Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
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   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: Desert Elf]
    #16084183 - 04/13/12 09:43 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

I hear ya. I cried hard for years when I found out what humans were really like.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: Icelander]
    #16084194 - 04/13/12 09:47 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
I hear ya. I cried hard for years when I found out what humans were really like.




I find a look in the mirror is a good reminder. But you can't extrapolate that too far.

Well, you can, but there is always room for error. In both direction too, mind you.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: Desert Elf]
    #16084209 - 04/13/12 09:50 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

You bet. I'm fully human. :evil:

An accident of birth.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,066
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: Freedom]
    #16084781 - 04/13/12 12:24 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
Nothing explains the primary origination of anything- consciousness or matter or energy or the laws of physics. There is nothing that explains how consciousness can interact with matter.

Theories of one arising out of another are wild guesses, I see no evidence supporting either one. Its equally likely that there is a third thing we don't know about that produces both matter and consciousness, as this would also account for the observed correlations.




Existing interpretations of materialism lack the inspiration to address consciousness - so what we need in materialism is more inspiration.
It comes from beholding the big picture, or rather not letting go of what we know while trying to see and describe consciousness in terms that still fit the big picture.

A lot of inspiration just means taking in a big breath and holding it long enough to see how matter and consciousness wrap each other.

For this I highly recommend leaving out things like 'telepathy' and 'the 49 days of bardo after death' and any other extrapolations on the idea of consciousness for which it is hard to get verified accounts. everything else goes. mingles with matter. supports memory is consistent with feelings, emotions, sex evolution etc.

in psychology the term conditioning is taught, usually to illustrate the fact that a person can be conditioned to respond in a certain way to any stimulus by repetition of that stimulus in combination with some other stimulus or event.

Mind associates things that occur together or right after one another (i.e. the fading of one thing and the arising of another).

Association is the one big trick of mind, and this big trick is a material based event. (I can review that elsewhere since I want to drive towards consciousness which 'emerges' from associative mentation)

All memory is associative.

This means that while walking down the street, the mind is producing fragmentary reminiscent images and sound bits and body sensations according to what the walker is seeing and hearing.

People usually call the aggregate of all those vague fragments of memory 'feelings', and these are constantly arising and fading away, although some resonate quite strongly and contribute to more focused thought sequences. These may include words, and may even recycle with effort to be grammatically erudite thoughts worthy or writing down and reading to the public.

Have I missed anything glaringly? all of that process is what is termed stream of consciousness, or consciousness. Are people honestly concerned that "Qualia" is other than this - certainly unique to each being, but indubitably made of this, mind and body and memory.

All of that is completely provided by associative processes that occur as a result of body sensations entering the brain adding to the history of what has already been experienced (memory) and echoing through what - through repetition - has become the current framework of memory of things having occurred together (and in sequences).

There is no need of another universe with other rules or other physics to  explain mind and consciousness even though it seems utterly amazing that while walking down the street, a person will seem to be accompanied by so much mental media that it 'could only be' originating in heaven or hell or the ether beyond.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,301
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: GoreTuzk]
    #16084990 - 04/13/12 01:16 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

The potential for consciousness rests not 'in the matter', but as a quality of existence itself, just as matter is a quality of existence. This doesn't mean matter is conscious by default, but it also doesn't mean consciousness stems from matter. It seems to take some matter to create specific forms that conduct consciousness and prompt it to arise, just like it takes certain conditions to cause lightning, and certain conditions need to be met for a volcanic eruption to occur, yet the potential for these phenomena are found within the tendencies of matter/energy to interact with itself.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinethefloodbehind
Male

Registered: 07/05/11
Posts: 898
Loc: Nashville, TN
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: Freedom]
    #16085109 - 04/13/12 01:47 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:
Nothing explains the primary origination of anything- consciousness or matter or energy or the laws of physics. There is nothing that explains how consciousness can interact with matter.

Theories of one arising out of another are wild guesses, I see no evidence supporting either one. Its equally likely that there is a third thing we don't know about that produces both matter and consciousness, as this would also account for the observed correlations.




God explains (most) all those things.

Edited by thefloodbehind (04/13/12 01:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinethefloodbehind
Male

Registered: 07/05/11
Posts: 898
Loc: Nashville, TN
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: Rahz]
    #16085122 - 04/13/12 01:50 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
The potential for consciousness rests not 'in the matter', but as a quality of existence itself, just as matter is a quality of existence. This doesn't mean matter is conscious by default, but it also doesn't mean consciousness stems from matter. It seems to take some matter to create specific forms that conduct consciousness and prompt it to arise, just like it takes certain conditions to cause lightning, and certain conditions need to be met for a volcanic eruption to occur, yet the potential for these phenomena are found within the tendencies of matter/energy to interact with itself.




this sounds like Spinoza's dual-aspect theory, i.e., mind (thought) and matter (extension) are not really distinct, but are in fact two attributes, i.e., different ways of describing the same Substance = God = Nature.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #16085253 - 04/13/12 02:11 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:

Have I missed anything glaringly? all of that process is what is termed stream of consciousness, or consciousness. Are people honestly concerned that "Qualia" is other than this - certainly unique to each being, but indubitably made of this, mind and body and memory.







For me this right here is where it gets tricky. Computers are learning to create associative networks ('tags'). They aren't smart about it, for example they can't use it to replicate human intuition, but one could imagine with the right algorithms one could make a good replica of the human association process. But the computer as far as we know has no experience of what is going on.

We can study the brain and look at these amazing things like the regulation of AMPA receptors and memory and see extraordinarily choreographed mechanics underlying memory, but what is it that gives rise to our experiences of consciousness? What process in the brain creates awareness?

Knowing what we do about the brain we can look at it a bit closer. For example it appears that the experience of consciousness arises from a network or multiple networks of brain cells. But what is it in these networks that produces experience? The movement of ions through channels? The organization of biomolecules? Yes we can see that these things can store memories just like we know how a hard drive stores memories, but what produces the experience or qualia of that memory?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,066
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: Freedom] * 1
    #16085504 - 04/13/12 03:07 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Freedom said:


Knowing what we do about the brain we can look at it a bit closer. For example it appears that the experience of consciousness arises from a network or multiple networks of brain cells. But what is it in these networks that produces experience? The movement of ions through channels? The organization of biomolecules? Yes we can see that these things can store memories just like we know how a hard drive stores memories, but what produces the experience or qualia of that memory?




there are a few problems in this.
consciousness is experience,
if you say the experience of consciousness, you presuppose that there is any other kind of experiencing, or you confuse the issue by accident of habit of speech or grammar.

let's please call it an accident or habit to push the obvious away to avoid enlightenment.

now what is experience?, and please stay focused on that rather that what it arizes from - which will be clear in a moment.

experience is...

all of the energies
all of the senses
all together with feelings and background thinking...
it is the breath and the guts whatever is there at the moment.


============================

I do not say whatever you are aware of in the moment - though that comes into the background thinking arena

it is unqualified, all the experience is validly experience and the sequence of moments of that is consciousness or stream of consciousness.

============================

there are many ways to hide it or to make it hard to admit that this is consciousness, by supposing you must have an ego, and that the ego has to be aware of itself, or of the stream as separate from the ego, but really all of these are just mental objects and the echoes of smart sounding words floating in the background of consciousness.

============================

but being able to think this stuff,  to wonder about the self, to play hide and seek with self, this is part of the experience, part of the qualia, that makes me me... yes but that is also just content, the particular personal mental objects floating along in the stream, which is all those patterns happening in the cerebral cortex in sequence. The cortex is a bit like a reverberant electro-biological screen - like a larger form of a retina,

============================

BUT you are certain it is more than just energy projecting into the cerebral cortex from the senses, and you are right...

it is all of that - moment to moment plus all that associating with similarity from past experience.

and that - in a nutshell - is the only piece you need to look for:

HOW DOES ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY WORK.
i.e. how are things that happen together stored as a retrievable unit, and how are things that are simmilar recalled later.

and this is something that the crebral cortex as a unit does very well and it does it with pattern abstraction exactly in the same way holograms work - using interference and that same interference is used in memory fixation so that activated cells become connected together - and sequentially activated ones are connected too.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: GoreTuzk]
    #16085508 - 04/13/12 03:07 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

GoreTuzk said:
the fact that you are conscious can't be doubted and can't be explained.




if consciousness can't be explained, which it cannot, then i think we should work on doing that before trying to fit it into our model of the universe. if we can't describe or even measure it (consciousness) then merging it with things we can is silly.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,066
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: millzy]
    #16085870 - 04/13/12 04:40 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

yes precisely, in a nutshell;
except I just described it and showed how it fits


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,036
Last seen: 5 hours, 34 minutes
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #16086821 - 04/13/12 08:54 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

you talk around this very well, great outline

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: GoreTuzk]
    #16087724 - 04/14/12 01:32 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

The error is that you see yourself as separate from your environment.

that's a pretty big call for someone who knows very little about me.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,066
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: blingbling]
    #16088157 - 04/14/12 06:33 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

maybe it's not personal but a general error in the paradigm (most likely)


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #16088498 - 04/14/12 09:17 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

right I say experience of consciousness to try to be clear that consciousness is experience, that I'm not talking about some abstract process or neurons firing but experience.

The experience is always experienced as primary because we experience nothing but experience. Its not just the foundation but the walls and roof and stove with the teapot on.



But isn't this thread also about where the experience comes from? Sure a photon resonates with the electrons of a retinal molecule, and we can interpolate all the physics from the retinal molecule all the way to the higher levels of the visual cortex, where presumably the physics turns into experience.

This is where we wave a magic wand and say something like the cortex is experience or the cortex produces experience. There is a leap from something physical to something experiential.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #16088553 - 04/14/12 09:41 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
yes precisely, in a nutshell;
except I just described it and showed how it fits




not really. you're using aristotle's ten categories of being in order to attempt to explain consciousness when it fits into none of them including substance.

for those who aren't following, these are aristotle's ten categories of being. aristotle's metaphysical model follows as such: every being exists in itself and not another. if it exists only in itself, it is a substance. if it exists in another, it is an accident. this constitutes the ten categories of being (substance + nine accidental qualities).

substance
-------------------
quantity - the determination of the matter of substance, giving it parts distinct from parts i.e. "tall" "short" "fat" "skinny"

quality - the determination of the nature or form of a substance i.e. "smart" "dumb" "handsome" "ugly"

relation - the reference which a substance or accident bears to another i.e "friend" "enemy" "near" "far"

action - the exercise of the faculties or power of a substance so as to produce an effect in itself or another i.e. "smiling" "running" "building" "breaking"

passion - the reception of a substance of an effect produced by some cause i.e. "being hired" "being fired"

when - the position in relation to the course of extrinsic events which measure a substance's duration i.e. "sunday afternoon"

where - the position in relation to other bodies which surround a substance and determine its place i.e. "on a beach" "on a lake"

posture - the relative position which the parts of a substance have toward each other i.e. "leaning" "sitting"

habiliment - ornaments (clothing, tools, weapons) by which a substance by their art complement their nature in order to preserve their own being or that of other beings i.e. "black coat"

consciousness transcends all categories of accident. it does not designate the matter or nature of any substance, nor does it establish a substance's relation to another. it is not an action nor is it produced by any apparent cause by another substance. consciousness itself has no relation to time and space, it has no parts and is obviously not an ornament that we have made for ourselves.

moreover, in addition to consciousness transcending all accidental categories of being, it isn't a substance in that it does not singularly exist in itself and not another and possesses no accidental qualities. so, the question must be raised once again; what is consciousness? i don't lay any claim on that answer, but my point is that consciousness can't be logically reduced to anything aside from itself.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger

Edited by millzy (04/14/12 09:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,066
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: millzy]
    #16088889 - 04/14/12 11:25 AM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Miltzy: Aristotle's 10 categories are not helpful to this discussion although they could be used to resolve attributes and relations of mental objects (and physical objects), and I am not using them because I am looking at experience the sequence of which makes consciousness.

Freedom: I agree - to be comprehensive, the matter of how mental association works in the cerebral cortex is the next area of examination; the most fundamental issue (with respect to discussing consciousness) was to establish that it is about experience and that
experiencing is the moment to moment totality of sensations (forming new memories) combined with associative recollection of memory (fragments)

if that much can be taken as an agreeable premise then when we do discuss associative processing in the brain, it may be considered that we are talking about consciousness (experiencing), otherwise it could either swing this discussion away (from the most fundamental aspect of consciousness) or it could be a fundamental issue about associative memory formation and recall and just go in a different thread.

OK,
Using the shroomery search engine I find that I was talking about some of that earlier on with some members of this group
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4646053#4646053

and at some point I must have been going through it in detail:












--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #16089043 - 04/14/12 12:13 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
Miltzy: Aristotle's 10 categories are not helpful to this discussion although they could be used to resolve attributes and relations of mental objects (and physical objects), and I am not using them because I am looking at experience the sequence of which makes consciousness.




by referring to consciousness as an accident of being you are referencing aristotelian metaphysics. i agree that it's not helpful in describing consciousness, which is what my point is. consciousness defies description using conventional logic.

but moving on to your most recent definition of consciousness as:

Quote:

the moment to moment totality of sensations (forming new memories) combined with associative recollection of memory (fragments)




this is an incomplete picture of phenomenal consciousness. sensory data and the associative memories that allow us to abstract meaning from that data moment to moment is a partial, but good - i'll give credit where it's due - description. we also have the unconscious mind, which i would summarize as a deeper level of indirectly associated memories - perhaps some of which have even been repressed - along with appetites and instincts that act from a place completely beyond the limits of our awareness but yet somehow intermingles with our response to sensory experience and therefore influences our mental states moment to moment. and from my albeit armchair understanding of psychology, this unconscious mind cannot be accounted for because it cannot be observed due to its very nature of un-observability, thus it cannot be measured, quantified and described. it's a substantial piece of the picture that we simply don't have, and without it we cannot have a comprehensive explanation for phenomenal consciousness.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,066
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: millzy]
    #16089187 - 04/14/12 01:03 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:

this is an incomplete picture of phenomenal consciousness. sensory data and the associative memories that allow us to abstract meaning from that data moment to moment is a partial, but good - i'll give credit where it's due - description. we also have the unconscious mind, which i would summarize as a deeper level of indirectly associated memories - perhaps some of which have even been repressed - along with appetites and instincts that act from a place completely beyond the limits of our awareness but yet somehow intermingles with our response to sensory experience and therefore influences our mental states moment to moment. and from my albeit armchair understanding of psychology, this unconscious mind cannot be accounted for because it cannot be observed due to its very nature of un-observability, thus it cannot be measured, quantified and described. it's a substantial piece of the picture that we simply don't have, and without it we cannot have a comprehensive explanation for phenomenal consciousness.




I am glad you brought that up, certainly it is post aristotelian, but the proposal of an unconscious mind is actually not a good one in the sense that you will not find it as an organ, nor as a separate process from associative linkage of mental contents from one moment to the next.

Any behavior of an unconscious mind can be re-analysed and attributed to associative recall, either in fragments or all at once, in sequence or as an underlying mood.

the term "unconscious mind" was introduced to simplify and mystify a generality of memory effects - especially ones that one does not consider to be volitional.

If analysed further, the only volitional acts (some hunt for free will) are those that  enroll the person into habit changing programs. I.e. nearly all that is happening is mental reflex, except for little choices that pull the individual off course or into a different course.

That is not to say we are unconscious, even though we are largely not volitional beings, since what we are experiencing is a very rich soup of sensory and memory mixed mental activity. What we do is as practiced, or trained, or conditioned. You could argue that even our volitional stuff (from the prefrontal cortex) is trained, but I would contest that, since those decisions are variously multilayered and 'unpracticeable' and pertain to a review of all that is happening in the self, it is hard work and some people avoid it entirely.

so, the main point I am making is that the term unconscious mind should be tossed (as it is a fake construct), and associative mentation (consciousness) should be re-examined without the fake layers -- remember, in The Universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy the sun revolved around the earth and many fake systems (tie-ing back to god(s)) were proposed to make the world work. very esoteric - mostly because it was wrong.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,409
Re: What is more fundamental? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #16089328 - 04/14/12 01:46 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

i see where you're going, but in the scope of attempting to describe and define consciousness, i think unconscious mind is important to take into account. i'm not working with a specific, dogmatic definition of the term, but rather a definition of unconscious mind as everything that we aren't aware of thinking about in any given moment. once we bring it into focus it ceases to be unconscious.

moreover, i think you're contradicting yourself by saying the mind is one thing when clearly it's broken into functional parts by your own model. that being our response to sensory data and the recall of associative memory that informs that response. the part that responds and the part that recalls are functionally separate in the scope of this discussion. what i propose is that there is another functional component that factors into phenomenal consciousness as well. even if you were to approach this from an anatomical/neurochemical angle, the brain has separate functional components that all do separate things. why reduce the mind to a single thing in this case?


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger

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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Following AI: Consciousness as an interpretive process for data! (aren't I fancy!)
( 1 2 3 all )
PsilocinSam 6,831 58 03/18/05 11:45 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* A Different Understanding of Consciousness
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Ped 5,339 73 04/30/07 09:42 AM
by Icelander
* Do plants have consciousness?
( 1 2 3 all )
Jellric 3,391 50 07/29/04 09:33 AM
by CJay
* continuinity of consciousness
( 1 2 3 all )
OldWoodSpecter 1,844 46 05/12/05 03:47 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Comas, The Origin Of Consciousness, And The Non-existence Of Soul
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 3,753 35 01/06/06 04:08 PM
by Sclorch
* Redgreenvines Salvia insights! SeekSalviaSee 2,797 7 09/20/07 02:38 PM
by SeekSalviaSee
* salvia consciousness hippi 930 1 09/14/06 09:07 AM
by redgreenvines
* What is Consciousness?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Liquid_Dimension 6,319 101 03/02/08 08:20 PM
by Neanderthal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,461 topic views. 2 members, 8 guests and 35 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 0.032 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.