The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:52 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies.
Nope Steve. We answered your question over and over again. However, when we ask you questions about your ridiculous claims, you refuse to answer them. You are just another religious nut case. :lol:


SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote: (Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
1) How did human consciousness travel back in time 13.8 billion years?
2) How does human consciousness exist in the single point singularity that existed before the Big Bang.


SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience.
3) How can human consciousness, that only evolved 190,000 years ago, travel back 3.8 billion years to drive the first self replicating DNA chains on Earth?
4) How could human consciousness force carbon and other atoms into complex DNA chains and stop normal evolution taking place?
5) Do you have any understanding what evolution is?
6) Do you have any understanding what a singularity is?
7) Do you have any understanding what the Big Bang is?


Your questions are just Diversions from the topic as usual.

1) The speculation that I made was that maybe Consciousness (not Human Consciousness) existed before the Big Bang not that it travelled back in Time.
2) I say Consciousness must exist in some other Conscious Space concept that has connections to any existent Physical Spaces. So Consciousness is probably not in the Physical Space Singularity.
3) See 1
4)Consciousness, as I said, influences through Conscious Experience of the Experiencer. It is Conscious Pain and Pleasure that I invoke when I say Consciousness influences Evolution. It's almost certain that the most early life forms felt Pain and Pleasure. Pain and Pleasure can greatly influence the behavior of even the simplest organisms. Of course all the other possible Conscious experiences combine to create the total Conscious influence on Evolution.
5) Yes
6) Yes
7) Yes


you're a f idiot, :lol: :lol: there is no such thing as "physical" space and a "conscious" space. You're making up stupid premises that don't even exist. Space is Space. Empty. Physical things take up SPACE (empty).

space Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/space
what is space: an empty area that is available to be used.

phys·i·cal
ˈfizik(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
"a whole range of physical and mental challenges"
synonyms: bodily, corporeal, corporal, somatic;
2.
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"pleasant physical environments"
synonyms: material, concrete, tangible, palpable, solid, substantial, real, actual, visible

physical things/ Matter take up space , you wacko

conscious - Cambridge Dictionary - Cambridge University Press
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/dic ... /conscious
conscious definition: to notice that a particular thing or person exists or is present.

Got it??? You're distorting what 'conscious' means, and you're giving your flawed new-agey premise that don't even make sense to begin with.
Space is more than just emptiness. Physical Space is a thing that exists in the Physical Universe. There could be no Space, in which case there is Absolute nothingness. Space is something, Space could have been 2D or 4D. Our particular Space is 3D.

I use the concept of Conscious Space as a tool to analyze Conscious experience. It helps to think outside the box when dealing with Conscious experience. When I say that Conscious experience happens in Conscious Space, I am trying to emphasize that Conscious experience can not, at this time, be analyzed by Physical Space methods, We need some new methods when we analyze Conscious experience.



conscious space even is a concept is meaningless and stupid, it does not exist even as a concept. And no, there is NO SUCH THING as a space that is PHYSICAL you {!#%@} retard, face it. physical things are IN space, which is {!#%@} empty. FACE THE {!#%@} OUT OF THIS FACT AND STOP MAKING PREMISES THAT DON'T EVEN EXIST.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:23 am

If there is anything that those discussions show for sure Steve, is that those who desperately want to believe in whatever makes them feel 'spiritual' or having existential purpose will, and there is no reason, logic or evidence that can ever change it - such is the hopelessness of human psychology...that in itself is a very basic, primitive, evolutionary behaviour.

That is also why we still have terrorism, wars in the name of religion, narcissism, arrogance, domestic and family violence, abuse, racism, patriarchy, caste systems, inhumane injustice, inequality, discrimination and all the other 'evils of the world' where believers will not self-doubt in order to desperately mentain own feel-good theories that support their ego.

Personally, I am very grateful for mainstream and the scientific method even though it leads to nihilism. It took humanity a while to get to this point through maze of BS religions and corrupted systems that were rejecting evidence-based findings but we did, things could be so much more worse if people like you were still representative of the mainstream...Think about it for a while before spreading your philosophical desperation.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:08 pm

mirror93 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
mirror93 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies.
Nope Steve. We answered your question over and over again. However, when we ask you questions about your ridiculous claims, you refuse to answer them. You are just another religious nut case. :lol:


SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote: (Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
1) How did human consciousness travel back in time 13.8 billion years?
2) How does human consciousness exist in the single point singularity that existed before the Big Bang.


SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience.
3) How can human consciousness, that only evolved 190,000 years ago, travel back 3.8 billion years to drive the first self replicating DNA chains on Earth?
4) How could human consciousness force carbon and other atoms into complex DNA chains and stop normal evolution taking place?
5) Do you have any understanding what evolution is?
6) Do you have any understanding what a singularity is?
7) Do you have any understanding what the Big Bang is?


Your questions are just Diversions from the topic as usual.

1) The speculation that I made was that maybe Consciousness (not Human Consciousness) existed before the Big Bang not that it travelled back in Time.
2) I say Consciousness must exist in some other Conscious Space concept that has connections to any existent Physical Spaces. So Consciousness is probably not in the Physical Space Singularity.
3) See 1
4)Consciousness, as I said, influences through Conscious Experience of the Experiencer. It is Conscious Pain and Pleasure that I invoke when I say Consciousness influences Evolution. It's almost certain that the most early life forms felt Pain and Pleasure. Pain and Pleasure can greatly influence the behavior of even the simplest organisms. Of course all the other possible Conscious experiences combine to create the total Conscious influence on Evolution.
5) Yes
6) Yes
7) Yes


you're a f idiot, :lol: :lol: there is no such thing as "physical" space and a "conscious" space. You're making up stupid premises that don't even exist. Space is Space. Empty. Physical things take up SPACE (empty).

space Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/space
what is space: an empty area that is available to be used.

phys·i·cal
ˈfizik(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
"a whole range of physical and mental challenges"
synonyms: bodily, corporeal, corporal, somatic;
2.
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"pleasant physical environments"
synonyms: material, concrete, tangible, palpable, solid, substantial, real, actual, visible

physical things/ Matter take up space , you wacko

conscious - Cambridge Dictionary - Cambridge University Press
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/dic ... /conscious
conscious definition: to notice that a particular thing or person exists or is present.

Got it??? You're distorting what 'conscious' means, and you're giving your flawed new-agey premise that don't even make sense to begin with.
Space is more than just emptiness. Physical Space is a thing that exists in the Physical Universe. There could be no Space, in which case there is Absolute nothingness. Space is something, Space could have been 2D or 4D. Our particular Space is 3D.

I use the concept of Conscious Space as a tool to analyze Conscious experience. It helps to think outside the box when dealing with Conscious experience. When I say that Conscious experience happens in Conscious Space, I am trying to emphasize that Conscious experience can not, at this time, be analyzed by Physical Space methods, We need some new methods when we analyze Conscious experience.



conscious space even is a concept is meaningless and stupid, it does not exist even as a concept. And no, there is NO SUCH THING as a space that is PHYSICAL you {!#%@} retard, face it. physical things are IN space, which is {!#%@} empty. FACE THE {!#%@} OUT OF THIS FACT AND STOP MAKING PREMISES THAT DON'T EVEN EXIST.
Your shallow understanding of multidimensional Space speaks for itself.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:43 pm

Mara wrote:If there is anything that those discussions show for sure Steve, is that those who desperately want to believe in whatever makes them feel 'spiritual' or having existential purpose will, and there is no reason, logic or evidence that can ever change it - such is the hopelessness of human psychology...that in itself is a very basic, primitive, evolutionary behaviour.

That is also why we still have terrorism, wars in the name of religion, narcissism, arrogance, domestic and family violence, abuse, racism, patriarchy, caste systems, inhumane injustice, inequality, discrimination and all the other 'evils of the world' where believers will not self-doubt in order to desperately mentain own feel-good theories that support their ego.

Personally, I am very grateful for mainstream and the scientific method even though it leads to nihilism. It took humanity a while to get to this point through maze of BS religions and corrupted systems that were rejecting evidence-based findings but we did, things could be so much more worse if people like you were still representative of the mainstream...Think about it for a while before spreading your philosophical desperation.
I agree with what you say about Religion. But until Science can explain Consciousness these Religions will persist. When Science can understand Consciousness it will be able, in an instant, to invalidate all the ancient Religions. But Science has to actually Explain Consciousness not just make believe it Explains Consciousness. I have found the current Scientific answers to be lacking and naïve. The Scientific answers are always about the Easy Problem. The Scientific answers ignore the Hard Problem. There is a Huge Explanatory Gap in what Science says about Consciousness.

Science can not tell me what the Conscious Experience of the color Red is. Red is a Conscious Phenomenon. It seems like it is some other kind of thing than any Physical World Phenomenon that you can think of. Think about the Redness of Red. Does thinking about Red make me Religious? It is a very Scientific thing to do. Why can't I promote thinking about Red and other Conscious Phenomena without being called Religious?

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:48 am

Science has explained the consciousness as an illusionary phenomena. It is you who choses to ignore it and keep asking questions until you hear what you want to hear. You obviously have a lot of ego invested in maintaining that your private illusions are real, just because they feel real to you (like maintaining that a colour red is a physical thing because you see it) AND that is the concerning bit as I wonder what else you use that attitude for...

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:27 am

Mara wrote:Science has explained the consciousness as an illusionary phenomena.

Mara, please support this statement with evidence. If science has conclusively explained this, there will likely be consistent evidence supporting your assertion. If you can show this to me, and it is as conclusive as you make it out to be, then we should have no real problem in need of discussion here. Please show us this evidence. You seem like a fairly reasonable person, so if you have no stake in this argument you will surely show us exactly what you mean and what has convinced you of the illusory nature of consciousness. I consider myself a reasonable person, that is, someone who, if presented with irrefutable evidence will accept the most reasonable conclusion based on that evidence.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:22 am

Dimebag...

FIRST you study what evidence and scientific method is, as you still do not understand it based on your posts,
THEN read about the scientific frameworks and evidence, not in Nexus, not in New Age blogs or by watching youtube videos, but in textbooks and peer-reviewed journals NOT in spirituality, humanities and ancient outdated philosophy but in modern sciences and clinical studies.

To illustrate it to you in simple terms...

You two (with Klinko) come here, like many before you and I am sure many more in the future, with close to zero knowledge, just pure amateur feel-good humanistic philosophies, knowing nothing about psychology, neurosciences, genetics or even proper sociological studies like from anthropology for example, and scream:
'Santa Claus must be real because I saw one'
Everybody tells you: 'No guys, it is just a man dressed up and your socio-cultural unbgriniing that makes you interpret his appearance as a man-made concept of Santa'
You keep screaming like an upset child would in this situation: 'But, but, but... I saw one, how can it be not real if I saw one'
Again, everybody tries, again and again and again, but you keep going:
'A fake Santa is not the same as real Santa, explain how is it that it feels real to me then, you can't explain it (even though we already have numerous times) then Santa must be real'
- This is precisely what you two have been doing in this thread, it really is THAT IDIOTIC for anyone with a half a brain reading this thread.

I don't even know where to start with you... Your personal understanding that you have created for yourself about what the term 'consciousness' is already wrong, that is before you even start, you are already spiritually skewed at that first step, just like your friend Klinko, which is what everyone here has been trying to break down to you both. You approach this topic with enormous amount of spiritual and humanistic assumptions made that are purely imagined. You, Dimebeg, specifically confuse intellect, various forms of cognitive processing and memories with consciousness completely ignoring basic research of clinical consciousness based on animals and humans equally. Look at clinical cases of amnesia, acuired brain injury, 'retardation', mental illness and see what your understanding of consciousness, cognitive processing, memories is then. Look at studies in human and animal anaesthesia as that is where 'consciousness' is an actual observable phenomena not pure philosophical concept. To me this is so basic and obvious that is almost funny that I have to write it...

I am sorry but you and Kilnko need to start with foundational knowledge that is generally available to most humans living in developed nations in 2018... like enrolling into introduction to sciences and introduction to psychology, even a high school level would do for you two, then ideally you should be taken through years of cases and verifiable clinical research, and THEN you can return here and have a chance at tackling the topic of 'consciousness'

At the moment your definition of consciousness is some romanticised version of humanistic spirituality. In your minds you isolated the process of 'consciousness' as it was some individual phenomena and you use and abuse it to feed your empowerment and existentialism. It's actually pathetic...

You want evidence? Drop the spiritual BS, get a clean start the way a proper scientist would do and then read the journals and books I have already listed for you in this thread that you keep ignoring - once you do that I will be willing to have a discussion regarding 'evidence' with you...While you doing this keep in mind that the issue with folks like you two is that you struggle with dropping spiritual BS and get that clean start as you cling emotionally with desperation to belief that you are more than you actually are - that is precisely why you are stuck... It's a psychological weakness that ironically is an evolutionary behaviour in itself that makes you as emotionally primitive as an Ape...

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:55 am

Mara,

I can feel the frustration from your posts. It is clear that you are very passionate about this issue, which is no surprise really. It is one which great thinkers thoughout human history have gravitated towards. Most people go through life not even wondering about consciousness, and for them it is not an issue. But for others who have been drawn towards understanding the mind and brain it is a very salient issue. I do not cast any doubt on the vast amounts of neuroscientific and psychological research which covers so many aspects of the brain and mind, I find it highly interesting and I do believe it is crucial if we are to understand consciousness.

Unfortunately, you draw conclusions based on no knowledge about myself. I have a background in psychology, I don't say this in order to use this as a means to flaunt any kind of authority, but to clear the record, I have experience, even if somewhat limited, in the scientific method, in the science of psychology. Beyond that I have been personally interested in the topic of the brain for over ten years and in this time I have furthered my knowledge of the physiology of the brain and the way in which we can understand the mind through neuroscience and psychology.

You may think you know something about me, or that you know my type,but you are mistaken in this case. I believe you when you say you have encountered many people discussing these topics who have unfounded spiritual tendencies and try to push them into the realm of consciousness. Let me be clear, I do not have any spiritual beliefs in regards to consciousness. I do not believe when I die that my consciousness will continue, or that it could continue theoretically. I do not believe in the concept of a disembodied soul or consciousness. It is plainly obvious that consciousness and all the affordances of our mental abilities are only possible due to the brain, and once the brain is no longer in play, neither are those affordances. I do not believe in any deities, gods, trolls, or flying spaghetti monsters.

One thing I do believe, is that I have conscious experience. I will grant you one thing, that I can't be 100% sure that my brain isn't just fooled into thinking it is having an experience. For all practical purposes however, it seems entirely plausible that I do, along with many other species of animals, but certainly not in the same way that we do as humans.

You were critical of my understanding of what consciousness is, and that I conflate it with memory. I think memory is very important when it comes to consciousness. Without memory, we cannot report our conscious experiences, and therefore yes, I think it plays an important part. But no, I don't assert that memory is consciousness or vice versa.

I hope if you take anything away from our conversation here, it's that you shouldn't try and pidgeonhole a person. Yes, people follow patterns, however, there are a myriad of ways the dimensions of personality can combine, and to think that you can place a person in such a narrowly defined category that you have selected for them without first getting to know the ins and outs of a person is rather hasty. I sincerely hope I haven't judged you in such a way, and if I have I apologise.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9216
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:39 pm

No one is arguing against conscious experience, Dimebag. However, Conscious Experience is a whole other thing, although it may not necessarily be a Whole Other Thing.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:07 pm

Mara wrote:Science has explained the consciousness as an illusionary phenomena. It is you who choses to ignore it and keep asking questions until you hear what you want to hear. You obviously have a lot of ego invested in maintaining that your private illusions are real, just because they feel real to you (like maintaining that a colour red is a physical thing because you see it) AND that is the concerning bit as I wonder what else you use that attitude for...
I can see you are just substituting the word Illusion for Consciousness. You hope if you say Illusion enough times that the Hard Problem and the Explanatory Gap will go away. Let me restate the foundational question of this thread in your terms ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) An Illusion for Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?

But some other questions pop out from this:
What exactly do you mean by Illusion?
Aren't you admitting some kind of Experiencer that Experiences the Illusion?

Your Illusion of Red has a property of Redness. How can an illusion have a property? If the Illusion does have a property of Redness then it really is something isn't it? Concentrate on the Redness itself and you will see it is something that needs to be Explained.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:08 pm

Poodle wrote:No one is arguing against conscious experience, Dimebag. However, Conscious Experience is a whole other thing, although it may not necessarily be a Whole Other Thing.
Good One.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:23 am

Klinko your questions have been answered on this forum many times, you are just not grasping the answers.

Dimebag, it's definitely a sense of frustration coming from realisation that I have to share the world with idiots. Until rational thinking prevails systems, policies, interventions, responses to environmental demands etc. will not improve. Do you really think that atheistic educated scientists voted for Trump? No, the bunch of irrationals Texans definitely did. Majority of people don't want to accept the truth because it isn't mesmerising and supporting of self-indulgence just as you showed us here with your 'stream' on 'wonders and superiority of human consciousness'. Seeing the pattern? As it's obvious to people on my side of the argument, it has been obvious for decades. The very fact that we still have people arguing irrational philosophies, spirituality and religion in developed nations where basic education is readily available shows how stupid the homo sapiens fundamentally are... Do you think, I feel happy that I have to function among stupid people?

Just to give you a taste of how this translates to real life. Few years back, I was working with youth mental health where I had teenagers quoting Tom Campbells' book (that I have no doubt you two are familiar with as there is a whole cult in english speaking countries following that self-indulging patriarchal elitist) as an argument against taking medication while their mental health issues were out of control so much so that they were a danger to themselves and others. They were 'purifying their consciousness with intent to change the world'...

Perhaps this is something for you to ponder: None of your spiritual feel-good theories pass the test of usefulness on the floor, where dealing with actual real cases, responding to actual human issues...interestingly, that is where interventions derived from mainstream scientific research are useful.. ISN'T THAT INTERESTING??? HMM... The fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness the way you are implying exists at all. All we know is that matter exists, and chemical processes, genetics are the operational mechanisms. Consciousness is an observable (empirical) phenomena only clinically as a set of vital signs typically used in anaesthesia - that's the extent of it. The rest are just made up philosophical stories, that came to existence BEFORE development of modern sciences. In fact, today, there is no even a definition of what 'consciousness' suppose to cover outside of clinical practice among the scientific community but apparently you two have figured it out.. WOW, you are geniuses, hey?

...Similarly, in domestic and family violence and child protection services - majority of abusers consider themselves 'spiritual people' These days traditional religions have been replaced by New Age concepts that are based on exactly the same irrational wishful thinking that you two have been spreading on this forum. Empowerment through irrational spiritual concepts is what leads to an unhealthy ego that leads to unhealthy behaviour.

Furthermore, the most disadvantaged nations of the world are the most spiritual, look at Asia, look at Africa, look at Middle East. When masses are stupid, the powerful can control their ability to wake up and see what is really being done to them and why... Klinko's theories are a classic eastern philosophy that I do not have a great respect for, I see it as redirecting people's attention from reality and rational thinking onto their 'inner consciousness' that does not even exist, it's an imaginary man-made concept. Spirituality truly is an opium to the poor...You are not going to change anything by sitting on your arse and meditating, but you will by taking actual risk of action, problem solving and rational thinking.

Just because you two have more time to waste (I wonder if you are employed to be honest, as people who feel disempowered by life circumstances often result to spirituality, that is also a classic psychological behaviour) to write BS it does not make you any closer to intelligent understanding, if anything, it shows how desperate you are to make yourself believe that you won this argument so you can continue living your lives caught up in feel-good delusions.

I am curious...how much would actually have to change in your delusional daily lives if you had to accept that you are nothing more than an evolutionary animal, piece of meat responding to stimuli, living in a deterministic universe, with a future prospect of meaningless death one day? In my exposure to spiritually brainwashed folks this is exactly where the anthropocentric narcissism gets shuttered and people have to look at themselves as they truly are...that is, they are nothing special, much closer to a Chimp than some amazing imaginary God.. Sometimes, it even ends in suicide as truth is not something your kind are willing to accept and move on... it's an illustration of how stubborn narcissistic irrationality is. Guess what? Scientists are many steps ahead of you as they have passed that acceptance stage long time ago, that's what objectivity requires. I appreciate this may be distressing to you - distress is one of the symptoms of waking up from feel-good delusions, especially if you have stuck in them for a while.

I have posted it elsewhere on SF but I will repost it again for you two as I think you could use it http://www.eofproject.org Check out their cognitive biases list...here you go: http://eofproject.org/biases

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:31 am

Mara,

I do not deny humans are the product of evolution. As for the spirituality you are claiming my want for an explanation for consciousness represents, I am at a loss. The scientific world including psychology and neuroscience is content to study how consciousness is produced by the brain, but for some reason you don't acknowledge this? Are they studying nothing? If it's an illusion they are studying then it still requires an explanation, what causes this illusion, which parts of the brain cause it, why do we "think" we are experiencing even if we aren't. Still questions that require answers. We can't just call it an illusion and call it a day, job done. There is still scientific research on the topic of consciousness, which by the way, seems rather healthy and vast at the moment. What are they studying?

Now as to my employment status, not that it's any of your business, but I am employed full time, with a mortgage and 2 young children. You assume I have hours to spend on here just to respond to your insights, quite the opposite actually. I pop here in the evenings after all my responsibilities are taken care of. I fail to see how this has anything to do with this topic, though it might have something to do with your need to resort to personal attacks with unfounded evidence for your accusations, just an observation I've made. I would appreciate if in future you would refrain from spreading slander.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:14 am

Show me the mainstream scientists (not Hameroff, not Campbell and not Deepak Chopra) but rational mainstream scientists who are studying ‘consciousness’ the way you argue it? Last time I checked there was still no agreement on what that even means.

You frame your question the way to already make an assumption that consciousness is some isolated phenomena, it’s not, it’s a process. For example, today we know that even empathy is a chemical in the brain. Look at research in psychedelics, all those ‘incredible’ transpersonal sensations that humans have been experiencing for centuries can be induced by chemicals. Yes, we are quite intelligent by now and we have more evolved processing memory, abstract reasoning etc. but these are just functions of a living brain. Klinko here writes that ‘consciousness’ is some non detectable (conviniently), intelligent creative energy that carries information that existed prior to Big Bang! This is like anyone believing in anything that comes to their mind, none of this is verifiable by science, these are just generalised grand statements that obviously make some people feel better about their existentiallism. There is no consciousness outside of the brain, the furthest this can ever go is AI but even that at this stage is just basic computation and wishful thinking. The sense of experience is just experience of your senses, stimuli perceived by your five senses communicated to the brain, interpreted based on what you already have as reference points. It’s the same function shared amongst animals. That’s all it is. I have got no idea why on earth anyone would try to make anything amazing out of it. Even nuroplasticity is just a brain acting on itself in the end. I remember when that came out the first time fringe scientists thought they found the ‘higher self’. When will you stop exaggerating just normal bodily functions?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:50 am

Mara wrote:Show me the mainstream scientists (not Hameroff, not Campbell and not Deepak Chopra) but rational mainstream scientists who are studying ‘consciousness’ the way you argue it? Last time I checked there was still no agreement on what that even means.

You frame your question the way to already make an assumption that consciousness is some isolated phenomena, it’s not, it’s a process. For example, today we know that even empathy is a chemical in the brain. Look at research in psychedelics, all those ‘incredible’ transpersonal sensations that humans have been experiencing for centuries can be induced by chemicals. Yes, we are quite intelligent by now and we have more evolved processing memory, abstract reasoning etc. but these are just functions of a living brain. Klinko here writes that ‘consciousness’ is some non detectable (conviniently), intelligent creative energy that carries information that existed prior to Big Bang! This is like anyone believing in anything that comes to their mind, none of this is verifiable by science, these are just generalised grand statements that obviously make some people feel better about their existentiallism. There is no consciousness outside of the brain, the furthest this can ever go is AI but even that at this stage is just basic computation and wishful thinking. The sense of experience is just experience of your senses, stimuli perceived by your five senses communicated to the brain, interpreted based on what you already have as reference points. It’s the same function shared amongst animals. That’s all it is. I have got no idea why on earth anyone would try to make anything amazing out of it. Even nuroplasticity is just a brain acting on itself in the end. I remember when that came out the first time fringe scientists thought they found the ‘higher self’. When will you stop exaggerating just normal bodily functions?

I don't argue that consciousness is an indivisible thing existing apart from the brain. In fact I have argued (albeit in other topics, this one has been fairly limited in scope), that consciousness is obviously a faculty of multiple functionalities of the brain. I have implied several different brain areas, and in fact that was what I was arguing when we mentioned gestalt earlier (multiple areas working together produce something not achievable without that combination of functions). I have argued that it must be an emergent phenomenon, which is obviously the interacting of functional parts. Emergence is a fairly widely held view regarding consciousness among the scientific community, aside from eliminative materialism, which is probably the next widest held view. I argue for a weak emergence, not a strong one. I think consciousness is explainable once you understand how the parts are interacting. Therefore I think with further scientific progress we will probably understand how consciousness emerges.

As to Steves thoughts regarding consciousness, I don't find them very useful, aside from his insistence that we should take the study of consciousness seriously, and not brush it off. Consciousness is the catch all term which covers all the functional affordances which enable it. I think Steve is being a bit disingenuous when everything comes back to the intermind and conscious light, and I do agree that he has no evidence for any of his assertions, and frankly his thoughts regarding his 'theory' haven't swayed me at all. I do think neuroscience needs more theory work, such as that being done by Jeff Hawkins at Numenta. I see it as an important step to understand what the brain is doing. Look him up if you are interested, I have mentioned it a few times here with little interest or comment but it's actually rather interesting and promising work regarding the way the cortex operates on a general level.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:10 am

Your interpretation of gestalt was an assumption that C is different to A plus B just because it felt to you, on subjective level, as a new property, when in fact it isn't, it may feel like it because we are faulty individuals inlined by various biases to fall for incorrect assumptions and perceptions (hence the need for scientific method) but in the end it is just an A plus B. Also, not everyone perceives it this way, some people are better at objectivity.

I actually read "Levels of Knowing and Existence: Studies in General Semantics" that I wonder whether this is where you got your understanding from. It's a book written 1959 that today is outdated. If you listen to the author's preface and assumptions you can see in 5 seconds his knowledge of how emotions (chemicals) affect perception is close to zero, based on that lack of knowledge he wrote the entire book. We are not there anymore, we understand so much more today.

As I said before, mainstream sciences have not arrived at the understanding of what should be considered as consciousness if debated outside of clinical setting and to my knowledge it is not studied as an isolated phenomena by mainstream sciences.

Glad to know you have greater filter when believing in whatever comes to your mind as true than Klinko...

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:51 am

Mara wrote:Your interpretation of gestalt was an assumption that C is different to A plus B just because it felt to you, on subjective level, as a new property, when in fact it isn't, it may feel like it because we are faulty individuals inlined by various biases to fall for incorrect assumptions and perceptions (hence the need for scientific method) but in the end it is just an A plus B. Also, not everyone perceives it this way, some people are better at objectivity.

I actually read "Levels of Knowing and Existence: Studies in General Semantics" that I wonder whether this is where you got your understanding from. It's a book written 1959 that today is outdated. If you listen to the author's preface and assumptions you can see in 5 seconds his knowledge of how emotions (chemicals) affect perception is close to zero, based on that lack of knowledge he wrote the entire book. We are not there anymore, we understand so much more today.

As I said before, mainstream sciences have not arrived at the understanding of what should be considered as consciousness if debated outside of clinical setting and to my knowledge it is not studied as an isolated phenomena by mainstream sciences.

Glad to know you have greater filter when believing in whatever comes to your mind as true than Klinko...

Well as far as A + B , I think that A alone and B alone are different to A + B, due to their interaction, which is why I would invoke a new combined property, C. This is an assumption I might add, not an assertion. Furthermore, I don't think the functional aspects of consciousness are as simple as A + B. There are so many parts at work that it doesn't even make sense to think of it that way, it's just a simplistic placeholder for the idea. Attention, awareness, sensory perception, working memory, are just a few broad categories, and obviously you can't just put these in a simple A + B + C = consciousness formula, due to the complexity of those categories mentioned and their reliance on even more functions. It is a hugely complex puzzle that someone needs to put together, and some complex theoretical work will be needed.

You might ask why this is important to me, you seem to think it has something to do with religion or spirituality. It actually has more to do with a need for understanding, from a young age I would pull broken things apart, electronics, etc and attempt even if unsuccessfully to fix them. I learned how things worked by opening them and observing how the parts worked. I was also interested in science, physics, mechanics, electronics, and astronomy. You could say it's what I have done all my life, and a few years ago I began learning about the most complex puzzle, the human brain. This is what fuels my need to understand the brain and mind. So there you go. It might be a fools errand, but it's one I am passionate about, and there aren't many things in life you can be truly passionate about.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:51 pm

Mara wrote:Klinko your questions have been answered on this forum many times, you are just not grasping the answers.
If saying that Consciousness is an Illusion without any chain of Explanations is your concept of an Explanation then I don't grasp that. If you would say that the Experience of Red is an Illusion then what do you mean by Illusion in that case? I guess I don't understand the use of the word Illusion when I read about those types of arguments. Help me out here.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:35 pm

The way I understand how the Physicalists use Illusion is to try to minimize the Conscious phenomenon and make it go away. They say Consciousness is an Illusion and doesn't really exist so there's nothing that we even need to study here. No Explanatory Gap and no Hard Problem.

But the way I see it, the experience of the color Red (Redness) is a real phenomenon that needs to be Explained. Redness is a Conscious phenomenon not a Physical phenomenon. I like to say that Physical Red Light has Wavelength and other Properties that exist in the normal Physical Space that Science can explain. I also say that Conscious Red Light (the thing we actually experience) has Redness and other Properties that exist in some as yet unexplained Conscious Space that Science does not know how to deal with yet. We should think about Conscious Space, at this point, as just a tool that gives Conscious phenomena a place to exist for the sake of discussion. Think about the Redness of Red. It must be explained. It does not exist in Physical Space but only in Conscious Space. If Science can show that Conscious Space is part of Physical Space then the Hard Problem will be solved. But up to this point Science has not shown that. The Hard Problem remains.

I think calling Conscious experience an Illusion is very misleading and counter productive for understanding Consciousness. Consciousness is not an Illusion but is rather a whole different category of Phenomena that are unexplained by Science at this point.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9216
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:20 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:The way I understand how ...

SteveKlinko wrote:... But the way I see it ....

SteveKlinko wrote:... I think ...

There you go, Steve. I did a summary of your argument above so that it's simpler to understand. You're welcome.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:36 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The way I understand how ...

SteveKlinko wrote:... But the way I see it ....

SteveKlinko wrote:... I think ...

There you go, Steve. I did a summary of your argument above so that it's simpler to understand. You're welcome.
Much better, Thank You. I think you are one of the Physicalists that subscribe to the Illusion explanation for Consciousness. How do you define Illusion?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:21 pm

The Physicalists on this thread usually say that Consciousness is just an Illusion so there is no need for further discussion. In their Minds saying it is an Illusion is the explanation that fills the Explanatory Gap. To them it also solves the Hard Problem. I think there may be a misconception with their concept of what the word Illusion means. I have asked a couple of the Physicalists directly what their understanding of Illusion is. I would now like to extend the question to all the other Physicalists and anyone else.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon May 14, 2018 12:04 am

Well it's been about a month now and no Physicalist wants to define exactly what they mean when they say Consciousness is just an Illusion. Maybe it's because they really know it isn't an Illusion. It is certainly Something. Take the Conscious experience of the Color Red. You can call it an Illusion if you want but it still needs to be explained. What is the Redness of the Red experience? Redness is a Property of a Conscious thing. Redness does not exist in the World of Physically known things. What is the Redness? Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? If it is an Illusion then how do we See it? Just because Science can not explain the Conscious experience of Red does not mean it is just an Illusion.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:21 am

Mara wrote:Correct, it’s a convincing illusion, in fact, it’s a survival mechanism to keep us going. Not that much different to the convinient illusion of anthropocentrism or other cognitive biases that whole industries of politics, marketing and entertainment figured out and have been using against people successfully.

Neurosciences is no longer interested in consciousness, they are interested in behavioral sciences and neuropsychology these days as those findings are much more useful and testable. Consciousness is an area of study that got left to philosophers and people like Stuart Hameroff who do it as a hobby side job.

If you really knew of gestalt psychology, you would know it comes from heavy psychoanalytical background also based on evolutionary psychology where humans are seen as categorising subjectively their interpretation of reality (that has not much to do with the actual reality) in order to make sense out of chaos, otherwise our brains would ‘blow up’ as we are unable to process all the details correctly and objectively in each moment, we make mental shortcuts in reference to other things we already know. This also allows us to move forward rather than stagnation in indecision. Gestalt therapy recognises such human tendency to subjective perception and if the person is stuck in particular gestalt, particular ‘C’the therapist, essentially, in a skilled manipulative and diplomatic manner shows such person how their perception is subjective, inadequate and unsubstantiated, and it is time to create new perceptions that can serve the person better right now...till the next time they get stuck again. Psychology is about helping the person to survive in a manner that is not pathological. There still should be a classic video of therapy session on YouTube between Perls and Gloria. Watch it.

That is all these processes are, we all do it, there is no magic, it’s simply complex psychology. There is no actual evidence to belive we are conscious. Most people trust themselves too much, and crave to mantain confidence (that is also a part of survival needs) to recognise how un-special and predictable we are.

Personally, I belive if we accepted this reality of ourselves then we could put processes in place to make up for those natural shortfalls (by use of technology for instance) and we would live in a more honest world. Religion and spirituality would not exist then.


it has nothing to do with survival ̶m̶e̶c̶h̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶, that's an unsupported reductionist belief that makes no sense and lacks the explanation of numerous other things
Last edited by mirror93 on Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:24 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Well it's been about a month now and no Physicalist wants to define exactly what they mean when they say Consciousness is just an Illusion. Maybe it's because they really know it isn't an Illusion. It is certainly Something. Take the Conscious experience of the Color Red. You can call it an Illusion if you want but it still needs to be explained. What is the Redness of the Red experience? Redness is a Property of a Conscious thing. Redness does not exist in the World of Physically known things. What is the Redness? Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? If it is an Illusion then how do we See it? Just because Science can not explain the Conscious experience of Red does not mean it is just an Illusion.


Why do you keep repeating this BS? Seeing red is NOT a "conscious' 'experience". You see red because of your eyes, if you have no reds/cones to detect red, It is not a "conscious experience".


SteveKlinko wrote:Redness does not exist in the World of Physically known things. What is the Redness? Is it made out of Matter?


That bunch of neo-advaita type of questions suggests me that you are either Confidencia or Placid or are coming from the same cult they are coming from.

Redness made of matter? are you {!#%@} kidding me? what does that even mean? Well, I see, you want others to agree with you. it's easy for someone else to accept your BS when your first question is absurd and nonsensical.
Last edited by mirror93 on Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:03 pm

mirror93 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Well it's been about a month now and no Physicalist wants to define exactly what they mean when they say Consciousness is just an Illusion. Maybe it's because they really know it isn't an Illusion. It is certainly Something. Take the Conscious experience of the Color Red. You can call it an Illusion if you want but it still needs to be explained. What is the Redness of the Red experience? Redness is a Property of a Conscious thing. Redness does not exist in the World of Physically known things. What is the Redness? Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it some aspect of Space? If it is an Illusion then how do we See it? Just because Science can not explain the Conscious experience of Red does not mean it is just an Illusion.


Why do you keep repeating this BS? Seeing red is NOT a "conscious experience". You see red because of your eyes, if you have no reds/cones to detect red, It is not a "conscious experience".


SteveKlinko wrote:Redness does not exist in the World of Physically known things. What is the Redness? Is it made out of Matter?


That bunch of neo-advaita type of questions suggests me that you are either Confidencia or Placid or are coming from the same cult they are coming from.

Redness made of matter? are you {!#%@} kidding me? what does that even mean? Well, I see, you want others to agree with you. it's easy for someone else to accept your BS when your first question is absurd and nonsensical.

Think about the Red itself. Does Red exist in the Physical Universe? Or does Red exist only in your Mind? If Red exists in the Physical Universe then asking what it is made out of would seem to be the first question that should be asked. If Red exists in the Physical Universe then it has to be Matter, Energy, or some aspect of Space.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31113
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:54 pm

Red exists in the physical universe, in your mind.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28096
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Think about the Red tastes salty. itself Does Red tastes salty exist in the Physical Universe? Or does Red tastes salty exist only in your Mind? If Red tastes salty exists in the Physical Universe then asking what it is made out of would seem to be the first question that should be asked. If Red tastes salty exists in the Physical Universe then it has to be Matter, Energy, or some aspect of Space.


SteveKlinko wrote: Think about the Red three headed monsters. itself. Does Red three headed monsters exist in the Physical Universe? Or does Red three headed monsters exist only in your Mind? If Red three headed monsters exists in the Physical Universe then asking what it is made out of would seem to be the first question that should be asked. If Red three headed monsters exists in the Physical Universe then it has to be Matter, Energy, or some aspect of Space.


You are making the same bull-shit religious argument for god as you made in the other thread.

We can replace "red" with any external environmental phenomena interpreted by the human brain. If I see a three headed monster in my mind, that doesn't make the monster real. :lol:

Go away and post your religious crap on a religious forum.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:47 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: Think about the Red tastes salty. itself Does Red tastes salty exist in the Physical Universe? Or does Red tastes salty exist only in your Mind? If Red tastes salty exists in the Physical Universe then asking what it is made out of would seem to be the first question that should be asked. If Red tastes salty exists in the Physical Universe then it has to be Matter, Energy, or some aspect of Space.


SteveKlinko wrote: Think about the Red three headed monsters. itself. Does Red three headed monsters exist in the Physical Universe? Or does Red three headed monsters exist only in your Mind? If Red three headed monsters exists in the Physical Universe then asking what it is made out of would seem to be the first question that should be asked. If Red three headed monsters exists in the Physical Universe then it has to be Matter, Energy, or some aspect of Space.


You are making the same bull-shit religious argument for god as you made in the other thread.

We can replace "red" with any external environmental phenomena interpreted by the human brain. If I see a three headed monster in my mind, that doesn't make the monster real. :lol:

Go away and post your religious crap on a religious forum.

If someone Saw a three headed monster then it would be a Hallucination. But there is still the problem of how they Saw the Hallucination. If the three headed monster was Red then that Red must be explained. Do you realize that we See by Hallucination anyway? Even when you are Looking at a Real World scene you are only Seeing your internal Conscious Light scene (or Hallucination) of it. You never really See anything like you think you do.
Last edited by SteveKlinko on Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:50 am

Gord wrote:Red exists in the physical universe, in your mind.

You can't say that with certainty because you don't know what Mind is. No one knows what Mind is.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31113
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:09 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Gord wrote:Red exists in the physical universe, in your mind.

You can't say that with certainty because you don't know what Mind is. No one knows what Mind is.

I can say it as the most likely claim. I accept it as true until evidence can be presented of things not in our universe that both exist and are able to influence things that are in our universe.

This seems to emerge from the acceptance of both the existence of "minds" and the existence of "the universe".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
Poster
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:40 pm

KLM ABC abc, shin splints and boom crutches.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mirror93 » Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:36 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: Think about the Red tastes salty. itself Does Red tastes salty exist in the Physical Universe? Or does Red tastes salty exist only in your Mind? If Red tastes salty exists in the Physical Universe then asking what it is made out of would seem to be the first question that should be asked. If Red tastes salty exists in the Physical Universe then it has to be Matter, Energy, or some aspect of Space.


SteveKlinko wrote: Think about the Red three headed monsters. itself. Does Red three headed monsters exist in the Physical Universe? Or does Red three headed monsters exist only in your Mind? If Red three headed monsters exists in the Physical Universe then asking what it is made out of would seem to be the first question that should be asked. If Red three headed monsters exists in the Physical Universe then it has to be Matter, Energy, or some aspect of Space.


You are making the same bull-shit religious argument for god as you made in the other thread.

We can replace "red" with any external environmental phenomena interpreted by the human brain. If I see a three headed monster in my mind, that doesn't make the monster real. :lol:

Go away and post your religious crap on a religious forum.

If someone Saw a three headed monster then it would be a Hallucination. But there is still the problem of how they Saw the Hallucination. If the three headed monster was Red then that Red must be explained. Do you realize that we See by Hallucination anyway? Even when you are Looking at a Real World scene you are only Seeing your internal Conscious Light scene (or Hallucination) of it. You never really See anything like you think you do.


What a bunch of idealism BS. first of all, qualia is BS color is not in your mind, it's not like a "hallucination". You have to differ hallucination from what you're seeing that is in front of you. You can't take DMT and hallucinate colors without seeing colors in objective reality first. That suggests and proves that color is external. If it wasn't, even blind people would hallucinate colors, while on DMT. Now the question about how we perceive science still trying to grasp and maybe we will never know as Vsauce also said in his videos....... You're just full of new age BS and can't see how wrong you are your questions are absurd , your redness/matter/conscious-experience theories are laughable

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28096
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: We can replace "red" with any external environmental phenomena interpreted by the human brain. If I see a three headed monster in my mind, that doesn't make the monster real. :lol:

Go away and post your religious crap on a religious forum.

SteveKlinko wrote: If someone Saw a three headed monster then it would be a Hallucination.
Do you mean an image constructed in the brain that actually isn't real, like the way our brain sees red for light wave frequencies of 400–484 THz?

Thanks Steve. You just destroyed your entire "red is real" claim yourself. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28096
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:52 am

AmeliaMichelle wrote:KLM ABC abc, shin splints and boom crutches.


You have posted, yet another, incoherent sentence on our science based forum.

Do you have a coherent claim to make or are you just another raving looney?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:23 am

Gord wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Gord wrote:Red exists in the physical universe, in your mind.

You can't say that with certainty because you don't know what Mind is. No one knows what Mind is.

I can say it as the most likely claim. I accept it as true until evidence can be presented of things not in our universe that both exist and are able to influence things that are in our universe.

This seems to emerge from the acceptance of both the existence of "minds" and the existence of "the universe".

Since Science cannot tell us what Red is, it would seem to me to be more sensible to start thinking about it as being some other kind of thing than anything that we already know about in the Physical Universe. But your choice is also reasonable, in view of the fact that no one knows what Red is.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:42 am

mirror93 wrote:What a bunch of idealism BS. first of all, qualia is BS color is not in your mind, it's not like a "hallucination". You have to differ hallucination from what you're seeing that is in front of you. You can't take DMT and hallucinate colors without seeing colors in objective reality first. That suggests and proves that color is external. If it wasn't, even blind people would hallucinate colors, while on DMT. Now the question about how we perceive science still trying to grasp and maybe we will never know as Vsauce also said in his videos....... You're just full of new age BS and can't see how wrong you are your questions are absurd , your redness/matter/conscious-experience theories are laughable

A Hallucination, a Dream, or what you are Seeing in front of you are in fact produced by the same internal Mind mechanism that we can not explain yet. When you are Seeing a Hallucination or a Dream you are Seeing a scene that is not correlated with any external Physical World scene. When you are Seeing while fully awake the scene you See is correlated with the scene in the external Physical World. But you have never Seen anything in the Physical World but you have only Seen your Conscious representation of the external World. You can only Detect the external Physical World. You can not See the Physical World. You are fooled into thinking you are Seeing the external Physical World because your Conscious representations are all you have ever known. The external Physical World does not Look like anything.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10504
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Pyrrho » Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:49 am

It's still pretty cool, tho.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:55 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: We can replace "red" with any external environmental phenomena interpreted by the human brain. If I see a three headed monster in my mind, that doesn't make the monster real. :lol:

Go away and post your religious crap on a religious forum.

SteveKlinko wrote: If someone Saw a three headed monster then it would be a Hallucination.
Do you mean an image constructed in the brain that actually isn't real, like the way our brain sees red for light wave frequencies of 400–484 THz?

Thanks Steve. You just destroyed your entire "red is real" claim yourself. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't understand why you are always saying that what I am proposing is Religious. Let me try to ponder this ... Ok I guess it must be because I am suggesting that there might be things that Science does not know about. Science will probably eventually fully understand Conscious experience but it knows nothing at this point in time. Don't be afraid to think more Deeply about your own Conscious experiences. Yes, think about the Redness of the Red Conscious experience.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31113
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 24, 2018 3:19 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Gord wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Gord wrote:Red exists in the physical universe, in your mind.

You can't say that with certainty because you don't know what Mind is. No one knows what Mind is.

I can say it as the most likely claim. I accept it as true until evidence can be presented of things not in our universe that both exist and are able to influence things that are in our universe.

This seems to emerge from the acceptance of both the existence of "minds" and the existence of "the universe".

Since Science cannot tell us what Red is, it would seem to me to be more sensible to start thinking about it as being some other kind of thing than anything that we already know about in the Physical Universe. But your choice is also reasonable, in view of the fact that no one knows what Red is.

I see we're never going to agree on this. I think science has done a fine job of telling us what "red" is.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest