Consciousness

[Juma]

Bye weirdo.

Bye stupid.

LOL

 

[untermensche]

It has nothing to do with mental representation. We sre talking about two different physical outcomes. In one case the particles of the bode mixed with water, in the other case it is separated from the water.

Everything you say like, mixed, separated, liquid water, different, ice, etc. are whole ideas and abstractions that only exist in the mind. You are taking samples from pure objectivity. Those concepts in your mind are like particles in their own right and only correlate to what's out there.

That's why I am convinced that the consciousness exists because why are we a holistic group (except for entanglement which I think has everything to do with consciousness) of particles instead of one particle or the whole universe.

The only reason anybody believes this invisible thing called "consciousness" exists is because they have one.

Words are abstractions. Language is abstract, not concrete.

But there is no reason to think that some specific "thing" in the world is also abstract just because it is described by a word.

The word "sun" is abstract.

The sun is real. It has an objective existence apart from the human words used to describe it.

To perceive something it must have an inherent structure. Something which separates it from other things.

Otherwise how could you perceive it?

 

[ryan]

Everything you say like, mixed, separated, liquid water, different, ice, etc. are whole ideas and abstractions that only exist in the mind. You are taking samples from pure objectivity. Those concepts in your mind are like particles in their own right and only correlate to what's out there.

That's why I am convinced that the consciousness exists because why are we a holistic group (except for entanglement which I think has everything to do with consciousness) of particles instead of one particle or the whole universe.

The only reason anybody believes this invisible thing called "consciousness" exists is because they have one.

Words are abstractions. Language is abstract, not concrete.

But there is no reason to think that some specific "thing" in the world is also abstract just because it is described by a word.

The word "sun" is abstract.

The sun is real. It has an objective existence apart from the human words used to describe it.

To perceive something it must have an inherent structure. Something which separates it from other things.

Otherwise how could you perceive it?

Do you mean the percept or the object?

 

[untermensche]

The only reason anybody believes this invisible thing called "consciousness" exists is because they have one.

Words are abstractions. Language is abstract, not concrete.

But there is no reason to think that some specific "thing" in the world is also abstract just because it is described by a word.

The word "sun" is abstract.

The sun is real. It has an objective existence apart from the human words used to describe it.

To perceive something it must have an inherent structure. Something which separates it from other things.

Otherwise how could you perceive it?

Do you mean the percept or the object?

I have no clue what you are asking.

 

[ryan]

Do you mean the percept or the object?

I have no clue what you are asking.

I assume that you mean the object and not the perception/percept.

This all got started because Juma thinks there is more out there than the particles of the Standard model and space. He talks about structure. That is such a ambiguous term. Any randomly selected part of the universe has structure. It's physically meaningless in an ontological sense. We only need to know what particles and where they are. That's all that is out there, well, if the Standard model is complete.

The logical and physical proof of this is if we describe the Sun in terms of its particles and their locations through time to be [physical description]. So we have Sun = [physical description]. In other words, the percept Sun refers to the same object as [physical description].

But people are going to use Sun to talk about the Sun because we are not going to give a complete physical description every time we bring up the Sun. If the Sun and [physical description] existed out there, there would be 2 Suns in the same location somehow which is obviously ridiculous. I think that people get so used to this kind of ambiguity that they forget that multiple terms for an object only refer to the one object.

 

[untermensche]

I have no clue what you are asking.

I assume that you mean the object and not the perception/percept.

This all got started because Juma thinks there is more out there than the particles of the Standard model and space. He talks about structure. That is such a ambiguous term. Any randomly selected part of the universe has structure. It's physically meaningless in an ontological sense. We only need to know what particles and where they are. That's all that is out there, well, if the Standard model is complete.

The logical and physical proof of this is if we describe the Sun in terms of its particles and their locations through time to be [physical description]. So we have Sun = [physical description]. In other words, the percept Sun refers to the same object as [physical description].

But people are going to use Sun to talk about the Sun because we are not going to give a complete physical description every time we bring up the Sun. If the Sun and [physical description] existed out there, there would be 2 Suns in the same location somehow which is obviously ridiculous. I think that people get so used to this kind of ambiguity that they forget that multiple terms for an object only refer to the one object.

You're saying that a whole can never be more than the sum of it's parts.

So a brain is not more than a cell?

 

[ryan]

I assume that you mean the object and not the perception/percept.

This all got started because Juma thinks there is more out there than the particles of the Standard model and space. He talks about structure. That is such a ambiguous term. Any randomly selected part of the universe has structure. It's physically meaningless in an ontological sense. We only need to know what particles and where they are. That's all that is out there, well, if the Standard model is complete.

The logical and physical proof of this is if we describe the Sun in terms of its particles and their locations through time to be [physical description]. So we have Sun = [physical description]. In other words, the percept Sun refers to the same object as [physical description].

But people are going to use Sun to talk about the Sun because we are not going to give a complete physical description every time we bring up the Sun. If the Sun and [physical description] existed out there, there would be 2 Suns in the same location somehow which is obviously ridiculous. I think that people get so used to this kind of ambiguity that they forget that multiple terms for an object only refer to the one object.

You're saying that a whole can never be more than the sum of it's parts.

Sure there can be other "wholes" out there like the consciousness, probably are. But how would we observe them to confirm them? The argument between me and Juma is more of a scientific account for what exists out there.

 

[untermensche]

Sure there can be other "wholes" out there like the consciousness, probably are. But how would we observe them to confirm them? The argument between me and Juma is more of a scientific account for what exists out there.

What about a whole called a tree?

What stops us from clearly distinguishing it from a different tree?

 

[DBT]

Both the effort to remember and the underlying work of remembering being produced by the brain, the brain being a modular system.

The part 'trying to remember' is just a another aspect of the system and not an autonomous entity that directs brain function.

The effort is something initiated by me, not my brain.

No. You are whatever the brain is doing....drinking a bottle of whiskey effects the chemical makeup of the brain which in turn manifests as a drunk untermensche. You are a reflection of your brain state from moment to moment while the brain is in conscious activity mode, then you are switched off, asleep.

Why would a brain need to make some "effort"? How could a brain make some "effort"? Only a complete animal can make an effort.

As I said, the brain is a modular system, first comes sensory stimulation which entails the perception of not remembering something, someones name, etc, which in turn generates the feeling of needing to remember, meanwhile the underlying processing is working at recalling this information, which may or may not be forthcoming depending on if the connections are made or not. If they are, the name that you wanted to recall becomes conscious. Information feed into conscious activity, etc.

Your speculations defy experience. They are useless, explain nothing, and do not coincide with happenings in the real world.

These are not my speculations. It is how the brain works according to the available evidence.....which I have posted in abundance only to see it dismissed because it does not suit your unfounded assumptions.

 

[DBT]

Well then your are refusing to leave your bubble and accept the current state of cognitive science and psychology.

No, sorry, but that's you when you propose fringe ideas such as quantum consciousness or non material mind as a solution to the 'hard problem'

As it currently stands, we don't understand how a brain forms conscious experience, but it is quite clear that brains are responsible for forming consciousness/mind. All of the available evidence tells us that it is the structural and electrochemical condition of a brain that manifests conscious experience, condition determining whether this is rational and adaptive or irrational and maladaptive, or any blend between.

 

[ryan]

Sure there can be other "wholes" out there like the consciousness, probably are. But how would we observe them to confirm them? The argument between me and Juma is more of a scientific account for what exists out there.

What about a whole called a tree?

There is no physical distinction between a whole tree and everything that makes up that tree. So why would I give the wholeness of a tree any more ontological meaning scientifically?

What stops us from clearly distinguishing it from a different tree?

the imperfect memory of the mental image

 

[ryan]

Well then your are refusing to leave your bubble and accept the current state of cognitive science and psychology.

No, sorry, but that's you when you propose fringe ideas such as quantum consciousness or non material mind as a solution to the 'hard problem'

As it currently stands, we don't understand how a brain forms conscious experience, but it is quite clear that brains are responsible for forming consciousness/mind. All of the available evidence tells us that it is the structural and electrochemical condition of a brain that manifests conscious experience, condition determining whether this is rational and adaptive or irrational and maladaptive, or any blend between.

Well, I hope you read the information from posts #601 and #608. I worked hard on finding that information for you.

 

[Juma]

What about a whole called a tree?

There is no physical distinction between a whole tree and everything that makes up that tree. So why would I give the wholeness of a tree any more ontological meaning scientifically?

What stops us from clearly distinguishing it from a different tree?

the imperfect memory of the mental image

Obviously you didnt understand anything of what I wrote.

A structure that comes again and again in a pattern are real whether there are any brains.
The atoms are such a structure. The atoms are objectively there. Not because they consists of any new matter
but since they are a repeated structure. That they are an implied part of the standard model, which is bloody obvious, is really totally beside the point.

 

[ryan]

There is no physical distinction between a whole tree and everything that makes up that tree. So why would I give the wholeness of a tree any more ontological meaning scientifically?

What stops us from clearly distinguishing it from a different tree?

the imperfect memory of the mental image

Obviously you didnt understand anything of what I wrote.

A structure that comes again and again in a pattern are real whether there are any brains.
The atoms are such a structure. The atoms are objectively there. Not because they consists of any new matter
but since they are a repeated structure. That they are an implied part of the standard model, which is bloody obvious, is really totally beside the point.

If structure implies particles, then there is a redundancy. Either particles exist or structures exist. One of them has to get thrown out where the redundancy overlaps. For a particular object, you can say structure exists OR particles with certain relative positions exist, but you can't say both are there. It will double something that shouldn't be doubled.

Since we might have the most efficient and specific ontological description of the physical universe possible, I don't know why you don't want to see its brilliant simplicity that took thousands of years to build.

 

[Juma]

There is no physical distinction between a whole tree and everything that makes up that tree. So why would I give the wholeness of a tree any more ontological meaning scientifically?

What stops us from clearly distinguishing it from a different tree?

the imperfect memory of the mental image

Obviously you didnt understand anything of what I wrote.

A structure that comes again and again in a pattern are real whether there are any brains.
The atoms are such a structure. The atoms are objectively there. Not because they consists of any new matter
but since they are a repeated structure. That they are an implied part of the standard model, which is bloody obvious, is really totally beside the point.

If structure implies particles, then there is a redundancy. Either particles exist or structures exist. One of them has to get thrown out where the redundancy overlaps. For a particular object, you can say structure exists OR particles with certain relative positions exist, but you can't say both are there. It will double something that shouldn't be doubled.

Since we might have the most efficient and specific ontological description of the physical universe possible, I don't know why you don't want to see its brilliant simplicity that took thousands of years to build.

you seem to have totally screwed up what "exists" means.

Of course the basic buliding blocks are particles in space. Stop bitching about something nobody argues against.

But to say that the pattern "oxygen patter" doesnt exist is just silly. Particled forms patterns, that is objectively true and is totally independent of brains.

 

[DBT]

No, sorry, but that's you when you propose fringe ideas such as quantum consciousness or non material mind as a solution to the 'hard problem'

As it currently stands, we don't understand how a brain forms conscious experience, but it is quite clear that brains are responsible for forming consciousness/mind. All of the available evidence tells us that it is the structural and electrochemical condition of a brain that manifests conscious experience, condition determining whether this is rational and adaptive or irrational and maladaptive, or any blend between.

Well, I hope you read the information from posts #601 and #608. I worked hard on finding that information for you.

Worked hard? I didn't realize doing a search is hard work.

As I've already pointed out why quantum consciousness, universal consciousness and other non brain agency 'solutions' to the 'hard problem' are not justified. The evidence doesn't support it.

The evidence to brain agency, that brain condition equals mind condition.

If there is something that suggests otherwise, please describe your proposition, backed with evidence, of course.

Please don't just post links to articles with quotes that you haven't related to your own proposition,

 

[WAB]

The theory that all minds are composed of yellow and purple styrofoam in the candy dimension is philosophical, but not supported by any evidence.

Well, um. Yeah, I was, um. It looks like I was abducted, yeah I know, but yeah, so they took me to this place that wasn't a place, you know? and there was this sugary sensation, like a sensation, all around me? It was sweet. No. I mean, it was like a sweet sensation, like a feeling you get? Anyway, and there were these things there that the people there called 'minds', and yeah, so they, I mean those minds? Yeah, they were all, like, yellow. Yeah. And pur. Yeah. Purple. Um-hm. And made out of, I mean they were made of, yeah, styrofoam. Like, yeah they were like styrofoam.



[comic relief. I'll be here all week...]

 

[untermensche]

What about a whole called a tree?

There is no physical distinction between a whole tree and everything that makes up that tree. So why would I give the wholeness of a tree any more ontological meaning scientifically?

You act as if the field of biology does not even exist.

Whole organism based on the expression of a single genome is a biological reality and not questioned by any serious thinker.

What stops us from clearly distinguishing it from a different tree?

the imperfect memory of the mental image

Now you are really grasping at straws.

The camera and recordings have long ago replaced the human memory.

 

[ryan]

Well, I hope you read the information from posts #601 and #608. I worked hard on finding that information for you.

Please don't just post links to articles with quotes that you haven't related to your own proposition,

If you look on posts #601 and #608 you will see that it supports what I saying.

What did I quote that didn't support what I was saying?

 

[ryan]

Well, I hope you read the information from posts #601 and #608. I worked hard on finding that information for you.

Worked hard? I didn't realize doing a search is hard work.

As I've already pointed out why quantum consciousness, universal consciousness and other non brain agency 'solutions' to the 'hard problem' are not justified. The evidence doesn't support it.

Where did I mention a "universal consciousness"? Panpsychism is a philosophical theory, so it must be justified.

The evidence to brain agency, that brain condition equals mind condition.

Wrong, binding problem, I posted the links and quotes already. From post #603, "This chapter describes several candidate mechanisms that might explain the binding of distributed macroscopic patterns of neuronal activities into a coherent whole."

The individual neurons firing are disconnected and discontinuous from each other, but a memory or the feeling of fear is not; it just doesn't make sense geometrically. The scientists stab away at the problem, but in this case, without entanglement (discussion for another day) how can something be a whole that is clearly divided?

I found one explanation. Have you heard of integrated information theory? (I posted his videos a while back.) If you scroll down to the "Axioms", you will see that it attempts to explain the unification of consciousness, "Integration: Consciousness is unified: each experience is irreducible to non-interdependent, disjoint subsets of phenomenal distinctions.".

But this relatively new theory is not widely accepted yet. It also requires a qualia dimension Q-dimension where the qualia exists. From looking around, this theory is interesting in terms of the binding problem but far from totally convincing.