'I' am not consciousness

1567911

Comments

  • memememe Posts: 4,695
    (I don't mean the board member meme, by the way. :D)

    Hi there :p
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    I'm an armadillo!

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223

    (I don't mean the board member meme, by the way. :D)

    Yeah, didn't want to make her self conscious! :D
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    So, you don't have specific data in reference to meditation, itself, then. How can you assume what the process is, considering the "delay" thing was not at all about meditation, which is an altered state of consciousness. The Libet studies you talk abour refer to normal consciousness, in my understanding. It's not logical to apply the dynamics of an orange to an apple, imo.

    It's not logical to making flailing hypothesis that contradict everything we know either.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    so then what.....reality doesn't exist as a definite thing; only as a simulation of something else?

    It does exist as a definite thing, but your perception of it is a simulation.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    It's not logical to making flailing hypothesis that contradict everything we know either.
    It sounds like you're trying to avoid the subject. The "I'm rubber and you're glue" strategy...
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    It sounds like you're trying to avoid the subject. The "I'm rubber and you're glue" strategy...

    No, I'm making an inference based on what we know, not on what we could know some time in the future.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • sicnevolsicnevol Posts: 180
    sicnevol wrote:
    really can you tell me who exactly proved that every atom attracts every other atom in the universe with a force <-> corolated to the distance between them wrong. Do tell.
    ............................
    That's two things we've got, Tape and Time.
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    No, I'm making an inference based on what we know, not on what we could know some time in the future.
    You're applying one theory on regular consciousness to an altered state of consciousness. It's as fair game as any opinion.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    You're applying one theory on regular consciousness to an altered state of consciousness. It's as fair game as any opinion.

    It's still consciousness, it doesn't matter what state it is in.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    It's still consciousness, it doesn't matter what state it is in.
    right
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

    The quantum mind theory is founded on the premise that quantum theory is necessary to fully understand the mind and brain, particularly concerning an explanation of consciousness. This is considered a minority opinion in science, although it does have the support of the well-known mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose. Other proponents include Stuart Hameroff, Karl Pribram and Henry Stapp.

    Introduction

    A key argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness. Proponents have suggested that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

    The quantum mind thesis does not as yet have any evidence to confirm its validity, but some role of quantum processes in consciousness has not been completely ruled out. Sufficient understanding of the operation of the brain could prove the proposition false.

    Motivation

    Consciousness Banished

    A common argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, if only because Galileo and Newton (together with their admirers, viz., Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world.

    Fritjof Capra writes:

    To make it possible for scientists to describe nature mathematically, Galileo postulated that they should restrict themselves to studying the essential properties of material bodies - shapes, numbers, and movement - which could be measured and quantified. Other properties, like color, sound, taste, or smell, were merely subjective mental projections which should be excluded from the domain of science. [1]

    Minimization of Mystery

    The philosopher David Chalmers half-jokingly claims that the motivation for Quantum Mind theories is: "a Law of Minimization of Mystery: consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the two mysteries have a common source".[2]

    Ongoing Debate

    Science

    The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that the structures of the brain are much too large for quantum effects to be important. It is impossible for coherent quantum states to form for very long in the brain and impossible for them to exist at scales on the order of the size of neurons.

    This does not imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness, but that quantum effects including superposition and entanglement are insignificant. Quantum chemistry is required to understand the actions of neurotransmitters, for example.

    One well-known critic of the quantum mind is Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function, "This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way"[3].

    Philosophy

    Another line of criticism is that no physical theory is well suited to explaining consciousness, particularly in its most problematical form, phenomenal consciousness or qualia, known as the hard problem of consciousness. It is not so much that colours and tastes and feelings --qualia or secondary qualities -- have been deliberately banished, but more that they cannot be captured in any mathematical description, which means they cannot be explicitly represented in physics, since all physical theory is expressed in mathematical language (as explained in Eugene Wigner's famous paper The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences). If no physical theory can express qualia, no physical theory can fully explain consciousness. Replacing the mathematical apparatus of classical physics with the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics is therefore of no help in understanding consciousness, and indeed there is no known example of a quantum equation which encapsulates a taste or colour.

    As David Chalmers puts it:

    Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as nondeterminism and nonlocality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered. [4]

    Other philosophers, such as Patricia and Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett[5] reject the idea that there is anything puzzling about consciousness in the first place.

    I agree with Pat and Paul Churchland. I read that book Conversations on Consciousness and they have the best ideas, IMHO.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    It's still consciousness, it doesn't matter what state it is in.
    "An altered state of consciousness is any state which is significantly different from a normative waking beta wave state.

    The expression was coined by Charles Tart and describes induced changes in one's mental state, almost always temporary. A synonymous phrase is "altered states of awareness". An associated body of research has been conducted in trance and this is becoming the predominant auspice terminology. Trance includes all "altered states of consciousness" as well as the various forms of waking trance states.

    An altered state of consciousness can come about accidentally through indigestion, fever, sleep deprivation, starvation, oxygen deprivation, nitrogen narcosis (deep diving), or a traumatic accident.

    It can sometimes be reached intentionally by the use of a sensory deprivation tank or mind-control techniques, hypnosis, meditation, prayer, or disciplines (e.g. Mantra Meditation, Yoga, Sufism or Surat Shabda Yoga). It is sometimes attained through the ingestion of psychoactive drugs such as alcohol and opiates, or psychoactive plants and chemicals such as LSD, DXM, 2C-I, peyote, marijuana, mescaline, Salvia divinorum, MDMA, psychedelic mushrooms, ayahuasca or datura (Jimson weed). Another effective way to induce an altered state of consciousness is using a variety of neurotechnologies such as psychoacoustics, light and sound stimulation, cranial electrical and magnetic stimulation, and such; these methods attempt to induce specific brainwave patterns, and a particular altered state of consciousness.

    Naturally occurring altered states of consciousness include dreams, lucid dreams, euphoria, ecstasy, psychosis as well as purported premonitions, out-of-body experiences, and channeling."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness





    Regular states of consciousness are "significantly" different than the diverse varying altered states. Therefore to assume that what applies in one state also applies in another is hugely an assumption, and I don't consider doing so either factual, or logical. If you have evidence that Libet's delay occurs in meditation, I'd certainly be willing to consider that, however.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    Regular states of consciousness are "significantly" different than the diverse varying altered states. Therefore to assume that what applies in one state also applies in another is hugely an assumption, and I don't consider doing so either factual, or logical. If you have evidence that Libet's delay occurs in meditation, I'd certainly be willing to consider that, however.

    Consciousness is the product of individual nerve cells dispersed throughout the brain. They are a product of the brain that has nothing to do with decisions. It does not matter what state the consciousness is in. Or which NCCs are active and which are not.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Consciousness is the product of individual nerve cells dispersed throughout the brain. They are a product of the brain that has nothing to do with decisions. It does not matter what state the consciousness is in. Or which NCCs are active and which are not.
    While you certainly know somethings about the brain and consciousness, there are also other things. :)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Really. Not many people in the field care about qualia. It was labelled the 'hard problem', but it's not really that hard of a problem.

    You must not know any neuroscientists in person then. Depending on who you ask, this question may not even be amenable to scientific scrutiny. Regardless, it is certainly the case that right now no one really knows the answer. It is my opinion that scientific methodology could be used to reveal what neural mechanisms are associated with conscious experience, but that the explanation for why those particular mechanisms are associated with experience will only be a matter of one's philosophical preference.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    baraka wrote:
    You must not know any neuroscientists in person then. Depending on who you ask, this question may not even be amenable to scientific scrutiny. Regardless, it is certainly the case that right now no one really knows the answer. It is my opinion that scientific methodology could be used to reveal what neural mechanisms are associated with conscious experience, but that the explanation for why those particular mechanisms are associated with experience will only be a matter of one's philosophical preference.

    Maybe, maybe not, as there are different levels (for lack of a better word) of consciousness, then the neural mechanisms could be as varied as...who knows? it could be like a fingerprint, unique to each and every person.

    Of course, there's environmental and situational factors...

    I mean, sometimes humans are the same and respond pretty much the same, neurologically, when presented with a certain set of armadillos.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    gue_barium wrote:
    Maybe, maybe not, as there are different levels (for lack of a better word) of consciousness, then the neural mechanisms could be as varied as...who knows? it could be like a fingerprint, unique to each and every person.

    Of course, there's environmental and situational factors...

    I mean, sometimes humans are the same and respond pretty much the same, neurologically, when presented with a certain set of armadillos.

    I'm too clever, sometimes. :)

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    baraka wrote:
    You must not know any neuroscientists in person then. Depending on who you ask, this question may not even be amenable to scientific scrutiny. Regardless, it is certainly the case that right now no one really knows the answer. It is my opinion that scientific methodology could be used to reveal what neural mechanisms are associated with conscious experience, but that the explanation for why those particular mechanisms are associated with experience will only be a matter of one's philosophical preference.

    "Well of course that's what people say. That's what they said about life. They said there was a vital spirit (Elan Vital) that you couldn't explain in terms of physics or chemistry, and because they said it, it became almost a standard point of view."
    - Francis Crick
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    "Well of course that's what people say. That's what they said about life. They said there was a vital spirit (Elan Vital) that you couldn't explain in terms of physics or chemistry, and because they said it, it became almost a standard point of view."
    - Francis Crick
    Shit happens.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    But was your raised hand completely determined by prior
    events or was it freely willed?

    "You mean, do the laws of physics leave room for
    a will that is free in the metaphysical sense?
    Everybody has opinions on this age-old problem,
    but there are no generally accepted answers. I do
    know of many instances of a dissociation between
    an individual’s action and her intentions. You can
    observe these slip-ups in your own life. When
    “you want” to climb above a ledge, for example,
    but your body doesn’t follow because it’s too
    scared. Or, when running in the mountains and
    your will slackens but your legs just keep on
    going. There are many extreme forms of dissociations
    between action and the experience of willing
    an action, including hypnosis, table turning,
    automatic writing, facilitated communications,
    spirit possession, deindividuation in crowds, and
    clinical dissociative identity disorders. But
    whether raising my hand was truly free, as free as
    Siegfried’s destruction of the world order of the gods
    in Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, I doubt it."

    What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
    in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
    has died. What do you have to say to them?

    "Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
    with our current scientific world view. What is
    clear is that every conscious act or intention has
    some physical correlate. With the end of life,
    consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
    mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
    some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God."
    -Christof Koch (The Quest for Consciousness, 2004)
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    But was your raised hand completely determined by prior
    events or was it freely willed?

    "You mean, do the laws of physics leave room for
    a will that is free in the metaphysical sense?
    Everybody has opinions on this age-old problem,
    but there are no generally accepted answers. I do
    know of many instances of a dissociation between
    an individual’s action and her intentions. You can
    observe these slip-ups in your own life. When
    “you want” to climb above a ledge, for example,
    but your body doesn’t follow because it’s too
    scared. Or, when running in the mountains and
    your will slackens but your legs just keep on
    going. There are many extreme forms of dissociations
    between action and the experience of willing
    an action, including hypnosis, table turning,
    automatic writing, facilitated communications,
    spirit possession, deindividuation in crowds, and
    clinical dissociative identity disorders. But
    whether raising my hand was truly free, as free as
    Siegfried’s destruction of the world order of the gods
    in Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, I doubt it."

    What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
    in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
    has died. What do you have to say to them?

    "Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
    with our current scientific world view. What is
    clear is that every conscious act or intention has
    some physical correlate. With the end of life,
    consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
    mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
    some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God."
    -Christof Koch (The Quest for Consciousness, 2004)

    Jesus (pardon the missive) dude, you're bored.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    Jesus (pardon the missive) dude, you're bored.

    I don't have this book... yet.
    I copied it from Koch's website, he has some sample chapters on there.

    http://www.questforconsciousness.com/Koch_Feature.pdf
    http://www.questforconsciousness.com/chapt.html
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I don't have this book... yet.
    I copied it from Koch's website, he has some sample chapters on there.

    http://www.questforconsciousness.com/Koch_Feature.pdf
    http://www.questforconsciousness.com/chapt.html

    You're more intelligent than this. I know. So am I.

    We get bored sometimes. We get duldrumistic expectations. You're showing.

    And I think I just invented another word.

    The last one was "synchronicit". Without the 'y'.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    You're more intelligent than this. I know. So am I.

    We get bored sometimes. We get duldrumistic expectations. You're showing.

    And I think I just invented another word.

    The last one was "synchronicit". Without the 'y'.

    Well, I am reading off and on these ebooks on NLP. But they used OCR (Optical Character Recognition) to computerize the original books and it's got a lot of characters wrong, makes it hard to read and easy to be distracted.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Well, I am reading off and on these ebooks on NLP. But they used OCR (Optical Character Recognition) to computerize the original books and it's got a lot of characters wrong, makes it hard to read and easy to be distracted.

    I've never tried "control-alt-delete" in reply mode.

    I wonder what would happen?

    Is there something wrong with your eyes?

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    This section accurately describes my view of 'beliefs'

    "Beliefs are the rules we live by. They are our best guesses at reality and form our mental
    models - the principles of how the world seems to work, based on our experience,
    Beliefs are not facts, although we often mistake them for facts. We have beliefs about
    other people, about ourselves and about our relationships, about what is possible and
    about what we are capable of. We have a personal investment in our beliefs, i told you
    so'is a satisfying phrase because it means our beliefs were proved right. It gives us confidence
    in our ideas.
    Some things are not influenced by our belief in them - the law of gravity, for
    example, will not change whether we believe in it or not. Sometimes we treat other
    beliefe - about our relationships, abilities and possibilities - as if they were as fixed
    and as immutable as gravity, and they are not. Beliefs actively shape our social
    world."

    Neuro-Linguistic Programming Workbook by Joseph O'Connor
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    This section accurately describes my view of 'beliefs'

    "Beliefs are the rules we live by. They are our best guesses at reality and form our mental
    models - the principles of how the world seems to work, based on our experience,
    Beliefs are not facts, although we often mistake them for facts. We have beliefs about
    other people, about ourselves and about our relationships, about what is possible and
    about what we are capable of. We have a personal investment in our beliefs, i told you
    so'is a satisfying phrase because it means our beliefs were proved right. It gives us confidence
    in our ideas.
    Some things are not influenced by our belief in them - the law of gravity, for
    example, will not change whether we believe in it or not. Sometimes we treat other
    beliefe - about our relationships, abilities and possibilities - as if they were as fixed
    and as immutable as gravity, and they are not. Beliefs actively shape our social
    world."

    Neuro-Linguistic Programming Workbook by Joseph O'Connor

    I think Frogs have something to do with everything.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    This section accurately describes my view of 'beliefs'

    "Beliefs are the rules we live by. They are our best guesses at reality and form our mental
    models - the principles of how the world seems to work, based on our experience,
    Beliefs are not facts, although we often mistake them for facts. We have beliefs about
    other people, about ourselves and about our relationships, about what is possible and
    about what we are capable of. We have a personal investment in our beliefs, i told you
    so'is a satisfying phrase because it means our beliefs were proved right. It gives us confidence
    in our ideas.
    Some things are not influenced by our belief in them - the law of gravity, for
    example, will not change whether we believe in it or not. Sometimes we treat other
    beliefe - about our relationships, abilities and possibilities - as if they were as fixed
    and as immutable as gravity, and they are not. Beliefs actively shape our social
    world."

    Neuro-Linguistic Programming Workbook by Joseph O'Connor


    Okay man, true: confidence plays a larger part in the human existence than many give it credit for.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    Okay man, true: confidence plays a larger part in the human existence than many give it credit for.

    I just find NLP interesting right now because it's aligned with my view of reality. There are 13 'presuppositions' in this book that I already believe. So it's an interesting self-help book for someone like me.

    For example:

    People make the best choice they can at the time.
    A person always makes the best choice theycan.given their map of the world.The
    choice may be self-defeating, bizarre or evil, but for them. It seems the best way forward.
    Give them a better choice and they will take it. Even better.glve them a superior map
    with more choices on It.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sign In or Register to comment.