The Inter Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

SteveKlinko wrote:
If you really want to go back to the most elementary thing in the Universe it has to be Space

I think Space is a thing so that we could have had 4D Space or 3D Space or 2D Space
The most elementary thing in the universe is not space but energy because with
out any energy to cause the actual expansion of space there would be no space

Other dimensions of space could exist but we would not our selves exist to
experience them as we can only exist in three dimensions and nothing else
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:04 am
The most elementary thing in the universe is not space but energy because with
out any energy to cause the actual expansion of space there would be no space
Here, it sounds like you are saying energy is needed to expand space ..else there is no space?

So the space must be there for the energy to expand it?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

The energy causes space to expand and so logically it has to exist first. In quantum mechanics virtual
particles pop out of absolute nothing. There is no space but there has to be energy for this to happen
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:56 am The energy causes space to expand and so logically it has to exist first. In quantum mechanics virtual
particles pop out of absolute nothing. There is no space but there has to be energy for this to happen
What I'm reading from this is that energy is first, and that energy expands and contracts within it's own matrix? in that when it expands it gets bigger, and when it contracts it gets smaller without ever leaving it's original point?


But then a point would imply a centre..So that point would have to be both infinite energy large and infinitesimal small at the same time?

And that is how you have virtual particles appearing from nothing, and returning to nothing?

Is this right?..or what do you say?

.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

You are conflating energy with space they are not the same. Energy can be converted into mass as per E = mc 2 but that is
off topic because the relevant point to be made here is that energy came before space. Otherwise space could not expand
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:43 pm You are conflating energy with space they are not the same.
Okay, they are not the same. But, how I'm reading your comments is that pure energy congealed forms mass and as it congeals it creates the space at the same time for that mass to expand into ?

I can see why there appears to a missing agency? something or other here that Steve talks about.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:43 pmthe relevant point to be made here is that energy came before space. Otherwise space could not expand
I really can't grasp what is being implied here, I'm not saying it's wrong, but what does it say/mean...I just can't see what's happening here, can it be explained any other way than this so it can be mentally visualised?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

Imagine a flat balloon. Now in order to blow it up it has to be pumped full of air because when it is blown up
it expands. But without the air it cannot do that. So in this analogy the air is energy and the balloon is space
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

Thanks for the explanation.

So what is consciousness and who or what is experiencing that consciousness?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

Consciousness is a function of the brain so any organism with one will experience it. It just means it can respond to stimuli even if it is an
automatic response. It does not have to entail the higher order abstract thinking of human beings. That is only one point on the spectrum
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:40 pm Consciousness is a function of the brain so any organism with one will experience it. It just means it can respond to stimuli even if it is an
automatic response. It does not have to entail the higher order abstract thinking of human beings. That is only one point on the spectrum
Is consciousness just another word for light? ..the reason I ask is because we can't have knowledge of an object existing until it is seen via light, but we can still be conscious when our eyes are closed, so where is the exact location of an image or object to be found?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

Sight is not the only sense and neither is it even the pre dominant one in all
organisms since any sense organ can be responsible for experiencing objects
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:10 pm Sight is not the only sense and neither is it even the pre dominant one in all
organisms since any sense organ can be responsible for experiencing objects
Sorry for the long post...

Sight has given birth to the idea there is a someone looking at an object seen. And now that someone wants to know how seeing happens by trying to study what it is that is doing the seeing...without realising that the looker is not the object it sees, but insistently looks for the source of seeing in the object..it's a bit of a bootstrap dilemma...

But something else is going on here...it's as if something wanted to know and experience itself. . . but that agent is not going to be found in the object...which leaves us with no thing to work with...so all we have left is the invisible...and most of us instinctively know that is who we are at the very core of our being.

If it hadn't been for sight, science would not have been able to make all their amazing discoveries, or know anything. Science can measure reality by what they see, but they fail when it comes to measuring consciousness the very act of perceiving an object itself.

The Nondual speakers have said that what is looked for ..is already what's looking, and what's looking can't be seen by what's looking. So this tells us that an objects location cannot be traced since they are inseparable from the looker.

There are many descriptions as there are grains of sand as to how or where consciousness comes from, but those can only point us to what we ultimately want to know, they cannot point to the actual knower . . just as an arrow can point just about anywhere and everywhere..it can never point directly to itself. Science do not appear to be happy with that conclusion. It's like they cannot accept the fact that there are no answers, there are only endless questions that cannot be answered, if they could be answered, there would be no need for a question ever again, if the answer was here, the question wouldn't even arise. . . so what we have here is an energy that seems to want to question itself repeatedly...it's like energy just wants to dance itself dizzy around in circles for ever and ever never going anywhere....this is the final truth.

. . the thing is, humans are not making consciousness happen, no thing can be seen to be making consciousness happen, and yet here it is happening, and that there appears to be no thing known about what is making it happen.. human beings seem to believe they can know what is making it happen..that's is the weirdest thing I've ever experienced, that an idea can know it's origin...the truth is it can't...but humans who are just an idea themselves, will never stop believing that they will eventually know or have the answer to the hard problem of consciousness...but this will just be an energetic dance of ideas about ideas about ideas...etc..

Advaita have already submitted to the truth, but it seems the truth does not want to be heard by some of us.

And in my opinion, that consciousness is a fact, is what makes it divine, the very idea that life is living itself and that it got off it's own unknowable starting block is proof of a divine intelligent agent at work....and it's not human, the human is an idea born of this unknown divine intelligence which does not claim authorship of copyright over it's masterpiece...and why should it, it is it...already being it.

.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:01 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:57 pm
For me Consciousness is an Experience, not just an Idea. If it was just an idea, I agree, why bother. Consciousness is something that stares us in the face, it is what we are, but yet it defies explanation. It must be held up to the Light, studied, and explained. It is Human Nature.
Steve, Thanks for coming back.

An experience is known in the immediate experience, but how can the experiencer of the experience be seen or known...surely that would require a separate consciousness?

I know it's just a figure of speech when you say consciousness stares us in the face...but it's not consciousness staring us in the face, consciousness can't look at itself....what's looked at ..is what's looking, it's the same thing, images seen are the looked upon, reflections of the imageless. There is no consciousness in a thing seen...so how can a thing seen be staring back at the looker if there is no consciousness in the thing seen to do that?Can you see what I'm saying?

No one has ever seen consciousness, no one has seen the experience of consciousness. We can't explain what we can't see, all we can do is know it.

Just as with any sense, they're all an experience ..but they're all invisible, so how can an invisible experience be held up to the light to be examined.

I know I'm only stating the obvious here, but I really would like to know why you believe that consciousness can be explained and how?

I've looked into the nature of consciousness for many years, and found nothing, all I have are ideas about ideas which I cannot see, I certainly cannot explain or see ''the experiencer'' of an experience, even though the experience is known...doesn't mean I have explained it though, so I'm not saying it is impossible to explain the ''experiencer'' ...I'm saying I simply don't know who or what that is.

All I know is that I'm known, but I can't see that knower without splitting myself in two.

Steve, how do you propose to explain an invisible idea? how can self see itself, I understand that's what you are trying to discover, but is that honestly possible?

.

Can the absolute be explained by the relative ...any relative thoughts about the absolute would be absurd surely?

.
We are a Physical thing and we are a Conscious thing. I can conceptually separate the two things. The two things are connected somehow. So if we can study the Physical thing then we should be able to study the Conscious thing. We know that the Conscious thing is correlated with the Physical thing. I always like to go back to something simple like how is it that we experience the color Red? We know two things: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red Experience happens. The question is how do the Neurons Firing result in a Conscious experience of Red? This is the David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness. Scientists will not study this because it seems to require a special status for Consciousness that is possibly outside of Science. They sweep this Problem under the rug with statements like the Brain creates a Model, or a representation, or an Association to create the Conscious experience. These are always dodges that don't explain the thing. They are just giving the Problem another name. But this does not mean I think that Consciousness wont be studied and explained some day. I just try to get people to think outside the box on Consciousness.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:04 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
If you really want to go back to the most elementary thing in the Universe it has to be Space

I think Space is a thing so that we could have had 4D Space or 3D Space or 2D Space
The most elementary thing in the universe is not space but energy because with
out any energy to cause the actual expansion of space there would be no space

Other dimensions of space could exist but we would not our selves exist to
experience them as we can only exist in three dimensions and nothing else
That could be. Do you think there can be Energy without Space? I think you might have to have the Space first.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

SteveKlinko wrote:
We are a Physical thing and we are a Conscious thing. I can conceptually separate the two things. The two things are connected somehow. So
if we can study the Physical thing then we should be able to study the Conscious thing. We know that the Conscious thing is correlated with the
Physical thing. I always like to go back to something simple like how is it that we experience the color Red ? We know two things 1 ) Neurons Fire
and 2 ) a Red Experience happens. The question is how do the Neurons Firing result in a Conscious experience of Red ? This is the David Chalmers
Hard Problem of Consciousness. Scientists will not study this because it seems to require a special status for Consciousness that is possibly outside
of Science. They sweep this Problem under the rug with statements like the Brain creates a Model or a representation or an Association to create
the Conscious experience. These are always dodges that do not explain the thing. They are just giving the Problem another name. But this does
not mean I think that Consciousness wont be studied and explained some day. I just try to get people to think outside the box on Consciousness
The problem with studying consciousness from a scientific perspective is that it is not possible to do so in an objective sense. That is because
one has to be conscious in order to study it which inevitably compromises the methodology. So using consciousness to study consciousness is
ultimately self defeating. To truly study something objectively one has to be outside of it not inside it. Exactly the same problem occurs in
Quantum Mechanics where the act of observing affects the position or momentum of particles. So true objective observation is impossible
Post Reply