Consciousness; a radically new theory. Diaphonous? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 14, 2015, 16:30 (3202 days ago) @ romansh

David: You are making unreasonable comparisons to precise non-biological processes. Of course there will be differences in function.
 
> 
> Romansh: Our experience is simply wallpaper over the cracks.-And my answer is, so what. Look at what humans have accomplished over the past few thousand years with that wallpaper.
> 
> > David: as I view it thoughts are immaterial and have no energy?
> 
> Romansh: For me "thought" is compatible with the brain actions ... so in this sense it contains energy. thought for me is not separate from reality.-Of course thought is within our reality, but you have again side stepped my point that thought is not material. Perhaps your thoughts are. All thoughts become material only when recorded. 
> 
> 
> > David: Please explain. You seem to say that you cannot cause effects in the material world.
> 
> Romansh: I did not say it cannot, I said it did not ... at least within my experience.-You seem to be referring to your thoughts not having a direct effect. I agree.-> 
> Romansh: Here's another problem with NDEs ... 
> If we experience consciousness after death and David has provided many anecdotal examples with his citations, then why don't we experience the supposed after death experiences whilst we are very much alive?-First of all, you are ignoring the point that these are NDE's, 'NEAR to death', with a distinct time reference to the end of life. And in fact there have been scattered reports of NDE's when 'scared to death' while in perfect health.-> Romansh: it would seem from David's hypothesis our brains are not receivers of this consciousness, but actually dampeners that are preventing us from experiencing this universal consciousness.-The receiver hypothesis comes from medical research into the phenomenon, and the reported experience rate is about 20%, so the majority of folks never experience it.
> 
> Romansh: Thought for me is awareness with a little forward and backward confabulation.-From Wikipedia: Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.-It also means just to chat. From your view of how the brain works I understand your statement, but 'without the conscious intention to deceive' it doesn't matter. What are you trying to prove?