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 » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:08 am

Blaggard wrote:There's nothing but humility anyone can be right, but it takes a man to be wrong. Glad you stayed on this forum, where would I be without my Nemesis Greylorm, bored out of my mind that's where.

And yes I know that A_Uk but little or no one follows the 0 or 1 model any more, if they have any sense. If they have any sense, they would look at computerised neural networks and just say, they are close to useless. Takes an age for them to learn what a baby learns at 6 months. We have along way to go, before we solve the easy problem of the brain vis a vis consciousness, let alone the hard one.

In essence though, we can't do 6 billion megaflops a second of multi tasking threaded ram. We can barely do more than one thing at once, pat your head and stroke your bollocks... don't get me wrong computers do make up our deficiencies, in a way that would of seemed like magic even in the 2110s, if it weren't just us making it work. But we are at heart just messing around with AI, there's nothing like intelligence, let's be honest. :D
Blaggard,
Indeed, nothing like.

People like you and I require a nemesis or two, and invite them. This is not a bad thing. The NFL and the annual Superbowl would not exist without the rivalry between George Halas' Chicago Bears and Curly Lambeau's Green Bay Packers. On the field, the opposing teams did their best to beat the shit out of one another, yet George and Curly were once teammates, and were personal friends until Curly's demise.

I watched a hard-fought game between my favorite team, the Packers, and the Dallas Cowboys yesterday-- a well-hyped resurrection of the 1967 Ice Bowl, which I attended, and which was 50 degrees colder than Sunday's game that was played on a balmy 20+F degree day. At the end of the game, players from both sides talked, shook hands, hugged. The opposing coaches, who had a history, embraced, honestly as men will do. The combination of intense, difficult battle, and personal reconciliation at the end of it, comes from the game's officials whose job is to implement the rules of engagement.

In any rivalry, there are rules of engagement. You and I have not established ours.

Our first encounter was positive, and it went sour. I probably wrote something sloppily, ill-considered, and you took my words personally. Since then, you and I have abandoned fair rules of engagement.

The key to any constructive rivalry, to make it work in the context of any kind of interpersonal engagement, is to fight fairly. Find some mutually agreeable rules, and engage accordingly. I want a rivalry with you, because there is no point in exchanging ideas with fools, or with those who agree with me. Perhaps you could propose some rules of engagement, well aware that I will attempt to modify them to favor my agendas?

Greylorn

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11983
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:55 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
At your behest I looked up the connectionist model and found it so broad and vague as to be useless.
How so as it is an applied field in Computing and such models are being used to model all kinds of things but in the main all those functions that appear to require parallel processing where we have found it very difficult to write a knowledge-based algorithm, e.g. perception, movement, etc.

My point was simple, your claim that a computational model cannot be applied to us uses a narrow view of what a computer is and if you accept that neural-net computers are computers then your claim was in error.
The nature of information/energy transfer mechanisms requires connectedness. No big deal here. Buildings require connectedness between bricks, mortar, steel girders, etc. Your pants require connectedness between their network of threads. Every electrical network, whether brain, computer, or old vacuum tube radio, requires connectedness. As best that I can determine from a brief look, I'd be killing the better part of two weeks to study "connectedness" theory. Unless you can show me some functional value in it, I'll pass on that. Please don't waste my time on such pseudo-intellectual bullshit in the future, thank you!
Not pseudo at all but a well established field in Computing with a sound mathematical base.

Given what you've just said how can you support your earlier statement that there is information being passed that is not connected by the neuronal network? What connections are being used and what information is it?
During my engineering days I worked with small teams of people who began an instrument-development process with different ideas about how best to get the job done. This process worked extremely well until I landed in a biotech company, developing a peptide synthesizer, whose dumb fuck upper management had "gotten a good deal, nice price," and were sitting on about 100 Apple 2E motherboards in their warehouse that had to be used to control the synthesizer, nevermind that IBM's PC had moved to the then-modern Intel 286 chip. I quit while I was ahead and the silly company went belly-up. Beliefs and the refusal to admit mistakes ruled that place. We don't have to all be ruled by our beliefs and opinions. These were all instilled in us by others. We don't need to own religionist or Darwinist opinions simply because that's the stuff we were taught, and which our "peers" believe. We can think for ourselves.
Which is why I studied Philosophy.
We do not even need to be right all the time. Good thing, because we rarely are. What we can do, right or wrong, is contribute to the solution of a worthwhile problem.
Sure and that's what Philosophy has been doing since dot, although in the main what it has found is that all it can do is clarify the problems and identify the dead ends, as many of the problems have the problem of how we decide what an acceptable solution is.
Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of quibbling amongst one another as to who's right or wrong, who's opinions are the best, we acted like a team of cogent thinkers trying to understand serious issues like consciousness? There are a number of intelligent, well informed, and divergently informed people on this thread. We could get to the core of the serious philosophical problems and solve them.
Wittgenstein thought he'd pretty much solved them all and the Newtonian metaphysicians had thought that they'd established the framework for deciding what would be a solution. So what would be the framework for deciding that we had a solution to the issues of consciousness given that you think any answer is incorrect unless it agrees with your metaphysic?

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:06 pm

Ginkgo;
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:There is a tremendous difference between feeling emotion and studying emotion. This idea is very difficult for me to convey to other people, and I don't know why. They will always talk about how they feel, or how I feel, rather than talk about what emotion actually is and how it works. I study what it is and how it works, because I study consciousness. I don't give two hoots about how anyone feels about it.
Perhaps it might help if you define those mental state that have qualia and those that don't. For example, talking about an emotional experience in retrospect is different to actually having that emotional experience at the time.
No. This would not help as you have missed my point entirely. Most people do. Whether the emotional experience is in "retrospect" or if it is now, it is still subjective. I do not study the subjective experience of emotion. I study emotion objectively. Emotion is the only aspect of consciousness, that I know of, that can be studied objectively from a third-person perspective.

Let us do a thought experiment. Do you have a pet? We will say that you have a dog that you love, and you have taken that dog to the veterinarian for it's annual check up. The veterinarian sadly advises you that your dog is unconscious, and that it will take a complex surgery to fix your dog, and that you need to pay $1,000 down in order for him to start the procedure. When you walked into the room, you saw your dog in a cage. The dog yelped when he saw you, is wiggling madly in excitement, is wagging his tail and beseeching you with his eyes, while pawing at the door of the cage to get out.

Do you pay the $1,000, or do you take your dog to a veterinarian, who is not whacked in the head? Most of us would get the dog out of there, because we know full well that the dog is conscious. So how do we know?

According to most of philosophy and even science, we can not know if another person or specie is conscious because we can not know their thoughts. Thoughts denote consciousness, and we have no way to tell if there are any thoughts in the dog's mind/brain, so we can not know the dog is conscious. I seriously suspect that the premise that thought denotes consciousness is hogwash.

We know the dog is conscious because of his activities that show his feelings and emotions. No understanding of his thoughts is required in order to know that the dog is conscious. I suspect that Descartes would have been more correct if he had stated, "I feel; therefore, I am."

So I study emotion and have found that a lot of things that did not make sense, do now.

Gee

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:11 pm

Gee wrote:Ginkgo;
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:There is a tremendous difference between feeling emotion and studying emotion. This idea is very difficult for me to convey to other people, and I don't know why. They will always talk about how they feel, or how I feel, rather than talk about what emotion actually is and how it works. I study what it is and how it works, because I study consciousness. I don't give two hoots about how anyone feels about it.
Perhaps it might help if you define those mental state that have qualia and those that don't. For example, talking about an emotional experience in retrospect is different to actually having that emotional experience at the time.
No. This would not help as you have missed my point entirely. Most people do. Whether the emotional experience is in "retrospect" or if it is now, it is still subjective. I do not study the subjective experience of emotion. I study emotion objectively. Emotion is the only aspect of consciousness, that I know of, that can be studied objectively from a third-person perspective.

Let us do a thought experiment. Do you have a pet? We will say that you have a dog that you love, and you have taken that dog to the veterinarian for it's annual check up. The veterinarian sadly advises you that your dog is unconscious, and that it will take a complex surgery to fix your dog, and that you need to pay $1,000 down in order for him to start the procedure. When you walked into the room, you saw your dog in a cage. The dog yelped when he saw you, is wiggling madly in excitement, is wagging his tail and beseeching you with his eyes, while pawing at the door of the cage to get out.

Do you pay the $1,000, or do you take your dog to a veterinarian, who is not whacked in the head? Most of us would get the dog out of there, because we know full well that the dog is conscious. So how do we know?

According to most of philosophy and even science, we can not know if another person or specie is conscious because we can not know their thoughts. Thoughts denote consciousness, and we have no way to tell if there are any thoughts in the dog's mind/brain, so we can not know the dog is conscious. I seriously suspect that the premise that thought denotes consciousness is hogwash.

We know the dog is conscious because of his activities that show his feelings and emotions. No understanding of his thoughts is required in order to know that the dog is conscious. I suspect that Descartes would have been more correct if he had stated, "I feel; therefore, I am."

So I study emotion and have found that a lot of things that did not make sense, do now.

Gee

This is a materialist explanation for consciousness. Aren't you trying to avoid this?

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:44 am

Ginkgo wrote:
This is a materialist explanation for consciousness. Aren't you trying to avoid this?
The only thing that I am trying to avoid are lies, false premises, and misrepresentations.

I have never studied the "materialist explanation", but think that any explanation from a materialist would involve matter. Are you telling me that materialists think that emotion is made up of matter?

If so, I think they would be wrong as it seems that emotion can jump time, and is not restricted to time and space as we understand it.

Gee

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 Jan 14, 2015 1:00 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:...
At your behest I looked up the connectionist model and found it so broad and vague as to be useless.
How so as it is an applied field in Computing and such models are being used to model all kinds of things but in the main all those functions that appear to require parallel processing where we have found it very difficult to write a knowledge-based algorithm, e.g. perception, movement, etc.

My point was simple, your claim that a computational model cannot be applied to us uses a narrow view of what a computer is and if you accept that neural-net computers are computers then your claim was in error.
The nature of information/energy transfer mechanisms requires connectedness. No big deal here. Buildings require connectedness between bricks, mortar, steel girders, etc. Your pants require connectedness between their network of threads. Every electrical network, whether brain, computer, or old vacuum tube radio, requires connectedness. As best that I can determine from a brief look, I'd be killing the better part of two weeks to study "connectedness" theory. Unless you can show me some functional value in it, I'll pass on that. Please don't waste my time on such pseudo-intellectual bullshit in the future, thank you!
Not pseudo at all but a well established field in Computing with a sound mathematical base.

Given what you've just said how can you support your earlier statement that there is information being passed that is not connected by the neuronal network? What connections are being used and what information is it?
During my engineering days I worked with small teams of people who began an instrument-development process with different ideas about how best to get the job done. This process worked extremely well until I landed in a biotech company, developing a peptide synthesizer, whose dumb fuck upper management had "gotten a good deal, nice price," and were sitting on about 100 Apple 2E motherboards in their warehouse that had to be used to control the synthesizer, nevermind that IBM's PC had moved to the then-modern Intel 286 chip. I quit while I was ahead and the silly company went belly-up. Beliefs and the refusal to admit mistakes ruled that place. We don't have to all be ruled by our beliefs and opinions. These were all instilled in us by others. We don't need to own religionist or Darwinist opinions simply because that's the stuff we were taught, and which our "peers" believe. We can think for ourselves.
Which is why I studied Philosophy.
We do not even need to be right all the time. Good thing, because we rarely are. What we can do, right or wrong, is contribute to the solution of a worthwhile problem.
Sure and that's what Philosophy has been doing since dot, although in the main what it has found is that all it can do is clarify the problems and identify the dead ends, as many of the problems have the problem of how we decide what an acceptable solution is.
Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of quibbling amongst one another as to who's right or wrong, who's opinions are the best, we acted like a team of cogent thinkers trying to understand serious issues like consciousness? There are a number of intelligent, well informed, and divergently informed people on this thread. We could get to the core of the serious philosophical problems and solve them.
Wittgenstein thought he'd pretty much solved them all and the Newtonian metaphysicians had thought that they'd established the framework for deciding what would be a solution. So what would be the framework for deciding that we had a solution to the issues of consciousness given that you think any answer is incorrect unless it agrees with your metaphysic?
Auk,
My limited educational background included electrical engineering and both digital and analog computer programming, so I have a fair conceptual understanding of how computers work.

A thoughtful philosopher might have understood my comments about connectedness, had he not been so anxious to bitch about my ideas. Read them again please. Every functional system depends upon connectedness, like the threads in your pants and the relationship between earth and moon. However, you've not connected your connectionist notions in any functional manner to an explanation for human consciousness.

Beon Theory is all about the core and crux of human consciousness. So, feel free to remain completely ignorant about a theory that you do not like and have not studied, and bitch from the sidelines.

Our conversations could be more interesting if you actually read my stuff. But, alas, as an impoverished Brit living on national welfare, you cannot afford to buy a book. The certain knowledge that my ideas will seriously challenge yours could not possibly have anything to do with that, could they?

Your last question is kind of interesting. What would be the framework? I haven't the slightest clue.

Seems to me like that's a philosopher's question, and I'm not a philosopher. I'm a simple engineer, a problem solver. In the course of my career, I entered situations in which the "framework" had already been chosen. A telescope was being launched into space. It had already been designed and I had no control over that. That framework was cast in concrete. The university for which I worked had engineered an instrument package mounted in the front end of the instrument. Cast in concrete. But no one was around to write the computer code controlling that instrument or managing the telemetry it might generate, except some dumb-fuck contractors hired by NASA who were totally unqualified for their job, despite a million-dollar computer and four programmers at their disposal.

So I took on that job with an $18,000 computer, made some choices, solved the problems. The contractors fulfilled their government contract six months after launch by emulating my code.

My point is that frameworks are another guy's job. A building starts with an architect's design. That's the framework. Then a gang of specialists get together and fill in the framework, maybe with bricks and mortar, maybe with structural steel and glass panels. I'm a bricks and mortar guy, not an architect. The only independent framework that I designed and filled in with concrete foundation and wood, was my pump shed. It's handled 60mph winds despite a risky aspect ratio, and kept the pipes warm enough in winter.

I could do that because I'd done some construction work, on highways and buildings while getting through school. But I've taken only a single philosophy course, while my first philosophy book was at the printers. An introductory course, it was enough to show me that philosophers do not know jack shit about their field and are mostly in disagreement. In that course I learned that philosophers fear nothing worse than an idea that can be proven-- it would destroy their job security, which seems to me to be dependent upon the ability to bullshit freely and condemn any idea that can cut through their bullshit because it can be proven.

Same as with religionists.

There is no possible way to construct the "framework" you request. If I proposed such a thing, stressing evidence and facts, you philosophers would waste my time objecting to my framework. There is no way that philosophers can construct a "framework" such that a theory fitting within its confines will satisfy them. Were such a framework invented and a suitable theory inserted, you fuckers would change the framework. There is no way that I'll be sucked into such a worthless conversation.

So, AUK, you are the philosopher-- the architect. The framework design job is yours. I do not want it. Get off your ass and answer your own question, unless you are as unqualified as I am to do so. Design your pump shed first, and then I'll see if I want to drill a hole and install a pump, pipes, tank, and electrical stuff.

BTW, do you happen to know of a good internet Charm School?

Greylorn

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Blaggard » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:04 am

I agree Grey, let us start again. Ad hominem is no way to learn anything, except about our baser instincts.

Consider me recondite from now on. If I can forgive my sins, I certainly can forgive yours. :)

You're a smart man, like anyone here, but like anyone here or there, wisdom is a cost few will pay in the heat of the moment.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:26 am

Gee wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
This is a materialist explanation for consciousness. Aren't you trying to avoid this?
The only thing that I am trying to avoid are lies, false premises, and misrepresentations.

I have never studied the "materialist explanation", but think that any explanation from a materialist would involve matter. Are you telling me that materialists think that emotion is made up of matter?
That's correct the materialist would say that emotions are nothing but matter in motion. This is why they also believe they can solve the problem of other minds.
Gee wrote:
If so, I think they would be wrong as it seems that emotion can jump time, and is not restricted to time and space as we understand it.

Gee
Yes, I think they are wrong but your thought experiment is demonstrating that mental states are behavioural states. For example, having a mental state of me being happy is the same as being in that physical state. One could introduce a functionalist explanation, but it wouldn't solve the problem.


P.S.

Fixed up the errors in this post to say what I wanted to say, not what I thought I said. On day I'll learn to type.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:03 am

Ginkgo;
Ginkgo wrote:That's correct the materialist would say that emotions are nothing but matter in motion. This is why they also believe they can solve the problem of other minds.
A few points: Emotions are not limited by time and space; last time I checked matter is limited by time and space. How do they explain that?

My conclusions are that emotion is made up of information, thought, etc., so are they saying that thoughts are material?

What problem of "other minds"?
Ginkgo wrote:Yes, I think they are wrong but your thought experiment is demonstrating that mental states are behavioural states. For example, having a mental state of me being happy is the same as being in that physical state. One could introduce a functionalist explanation, but it wouldn't solve the problem.
No. It can not be carried that far. The experiment only shows that emotion is an external communication, so something is communicating. Just as a computer can emulate the processes of a brain regarding thought, a mechanical stuffed dog can emulate the emotions of a real dog.

In order to think there was a "mental state", there would have to be other evidence of life, instincts, reproduction, etc.

Gee

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 Jan 14, 2015 4:45 am

Gee wrote:Ginkgo;
Ginkgo wrote:
Gee wrote:There is a tremendous difference between feeling emotion and studying emotion. This idea is very difficult for me to convey to other people, and I don't know why. They will always talk about how they feel, or how I feel, rather than talk about what emotion actually is and how it works. I study what it is and how it works, because I study consciousness. I don't give two hoots about how anyone feels about it.
Perhaps it might help if you define those mental state that have qualia and those that don't. For example, talking about an emotional experience in retrospect is different to actually having that emotional experience at the time.
No. This would not help as you have missed my point entirely. Most people do. Whether the emotional experience is in "retrospect" or if it is now, it is still subjective. I do not study the subjective experience of emotion. I study emotion objectively. Emotion is the only aspect of consciousness, that I know of, that can be studied objectively from a third-person perspective.

Let us do a thought experiment. Do you have a pet? We will say that you have a dog that you love, and you have taken that dog to the veterinarian for it's annual check up. The veterinarian sadly advises you that your dog is unconscious, and that it will take a complex surgery to fix your dog, and that you need to pay $1,000 down in order for him to start the procedure. When you walked into the room, you saw your dog in a cage. The dog yelped when he saw you, is wiggling madly in excitement, is wagging his tail and beseeching you with his eyes, while pawing at the door of the cage to get out.

Do you pay the $1,000, or do you take your dog to a veterinarian, who is not whacked in the head? Most of us would get the dog out of there, because we know full well that the dog is conscious. So how do we know?

According to most of philosophy and even science, we can not know if another person or specie is conscious because we can not know their thoughts. Thoughts denote consciousness, and we have no way to tell if there are any thoughts in the dog's mind/brain, so we can not know the dog is conscious. I seriously suspect that the premise that thought denotes consciousness is hogwash.

We know the dog is conscious because of his activities that show his feelings and emotions. No understanding of his thoughts is required in order to know that the dog is conscious. I suspect that Descartes would have been more correct if he had stated, "I feel; therefore, I am."

So I study emotion and have found that a lot of things that did not make sense, do now.

Gee
Gee,
You conflate "studying emotions" with expressing your opinions about them.

I've already explained to you that emotions are the programs that run brains. Those programs run dog brains, human brains, and cockroach brains. You've chosen to never address this simple reality because it conflicts with your beliefs that emotions are important and that dogs, some of the stupidest animals on the planet are conscious.

Your comment that you don't give two hoots about how anyone else "feels" pretty much sums you up. You feel, do not think, but like your telepathic dogs have learned to mimic your thoughts, you've become effective at mimicking, and can make your opinions appear as thought. Your feelings, i.e. your brain's beliefs and emotions rule what could have been an interesting, potentially awesome mind. Welcome to the 97% of the human race.

Greylorn

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:20 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Gee wrote:Like consciousness is the product of a body? You must do better than this, or I rest my case.
Show me a consciousness without a body? And whilst I'm still not quite sure what you mean by 'consciousness' if you mean self-awareness as in being aware one is aware then I think that limited to very few bodies.
The only consciousness without a body that I can think of would involve the paranormal/supernatural, and you would simply discount it. Consciousness outside of a body has been documented by psychologists and is known as "personal space".

If you do not understand what I mean by 'consciousness' go to the online SEP, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and look it up. Consciousness means awareness. I am talking about the basic simple awareness that is in all life.

If I mean "self-awareness", then I will say, "self-awareness". Please do not ask this again.
Arising_uk wrote:
"Where" is a damned good question, and I would love to know the answer. If you read "Pure Consciousness?", then you should know that I addressed this issue in that thread, but I will give a brief outline of my thoughts here in this thread.

When I started to study consciousness, I realized that I don't actually know what it is anymore than anyone else, so I could not really examine it. The only thing that I could do is examine how it works, much like how we first examined gravity, or how Freud examined the mind.
I think Freud made up a lot of stuff to save his career, see Jeffrey Masson - Assault on Truth.
I understand Freud's core ideas and realize that most people don't. I also think that Jeffrey is trying to make a name for himself, and that you are missing the point of my above quote. It is not generally a good idea to miss the point and then make a point out of missing the point.
Arising_uk wrote:
Awareness is something that requires at least two points. There needs to be a point to focus from, and a point to focus on, in order for awareness to exist, or something must be aware of something. Emotion is very much like this in that it must be moving in order to exist. Emotion is reactionary and works between things. Feeling is a lesser form of emotion, but still requires more than one thing in order to exist.
Again, do you mean 'consciousness' or 'conscious'? Anyhoo 'awareness' could exist because we recognise others, because we can make a model of the other in our heads and as such make a model of ourselves, it could also be because of the existence of Language which also needs two.
Recognition is part of awareness, but it is not necessary to awareness. Before my cataract surgery, I could see a lot of things badly, but could not see well enough to recognize them. I still knew that they were there -- I was aware of them.

A blade of grass is conscious, in the simplest form, so it is aware. Do you suppose that a blade of grass can make a model of something, or possess language? The only thing that I know to be true about awareness is that it requires at least two points, which means that it requires matter.
Arising_uk wrote:
Knowledge, memory, and thought do not require a second point, as they can exist quietly without motion. We can transfer knowledge, memory, and thought to a book, a CD, a DVD, or any other type of storage and preserve them. So they do not require any type of motion or awareness to exist, but a book without a reader has no value; a CD without a listener has no value; a DVD without a watcher has no value. Knowledge/memory/thought have no value without awareness, so they, in and of themselves, are not consciousness.
Why is not memory a major part of what it is to be a consciousness and why is it that memory is exactly an act of motion and that it provides a duality?
Memory can be part of consciousness, it simply is not consciousness on it's own. As to the rest, I have no idea of what you mean. What duality? Please elaborate.
Arising_uk wrote:
So this was how I first divided consciousness, into the part that required motion to exist and the part that did not require motion to exist. Later, I realized that the second division, knowledge/memory/thought, was internal and private. Another person can not know your thoughts, memories, or knowledge unless you choose to share them. They are completely private.
How is memory different from a thought? How is memory not knowledge? How is knowledge not a thought?
Memory is simply stored thought. Knowledge is simply thought that is believed to be true, rather than just information. They are all variations of the same thing, and they are all internal and private aspects of consciousness.
Arising_uk wrote:
The first division, awareness/feeling/emotion is not private. It requires that second point to exist, so it works between things, between people. A person, who knows you well, can sense your moods, other people can read your emotions through body language, etc., so this division is not private and is shared, unless you intentionally hide it. It is naturally external to the body.
Why is it not that because the body can express such things without conscious control then they can be seen, not that they are actually external to that body but that that body is external to others?
The contents of two containers can not connect magically. This is reality. Something connects them, and as far as we know, that something is called emotion.
Arising_uk wrote:
Emotion also works inter and intra specie, as it is the communicator between you and your dog, your cat, your horse, and many other species. You do not require language to communicate inter specie because emotion does this for us. One could say that emotion is the first communication.
I'd have thought that the emotion is internal and its the expression via the body that allows others to read such things. My kids think I'm angry when I'm just concentrating hard.
Emotion feels like it is internal, but emotion always has a source. The source is not internal. From what I have learned thus far, the source of emotion is something else that is alive, or it is beauty or ugliness. Remember that emotion is about negative and positive, about repulsion and attraction, it is in motion and works between things -- not within them -- although we feel it within us.

I can not explain your children's inability to interpret your moods correctly.
Arising_uk wrote:
Then I studied instincts and learned that all of our basic instincts, the ones that keep us alive, work through feeling and emotion. So we would not survive without emotion. Then I started to compare and look for other ways that emotion works externally and found that most of the supernatural works through emotion, and religion and morality are all about emotion. Religion is the glue that binds a society, and it is not difficult for most people to see the God -- consciousness relationship.
Language is a bigger glue.
Yes. Language does a good job of bringing people together, and it does a good job of pissing people off. Not unlike religions.
Arising_uk wrote:
Of course, science will not take the supernatural or religion seriously, but has to admit that emotion has great power over thought, as it can create or erase our memories, and emotion has great power over mind, as emotion can destroy it, shock, divide it, multiple personality disorder, and bond minds as in the riot mentality. It is not a great stretch to consider that emotion may be influential in creating mind, as there is nothing else that has such influence over mind.
I don't disagree that the endocrine system is a part of what it is to be conscious but not sure if it is in what it is to be a consciousness. We can also change and alter the effects of emotion via reason and thought so not so powerful if we don't wish it.
You think like a biologist. The endocrine system is not necessary. Consider that all life does not have an endocrine system, but all life has some type of hormone in every cell of every body of every specie. As far as we know every specie tested has some form of pheromone that communicates outside of the body. These hormones and pheromones work through feeling and emotion -- inside and outside of the body.

Obviously, you do not understand Freud's teaching. A lot of people who decide to change their emotions end up spending years on a psychologist's couch. (chuckle)
Arising_uk wrote:
So emotion works externally, is the first communication, works inter and intra species, keeps us alive through instincts, and binds us together. Emotion works through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind and can not be known in the rational aspect of mind, it can only be interpreted -- not known. Poets, artists, and religions all try to interpret emotion, which is why "God" is always related to the people doing the interpretation. They invariably include their own selves into their interpretation, just as artists do.
But it only works externally because it expresses via a body, so not external in the sense of being external to a body.
As far as I know and understand, bodies are always necessary to interpret and acknowledge the emotion. Without a body, I don't see how the emotion can exist, which is one of the problems that I have with Beon Theory. On the other hand, the work is done externally, and sometimes, as in the case of bonds, the work can be done without the benefit of the five senses. So something is going on, and it is going on between us, and through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. It is an awareness that is activated by emotion.
Arising_uk wrote:
So I think that emotion is consciousness and that it is simply a speeded up version of awareness. But, of course, science is not going to buy most of the above. Science does admit that bonds do exist, they have no idea of what bonds are, but they are necessary to life. So when talking to science people, I state that bonds connect people, we know this, but consciousness is within people, so is this connection magic? Two separate containers can not magically connect. This is reality. Consciousness is not solely within us.
Agreed, it's a product of us but this does not mean its actually an external thing that can exist without us.
Maybe.

Gee

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 Jan 14, 2015 5:24 am

Blaggard wrote:I agree Grey, let us start again. Ad hominem is no way to learn anything, except about our baser instincts.

Consider me recondite from now on. If I can forgive my sins, I certainly can forgive yours. :)

You're a smart man, like anyone here, but like anyone here or there, wisdom is a cost few will pay in the heat of the moment.
Sins, Blaggard?

What sins? What is a sin?

Suppose that we briefly accepted Christian theory as reality. Did Satan sin against God by disagreeing with him, or did God sin against Satan by adopting an incorrect approach to universe-construction and banishing Satan for disagreeing with him?

Your last statement says it all. The price of wisdom is time.

I don't really know what "forgiveness" means. For many, it implies forgetting things that have happened, but since I still have a functional memory, that doesn't work for me. May I propose that we don't go with the cumbaya forgiveness bullshit, but accept the many times and styles where we have deliberately pissed one another off and enjoyed doing so?

This gives us the freedom to piss one another off again without needing to apologize for doing so.

I have ongoing relationships with people who have ripped me off, with the permission I granted them by not paying attention. Their behavior defines their position on a learning curve, and moves my position.

I do not want to pretend that the anger you and I have traded does not exist, and neither demand nor offer forgiveness. Our conversations led us to the realization that both you and I are arrogant assholes on, with luck, a similar quest. May future personal bickering be about who is the biggest asshole? I own that trophy. Do you really want to challenge me for it? Why not wait until I die, and pass along that trophy to you. Won't be long. And with luck, by then you'll have learned the value of a serious nemesis, and not want his worthless trophy.

I'll PM you with a website that expresses some ideas that contradict your own. If you find them interesting, I'll trust you to say so. If you object to them, same level of trust. Perhaps in the process we can learn from one another. Else, why converse?

Greylorn

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Gee » Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:39 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: Gee,
You conflate "studying emotions" with expressing your opinions about them.

I've already explained to you that emotions are the programs that run brains.
Emotion also runs the body, emotion also balances an ecosystem, emotion also causes the supernatural/paranormal.

I am looking for the source of life. Brains do not impress me as they are simply a later development in evolution.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Those programs run dog brains, human brains, and cockroach brains. You've chosen to never address this simple reality because it conflicts with your beliefs that emotions are important and that dogs, some of the stupidest animals on the planet are conscious.

And you have the ridiculous idea that intelligence and consciousness are the same thing. Maybe you could go to the online SEP and look up consciousness.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Your comment that you don't give two hoots about how anyone else "feels" pretty much sums you up. You feel, do not think, but like your telepathic dogs have learned to mimic your thoughts, you've become effective at mimicking, and can make your opinions appear as thought. Your feelings, i.e. your brain's beliefs and emotions rule what could have been an interesting, potentially awesome mind. Welcome to the 97% of the human race.
Greylorn
So you couldn't find an online charm school?????

Gee

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:42 pm

Gee wrote:
A few points: Emotions are not limited by time and space; last time I checked matter is limited by time and space. How do they explain that?

They do it by denying the very thing you are trying to establish,viz. substance dualism. So they claim just as matter is limited to time and space so are emotions.
Gee wrote:
My conclusions are that emotion is made up of information, thought, etc., so are they saying that thoughts are material?
Yes they say this. However, they can and do use the argument that emotionl is information.

I think it is difficult to say that emotions require movement in order to exist.This is because movement is a property of physical things. I don't think it is a major problem because emotions as a non-physical substance doesn't require movement in order to be shared.
Gee wrote: What problem of "other minds"?
Might leave that for a bit.
Gee wrote: No. It can not be carried that far. The experiment only shows that emotion is an external communication, so something is communicating. Just as a computer can emulate the processes of a brain regarding thought, a mechanical stuffed dog can emulate the emotions of a real dog.

I would be probably more accurate to say that a computer can emulate some aspects of human thought. There are some aspects of thought that are non-computational. I don't think you need the dichotomy between emotions and other types of thoughts.

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 Jan 14, 2015 10:12 pm

Gee wrote:Ginkgo;
Ginkgo wrote:That's correct the materialist would say that emotions are nothing but matter in motion. This is why they also believe they can solve the problem of other minds.
A few points: Emotions are not limited by time and space; last time I checked matter is limited by time and space. How do they explain that?

My conclusions are that emotion is made up of information, thought, etc., so are they saying that thoughts are material?

What problem of "other minds"?
Ginkgo wrote:Yes, I think they are wrong but your thought experiment is demonstrating that mental states are behavioural states. For example, having a mental state of me being happy is the same as being in that physical state. One could introduce a functionalist explanation, but it wouldn't solve the problem.
No. It can not be carried that far. The experiment only shows that emotion is an external communication, so something is communicating. Just as a computer can emulate the processes of a brain regarding thought, a mechanical stuffed dog can emulate the emotions of a real dog.

In order to think there was a "mental state", there would have to be other evidence of life, instincts, reproduction, etc.

Gee
Gee,
I'd like to see your reference material for the notion that emotions can jump time and space.
Thanks,
Greylorn

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests