmaking in the heart, when the decisionmaking
is centralized in the heart. duh. Very obvious, and all what you say, the answer is totally obvious.

I guess to Nandos the word 'obvious' means 'I believe it to be true without any good reason to do so'.

So really this all about denying choice is real in the first place.

And sadly this is back to your old nonsense, which has been beaten to the point that it makes a dead horse look fresh. Please continue to come up with new nonsense if you want any responses! I am confident in your ability to do so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

Yet then you just dismiss it all out of hand, as ridiculous. While you have absolutely nothing, no argumentation.

False. We went through this repeatedly, and you never remembered my arguments from cycle to cycle, or even from post to post within a cycle. I finally gave up on you.

Your opinions about what is ridiculous are not an argument.

That is true - but arguing with you is a waste of time, since you have nothing valuable to say, are incapable of learning, are incapable of pleasant interactions, and there is no danger of you ever convincing anyone else that your nonsense is true. That
leaves entertainment, which you only manage to achieve when you come up with something new. As soon as you return to repeating your same old nonsense, you lose even entertainment value. Since you have returned to repeating yourself, you have become
boring again, and I will leave you to your usual written diarrhea. Let me know when you come up with some new and entertaining nonsense!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Well, for shame.

I took an issue that was very simple and easy, but I did a good job with it, with the creationist conceptual scheme. That is my gift to the people I debate with, the creationist conceptual scheme. It can be appreciated, very much. It is the neatest thing.
There is simply nothing better in history, for as far as fundamentals go.

You have absolutely no argument, you never had anything. You think you have defeated the idea of choice being real? You think you have defeated the idea that choice is based on these events that can turn out A or B in the moment? You think you have
defeated the idea of the decisionmaker being inherently subjective, meaning identified with a chosen opinion?

While the scientists themselves do not assert any fact whatsoever about what it was that made such an event turn out A instead of B in the moment. Scientists, who are all about facts, do not posit any fact whatsover for what made the event turn out A
instead of B. No hypothesis.

The only thing you have is the psychological pressure to do your best, which tends to corrupt the creationist conceptual scheme.




Op zaterdag 4 februari 2023 om 18:00:13 UTC+1 schreef Abner:

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

Yet then you just dismiss it all out of hand, as ridiculous. While you have absolutely nothing, no argumentation.

False. We went through this repeatedly, and you never remembered my arguments from cycle to cycle, or even from post to post within a cycle. I finally gave up on you.

Your opinions about what is ridiculous are not an argument.

That is true - but arguing with you is a waste of time, since you have nothing valuable to say, are incapable of learning, are incapable of pleasant interactions, and there is no danger of you ever convincing anyone else that your nonsense is true.

That leaves entertainment, which you only manage to achieve when you come up with something new. As soon as you return to repeating your same old nonsense, you lose even entertainment value. Since you have returned to repeating yourself, you have become
boring again, and I will leave you to your usual written diarrhea. Let me know when you come up with some new and entertaining nonsense!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

You think you have defeated the idea of choice being real?

I think you never listened to anything I said on that or any other subject. But you are again rehashing your old and boring idiocies, which have nothing to do with this thread *or* your at-least-it-is-somewhat-interesting new idiocy in claiming that the
heart is the seat of decision-making, so goodbye.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

One person has consciousness in the brain (logical thinking)
One person has consciousness in the heart (creates feelings, emotions)
One person has consciousness in the ears (TV influence)
One person has consciousness in the genitals (sexual arousal)
One person has consciousness in the place where he sits)
For some consciousness has a cosmic nature:
“Consciousness is not just the interaction of neurotransmitters in the brain,
it also has some kind of quantum cosmic component.”
/ Amit Ray, Compassionate AI 5.0 /
As the ancients said, the conscious is everywhere.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 8:50:15 AM UTC+2, israel socratus wrote:

One person has consciousness in the brain (logical thinking)
One person has consciousness in the heart (creates feelings, emotions)
One person has consciousness in the ears (TV influence)
One person has consciousness in the genitals (sexual arousal)
One person has consciousness in the place where he sits)
For some consciousness has a cosmic nature:
“Consciousness is not just the interaction of neurotransmitters in the brain,
it also has some kind of quantum cosmic component.”
/ Amit Ray, Compassionate AI 5.0 /
As the ancients said, the conscious is everywhere.

------
What is common between different kinds of consciousness?
Frequency.
What is the difference between the kinds of consciousness?
Frequencies.
--------

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)