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 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:52 am

Gee wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote: Gee,

Don't be absurd. No one can show you a thought of any kind.

Of course it is absurd. Sometimes, Greylorn, you have to read my post, the post that I am responding to, and then think about it. Arising likes to ask questions, probably trying to emulate Socrates, but often Arising is simply on a 'fishing expedition'. I decided to turn his question back on him.
Greylorn Ell wrote:And to address your question, "If they {emotions} are not 'consciousness', then what are they?", Nevermind that you are unlikely to challenge your opinions, emotions are a property of brains. Emotions are what motivate animal brains. Emotions give brains their motivations, and tell them how to react to various circumstances. Emotions are a brain's equivalent of a computer's programming.

I know that this is the crap that science and neurology want me to swallow, but I can't. Here is reality; ALL species have a survival instinct; all instincts are motivated by emotion; all species do not have brains; therefore, emotions are not a property of brains. Emotions are a property of life.
Greylorn Ell wrote:My instruments, mostly telescopes, were motivated to point themselves at astronomical objects and record intensity and wavelengths of light emitted from those objects. They were also motivated to protect themselves from damage. The one in orbit needed to close itself down when close to the sun. The one on land needed to shut down in daytime and in the presence of rain. In effect, I programmed these machines to fear bright lights and precipitation. Fear is an emotion. It is a sensible emotion, directing a machine or critter to behave in such a manner as to secure its survival.

None of the machines I programmed had the ability to reproduce itself, so I did not program them with the desire to get laid. Their power supply had been provided by external sources beyond their control, so I did not program them to obtain energy, or to "feed." Robots running on batteries, on the ground, must obtain energy to survive, and therefore some of them have been programmed to feed by inserting their mandibles into power outlets, or by adjusting their solar-energy arrays to optimal sun angles. They've been programmed to know when they are hungry, and to relieve their hunger. Emotion, coded into machines.
I am going to be frank here. If indeed you programmed fear and hunger into a machine, then you programmed qualia into a machine -- qualia is experience, feeling, and emotion. If you did this, then you would not be typing in this forum, because you would be too busy giving lectures and writing books and signing autographs. I am not buying your interpretation of what you think you did.

Gee
Gee,

Reading is a tricky process, and sometimes, as a function of mood/interest/focus or something else, very intelligent people miss things. For example, you complained about the lack of reference material in my book after missing the instructions on page 11 for obtaining references in a convenient manner via the internet.

To be equally frank, the "qualia" notion has yet to make it as a viable concept for me. It is too vague.

A single word that encompasses the diverse notions of "experience, feeling, and emotion" is way too broad to be useful in an intelligent conversation. "Qualia" strikes me as a bullshit word invented by pseudo-intellectuals to mask their dreadful ignorance.

As for my comments about my small technological accomplishments, I did what I did, without seeing a broader perspective. I was a young man, writing code to control machines, fairly good at what I did but working to support a wife and offspring by getting a job done, from a narrow and family oriented perspective. The ideas that I promote today were useful to me, and I had a vague notion that they might have a use to others. I wrote five manuscripts during this period of work and family support; all were rejected, until I turned to fiction in the seventies. During those early years I became quite discouraged about the value of my unappreciated ideas.

By way of perspective example, about ten years ago after a new wife introduced me to the internet I used it to look up "virtual memory," a term I'd often heard but knew nothing about. Figured that it was some complex modern concept invented after my early education and work experience. Like most people, I fear learning new concepts. They might (and sometimes do) challenge my beliefs. A greater fear is that I might not understand them. But upon learning what "virtual memory" was, I realized that I'd invented it, back in 1966. Had I or the professors for whom I worked had any notion that this unique implementation of hard-drive storage as an extension of a computer's memory was potentially patentable, the university that employed me would have made millions of dollars to spend on the salaries of stupid, liberal-progressive perfessers, the head-of-project would have taken credit, and my life would be exactly as it is.

RE: your earlier points:
1. Please don't expect me or anyone else to comprehend your communication subtleties, particularly regarding communications with AUK, an irrelevant nit whose handle might be derived from morning erection problems. If you want to swim in a pond where fools are fishing, go ahead. That pond is too polluted for me.

2. I agree with you that emotions are a property of life. Life is machinery. I tried to explain that, but you seem to be so totally wrapped up in the notion that emotions are in some way special or important, that you cannot see beyond your feelings that your own emotions are important. Well, they are, so long as you allow your potentially excellent mind to be driven by your brain's emotional programming. Stick with that and your emotions will rule your life.

Perhaps you could read my posts, as you expect me to read yours. Mine are easier. They are straight-up references to reality. Understanding them requires nothing more than objective intelligence. No feelings, no sense of social mores or interpersonal connections are required.

Consider allowing your life to be driven by beon, not the programmed brain that brought it to semi-consciousness. Like it or not, you are already doing that, else you would not engage difficult conversations. Thank you for being up front with your opinions and beliefs. I'm looking forward to a time when you might be equally up-front with unique ideas of your own.

Greylorn

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:21 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
RE: your earlier points:
1. Please don't expect me or anyone else to comprehend your communication subtleties, particularly regarding communications with AUK, an irrelevant nit whose handle might be derived from morning erection problems. ...
At least my nik was the product of accidental circumstances whereas yours is obviously the product of the delusional fantasist. ...
If you want to swim in a pond where fools are fishing, go ahead. That pond is too polluted for me. ...
So all that guff about me when we were chatting about me reading your book was just that? How two-faced are you!

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:24 pm

Gee wrote:If they are not 'consciousness', then what are they?
I'd have thought one was the product of being a body with an endocrine system and the other the product of their being two such bodies?
I suspect that they are outside of all bodies.
Where?
Can you show me an independently existing thought?
No, and that's why I believe such things don't exist anywhere else other than in body's.

Wyman
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Wyman » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:53 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Gee wrote:If they are not 'consciousness', then what are they?
I'd have thought one was the product of being a body with an endocrine system and the other the product of their being two such bodies?
I suspect that they are outside of all bodies.
Where?
Can you show me an independently existing thought?
No, and that's why I believe such things don't exist anywhere else other than in body's.
Can anyone show me a 'dependently' existing thought? I believe you can only show me representations of what you call 'thoughts' - written or spoken words, pieces of art, etc..

And if you are thinking of 'thoughts' as words and visions in your head, personal to you, how different exactly are these words and visions from the tangible expressions of them which we call language and art? I.e., if 'thinking' consists mainly (as Socrates/Plato said) of an inner dialogue, then how does talking to yourself differ from speaking those same thoughts out loud? Then does reading to yourself versus reading out loud also demarcate an existential divide?

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 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:04 pm

Greylorn;
Greylorn Ell wrote: To be equally frank, the "qualia" notion has yet to make it as a viable concept for me. It is too vague.

Qualia is not so difficult to understand. Think of it this way: You are driving in the mountains and make a mistake that takes you off the road and causes your truck to fall into a ravine 100 feet below. On the way down, you are going to be terrified and experience a lot of subjective emotion -- this is qualia. Your truck, on the other hand, is not going to be terrified, not going to experience emotion, not going to call out to God for salvation, not going to lose it's bodily functions, not going to die -- because it does not have qualia -- feeling, subjective experience, and emotion.
Greylorn Ell wrote: 2. I agree with you that emotions are a property of life. Life is machinery. I tried to explain that, but you seem to be so totally wrapped up in the notion that emotions are in some way special or important, that you cannot see beyond your feelings that your own emotions are important. Well, they are, so long as you allow your potentially excellent mind to be driven by your brain's emotional programming. Stick with that and your emotions will rule your life.
I can agree that one part of life is machinery, but machinery does not account for all aspects of life.

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.

Regarding your other thoughts: I remember very carefully explaining to my boss, many years ago, how a simple change in procedure would save the company a great deal of money. It took me a while to convince him, but after he initiated my idea, he then submitted the idea to the company in a "suggestion box" and was awarded $10,000. I was pretty ticked when I found out, but it was a done deal by then. Reality is this; intelligent people get their brains picked. That is how it is.

Gee

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 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:53 pm

Arising;

I thought that "Arising_uk" meant that you get up every morning in England, the United Kingdom. Or maybe you are considering that old statement that the sun never sets on the United Kingdom?
Arising_uk wrote:
Gee wrote:If they are not 'consciousness', then what are they?
I'd have thought one was the product of being a body with an endocrine system and the other the product of their being two such bodies?
Like consciousness is the product of a body? You must do better than this, or I rest my case.
Arising_uk wrote:
I suspect that they are outside of all bodies.
Where?
"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gee

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:15 pm

Wyman wrote:
Can anyone show me a 'dependently' existing thought? I believe you can only show me representations of what you call 'thoughts' - written or spoken words, pieces of art, etc..

And if you are thinking of 'thoughts' as words and visions in your head, personal to you, how different exactly are these words and visions from the tangible expressions of them which we call language and art? I.e., if 'thinking' consists mainly (as Socrates/Plato said) of an inner dialogue, then how does talking to yourself differ from speaking those same thoughts out loud? Then does reading to yourself versus reading out loud also demarcate an existential divide?
I guess the answer to that question depends on your philosophical stance. Just about everyone agrees there is thinking in the world. Basically, a dualist would say that thoughts exist independently of physical brains. As to whether these thoughts exist outside of the brain depends on the type of dualism one wants to adopt. Nonetheless, one thing seems to standout. In Cartesian terminology physical things are temporal and have extension, but mental things don't seem to have these properties so they cannot be the same type of substance. A materialist would disagree.

Even though claiming that thoughts exist, a substance dualist would say they cannot show you a thought because thoughts don't have physical properties. A materialist in relation to philosophy of mind would simply tells us that our ability to examine the human brain via viewing neurons firing in some type of sequential order is actually us viewing a thought. In order words, thoughts can be reduced to nothing more than matter in motion.

A materialist is rock solid when it comes to these type of reductionist explanations of what constitutes a thought. In typical materialist fashion, expressing thoughts by way of language is no great mystery. No more of a mystery then how a computer composes a piece of music. Dualists, on the other hand, want to explain things differently and the type of explanation depends on the type of dualism.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Ginkgo » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:46 pm

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.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:32 am

Gee wrote:Arising;

I thought that "Arising_uk" meant that you get up every morning in England, the United Kingdom. Or maybe you are considering that old statement that the sun never sets on the United Kingdom?
Nope, my nik is the product of random circumstance and one logical choice. I first picked 'rising_uk' as a nik when I played FP Shoot'em-ups and the 'rising' came because I had BBC Radio 4's shipping forecast on when I was signing-up and the word came-up two or three times. The '_uk' came years ago when I got sick of reading 'This username has been chosen ...' and I needed a way to make a nik unique that was easy to remember. 'Arising' appeared when I started to join other places and wished a new user name and it just seemed easy to add an 'A' to one I could easily remember.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:42 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
There is no way in which the brain is "like a computer," as you assert. It's memory mechanisms are entirely different. It operates in parallel, managing thousands of different processes simultaneously. Whatever "computations" it might perform are managed without the registers, accumulators, multiplier circuits, etc. found in a digital computer's CPU. Moreover, the brain is not genuinely digital.
But it is very like a computational neural-net and they can perform digital computations if required, so 'like a computer' just not a digital one.
Research shows that information can be transmitted from one part of the brain to another without interconnected neurons, which suggests some form of analog standing-wave mechanism.
What sort of information?
Since your first assertion is negatively established, anything you hang from it is irrelevant. Nonetheless, your apparent premise that consciousness is in some way distinct from brain is correct.
There seems to be little evidence for this assertion.

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

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Blaggard » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:45 am

As you know A_UK there's seldom been any evidence for the "lord our God", but gullible people will believe it nonetheless.

What sort of information indeed... well said.

On the other hand I do agree with Grey about the brain being like a computer, it seems it is not, it's a neural network and chaotic, even random, it does things in ways that would not suit a binary cogent answer.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:32 am

Blaggard wrote:...

On the other hand I do agree with Grey about the brain being like a computer, it seems it is not, it's a neural network and chaotic, even random, it does things in ways that would not suit a binary cogent answer.
Computational neural networks are computers, see the connectionist model. That they can also do binary logical operations seems to go some way to explaining why we can also.

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 3:40 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Blaggard wrote:...

On the other hand I do agree with Grey about the brain being like a computer, it seems it is not, it's a neural network and chaotic, even random, it does things in ways that would not suit a binary cogent answer.
Computational neural networks are computers, see the connectionist model. That they can also do binary logical operations seems to go some way to explaining why we can also.
I'm delighted to find myself and Blaggard agreeing on something. There's hope for that man. Perhaps for myself as well.

At your behest I looked up the connectionist model and found it so broad and vague as to be useless.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Greylorn

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 4:01 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:...
Research shows that information can be transmitted from one part of the brain to another without interconnected neurons, which suggests some form of analog standing-wave mechanism.
What sort of information?
I appreciate your curiosity. Here's a link to some research by Charles Gray and others.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-ne ... seen.shtml

I conversed with Dr. Gray (a.k.a. Charley) in a Tucson bar about 20 years back. We kicked around ideas about the mind from our different perspectives, and he subsequently gave me a copy of his first research paper on this subject. Why? As a serious neurological researcher he is certain that my peculiar theories about the nature of human consciousness are bunk, while admitting that if they were not bunk, his experimental observations would make a lot more sense.

When I mentioned information transfer between brain segments I was referring to his early paper, which I should not have done because that paper is buried in my files. However, tonight's research suggests that Charley has pursued his unusual line of research. The paper referenced above is more precise, more definitive than the original paper I'd read. As expected.

Greylorn

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

Re: Proof for Consciousness existing outside our brains

Post by Blaggard » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:20 am

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest