Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divided?

Evolution, neurology, psychology, RE's, paleontology etc.

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby romansh » Sun Dec 13, 2015 6:45 pm

OK NcBM

In no more than three lines ... assuming your model is a reasonably accurate model of reality:

how might I act differently?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby gilnv » Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:28 am

neuroclusterbrain wrote:
Question for gilnv: do you have strong religious fanatic faith that you possess “indivisible-single-consciousness”?
.

I've stated my opinions so often on this forum in regards to consciousness and sentience that I'd hate to reply to your buzzword “indivisible-single-consciousness” question, especially with the spin that the question was framed with.
I'll repeat again, I'm not interested in debating or pushing opinions. The half-life of a thread's productive dialogue gets too short sometimes.


I'll generalize and repeat my opinion about the topic of
"Science is what you can observe and on which you can carry out reproducible experiments – everything that meets these criteria is the science; and everything that does not meet these criteria – is not the science."

While I appreciate much of science and its methods, I also abhor much of science and it's toxic results on our planet, cancers, bombs, pollutions, etc that scientists never take any responsibility for. I don't honor its holiness or authority much more than I'd honor Christians bible, Hindu's Bhagava Gita, other religious dogma, etc as final litmus tests. I'll treat them with some respect, but don't expect me to believe in their authority anymore than debating psychologies beliefs with Freud's buzzwords and double blind tests.

Best regards to all, tomorrow I'll be on the road again for who knows about many days, may your homes be warm, Gil. :scoot:
the divine isn't a living entity, it is the living force within all of us.
- Sadhguru
User avatar
gilnv
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 890
Images: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:59 am
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby neuroclusterbrain » Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:58 am

gilnv wrote:I'll treat them with some respect, but don't expect me to believe in their authority anymore than debating psychologies beliefs with Freud's buzzwords and double blind tests.

Appeal to Sigmund Freud (i.e. “appeal to authority”) is a form of logical fallacy.
“Appeal to authority” is the diagnostic criteria which identifies the religious adept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis is pseudoscience and does not match the scientific criteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
<...>
Psychoanalysis – body of ideas developed by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and his followers, which is devoted to the study of human psychological functioning and behavior. It has been controversial ever since its inception. Karl Popper characterized it as pseudoscience based on psychoanalysis failing the requirement for falsifiability. Frank Cioffi argued that "though Popper is correct to say that psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific and correct to say that it is unfalsifiable, he is mistaken to suggest that it is pseudoscientific because it is unfalsifiable. […] It is when [Freud] insists that he has confirmed (not just instantiated) [his empirical theses] that he is being pseudoscientific.

It is interesting to note that the adepts of pseudoscientific claptrap with the name “psychoanalysis” do not even know that Sigmund Freud was “healing” his patients with cocaine, and that Sigmund Freud was cocaine addict himself, and that Freud's psychoanalytical theory was a by-product of his cocaine use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Cocaine
As a medical researcher, Freud was an early user and proponent of cocaine as a stimulant as well as analgesic. He believed that cocaine was a cure for many mental and physical problems, and in his 1884 paper "On Coca" he extolled its virtues. Between 1883 and 1887 he wrote several articles recommending medical applications, including its use as an antidepressant. He narrowly missed out on obtaining scientific priority for discovering its anesthetic properties of which he was aware but had mentioned only in passing. (Karl Koller, a colleague of Freud's in Vienna, received that distinction in 1884 after reporting to a medical society the ways cocaine could be used in delicate eye surgery.) Freud also recommended cocaine as a cure for morphine addiction. He had introduced cocaine to his friend Ernst von Fleischl-Marxow who had become addicted to morphine taken to relieve years of excruciating nerve pain resulting from an infection acquired while performing an autopsy. His claim that Fleischl-Marxow was cured of his addiction was premature, though he never acknowledged he had been at fault. Fleischl-Marxow developed an acute case of "cocaine psychosis", and soon returned to using morphine, dying a few years later after more suffering from intolerable pain.
The application as an anesthetic turned out to be one of the few safe uses of cocaine, and as reports of addiction and overdose began to filter in from many places in the world, Freud's medical reputation became somewhat tarnished.
After the "Cocaine Episode" Freud ceased to publicly recommend use of the drug, but continued to take it himself occasionally for depression, migraine and nasal inflammation during the early 1890s, before discontinuing in 1896. In this period he came under the influence of his friend and confidant Fliess, who recommended cocaine for the treatment of the so-called nasal reflex neurosis. Fliess, who operated on the noses of several of his own patients, also performed operations on Freud and on one of Freud's patients whom he believed to be suffering from the disorder, Emma Eckstein. The surgery proved disastrous. It has been suggested that much of Freud's early psychoanalytical theory was a by-product of his cocaine use.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health-july-dec11-addiction_10-17/
Freud published journal articles proclaiming cocaine was the cure. But he also had a more personal interest in the drug’s effects.
<…>
Freud loved the way cocaine made him feel.
<…>
In the 1890s, after almost killing a patient while under the influence of cocaine, Freud stopped using the drug.

It is very easy to show that Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific claptrap.
Pseudoscientists use intensively terms (invented by Sigmund Freud): 1) id, 2) ego, and 3) super-ego.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction our mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego. The super-ego can stop one from doing certain things that one's id may want to do.

Let’s raise simple questions:
1) How can we determine if object X has “id” or not? Where is the list of exact criteria (the list of exact features) which would allow unambiguously determine if object X has “id”? As for example, does the amoebae have “id” or not? Pseudoscientists are unable to provide such list of criteria.
2) How can we determine if object X has “ego” or not? Where is the list of exact criteria (the list of exact features) which would allow unambiguously determine if object X has “ego”? As for example, does the amoebae have “ego” or not? Pseudoscientists are unable to provide such list of criteria.
3) How can we determine if object X has “super-ego” or not? Where is the list of exact criteria (the list of exact features) which would allow unambiguously determine if object X has “super-ego”? As for example, does the amoebae have “super-ego” or not? Pseudoscientists are unable to provide such list of criteria.
Pseudoscientists are unable to provide scientific definitions of the terms “id”, “ego”, and “super-ego”, pseudoscientists are unable to provide the list of criteria which would allow to determine if object X has “id/ego/super-ego” or not.
When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
neuroclusterbrain
New Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:19 pm
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby neuroclusterbrain » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:19 am

romansh wrote:In no more than three lines ... assuming your model is a reasonably accurate model of reality: how might I act differently?

In one line: you might begin studying thoroughly Neurocluster Brain Model and you might begin informing, educating and enlightening other people about Neurocluster Brain Model.
neuroclusterbrain
New Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:19 pm
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby romansh » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:31 am

neuroclusterbrain wrote:
romansh wrote:In no more than three lines ... assuming your model is a reasonably accurate model of reality: how might I act differently?

In one line: you might begin studying thoroughly Neurocluster Brain Model and you might begin informing, educating and enlightening other people about Neurocluster Brain Model.


Ahh thank you for your brevity.
So I could end up proselytizing about the NcB model, instead of whatever I currently proselytize about. What are the benefits of this?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby romansh » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:40 am

neuroclusterbrain wrote:
gilnv wrote:I'll treat them with some respect, but don't expect me to believe in their authority anymore than debating psychologies beliefs with Freud's buzzwords and double blind tests.

Appeal to Sigmund Freud (i.e. “appeal to authority”) is a form of logical fallacy.
“Appeal to authority” is the diagnostic criteria which identifies the religious adept.


Actually gil is not appealing to authority, quite the opposite!

An appeal to an authority as a logical fallacy would involve an inappropriate appeal. eg My Christmas fruitcake recipe is excellent because it is based on Einstein's recipe. Or a slightly more serious one, I take lots of vitamin C to ward of illness because Linus Pauling, a Nobel laureate, recommended it.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby neuroclusterbrain » Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:48 pm

romansh wrote:So I could end up proselytizing about the NcB model, instead of whatever I currently proselytize about. What are the benefits of this?

This will make a world a better place to live.

romansh wrote:Actually gil is not appealing to authority, quite the opposite!

Yes, we know that. We just wanted to show our attitude towards so-called “authorities”.

romansh wrote:An appeal to an authority as a logical fallacy would involve an inappropriate appeal. eg My Christmas fruitcake recipe is excellent because it is based on Einstein's recipe. Or a slightly more serious one, I take lots of vitamin C to ward of illness because Linus Pauling, a Nobel laureate, recommended it.

Yes, that is correct.
“Appeal to authority” is a form of logical fallacy

Religious adepts can be very easily identified by using the following diagnostic criteria:
1) they use the “appeal to authority” as an argument;
2) they are unable to provide scientific definitions for the terms that they use in their texts, and instead of scientific definitions they provide crackpot blabber;
3) they are totally incapable to provide the scientific arguments and instead of scientific arguments they actively use all sorts of bureaucratic muck (write complaints/denunciations, vote “against” at the polls/ratings, etc.).
4) and so on.

“Appeal to authority” is not a the scientific argument; “appeal to authority” is a form of logical fallacy.
“Appeal to authority” is the diagnostic criteria which identifies the religious adept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

Let’s examine the “appeal to authority” in more detail using practical examples.

When discussing the functioning of the brain, the pseudoscientists very often appeal to the authority of Plato and Aristotle.
Let’s look more closely: what good advice in the field of brain functioning we can get from Plato and Aristotle?

Let’s raise a simple question: did Plato and Aristotle know that the brain is made up of cells (neurons)? Did Plato and Aristotle know anything about the neural signals?
They did not know and they could not know, because no one knew this until the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron#History
The neuron doctrine is the now fundamental idea that neurons are the basic structural and functional units of the nervous system. The theory was put forward by Santiago Ramón y Cajal in the late 19th century. It held that neurons are discrete cells (not connected in a meshwork), acting as metabolically distinct units.

So what good advice in the field of brain functioning we can get from Plato and Aristotle?

We will remind that the eye is actually part of the brain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception
The retina is actually part of the brain that is isolated to serve as a transducer for the conversion of patterns of light into neuronal signals. The lens of the eye focuses light on the photoreceptive cells of the retina, which detect the photons of light and respond by producing neural impulses. These signals are processed in a hierarchical fashion by different parts of the brain, from the retina upstream to central ganglia in the brain.

Now let's look more closely at the Plato’s and Aristotle’s advice about the functioning of the eye (i.e. the brain):
http://people.brandeis.edu/~sekuler/SensoryProcessesMaterial/Alhazen.html
theory of visual perception suggested that sight occurs because rays emanate from the perceiver's eyes. After leaving the eyes, these rays explored the world, and upon encountering objects, the rays returned, carrying information about those objects. One of the foremost proponents of this theory was Euclid, whose contributions to geometry you probably know about; Aristotle and Plato also subscribed to this theory.
Theories of light; theories of vision
Robert Sekuler, for Npsy 12a, rev. 2004

http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/FeelingSupplements/AncientVisions.htm
What is unfortunate for the history of visual science is the fact that the idea of extramission was associated with the illustrious name of Plato (428-348 BC). Indeed Plato and before him Pythagoras (c. 532 BC), were the first to seriously propound the extramission theory. For Plato, the substance that was emitted by the eye was a kind of gentle "visual fire" or light, flowing forth out of the pupil, that combined with ambient light to generate a homogeneous "body of vision" (like a kind of disembodied tentacle controlled by the eyes) which encompassed or touched objects and thereby generated a medium between the object and the viewer which allowed aspects of the object to contact the soul.
Given Plato's great authority, the extramission viewpoint was adopted, with variations, by many thinkers after him. Of particular importance was its acceptance in the 2nd century AD by the great physician Galen, whose doctrines were to dominate medical thought throughout the middle ages. As we shall see below, up until the 17th century, the influencial medical community was wedded to the extramission hypothesis.
But in addition to weighing with his authority toward the extramission viewpoint, Plato probably contributed in other ways to hindering progress in the study of vision. One form of general hindrance created by Plato was not specific to his theory of vision, but derived from his general approach to science: in his opinion, observation of nature was a worthless pursuit -- progress could only come from logical reasoning and mathematical deduction. A more specific hindrance is suggested by one contemporary historian of science, who claims that for Plato, vision was not a very reliable sense. The "touch-at-a-distance" provided by vision was a poor relative of true manual touch. After all, contrary to the normal tactile sense, vision does not allow a whole object to be apprehended, since parts of it are always hidden from view. Judgements based on vision are subject to many types of errors, like those caused by changes in lighting and perspective viewpoint, by extraneous phenomena associated with shadows, transparency, reflection and refraction for example, not to mention the many well-known 'optical illusions' that give rise to errors in size and position judgement. In sum, for Plato, vision was unfit for doing science: tactile confirmation of visual impressions was essential.
Perhaps an example of Plato's negative influence on the pursuit of optical science is the history of lenses. It has been argued that, like hypnotism and paranormal phenomena today, the study of lenses was considered a disreputable pursuit in the Middle Ages. Even though magnifying lenses were probably used by craftsmen at least as early as the beginning of the christian era to make miniatures or to carve fine inscriptions on the moulds used to cast coins, and even though, starting in the 13th Century, a whole industry of artisans was manufacturing spectacles for correcting presbyopia (and later, myopia), it took another three hundred years until scientists deigned to study them. Even Kepler, in his revolutionary book Paralipomena published in 1604, merely devotes three pages to lenses, and then apologetically, with the justification that a mycene had been prodding him for three years to consider them. Only when Galileo's discoveries with the telescope caused a sensation and rendered more politic the serious consideration of lenses, did Kepler finally deign to give them proper treatment in his Dioptrica, published in 1609.

And now let's look further at the Aristotle’s advice about the functioning of the brain.
According to Aristotle, the brain is just the heat sink which cools down the heat of the blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_neuroscience
Aristotle thought that, while the heart was the seat of intelligence, the brain was a cooling mechanism for the blood. He reasoned that humans are more rational than the beasts because, among other reasons, they have a larger brain to cool their hot-bloodedness.

It is obvious that Plato and Aristotle are totally incompetent in neuroscience.
Despite this fact, the pseudoscientists insist on studying Plato’s and Aristotle’s writings about the functioning of the brain.
Pseudoscientists insist on studying “Stone Age” writings about the functioning of the brain.
That is the qualification level of pseudoscientists in the field of neuroscience.
neuroclusterbrain
New Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:19 pm
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby romansh » Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:51 pm

neuroclusterbrain wrote:
romansh wrote:So I could end up proselytizing about the NcB model, instead of whatever I currently proselytize about. What are the benefits of this?

This will make a world a better place to live.

How and in what way will this world be a "better" place?

Will everyone agree? And if not what would their arguments be?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Neurocluster Brain Model – Can the consciousness be divi

Postby neuroclusterbrain » Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:34 pm

romansh wrote:So I could end up proselytizing about the NcB model, instead of whatever I currently proselytize about. What are the benefits of this?

neuroclusterbrain wrote:This will make a world a better place to live.

romansh wrote:How and in what way will this world be a "better" place?
Will everyone agree? And if not what would their arguments be?

Due to the lack of knowledge of underlying mechanisms of religious/occult phenomena people are easily deceived by various “teachers/leaders” who take the property/resources/lives/etc of these deceived people.

As for example, in the early days of Christian Church the apostles of Jesus extorted money and property from the adepts and killed adepts who do not give all their money (Acts 4:32-37; 5:1-11)
The extortions and killings done by apostles spread great fear and terror upon the whole population (Acts 5:11).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+4&version=ESV
32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold
35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus,
37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
(Bible. Acts 4:32-37)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5&version=ESV
1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,
2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.”
9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
(Bible. Acts 5:1-11)


romansh wrote:How and in what way will this world be a "better" place?

Neurocluster Brain Model is able to free up the deceived people from the slavery.
Neurocluster Brain Model is able to free up the deceived people from the reign of “teachers/leaders”.
romansh wrote:Will everyone agree? And if not what would their arguments be?

There will be fierce resistance of various “teachers/leaders” who will be afraid to lose their status in the society.
Their arguments will be fighting Neurocluster Brain Model by all means necessary.
neuroclusterbrain
New Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:19 pm
Affiliation: Agnostic

Previous

Return to Biological Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron