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 interrupt this excellent discourse for the following important personal request. Arach, Matadora, Tzaph, Gaylen, Arq, your posts have revealed that you are all serious intellectuals from different backgrounds and perspectives. That is what I had hoped for. I am somewhat dismayed, though, by the unnecessary animus behind some of the repartee. I genuinely respect and love you all for seriously participating in my thread. I am getting a tremendous amount of satisfaction and helpful clarification of so many things from the substantive posts. Of course, my personal certainty about the existence of God is immune to such discourse because it is based on what is to me the unmistakable evidence of personal experience.
I do accept that my adopted Christian narrative is speculative and controversial and only weakly supported by hypotheses extrapolated from science that have not yet been validated. But it is far more intellectually acceptable to me than the extant Christian narratives. I also accept that you all have different reasons for your preferred perspective and your acceptance or rejection of other narratives. I would be so pleased if you would just be kind and assume good motives toward one another in your posts. The current zeitgeist in the country of assuming the worst of opponents character and motives is extremely destructive. It is not possible that everyone who disagrees with you must be evil or have bad motives or whatever. Please try to stick to the arguments on their merits, NOT on the character or motives you THINK are driving your opponents' views. Thank you all for your participation.
I'm looking in but staying out. I may say that my relationships with Gaylen Tzaph and Matadora are better than yours, because while I may disagree, I don't deprecate. You do. You are in no position, old mate, to lecture us on how we should behave.
If I am wrong about your motives for forcing what you feel is best for public consumption you are wrong about me. I feel that the atheistic denomination of "deny everything so religious people can't use it" is as deceitful as any fundy theist denomination.
The science I use is in any college textbook and you say, that's wrong", now what am I supposed to do? out in the real, I show you the page. On a forum, you cut and paste from YouTube. every time you cut and paste from YouTube I am like "I just said that and she said I don't know the science' what I am to do maddy? and you are not nice about it. .
back to the topic ... Back to what I was asking.
I just wanted to hear it in your owns words maddy. I am not sure you understand the stuff you cut and paste. The plant talks to its own kind and other life via chemical signals, light, and even some sound. don't point me to a YouTube please, and don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
I am using your notion, "Vast consciousness" ...
when I walk outside I see consciousness everywhere. For me, I have to ask, because of my science/engineering background, what is the system doing around me? what are the mechanisms? I have to keep insisting we stack'em up, because you minimize claims by putting people down. You do it all the time. Its rude. You can DM your qualifications and I will dm mine.
Now, let's analyze this "vast consciousness" you are claiming.
"when I walk outside into that "vast bubble of consciousness", what am I walking out into?"
I am walking out into nodes (you said all life forms) of consciousness interacting with all the other nodes (again, your life forms) of consciousness around it via, at the very least, chemistry, biology and physics. ... no YouTube, pretty please, I am correct. you say that I am wrong, it's you that are not being truthful.
Now I look around and see if there s anything that I know that matches the number of interactions that I am looking at. Quickly, any species of animal is exchanging information. Then I see a given species of animals reacting to other species of animals and plants via chemistry, physics, and biological systems. of course, along with all other kingdoms.
again, what do I know? I know ants, ants interact with each other to form a "colony". YouTube yourself if you wanna know how they do it. A colony going out and bringing food back to a place and digesting it to disperse the "nutrients/energy stored to each 'cell" looks exactly like me reaching out and grabbing food.
ok, let's cross check that notion. A very basic thought experiment ... my cells don't have legs, but if they did, what would they look like? they would act like colony of 'arach"!!! We are a colony of cells. remember your clam, working together. That's reasonable. again, I will talk to you about that claim. I won't be insulted by you and pretend that you are not doing it on purpose. your claim; all life has "consciousness" well then my cells have consciousness and that consciousness works together to form the illusion of "me"; arach.
Can one node influence another node? You know the answer is yes. Its not even a debate.
ok, I am standing out in "Maddy's sea of consciousness". I agree, a pretty vast one. I see all these nodes o consciousness (your claim, not mine) interacting and influencing each other like the things I just mentioned. Ok, how does my brain work?
Well, it's simple to see. your cells, in your brain, work together via chemistry, physics, and biology. Although the amount of information between nodes outside is not as numerous as between cells, a simple investigation examining the fluid, and system each node is in, and part of, reveals that the nodes themselves contain most of the information to be exchanged but that the exchange between nodes (your conscious life form) is numerous enough to say that these nodes of consciousness are connected.
The question is how connected. Are they connected to say that the nodes of consciousness interact enough such that a overall consciousness emerges?
now maddy. you see this is child's play for me. I will not go past a volume of a sphere with r=50AU's. But we are in a vast sea of consciousness, just like you said. for all intensive purposes, this volume would seem infinite to a human. when we walk outside. But I know powers of ten, so it not so big for me. But for most people, they can think of it like my back yard being infinite to a worker ant. Or My life would seem infinity to a cockroach. that cockroach would say "they have been alive for at a thousand of our generations."
Now, I had to give you your explanation, mechanism, and the prediction. well, I forgot the prediction.
The prediction is that is "vast consciousness" will evolve and change through time using the nodes of consciousness that make it up. We can predict what that consciousness is "qualia- ing" by studying the life forms that are the nodes of consciousness.
I predict, we make the next, more complex, consciousness on this planet in 200 years or less. I predict, that the human proteins will be the protein that is used by the biosphere to make the next, more complex, consciousness. Evolution has used proteins from day one on earth. Humans are just a complex protein.
So maddy, not only do I agree with. I think your "vast bubble of consciousness" is exactly what we are in. I have no problem with your lucid dreaming, it is actually helpful to many people. I have zero problem with deep mediation to feel "that vast consciousness" flowing through you. I do have a problem with you notion about super secrete animals and nature. Animals are in dynamic equilibrium, nothing more.
but they way you rip others, that are clearly not fundamental and don't know the science, even though their claims match you "vast consciousness" almost exactly is kind of deceitful to me.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-20-2018 at 07:03 AM..
I'm looking in but staying out. I may say that my relationships with Gaylen Tzaph and Matadora are better than yours, because while I may disagree, I don't deprecate. You do. You are in no position, old mate, to lecture us on how we should behave.
you don't deprecate? lmao. yeah, you don't
you don't like it when your denomination of atheism is exposed as a non science, personal need based emotional statement of belief.
'deny everything" to sell atheism is not science, it is not logical, and in fact, its as deceitful as fundy theists.
you run away from anything that challenges that. you have been debunked ten fold, but like any good fundy theists, you hold true to your statement of belief over reality.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-20-2018 at 07:12 AM..
Whats the point of focusing on what we don't know? well, that doesn't sound right, I guess I mean focusing on something so far past what we know? whats so important to you about this qualia?
what are you trying to justify within yourself?
So far as I know, my posts have nothing to do with justifying anything. I'm mostly just curious to know why some people seem to have such a hard time with the word 'qualia'. The literal definition of the word is, essentially, that which we directly subjectively experience: our own feelings, thoughts, sensations. It is not a complicated idea. And yet, somehow, people seem to misinterpret the meaning and, from what I can see, this is because of the subjective nature of experience. I can't point to my qualia or define it in measurable terms for other people (although I can quantify in subjective ways, such as "On a scale of 1 to 10 this pain is a 7"). I can't see any good reason for there to any confusion or controversy over the concept of qualia, as such, and yet there is. The nature of that confusion is, in itself, a fun little puzzle to explore.
Where I DO fully expect confusion and controversy is over the relationship between qualia and the objectively measurable aspects of reality, such as neurons, molecules, electromagnetic waves, etc. That is the Hard Problem and I do see it as a hard problem. I don't think it is a pseud-problem, or an impossible problem - but I can understand why some people see it that way. As I see it, subjectivity (knowledge that only I can directly experience because only I can be the physical system that is undergoing the processing that constitutes the subjective qualitative experience) is an incredibly obvious brute fact of life. I experience the world. Qualia are really just that simple. No one else can directly experience my pain because they are not me. Subjectivity is really just that simple. And yet, somehow, some people go off on some really wild tangents.
Qualia are not unknown. They are not "something so far past what we know" - it's just the opposite. Qualia are what we directly know with absolute certainty. What we have trouble understanding is how this immediate knowledge of our own experience relates to the measurable physical world. What, exactly, does it take for a system to have subjective experience? The question seems incredibly simple and obvious to me. The hard part is trying to answer it, and a major reason it is so hard is that subjective knowledge cannot be reduced to purely objective/measureable entities. So, somehow, we need to reconceive our ideas of "objective/measureable" entities. To truly and deeply explain how subjective experience emerges as, say, the nervous system of a fetus develops, we need to understand how the physical components - the atoms composing the system - have, within them, the potentials for subjective experience - more or less sorta like we can explain how the fluid dynamics of water emerge from the atomic bonds of H20. But the emergence of fluid dynamics is relatively easy to understand because the terms of both the pre- and post- emergence are all objective/quantitative. The emergence of subjective/qualitative experience is a radically different kind of problem.
Yeah, I'm certifiably obsessive about it, but I really don't think it has anything to do with justifying anything. I think it is as simple as this: I love puzzles and this is, arguably, the greatest puzzle of all. And what probably makes me obsessive about it is this feeling (perhaps a somewhat delusional feeling?) that an exciting reasonably plausible theory is "just around the corner" and when we get a grip on it, the insights into our existence will be amazing. And, what I also find exciting is that the theory will probably not be the "final end" of anything but, rather, the doorway to whole new puzzles. I want to see some major movement on this within my lifetime, but I'm 60 years old, so we better hurry!
In any case, the journey is a blast for me. There is hardly anything I'd rather do than explore the seemingly infinite realm of the "final frontier" - which, as I said, is probably not so much the closing of a door, but something more like the opening of a bunch of new ones.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-20-2018 at 10:26 AM..
I'm looking in but staying out. I may say that my relationships with Gaylen Tzaph and Matadora are better than yours because while I may disagree, I don't deprecate. You do. You are in no position, old mate, to lecture us on how we should behave.
::Sigh:: You can't seem to resist being negative, can you, Arq? There can never be ANY positive progress made if your efforts are always focused on either boasting or bemoaning whatever you consider was negative in the past My request is prospective not accusatory.
So far as I know, my posts have nothing to do with justifying anything. I'm mostly just curious to know why some people seem to have such a hard time with the word 'qualia'. The literal definition of the word is, essentially, that which we directly subjectively experience: our own feelings, thoughts, sensations. It is not a complicated idea. And yet, somehow, people seem to misinterpret the meaning and, from what I can see, this is because of the subjective nature of experience. I can't point to my qualia or define it in measurable terms for other people (although I can quantify in subjective ways, such as "On a scale of 1 to 10 this pain is a 7"). I can't see any good reason for there to any confusion or controversy over the concept of qualia, as such, and yet there is. The nature of that confusion is, in itself, a fun little puzzle to explore.
Where I DO fully expect confusion and controversy is over the relationship between qualia and the objectively measurable aspects of reality, such as neurons, molecules, electromagnetic waves, etc. That is the Hard Problem and I do see it as a hard problem. I don't think it is a pseud-problem, or an impossible problem - but I can understand why some people see it that way. As I see it, subjectivity (knowledge that only I can directly experience because only I can be the physical system that is undergoing the processing that constitutes the subjective qualitative experience) is an incredibly obvious brute fact of life. I experience the world. Qualia are really just that simple. No one else can directly experience my pain because they are not me. Subjectivity is really just that simple. And yet, somehow, some people go off on some really wild tangents.
Qualia are not unknown. They are not "something so far past what we know" - it's just the opposite. Qualia are what we directly know with absolute certainty. What we have trouble understanding is how this immediate knowledge of our own experience relates to the measurable physical world. What, exactly, does it take for a system to have subjective experience? The question seems incredibly simple and obvious to me. The hard part is trying to answer it, and a major reason it is so hard is that subjective knowledge cannot be reduced to purely objective/measureable entities. So, somehow, we need to reconceive our ideas of "objective/measureable" entities. To truly and deeply explain how subjective experience emerges as, say, the nervous system of a fetus develops, we need to understand how the physical components - the atoms composing the system - have, within them, the potentials for subjective experience - more or less sorta like we can explain how the fluid dynamics of water emerge from the atomic bonds of H20. But the emergence of fluid dynamics is relatively easy to understand because the terms of both the pre- and post- emergence are all objective/quantitative. The emergence of subjective/qualitative experience is a radically different kind of problem.
Yeah, I'm certifiably obsessive about it, but I really don't think it has anything to do with justifying anything. I think it is as simple as this: I love puzzles and this is, arguably, the greatest puzzle of all. And what probably makes me obsessive about it is this feeling (perhaps a somewhat delusional feeling?) that an exciting reasonably plausible theory is "just around the corner" and when we get a grip on it, the insights into our existence will be amazing. And, what I also find exciting is that the theory will probably not be the "final end" of anything but, rather, the doorway to whole new puzzles. I want to see some major movement on this within my lifetime, but I'm 60 years old, so we better hurry!
In any case, the journey is a blast for me. There is hardly anything I'd rather do than explore the seemingly infinite realm of the "final frontier" - which, as I said, is probably not so much the closing of a door, but something more like the opening of a bunch of new ones.
OCD/ on qualia? I'll buy that. I am OCD on how the universe works. Of course, like I tried to tell ya, some people are OCD on "anything", and no matter what we say they will turn it towards their "ocd-anything" or deny/minimize things that don't support their "ocd-anything". You have to see that.
I use anti-religion as my target because i am anti-basing any rule on god. So I make sure my side of the street is clean before I start mocking others. So we OCD-ers that have a statement of belief of "anti-religion and any science that theists can use needs to be shut down."
well, how would your arguments go with that type of brain state?
So you really, especially since you say you are studying people, need to list personality types, along with abuse, addiction, and just plain mental, and make yourself a table. Describe how they would answer you. Make a spectrum with varying degrees of the above. weak, sorta weak, sorta strong,and strong will due. If you want a phd, make it a table with 12 x12 criteria. those people like verbose answers.
toss in some other connections, like cultural upbringing. you will have your panel wetting themselves in their stuff. all kidding aside, you get the point. You can predict our answers from that list.
No, I disagree with you. Your qualia is based on what we don't know. heavily.
yeah, you have a hard problem between "particles" and "qualitative interpretation". because we don't know enough. we do know, if I change the chemicals in you, i change you. If I change the flow of electrons in you, I change you. your qualia changed because I changed the "physical you". we do know that. But we aren't even sure why.
heck, I can stick a nail in your skin in a sensitive area and you will be grumpy all day. By the 10th/12th hour (or like me the moment I am hurting) in pain, you might take the head off of the person that just bumped into you. Hows that for qualitative.
to your hard problem:
show me where you changed somebody's "qualia", or qualitative analysis, and then you changed the configuration in their brain?
If I am wrong about your motives for forcing what you feel is best for public consumption you are wrong about me. I feel that the atheistic denomination of "deny everything so religious people can't use it" is as deceitful as any fundy theist denomination.
No such motive exists from me. This is merely the rubbish you make up in your mind. Yeah, it's indeed all you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
The science I use is in any college textbook and you say, that's wrong", now what am I supposed to do?
Funny because I've never seen you post anything that would come from a science book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
"I just said that and she said I don't know the science' what I am to do maddy? and you are not nice about it.
Demonstrate that you're scientifically literate and work on your delivery of how you convey that. I have never seen this demonstrated by you so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I just wanted to hear it in your owns words maddy. I am not sure you understand the stuff you cut and paste.
You're barking up a dead tree with the nonsensical rubbish you keep re-posting. Why sit here and type up hours of science lectures for you when you can go look it up yourself. I tell you what to look up but you fail every time and only return with this broken record rubbish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
The plant talks to its own kind and other life via chemical signals, light, and even some sound.
We've been over this already. I told you how they communicate. Plants have vocal cords and produce light? I don't think so and if you have any valid evidence of this I would be happy to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
Arach I've never seen you know what you are talking about when it comes to the subject of science. Not even once have I seen this from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I am using your notion, "Vast consciousness" ...
when I walk outside I see consciousness everywhere. For me, I have to ask, because of my science/engineering background, what is the system doing around me? what are the mechanisms.
Take every living organism on earth (including the life in the ocean) and all the organisms that we don't even know exist, they all possess some level of consciousness. That's what vast consciousness means.
Our spiritual journeys are as vast as all the consciousnesses that exits on earth. That's why not all people resonate with a particular religion and some do. Here are some straightforward simple examples of how vast consciousness is: It's why some can learn how to lucid dream and others can't. It's why some benefit from meditation and others don't. It's why some have very developed intuition and other don't. It's why some can focus for long periods of time and others's can't. It way some live good lives and some don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You can DM your qualifications and I will dm mine.
All you have to do is post as if you have the qualifications you keep claiming to have. Your posts don't reflect what you want us to believe about your qualifications. I don't know any other way to break this to you nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
We are a colony of cells. remember your clam, working together.
My "clam"? Exactly what claim are you now trying to ascribe to me? I've never said what you just posted. Never.
LOL at knocking learning things from YouTube. I recommend you check it out and look up the credible science lectures. You have a lot to learn so you better get to searching and watching.
show me where you changed somebody's "qualia", or qualitative analysis, and then you changed the configuration in their brain?
I don't know what you are asking here but, for what it's worth: I expect changes in experience to always be correlated with changes in the brain, but not necessarily the other way around. Most changes in the brain don't correlate with changes in conscious experience. But some do, and those are the types of changes that cognitive scientists are trying to identify and analyze in order to see what is so special about them. These would be the "correlates of consciousness."
Most changes in the brain don't correlate with changes in conscious experience.
What about people's conscious perception changing after a stroke, or major brain trauma or simply an aging brain, a person on LSD or some other mind altering drug, or a case of Alzheimer's?
All of these are changes in the brain correlating with changes in conscious experience.
Most changes in the brain don't correlate with changes in conscious experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
What about people's conscious perception changing after a stroke, or major brain trauma or simply an aging brain, a person on LSD or some other mind altering drug, or a case of Alzheimer's?
All of these are changes in the brain correlating with changes in conscious experience.
What I had in mind was the fairly well-supported idea that most of our brain's processing is unconscious. Here is a brief article that deals with this sort of idea:
"The unconscious processing abilities of the human brain are estimated at roughly 11 million pieces of information per second. Compare that to the estimate for conscious processing: about 40 pieces per second."
So, yes, of course a lot of changes in the brain produce changes in conscious experience. But not all changes, and probably not most. But I doubt there are ever any changes in experience that are not correlated with brain processes (where the word "processing" implies essentially constant change). This is why I doubt that there are any minds floating around that are not physical processes.
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.
toss in some other connections, like cultural upbringing. you will have your panel wetting themselves in their stuff. 