Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:53 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:55 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:01 am

My theories propose that consciousness arises naturally, but only within a mechanism or entity capable of naturally and freely violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which neither computers nor biological brains can do.
What does this consciousness that arises naturally ...what does it look like?

What is this entity, what does that look like?

.

Your comments makes absolutely no sense without telling what it is exactly you are referring to,apart from the use of ''concepts'' with attached meaning that are pointing to what it is you are trying to say.

What is consciousness? ..you use the word as if it actually exists, so where is it, what does it look like, can you measure it, and who or what is it that measures it to know it exists? what entity are you referring to?

First descibe what this consciousness is that you have claimed to arise naturally within an entity? and then descibe what this enity is.

.

If you can't answer any of the above questions then all you have here are meaningless concepts strung together to form a meaningful story arising from nothing...known by no-one.

.
A book titled, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul explains these concepts in detail. It also discusses some ancillary physics principles (e.g. energy, basic thermodynamics, and entropy) that are essential to understanding the book's primary ideas. Regrettably, the book did not fly off the shelves when published in 2012, and is difficult to obtain. It would answer your questions.

On a forum like this, the best I can do is to address questions posted by forum participants who are genuinely curious about the subject, either have or are willing to obtain the background knowledge necessary to honestly engage the subject, and are willing to explore the implications offered by alternative ideas.

However, I prefer to answer thoughtful questions proposed by informed individuals. Tell me what an electromagnetic wave looks like? What does the note, middle-C, look like?

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:02 pm

Greta wrote:
Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:52 pm
Thanks for the feedback earlier, Grey.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:13 pm
With respect to my own small moments of insight and the more significant experiences of others, I take both approaches. First, I accept the impressions. After all these represent data. Although some data are false or misleading, the valid stuff can be discerned, and from those data one can devise a cogent explanatory theory-- or at least attempt to do so. That part, the rigor, is most difficult, and most rewarding.
Greta wrote: That makes sense.

I had what seemed to be a strong mystical experience, including an all-pervading sense of bliss within and unconditional love from without (not that insides and outsides were all that clear at the time). The vibe and feeling was all very "Goddish" and, if I'd been a different kind of personality, I would be talking about communing with God and the like.

However, countless experiments have shown us the way our brains and bodies are evolved to fool us, favouring efficacy over accuracy. Time and again, things that we only partially perceive are "filled in" to appear complete by our brains, the gaps being filled by mental models based on prior experiences.
The brain is a superbly engineered machine, and as such it makes use of all available methods to deal with what an information expert might call "bandwidth limitations." Similar techniques (numerical analysis) are used by computer programmers to solve math problems that otherwise would be intractable. The mathematical term is interpolation, just a big word for "connecting the dots, mathematically." Without it we could not watch movies or TV, all involving apparently moving images, a sequence of frames that do not move at all.

But upon watching a movie composed of frames, you've seen the movie, the events represented by the frame sequence. You recall the action, combined within your brain with language to tie events together in the context of motivations. Your memories of a compelling movie can be stronger than real life experiences, yet all come to you via the same interpolating brain. All are "real."

The interesting question to me is the nature of the actual entity, if such a thing exists, that receives and sometimes ponders the information collected by the brain, irrespective of its source.

If such an entity exists, it should be capable of receiving direct information that is not processed by the brain. Surely such information would have a unique level of clarity and intensity, leading perhaps to the brain's secondary interpretation as a "mystical" experience.



Greylorn Ell wrote:
Greta wrote:By "animal consciousness" I was including humans. The supposed gulf between humans and other animals was created because H. sapiens out-competed (and often ate) their nearest hominid cousins. Dominance as a group species meant being able to develop culture instead of wasting time, effort and opportunity trying to evade predators. Thus, the gap created when the last Neanderthal died became wider.
Some people I know would claim personal knowledge that the last Neanderthal is still alive. Genetic evidence suggests that they've merely been assimilated. But no matter.

Would you consider the possibility that there exists a distinct entity which embodies the properties of truly independent consciousness, something akin to the "soul" of religious fantasy, the entity Descartes distinguished as connected to the human brain via the pineal gland, capable of existing independently after its connection to the brain is severed? (Forget the pineal gland connection, though. Neurological experiments going as far back as 1948 (Wilder Penfield) suggest more interesting, scientifically viable alternatives.)
Greta wrote: You could also say that the Neanderthals were "absorbed" - just 1-4% of the genetics of non-Africans. Then there's all the other hominids, some of which have a genetic legacy like the Denisovans.

Re the soul: I have no idea. I am most interested in (but in no rush to experience) the period where a person is officially dead but their brain is still running on its remnant oxygen. Can you imagine a more intense experience?? "Farking hell, I'm dead! I really am dead! This is IT!!" :lol:

It would be interesting to know how some of the amazing near death experiences would have played out if the people weren't resuscitated. It's easiest to imagine the imperceptible fadeout of sleep but - then again - it's death, not sleep so who knows?

I always liked that famous JBS Haldane quote: "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose".
I'd not come across the Haldane quote, so thank you. Brilliant! I am certain that he is correct.

Dead people have tried to convey their death experiences via seances and channeled books. Most of these are fake, just metaphysical bulllshit. Those few who limit their comments to actual experiences have felt trustworthy. Also, upon being competently regressed to a previous life experience, some will recall details of their demise. Some deaths come welcomed and peaceful; others tortuous. Kind of what one might logically expect.
Greta wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:

The flow of stuff through the planet seems reasonably analogous to the complex flows of energy through animal and human brains, or through the components of a computer. However, does the mere flow of energy imply consciousness within a brain or a planet? No computer I've constructed or programmed has greeted me upon a morning's fire-up with the message, Cogito ergo sum.
Yes, but have any of your computers rebelled - refused to do as asked? :)
Only once, long ago. Of course, computers will sometimes fail and need to be restarted, but that's a different thing.

There is a difference between that which a programmer wants a computer to do, and the actual instructions he gave it. A computer is superb at following instructions, not worth squat at mind reading. Mine have, but the once, always followed my instructions irrespective of their worth or my expectations of outcome.

I've often wondered what it might be like to have a wife with the same properties, even for a month, but so what? No such women exist, and I'm glad of that.
Greta wrote: My guess is that IIT is on the right track, that there would be thresholds of feedback complexity that bring about emergent phenomena. The Earth is exceptionally complex as life is part of it. So our (and other animals') consciousness IS the Earth's consciousness, or at least to a fair extent. What's that saying? ... humans are the universe finding out about itself (or something like that).


That's a poetic interpretation, and about as helpful to understanding the universe and human consciousness as is a fine poem like Poe's "The Raven." There seems to me to be a time for beauty, and another for logic. An observer who fails to see the beauty in our universe is a nitwit or maybe just a house cat. That cannot be said for those who fail to see its logic-- only for those who fail to seek it.

The poetic interpretation fails to address the beginnings of the universe. For example, if one believes (like Siddartha Gautama) that consciousness arises as an epiphenomenon resulting from brain activity-- what is the brain's origin? Or the universe necessary to support its existence?
Greta wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:

A next step might be to awaken wondering how you have come to exist as a conscious, self-aware being-- that is, to wonder at your core beginnings.
It's all very odd. Awareness seems to come on gradually, bit by bit certain capacities arise. Basically, each of us individually follows the path of human evolution - from microbe to adult human - and our consciousness gradually dawns, starting with basic senses. This growth caper is hard work too. Consider that moment when you are first delivered into the world. The light would be blinding, the sounds deafening and cacophonous, the temperature freezing and you howl for your first breath, your first connection with the atmosphere. No wonder we dive desperately into a cleavage that smells right.

The process is all pretty brutal when you think about it, and it surely doesn't get easier in those other times of transition, toddlerhood and the teens. Then you are thrown into a crowded, hyper competitive adult world with a declining natural environment that's full of people who seem to know far more than you. Then there's struggles for accommodation, bills, relationship issues, childbirth, illness and injury, loss and grief, boredom, frustration and anger, being duped and exploited, maybe a divorce or three, maybe retrenchments, and then you move towards decrepitude and death, which hopefully doesn't involve being kept alive in agony for years to satisfy theistic superstitions.

This is perhaps the best reason why we should try to be kind (which is not always easy) no matter what one's metaphysical beliefs, because the travails of existence are plenty enough without adding to it :)
Yours is an insightful presentation of the processes involved in coming into consciousness. I'll guess that they come from the personal experiences of someone who loves and cares and perhaps too often trusts. I hope that some of your insights have been written down and published, and that you'll at least PM the info needed to find them. If you've not published your thoughts in some form, please consider getting off your ass and doing so! :)

The brutality of the process should (but apparently does not) tell those who believe in a "soul" or other entity that sustains consciousness post-death that we are being prepared to participate within an equally brutal space of existence. If so, you seem to have done well in boot camp.

This fine conversation offers the space for a preliminary consideration of human purpose.
  • Suppose that there actually is an entity capable of achieving consciousness that is physically integrated with the human brain, yet not a biological entity.
  • It cannot be the "soul" of religious lore, because souls are non-physical spirit thingies and by definition cannot be integrated with a physical mechanism. (I call it "beon.")
  • Suppose that beon has not been created by some higher, more capable being, and therefore is a natural component of the universe-- perhaps the pre-universe-- with no deliberate origin.
  • Suppose that although beon has the potential to achieve consciousness, it cannot do so without help.
  • Could the purpose of the brain-beon connection be so simple as to guide beon into a level of consciousness that it would otherwise not achieve?
Greylorn

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7076
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:18 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:53 pm
A book titled, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul explains these concepts in detail. It also discusses some ancillary physics principles (e.g. energy, basic thermodynamics, and entropy) that are essential to understanding the book's primary ideas. Regrettably, the book did not fly off the shelves when published in 2012, and is difficult to obtain. It would answer your questions.

On a forum like this, the best I can do is to address questions posted by forum participants who are genuinely curious about the subject, either have or are willing to obtain the background knowledge necessary to honestly engage the subject, and are willing to explore the implications offered by alternative ideas.

However, I prefer to answer thoughtful questions proposed by informed individuals. Tell me what an electromagnetic wave looks like? What does the note, middle-C, look like?
There is no such thing as an informed human being. Information is not human, human is information... sorry to inform you. Information is invisible.

The mind knows itself full stop. You already have all the answers, if you can't find them within your mind, you do not stand a cat in hells chance of finding them anywhere else for there is nowhere else but mind. You are mind, and any looking for the mind, would be like looking for your pet in the meat-market.


Anything written in a book is the mind knowing itself, and while many authors appear ..there is no author to be found, and only one reader of every story no one ever wrote.

You can make this as thoughtfully as fancy or as flavorable as you like using many high sounding meaninless words, it's all just more paint on the screen.

Makes no difference to the screen. ..and will not bring you any closer to the screen. You are the screen. The screen is Nondual Consciousness.

.

Try not to overthink this, it's very simple.

.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greta » Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:00 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:02 pm
The brain is a superbly engineered machine, and as such it makes use of all available methods to deal with what an information expert might call "bandwidth limitations." Similar techniques (numerical analysis) are used by computer programmers to solve math problems that otherwise would be intractable. The mathematical term is interpolation, just a big word for "connecting the dots, mathematically." Without it we could not watch movies or TV, all involving apparently moving images, a sequence of frames that do not move at all.

But upon watching a movie composed of frames, you've seen the movie, the events represented by the frame sequence. You recall the action, combined within your brain with language to tie events together in the context of motivations. Your memories of a compelling movie can be stronger than real life experiences, yet all come to you via the same interpolating brain. All are "real."

The interesting question to me is the nature of the actual entity, if such a thing exists, that receives and sometimes ponders the information collected by the brain, irrespective of its source.

If such an entity exists, it should be capable of receiving direct information that is not processed by the brain. Surely such information would have a unique level of clarity and intensity, leading perhaps to the brain's secondary interpretation as a "mystical" experience.
I like that: "interpolation".

There's a range of views about the "entity". Many, like Dennett, say it simply doesn't exist. Some say it's the only thing that exists. Some think it exists in other dimensions and "pokes through" into our dimensions like plants pushing out from their roots. (A notion I love but is of course most speculative).

At this stage I tentatively think that the entity - our sense of being, qualia - is our metabolic system. I digest/breathe/circulate therefore I am!) The irony is that a Dan Dennett interview gave me the idea because he describes consciousness as a process like digestion. It makes sense, just that one system has a stronger emphasis on processing energy and the other on information. In short, an emphasis on internality and environment respectively. So it may be the case that consciousness is not overrated by humans, rather we underrate the import of digestive processes.

If you wish to understand the nature of your inner being the logical place to look is within, with x-ray machines and MRIs less painful and messy than surgical investigations ...

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Greta wrote:It would be interesting to know how some of the amazing near death experiences would have played out if the people weren't resuscitated. It's easiest to imagine the imperceptible fadeout of sleep but - then again - it's death, not sleep so who knows?

I always liked that famous JBS Haldane quote: "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose".
I'd not come across the Haldane quote, so thank you. Brilliant! I am certain that he is correct.

Dead people have tried to convey their death experiences via seances and channeled books. Most of these are fake, just metaphysical bulllshit. Those few who limit their comments to actual experiences have felt trustworthy. Also, upon being competently regressed to a previous life experience, some will recall details of their demise. Some deaths come welcomed and peaceful; others tortuous. Kind of what one might logically expect.
I picked up the quote from this fascinating TED Talk book reading from Richard Dawkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

Dr Ian Stevenson researched possible cases of reincarnation in west Asia for decades and, unlike many in such fields, retained strong rigour throughout: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/be ... st-cynics/

A scary thought, having to just keep coming back and going through ... all that again, and again. No wonder some Indians retreat into caves trying to find a life hack to escape The Wheel. "NO!! NOT THE TEENS AGAIN! PLEASE MERCYYYyyyyyyy". :D

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Greta wrote:My guess is that IIT is on the right track, that there would be thresholds of feedback complexity that bring about emergent phenomena. ... humans are the universe finding out about itself (or something like that).


That's a poetic interpretation, and about as helpful to understanding the universe and human consciousness as is a fine poem like Poe's "The Raven." There seems to me to be a time for beauty, and another for logic. An observer who fails to see the beauty in our universe is a nitwit or maybe just a house cat. That cannot be said for those who fail to see its logic-- only for those who fail to seek it.

The poetic interpretation fails to address the beginnings of the universe. For example, if one believes (like Siddartha Gautama) that consciousness arises as an epiphenomenon resulting from brain activity-- what is the brain's origin? Or the universe necessary to support its existence?
It may be that the same processes keep on occurring on different scales and in different domains.

Both the universe and life start out simply and grow into something more impressive.

Brains grew from nerve nets, which could be thought of as a brain spread diffusely around the body without a strong central coordinating functionality. Again, evolution provides clues here. The simplest animal is the sea sponge, which is the only animal without a nervous system. There are experiments where sea sponges have been put through a blender (poor bastards) but they simply reform themselves because, in truth, sponges span that gap between colonial super-organisms and true organisms. So a nervous system is in essence the iron control of an organism's constituent cells, the removal of all autonomy for the larger entity.

Now consider the hyper-coordinated "microbes" within us - our eukaryotic cells. It's interesting that simple free living bacteria are considered to be discrete living things - no matter how obligated they may be to host organisms - while our eukaryotic cells are often thought of as lesser, "mere biological machines".

However, eukaryotic cells are vastly more complex and capable than mere bacteria and archaea. Denying our individual cells as the same status as life forms is almost akin to saying that humans are less "alive" than less organised and controlled animals :) It looks like perhaps an interesting intrinsic bias in play here, though I can't put my finger on it yet. All suggestion appreciated.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Greta wrote:It's all very odd. Awareness seems to come on gradually, bit by bit certain capacities arise. Basically, each of us individually follows the path of human evolution - from microbe to adult human - and our consciousness gradually dawns, starting with basic senses [etc]
Yours is an insightful presentation of the processes involved in coming into consciousness. I'll guess that they come from the personal experiences of someone who loves and cares and perhaps too often trusts. I hope that some of your insights have been written down and published, and that you'll at least PM the info needed to find them. If you've not published your thoughts in some form, please consider getting off your ass and doing so! :)

The brutality of the process should (but apparently does not) tell those who believe in a "soul" or other entity that sustains consciousness post-death that we are being prepared to participate within an equally brutal space of existence.
Thanks very much! That's why I'm on these forums - interesting chats with intelligent and curious people, not fighting with one-note obsessives :)

I recently did get off my bum and am currently writing philosophical and futurist sci fi short stories. I'm not great with characterisation or plotting so the dream is to come up with a concept like Philip K. Dick managed with "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep at Night?" that will become the germ of a (HUGE :lol: ) movie that brings the words to life.

If you or anyone has any ideas how to get finished stories to the right people, I am all ears!

Greylorn Ell wrote:This fine conversation offers the space for a preliminary consideration of human purpose.
  • Suppose that there actually is an entity capable of achieving consciousness that is physically integrated with the human brain, yet not a biological entity.
  • It cannot be the "soul" of religious lore, because souls are non-physical spirit thingies and by definition cannot be integrated with a physical mechanism. (I call it "beon.")
  • Suppose that beon has not been created by some higher, more capable being, and therefore is a natural component of the universe-- perhaps the pre-universe-- with no deliberate origin.
  • Suppose that although beon has the potential to achieve consciousness, it cannot do so without help.
  • Could the purpose of the brain-beon connection be so simple as to guide beon into a level of consciousness that it would otherwise not achieve?
I can think of one naturalistic way that something like God can exist. If life persist for long enough, it will become increasing godlike to our perception. The Stelliferous Era of the universe is posited to last about a trillion years. From there numerous old and quieted red dwarf stars will continue to glow on in a relatively quiet universe with few hazardous flying boulders and radiation emissions.

That means that the universe is perhaps about a hundredth of the way into its development. If the universe was human, it might be taking its first shaky steps ... or make its first shaky attempts to move around in space :)

So, imagine life that passed through each Great Filter - over hundreds of billions of years. Perhaps as each existential challenge is met the peak life forms (or post-life forms) eventually transcends physical threats, maybe tapping into the quantum foam itself?

Still, even this is a limited way of thinking about it because who says this is the first universe? It might be the billionth - or trillionth - so, if emergent "post life" can survive all physical dangers, then the accumulation of each new "Ultimate Being" could create something thoroughly godlike.

If such an entity (or entities) exist then it may be that each emergence of nature is expressing the nature of the entities, pushing itself through into matter. That might be your beon?

Then again, this might be the first universe :lol:

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Belinda » Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:59 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
The brain is a superbly engineered machine, and as such it makes use of all available methods to deal with what an information expert might call "bandwidth limitations." Similar techniques (numerical analysis) are used by computer programmers to solve math problems that otherwise would be intractable. The mathematical term is interpolation, just a big word for "connecting the dots, mathematically." Without it we could not watch movies or TV, all involving apparently moving images, a sequence of frames that do not move at all.

But upon watching a movie composed of frames, you've seen the movie, the events represented by the frame sequence. You recall the action, combined within your brain with language to tie events together in the context of motivations. Your memories of a compelling movie can be stronger than real life experiences, yet all come to you via the same interpolating brain. All are "real."

The interesting question to me is the nature of the actual entity, if such a thing exists, that receives and sometimes ponders the information collected by the brain, irrespective of its source.

If such an entity exists, it should be capable of receiving direct information that is not processed by the brain. Surely such information would have a unique level of clarity and intensity, leading perhaps to the brain's secondary interpretation as a "mystical" experience.
The entity is the subject of its experience of a symbolic reality. Human beings and other animals experience brain events as if they are realities outside of the brain.So we may say that animals experience symbolic events 'outside of the brain'.

Humans differ from other animals in that we humans evolve by way of culture at least as much as we evolve by way of genetic inheritance.

In order for AI to match the quality of human intelligence the AI would have to fulfil the two extra conditions that allow it to be less clockwork and more human:

1. Evolve future machines by way of symbolic belief systems based upon , not mathematical deductioni.e . joining up the dots, but empirical induction which is coloured by cultural memory. That's to say the AI machine which is the same quality as the human intelligence would need to be capable of faults and inconsistencies. That which John Keats called "negative capability".

2. Not only info from the environment beyond the brain but also memory would, in the case of AI which has the human quality, be prejudiced by culture. The effect of that prejudice is similar to that where the info comes from the environment beyond the brain.
Culture pertains to both long term and short term memory.

The human subject is subject to culture which is not simply analogous to a computer's memory , but dynamically shapes and determines the human subjects of that culture and tolerates the irrational.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Dalek Prime » Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:58 pm

Very good point, Belinda. The human brain has fault tolerances that a machine does not, even with redundancies.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:38 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:59 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
The brain is a superbly engineered machine, and as such it makes use of all available methods to deal with what an information expert might call "bandwidth limitations." Similar techniques (numerical analysis) are used by computer programmers to solve math problems that otherwise would be intractable. The mathematical term is interpolation, just a big word for "connecting the dots, mathematically." Without it we could not watch movies or TV, all involving apparently moving images, a sequence of frames that do not move at all.

But upon watching a movie composed of frames, you've seen the movie, the events represented by the frame sequence. You recall the action, combined within your brain with language to tie events together in the context of motivations. Your memories of a compelling movie can be stronger than real life experiences, yet all come to you via the same interpolating brain. All are "real."

The interesting question to me is the nature of the actual entity, if such a thing exists, that receives and sometimes ponders the information collected by the brain, irrespective of its source.

If such an entity exists, it should be capable of receiving direct information that is not processed by the brain. Surely such information would have a unique level of clarity and intensity, leading perhaps to the brain's secondary interpretation as a "mystical" experience.
Belinda wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:59 am
The entity is the subject of its experience of a symbolic reality. Human beings and other animals experience brain events as if they are realities outside of the brain.So we may say that animals experience symbolic events 'outside of the brain'.
Belinda,
I appreciate your input and hope to see more from you in the future. Nonetheless, some of your comments are either incorrect, or, more likely, inaccurately stated. (I do that a lot.) For example, you wrote: " The entity is the subject of its experience..." I've read enough of your posts to be 90% certain that you do not believe such nonsense. An entity, whether conscioius, sentient, or inanimate, is not its experience. It is influenced by its experience. The word "is" is too often used by sloppy writers. I expect more clarity from you, as from occasional others with coherent minds.
Belinda wrote: Humans differ from other animals in that we humans evolve by way of culture at least as much as we evolve by way of genetic inheritance.
You've obviously not been subscribing to "National Geographic" or watching the often absurd "Nit Geo" documentary tv channels. Animals are a function of critter culture. They are mimickers. Watch an old "Tarzan" movie and analyze the chimpanzee's behavior: viewers are expected to see conscious behavior in the critter's activities, and way too many of them do so. If you were to investigate the behind-scene action you'd find that the animal is merely mimicking the off-screen behavior (with practice) of its trainer.

Low-IQ humans are driven by culture, just like chimpanzees. Genuinely intelligent humans (they are a tiny minority, but can be found) are independent of culture, except when they choose to be consciously synchronized with it, typically as a survival mechanism.
In order for AI to match the quality of human intelligence the AI would have to fulfil the two extra conditions that allow it to be less clockwork and more human:

1. Evolve future machines by way of symbolic belief systems based upon , not mathematical deductioni.e . joining up the dots, but empirical induction which is coloured by cultural memory. That's to say the AI machine which is the same quality as the human intelligence would need to be capable of faults and inconsistencies. That which John Keats called "negative capability".

2. Not only info from the environment beyond the brain but also memory would, in the case of AI which has the human quality, be prejudiced by culture. The effect of that prejudice is similar to that where the info comes from the environment beyond the brain.
Culture pertains to both long term and short term memory.

The human subject is subject to culture which is not simply analogous to a computer's memory , but dynamically shapes and determines the human subjects of that culture and tolerates the irrational.
I think that you have mistakenly confused human (and critter) culture as a primary force behind human development. This could be a subject for future conversation. I think that language is a significantly more powerful determinant of large scale human development than culture, and is ultimately a determinant of culture.

Both language and culture influence whatever genuinely intelligent human minds might appear, and determine how the ideas generated by those minds are received. Imagine Big Albert 's mind born in Tiajuana or Thailand. GPS would not exist.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:21 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:18 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:53 pm
A book titled, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul explains these concepts in detail. It also discusses some ancillary physics principles (e.g. energy, basic thermodynamics, and entropy) that are essential to understanding the book's primary ideas. Regrettably, the book did not fly off the shelves when published in 2012, and is difficult to obtain. It would answer your questions.

On a forum like this, the best I can do is to address questions posted by forum participants who are genuinely curious about the subject, either have or are willing to obtain the background knowledge necessary to honestly engage the subject, and are willing to explore the implications offered by alternative ideas.

However, I prefer to answer thoughtful questions proposed by informed individuals. Tell me what an electromagnetic wave looks like? What does the note, middle-C, look like?
There is no such thing as an informed human being. Information is not human, human is information... sorry to inform you. Information is invisible.

The mind knows itself full stop. You already have all the answers, if you can't find them within your mind, you do not stand a cat in hells chance of finding them anywhere else for there is nowhere else but mind. You are mind, and any looking for the mind, would be like looking for your pet in the meat-market.


Anything written in a book is the mind knowing itself, and while many authors appear ..there is no author to be found, and only one reader of every story no one ever wrote.

You can make this as thoughtfully as fancy or as flavorable as you like using many high sounding meaninless words, it's all just more paint on the screen.

Makes no difference to the screen. ..and will not bring you any closer to the screen. You are the screen. The screen is Nondual Consciousness.

.

Try not to overthink this, it's very simple.

.
Thank you for your reply. However, it is lost on me. I'm an engineer by trade and a problem solver by function. As such, I underthink all problems, whenever possible, because I seek simple solutions. You've seem to have adopted the classical religionist approach that I'd summarize as "we cannot solve the problem."

Perhaps you are correct. Nonetheless, I operate from, and think from, the position that if enough good minds engage a problem, however intractable it might at first appear, some of them, or one of them will solve the problem.

Given our inherent philosophical differences I cannot anticipate a reason to communicate with you again. I'd love to find someone out in forumland who actually wants to engage and solve serious philosophical problems.

Best regards,
Greylorn

Ramu
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:55 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ramu » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:49 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:21 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:18 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:53 pm
A book titled, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul explains these concepts in detail. It also discusses some ancillary physics principles (e.g. energy, basic thermodynamics, and entropy) that are essential to understanding the book's primary ideas. Regrettably, the book did not fly off the shelves when published in 2012, and is difficult to obtain. It would answer your questions.

On a forum like this, the best I can do is to address questions posted by forum participants who are genuinely curious about the subject, either have or are willing to obtain the background knowledge necessary to honestly engage the subject, and are willing to explore the implications offered by alternative ideas.

However, I prefer to answer thoughtful questions proposed by informed individuals. Tell me what an electromagnetic wave looks like? What does the note, middle-C, look like?
There is no such thing as an informed human being. Information is not human, human is information... sorry to inform you. Information is invisible.

The mind knows itself full stop. You already have all the answers, if you can't find them within your mind, you do not stand a cat in hells chance of finding them anywhere else for there is nowhere else but mind. You are mind, and any looking for the mind, would be like looking for your pet in the meat-market.


Anything written in a book is the mind knowing itself, and while many authors appear ..there is no author to be found, and only one reader of every story no one ever wrote.

You can make this as thoughtfully as fancy or as flavorable as you like using many high sounding meaninless words, it's all just more paint on the screen.

Makes no difference to the screen. ..and will not bring you any closer to the screen. You are the screen. The screen is Nondual Consciousness.

.

Try not to overthink this, it's very simple.

.
Thank you for your reply. However, it is lost on me. I'm an engineer by trade and a problem solver by function. As such, I underthink all problems, whenever possible, because I seek simple solutions. You've seem to have adopted the classical religionist approach that I'd summarize as "we cannot solve the problem."

Perhaps you are correct. Nonetheless, I operate from, and think from, the position that if enough good minds engage a problem, however intractable it might at first appear, some of them, or one of them will solve the problem.

Given our inherent philosophical differences I cannot anticipate a reason to communicate with you again. I'd love to find someone out in forumland who actually wants to engage and solve serious philosophical problems.

Best regards,
Greylorn
Shes talking about non duality, not religion. You're falling into the pre rational/post rational trap. Religion Is pre rational. Then along came rationalism, then spirituality or post rationalism. The fallacy comes from grouping dogmatic religion and spiritual non duality as the same. They're completely different. God is viewed as separate from man in traditional religious orthodoxy. Non duality is a view of Oneness. Their is no separation.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests