Is it the Human Brain that Thinks?

[mensa-maniac]

Is it the human Brain that Thinks?

Is the brain of humanity consciousness itself, if so consciousness is responsible for the capacity to Think.

The level of thought is the level of consciousness of the intellect, the intellect being an intuitive consciousness itself.

The consciousness of the intuitive intellect is truth recognized. Truth recognized is the level of consciousness of the intuitive intellect stemming from the consciousness of the brain.

Education is complex when it dives into the depth of thought, therefore the use of simplicity is preferred over complexity and is more universally understood.

[Pincho Paxton]

Is it the human Brain that Thinks?

Is the brain of humanity consciousness itself, if so consciousness is responsible for the capacity to Think.

The level of thought is the level of consciousness of the intellect, the intellect being an intuitive consciousness itself.

The consciousness of the intuitive intellect is truth recognized. Truth recognized is the level of consciousness of the intuitive intellect stemming from the consciousness of the brain.

Education is complex when it dives into the depth of thought, therefore the use of simplicity is preferred over complexity and is more universally understood.

I think it's a swarm of electrons being governed by pseudo photons. But as you can see, the answer is far from complete without the proper equipment to monitor the events.

[IJesusChrist]

consciousness is the observation of thought. It's pretty handy. Thought is done in the brain, yes. Where else would it be done?

[Tomas]

.


-mensa-maniac-
Is it the human Brain that Thinks?

-tomas-
Definitely .. not.


-Mensa-
Is the brain of humanity consciousness itself, if so consciousness is responsible for the capacity to Think.

-tomas-
No. The brain acts out what the individual human commands. (No collectivist thought allowed).


-Mensa-
The level of thought is the level of consciousness of the intellect, the intellect being an intuitive consciousness itself.

-tomas-
Maybe. It'd be similar to how the Quinn, Rowden and Solway (with Kevin being the voice in the wilderness who begat the operative action to begin as a singular unit). They then all met up somewhere?, came up with a rough blueprint, and placed the plan into physical action


-Mensa-
The consciousness of the intuitive intellect is truth recognized.

-tomas-
Very good, Donna. You win a cookie!


-Mensa-
Truth recognized is the level of consciousness of the intuitive intellect stemming from the consciousness of the brain.

-tomas-
Yes, the physical recognition of right versus wrong.


-Mensa-
Education is complex when it dives into the depth of thought, therefore the use
of simplicity is preferred over complexity and is more universally understood.

-tomas-
Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me...

Roll another one
Just like the other one
You've been holding on to it
And I sure would like a hit

Rollllllllllll another one
Just like the other one
That one's just about burned to the end
So come on and be a real friend

Everybody sing along this time

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me...

[mensa-maniac]

Oh, goody Tomas, I win a whole cookie.

I love cookies!

You are one funny dude, dude, you should definately look into stand-up comedy. The smartest people in the world are comedians, those who entertain us. Everybody loves to laugh, you'd be good at making people laugh Tomas.

[IJesusChrist]

Almost all comedians are also depressed (the funnier ones anyways)...

[Animus]

The answer to this question was made pretty clear to me when I suffered a severe head injury. Well.. it wasn't clear until after I regained consciousness. If you have any doubts, a sure fire way is to inflict damage on your own brain.

[Pincho Paxton]

The answer to this question was made pretty clear to me when I suffered a severe head injury. Well.. it wasn't clear until after I regained consciousness. If you have any doubts, a sure fire way is to inflict damage on your own brain.

It's two-fold isn't it. Do you need a computer to read this message, or do you need electricity?

The reason that I favour the electricity is because it is the cause of the computer working.. it comes first in the chain. A broken computer is only broken if it has electricity in it, otherwise it is off, and an off computer doesn't work anyway.

[Gurrb]

ever sit there and think the rest of your body as being foreign. the only true thing of you is your mind (your head), all else is merely attached. when i do this, i don't consider the rest of my body as 'me' but just joined to 'me'.

[Pincho Paxton]

ever sit there and think the rest of your body as being foreign. the only true thing of you is your mind (your head), all else is merely attached. when i do this, i don't consider the rest of my body as 'me' but just joined to 'me'.

Well that's a hive, and we are a hive.

[Beingof1]

The synaptic gap is, without exception, considered an on-off switch. Just like your electrical switch, the current or the signal flows until closed. Who or what opens and closes the pathways?

The 21st century is upon us and the brain cells now have something to do with the quantum. DNA is at the molecular level and this most certainly implies a quantum state. DNA is a crystal as in a radio crystal. DNA is the design and experience is the feedback loop. The information is altered by and through conscious choice. What we focus on grows into our experience.

The powers that be would love to keep the public at large ignorant of the latent ability of the supercomputer known as your mind. They already know about it and use it for power and violence. As long as there exists fear and competition of resources the evil control freaks at the top remain in power of the masses.

It begins in the heart - the heart has neurons so it thinks to. The heart is your intent and will and in real scientific terms is connected to the brain by the central nervous system.

Your heart can choose to be in a state of peace or anger.
For example:
In your minds eye see a war happening with men dying. *Now* distance yourself from the war while observing in your minds eye and tell yourself - "while witnessing this event I am at peace."

There was a study done that the recent war in the Middle East was directly effected or affected by thoughts of peace and tranquility. During a three day period not one person died in Lebanon while the experiment was taking place.

What we have to realize is that we can be in a state of tranquility by choosing to be there and reality or the universe responds. It must become something permanent and not something we do on occasion. Thoughts, ideas, and experince all present themselves to us asking you to choose what to focus on breathing life into the reality that we live in.

We must grow up as the world is heading for a techno singularity and be responsible for the reality I am creating. If you think the world is screwed up - go into yourself - and change it.


The model of the synaptic gap-switch is really about our own cultural 1D bias. The gaps have two different modes of reaction: the chemical and electrical. If each gap captures but a particular - that is, specific, set of information. The information would then come in from the outside rather than through the brain's internal wiring.

The brain slows down the field so that we may make choices of what to expand or contract leading to experience. Now; we can continue to count brain cells or accept what is the nature of reality. Electrons are not effected by gravity and your consciousness is the stream of electrons.

If you think you can contain the electrons in your brain - you just emitted a series of electrons by thinking about it and most assuredly they impacted the field. This is not mysticism its science. We now know, for a fact, the cell radiates lightwaves.


The infinite field responds to decisive statements or a state of being about reality and mirrors experience. The field itself is neutral and makes no judgments. It responds to a finality of a made up mind.

If you say " I am in need of peace" - your reality corresponds and provides a lack of tranquility.

If you say " I am at peace." You are; by and through choice.


A thought arises from other thoughts, experiences, and memories all stored holistically or separately in various locations. A thought arises instantaneously, thus bringing together and integrating all the data involved. This is in defiance of the Special Relativity that no signal can exceed light speed.

You just exceeded the speed of light with thought.

The Australian neurophysiolgist, Sir John Eccles, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1963, denied that Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of cerebral architecture and activity. He even calculated the odds against it. Eccles' calculations gave him a figure for the odds of 10 to the power 10,000 against.

You can explain the brain and central nervous system as a mechanical electric/chemical system. This will result in stating a set of probabilities. Experience is a singular certainty with no wiggle room for doubt.

[IJesusChrist]

uh... the heart has neurons? Interesting... but not true. What hut have you crawled out of after watching too much TV?

[Animus]

Beingof1

I'm going to be blunt, you are free to operate as you are inclined. There are neurons in other parts of the body, such as the gut and heart. However to state that these "think" is a bit misleading. There are plenty of regions of the brain that don't even "think" such as the sensory motor cortices. They feed highly differentiated and integrated information into thinking regions of the brain.

You guys ought to take something QRS frequently says to heart. You can't find what you are looking for in objective reality whether they be neurons, electrons or other particles and waves. The truth is logical not physical. But you must also realize that the physical morphology (form), as in the neurons and synapses conforms itself to the logic. As such the brain serves as an adequate pointer to transcendental logical concepts.

Electron field theories in consciousness science aren't very fruitful. I know of not a single one that hasn't been adequately discredited by experimental evidence and skeptical argumentation. The problem with looking for consciousness in objective reality, by pointing to an electron field for example, is that it localizes consciousness to not one, but many electrons and therefor only begs the question of how or why those particular electrons are conscious in the manner of humans. We can already deduce that the brain is a physical correlate of consciousness and we run into the same problem; Why is it conscious? The only way to solve this problem is from a functionalist/interactionist approach which reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance.

[Beingof1]

uh... the heart has neurons? Interesting... but not true. What hut have you crawled out of after watching too much TV?

http://www.heartmath.org/research/resea ... brain.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... aid=126983

http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/feattech

Do you want more links and how many will be enough?

[Alex T. Jacob]

Animus wrote: "The truth is logical not physical. But you must also realize that the physical morphology (form), as in the neurons and synapses conforms itself to the logic. As such the brain serves as an adequate pointer to transcendental logical concepts." / "The only way to solve this problem is from a functionalist/interactionist approach which reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance."

A couple of things, questions really.

1) When you say 'the only approach' just how certain can you be?

2) 'Transcendental logical concepts' is a very attractive phrase. I would never imagine, and don't think I have heard the use of the word 'transcendental' in Q-R-S theory. Did I miss something? Transcendeant to what exactly? Matter?

3) It seems that with 'reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance' you have opened up the field in quite the same manner as all metaphysicians: the only direction to take it is toward arcana. After all, why does transcendence exist? From where did it come?

[Beingof1]

Beingof1

I'm going to be blunt, you are free to operate as you are inclined. There are neurons in other parts of the body, such as the gut and heart. However to state that these "think" is a bit misleading. There are plenty of regions of the brain that don't even "think" such as the sensory motor cortices. They feed highly differentiated and integrated information into thinking regions of the brain.

Is it all tied into the same system that results in thought?

Which brain cell does your choosing for you?

You guys ought to take something QRS frequently says to heart. You can't find what you are looking for in objective reality whether they be neurons, electrons or other particles and waves. The truth is logical not physical. But you must also realize that the physical morphology (form), as in the neurons and synapses conforms itself to the logic. As such the brain serves as an adequate pointer to transcendental logical concepts.

You should look at my sign up date to Genius Forum before assuming anything about what I have considered concerning being here , don`t you think so?

Does the mind exist within the brain or does the brain exist within the mind? Since you can perceive the brain, therefore, the brain is contained within what?

Electron field theories in consciousness science aren't very fruitful. I know of not a single one that hasn't been adequately discredited by experimental evidence and skeptical argumentation. The problem with looking for consciousness in objective reality, by pointing to an electron field for example, is that it localizes consciousness to not one, but many electrons and therefor only begs the question of how or why those particular electrons are conscious in the manner of humans. We can already deduce that the brain is a physical correlate of consciousness and we run into the same problem; Why is it conscious? The only way to solve this problem is from a functionalist/interactionist approach which reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance.

Exactly - now bear this in mind when you get materialism as an 'answer to all wisdom'.

I would suggest you tag this post for posterity and reflect on what you just said above.

[Animus]

Animus wrote: "The truth is logical not physical. But you must also realize that the physical morphology (form), as in the neurons and synapses conforms itself to the logic. As such the brain serves as an adequate pointer to transcendental logical concepts." / "The only way to solve this problem is from a functionalist/interactionist approach which reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance."

A couple of things, questions really.

1) When you say 'the only approach' just how certain can you be?

As certain as I am about my own existence.

2) 'Transcendental logical concepts' is a very attractive phrase. I would never imagine, and don't think I have heard the use of the word 'transcendental' in Q-R-S theory. Did I miss something? Transcendeant to what exactly? Matter?

Transcendent to the morphology, objective. I didn't realize we were limited to "Q-R-S theory".

3) It seems that with 'reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance' you have opened up the field in quite the same manner as all metaphysicians: the only direction to take it is toward arcana. After all, why does transcendence exist? From where did it come?

Yup

THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEAL (p. 487) [Immanuel Kant's The Critique of Pure Reason]
Every concept is, in respect of what is not contained in it, undetermined.
Every concept is subject to the principle of determinability which is: of every two contradictorily opposed predicates only one can belong to a concept.
Every thing is subject to the principle of complete determination which is: if all possible predicates of things be taken together with their contradictory opposites, then one of each pair must belong to it.
This principle calls for considering each thing in its relation to the two contradictory predicates and in its relation to the sum-total of all predicates possible.
It concerns the content, not merely the logical form.
It contains a transcendental presupposition: it presupposes the material for all possibility which is regarded as containing a priori the data for the particular possibility of each and every thing.
It implies that to know a thing completely, we must know every possible predicate.
The principle can never be exhibited in concreto.
Although this idea of the sum-total of all possibility is undetermined in respect of the predicates which may constitute it, it does define itself as a concept that is completely determined a priori.
It thus becomes the concept of an individual object which is completely determined through the mere idea.
May be entitled an ideal of pure reason.
Transcendental Affirmation: reality, the concept in itself expresses being.
Transcendental Negation: non-being.
Logical negation does not refer to a concept, but only to its relation to another concept in judgment.
All concepts of negations are derivative, it is the realities that contain the data
Omnitudo Realitatis: the transcendental substrate employed by reason in the complete determination of things. "The All"
The concept of what possesses all reality is just the concept of a thing in itself as completely determined.
Ens realissimum: the concept of an individual being.
It is a transcendental ideal which serves as basis for the complete determination that necessarily belongs to all that exists.
It is the only true ideal of which reason is capable, because only in this one case is a concept of a thing (a concept which is itself universal) completely determined in and through itself, and known as the representation of an individual.
The logical determination of a concept by reason is based on the disjunctive syllogism.
Major premiss contains a logical division (either-or).
Minor premiss limits this sphere to a certain part.
Conclusion determines the concept by means of this part.
The universal concept of a reality in general cannot be divided a priori.
Without experience we do not know any determinate kinds of reality.
The transcendental major premiss is the representation of the sum-total of all reality.
Contains all predicates within itself, not under itself.
Complete determination of any thing rests on limitation of this total reality.
Reason does not presuppose the existence of a being that corresponds to this ideal, only the idea of such a being.
All possibility of things must therefore be regarded as derivative except the possibility of that which includes in itself all reality.
The latter possibility must be regarded as original.
Primordial Being: name for the object of the ideal of reason.
Present to us only in and through reason.
We are without knowledge of the existence of such a being.
Must be thought of as simple because it cannot be thought as consisting of a number of things. Things presuppose it, they cannot constitute it.
aka: the highest being, the being of all beings.
The supreme reality must condition the possibility of all things as their ground, not as their sum.
The derivation of all other possibility cannot be regarded as a limitation of the supreme reality.
How does it happen that reason regards the possibility of things as derived from one fundamental possibility?
The possibility of the objects of the senses is a relation of those objects to our thought.
Matter must be given, or it could not even be thought.
Now, an object of the senses can be completely determined only when it is compared with all the predicates possible.
Since that which constitutes the thing itself must be given in experience, the possibility of all objects of the senses must be presupposed as given in one whole.
THEREFORE: Nothing is an object for us unless it presupposes the sum of all empirical reality as the condition of its possibility.
Now owing to a natural illusion, we regard this principle which applies only to objects of the senses, as being a principle which must be valid of things in general.
If we proceed to hypostatise this idea of the sum of all reality, we shall be able to determine the primordial being through the mere concept of the highest reality, as a being that is one, all-sufficient, eternal, etc.
This is the concept of God taken in the transcendental sense.
It is also an ideal of pure reason and the object of a transcendental theology. http://userpages.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/ideal1.html

Something like that

[Animus]

Beingof1

I'm going to be blunt, you are free to operate as you are inclined. There are neurons in other parts of the body, such as the gut and heart. However to state that these "think" is a bit misleading. There are plenty of regions of the brain that don't even "think" such as the sensory motor cortices. They feed highly differentiated and integrated information into thinking regions of the brain.

Is it all tied into the same system that results in thought?

Which brain cell does your choosing for you?

All of them depends on what you mean by "choosing". All of them make choices in concerto with each other. For example: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Boltzmann_machine

You guys ought to take something QRS frequently says to heart. You can't find what you are looking for in objective reality whether they be neurons, electrons or other particles and waves. The truth is logical not physical. But you must also realize that the physical morphology (form), as in the neurons and synapses conforms itself to the logic. As such the brain serves as an adequate pointer to transcendental logical concepts.

You should look at my sign up date to Genius Forum before assuming anything about what I have considered concerning being here , don`t you think so?

Does the mind exist within the brain or does the brain exist within the mind? Since you can perceive the brain, therefore, the brain is contained within what?

I know you've been here a long time and quite honestly this paragraph was directed at "You guys" and not anyone specifically. I should have made it clearer that was the intention. Not that I believe spending a bunch of time on Genius necessarily makes a person enlightened on this subject.

Electron field theories in consciousness science aren't very fruitful. I know of not a single one that hasn't been adequately discredited by experimental evidence and skeptical argumentation. The problem with looking for consciousness in objective reality, by pointing to an electron field for example, is that it localizes consciousness to not one, but many electrons and therefor only begs the question of how or why those particular electrons are conscious in the manner of humans. We can already deduce that the brain is a physical correlate of consciousness and we run into the same problem; Why is it conscious? The only way to solve this problem is from a functionalist/interactionist approach which reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance.

Exactly - now bear this in mind when you get materialism as an 'answer to all wisdom'.

I would suggest you tag this post for posterity and reflect on what you just said above.

I don't get that answer. But I also don't get the answer that materialism is outright unimportant or non-indicative of logical certainty.

[Tomas]

Not that I believe spending a bunch of time on Genius necessarily makes a person enlightened on this subject.

Pace yourself, Annie. In no time flat you'll be one of the "you guys".

PS - 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 you will remember nothing, you will be refreshed. (snap of finger) Q R S - Q R S - Q R S (click the Submit button)

[Beingof1]

I'm going to be blunt, you are free to operate as you are inclined. There are neurons in other parts of the body, such as the gut and heart. However to state that these "think" is a bit misleading. There are plenty of regions of the brain that don't even "think" such as the sensory motor cortices. They feed highly differentiated and integrated information into thinking regions of the brain.

Is it all tied into the same system that results in thought?
Which brain cell does your choosing for you?

All of them depends on what you mean by "choosing". All of them make choices in concerto with each other. For example: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Boltzmann_machine

Yes I am familiar with the Turing Machine emergent from chaotic quantum soup idea. If the chemical/electric energy decides to make a choice, let me now because in the real world of logic, I have never witnessed this.

For example:
Let P stand for physical
Let M stand for mind.

If - in all possible worlds - P is responsible and the cause for M, then P fixes M.
It must fix(allow to exist) M no matter the physics, laws, or beings.

Being:
Does the mind exist within the brain or does the brain exist within the mind? Since you can perceive the brain, therefore, the brain is contained within what?

Please answer this question.

Electron field theories in consciousness science aren't very fruitful. I know of not a single one that hasn't been adequately discredited by experimental evidence and skeptical argumentation. The problem with looking for consciousness in objective reality, by pointing to an electron field for example, is that it localizes consciousness to not one, but many electrons and therefor only begs the question of how or why those particular electrons are conscious in the manner of humans. We can already deduce that the brain is a physical correlate of consciousness and we run into the same problem; Why is it conscious? The only way to solve this problem is from a functionalist/interactionist approach which reduces the problem to one of logic and not substance.

Exactly - now bear this in mind when you get materialism as an 'answer to all wisdom'.

I would suggest you tag this post for posterity and reflect on what you just said above.

I don't get that answer. But I also don't get the answer that materialism is outright unimportant or non-indicative of logical certainty.

If consciousness is subject to the material - it must be measurable.
What are the dimensions of your field of awareness?

[Animus]

Not that I believe spending a bunch of time on Genius necessarily makes a person enlightened on this subject.

Pace yourself, Annie. In no time flat you'll be one of the "you guys".

PS - 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 you will remember nothing, you will be refreshed. (snap of finger) Q R S - Q R S - Q R S (click the Submit button)

I am one of the "you guys".

[Animus]

If consciousness is subject to the material - it must be measurable.
What are the dimensions of your field of awareness?

There is a temporal dimension as when I go to sleep at night and awareness is absent. Assuming you are using "awareness" colloquially as a synonym for "consciousness". In modern Academic philosophy there is a distinction between the two. This is made because we can be physiologically or unconsciously aware of environmental stimuli as when we reflexively catch an object. The action is initiated without forethought, without planning, and prior to conscious attention. This serves as another boundary to conscious awareness.

You said it the subject is object to the subject's object.

[Beingof1]

If consciousness is subject to the material - it must be measurable.
What are the dimensions of your field of awareness?

There is a temporal dimension as when I go to sleep at night and awareness is absent. Assuming you are using "awareness" colloquially as a synonym for "consciousness". In modern Academic philosophy there is a distinction between the two. This is made because we can be physiologically or unconsciously aware of environmental stimuli as when we reflexively catch an object. The action is initiated without forethought, without planning, and prior to conscious attention. This serves as another boundary to conscious awareness.

You said it the subject is object to the subject's object.

I describe consciousness as the full set or the 'whole' ,awareness as a subset of consciousness and perception as a subset of awareness.


Did you decide read and then to post?

[Animus]

If consciousness is subject to the material - it must be measurable.
What are the dimensions of your field of awareness?

There is a temporal dimension as when I go to sleep at night and awareness is absent. Assuming you are using "awareness" colloquially as a synonym for "consciousness". In modern Academic philosophy there is a distinction between the two. This is made because we can be physiologically or unconsciously aware of environmental stimuli as when we reflexively catch an object. The action is initiated without forethought, without planning, and prior to conscious attention. This serves as another boundary to conscious awareness.

You said it the subject is object to the subject's object.

I describe consciousness as the full set or the 'whole' ,awareness as a subset of consciousness and perception as a subset of awareness.

Can you be more specific?

Did you decide read and then to post?

I answered your inquiry with further inquiry, it was appropriate to flesh out what you are talking about. I also pointed out to you boundaries of consciousness in general, as in the temporal boundary. If you didn't get my last statement "the subject is object to the subject's object" it indicates that whatever a person perceives defines their conscious experience and hence the symbiotic relationship between subject and object or to put it in other terms, the non-dualistic nature of subject-object control.

[Pincho Paxton]

I say...

We direct electrons to certain places in the brain..

So electron direction is the cause.

I say...

Electrons pop out of tiny Black Holes, so we are controlling the opening of the black Holes.

Finally, after opening the Black Hole for the electron we need to steer it with a Photon.


Now that takes some getting used to, so give it a few years to accept.

When you break everything down into physics, it becomes a system of gates. Mankind really has to step onto the moon of science, and take a giant leap to really get to grips with something that is totally new, and odd at the same time.