The Brain and Human Consciousness

On book TV there was a lecture by two authors on the human brain and consciousness.   There was talk about De Carte and how he had this idea that the brain could be reduced to a biological machine, but he lacked the knowledge we have today in order to prove it.  There are of course pet scans and things now of the brain which indicate which people in a “vegetative” state really have something going on in their mind and which don’t.  It is said only ten to twenty percent of patients do.  But even this could be a breakthrough.  We have all seen these color graphs of activities in various parts of the brain and how various narcotics affect these.  Rather than physical say “Yes” or “No” they can be asked to “invision yourself playing tennis – if the answer is Yes”, for instance.  There was talk about how most stimuli we receive is of a pre conscious nature meaning it’s received but not “shared by the whole brain” and this ‘whole brain attention” aspect seems to signal consciousness.   There was talk about seeing a number and then designs- - and if the time lapse is short enough you will fail to see the number.  This one puzzled me because I always clearly saw the number.  (?)   The other guy came at it from a slightly more philosophical (or linguistic) aspect.  For instance we should be aware of the “surely” alarm.  If you see the word “surely” in an argument, a bell should go off in your head because you could well be in the process of being scammed.  This is an author who states a fact as TRUE yet doesn’t want to take the trouble to prove it.  More importantly in my view- is that often these “Surely” statements like in politics or religion- - are bogus statements on their face and should NOT be accepted as a sound premise for an argument.   There was talk of how this ‘surely’ tip is like an “app” for the brain, and that our brains run on a lot of “apps” that other animals don’t have access to draw on- - because they are conveyed by complex speech.  But the statement was made that even a talented carpenter would mainly be lost without his tools.  Besides build bookcases out of bricks and plywood planks- - there is a lot a carpenter can do without his tools.  But it is also argued that- - man evolves in his ability to use the tools he does have.  Yet some would say that one neuron doesn’t know in itself the knowledge it is conveying.  Here is a brain teaser.  We are told that the cerebral cortex for example assigns ‘meaning” to the stimuli we receive.  But at the same time- - deciding what HAS meaning or what is SOUND FOUNDATION is tricky.  For instance if a tea party person goes to France and is charged for something in Euros- - he may respond “Yes, but what is its cost in real money” meaning the American dollar.  It’s a brain teases of an analogy but this is how this speaker was saying that no part of the brain- - in itself- - is the fount of “all that’s real and has meaning” than any other part of the brain.  And many times, and I found this out independently, that people can engage in behavior without knowing WHY they do it- - and many times I will even say (or at least think) well necessity dictated that I EVOLVE that behavior because “it Works”.   What WORKS gets held on to and reproduced more often because it increases survival odds.  There is this little “stotting” as they call it that gazelles do when they run away from a lion hunting them.  This behavior is sort of a prancing behavior as I understand it - - and expends physical energy so can be stated as “inefficient”.   The gazelle doesn’t know why he or she does it.  And the Lion may not know why such “prancing’ or whatever discourages the hunt- but it does.  It’s an unknowing message (without comprehension by either) of a behavior and a signal received- - of a behavior designed to prolong the life of the gazelle another day.   Now the first question fielded was whether either guest believes in any concept or existence of “the soul” and the answer seemed to be “No” simply because we have enough to work with right in the here and now - - and there is no need for “a soul”.   Some say we need a thing like a soul to govern our morality.  However ‘Morality is just another neck-top app” to these people, just like Mr Data had a morality program installed in him.  Animals show signs of morality.  There are acts of generosity in the ape community, and someone pointed out that even if you feed a stray cat a whole can of cat food, they will leave a portion of it, and endeavor to alert their friends that there is food around.

I’d like to discuss this “new” notion now that “The earth is the center of the Universe, after all”.     This whole like of thinking shows a lot of ego centrism, and they appeal to someone like Aristatle and the concept of “the un-moved first mover” that has been debunked.  In this line of thinking God is assumed to have vast amounts of “gravitas” (a Dick Chaney word)   But in reality we can’t even define what a stationary point is.  Indeed there can be no concept of any “shape” or physical limit to the universe because as I said in 2011 “Infinity, time, and space are all artifacts of God”.   Hence to label God as infinite is to limit him by his own creation.  (Selah)  We therefore know it is silly to portray the Universe as either spherical, pear shaped, saddle shaped, or even donut shaped.  There is no place where the universe “stops”.    Some would speak of “space folding, but are unaware of the fact that a gravitational or magnetic field needs aether to propagate its waves of influence in- - and this cannot happen is the “Magnet” is outside the realm of either space.  (Selah)  These people show themselves to be ignorant of moving vector geometry where even trying to find what the “center” or stationary point in an object or group of objects is impossible.  Also there is no “speed limit” and when push comes to shove, even Einstein will agree with this.   Hence it cannot even be said that a particular “event horizon” is moving “more slowly” or faster than another event horizon.  You smart ones already know this.  When people design their god they design him the way they wish they were.  Hence any portrayal of “god” invariable shows him to be with a gigantic ego, utterly obsessed with Self.   How strange it would be then if God turned out to be Black.  Because President Obama knows that Bl.ack men can’t get angry because otherwise they’d be just another angry nigger.

Chris Matthews kept having buffering pauses.  I blame the phone company as much as I do that site.  I never used to have those problems.  I watched almost two days worth of clips running nearly an hour and a half.  Sometimes it makes you wonder whether I should start blogging along lines of other interest such as music, or the ETI stuff or theoretical metaphysics, or perhaps Excel math formulas - - or perhaps do some fictionalized account of my own life experiences.  Clearly the usefulness of political discussion has run its course.  Ronald Reagan said it was “Morning in America” in early 1984 when the unemployment rate was a point and a half higher than it is right now.  Yesterday the new figure came out as 5.8% and well over two hundred thousand jobs added.  Any republican criticism of the economy is groundless at this point.  But FOX news doesn’t have to be factual or even logical.  It can appeal to the basest fears and irrational tendencies of the immature emotions of the human brain.

There was a line on “Reign” about the royal carriage being surrounded by armed horsemen, where the Queen says “There are a million peasants and only a few of us Royals, and we need to show the peasants respect. I only wish the Republican party of today was as eager to show us peasants proper respect. Clearly if you had to justify tea party philosophy by using the Bible it would be impossible, because the Bible at every turn says the opposite on the value of money and such as the tea party portrays. When Jesus gave the parable of the talents, he was not referring to profit but a free gift from God to you that you were to share with others that profit may occur to all of you. Jesus rebukes the individual who stuffed the money in his mattress. The man seeking to justify himself said "I was afraid, therefore I hid my talent". How odd then that Mitt Romney and all the rest said that the Banks and the Wall Street financiers - - were GIVEN vast sums of money by the federal reserve but we are informed by Newt and Mittens that "They were afraid because they didn't know what the tax policies would be the next year". Well they know them now- and these banks to a great degree still are not lending. There are many such stories in the Bible if you look for them- - saying that either trusting in riches or worshiping riches to the exclusion of people - - is a sin. There are countless injunctions in scripture not to disparage the poor but to nurture them. I cannot think of one scripture that instructs us to rebuke a man because he IS poor. Yet this is what Mitt Romney did with his famous 47% remark. It seems to me a strange ingratitude tword God that the rich would resent being in a higher tax bracket rather than get down on their knees they even HAVE that money to begin with to be able to give to the government or anybody else. (Selah)