Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cool thanks for that vid. I liked it. Science removes choice with probabilities and waves. probabilities with the same magnitude traveling in opposite directions or offset 90 degrees is not experienced by us but they happened.
What about the ENTIRE brain state is what is to be referenced do you NOT understand??? Our consciousness is produced and nuanced by every single thing going on in the brain during each instant of consciousness. It is that entire complex brain state that is "observed" by our consciousness. It can NOT reside in any separate area of the brain because all areas of the brain comprise the complete state to be observed. It is ONLY because our consciousness resides as a resonant neural field within the unified field that it can observe the brain state that produces it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Any evidence for this claim?
Or this one? Are you consciously aware of the chemical reactions the brain is using to regulate your body temperature, for example? This claim seems to run counter to the whole of idea of the existence of our autonomic nervous system, among other problems.
Now you're just making things up.
The state of our conscious Self at any point in time is the composite of everything happening within our body and brain. What we are aware of is not controlling. Every little nuance is incorporated into what we experience as our Self at each point in time. Studies have clearly shown this nuanced effect on our state of mind from things we are not consciously aware of. The entire composite state is what is "summarized" in our consciousness at any point in time. That is why there is no place within the brain for this "summarizing" to occur.
The state of our conscious Self at any point in time is the composite of everything happening within our body and brain. What we are aware of is not controlling. Every little nuance is incorporated into what we experience as our Self at each point in time. Studies have clearly shown this nuanced effect on our state of mind from things we are not consciously aware of. The entire composite state is what is "summarized" in our consciousness at any point in time. That is why there is no place within the brain for this "summarizing" to occur.
Yes, I'm aware of the stuff you're making up. I'll repeat - do you have any evidence that it is true?
The brain is the summarizing location. What you doing is looking for the "brain part" in the brain. What you are doing is a-kin to asking where is the "car-ing part" in that car?
That deserves a rep..but I can't, just yet. Yes. I discussed this point with Gaylenwoof (though I don't know if he got me, even if he thought I had a point) but it was about the analogy of a zombie (or a robot/android as a zombie could have human genetic -instinctive baggage) not getting exited at the sight of a waterfall. It could understand everything about its workings, but would nit get the essential experience of wonder or excitement.
I suggested that would be because those things are evolved instincts and the zombie could have them, except that Chalmers' zombies are not the Undead but a human thing lacking whatever is necessary to make his theory work. (I sometimes think Philosophy needs a huge spring -clean and some sackings ) which is why I prefer an android, without any evolved instincts.
Thus we can understand what this aspect of experience is and while I can't be sure how much 'qualia' is the workings of what gives us the experience of the sensory input and what is the instinctive (or educated -instinct) response to the input, there is a pretty certain difference. One is like a computer than processes the information to usable form. The other is the genetic and mental software that reacts to it.
Thus we get to your (and mine) 'driving analogy. I argued that how we drive is the mechanics (the physical workings of the mind) and why we drive is a need, based essentially on instinct and educated instinct. So driving is the how and the why. If we ask 'What' driving is apart from that, it is a meaningless question. It is a label; a handy hum,an concept for something that doesn't actually exists apart from the 'How' and the 'Why'.
I agree that Mystic is looking for an element of the mind that in fact doesn't need to be there. Unlike the car, which we understand well enough to have a full explanation of the driving process (though not altogether the 'Why') there is much about both the how and the why of the mind that makes it a suitable gap for..various speculative claims.
That deserves a rep..but I can't, just yet. Yes. I discussed this point with Gaylenwoof (though I don't know if he got me, even if he thought I had a point) but it was about the analogy of a zombie (or a robot/android as a zombie could have human genetic -instinctive baggage) not getting exited at the sight of a waterfall. It could understand everything about its workings, but would nit get the essential experience of wonder or excitement.
I suggested that would be because those things are evolved instincts and the zombie could have them, except that Chalmers' zombies are not the Undead but a human thing lacking whatever is necessary to make his theory work. (I sometimes think Philosophy needs a huge spring -clean and some sackings ) which is why I prefer an android, without any evolved instincts.
Thus we can understand what this aspect of experience is and while I can't be sure how much 'qualia' is the workings of what gives us the experience of the sensory input and what is the instinctive (or educated -instinct) response to the input, there is a pretty certain difference. One is like a computer than processes the information to usable form. The other is the genetic and mental software that reacts to it.
Thus we get to your (and mine) 'driving analogy. I argued that how we drive is the mechanics (the physical workings of the mind) and why we drive is a need, based essentially on instinct and educated instinct. So driving is the how and the why. If we ask 'What' driving is apart from that, it is a meaningless question. It is a label; a handy hum,an concept for something that doesn't actually exists apart from the 'How' and the 'Why'.
I agree that Mystic is looking for an element of the mind that in fact doesn't need to be there. Unlike the car, which we understand well enough to have a full explanation of the driving process (though not altogether the 'Why') there is much about both the how and the why of the mind that makes it a suitable gap for..various speculative claims.
don't ever rep me. it means I said something mean spirited to someone that didn't deserve it.
I am only addressing mystic looking for the "brain part" in the brain. "The brain" is the part. We have to zoom in and zoom out and look at the interactions of the system to get handle on what is going on. From the fabric of space as something all the way up to the discontinuities on the cosmic web. And every point in between. Not many people can do that. And then anchor our hunches in what is known. I don't like anchoring hunches in hunches.
That's why I posted earlier that "hunching" really should be left to people that understand the process of 'hunching' with the data we have. When we don't we get silly notions of this super-omni-thingie on one hand or the no-nothing that everything else sprung from thingie. both use this "quala" base understanding.
Ah. I get the 'hunching'. I have some ideas about our 'hunches' and also some data about how reliable those hunches may be. Also about how consciousness applies at 'stuff-working' level to everything including inanimate matter, just as 'life' does; but life, like consciousness as we tend to identify it, has to 'emerge'. And I think there is reason to believe that this is what it does. I know that Mystic disagrees.
Ah. I get the 'hunching'. I have some ideas about our 'hunches' and also some data about how reliable those hunches may be. Also about how consciousness applies at 'stuff-working' level to everything including inanimate matter, just as 'life' does; but life, like consciousness as we tend to identify it, has to 'emerge'. And I think there is reason to believe that this is what it does. I know that Mystic disagrees.
'Emerge' is a process, not a reason. Not that I suggest we need to know the reason for everything - - - leave that to the believers.
Last edited by Dissily Mordentroge; 02-18-2015 at 08:46 PM..
Depends how you use the words Emerge os a process and a mechanism like 'evolve'. yes?
and 'reason' means here evidence rather than some personal motivation or belief -preference.
Always going with the evidence, not the preference. That's the only way to stay on the rails of rationality and reason.
That is why there is no place within the brain for this "summarizing" to occur.
You appear to be leaping to that from everything you wrote before it - but none of which actually lead to it. You are simply refusing to answer the question you have been asked multiple times now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) which is why I prefer an android, without any evolved instincts.
