The Illusion of Self

[untermensche]

Multi-functionality is a well known aspect of biological systems.

There is nothing saying blood cannot do many things.

 

[untermensche]

I am not denying anything except that humans have the slightest clue how consciousness arises or what specific activity gives rise to it.

So it could be INFINITY, then.

Nah. Consciousness is finite. And conserved. Cannot be created nor destroyed.
Show me consciousness being created or destroyed, or else you're wrong.

{{{walks away satisfied}}}

All biological entities arise though random genetic mutation.

 

[DBT]

Multi-functionality is a well known aspect of biological systems.

There is nothing saying blood cannot do many things.

Are you saying that blood may be directly responsible for generating consciousness? Besides, you haven't given an account of your theory of consciousness, descriptions, possible source, etc. Nothing, just vague comments.

 

[fromderinside]

Hmmmnnn. If one puts something other than blood into the vascular system and gets the heart to pump it and one is shown to be conscious what then of your blood necessary theory?

Show me the study.

Artificial blood https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738310/

Abstract: Artificial blood is a product made to act as a substitute for red blood cells. While true blood serves many different functions, artificial blood is designed for the sole purpose of transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide throughout the body. Depending on the type of artificial blood, it can be produced in different ways using synthetic production, chemical isolation, or recombinant biochemical technology. Development of the first blood substitutes dates back to the early 1600s, and the search for the ideal blood substitute continues.

You are so easy.

 

[untermensche]

Artificial blood https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738310/

Abstract: [FONT=&]Artificial blood is a product made to act as a substitute for red blood cells. While true blood serves many different functions, artificial blood is designed for the sole purpose of transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide throughout the body. Depending on the type of artificial blood, it can be produced in different ways using synthetic production, chemical isolation, or recombinant biochemical technology. Development of the first blood substitutes dates back to the early 1600s, and the search for the ideal blood substitute continues.[/FONT]

You are so easy.

I see no study of any product using humans and removing all their blood in any of that.

Did you actually read it?

Can you understand it?

And the component in blood that creates consciousness might be hemoglobin.

 

[untermensche]

Multi-functionality is a well known aspect of biological systems.

There is nothing saying blood cannot do many things.

Are you saying that blood may be directly responsible for generating consciousness? Besides, you haven't given an account of your theory of consciousness, descriptions, possible source, etc. Nothing, just vague comments.

No.

The combination of moving blood within the environment created by brain activity may be what gives rise to consciousness.

Who knows?

We do not understand the first thing about the generation of consciousness. We do not know what it is physiologically.

 

[fromderinside]

Artificial blood https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738310/

Abstract: Artificial blood is a product made to act as a substitute for red blood cells. While true blood serves many different functions, artificial blood is designed for the sole purpose of transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide throughout the body. Depending on the type of artificial blood, it can be produced in different ways using synthetic production, chemical isolation, or recombinant biochemical technology. Development of the first blood substitutes dates back to the early 1600s, and the search for the ideal blood substitute continues.

You are so easy.

I see no study of any product using humans and removing all their blood in any of that.

Did you actually read it?

Can you understand it?

And the component in blood that creates consciousness might be hemoglobin.

...and introducing artificial blood into the vascular system doesn't require driving out the existing blood? RU nuts. Yes it may but in the studies I perused which you can if you use scholar introduces substitutes for hemoglobin such as [FONT=&quot]Perfluorocarbons.[/FONT]

So no hemoglobin isn't what creates consciousness.

da da

 

[untermensche]

I see no study of any product using humans and removing all their blood in any of that.

Did you actually read it?

Can you understand it?

And the component in blood that creates consciousness might be hemoglobin.

...and introducing artificial blood into the vascular system doesn't require driving out the existing blood? RU nuts. Yes it may but in the studies I perused which you can if you use scholar introduces substitutes for hemoglobin such as [FONT="]Perfluorocarbons.[/FONT]

So no hemoglobin isn't what creates consciousness.

da da

They have not put perflurocarbons in humans and looked at the effect on mentation.

Can they even keep a person awake?

 

[fromderinside]

Can they even keep a person awake?

Yes. They put oxygen and nutrients into the system. From oxygen and nutrients in the system wakefulness becomes possible. Don't need no damn hemoglobin.

 

[untermensche]

Can they even keep a person awake?

Yes. They put oxygen and nutrients into the system. From oxygen and nutrients in the system wakefulness becomes possible. Don't need no damn hemoglobin.

Show me.

Show me where they completely replaced the blood with perflutocarbons and examined mentation.

Show me the study.

 

[DBT]

Multi-functionality is a well known aspect of biological systems.

There is nothing saying blood cannot do many things.

Are you saying that blood may be directly responsible for generating consciousness? Besides, you haven't given an account of your theory of consciousness, descriptions, possible source, etc. Nothing, just vague comments.

No.

The combination of moving blood within the environment created by brain activity may be what gives rise to consciousness.

Who knows?

We do not understand the first thing about the generation of consciousness. We do not know what it is physiologically.

So you do agree that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness and self awareness? What exactly are you saying?

 

[untermensche]

No.

The combination of moving blood within the environment created by brain activity may be what gives rise to consciousness.

Who knows?

We do not understand the first thing about the generation of consciousness. We do not know what it is physiologically.

So you do agree that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness and self awareness? What exactly are you saying?

We are talking about the "self".

That is another word for consciousness.

We are conscious as a self, not merely conscious.

The discussion about blood possibly being necessary for the generation of consciousness is that we have no idea how consciousness arises. It is not a known electrical phenomena.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me be clear. The artificial oxygen carrier does keep the individual alive and it does not have hemoglobin. So hemoglobin isn't necessary for even keeping the being alive, much less involved with the being via the blood stream in producing consciousness.

It's not necessary to show that hemoglobin is not involved in oxygen transport to show that it is not involved in producing consciousness since hemoglobin does not interact with the brain other than by way of transporting oxygen to the brain.

That hemoglobin does not interact directly with the brain clearly demonstrates it can not motivate consciousness.

You now need to show me away that hemoglobin does interact directly with the brain.

I just demonstrated above by showing other substance can transport oxygen even that capability is not sufficient to say hemoglobin has a role in motivating consciousness.

 

[DBT]

No.

The combination of moving blood within the environment created by brain activity may be what gives rise to consciousness.

Who knows?

We do not understand the first thing about the generation of consciousness. We do not know what it is physiologically.

So you do agree that the brain is responsible for generating consciousness and self awareness? What exactly are you saying?

We are talking about the "self".

That is another word for consciousness.

We are conscious as a self, not merely conscious.

The discussion about blood possibly being necessary for the generation of consciousness is that we have no idea how consciousness arises. It is not a known electrical phenomena.

Are you suggesting that 'self' is separate from consciousness? That 'self' has some form of autonomy? If so how does that work

 

[untermensche]

Let me be clear. The artificial oxygen carrier does keep the individual alive and it does not have hemoglobin. So hemoglobin isn't necessary for even keeping the being alive, much less involved with the being via the blood stream in producing consciousness.

It's not necessary to show that hemoglobin is not involved in oxygen transport to show that it is not involved in producing consciousness since hemoglobin does not interact with the brain other than by way of transporting oxygen to the brain.

That hemoglobin does not interact directly with the brain clearly demonstrates it can not motivate consciousness.

You now need to show me away that hemoglobin does interact directly with the brain.

I just demonstrated above by showing other substance can transport oxygen even that capability is not sufficient to say hemoglobin has a role in motivating consciousness.

Where has it been used?

It may be the movement of oxygen through the brain that creates consciousness.

We have no idea.

Consciousness is not a known electrical phenomena.

Consciousness may be some very tiny tiny activity that is amplified.

We have no idea what specific activity is producing it.

 

[untermensche]

We are talking about the "self".

That is another word for consciousness.

We are conscious as a self, not merely conscious.

The discussion about blood possibly being necessary for the generation of consciousness is that we have no idea how consciousness arises. It is not a known electrical phenomena.

Are you suggesting that 'self' is separate from consciousness? That 'self' has some form of autonomy? If so how does that work

I just said that consciousness is another word for self.

They are the same thing. No difference. Two words describing the same thing.

We are conscious as a self.

Mind is another word to describe the same thing. We think as a self. Our thoughts are the thoughts of a self.

The mind is definitely a distinct "entity".

The leg is not the mind. The mind is aware of the leg.

 

[DBT]

We are talking about the "self".

That is another word for consciousness.

We are conscious as a self, not merely conscious.

The discussion about blood possibly being necessary for the generation of consciousness is that we have no idea how consciousness arises. It is not a known electrical phenomena.

Are you suggesting that 'self' is separate from consciousness? That 'self' has some form of autonomy? If so how does that work

I just said that consciousness is another word for self.

They are the same thing. No difference. Two words describing the same thing.

We are conscious as a self.

Mind is another word to describe the same thing. We think as a self. Our thoughts are the thoughts of a self.

The mind is definitely a distinct "entity".

The leg is not the mind. The mind is aware of the leg.

You keep shifting the goal posts so much that your position appears incoherent.

Consciousness is far broader than 'self.'

You may be conscious of something without being aware of self being conscious. Self awareness is not always present.

Being engrossed in something, a book, a movie, for a time you absorbed, you are not aware of yourself.

At times you appear to suggest trancendency of self and mind, other times you appear to support brain generated mind/consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

I just said that consciousness is another word for self.

They are the same thing. No difference. Two words describing the same thing.

We are conscious as a self.

Mind is another word to describe the same thing. We think as a self. Our thoughts are the thoughts of a self.

The mind is definitely a distinct "entity".

The leg is not the mind. The mind is aware of the leg.

You keep shifting the goal posts so much that your position appears incoherent.

Consciousness is far broader than 'self.'

You may be conscious of something without being aware of self being conscious. Self awareness is not always present.

Being engrossed in something, a book, a movie, for a time you absorbed, you are not aware of yourself.

At times you appear to suggest trancendency of self and mind, other times you appear to support brain generated mind/consciousness.

Your irrational fear of transcendency is your problem.

Nothing about existence is explained.

We have no idea why there is existence or what existence is.

All we know is a little of how existence behaves.

You may be right though.

The self has consciousness is probably the best way to describe it.

Consciousness is an ability of the self.

I think mind and self mean the same thing though. The self is a mind. It does not have a mind.

 

[DBT]

I just said that consciousness is another word for self.

They are the same thing. No difference. Two words describing the same thing.

We are conscious as a self.

Mind is another word to describe the same thing. We think as a self. Our thoughts are the thoughts of a self.

The mind is definitely a distinct "entity".

The leg is not the mind. The mind is aware of the leg.

You keep shifting the goal posts so much that your position appears incoherent.

Consciousness is far broader than 'self.'

You may be conscious of something without being aware of self being conscious. Self awareness is not always present.

Being engrossed in something, a book, a movie, for a time you absorbed, you are not aware of yourself.

At times you appear to suggest trancendency of self and mind, other times you appear to support brain generated mind/consciousness.

Your irrational fear of transcendency is your problem.

Nothing about existence is explained.

We have no idea why there is existence or what existence is.

All we know is a little of how existence behaves.

You may be right though.

The self has consciousness is probably the best way to describe it.

Consciousness is an ability of the self.

I think mind and self mean the same thing though. The self is a mind. It does not have a mind.

What fear? I'm asking you to clarify your position. You tend to be vague about what you believe (your remarks above, for example).

I'm trying to get you to give a clear and concise description of your belief on mind, self and consciousness.

Can you do that or not?

 

[untermensche]

Your irrational fear of transcendency is your problem.

Nothing about existence is explained.

We have no idea why there is existence or what existence is.

All we know is a little of how existence behaves.

You may be right though.

The self has consciousness is probably the best way to describe it.

Consciousness is an ability of the self.

I think mind and self mean the same thing though. The self is a mind. It does not have a mind.

What fear? I'm asking you to clarify your position. You tend to be vague about what you believe (your remarks above, for example).

I'm trying to get you to give a clear and concise description of your belief on mind, self and consciousness.

Can you do that or not?

The self and the mind are that which experiences.

They are the same thing.

The mind is the self.

The mind has the property called consciousness. It is aware of things.

The mind is aware of the table in front of it. It is conscious of the table. It is aware of happiness and a little pain in the stomach. It is aware of memories. The mind relies on short term and long term memory.

When we use the term "subjective" we are talking about a mind experiencing. And it is invisible to all observers.

But none of this is understood physiologically. We only have our experience. And our experience of mind is what mind is as much as the physiology.

We are not being fooled into thinking we are experiencing. We are experiencing.