Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineg00ru
lit pants tit licker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Freedom] * 1
    #14285675 - 04/13/11 06:30 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
Premise: Matter is necessary for consciousness. 





need some evidence for that mang


--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Freedom]
    #14292811 - 04/14/11 09:30 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
they refer to th firing of neurons in the visual cortex




Well in this view, all we are ever viewing are firing of neurons in the visual cortex. This would mean that only the brain cortex can be an object of our perception. Does this mean that the rest of the world is merely a pattern of brain behavior?

This sort of reasoning opens up strongly to the brain-in-a-vat postulation.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: NetDiver]
    #14292843 - 04/14/11 09:36 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
How are those shapes/colors distinct from the "scientifically real world"? They exist as a result (or rather, correlated with) very specific physical conditions, namely the rubbing of your eyes.

And yes, we infer matter from what we measure, but that is not incompatible with the idea that there is no matter outside the measurement. That doesn't mean consciousness is "creating" the world though, because similarly, there is no measurement outside of the matter. Trying to find one without the other is like trying to look around yourself in a mirror.





As you say, the phenomenon are only correlated. There is no physical model that can lead to shapes/colours from science. Only models that can lead to a response that a person sees certain 'shapes' and certain 'colours'. There is still a gap between the response and the experience - we all have vivid experiences as children, for example, before we have the right words to describe all the things that we see. We never acheive total descriptability, only a high level of functionality to express content that is meaningful to other people.



As for the second paragraph, Im not really sure what you mean. We infer matter from what we measure. If we were measuring a cloud of psychedelic patterns, we might not feel like there is anything material, for everything might be coming in and out of existance in totally unpredictable ways.
And yes consciousness does create a world, it creates our inner world, which maps/models certain factors, many (or all) of which are informed by the brain, which in itself models the external world.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14292930 - 04/14/11 09:50 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

In response to john214,

Quote:

Huh?  How is conciousness "like quanta" and what does that mean?

How is to 'see a quark', as your example goes, an example of direct observation unlike the evidence for the quark that we have that you consider not a direct observation?  This is a claim that is made in various shades of grey all the time in this forum, but I don't think anyone's every justified this distinction.  The whole things seems an arbitrary quality people use as a way to justify their claims or equivocate: the fundamental distinction seems absent.

How is seeing the deflection resulting from the collision of electrons and protons, suggesting quarks compose the proton, via any given apparatus fundamentally different, "nondirect", then looking at matter, say a rock or sample of liquid nitrogent?  What is indirect about the observation of the quark?





I don't actually support the argument that we 'dont see quarks', I think we see all physical phenomenon through inference. We have a measuring tool, our eyes (eg) any any extension of the eyes is just extending our measuring tool.

However, not all phenomenon are determined through inference. For example, our experience of colour is not inferred. It is experienced directly. We do not see experiences and then infer what we are experiencing.
HOWEVER we do infer 'what we are experiencing' (in language terms) from our experiences (& brain states).





Quote:

Why can't the quality of red be determined beyond effects on behavior?  We can measure what light will induce a photoelectric effect, what frequency that light is at minimum, and describe that minimum frequency as red light.  What is insufficient about this description?  Its accurate and done in practice?




That is, if you define 'red' as light within a certain spectrum. For a colourblind person, colours will refer to different aspects of a spectrum. So, when we define colours we define them as the parts of a spectrum determined by the most colour sensitive persons. But this takes us away from the experience of red and onto a physical model of red.

Red is not light of a wavelength, for light of a wavelength is merely the same as radio waves or microwaves, except that when shone at a human eye, certain brain states light up (in people sensitive to such wavelengths).

Now, we can say that 'red' is the wavelengths of light that result in people saying 'I can see red' when shone at them.

But thats different to the experience a person is having when they experience the red. For example, a person might have multiple experiences of red, but call them all 'red'. When placed next to each other, they might be able to say more things like 'deep red' or 'soft red'. But only if their language is good enough. We should not limit an experience to the language abilities of a person.


Quote:

What justification do you have for presuming experiences must be communicated through a reliance on language and therefore claiming they are somehow unable to be theoretically described?  I doubt the premise is true: I get hit with a ball and I wince and cover the spot that was contacted by the ball, and then demonstrate sensitivity to mechanical manipulation of the area struck.  None of this requires language, and all of it provides information on the quality of experience at various times.  It seems your premise is incorrect- how do you justify this neccesity of language and how do you dismiss my counterexample?





Actually all it shows is that the experience you had was negative. It says nothing about what that experience feels like.

If another person saw you wincing, they might be able to empathise with you and evoke a similar experience. But really, they are only evoking whatever -they- experience to be pain, and you have no way of knowing whether it is qualitatively the same, only functionally the same.

Wincing is a form of language, any sort of communication is. Not a traditional 'verbal' language, but still a language/. It requires us to infer an internal state, but this is not the same as experiencing it directly.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesynapz
pee on flowing lava = fail
Male

Registered: 04/14/11
Posts: 80
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Freedom]
    #14293185 - 04/14/11 10:39 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Premise: Matter is necessary for consciousness. 





Premise rejected on the grounds it's retarded

Quote:

Three possibilities for how consciousness interacts with matter:



You fail before you even begin here mate, nice

Quote:

1. Matter produces consciousness by itself.



swing and a miss

Quote:

If so, what is the recipe for consciousness? What is the mechanism by which matter produces consciousness? Is it the dancing ions flowing in and out of brain cells?



i said you missed that means we aren't discussing it dude

Quote:

2. Matter produces consciousness in concert with something(s) else.



erm, no again

Quote:

What is this mysterious 'something(s) else'?



an idea? (shrugs)

Quote:

3. Matter does not produce consciousness but can greatly modify our experience of it.



*headesk*

Quote:

Oh I get it, our souls are being beamed into our brains which act as antenna and translators imaginators visualizers inspiration generators on and on and  onoters





um yea


--------------------

Oh Snapz

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14294144 - 04/15/11 04:27 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
As you say, the phenomenon are only correlated. There is no physical model that can lead to shapes/colours from science. Only models that can lead to a response that a person sees certain 'shapes' and certain 'colours'. There is still a gap between the response and the experience - we all have vivid experiences as children, for example, before we have the right words to describe all the things that we see. We never acheive total descriptability, only a high level of functionality to express content that is meaningful to other people.



As for the second paragraph, Im not really sure what you mean. We infer matter from what we measure. If we were measuring a cloud of psychedelic patterns, we might not feel like there is anything material, for everything might be coming in and out of existance in totally unpredictable ways.
And yes consciousness does create a world, it creates our inner world, which maps/models certain factors, many (or all) of which are informed by the brain, which in itself models the external world.



Possible analogy for why brain states are only correlated with states of consciousness- eyes can't see themselves without looking in a mirror. We can accept that brain states are essentially equal to perception because when you alter one you automatically alter the other. Rewiring someone's brain will screw up their perception.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14294518 - 04/15/11 08:28 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
In response to john214,

Quote:

Huh?  How is conciousness "like quanta" and what does that mean?

How is to 'see a quark', as your example goes, an example of direct observation unlike the evidence for the quark that we have that you consider not a direct observation?  This is a claim that is made in various shades of grey all the time in this forum, but I don't think anyone's every justified this distinction.  The whole things seems an arbitrary quality people use as a way to justify their claims or equivocate: the fundamental distinction seems absent.

How is seeing the deflection resulting from the collision of electrons and protons, suggesting quarks compose the proton, via any given apparatus fundamentally different, "nondirect", then looking at matter, say a rock or sample of liquid nitrogent?  What is indirect about the observation of the quark?





I don't actually support the argument that we 'dont see quarks', I think we see all physical phenomenon through inference. We have a measuring tool, our eyes (eg) any any extension of the eyes is just extending our measuring tool.





Pretty much i agree with you.  The input from your eyes is not unfiltered, so its not fundamentally unbiased or accurate in a way qualitatively different from other sources of knowledge, and all information comes to us through indirect processes: even the eye only recieves radiation and tries to picture where in space that radiation came from and what it means- often with errors and rather large gaps in percision/accuracy.  Since the eye must recieve this radiation from unknown origin and of unknown original charecter, and try to make judgments about the world, along with the other steps in seeing something, it is certainly indirect in measuring our world and not particularly more trustworthy necessarily.


Quote:


However, not all phenomenon are determined through inference. For example, our experience of colour is not inferred. It is experienced directly. We do not see experiences and then infer what we are experiencing.
HOWEVER we do infer 'what we are experiencing' (in language terms) from our experiences (& brain states).





Yeah, but these are conclusions rather than data, so I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to neglect the fundamental difference between these.  The color red can be defined and so forth, but you still must make the call if an object is red whether you see it with your eye or with any other instrumentation.

The discussion becomes somewhat blured given that our visual sense has a lot of processing done automatically that we're not particularly privy to or able to affect: recognizing edges, faces, objects, distances: this information is largely preprocessed by the time we percieve it, sometimes accurately and sometimes not.

Quote:




Now, we can say that 'red' is the wavelengths of light that result in people saying 'I can see red' when shone at them.

But thats different to the experience a person is having when they experience the red. For example, a person might have multiple experiences of red, but call them all 'red'. When placed next to each other, they might be able to say more things like 'deep red' or 'soft red'. But only if their language is good enough. We should not limit an experience to the language abilities of a person.






Okay, I suppose I agree with this.  My comment was simply that the poster was incorrect to say that we can't determine the quality of a color but through observing behavior and that its incorrect to say that experiences cannot be communiated but through language.

Quote:

Quote:

What justification do you have for presuming experiences must be communicated through a reliance on language and therefore claiming they are somehow unable to be theoretically described?  I doubt the premise is true: I get hit with a ball and I wince and cover the spot that was contacted by the ball, and then demonstrate sensitivity to mechanical manipulation of the area struck.  None of this requires language, and all of it provides information on the quality of experience at various times.  It seems your premise is incorrect- how do you justify this neccesity of language and how do you dismiss my counterexample?





Actually all it shows is that the experience you had was negative. It says nothing about what that experience feels like.




It shows where it hurts, the temporal relationship shows what caused it to hurt, et cet.  There's plenty of information there.  But that its not particularly enlightening isn't really relevant to my point, which was solely that the claim that experiences may not be communicated but through language is incorrect.


Quote:

If another person saw you wincing, they might be able to empathise with you and evoke a similar experience. But really, they are only evoking whatever -they- experience to be pain, and you have no way of knowing whether it is qualitatively the same, only functionally the same.





Sure, though this is the same with all things, and that the example shows an experience may be communicated without words is sufficient to support my objection to the poster's claims.  The accuracy of that information is incidental, I imagine.

Quote:

Wincing is a form of language, any sort of communication is. Not a traditional 'verbal' language, but still a language/. It requires us to infer an internal state, but this is not the same as experiencing it directly.




Okay, that's fine, but in that case the point the poster made of us being limited to language in communicating experience doesn't make a whole lot of sense if we are to define langauge as being the whole of communication means.  Obviously or means are limited to the totality of our available faculties: to say this seems to state that which is plain, so I presumed the poster was saying that our abilities are limited to something less than every conceivable means of communicating, i.e.: limited to language.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Freedom]
    #14294796 - 04/15/11 09:53 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

At least, as far as I know, consciousness can be found in the neo-cortex, and manipulating this, manipulates consciousness. But of course consciousness also can manipulate itself, and it's manipulated by all what is connected to it.
The genetic structure gives some base form, which is caused by development through evolution and adjusting over long time in a specific environment.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineg00ru
lit pants tit licker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #14294829 - 04/15/11 10:04 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

can consciousness really be found in the neo cortex? look at any object in the room you're in.  it exists via a relationship with consciousness.  it is all zero distance from consciousness.  when we analyze our experience, can consciousness really be said to be local in any way?

good video for the open minded:



--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #14296631 - 04/15/11 05:02 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

guruu said:
can consciousness really be found in the neo cortex? look at any object in the room you're in.  it exists via a relationship with consciousness.  it is all zero distance from consciousness.




What grounds do you have to say this: that objects in a room are zero distance from consciousness?  These seems plainly incorrect as conciousness is an abstract quality of a person, for example, that does not have a particular location in space, to my knowledge, hence the relative location cannot be deduced, let alone be found to be coincedental.




Quote:



good video for the open minded:






Thank's for the warning.

Quote:

BlueCoyote said:
At least, as far as I know, consciousness can be found in the neo-cortex, and manipulating this, manipulates consciousness. But of course consciousness also can manipulate itself, and it's manipulated by all what is connected to it.
The genetic structure gives some base form, which is caused by development through evolution and adjusting over long time in a specific environment.





What does this mean and how do you support the nothing that conciousness has a location, whatever it is?

I would imagine that the cerebrum is required for a person to demonstrate evidence of conciousness, but does this justify the conclusion that conciousness is located there?  I wouldn't see how.

It seems pretty suspect to suggest that an abstract quality such as conciousness has a location at all, any more than the color red has a height.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: johnm214]
    #14298550 - 04/15/11 11:01 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

The neo cortex functionally has much to do with reflecting/mirroring brain activity back onto the lower or original brainstructures itself.
The sense of the body is reflected back onto the sensors from the body. Like visual imagination reflects back onto the visual cortex.
From this 'reflection' a kind of distance is created, which allows to independently manipulate the resulting concepts in ones mind (for example the better reflecting from the past into the future), giving a huge evolutionary advantage.
We perceive this development in a growth of consciousness.
At least, that's what I sucked out of my fingers for now about what I learned several years ago. I will reread about the neocortex in time.

Edit:example, nother one, ...


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Edited by BlueCoyote (04/15/11 11:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #14299522 - 04/16/11 03:30 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

The relationship between electricity and organic matter(protiens, amino acids, etc.) produces a sensory experience, aka consciousness.
I believe the increased size and complexity in the regions of the brain involved in visio/spatial thinking processes, motor control processes, and the complex chemistry of emotions(reward chemicals such as dopamine), can explain our heightened sense of awareness/consciousness(our "thoughts, feelings, and ideas").

Everything is cause and effect, even the brain and consciousness( they just have a shit ton of causes and effects)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: mushiepussy]
    #14300105 - 04/16/11 09:09 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

mushiepussy, according to that view, why arent all organic chemicals conscious? Furthermore, why arent all chemicals conscious? and what binds the chemicals in our brains into a single consciousness rather than trillions& millions of them?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBrainstem
_@_y
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/10
Posts: 1,969
Loc: In my shell Flag
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14300240 - 04/16/11 10:03 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Has anyone here read any of Lyall Watson's books ?

There is some really good science hinting at the mechanism behind the organization of organic matter into the organisms we know and recognize.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: mushiepussy]
    #14300569 - 04/16/11 12:03 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

mushiepussy said:
Everything is cause and effect...


Radioactive decay may be uncaused:

Determinism
Quote:

All uranium found on earth is thought to have been synthesized during a supernova explosion that occurred roughly 5 billion years ago. Even before the laws of quantum mechanics were developed to their present level, the radioactivity of such elements has posed a challenge to determinism due to its unpredictability. One gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 1021 atoms. Each of these atoms are identical and indistinguishable according to all tests known to modern science. Yet about 12600 times a second, one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. The challenge for determinism is to explain why and when decay occurs, since it does not seem to depend on external stimulus.





Quote:

guruu said:
Quote:

Freedom said:
Premise: Matter is necessary for consciousness. 





need some evidence for that mang


There's tons of it.


Quote:

guruu said:
when we analyze our experience, can consciousness really be said to be local in any way?


Why would analysis of our experience point to the possibility of our consciousness existing non-locally?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineg00ru
lit pants tit licker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: johnm214]
    #14302600 - 04/16/11 06:41 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

guruu said:
can consciousness really be found in the neo cortex? look at any object in the room you're in.  it exists via a relationship with consciousness.  it is all zero distance from consciousness.




What grounds do you have to say this: that objects in a room are zero distance from consciousness?  These seems plainly incorrect as conciousness is an abstract quality of a person, for example, that does not have a particular location in space, to my knowledge, hence the relative location cannot be deduced, let alone be found to be coincedental.





It doesn't have a particular location in space but it's not an abstract quality, it's the space in which all qualities arise but it itself has no quality.  All the same, it can be experienced, by focusing on your sense of "i am" and not following thoughts, not letting the 'I' thought connect with anything else.


--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: g00ru]
    #14302647 - 04/16/11 06:50 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

guruu said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

guruu said:
can consciousness really be found in the neo cortex? look at any object in the room you're in.  it exists via a relationship with consciousness.  it is all zero distance from consciousness.




What grounds do you have to say this: that objects in a room are zero distance from consciousness?  These seems plainly incorrect as conciousness is an abstract quality of a person, for example, that does not have a particular location in space, to my knowledge, hence the relative location cannot be deduced, let alone be found to be coincedental.





It doesn't have a particular location in space but it's not an abstract quality...


Proof?


Quote:

guruu said:
...it's the space in which all qualities arise but it itself has no quality.


Really? You're saying that consciousness has no quality?


Quote:

guruu said:
All the same, it can be experienced...


What can be experienced?


Quote:

guruu said:
by focusing on your sense of "i am" and not following thoughts, not letting the 'I' thought connect with anything else.


You're really obsessed with this "I am" stuff. :lol:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBrainstem
_@_y
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/10
Posts: 1,969
Loc: In my shell Flag
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Freedom]
    #14302887 - 04/16/11 07:34 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

The relationship between matter and consciousness ?

Matter is used to construct the processing circuits of a consciousness, of which it is ignorant and consciousness is in denial of the matter that makes it's existence possible ?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14302996 - 04/16/11 07:52 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

it seems strange... but thats what the universe is like, my friend. There is no point taking the grand acheivements of science as if they are the only thing that a human can think of properly. They are merely the only thing people can hope to have a proper agreement on, regarding the objects of our senses (our shared external reality).





i used to think this. but now i am not sure. if the senses are all we have and science gives the simplest explanation from the senses, what more could we expect to know?

Quote:


There is, fundamentally, no way to empirically observe experiences. If they didnt exist, we would expect this, and if they did exist, we would also expect this, so it does not add weight to or take weight away from the idea that consciousness exists.




if there is no evidence that consciousness exists then why would we think it exists any more than we think that god exists?

Quote:

Why would you say that pain is a brain state?
Because certain measured brain/body states correlate to a degree with reports of pain.





i would be saying there is no pain. there is only brain states.

Quote:



It does not mean that pain IS a brain state, because pain cannot be broken into components beyond its sensations, but brain states can be broken into all kinds of components, all the way down to the atoms and quanta.

All physical phenomenon can be broken down into their constituent parts. Any physical object is made of a collection of quanta, and any physical force is composed of a collection of energy vector packets (or whatever you would like to call them). this applies to all things that the scientific realist subscribes to.

But sensations cannot be broken down. You cannot break red into any parts, nor can you break green (although you can mix yellow and blue pigments to create the experience of green - this is not the same thing). You might be able to break a picture down into colours and contours but you cant break those things down further without abstracting conceptual information about the patterns that you see. For example you can conceptualise colours as mixtures of pigments or wavelengths and then break a colour up into different pigments or wavelengths, but you are not breaking the experience down. You can conceptiulise a distinct contour as a line on a plane and then break it down into smaller lines or functions, but then you are not breaking down the experience itself.






:strokebeard:

can a brain state really be broken down any more than pain can? isnt every 'part' or atom of the brain state necessary for it to be that brain state?

the experience of 'redness' cannot be broken down. well experience cant be broken down at all really...

the concept of 'red' can be broken down (into shades and so on).

why would it matter when we experienced say 'redness' if it referred to the physical state of this brain and not to some vague notion of 'colour'?


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineg00ru
lit pants tit licker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Relationship between matter and consciousness [Re: Poid]
    #14303197 - 04/16/11 08:32 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

guruu said:
by focusing on your sense of "i am" and not following thoughts, not letting the 'I' thought connect with anything else.


You're really obsessed with this "I am" stuff. :lol:




funniest thing i've ever read on this forum :rofl:

yeah, you got that right


--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Consciousness, Physics, and Spirituality. Reggaejunkiejew 2,228 6 01/16/17 07:38 PM
by Middleman
* ESSAY:Psychedelic induced mystical experiences by Alan Watts tekramrepus 2,911 6 03/21/03 11:43 AM
by pattern
* Analogies of Consciousness CosmicJokeM 2,299 10 05/30/01 08:15 PM
by fun_guy
* Timothy Leary's Eight Circuits of Consciousness imstoned420 4,249 8 07/10/13 11:00 AM
by redgreenvines
* We are spiritual beings having a human experience
( 1 2 3 4 all )
ShroomismM 8,773 75 10/03/17 12:10 PM
by Apples in Mono
* Inducing mystical experiences
( 1 2 all )
Metasyn 4,365 29 03/14/17 10:00 PM
by beforethedawn
* reality created by consciousness
( 1 2 all )
Lallafa 3,930 31 02/22/02 11:47 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* The Human Experience
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,362 33 06/26/02 07:01 AM
by Swami

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
8,742 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.