The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:11 pm

Mara wrote:I wonder Steve, do you label humans the same way based on ‘your consciousness’ interpreting skin colour for instance? I find that many believers often use the same simplistic thinking schema to categorise people and are often backwards people. That’s the irony of spiritual people. The Human Genome project found that there are more differences between two individuals of the same race or ‘nationality’ traditionally speaking (remember this is socially constructed) than between two races, yet many people focus on the small % to categorise their knowledge because that is what they see with their eyes, like a child would. Your perception of the colour red is a similar phenomenon, you generalise it greatly. There are many different shades, plenty of experiments showing how colours look different when against specific backgrounds etc. You may as well say that ‘you see something’ and then subjectively you interpret it one way or the other. Just like a face recognition app on your iPhone or google images uploading option. There is no need for a ‘Bing’ here. You are confusing seeing and interpreting with consciousness.
Well there you have it. You are calling me a Racist now. One thing for sure I have never said anything Racist. You have progressed to full Liar status.

Of course there are millions of Colors. Do I have to ask how we See each one of them every time I ask: How do we Experience the Color Red? You are diverting when you bring up Optical Illusions. You don't realize that the question still remains: How do we Experience the Optical Illusion?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:27 pm

Scientists can describe the Neural Activity that occurs in the Brain when we See. But they seem to be completely puzzled by the Conscious Visual experience that we have that is correlated with the Neural Activity. Incredibly, some even come to the conclusion that the Conscious experience is not even necessary! They can not find the Conscious experience in the Neurons so the experience must not have any function in the Visual process. They believe that the Neural Activity is sufficient for us to move around in the world without bumping into things. This is insane denial of the obvious purpose for Visual Consciousness. The Conscious Visual experience is the thing that allows us to move around in the world. Neural Activity is not enough. We would be blind without the Conscious Visual experience. The Conscious Visual experience contains vast amounts of information about the external world all packed up into a single thing.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:39 pm

The Conscious Red Light that I talk about is in fact the only Red Light you have ever Perceived. You have never Perceived Physical Red Light. It's the Physical Red Light that has Wavelength as a property. The Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. The Physical Red Light has no Redness as a property. Physical Light and Conscious Light are two different things. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. This is true for all the millions of possible Colors and so for Light in general. The Conscious Light is something different than the Physical Light. The Conscious Light needs to be called Light because it is the Light you have always Seen. You have never Seen Physical Light. You are so used to Seeing your Conscious Light that you mistakenly think that the real Physical Light looks like that in some way. We commonly think that the Redness is a property of the Physical Red Light but it is only a property of the Conscious Red Light. The real Physical Light does not Look like anything. The Conscious Red Light has a property of Redness that the Physical Red Light does not actually have. So here we have a thing, the Conscious Red Light, that has a property that is purely a Conscious property. This Redness property must be Explained. It isn't an Illusion it is a property of a Conscious phenomenon. So Conscious phenomenon can have properties. We just don't know how to analyze them yet.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:11 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: The Conscious Light that I talk about is in fact the only Light you have ever Perceived. You have never Perceived Physical Light.


Electromagnetic radiation received by eyes through optic nerve. (evolved visual perception in brain)

Electromagnetic radiation received by skin through central nervous system ( perceived as feeling of warmth)

That ends your entire claim. We have the evolved human brain, receiving the same electromagnetic radiation and processing it in two totally different ways to allow the brain to integrate with the other external information. That means it is a mere creation of the brain and not part of the real world.

I can shine 400–484 THz at either your eyes or skin and you will perceive it. You never thought this through did you?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:17 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:Well there you have it. You are calling me a Racist now. One thing for sure I have never said anything Racist. You have progressed to full Liar status.

But you are 100% racist, for the human race. You have only been discussing human consciousness. Humans are only one species and are only 190,000 years old. Yet you have the religious narcissism to claim human consciousnesses caused the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

SteveKlinko wrote: Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.

Meanwhile some alien on another planet, that cannot see red and has no idea what red is, is laughing at your religious claim concerning the start of the universe and the Big Bang. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:23 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:You say things like the Sensory input is "Perceived by the Brain". Think about that: "Perceived by the Brain", this is a Non Explanation.


The signal from the retina is analyzed by nerve cells (retinal ganglion cells), which compare the stimulation of neighboring cones, and calculate whether the light reaching a patch of cones is more blue-or-yellow, and red-or-green. Next, the signal travels to the brain where it is divided into several pathways - like fiber optics branching throughout the cortex. For example, visual signals from the photoreceptors pass to retinal ganglion cells, which code color information, and then to the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) in the thalamus, and onwards to the primary visual cortex. The primary visual cortex (known as V1) preserves the spatial relationships of images on the retina. This property is called retinoptic organization.

Why do you refuse to study the topic you pretend to be discussing?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:36 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:You say things like the Sensory input is "Perceived by the Brain". Think about that: "Perceived by the Brain", this is a Non Explanation.


The signal from the retina is analyzed by nerve cells (retinal ganglion cells), which compare the stimulation of neighboring cones, and calculate whether the light reaching a patch of cones is more blue-or-yellow, and red-or-green. Next, the signal travels to the brain where it is divided into several pathways - like fiber optics branching throughout the cortex. For example, visual signals from the photoreceptors pass to retinal ganglion cells, which code color information, and then to the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) in the thalamus, and onwards to the primary visual cortex. The primary visual cortex (known as V1) preserves the spatial relationships of images on the retina. This property is called retinoptic organization.

Why do you refuse to study the topic you pretend to be discussing?
That paragraph could have been paraphrased from the Inter Mind website. Thank you for reading my website. I think you learned something.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:07 am

SteveKlinko wrote: That paragraph could have been paraphrased from the Inter Mind website. Thank you for reading my website. I think you learned something.

No Steve. That paragraph is not in your "paper". Neither is your insane claim that human consciousness probably caused the Big Bang. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
Let's see if you can answer the basic questions you keep running away from?

1) How could a human consciousness exist in the singularity before the big bang?

2) How could a human consciousness that evolved 190,000 year ago, on Earth (which is only 4 billion years old) cause the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago?

3) How could that human consciousness "perceive red", 13.8 billion years ago if no photons existed yet?

4) If humans, which are 190,000 years old, are only one species, on one planet, that is only 4 billion years old, how in hell do you think they represent all life forms in the universe and did so 13.8 billion years ago?


Don't tell me...."god did it"
:lol:

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:21 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: That paragraph could have been paraphrased from the Inter Mind website. Thank you for reading my website. I think you learned something.

No Steve. That paragraph is not in your "paper". Neither is your insane claim that human consciousness probably caused the Big Bang. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote: Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
Let's see if you can answer the basic questions you keep running away from?

1) How could a human consciousness exist in the singularity before the big bang?

2) How could a human consciousness that evolved 190,000 year ago, on Earth (which is only 4 billion years old) cause the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago?

3) How could that human consciousness "perceive red", 13.8 billion years ago if no photons existed yet?

4) If humans, which are 190,000 years old, are only one species, on one planet, that is only 4 billion years old, how in hell do you think they represent all life forms in the universe and did so 13.8 billion years ago?


Don't tell me...."god did it"
:lol:
Those are all Diversionary questions. The real question that this thread asks is: ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious experience of Red happens.

How does 1 produce 2?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:26 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.

1) How could a human consciousness exist in the singularity before the big bang?

2) How could a human consciousness that evolved 190,000 year ago, on Earth (which is only 4 billion years old) cause the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago?

3) How could that human consciousness "perceive red", 13.8 billion years ago if no photons existed yet?

4) If humans, which are 190,000 years old, are only one species, on one planet, that is only 4 billion years old, how in hell do you think they represent all life forms in the universe and did so 13.8 billion years ago?

SteveKlinko wrote:Those are all Diversionary questions.
No Steve. They are clear questions that immediately falsify your entire claim.

As you are a religious person, you are doing what all religious people do. You ignore questions that falsify your religious framework.
:lol:

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:15 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Well there you have it. You are calling me a Racist now. One thing for sure I have never said anything Racist. You have progressed to full Liar status.

Of course there are millions of Colors. Do I have to ask how we See each one of them every time I ask: How do we Experience the Color Red? You are diverting when you bring up Optical Illusions.

I am not calling you a racist, the INTERESTING PART is that you are calling yourself a racist. I am questioning your tendency to trust your subjective interpretations of complex reality as if they were real, just because they 'feel real to you'

SteveKlinko wrote:You don't realize that the question still remains: How do we Experience the Optical Illusion?

You don't realise (and continue ignoring) your curricular reasoning that I have already pointed out by the below analogy to a bucket, and the definition of 'illusion' that you are using incorrectly:

"Your logic is like saying: a bucket cannot be ever empty because it has to be a bucket that is first empty. Ponder that for a bit…"

Red is a wave, information that your brain interprets as 'red', there is no 'red' otherwise... the same way the software at your paint shop can do. By your definition then, you are as conscious as the software at your paint shop is, therefore the term 'consciousness' in the context of perceiving colours is obsolete AND this is what mainstream have understood by now hence they are focusing on functionality not philosophy of it.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:41 am

The Physicalists are getting confused about some things I said about Consciousness and the Big Bang. I said Probably where I should have said Might Be in some places. I never said that Consciousness definitely existed before the Big Bang. I said Probably which might have been too strong. I updated the website to reflect the weaker phrase: Might Be. Since nobody knows what Consciousness is, everything is on the table. Also since we don't know anything about Consciousness, it could very well have existed before the Big Bang. The full text of the section "The Primacy of Consciousness" is as follows:

The Scientific view of Consciousness is that it is some kind of byproduct of Neural Activity in the Brain. Most Scientists believe that Consciousness is not very important and some go so far as to say that it is just an Illusion with no real purpose. Philosophers have invented the Philosophical Zombie as a tool for thinking about Consciousness or the lack of Consciousness. The P-Zombie is supposed to live and interact with the World just like any one else except that it would not be Conscious.

But from the Inter Mind Model point of view the P-Zombie would be blind and would not be able to interact with the World. The Inter Mind and the Conscious Mind are further processing stages that are absolutely necessary for Sight. Neural Activity is not enough. All we know about Seeing is through Conscious experience. We experience the Conscious Light that's inside us. Take away the Conscious Light experience and what's left? Blind Neural Activity is all you have. You will not See anything. The Primacy of the Conscious Light experience for Sight is undeniable, and the same is true for every other Conscious experience that you have. You don't know anything about the Physical World except that which you obtain through your own internal Conscious experiences.

The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience. Any organism that experiences Pleasure will seek out that Pleasure. Any organism that experiences Pain will try to avoid that Pain. Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans. It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience.

Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. Scientists need to find a way to understand and study Consciousness. They have to stop hiding their inability to study Consciousness by trying to minimize its importance. The Primacy of Consciousness must be understood.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:43 am

Mara wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Well there you have it. You are calling me a Racist now. One thing for sure I have never said anything Racist. You have progressed to full Liar status.

Of course there are millions of Colors. Do I have to ask how we See each one of them every time I ask: How do we Experience the Color Red? You are diverting when you bring up Optical Illusions.

I am not calling you a racist, the INTERESTING PART is that you are calling yourself a racist. I am questioning your tendency to trust your subjective interpretations of complex reality as if they were real, just because they 'feel real to you'

SteveKlinko wrote:You don't realize that the question still remains: How do we Experience the Optical Illusion?

You don't realise (and continue ignoring) your curricular reasoning that I have already pointed out by the below analogy to a bucket, and the definition of 'illusion' that you are using incorrectly:

"Your logic is like saying: a bucket cannot be ever empty because it has to be a bucket that is first empty. Ponder that for a bit…"

Red is a wave, information that your brain interprets as 'red', there is no 'red' otherwise... the same way the software at your paint shop can do. By your definition then, you are as conscious as the software at your paint shop is, therefore the term 'consciousness' in the context of perceiving colours is obsolete AND this is what mainstream have understood by now hence they are focusing on functionality not philosophy of it.
Great, so Consciousness is obsolete. I suppose Explanation has become obsolete also.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:18 am

YES. Because there is nothing to explain. Have you looked at the definition of an illusion that I have attached for you? That's what an illusion is, a nothing that wrongly feels like something. Also, that's what a 'biological robot' term refers to.

From the point of every day life it does not really matter as you still have survival instincts that will make you believe in whatever feels good but scientifically speaking i.e. evidence-based by scientific method there is no need for man-made spirituality and religions anymore.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:56 am

SteveKlinko wrote:(Human) Consciousness probably existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
SteveKlinko tries to back-pedal and wrote:The Physicalists are getting confused about some things I said about Consciousness and the Big Bang. I said Probably where I should have said Might Be in some places.
You would still remain a total idiot.

Nothing can exist in the singularity before the Big Bang. Your hilarious new claim that a human conscious may have time travelled 13 billion years back in time, makes you an even more insane religious nutcase.


Steve? Write down for us what the pre-Big Bang singularity is and explain to us how any form of consciousness could exist in that singularity.

SteveKlinko the religious nutcase wrote: The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
It is obvious you haven't got a clue how evolution works, even on the most basic level.

What is the first evolved living things on Earth that used DNA, 3.75 billion years ago? How did a consciousness exist before these creatures. Are you going to claim it was god?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:02 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
You don't know what the Big Bang is and refuse to read about it.

SteveKlinko wrote: Scientists need to find a way to understand and study Consciousness. They have to stop hiding their inability.......
Soooo.... it's science's fault for not reading your bull-shit religious "inter mind" crap, but not your fault for not reading anything scientific about the Big Bang, the initial singularity and basic physics. :lol:

Can you see how mad you are? :lol:

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:43 am

I would be curious to see if other Skeptics here agree with Mara that consciousness is an illusion, and that we aren't actually conscious of anything, but are tricked by our brain. Is this a commonly held view among Skeptics, or do some here think we do have experiences and are not actually being tricked or fooled into thinking we have one, but that what conscious experience amounts to is the operating of the brain?

Or do other people think the illusory nature of consciousness is more in the fact that it is a construction and we don't actually see properties existing external to our brains?

I'd really like to get to the bottom of what people think consciousness actually is, because we hear a lot about what people think it isn't, but generally don't get to hear about what people think it is.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:22 pm

I think Mara is right. Our conscious does not have to be integrated to be advantageous in evolution. It simply has to work.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:44 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I think Mara is right. Our conscious does not have to be integrated to be advantageous in evolution. It simply has to work.

Tell me if this is right, what you are saying is you don't think conscious experience has to be a combined whole in order for it to be useful for an organism?

So Expanding on that idea, by applying that idea to the concept of our experience being illusory, what you imply is that the sense of a unified or whole conscious experience is illusory? Do you think that there would be any functional difference between an organism which had a unified conscious experience (if and how that would be possible) and an organism which had all the content of the unified experience, but which was not combined into a whole?

If we held this idea to be correct, that conscious experience is not a unified whole, that the sense of this is an illusion (which I can entertain), why would it be useful to think that our conscious experience is integrated, why would this provide an evolutionary advantage to an organism?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:35 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I think Mara is right. Our conscious does not have to be integrated to be advantageous in evolution. It simply has to work.

Dimebag wrote:Tell me if this is right, what you are saying is you don't think conscious experience has to be a combined whole in order for it to be useful for an organism?
Well it isn't a combined whole, is it. I have innate subconscious behaviours going on simultaneously, conflicting with my conscious activities.

Dimebag wrote:So Expanding on that idea, by applying that idea to the concept of our experience being illusory, what you imply is that the sense of a unified or whole conscious experience is illusory? Do you think that there would be any functional difference between an organism which had a unified conscious experience (if and how that would be possible) and an organism which had all the content of the unified experience, but which was not combined into a whole?


Firstly, humans are still evolving so it would be silly to think we have reached some magical combined integrated consciousness....and that's it for human brain evolution Secondly, It doesn't matter if we use words like "unified experience" or what ever. It only matters that the genetic defined system that we have evolved works to our adaptive advantage. Genes don't speak English.

Dimebag wrote:If we held this idea to be correct, that conscious experience is not a unified whole, that the sense of this is an illusion (which I can entertain), why would it be useful to think that our conscious experience is integrated, why would this provide an evolutionary advantage to an organism?
I don't think it matters at all. It is the simply how our innate behaviours, autonomous nervous system behaviours and pro-active decision making to external inputs gives us an advantage in responding to the environment.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:44 am

Artilectium wrote:I find it funny how nobody can seem to grasp what SteveKlinko is getting at. He's trying to figure out why neurons cause a certain quale (color, smell, pain, etc...)

Someone says he's insane and say they have the answer,
>ITS NEURONS, ITS IN THE BRAIN, ITS ALL FIGURED OUT.
> we can understand why we feel pain; it is a feeling caused by certain neurons firing.

You used the thing that you were supposed to explain in the explanation of the thing you were supposed to explain.
With all due respect, have you read all 1,100+ posts in this thread? Because we've explained ad nauseam et ad infinitum the relevant neurological facts, most of which he discards since they don't buoy up the dualist premise he authored: the "Inter Mind," a brain structure that has eluded discovery by neurosurgeons, possibly by hiding behind the prefrontal cortex. He has failed to describe its structure, location, appearance, and function, despite the fact that he invented it. He's not looking for a discussion; he's looking for chelas to his guru.

Artilectium wrote:See, we can always ask, "Why does that cause the feeling of pain?" after any explanation you give me. 8 million neurotransmitters moved across the synapse. Why should that cause pain? There are synchronized oscillations at 40Hz. Why should that cause pain? The microtubules are quantum entangled. Why should that cause pain?
Pain is an evolutionary adaptation. The reason it hurts is so you'll pay attention to your body's warning signals that you've damaged tissues via injury or infection. If it were a pleasurable experience, we'd be a race of self-destructive sadomasochists. More than we already are, I mean.

As an analogy, if your smoke alarm played Bach's "Air on a G String" at a low volume, you'd sleep through it and die of smoke inhalation. So it's loud and annoying. Just like pain. They're both warning systems.

The biochemical messages from your nociceptors also prompt the brain to step up production of endogenous opioids and to send off Defcon messages to your immune system, much like you calling 911 in a medical emergency. If you think pain is not an evolutionary adaptation, ask someone with Riley-Day how frightening and horrible it is to feel no pain at all. Presuming you can find one who has managed to survive to adulthood, that is. You don't last long when you can't feel the bullet in your spleen, or the bacterial pneumonia that's drowning you slowly.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:53 am

Dimebag wrote:You mentioned you have studied gestalt theory. Then you must be aware of the main claim within gestalt psychology, that the "whole is other than the sum of its parts". Consciousness is obviously a phenomenon composed of lower level properties, which when combined, form something not wholly explainable in terms of the individual parts. It can only be understood as a whole.
Same with barbecue sauce. Or an orchestra. Or an automobile. The whole is nearly always greater than the sum of its parts...when the parts are integrated to work together.

If you set up the renowned Boston Symphony Orchestra without a conductor, they'll sound like crap because they can't play in synch with one another. The claustrum is the brain's conductor, interconnecting the various brain structures, without which you wouldn't have conscious experiences.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:28 am

Mara wrote:Do you know what is one of the very common 'issues' distressed individuals come to the counsellor with? - Having sexual desires for their family members. It is a classic. They are bitting themselves up and think they are monsters to the point of compromised mental functioning. Why is that the case? Our reproductive organs are not conditioned by human morality, our brain is, hence the conflict.
Not that I'm advocating incest, since I have the same cultural taboos against it that most people have, but, technically, the only logical reason to prohibit it is those nasty heritable redundant genes. Which is why Britain sent off to Germany for more royalty, preferably royalty that wouldn't bleed out from a paper cut.

Also, I wanted to say, given your area of expertise, I value and have learned much from your posts in this thread. The approach of which you speak appeals to my sensibilities. That we choose our perceptions of "reality." (I also agree that humans are horribly anthropocentric. The comparison I like to use is of people who believe a beaver's dam is entirely natural, while the Hoover Dam is horribly unnatural and a scar upon Mother Earth...lol. Never mind that the beaver's dam also destroys the local ecology if it gets out of hand.)

Anyway, with nearly 19 years of multiple chronic pain disorders under my belt, I learned long ago that choosing how to perceive constant, unrelenting pain would make or break my life. The choice was, obviously, to self-centeredly wallow in self-pity and moan, "Why me?" or to move forward and accept it as one of my burdens. Everyone has burdens and, frankly, I'd choose mine over tons of other people's. I'd rather have my problems than Celiac, for example. That would seriously cut into my snacking. :mrgreen: It's also quite a bit easier to have chronic pain and a home than be normal but homeless. There are a gazillion examples of worse burdens than mine, IMO.

I still push my boundaries after all these years, not despite the pain, but to spite the pain, because I refuse to allow it to define me. Or my life. I think my choice of perceptions is a healthy one, and it's certainly the happier one. OTOH, Steve's choice of perceptions seems to make him horribly unhappy. I wonder why that is?
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:*actually pretending to be a quote from Matthew just so he gets a notification*

SteveKlinko wrote:You are just a Liar.
Matthew! You've been officially upgraded from liar to Liar and you didn't tell us?! Looks like we have an excuse for a party, not that we need an excuse.
:redwine: :bq: :disco: :jester: ImageImage
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:28 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: Not that I'm advocating incest, since I have the same cultural taboos against it that most people have, but, technically, the only logical reason to prohibit it is those nasty heritable redundant genes. Which is why Britain sent off to Germany for more royalty, preferably royalty that wouldn't bleed out from a paper cut.

Correct, but many people including authorities have great issue with that. I think many people suffer because of the unnatural rhetorics not the natural ones. Why don't they just say to people: Incest is wrong because of genetic factors, don't go there unless you want a child with 3 eyes lol

Nikki Nyx wrote: The comparison I like to use is of people who believe a beaver's dam is entirely natural, while the Hoover Dam is horribly unnatural and a scar upon Mother Earth...lol. Never mind that the beaver's dam also destroys the local ecology if it gets out of hand.)

I sometimes wonder whether the beaver built the pyramids after all...;-)
Yep, we are as pest as other animals, and other animals can be, I would argue never as destructive as humans, but still can be very destructive. Do you think beavers have big territorial egos? like...my dam is bigger than yours ;-)

I suffered a lower back injury in my late 20ties and since then I have been living with sciatica and occasional bad days but it wasn't till my injury when I started going to the gym to make myself stronger to prevent further re-breaking and at some point, a year ago I have reached a point of being fitter than ever before, as in, I can jog for two hours and have proper muscle definition.

All these labels of 'burden' etc. are constructed and things are much more circumstantial, specific to a particular time in life. The trick is not to get stuck, things change, two moments are never the same. Even with some of the more serious mental disorders I can see so much misdiagnosis...if people would just be given a break from everyday life to process stuff without getting caught in the system and getting labelled for life, some cases of even schizophrenia would be just a temporary once-off mental breakdown. This is what happens when we repress too much reality, wishful thinking often makes things worse in those cases.

I do believe we all have a potential the way animals do, that we can reach within ourselves as the creatures on this planet and that potential is likely greater than what we expect of ourselves, this does not apply to things such as money or other man-made concepts but it does apply to resilience, physical and creative potential, things that are in our control not based on luck and external world's response. When we look at the nature they bounce back form illness and injuries way quicker than humans for instance.

Nikki Nyx wrote: I think my choice of perceptions is a healthy one, and it's certainly the happier one. OTOH, Steve's choice of perceptions seems to make him horribly unhappy. I wonder why that is?


It is about intelligent use of internal resources to reach that potential and we all have different paths there but Steve's choice of perception requires constant self-manipulation to maintain that very unrealistic theory that his entire self-worth is based on - that must be hard work. Why would he even post that question here in the first place? To win that argument not to learn anything new.

When we are just ok with doom existence from that everything can only feel better, ha! The best theory was proposed in a book called "F**k It: The Ultimate Spiritual Way" by John C. Parkin - very empowering :-D

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9037
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 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:39 am

[quote="Mara"]... Steve's choice of perception requires constant self-manipulation .../quote]
That made me laugh out loud :D
I would have phrased it slightly differently, but it's still very apt.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:Maybe the Neural Correlates ARE the Red. But you can't just say something like that without a chain of Explanations that lead you from Neural Correlates to the Experience of Red.
Steve, I've done that multiple times; you just ignore everything that doesn't feed into your belief. Here's a somewhat detailed, step-by-step explanation of the process:
  1. Light ———> photoreceptors.
  2. Photoreceptors are activated by the stimulus.
  3. Photoreceptors ———> bipolar neurons ———> amacrine neurons ———> optic nerves.
  4. Optic nerves cross at the optic chiasm (which makes binocular vision possible).
  5. Optic nerves ———> lateral geniculate nucleus in the thalamus.
  6. Lateral geniculate nucleus ———> three distinct neuronal pathways ———> visual cortex.
    1. magnocellular neurons, which respond to aspects of movement (location, speed, direction)
    2. parvocellular neurons, which respond to aspects of spatial resolution (shape, size, color, orientation)
    3. koniocellular neurons, which have not been widely studied, but are thought to respond to aspects of color (hue, saturation, value)
  7. The cells of the visual cortex vary widely in function—which part of the visual signal they process—and are arranged in columns with similar functions. Note: This variance is not genetic; it develops from visual experience. (Studies have shown that a lack of light stimulation during crucial development periods can result in lifelong blindness. Other studies have shown that untreated strabismus can lead to loss of vision in the weaker eye, because the brain begins to ignore its signals as false.)
  8. The visual cortex and its surrounding visual association areas are connected from one hemisphere to the other via the corpus callosum. Additionally, these areas are connected to the parietal, temporal, and frontal lobes in both hemispheres.
    1. The parietal lobes integrate sensory information into a single perception (cognition) and construct a spatial representation of the environment.
    2. The temporal lobes derive meaning from the sensory information, which allows for visual memory, language comprehension, and emotion association.
    3. The frontal lobes translate thoughts to language, coordinate voluntary movement, categorize and classify objects, play a key role in forming long-term memories, is necessary for empathy, integrates multiple tasks into what we refer to as a personality, supports feelings of reward and motivation via dopamine-sensitive neurons, manages attention and emotion regulation, is essential for planning and decision-making.
Your "conscious experience of red" is demonstrably the result of neurons firing. Period. There's no "inter mind" in that series of neuronal messages. It's just your brain integrating current sensory stimuli with its model of the universe. End of story.

SteveKlinko wrote:You must be one of those that really do not have a Conscious experience of Red. For you it's all Neural Activity.
For everyone, including you, it's all neural activity. That's how brains work.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Think about where the experience of Red is located.
In my memory...because my eyes have seen light at that wavelength and communicated it to my brain. Since my eyes were closed, I wasn't directly perceiving red, therefore, the only "place" it can be located is in my brain, and I'm accessing it via neural connections. If I stop at thinking just about the color itself, my brain generates a disconnected image like a paint chip with no real world associations, like this:
Image
When you disconnected the Red from things, and you ended up with your paint chip, you were getting close to what you must try to do. You will find that the Red is something that can stand on it's own as a thing in and of itself.
You're mistaken. We have no concept of "red" other than the associations in our memories from the numerous times our retinae have been stimulated by light of a wavelength we have agreed to label "red." Remember...
In fact, almost all higher order features of vision are influenced by expectations based on past experience. This characteristic extends to color and form perception in V3 and V4 [parts of the visual cortex], to face and object recognition in the inferior temporal lobe, and to motion and spatial awareness in the parietal lobe.
Example: When a person inadvertently cuts himself, you expect to see red blood, because your experience has taught you that human blood is red. Our perceptions spring from an analysis of past experiences, a concept known as "top-down processing."

If you chanced to meet Mr. Spock, and witnessed him suffering an injury, your expectation would change based on that experience. Your brain's model of the universe would now include both red (iron-based) blood and green (copper-based) blood. If you then had a similar experience with an Andorian and a Klingon, your brain's model of the universe would henceforth include red, green, blue, and pink blood. You would expect a person who appeared to be human to bleed red and, if they bled blue, you would know that person was not human, but an Andorian disguised as one. All of this is "top-down processing" in action.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:If red were a "thing" in the physical universe, my dogs would be able to experience it...like they can experience bacon. But they can't experience red, because their eyes aren't designed to perceive light at that wavelength.
We don't know what dogs actually experience in their Visual field.
Yes, we do, based on examinations of their photoreceptors.
Humans see red, green, and blue because we have receptors in our eyes that are sensitive to these three colors individually. But in dogs, the cells that read green and red are the same, making these two colors less distinguishable. This theory goes against the previously held notion that dogs can’t see colors at all, which was found to be untrue by Russian scientists in 2013. Although they have a limited spectrum and can’t determine as well as humans how bright a color is, they can see some colors. See this chart below, by Dog Vision, to compare their spectrums and ours.
Image
Once again, you've made a conclusive statement you cannot support, because you haven't bothered to learn established neurology.

SteveKlinko wrote:Never said Red was a tangible object. I simply say it exists in the World because we can Experience it.
So, anything you personally cannot experience doesn't exist? :lol: By your logic, radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, x-rays, and gamma rays don't exist, because you haven't seen them. You're like the fabled ostrich with its head in the sand. :mrgreen: By your logic, sounds outside the 20-20,000 Hz range don't exist, because you haven't heard them. Magnetic fields don't exist, because you can't sense them. But all these things demonstrably exist and have been measured. The reason our senses are limited is evolution. We don't need the ability to detect magnetic fields...but birds do in order to migrate. We don't need to hear above 20,000 Hz...but dolphins do in order to sense prey. Our hearing is best between 2,000-4,000 Hz, because that's the range of human speech.

Our perceptions frequently bear no resemblance to reality. All of our senses are subject to the limitations of the human brain:
• Our vision can easily be fooled by optical illusions and hallucinations caused by illness.
• We're able to shut out sounds within the range of our hearing when we're concentrating, but they're still there.
• At the same time, we're able to hear our names being said amidst a loud, confusing babble of multiple conversations.
• We tend to perceive smaller objects as moving faster than they actually are, and larger objects moving slower than they actually are (which is why idiots still get killed trying to beat the train to the crossing; they trusted their perception was the reality when it wasn't).

SteveKlinko wrote:I say Red is a Conscious Object that exists in our Conscious Minds. But our Conscious Minds exist in the World and so Red must exist in the World.
:roll: Your thinking lacks logic. First, you've made the assumption that "conscious minds exist in the world." Please show the factual basis for this conclusion. Next, you've anthropomorphized a concept. "Red" is not an object; it is a perception. Finally, you've strung together two disparate statements in the worst kind of circular reasoning. "I have experienced ___ and I am real, therefore, ___ is real." Which is provably false, by the way. Your personal experiences do not necessarily bear any resemblance to reality...and neither do mine.

SteveKlinko wrote:Conscious Red is truly unexplainable in terms of any Physical World explanation.
Wrong. You're completely ignoring the neurological facts which have been explained to you multiple times by multiple skeptics. The red you imagine (or dream about) is your memories of viewing light with a wavelength of 620-740 nm. Had you never physically viewed light of that wavelength, you would be unable to imagine "red," because it wouldn't exist in your memory.

SteveKlinko wrote:Red IS a thing.
No, it's not. It's merely your perception of 620-740 nm light, which we all have agreed to tag with the word "red." It is manifestly NOT a "thing." Here's proof: You have, no doubt, viewed colors which you have labeled "brown," yes? And I'll bet you believe you've had "conscious brown experiences." You haven't. Brown is not present in the visible spectrum; there is no wavelength of light corresponding to "brown." See?
Image
What you believe is "brown" is actually a desaturated orange, a color which is present in the visible spectrum. Therefore, "brown" does not exist in the world, despite the fact that you've experienced it. *drops mic*
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:24 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:The Conscious Red Light that I talk about is in fact the only Red Light you have ever Perceived. You have never Perceived Physical Red Light.
Our responses must be getting through; you're starting to capitalize verbs. I figure that when I see a post from you in which every word is capitalized, you'll be close to the psychotic break which appears to be necessary for you to join us in the real world. And everyone with functioning photoreceptors has perceived measurably "red" physical light.

SteveKlinko wrote:It's the Physical Red Light that has Wavelength as a property. The Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. The Physical Red Light has no Redness as a property.
Now you're in denial of how the human eye works? How do you manage to maintain this level of cognitive dissonance without your brain exploding in disgust?

SteveKlinko wrote:Physical Light and Conscious Light are two different things. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light.
No, sweetie. The light you're able to imagine and dream about is a memory of your physical perception of light at a wavelength of 620-740 nm. There's nothing special or magical about it.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:54 pm

Dimebag wrote:I would be curious to see if other Skeptics here agree with Mara that consciousness is an illusion, and that we aren't actually conscious of anything, but are tricked by our brain.
I agree with Mara. What we perceive to be a "conscious experience" is:
• receiving information about the environment via our senses,
• transmitting the information to the appropriate parts of the brain (generally in a complex journey with multiple paths and stops),
• interpretating the information in the context of prior experiences that exist in memory,
• integrating the information into the brain's model of the universe, and
• responding to the information.

At every point in this process, perceptual, transmission, interpretation, and integration errors are introduced based on the functionality of the organs involved, the limitations of the human brain, the way prior experiences are remembered, the emotions associated with the current information and any similar information already in memory, any cognitive biases that exist, and uncounted other variables. (For example, our ability to think clearly is affected by hunger, pain, discomfort, lack of sleep, state of mind, strong emotion, etc. And our memories are notoriously inaccurate; most of them are memories of memories, not memories of actual events.)

Given the complex nature of this process and the numerous variables that can and do affect it, can we honestly say that a given experience bears any resemblance to reality?

Let's try an example. You've probably read that I have fibromyalgia, which is an incurable, chronic pain disorder with no known etiology. It's often referred to as "central nervous system sensitization," because sensory stimuli are misinterpreted as pain, including both allodynia (painless stimulus perceived as painful) and hyperalgesia (heightened pain response to minor painful stimulus). In reality, based on nerve conduction tests, the sensations I feel are not pain in the traditional, neurological sense of the word. However, a functional MRI will show my brain responding to a non-painful stimulus as if it were pain.

What's the difference? Pain stemming from illness or injury begins in the nociceptors, then is transmitted to the brain, where it's interpreted. Fibromyalgia pain begins with the brain's misinterpretation of sensory stimuli. (Note: This is why opioids are ineffectual against fibromyalgia pain, but cannabis works. :mrgreen: )

So, here's the $20,000 question: Am I actually in pain?
• No, because my pain cannot be measured except via my reaction to stimuli. That's the reality.
• Yes, because the reality is utterly irrelevant; it's only my perceptions that matter. That's my reality.
So, my perceptions of intense pain have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the sensory stimuli, do they? Trust me when I say that this realization doesn't change my perceptions any more than an amputee will stop feeling phantom pain once he knows what it is.

Dimebag wrote:Is this a commonly held view among Skeptics, or do some here think we do have experiences and are not actually being tricked or fooled into thinking we have one, but that what conscious experience amounts to is the operating of the brain?

Or do other people think the illusory nature of consciousness is more in the fact that it is a construction and we don't actually see properties existing external to our brains?
In light of my anecdote about fibromyalgia pain, what do you think? On the one hand, I most certainly could testify under penalty of perjury—and have done so—that I experience chronic pain. OTOH, my experience bears no resemblance to reality. My nociceptors are not firing off pain signals to my brain; it is my brain that is perceiving sensory signals as pain. Which is more important? My so-called conscious experience? Or reality? Since I'm well-versed in the reality of the situation, yet that knowledge fails to change my perceptions, the answer should be obvious.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:40 pm

There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists on this thread saying that I haven't explained what the Inter Mind is. Well here is what I have always said about that, taken directly from the website:

In fact, I think the Inter Mind is but yet another thing that we do not know. It is probably counterintuitive but I think the introduction of this new unknown might actually help us understand the other unknowns in the whole Mind problem. I believe the Inter Mind Model will provide a solid Framework for the next step in the exploration of Consciousness.

The Inter Mind Model is a Framework not an Explanation. The Inter Mind itself is a placeholder in that Framework. The Inter Mind represent that missing Processing that takes the Neural Activity and produces the Conscious experience. The whole purpose of the Inter Mind Model is to point out that there is something profoundly missing in our understanding of Consciousness. You Physicalists are Liars because you must know this is what I say about the Inter Mind or you have not read the website (http://TheInterMind.com). The Inter Mind Model is a voice in the Physicalist wilderness.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:50 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists on this thread saying that I haven't explained what the Inter Mind is.
You have made a range of insane claims.

You claimed human consciousness "might have" existed before the Big Bang. How can human consciousness travel back 13.8 billion years and exist in the singularity?

You claimed human consciousness "might have" caused the Big Bang, without one work explaining how this could happen or what it even means as a coherent sentence.

You claimed human consciousness "might have" caused evolution on Earth for the last 3.8 billion years, despite humans only evolving 190,000 year ago. You must believe in time travel.

It is obvious you are arguing for "God" and have simply renamed "God" as "human consciousness".

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:12 pm

The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies. The question is as follows ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) ?
3) A Conscious experience of Red happens.

The question is: What can be put in 2 to explain how, when 1 happens, that then 3 happens?

One Physicalist answer is to say that 3 does not really happen so that the question is somehow wrong and there is no need for 2. But they can not explain what they are talking about.

Another Physicalist answer is that it all happens in 1. I suppose that this second category of Physicalists are at least still admitting that 3 happens but that they are just unwilling to give it a separate place in a block diagram. If it all happens in 1 then what is happening in 1 that produces 3? Here's the question renumbered for them ... Given:

1a) Neural Activity for Red happens.
1b) ?
1c) A Conscious experience of Red happens.

The question is: What can be put in 1b to explain how, when 1a happens, that then 1c happens? Is that better? It's all now in 1.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9037
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 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:19 am

SteveKlinko wrote:There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists on this thread saying that I haven't explained what the Inter Mind is. Well here is what I have always said about that, taken directly from the website:

In fact, I think the Inter Mind is but yet another thing that we do not know ...

See, that's why I gave up on you, Steve. You complain that you are accused of not explaining what the intermind is, then you immediately say that you don't know what it is. That's (there's no way of breaking this gently) stupid. You admit having nothing yet you are prepared to argue the toss with forum members who say you have nothing. No wonder this thread has gone through several identical circles and wasted a lot of time..
Tell you what, Steve. Why don't you go away, think things through, and then come back with something a bit less nebulous than "yet another thing we do not know". When you do, I'll tell you about my perpetual motion machine which stops dead once a day, thus proving the existence of sixth-dimensional time. Or maybe fifth or seventh - I don't really know.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:31 am

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists on this thread saying that I haven't explained what the Inter Mind is. Well here is what I have always said about that, taken directly from the website:

In fact, I think the Inter Mind is but yet another thing that we do not know ...

See, that's why I gave up on you, Steve. You complain that you are accused of not explaining what the intermind is, then you immediately say that you don't know what it is. That's (there's no way of breaking this gently) stupid. You admit having nothing yet you are prepared to argue the toss with forum members who say you have nothing. No wonder this thread has gone through several identical circles and wasted a lot of time..
Tell you what, Steve. Why don't you go away, think things through, and then come back with something a bit less nebulous than "yet another thing we do not know". When you do, I'll tell you about my perpetual motion machine which stops dead once a day, thus proving the existence of sixth-dimensional time. Or maybe fifth or seventh - I don't really know.
The problem is I never said I knew what the Inter Mind was right from the beginning. I always said it was simply a Placeholder for some missing Processing that has to exist when you consider the real question that this thread and the Inter Mind Model are about. You are a Liar when you imply that I made some grand proclamation about what the Inter Mind is and then after that said I don't know what it is. Read the website: http://TheInterMind.com and find out what I really say about things instead of making things up.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:52 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Red IS a thing.


This is for you Steve, start from basics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOKWoDtbSk

This could be good for you as I can imagine you struggle generally in life.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:45 am

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?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:49 am

SteveKlinko wrote:There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists...........
If we are the Physicalists, then doesn't that make you, the whole big lot of useless Nothingness? :lol:

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Mara » Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:36 am

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?


I must say, I have heard many things but Klinko beats all. Generally people who subscribe to panpsychism or New Age philosophies, who blindly believe people like Tom Campbell, Stuart Hameroff, Nassim Haramein etc. do not assume it was 'human consciousness' that is fundmanetal, they just assume it was consciousness, their 'leap of faith' is in an assumption that energy is consciousness i.e. consciousness of everything including material and immaterial, rather than what mainstream knows that energy is just..well, energy.

Klinko's version is some radical form of Hinduism mixed with monoeitstic mentality topped up by hardcore anthropocentrism and sprinkled with anything else that he comes across on the internet...Scary.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9037
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 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:04 am

SteveKlinko wrote:... The problem is I never said I knew what the Inter Mind was ... ... the real question that this thread and the Inter Mind Model are about. ... ... find out what I really say about things instead of making things up.


I'll just translate your own words for you, Steve ...
a) I don't know that the inter mind exists or what it would look like if it did..
b) But I'm going to insist we discuss it on the unsupported assumption that it does.
c) You lot, on the other hand, are just making things up.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:41 pm

I just want to say a few things about consciousness which might bring things into perspective. We have what seems undeniable, that we have experience. The mere fact that we can ponder these thoughts presupposes that consciousness is something, something which requires an explanation. Now maybe there IS nothing more to consciousness than what the brain does, and if that were the case then consciousness would just be certain kinds of neural processing within specific neural networks. We need a causal explanation of what processes lead to experience, then we can say if what we experience as consciousness is such brain processes, no secret sauce necessary. The more I delve into consciousness and neuroscience, the more I start to think the specialness of the sauce is actually tied up in the biology itself. The amazing thing about evolution is it builds upon older designs and keeps what works, so much of what we might think makes us human we share with a good part of the animal kingdom, and therefore it is entirely possible that our capacity for consciousness exists as a series of smaller evolutionary steps, shared among our ancestral species. It is extremely hard to think of how evolution could have lead to our current capacities without taking gradual steps. In this way, I think emergent structures must be the cause of our conscious capacity which we are afforded, lower levels supporting higher levels, allowing more and more abstract information to be constructed from smaller more finer grained information, what we experience as consciousness is the very tip of the iceberg of bubbling information within our brains.

There is no telling just how many emergent steps were necessary to have the conscious experience we have. There is a sense in which, the very nature of the human conscious experience allows an explicit knowledge which just isn't accessible to any other species we know of. And our ability to imagine what could be, it seems also sets us apart, we have an unconscious ability to analyse and predict possible outcomes, which gives us access to so many possibilities for action that it is no wonder we have dominated this planet. Riding atop of all these amazing abilities is conscious experience, making us aware of the world in a way that we can stop and think about these possibilities. We have been able to overcome to some small degree, the constraints of our instinctively driven animal nature. We seem to have the ability to make choices which are to some degree, informed, and weighed among several options, even if only on occasion. This is thanks to our predictive brains, which present these possibilities to us functionally, as ways of manipulating the world around us. These possibilities are accessible merely by focusing our attention on that which might be deemed useful. And the more we learn in life, the more possibilities we add to our predictive repertoire.

Consciousness acts as the gateway through which possibilities can be entertained, and through which new possibilities can be observed. It enables learning, and is a necessary functional component in our ability to committing anything useful to memory. That's not to say that we don't learn unconsciously as well. Our procedural memories function much better when they are not being consciously attended to, but consciousness is a necessary step in laying down the worn pathways of procedural memories.

For all the things people have to say about the nature of conscious experience, I think there would not be one person here who would deny the sheer importance of conscious experience to the functionality of being human. I do not believe it to be mere epiphenoemenon. It is extremely functional and important. We can call into question where it fits in to the chain of carrying out an action, but we cannot deny that it exists in that chain, and is therefore an important link which, if removed, brings the whole system to a crashing halt. As for the metaphysical nature of consciousness, that is speculative, and without a physiological explanation of what causes consciousness, we cannot say with much authority, beyond eliminating options through philosophical enquiry.

As for redness and saltiness, there is a sense in which they do exist, if only in our brains. But these experiences make up our existence, without them, we would not have gotten to where we are today. They provide real survival advantage, they help capture our attention and provide information about our environment which has obviously payed off. They provide incentives to motivate us towards things, and serve as cautions to avoid other things. They also provide us with great meaning, which is natures way of telling us we are doing something right, like holding your newborn child in your arms for the first time. They make up a life, from beginning to end. They also contain great struggles and pains, some transient, some lingering. Some of us have more than the fair share of pains as well, as several posters here have attested to. Evidence that the body rests in a fragile state, and one that should be appreciated but maybe can't be fully appreciated until one has such experiences. My heart goes out to those of you who are suffering. It is something which in the end is inescapable. Which is why we must find something in life to make the suffering worth it. For me it is my family.

Sorry for the waffling post, I have a tendency to do this, call it a stream of consciousness.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests