More than words?

[GrowingSmaller]

http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/whorf.html

The Sapir-Whorf theory, named after the American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, is a mould theory of language. Writing in 1929, Sapir argued in a classic passage that:

"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

DP

 

[pshun2404]

No.

The brain causes consciousness, that much is clear.

No it is not...only to people who believe as you do. The brain does not cause the consciousness it merely translates and communicates it in the bio-physical realm. If you believe this assertion you should be able to prove it so that my explanation cannot apply or also be plausible. The only reason you believe the brain causes consciousness is because you were told that. YES! If we kill the brain it appears the consciousness ceases (at least for that body) but does not prove the brain causes consciousness, just that it channels it and you killed the hardware (like destroying the motherboard in your PC).

 

[pshun2404]

Oh? I've never heard of this...

Give me one example of an "outside of the brain" consciousness.

There are such examples but you will automatically reject them though there is sufficient empirical evidence for them throughout time. The problem will arise from your indoctrinated limitations. You will only "accept" evidence that satisfies your definition of "acceptable evidence" which will first limit the field only to physically demonstrable evidence from laboratory experiments, then limit it more by only current researchers, then will only accept the results (if any) from scientists (already a limitation) who agree with you, and so on...

You see this is always what happens when discussing meta-physical things with Atheists...they make the box smaller and smaller until all one can draw on to demonstrate their position are those limited views held by those who currently support your own view. There is literally no room for new insight, original thoughts, possible contrareity with the currently accepted view of like-minded pedagogues, etc.,,,,Sad really! It would be like if I insisted you tell me why the water is boiling on my stove you could only tell me how it is that water boils (a total insufficient irrelevant answer) and thats all you can give...so are you ready to reason??? Read my next post...

 

[pshun2404]

Empirical - based on, concerned with, or verifiable by, observation or experience


Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.


em·pir·i·cal [em-pir-i-kuh

l]; adjective


1.derived from, or guided by, experience or experiment.

2.depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.


So we can see here that in fact empirical evidence does not rely on having to be demonstrated by the scientific method only or even whatsoever, and that indeed consciousness can be said to be proven to exist apart from the physical brain through empirical means. How? We hear of many who have experienced this personally and they have indicated this…and our experience with God (not all who claim to be spiritual are) has shown to us He is real and alive…many who were dead (zero brain activity) or in commas (exhibiting no brain waves) have come back and said in many cases they knew what was going on, recalled some things said, and some tell us the experience was like looking at themselves from outside themselves. Then of course we have Jesus who was dead and rose on the third day and more. The testimony of many through time who are not related nor were trying to make the same point have had these experiences, thus a degree of empirical evidence has been established.


Now I admit it is probably not something someone can prove by materialistic means and most will not know (or not know for sure) until their bodies are dead. But sadly most materialists (and maybe not you) are persons who are like being inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties and instrumentation they either were born with or have intelligently designed, and/or by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer. Because of their fixed view closed off to all other possibility, they having no probable way of knowing there even is an outside or beyond the box (except perhaps SOME theoretical quantum physicists) make assertive assumption based declarations of that which IS or MAY BE outside of their box.

 

[dms1972]

No.

The brain causes consciousness, that much is clear.

Is it?

what do you mean when you say "that much is clear"?

 

[dms1972]

I am not very sure questions of this sort can be resolved on these forums as they currently are structured. Sorry for raising the question and presenting it poorly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Out of body experiences?

You mean like NDEs? Well, there was a big study done to find evidence for them. Turns out they couldn't get any evidence and it appears that they don't happen.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/

If you're speaking about "astral projection" or other living "out of body experiences"...there's been studies for evidence of them as well. Wanna guess the results??

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it?

what do you mean when you say "that much is clear"?

It appears that is what the brain does...it forms consciousness. You may note that while some people here don't believe so, they haven't shown any evidence for consciousness existing apart from the brain.

 

[dms1972]

They are not saying consciousness exists apart from the brain, or without a brain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They are not saying consciousness exists apart from the brain, or without a brain.

On the contrary, that's exactly what they're saying.

 

[dms1972]

Where have they said this?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Where have they said this?

They've implied it, but we can ask directly if you want.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh? I've never heard of this...

Give me one example of an "outside of the brain" consciousness.

Out-of-body experiences

 

[dms1972]

I didn't want to get onto this sort of thing. No one knows if that takes place, or what some who says they have such experiences are experiencing. ALl there is are anecodal accounts of paranormal occurances. I had a book listing them years ago. eventually I think I threw it out, as it was doing my head in trying to figure out what was going on in the things it reported.

What I was talking in my OP was knowing there is an external world, and if there is truth and reality, independent, pre-existing of what anyone believes, something that we can check our beleifs, theories against? For example - I came into this world at my birth, the extra-mental world pre-exists me. But this for me seem to be a belief.

 

[quatona]

I came into this world at my birth, the extra-mental world pre-exists me. But this for me seem to be a belief.

I believe that whenever I close my eyes the extra-mental world ceases to exist.

 

[dms1972]

I believe that whenever I close my eyes the extra-mental world ceases to exist.

I think or believe it continues to be there, mainly because I can still hear outside sounds like the fan of the computer.

 

[quatona]

I think or believe it continues to be there, mainly because I can still hear outside sounds like the fan of the computer.

Indeed, the idea that there is no external world doesn´t get us very far.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ignoring, for the moment, the potential physics arguments against the 'brain-as-receiver' model; it's not clear exactly what the model proposes - is it an independent external consciousness that instructs the brain what to do, or manipulates the brain like a puppet?

With this kind of model, I would expect there to be some features of an external or independent mind or consciousness that remain unaffected by changes or damage to the brain, except to the extent that brain damage may not allow them to be fully expressed, in much the same way as damaging a TV set can't change the broadcast content, but may degrade its quality on screen.

For example, if an external conscious mind communicates with or controls the brain to express your personality, I would not expect brain damage to radically change your personality, although it might become less well expressed, or show frustration at the inability to fully express itself. Similarly, if an independently functioning mind directs the expression of your moral and ethical values via your brain, I would not expect brain damage to change them, although it might them harder to express, and so-on.

Is this a reasonable expectation - that if the mind is in some sense independent of the brain, there should be features of its functioning that could be impaired in expression but not qualitatively changed by changes in the brain?

So I'd like to ask pshun, or anyone else who thinks this is a reasonable model, just what characteristics of the mind are thought to be communicated to the brain by the external or independent consciousness, rather than being generated by the brain itself? i.e. what does it do that the brain doesn't do on its own?

Recognition? Language? Emotion? Personality? Intelligence? Awareness? Morals? Ethics? etc.?