The Inter Mind

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:23 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:34 pm
Since my Conscious Mind has let me ask the question of how Consciousness happens, I think there probably is an answer to the question.


It's not that I don't want to believe that Consciousness is One. It's that I am unable to realize that. I actually would like to realize that. I have been trying for a long time to understand it. I will continue to try.
To know how to answer the question how consciousness happens Steve... Steve must first know who it is that wants to know? - where and who is that knower located, and does it exist in a physical form?

When the who wants to know is known, the answer will appear in the same exact same moment....because only THIS ONE... the one that wants to know can answer the question of who?

You've already got the answer to how consciousness happens Steve...now you just have to realise it...trying to find it using words is not going to find the answer..the answer has to be realised as you've already pointed out and have failed so far... words are not what consciousness is.

The word consciousness is an imagined concept that appears from within the boundless space of total unknowing not-knowingness that is reality.


.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:49 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Consciousness is one without a second ... experiencing itself now and now and now Ad Infinitum ... to infinity endlessly
One does not experience it as infinitesimal sequences of now but as a single sequence between every state of awake and sleep
For each individual sequence is too small to be contemplated in real time so is experienced as one long continuous one instead

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:44 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:49 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Consciousness is one without a second ... experiencing itself now and now and now Ad Infinitum ... to infinity endlessly
One does not experience it as infinitesimal sequences of now but as a single sequence between every state of awake and sleep
For each individual sequence is too small to be contemplated in real time so is experienced as one long continuous one instead

No person has consciousness...an individual person is an artificial construction of the unconscious brain.
You are the content of consciousness searching within the content of consciousness for consciousness itself.

.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:35 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:44 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:49 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Consciousness is one without a second ... experiencing itself now and now and now Ad Infinitum ... to infinity endlessly
One does not experience it as infinitesimal sequences of now but as a single sequence between every state of awake and sleep
For each individual sequence is too small to be contemplated in real time so is experienced as one long continuous one instead

No person has consciousness...an individual person is an artificial construction of the unconscious brain.
You are the content of consciousness searching within the content of consciousness for consciousness itself.

.
Image

The man in the head is an invisible idea...an artificially constructed thing...a fiction....AKA EMPTY FULLNESS.

Known and seen by Not-a-Thing....AKA EMPTINESS/AWARENESS/LIGHT/GOD

The HARD problem is caused when using a concept to point to the non-conceptual.

That's the dual nature of non-duality.....concepts, empty concepts arising from No-thing.

.

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:41 pm

wtf wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:06 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:25 pm
I know exactly what you mean about dx / 2. Since dx * dx = 0 for the Infinitesimals then maybe for the smallest Infinitesimal dx / 2 = 0. It seems like the smallest number will have that property. It's no worse than dx * dx = 0.
There is no smallest infinitesimal. It's a mathematical fact. I don't understand your willful denial of a fact that's mathematically provable.
I think your are correct. If there is such a thing as a smallest number it will not be an infinitesimal because Infinitesimals are defined in a certain way. It's similar to the reason why the Reals didn't include the Infinitesimals. It's because Reals are defined in a certain way. So we should come up with a new definition for the smallest number. The smallest number will have to be smaller than any Infinitesimal but still greater than Zero. The smallest number will not be an Infinitesimal it will be a single number in a class all by itself. It will have certain properties that Infinitesimals do not have, like dx / 2 = 0. But really it should be dx / n = 0. Probably for all n except maybe where n = Gx, the largest number. What other properties do you think a smallest number might have?

SteveKlinko
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:46 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:30 pm
Any real number above 0 no matter how small can be infinitely divided by a positive integer. So there will never be a point at which the
answer will be 0 and this is proof that there is no smallest infinitesimal. In theory the smallest would be an infinity of 0s with I added on
the end. But as infinity is never ending nothing can be added on to it. As that is a nonsensical concept both mathematically and logically
I saw your reply after I replied to someone else on this topic. I am copying it here because it applies.
I think your are correct. If there is such a thing as a smallest number it will not be an infinitesimal because Infinitesimals are defined in a certain way. It's similar to the reason why the Reals didn't include the Infinitesimals. It's because Reals are defined in a certain way. So we should come up with a new definition for the smallest number. The smallest number will have to be smaller than any Infinitesimal but still greater than Zero. The smallest number will not be an Infinitesimal it will be a single number in a class all by itself. It will have certain properties that Infinitesimals do not have, like dx / 2 = 0. But really it should be dx / n = 0. Probably for all n except maybe where n = Gx, the largest number. What other properties do you think a smallest number might have?

SteveKlinko
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:48 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:23 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:34 pm
Since my Conscious Mind has let me ask the question of how Consciousness happens, I think there probably is an answer to the question.


It's not that I don't want to believe that Consciousness is One. It's that I am unable to realize that. I actually would like to realize that. I have been trying for a long time to understand it. I will continue to try.
To know how to answer the question how consciousness happens Steve... Steve must first know who it is that wants to know? - where and who is that knower located, and does it exist in a physical form?

When the who wants to know is known, the answer will appear in the same exact same moment....because only THIS ONE... the one that wants to know can answer the question of who?

You've already got the answer to how consciousness happens Steve...now you just have to realise it...trying to find it using words is not going to find the answer..the answer has to be realised as you've already pointed out and have failed so far... words are not what consciousness is.

The word consciousness is an imagined concept that appears from within the boundless space of total unknowing not-knowingness that is reality.


.
I'll keep working on it. Thank You

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:53 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:41 pm
The smallest number will not be an Infinitesimal it will be a single number in a class all by itself. It will have certain properties that Infinitesimals do not have, like dx / 2 = 0. But really it should be dx / n = 0. Probably for all n except maybe where n = Gx, the largest number. What other properties do you think a smallest number might have?
Well if you want to be able to divide by 2, there can never be a smallest infinitesimal or smallest positive number in any ordered field.

Can you say more about why you even care about this? From what little I've read of the rest of this thread you seem to be making some philosophical point that's far afield from mathematics. Perhaps you don't actually need a smallest number for the rest of your argument to work. That's a more promising strategy than trying to overthrow known math.

I read a couple of technical expositions about Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis (SIA) and I discovered that it's very weird. For example it's not based on classical logic, but rather on intuitionist logic. The law of the excluded middle (LEM) is not valid. As one article puts it: "Infinitesimals are not non-zero. This is not the same as being zero, since we’re working in intuitionistic logic. However, this does mean that they are so close to zero that we can’t tell them apart from zero."

I confess to finding this murky in the extreme. But philosophically there is something to be said for it, because the SIA real numbers seem more like Peirce's continuum than the classic set-theoretic one. There aren't really individual points, just line segments that are "long enough to have direction but too short to have curvature."

This is not to say that I think you have enough understanding to draw philosophical conclusions from SIA. It's only to admit that I haven't enough understanding to be certain that you haven't intuited some kind of deep point. A good example of the failure of LEM!

There is still no smallest infinitesimal even in SIA. But SIA is sufficiently weird that you might find it of interest for whatever point you are trying to make about this. You might take a look at the article I linked.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:27 pm

wtf wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:53 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:41 pm
The smallest number will not be an Infinitesimal it will be a single number in a class all by itself. It will have certain properties that Infinitesimals do not have, like dx / 2 = 0. But really it should be dx / n = 0. Probably for all n except maybe where n = Gx, the largest number. What other properties do you think a smallest number might have?
Well if you want to be able to divide by 2, there can never be a smallest infinitesimal or smallest positive number in any ordered field.

Can you say more about why you even care about this? From what little I've read of the rest of this thread you seem to be making some philosophical point that's far afield from mathematics. Perhaps you don't actually need a smallest number for the rest of your argument to work. That's a more promising strategy than trying to overthrow known math.

I read a couple of technical expositions about Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis (SIA) and I discovered that it's very weird. For example it's not based on classical logic, but rather on intuitionist logic. The law of the excluded middle (LEM) is not valid. As one article puts it: "Infinitesimals are not non-zero. This is not the same as being zero, since we’re working in intuitionistic logic. However, this does mean that they are so close to zero that we can’t tell them apart from zero."

I confess to finding this murky in the extreme. But philosophically there is something to be said for it, because the SIA real numbers seem more like Peirce's continuum than the classic set-theoretic one. There aren't really individual points, just line segments that are "long enough to have direction but too short to have curvature."

This is not to say that I think you have enough understanding to draw philosophical conclusions from SIA. It's only to admit that I haven't enough understanding to be certain that you haven't intuited some kind of deep point. A good example of the failure of LEM!

There is still no smallest infinitesimal even in SIA. But SIA is sufficiently weird that you might find it of interest for whatever point you are trying to make about this. You might take a look at the article I linked.
The smallest number has nothing to do with any of my philosophical thoughts. I think this all started when I said somewhere in this thread that I don't think Infinity really exists and I must have put in a link to the smallest number article. The purpose of that article was simply to make people think outside the box. I was going to say that this was off topic from the purpose of this thread but you seemed to want to mess around with me and I appreciated your inputs. I agree SIA is weird. Thank You for the link. I'll need some time to go through that.

My real interest is in understanding Consciousness. If you are interested, http://TheInterMind.com website explains how The Inter Mind Model of Consciousness provides a good framework for thinking about Consciousness. I think that I develop some good arguments for the existence of a separate Conscious Mind apart from the Physical Mind (Brain). I was motivated to write this after I discovered that Science mostly believes that Consciousness is an Illusion and does not exist so there is nothing further to study or understand. I disagree and that is why I wrote the Inter Mind article.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:16 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:27 pm


My real interest is in understanding Consciousness.

I think that I develop some good arguments for the existence of a separate Conscious Mind apart from the Physical Mind (Brain).

Steve, what do you mean by saying ''......I think that I develop some good arguments for the existence of a separate Conscious Mind apart from the Physical Mind (Brain)...'' ?

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:44 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:16 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:27 pm


My real interest is in understanding Consciousness.

I think that I develop some good arguments for the existence of a separate Conscious Mind apart from the Physical Mind (Brain).

Steve, what do you mean by saying ''......I think that I develop some good arguments for the existence of a separate Conscious Mind apart from the Physical Mind (Brain)...'' ?

.
The whole motivation for what I say comes from looking at what Science says about Consciousness. Scientists are determined to prove that Consciousness is an illusion created by the Brain. They say quite arrogantly that there is nothing but the material Brain. They can't explain what the Conscious Experience is so they actually say it does not even exist. I think that if you take a particular aspect of Consciousness like the Conscious experience of the color Red that you will never find the Red experience in the Brain. I think of Red as a thing that exists as a separate thing in the Universe. I think it is a kind of Conscious substance that we use to experience the world. So in particular what I mean in that statement is that I think something like Red is something that exists as a separate thing and is experienced by a separate Conscious aspect of the Mind. I hope I have made some good arguments to support that in The Inter Mind.

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:44 pm
The whole motivation for what I say comes from looking at what Science says about Consciousness. Scientists are determined to prove that Consciousness is an illusion created by the Brain. They say quite arrogantly that there is nothing but the material Brain.
Isn't this a little strawman-ish? I'm sure SOME scientists are arrogant, and SOME scientists say that consciousness is a function of the brain (and if it's not, what is it?) And SOME scientists say that consciousness is an illusion.

But not all scientists say those things. So which windmill are you tilting at?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:44 pm

I think it is a kind of Conscious substance that we use to experience the world.
Steve, thanks for your reply.

Is this what you mean by a separate Conscious aspect of mind...>

Each of us occupies not only the physical body we see, but a second or spiritual body. This latter will continue to contain us after physical death?
Do you believe we have an eternal self that experiences itself as a temporal self? Do you believe that Eternity and Existence must be distinguished as two separate entities?

I kind of get a sense that this is what could be possible anyway...if consciousness does exist, then it either is eternally existing permanently, or, it is just as temporal as the material body?

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:44 pm
So in particular what I mean in that statement is that I think something like Red is something that exists as a separate thing and is experienced by a separate Conscious aspect of the Mind. I hope I have made some good arguments to support that in The Inter Mind.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:35 pm

I think I only occupy a physical body. I do not think there is a spiritual dimension to my existence that continues after my death
The energy and matter that I am composed of will carry on existing after it but they are physical not spiritual. I think existence
is eternal for absolute nothing cannot exist eternally. Human existence however is just an infinitesimal part of existence per se

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:59 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:35 pm
I think I only occupy a physical body. I do not think there is a spiritual dimension to my existence that continues after my death
The energy and matter that I am composed of will carry on existing after it but they are physical not spiritual. I think existence
is eternal for absolute nothing cannot exist eternally. Human existence however is just an infinitesimal part of existence per se
We just don't know or can say for certainty that ''Human existence however is just an infinitesimal part of existence per se''....we can't know that for sure..but what we do know is that the universe has become consciously aware of itself as and through the human mind body mechanism...and so if the human is an infinitesimal part of existence ..then why would the intent of the universe bother to evolve to such a peak of being capable of self-awareness so evolved that it knows it is experiencing the colour red.?...how can such information that has evolved the universe to be self-aware ever be lost, or seen as insignificant as to say the human experience is an infinitesimal part of existence?... It seems no other physical organism on earth is self-aware with the capacity to communicate via a universal language which is inherent and unique to humans.

I don't think it's worth getting too hung up about man-made concepts which are just language tools we use as pointers for communicating what is basically the ineffable.

I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but I believe there is absolutely nothing known about reality and existence beyond human language. So anything we do say is just an imagined man-made made-up story about it.

The word spiritual can mean so many things to different people according to their culture and beliefs.

But what I'm pertaining to by using the word 'spiritual' is that which is ''intangible'' and beyond description laid out via language/knowledge ... So, the Steve question of how do we experience the colour RED desires an answer, it's the intent of the universe to want to know every detail about itself.

We can't just say we are physical beings without a comparison to distinguish what physical actually is , otherwise the physical would have no meaning whatsoever.

Also, what we do know as conscious beings is that we know things only as language dictates, we don't know what is being conscious.We know we are conscious, but we don't know what consciousness is.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests