'I' am not consciousness

1…34689…17

Comments

  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Ahnimus wrote:
    What does the colour look like?

    This isn't a thought experiment where you don't have to actually think about it. You cannot think of a colour that is not made up of red, green and blue. That is a fact because your brain can only understand red, green and blue. You only have photoreceptors of red, green and blue. It may seem odd, but even yellow is a combination of pure red and pure green. You simply cannot think of a colour that does not consist of red, green and/or blue. It's impossible. You cannot invent something entirely new. You can think of a 5-legged creature, because you've seen creatures and legs, but you can't genuinely think of something entirely new.

    i love this question. how would you descibe green to a blind person. :)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Because what is a body without you creating it's reality?

    The body is responsible for consciousness, so I don't see how that makes any sense.
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The body is responsible for consciousness, so I don't see how that makes any sense.

    Why would the body need consciousness then?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    catefrances wrote:
    i love this question. how would you descibe green to a blind person. :)

    You wouldn't need too.

    But if you ultimately had to, you could explain in-depth how the human visual perception works.
    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
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The body is responsible for consciousness, so I don't see how that makes any sense.

    no. the mind is responsible for consciousness.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    What does the colour look like?

    That's a spurious question. "Look like" implies seeing it, and humans can't see light at a 100 nm wavelength. This, however, can:

    http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/catalog/Product.aspx?ProductID=UV10SF
    This isn't a thought experiment where you don't have to actually think about it. You cannot think of a colour that is not made up of red, green and blue.

    Hehe...this is ridiculous. I can think of millions of of colors not made up of those things. Your question is actually:

    "Find a color that you can see that is not made up of red, green and blue"

    And the answer to that is, obviously, "impossible" considering the structure of the human eye. Someone should actually try thinking about that "thought experiment".
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Why would the body need consciousness then?

    In order to be aware of it's surroundings and it's self.

    I believe I covered that in my very first post :p
    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
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I guess so. I don't know where this is going so I'm having a hard time choosing to allocate time to it. Can you try to get to the point Angelica?
    That is the point. We need something to be learned and something to learn it to come together simultaneously, in order for an act of learning to take place. This is one of many examples of how as humans we want to assume cause because we have been taught to think that way. And then we overlook the reality. It happens all the time. Whether this is essential to the original topic or not, it's important for accuracy. And it's relevent to our human fallacy to distort "what is" with our time-oriented and sometimes blatantly false ideas.
    "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!!!
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    catefrances wrote:
    no. the mind is responsible for consciousness.

    The brain is part of the body. And what the fuck are you basing this on anyway? You have a disembodied mind that you can show me? If you do I'm sure the world would love to see 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
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You wouldn't need too.

    But if you ultimately had to, you could explain in-depth how the human visual perception works.

    who said you'd need to?
    what if a blind person said to you, what is green? how would you explain it to them in a way that they could somehow understand?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That's a spurious question. "Look like" implies seeing it, and humans can't see light at a 100 nm wavelength. This, however, can:

    http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/catalog/Product.aspx?ProductID=UV10SF

    Hehe...this is ridiculous. I can think of millions of of colors not made up of those things. Your question is actually:

    "Find a color that you can see that is not made up of red, green and blue"

    And the answer to that is, obviously, "impossible" considering the structure of the human eye. Someone should actually try thinking about that "thought experiment".

    You can't imagine a such colour. You are just talking out of your ass here FFG. This thought experiment is widely used in the discussion of consciousness and free-will. But I guess you've never really thought about it or read about 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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    catefrances wrote:
    who said you'd need to?
    what if a blind person said to you, what is green? how would you explain it to them in a way that they could somehow understand?

    You could say, it's a visual perception that differentiates the visual properties of objects that reflect different wave lengths of light. And you can ask them what do you see? And they might say "Nothing" and you could say "That is what black looks like" "Green is different" but of course you could never fully explain what green looks like. Again I don't see what importance this has, this has nothing to do with consciousness being a deliberating force and it has nothing to do with free-will or determinism.
    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
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The brain is part of the body. And what the fuck are you basing this on anyway? You have a disembodied mind that you can show me? If you do I'm sure the world would love to see it.

    i didnt say the brain ryan. i said the mind. i make a distinction between the two.
    and what i am basing it on is 42 years of experience.
    my mind floats within it's corporeal container.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    That is the point. We need something to be learned and something to learn it to come together simultaneously, in order for an act of learning to take place. This is one of many examples of how as humans we want to assume cause because we have been taught to think that way. And then we overlook the reality. It happens all the time. Whether this is essential to the original topic or not, it's important for accuracy. And it's relevent to our human fallacy to distort "what is" with our time-oriented and sometimes blatantly false ideas.

    You've just explained two factors coming together to form a cause. I don't see the relevancy.
    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
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You could say, it's a visual perception that differentiates the visual properties of objects that reflect different wave lengths of light. And you can ask them what do you see? And they might say "Nothing" and you could say "That is what black looks like" "Green is different" but of course you could never fully explain what green looks like. Again I don't see what importance this has, this has nothing to do with consciousness being a deliberating force and it has nothing to do with free-will or determinism.

    who said it had any importance? i was just asking.
    and you're right, you couldn't describe green or any other colour excepting black of course to a blind person.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    catefrances wrote:
    i didnt say the brain ryan. i said the mind. i make a distinction between the two.
    and what i am basing it on is 42 years of experience.
    my mind floats within it's corporeal container.

    Your experience is flawed and this can be proven in a billion different ways. It's also accepted amongst the scientific community, with the exception of a few whack jobs, that consciousness is delayed from reality by approx. 200 ms and has nothing to do with decision making. It is only an awareness. This has been proven time and time again.
    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
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    catefrances wrote:
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The body is responsible for consciousness, so I don't see how that makes any sense.
    no. the mind is responsible for consciousness.

    Ahnimus, catefrances, I'd like to know if either one of you has ascertained first cause, here? Do you, Ahnimus, know the body is responsible for consciousness? And catefrances, do you know the mind in it's corporeal container is responsible for consciousness? Do either of you know absolutely that it's not consciousness that is responsible for the body and the mind?

    Do either of you feel it's possible that the body/mind/consciousness exist at once, together, simultaneously, without one coming "first"?
    "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!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    You've just explained two factors coming together to form a cause. I don't see the relevancy.
    The relevency is you are agreeing that the act of learning exists when the two variables come into play--learning/learning-potential. And at base, both are needed together eliminating a fallacy of "origination" or "cause" with one or the other.
    "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!!!
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Your experience is flawed and this can be proven in a billion different ways. It's also accepted amongst the scientific community, with the exception of a few whack jobs, that consciousness is delayed from reality by approx. 200 ms and has nothing to do with decision making. It is only an awareness. This has been proven time and time again.

    how is my experience flawed? it is mine uniquely. no one else can make a judgement like that.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    Ahnimus, catefrances, I'd like to know if either one of you has ascertained first cause, here? Do you, Ahnimus, know the body is responsible for consciousness? And catefrances, do you know the mind in it's corporeal container is responsible for consciousness? Do either of you know absolutely that it's not consciousness that is responsible for the body and the mind?

    Do either of you feel it's possible that the body/mind/consciousness exist at once, together, simultaneously, without one coming "first"?

    The brain causes consciousness. This much is apparent. Denying this would be absurd and an absolute denial of reality.

    When this question of free-will is asked of a priest, the priest says that mentally retarded people actually choose to be mentally retarded. This is how they rationalize mental retardation with free-will. It's absolutely absurd, and any other such irrationalization is equally as absurd.
    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

Categories