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.
I know exactly how that feels . . . but since my knowledge is so far out in front of yours . . . it's difficult to see YOU as leading anywhere.
I think you lack the comprehension of how complex brain connections are. Scarmig's parallel processor analogy was brilliant, as I've mentioned, because it captures the essence of why your brain is more than a simple binary logic engine. The brain's function is often associate not as a single processor in a computer, but as an orchestra--each instrument coming together to form a song--each process coming together to from the consciousness.
I think you lack the comprehension of how complex brain connections are. Scarmig's parallel processor analogy was brilliant, as I've mentioned, because it captures the essence of why your brain is more than a simple binary logic engine. The brain's function is often associate not as a single processor in a computer, but as an orchestra--each instrument coming together to form a song--each process coming together to form the consciousness.
My issue is NOT lack of knowledge, Konraden . . . no matter at what level or how many neural nets are nested and connected with existing state information . . . the final OBSERVER of it ALL cannot be physically ANY of them (no double duty). So the question remains . . . form the consciousness WHERE?
My issue is NOT lack of knowledge, Konraden . . . no matter at what level or how many neural nets are nested and connected with existing state information . . . the final OBSERVER of it ALL cannot be physically ANY of them (no double duty).
What? Why? Which part are you missing? Judgment? Planning? That's the frontal lobe. Recognition? That's the temporal lobe. Memory? Look at the limbic system, as well as for emotions.
Quote:
So the question remains . . . form the consciousness WHERE?
The brain. You haven't provided sufficient reasoning nor evidence that places the consciousness outside of the brain. Anything and everything that you attribute to identiy and conscious is not possible without the brain. THere is no other answer.
What? Why? Which part are you missing? Judgment? Planning? That's the frontal lobe. Recognition? That's the temporal lobe. Memory? Look at the limbic system, as well as for emotions.
The brain. You haven't provided sufficient reasoning nor evidence that places the consciousness outside of the brain. Anything and everything that you attribute to identiy and conscious is not possible without the brain. THere is no other answer.
An unwillingness to engage in sufficient philosophical abstraction to understand the reality of what you call an abstraction is at the heart of this intransigence and materialist bog your understanding seems mired in. Perhaps seeing that my fire analogy was not original but proposed by one of your own materialst philosophers might help. Philosopher Hugh Elliot, a staunch defender of materialism and no friend of spiritualists or mystics, described our mind, the process whereby we become conscious of anything, in the following very clever way. Essentially he equated the mind to flames.
The difficulty of grasping this proposition will be largely mitigated by the fact that there exists a phenomenon from the inorganic world which furnishes a remarkably true and precise analogy to this strange product of the organic world. The phenomenon to which I refer is the phenomenon of fire.
Free your materialist mind from its shackles and engage the analogy philosophically . . . that is the only way to grasp the conceptual essence that unites the phenomena. Consciousness is the result of the mental "burning" of energy in the brain cells, and as with any "burning," the result is never the same as what originally was burned. This is, at best, the worst of oversimplification. However, it is the fastest way of revealing the general idea.
Consider the following two descriptions carefully:
Fire, or “burning,†is merely energy change that produces light and heat. Light and heat emanate from the burning of physical substance. Light and heat appear to leave the source, but in the totality of the universe, they remain as energy. The two forms of energy, light and heat, possess different characteristics
Consciousness, or “thinking,†is merely energy change that produces thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings emanate from the “burning†of mental energy. Our thoughts and feelings appear to leave us, but in the totality of the universe, they continue to exist as energy. The two forms of consciousness, thoughts and feelings, possess different characteristics.
You are familiar with the fact that there are processes that can produce heat without light, and similarly, processes that produce light without heat. A similar principle governs the production of consciousness.There are certain things you do with your mind that involve feelings but little or no thought, such as that warm glow when you see a loved one. The feelings that we experience in our consciousness are analogous to the heat form of fire. This is probably as close as we come to matching the conditioned cortical processing of the other animals.
Similarly, there are thoughts you have that involve little or no feelings. These thoughts exist as sequences of words (logos) that evoke an abstract sense of meaning and understanding within us. This is analogous to the light form of fire. To our knowledge, the other animal species do not experience this form of cortical activity. That is why it is not possible to actually have a real human (read philosophical) conversation with animals, even on the most rudimentary levels.
The particular kinds of thought processes we employ determine which kinds of overall consciousness are produced. The mixture should be the focus of our concern.
Except that the light and heat of the flames no longer "belong" to the flames when they are absorbed by matter.
The electro-chemical reactions of our neurons create stronger bonds between dendrites and axons, prune connections, and are turned into various other types of energy, like sound when you speak your mind.
That in no way makes your consciousness, the ability for self-awareness and thought, external. Once it is absorbed, it's gone.
Except that the light and heat of the flames no longer "belong" to the flames when they are absorbed by matter.
The electro-chemical reactions of our neurons create stronger bonds between dendrites and axons, prune connections, and are turned into various other types of energy, like sound when you speak your mind.
That in no way makes your consciousness, the ability for self-awareness and thought, external. Once it is absorbed, it's gone.
Pointing to the other effects of "combustion" does NOT alter the form of energy that comprises the "flame" (conscious thought, reason and observation. etc. as our "composite Self"). The existence of the various gases, smoke and ash do not account for the flames fate. Of course our consciousness is "taped" (recorded) in various parts of the brain(Ash) and signals other behaviors (gases), like talking, etc. It is the non-baryonic form of our consciousness energy that comprises the "flame" that is broadcast into the universe at large (universal field) that comprises over 95% of the universe.
Pointing to the other effects of "combustion" does NOT alter the form of energy that comprises the "flame" (conscious thought, reason and observation. etc. as our "composite Self"). The existence of the various gases, smoke and ash do not account for the flames fate. Of course our consciousness is "taped" (recorded) in various parts of the brain(Ash) and signals other behaviors (gases), like talking, etc. It is the non-baryonic form of our consciousness energy that comprises the "flame" that is broadcast into the universe at large (universal field) that comprises over 95% of the universe.
Your analogy states that our consciousness is the "flames." Those flames are comprised of energy on the EM spectrum -- light and heat. Those are absorbed into other matter where they are no longer "flame."
"Flame" is just an abstraction we give to the light and heat that is emanated from some combustible material.
Your analogy states that our consciousness is the "flames." Those flames are comprised of energy on the EM spectrum -- light and heat. Those are absorbed into other matter where they are no longer "flame."
That is why it is just an ANALOGY, Konraden. Our consciousness is non-baryonic . . . like the bulk of the universe. The brain produces and records it by transforming various baryonic forms of energy within the cortex. None of the non-baryonic forms of energy/matter have any known methods of transformation into anything else. Only our baryonic energy forms are subject to such transformations (absorption, etc.). The bulk of the universe is comprised of the ultimate form (non-baryonic) . . . In my terms . . . the consciousness of God which our consciousnesses are designed to reproduce ("cells").
Quote:
"Flame" is just an abstraction we give to the light and heat that is emanated from some combustible material.
This inability to see the conceptual and philosophical difference between pure abstraction and our consciousness which is REAL but at the same level of abstraction as the purely conceptual ones . . . is your major blind spot.
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.
