Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15581 - 15600 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:02pm PT

Despite the fact that he is a wordsmith, I've had great difficulty figuring out what he is saying.


Because you're trying to understand it from a strictly pyhsiclist point of view.

Years ago, Chalmers made clear the main problem with studying any of this. He said the obvious: there are 1st person (subjective) and 3rd person (objective) ways to look at consciousness. No matter how hard you try to make consciousness a 1st person phenomenon or function or (fill in the blank), in reality, consciousness will always be 3rd person experiential. All 3rd person efforts are by nature investigations per objective functioning, and as that long quote I cited showed, the objective factors like electricity are present not only in the brain but in many other situations and in none of them do we associate consciousness. The so-called "hard problem" of consciousness is stated as a problem of showing how matter can become conscious, but in fact, is it more a ,atter of people trying to show how the 3rd person (objective) is actually the 1st person (subjective). Of course this is not a "hard problem," but an impossibliity - and we can easily see why.

When MH2 says that studying consciousness without studying the brain is like (fill in the blank), what he is really saying is the only viable way to study any of this and "understand" it is to study it all in the 3rd person. You can see why little ground is covered except in terms of objecive functioning.

JL
jstan

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
"Soul". "heart", and other oft used words are cultural oddities. They are always safe to use because no two people agree as to the meaning of these words. That means you can always claim to win any argument about them.

I suspect the use of such words tells me a person's reason for arguing. Their purpose is to win; not to discover something new. So, it is a waste of time to participate. No one ever really wins, nor does either party ever learn something new. There is no output.

During the classic Greek period very astute attempts were made to achieve mind derived truth/philosophy. Euclid and Pythagoras discovered something. The remaining stalwart efforts seem to have generated only 2400 years of bumbling imitation. All based on use of words whose meaning seems purposely to be kept personal and obscure.

Or so my observations have persuaded me.

Off the mark criticisms of Dennett's evidence based discussion intended to show us what we perceive as being the conscious is actually a highly processed output coming from unknown sources. Those criticisms, possibly, were just more evidence of an overweening desire to win. No one here is that incapable of understanding what Dennett was saying.

Dennett's point, and he stated it clearly several times, was to show us we really know very little about what goes on to produce the conscious. His suggests everyone feels they understand the conscious only because we all think we have it. The conscious is like atoms. We all have atoms but we really don't understand them either.

It is ironic that iron age exercises are still pursued when we are learning more about the brain each week than we used to learn in a decade. Hawkins shows us the brain processes temporal sequences using a bare minimum of information and sometimes makes an error. Darwin taught us this paradigm evolved because an occasional wrong decision made quickly was a small price to pay for avoiding our becoming someone's breakfast. So when Dennett shows us how the brain can be uncertain how to interpret something, he teaches us something we need to know.
WBraun

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
Spirit is not observable. Consciousness is.

Spirit and consciousness are one and the same.

The mental speculators and modern lab coats are the bewildered species making up sh!t all the time
due to their poor fund of knowledge all while rubber stamping themselves as experts.
WBraun

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:14pm PT
Their purpose is to win; not to discover something new.

More pure mental speculation and total projection ......
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
The "toolkit" looks useful because mostly it questions booth sides of the coin.
Like; do children become violent because they watch violent tv. Or do violent children just like watching violent activities?

Above you wrote that when one is in a coma, they weren't conscious. But actually aren't they just lacking awareness? Consciousness has been taughted as going hand and hand with awareness of what's going on around them. And maybe that's part of it. But doesn't it seem like its our consciousness that we are always trying to appease. You know the saying, " the devil made me do it!". Well what makes up our mind decisively against what our mind says what is best for us? Another words, why would I smoke cigarettes when my brain knows they can kill me? It's as if there's an ego conflicting with my ego? Does anyone else hear two voices in their head??
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:18pm PT
One day I saw a body defragmenting while being eaten by worms and I met an old woman who told me about the spirit of the corpse, the worms, the atoms and the electrons and I was told that spirit was everywhere... Is that true?
jstan

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
More pure mental speculation and total projection ......

I have to say this Werner. You stand on very shaky ground when you accuse others of "mental speculation".

And here was my full statement.
I suspect the use of such words tells me a person's reason for arguing. Their purpose is to win; not to discover something new.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
When MH2 says that studying consciousness without studying the brain is like (fill in the blank), what he is really saying is the only viable way to study any of this and "understand" it is to study it all in the 3rd person. You can see why little ground is covered except in terms of objecive functioning.

Since the first person experience is based , ultimately , in "nothing " by Largo's own admission, then ergo there is nothin' there to explain anything.
What is the basis of first person consciousness?
Is it different than 3rd person?

Are we talking about two forms of consciousness here? Or two methods of arriving at the same general conclusions about consciousness, which is definitively one thing and one thing only?

The main biological default consciousness of humans is that general mode of critical discourse with the world which we have come to call " discursive" on this thread..
Other forms are either illusory, or thoroughly elective : starting nowhere and ending nowhere.

The non-discursive , if it can be said to have any operative status in this connection whatsoever --is merely one of many interesting subsets of the main , biologically-based consciousness of physical humankind .



Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
What the f*#k is this if not mental speculation?:

The battery in your simplified diagram above would be the "source" of consciousness.

The brain is not required for "consciousness" to work.

The battery remains "full" and at potential even with the brain disconnected from the battery (consciousnesses).

This is why people in a coma are not able to communicate in normal ways.

The source of Consciousness is not from the brain but within the heart.

From the heart consciousness works to the brain in full duplex.

Consciousness is not material but simultaneously can work on all the subtle material and spiritual levels.

This is why it is called the soul.

It is scientifically proven .....


 Pure? Is that the best you have from all of your grand/knowing/all inclusive explanations of the world, spirt and otherwise.


LOL… Too funny.

What do we call it when the pot is calling the kettle something….



Edit edit:
What I mean is, this statement seems to me to be utter baboonery:
This is why people in a coma are not able to communicate in normal ways.

 Can anyone point me to the proof/evidence of anyone communicating while in a coma?


More Credit Edit:
I mean, reading this again makes my pea-brain ache when attempting to think logically about it:

The source of Consciousness is not from the brain but within the heart.

From the heart consciousness works to the brain in full duplex.


 Brain has no consciousness in it… but the heart does? Really? What chamber is the consciousness in?

 From the heart consciousness "works" "to the brain" in "full duplex"…… WTF?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:38pm PT

"Soul". "heart", and other oft used words are cultural oddities. They are always safe to use because no two people agree as to the meaning of these words.

I think any two or more people can agree with their meaning. The crux is the wording.
WBraun

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:41pm PT
I didn't come up with the original battery and light blub analogy.

MH2 did. He's actually pretty intelligent guy.

His battery light blub analogy is pretty good except not complete.

I responded to him not to a brainless stupid fool like you Jingy unlike MH2.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:44pm PT
The heart is in the details, as they say...
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
I responded to him not to a brainless stupid fool like you Jingy unlike MH2.


 ok Werner, then only take what I've written to be a response to your response to an imperfect explanation of consciousness on a climbers forum….. which takes me two steps further from the source however closer to another level of consciousness… like the one you're on now.


BTW, I hear MIT graduates have started to review supertopo forum posts to get clarification of explanations of most all subject matter of study. Sheesh
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
His battery light blub analogy is pretty good except not complete.

At least here WBraun is basing his alternative view of consciousness on a something that he considers beyond it. Right or wrong at least his view rests upon a foundation.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
Simple pictures and graphs are huge in breaking the language barrier!
And are very scientific. Jus look at the climate thread.

I wish we all could work harder at throwing the knock out blow, instead of throwing all those peskey jabs.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:09pm PT
Went to the mountains for 2 days, and this thread advances 100 posts. Whew.

Jgill: So, it seems that Largo's search [of]. . . studying consciousness from the inside out has no bearing on one's normal life.

(A maddening concern, and one I struggled with for quite sometime.)

Simply put--yes. It has no bearing on one's normal life. (We probably have some unpacking to do about the words "studying," "consciousness," and "normal life," though, John. What they mean to you are likely very different than what they mean to me.)

Studying = observing closely, noticing, and noticing noticing.

Consciousness = all that is.

Normal life = the dreamstate, the lila.

MH2: Are you claiming to be an expert on EVERYTHING since your own consciousness is all that there is and you know more about that than anyone else?

Everything is real, but no thing is the truth. The truth is consciousness. All those "things" in consciousness are apparitions. Can't find them, grasp them, substantiate them, measure them, define them, or contextualize them.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:18pm PT
I wish we all could work harder at throwing the knock out blow, instead of throwing all those peskey jabs.

BB:
The climate thread by comparison is inescapeably fairly one dimensional. Essentially based upon a version of the question: do or do not bears crap in the forest?
This thread, by contrast, is compounded with various nuances and flavors. Sort of like a consumme broth followed by gourmet meal with a fine wine.
The climate thread is a Whopper without vegetables flavored with just one dab of condiment on a soggy bun.
LOL

now I'm hungry.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:40pm PT
Since the first person experience is based , ultimately , in "nothing " by Largo's own admission, then ergo there is nothin' there to explain anything.
What is the basis of first person consciousness?
Is it different than 3rd person?

Are we talking about two forms of consciousness here? Or two methods of arriving at the same general conclusions about consciousness, which is definitively one thing and one thing only?

The main biological default consciousness of humans is that general mode of critical discourse with the world which we have come to call " discursive" on this thread..
Other forms are either illusory, or thoroughly elective : starting nowhere and ending nowhere.

The non-discursive , if it can be said to have any operative status in this connection whatsoever --is merely one of many interesting subsets of the main , biologically-based consciousness of physical humankind
-


You keep flubbing most every aspect of this because you're not, IMO, grapsing anything more than what you already think you know, and insist that everything else is "illusory." Invitations for you to explain how you came to your beliefs, by wayh of what empirical evidence, remaing unanswered, leading us to conclude that you are, in fact, entirly guessing about the non-discursive. This is plainly dishonest. It would be like me proclaiming things about prime numbers knowing nothing about the subject whatsoever.

Rather than probe your misunderstanding of what "nothing" actually means (no--thing, non physical), keep it simple for the moment and just consider the fact that we can directly look at consciousness only in terms of the 1st person, since it's a first person phenomenon.

JL
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:40pm PT



 Werner may have been right… on everything but what he's written here…

Bwahahaha
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:47pm PT
From the heart consciousness "works" "to the brain" in "full duplex"…… WTF?

Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I suspect B.E.S. is tutoring Werner on how to fail the Turing test.
Messages 15581 - 15600 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews