Analyzing Context

In this post I will be answering questions concerning the context of the argument I am involved in.

Lumu, "The Unofficial Context Logo" uploaded 22 April 2009 via wikipedia.com, Attribution-sharealike 3.0 unported.

• What are the key perspectives of the debate you are studying?

Two of the major perspectives involved in this debate are the physics perspective and the neurological perspective. The physics perspective argument claims that the argument that quantum consciousness is nonexistent, while the neuroscience perspective argues that there are vibrations that cause consciousness.

• What are the major points of contention or disagreement?

The major points of contention between the two perspectives is that one argues that there is such thing as quantum particles creating quantum consciousness while the other claims that things like that do not exist.

• What are possible points of agreement?

Possible points of agreement are that there are quantum vibrations in the brain. This is possibly the only thing that the two perspective agree on.

• What are the ideological differences?

The ideological differences is that one of the perspectives is centered around the brain and what happens inside of the brain while the others focus mainly on the physical particles not their implementation on the brain. 

• What actions do the perspectives ask their audience take?

Both sides want their audiences to agree with their position. For the neuroscientists they do this by asking their audience to specifically research what the possibility of quantum mechanics on the brain could mean for the future of consciousness. For physicist, who are more recluse ask their audience to recognize that there is no such thing as quantum consciousness.

• What perspectives are useful in supporting your own argument?

I think the perspectives that are most useful in supporting my arguments are the physics perspectives because they tend to be the ones reacting to the perspectives of the neuroscientists.

• What perspectives will be your greatest threat?

The most dangerous perspectives for me will be the perspectives of the neuroscientist because they often try to make the physicist look as though they are incredible and crazy.