A-wal Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 So you dismiss my evidence but provide non of your own, that is not how this forum works...I dismissed your evidence on the grounds that it isn't evidence. It in no way even suggests that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness because the same 'evidence' would be present if consciousness weren't generated by the brain. You made this assertion: "If consciousness exists independently of the brain then the brain is a receiver/organiser of consciousness so your assertion that the fact that damaging or manipulating brain results in a change of thoughts and feelings qualifies as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness is entirely false."I made no assertion. I said that if consciousness isn't generated by the brain then the brain is still involved so any neurological change would have a psychological effect. Please tell us the source of said consciousness...I don't know, but I know it can't be generated by a purely mechanical process because that's absurd. How could any mechanical process possibly give rise to awareness? That is a ridiculous claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 I dismissed your evidence on the grounds that it isn't evidence. It in no way even suggests that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness because the same 'evidence' would be present if consciousness weren't generated by the brain. I made no assertion. I said that if consciousness isn't generated by the brain then the brain is still involved so any neurological change would have a psychological effect. I don't know, but I know it can't be generated by a purely mechanical process because that's absurd. How could any mechanical process possibly give rise to awareness? That is a ridiculous claim. So far you have given nothing to back up your baseless assertions, I smell troll.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 I smell BS! I'm going to explain this to you one more time. I'm not the one who's making a claim. The claim is that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness. THAT is the baseless assumption! To make a claim, especially one that outrageous, some kind of supporting evidence is required. I've seen none. Your 'evidence' can in no way be considered evidence because it would equally apply if the brain weren't the source of consciousness. That's like saying the existance of gracity proves that general relativity is accurate. Stop trying to pretend that I'm the one making the claim and the onus is on me to support it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) I smell BS! I'm going to explain this to you one more time. I'm not the one who's making a claim. The claim is that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness. THAT is the baseless assumption! To make a claim, especially one that outrageous, some kind of supporting evidence is required. I've seen none. Your 'evidence' can in no way be considered evidence because it would equally apply if the brain weren't the source of consciousness. That's like saying the existance of gracity proves that general relativity is accurate. Stop trying to pretend that I'm the one making the claim and the onus is on me to support it! I am going to tell you this one more damn time, no one has made the claim that the brain produces consciousness, I posted links to sites that support this idea but you have cited nothing but your own baseless assertions that the brain doesn't produce consciousness. Just like someone who asserts there are no gods you have to back that up, your words are meaningless and anything that can be asserted with out evidence can be dismissed with out evidence. If you assert the brain is not the source of consciousness then you have to back that up with evidence. The scientific consensus is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, you assertion that is that it is not, for that reason the onus is on you. If you claimed no god existed the onus would be on you to support your assertion. It doesn't matter if you are saying there are no bigfoot, or purple unicorns, you claim they do not exist the onus is on you to prove those things do not exist. To make the assertion that the brain is not the source of consciousness you must give reasons or simply be dismissed as a troll boy... Edited February 28, 2016 by Moontanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 I am going to tell you this one more damn time, no one has made the claim that the brain produces consciousness, I posted links to sites that support this idea but you have cited nothing but your own baseless assertions that the brain doesn't produce consciousness.The links you posted in no way support this idea, stop lying. The fact that damaging or manipulating brain can result in a change of thoughts, feelings and personality would equally be the case if the brain isn't the source of consciousness, so it isn't evidence of anything. You've provided nothing of value! Just like someone who asserts there are no gods you have to back that up, your words are meaningless and anything that can be asserted with out evidence can be dismissed with out evidence.No, that's not how it works at all. Those claiming the existence of a god are the ones who are required to support this claim. Those who doubt the claim are not in any way required to support their doubts. If you assert the brain is not the source of consciousness then you have to back that up with evidence.No I don't have to back it up. The scientific consensus is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, you assertion that is that it is not, for that reason the onus is on you.There you go, that's the claim, that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I'm refuting that claim by pointing out that there's zero evidence to support that view, and I'm certainly not required to support my doubts on the basis that others believe it to be true. That has to be the most unscientific statement I've seen on this site, congratulations. If you claimed no god existed the onus would be on you to support your assertion. It doesn't matter if you are saying there are no bigfoot, or purple unicorns, you claim they do not exist the onus is on you to prove those things do not exist.Utter nonsense! The burden of proof lies with those that claim there isn't a bigfoot or purple unicorns? :) To make the assertion that the brain is not the source of consciousness you must give reasons or simply be dismissed as a troll boy...The assertion that the brain IS the source of consciousness is what requires supporting evidence. Don't call me names from the safety of the internet please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) The links you posted in no way support this idea, stop lying. The fact that damaging or manipulating brain can result in a change of thoughts, feelings and personality would equally be the case if the brain isn't the source of consciousness, so it isn't evidence of anything. You've provided nothing of value! No, that's not how it works at all. Those claiming the existence of a god are the ones who are required to support this claim. Those who doubt the claim are not in any way required to support their doubts. No I don't have to back it up. There you go, that's the claim, that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I'm refuting that claim by pointing out that there's zero evidence to support that view, and I'm certainly not required to support my doubts on the basis that others believe it to be true. That has to be the most unscientific statement I've seen on this site, congratulations. Utter nonsense! The burden of proof lies with those that claim there isn't a bigfoot or purple unicorns? :) The assertion that the brain IS the source of consciousness is what requires supporting evidence. Don't call me names from the safety of the internet please! Read this carefully, pay attention, you have made the assertion that the brain does not produce consciousness, that is a positive assertion. Now this the important part, lets forget the brain for a second and go with something a bit more obvious. Can you prove I do not have a flying dog? Sounds easy to prove doesn't it? But you cannot prove it, all you can say is that you haven't seen enough evidence to believe it. The same thing with the brain producing consciousness, you cannot prove it does not do so, therefor you cannot assert that the brain is not the source of consciousness, you can assert that as of this point in time you have not seen sufficient evidence to convince you the brain is the source of consciousness but you cannot honestly assert it as true. Just like you cannot prove I do not have a flying dog. You keep mentioning god as though that is somehow an obvious negative but it is not, if you assert something is not real, gods, flying dogs, or consciousness producing brains the onus is on you to give evidence supporting your assertion. While I do not believe in lots of things, gods, flying dogs, bigfoot, unicorns, dragons, the list is long, I know I cannot honestly say with certainty they do not exist, all I can say is at this point sufficient evidence for their existence has not been provided. Is there any chance you understand what I am saying here? Edited February 28, 2016 by Moontanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Read this carefully, pay attention, you have made the assertion that the brain does not produce consciousness, that is a positive assertion.No it isn't! Consensus science: Source of consciousness = The brain. Me: Source of consciousness = Other. I'm refuting a specific claim, not making one. Now this the important part, lets forget the brain for a second and go with something a bit more obvious. Can you prove I do not have a flying dog? Sounds easy to prove doesn't it? But you cannot prove it, all you can say is that you haven't seen enough evidence to believe it. The same thing with the brain producing consciousness, you cannot prove it does not do so, therefor you cannot assert that the brain is not the source of consciousness, you can assert that as of this point in time you have not seen sufficient evidence to convince you the brain is the source of consciousness but you cannot honestly assert it as true. Just like you cannot prove I do not have a flying dog.I've already said that it's impossible to prove a negative.You can't prove a negative. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist.That's why the burden of proof lies with the people who claim the brain is the source of consciousness! You keep mentioning god as though that is somehow an obvious negative but it is not, if you assert something is not real, gods, flying dogs, or consciousness producing brains the onus is on you to give evidence supporting your assertion.Braindead goddite deity worshipper claim: There is a god. Impossible to prove there isn't so the burden of proof belongs to those that claim that there is a god. Scientific consensus claim: The brain is the source of consciousness. Same thing except the claim is far more stupid. While I do not believe in lots of things, gods, flying dogs, bigfoot, unicorns, dragons, the list is long, I know I cannot honestly say with certainty they do not exist, all I can say is at this point sufficient evidence for their existence has not been provided.Which is why those that make a specific claim are the ones that are required to provide supporting evidence. Is there any chance you understand what I am saying here?Oh I understand exactly what you're saying and how you're trying to weasel your way out of an impossible position. Edited February 28, 2016 by A-wal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 No it isn't! Consensus science: Source of consciousness = The brain. Me: Source of consciousness = Other. I'm refuting a specific claim, not making one. I've already said that it's impossible to prove a negative. That's why the burden of proof lies with the people who claim the brain is the source of consciousness! Braindead goddite deity worshipper claim: There is a god. Impossible to prove there isn't so the burden of proof belongs to those that claim that there is a god. Scientific consensus claim: The brain is the source of consciousness. Same thing except the claim is far more stupid. Which is why those that make a specific claim are the ones that are required to provide supporting evidence. Oh I understand exactly what you're saying and how you're trying to weasel your way out of an impossible position. Precisely what impossible position have I taken? I simply do not agree with you, in fact the position you have taken is unfalsifiable, therefor it is not science it is your opinion, nothing more, my stance is show me the evidence, nothing more. You can rant, rave, and scream neener neener neener at the top of your lungs until you go deaf from the noise but you have not provided anyone with any reason what so ever to believe you. Again I will quote Hitchens "anything that can be asserted with out evidence can be dismissed with out evidence" your turn troll boy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Precisely what impossible position have I taken?The onus is on the doubter of a claim to provide supporting evidence rather on the person who makes the claim to support their assertion. I simply do not agree with you, in fact the position you have taken is unfalsifiable, therefor it is not science it is your opinion, nothing more, my stance is show me the evidence, nothing more.So is taking the position that there is no god. You can rant, rave, and scream neener neener neener at the top of your lungs until you go deaf from the noise but you have not provided anyone with any reason what so ever to believe you.You're the one ranting and raving! Again I will quote Hitchens "anything that can be asserted with out evidence can be dismissed with out evidence" your turn troll boy...Seriously, stop calling me names! Very brave of you to do that from the safety of your home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 The onus is on the doubter of a claim to provide supporting evidence rather on the person who makes the claim to support their assertion. So is taking the position that there is no god. Again my stance is "I don't know" I do not know if there is a god, I do not know if the brain is the origin of consciousness, my stance is doubting anything with no evidence. You have not provided any evidence what so ever... You're the one ranting and raving! Seriously, stop calling me names! Very brave of you to do that from the safety of your home. Want my address troll boy? You said I was insane, I think you are a teenage boy with delusions of adequacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Again my stance is "I don't know" I do not know if there is a god, I do not know if the brain is the origin of consciousness, my stance is doubting anything with no evidence. You have not provided any evidence what so ever...Because I'm not the one making the claim, I'm not required to provide any evidence. Want my address troll boy? You said I was insane, I think you are a teenage boy with delusions of adequacy.How is this acceptable behaviour? Careful what you ask for. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHf7lqNU1J2cCmm4BtZC1XA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Because I'm not the one making the claim, I'm not required to provide any evidence. How is this acceptable behaviour? Careful what you ask for. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHf7lqNU1J2cCmm4BtZC1XA Come and get me pretty boy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 :lol: I can strike faster Bruce Lee could, faster than you can blink. Guess how much force I can generate. Are you always like this? How have you not been banned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 :lol: I can strike faster Bruce Lee could, faster than you can blink. Guess how much force I can generate. Are you always like this? How have you not been banned? You should look in a mirror, physical threats, verbal abuse, ignoring the rules you agreed to when you signed up! I could not possibly care less how much physical force you can generate or how fast you are, your brain power is what is on display here and you have demonstrated a rather severe lack of said brain power. If you had any sense you would know why your physical threats are meaningless to me but why spoil the show, you might say something else ignorant and make a few intelligent people smile... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Want my address troll boy?Come and get me pretty boy...Yea, you're being a child at all are you. You're the one calling me names and breaking the site rules by not providing any evidence of your claims. You tried once but what evidence of sweet FA. You wouldn't know the first thing about intelligence based on your comments in this topic. You're rude, abusive and throw tantrums when you're shown up for what you are. I've known lots of people like you, they're hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Yea, you're being a child at all are you. You're the one calling me names and breaking the site rules by not providing any evidence of your claims. You tried once but what evidence of sweet FA. You wouldn't know the first thing about intelligence based on your comments in this topic. You're rude, abusive and throw tantrums when you're shown up for what you are. I've known lots of people like you, they're hilarious. I am glad I can entertain you, again I suggest you look in a mirror.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I'm not, you are! Child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.