maybe even scientists.To get things to appeal to scientists, you generally need evidence.
Is this not the response of an atheist, a scientist might have commented where the second paper from jstor I posted is barking mad.OK, it says "I am aware, by incontrovertible direct evidence, of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
Your comments are based on the first link not the jstor linkNo
OK, it says "I am aware, by incontrovertible direct evidence, of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
where you wrote
"I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
More importantly, that statement is far from incontrovertible.
Much of the information you receive might be wrong and thus not (in a useful sense, knowledge.
Notably, your eyes provide you with a picture of the world, but in reality the eyes have blind spots.
The article in the OP is suggesting the brain is where the consciousness manifests from a universal consciousness, the brain just filters out part of the universal consciousness, like an eye only detects part of the visible spectrum.
The article in the OP is suggesting the brain is where the consciousness manifests from a universal consciousness, the brain just filters out part of the universal consciousness, like an eye only detects part of the visible spectrum.
Without any way to test that, there's no way to know whether it's true or not.
so consciousness is continuous; mixing ions with hydrogen protons currents.
So sticking with the thread, It seems you have a big hole in your reasoning. You are stating if your body is dead, and still full of water, your consciousness is still there. seems a little wrong does it not !
The article in the OP is suggesting the brain is where the consciousness manifests from a universal consciousness, the brain just filters out part of the universal consciousness, like an eye only detects part of the visible spectrum. I guess you could change brain for water in the body if you wanted, there would be no big difference to the argument.
"A. My body with its internal nervous system(explored to any future degree of physiological completeness) functions as a pure mechanism according to the laws of nature. Further more quantum mechanics is the ultimate basis of the mechanism.
B. I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
The above two quotes are from the second article I posted which sort of supports the first.
Only an idiot would believe in the great god teapot.On this site we ask you to respect other belief systems no matter how strange they might seem
On this site we ask you to respect other belief systems no matter how strange they might seem
Thank you for your cooperation
I'm pretty sure he's talking about Russell's teapot. He wasn't insulting anyone's beliefs.I though so too, but I just couldn’t resist it. ;)
Could it be a projection?
This expression of increasing entropy drives consciousness;I presume you knew that statement was going to be dismissed without giving evidence.
Flash forward to 2016. Fake News has been lying constantly to the America people in an attempt to take out Trump.The actual evidence shows that you have that the wrong way round.
Flash forward to 2016. Fake News has been lying constantly to the America people in an attempt to take out Trump. Remember the collusion delusion that had most Democrats and the never Trump crowd, projecting evil onto Trump? How many fell for it, because it did appear that the evil portrayed by fake news, was outside themselves, and not a projection of their own cold hearts.
Trump was asked Tuesday about his change in tone. He responded by claiming that his tone hadn't changed much at all.
"I mean, I have seen that, where people actually liked it. But I didn't feel different," he said at a White House press briefing. "I've always known, this is a real -- this is a real -- this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic. All you had to do was look at other countries...no, I've always viewed it as very serious. It was no difference yesterday from days before. I feel the tone is similar, but some people said it wasn't."
This was another of Trump's brazen attempts to rewrite a history that played out in public view.
Facts First: From January until last week, Trump consistently minimized the risk the coronavirus posed to the country. He claimed to have the virus under "control," that the number of US cases would go "down, not up," that the virus might "disappear" through a "miracle" or something of the sort, that the virus might well vanish by April with the warmer weather, that the media and Democrats were overhyping the situation, and that "this is their new hoax," leaving it unclear whether he was calling the virus itself a hoax. (He later said he was talking about Democrats' coronavirus-related criticism, not the virus.)
On Monday, Trump acknowledged that the situation is "bad," that the virus is not under control, that the country might well be heading into a recession, and that American life would not get back to normal for months. He had not made such statements before.
President Donald Trump said Friday that Democrats are using the virulent coronavirus as a “hoax” to damage him and his administration.
“The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus,” he said from a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina.
“One of my people came up to me and said ‘Mr. President they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well.’ They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax that was on a perfect conversation,” he continued.
“This is their new hoax,” he said, referring to the coronavirus.
This topic is about where is consciousness is located. I was showing some examples of how the projection factor of the unconscious mind works. The unconscious mind can project content, like an overlay onto reality. What we then see is not 100% reality, but reality superimposed by the projection. It does not have to be a visual or audio overlay but it most often an emotional overlay.
This is more common to the left since emotional projection is very important and will be blindly followed.Why do you keep saying stuff that's wrong?
Confidence men and women promise you the world"Drain the swamp" "get brexit done".
.Many people are disappointed after the election since their fantasy projection ends when hard reality takes over.https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-voter-20170224-story.html
Where is the consciousness located ?
The following might appeal to pantheists, buddhists hindus, or newagers perhaps and maybe even scientists.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/think-well/201906/does-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain
"Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”
Fenwick is not a physicist, so I dredged the following link, the mind of wigners friend which supports the Fenwicks theory.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23040667?read-now=1&seq=1
The key points central to the article are
"A. My body with its internal nervous system(explored to any future degree of physiological completeness) functions as a pure mechanism according to the laws of nature. Further more quantum mechanics is the ultimate basis of the mechanism.
B. I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
Would any one like to comment, where is your consciousness? what is it?
[/quote
Just a reminder on what the thread is about since, it appears to have been hijacked, by some one very bored :)
Let me show another example of projection, based on events in the news. If you look at the reaction to the Corona Virus, and the global shut down, one would expect this to be worse disease in the world of all times. The world has never reacted and acted like this before.Must be bored; he forgot to mention the topic.
If we separate ourselves from our emotions; Mr Spock with cold logic, ten times as many people have died of the flu this year than the Corona Virus. There are other diseases such as heart disease that claim even more lives than the flu each year. Yet, Corona has been given the status and resources as the worse of the worse, for all times. Something is not adding up in terms of the hard data,
The question becomes, why are "we" overreacting to the lessor of evils, even with conflicting data, from hard science,for sickness and mortality? It has to do with a group projection of fear. This projection of fear, appears to be outside of ourselves, floating in the air like the angel of death. It adds a wild card that can override common sense.
Even scientists, who we assume are rational, will try to rationalize their fear, and will ignore all sense of proportions based on hard data for other diseases. This can also be due to a windfall of resources clouding common sense. If we die of the flu, so what, there is no angel of death. But if you die of Corona, which is 10 times less likley, that makes you a hero for just facing hew angel of death eye to eye.
This collective projection demonstration, driven by propaganda from by both side of the political spectrum, shows how strong unconscious projections can become, if it reinforced by herd think. In this case we have global herd think. You will not be able to convince most people that this exaggerated evil is partially inside of themselves. Proportional data will not sink into their minds to quantify the reality evil, even with people who are supposed to be rational based on occupation.
Projection can be a useful investigation tool, if properly investigated. The unconscious can map out its own inner reality through projection. Many of the worlds religions have excellent maps. Some projection bones are easier for the herd to chew, since a solution is there for common sense, if you can separate reason from projection.
The projection will be minimized if you can accept the reality of the Corona virus, but in the proper proportion to the hard reality of other things, that can also harm you. If your reaction remains exaggerated and disproportional to other data, you are too unconscious of the collective projection to reason.
Must be bored; he forgot to mention the topic.
I was hoping that somehow I could find a better argument against either paper I posted.I did point out that it was wrong.
More importantly, that statement is far from incontrovertible.
Much of the information you receive might be wrong and thus not (in a useful sense, knowledge.
Notably, your eyes provide you with a picture of the world, but in reality the eyes have blind spots.
The article in the OP is suggesting the brain is where the consciousness manifests from a universal consciousness, the brain just filters out part of the universal consciousness, like an eye only detects part of the visible spectrum.
Without any way to test that, there's no way to know whether it's true or not.
But the fact remains that the question posed in the title is unanswerable.
. If the cases discussed here are not of child actors, or con merchants then,...... they are evidence that some kids have vivid imaginations.
. If the cases discussed here are not of child actors, or con merchants then,...... they are evidence that some kids have vivid imaginations.
Which we already knew.
Did you need a video to tell you that?
You watched it thenNo.
nor has anyone put forward an argument against it, especially the jstor link I posted in the OP....
I did point out that it was wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 14:12:57
More importantly, that statement is far from incontrovertible.
Much of the information you receive might be wrong and thus not (in a useful sense, knowledge.
Notably, your eyes provide you with a picture of the world, but in reality the eyes have blind spots.
You watched it thenNo.nor has anyone put forward an argument against it, especially the jstor link I posted in the OP....
here we go again..I did point out that it was wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/03/2020 14:12:57
More importantly, that statement is far from incontrovertible.
Much of the information you receive might be wrong and thus not (in a useful sense, knowledge.
Notably, your eyes provide you with a picture of the world, but in reality the eyes have blind spots.
Would I be correct in thinking you never read the JSTOR paper either.No, It's obvious that I read it.
Is this not the response of an atheist, a scientist might have commented where the second paper from jstor I posted is barking mad.OK, it says "I am aware, by incontrovertible direct evidence, of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
where you wrote
"I am aware that by incontrovertible direct evidence of knowledge (information) entering my consciousness."
More importantly, that statement is far from incontrovertible.
Much of the information you receive might be wrong and thus not (in a useful sense, knowledge.
Notably, your eyes provide you with a picture of the world, but in reality the eyes have blind spots.
Theoretically, since each neurons contains our entire human DNA ,and human DNA has traces of past animal DNA, the link between neuron DNA and synaptic based memory should allow the inner self to periodically extrapolate and manifest past DNA connections via the frontal lobe; deja vu.
Professor Patrick Stokes of Deakin University gives a thought experiment from Thomas Nagel. This comes from a talk given at the Ethics Centre from an episode of the podcast The Philosopher's Zone.
The video is titled "The Self - A Thought Experiment".Spoiler: showQuoteProfessor Patrick Stokes of Deakin University gives a thought experiment from Thomas Nagel. This comes from a talk given at the Ethics Centre from an episode of the podcast The Philosopher's Zone.
Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”If I take a glass and dip it into an ocean, can it be said that I filter ocean water?
If you pour the water through a filter into the glass yes. It depends on the quality of the filter as to what your filtered ocean water is like.Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”If I take a glass and dip it into an ocean, can it be said that I filter ocean water?
Does the brain run various scenarios and then select a desired outcome?
If that was the case, you'd expect the brain to always choose the best outcome. Given that so many people are sick, poor and injured, that doesn't seem to be the case.Not every ones brain is programmed the same or has the same pathways, so not everyone will make the same decisions.
Not every ones brain is programmed the same or has the same pathways, so not everyone will make the same decisions.
Do you know how quantum computers are programmed ?
Unexpected results come from false assumptions. It happens due to incomplete information.Does the brain run various scenarios and then select a desired outcome?
If that was the case, you'd expect the brain to always choose the best outcome. Given that so many people are sick, poor and injured, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Unexpected results come from false assumptions. It happens due to incomplete information.
This pet rock is nurtured throughout science even though it has never been seen in the lab to prove if it is real. Everyone seems to see it out in space.
Not really. It's been a long time since I looked into them.Here is a quick refresher, with interesting links if it is below your level https://plus.maths.org/content/how-does-quantum-commuting-work
Let me give an example, say you had a toothache. While you moan in pain with the toothache, you also become an observational experiment, observed from the outside by others; third person. Would both data sets ; person with the pain and the person observing the person in pain be the same? The answer is no. Unless you have had a first hand experience of a toothache, there will be something missing in your external data relative to first hand consciousness.Above is only true with current technology. When technology in direct brain interface is adequately advanced, simulating that pain can be so convincing we can no longer distinguish from the real pain.
In medical pain management, medicine often has a dilemma in terms of prescribing drugs for pain. Doctors cannot climb into someone else's skin and measure the pain. They need to depend on the patient telling them in the first person. The patient has a conscious awareness that cannot be easily derived in the third person. The third person approach has limitations when it comes to consciousness even in hospitals full of scientists and doctors.The same for this.
A doctor is not allowed to operate on themselves, because the pain during surgery can impair one's conscious ability to operate.It depends on the type of the operation. Many people can stitch their own skin.
This is interesting
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235773843_Crossing_the_Threshold_Non_local_Consciousness_and_the_Burden_of_Proof
This is interesting
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235773843_Crossing_the_Threshold_Non_local_Consciousness_and_the_Burden_of_Proof
Here is a utube by the same guy who wrote the article in the above link. He might be mad, but then he might not be. ;)
Let me give an example, say you had a toothache. While you moan in pain with the toothache, you also become an observational experiment, observed from the outside by others; third person. Would both data sets ; person with the pain and the person observing the person in pain be the same? The answer is no. Unless you have had a first hand experience of a toothache, there will be something missing in your external data relative to first hand consciousness.Above is only true with current technology. When technology in direct brain interface is adequately advanced, simulating that pain can be so convincing we can no longer distinguish from the real pain.In medical pain management, medicine often has a dilemma in terms of prescribing drugs for pain. Doctors cannot climb into someone else's skin and measure the pain. They need to depend on the patient telling them in the first person. The patient has a conscious awareness that cannot be easily derived in the third person. The third person approach has limitations when it comes to consciousness even in hospitals full of scientists and doctors.The same for this.A doctor is not allowed to operate on themselves, because the pain during surgery can impair one's conscious ability to operate.It depends on the type of the operation. Many people can stitch their own skin.
The point I was making is there is internal data, available to individual consciousness, that cannot be easily collected from the outside. Your point is if we have hypothetical machines we will be able to overcome this barrier.
The point I was making is there is internal data, available to individual consciousness, that cannot be easily collected from the outside. Your point is if we have hypothetical machines we will be able to overcome this barrier.
The whole point of the thread is the consciousness may be external to the body, various articles have been presented, written by scientists working in the field (perhaps on the fringe). Some of these people have unnervingly plausible theories. What you are presenting isnt based on anything scientific, let alone related to the OP of the thread. Did you even take the opportunity to glance down any of the more recent papers I posted, or are you just convinced you are correct with NO scientific backup of your ideas.
You mention god. God is a very general term. Define what version of god it is you think you might be referring too and how any of your posts relate to the OP, and back it up with scientific reasoning.
Maybe next time I will discuss the research I did over many decades, many moons ago.How do you define consciousness in your research? How does it relate to clinical consciousness? How does it relate to other concepts such as intelligence and self awareness? What are the minimum requirements for a being to be called conscious?
Maybe next time I will discuss the research I did over many decades, many moons ago.How do you define consciousness in your research? How does it relate to clinical consciousness? How does it relate to other concepts such as intelligence and self awareness? What are the minimum requirements for a being to be called conscious?
Consciousness is a platform for awareness. We can be aware of things that directly enter our sensory systems from the outside. We ca also be aware of things that impact our sensory systems from the inside. In both cases, arousal to awareness only requires the brain stem to be triggered. I can be aware of a toothache by its internal generation of pain and the brain stem. I can also be aware of the dentist, though my visial cortex and brain stem, who is trying to relieve me of my pain. There are also composite affects; inside and outside, act together, such as projection.Is it possible to become conscious without awareness? Do you think that artificial/non-biological consciousness is possible?
Consciousness is a platform for awareness. We can be aware of things that directly enter our sensory systems from the outside. We ca also be aware of things that impact our sensory systems from the inside. In both cases, arousal to awareness only requires the brain stem to be triggered. I can be aware of a toothache by its internal generation of pain and the brain stem. I can also be aware of the dentist, though my visial cortex and brain stem, who is trying to relieve me of my pain. There are also composite affects; inside and outside, act together, such as projection.Is it possible to become conscious without awareness? Do you think that artificial/non-biological consciousness is possible?
I still want to know your answer to my other questions in previous post.
My intent was goodHow do you define good? From whose perspective?
My intent was goodHow do you define good? From whose perspective?
In terms of what is good, I do not necessary follow a cultural list, but rather I observe the impact of my choices, on my body energy, to see if it dams or allows the natural flow. If ti does dam, how much does it dam the flow?So, how do you evaluate something that is done by other person/society which doesn't affect you directly?
In terms of what is good, I do not necessary follow a cultural list, but rather I observe the impact of my choices, on my body energy, to see if it dams or allows the natural flow. If ti does dam, how much does it dam the flow?So, how do you evaluate something that is done by other person/society which doesn't affect you directly?