A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

SteveKlinko
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:28 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:37 pm
Age wrote:
Do you have any knowledge of exactly HOW Consciousness causes a physical brain to come into existence
No I do not but I am simply referencing it as an alternative to the materialist perspective that consciousness can only exist within a brain
and so that when the brain dies then consciousness dies too - which is what evidence shows - and is why it is the natural default position

The non duality that others like Ramu and Dontaskme talk about has either Consciousness as the absolute or one
self as Consciousness arising from a state of nothing where the seer cannot be the seen and everything is illusion

I need to study it more to truly comprehend it so I will have to read their posts in more detail
Evidence does not show that when the Brain dies then Consciousness dies too. You would need some way of measuring Actual Consciousness not just the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Since we don't know how to measure Consciousness, all we can say is that we don't know what happens to Consciousness when the Brain dies. But it all depends on your perspective. if Consciousness is a separate thing that is Connected to the Brain then there is no reason to think it dies when the Brain dies. If you think the Brain itself is Consciousness then it would be logical to conclude that Consciousness dies when the Brain dies. Nobody knows for sure which way it is. I tend towards the Connection Perspective.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:54 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:37 pm
Age wrote:
Do you have any knowledge of exactly HOW Consciousness causes a physical brain to come into existence
No I do not but I am simply referencing it as an alternative to the materialist perspective that consciousness can only exist within a brain
Does it have to be one or the other?

From my perspective things appear different to those two opposing perspectives. I observe some thing different, which appears to fit perfectly in and with other things.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:37 pm
and so that when the brain dies then consciousness dies too - which is what evidence shows - and is why it is the natural default position
What is being proposed here as a supposedly "natural default postion" is certainly NOT my view at all.

From what I have observed the exact opposite is seen. But what appears here to me MUST BE WRONG, correct?
Obviously IF the 'evidence' already shows some thing else, then whatever the evidence is showing would HAVE TO BE correct, correct?

If there already exists 'evidence' for some thing, then, by definition, 'evidence' could not be refuted. So, therefore what the 'evidence' shows MUST be True, Right, and Correct, correct?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:37 pm
The non duality that others like Ramu and Dontaskme talk about has either Consciousness as the absolute or one
self as Consciousness arising from a state of nothing where the seer cannot be the seen and everything is illusion
Obviously if these named human beings contradict "themselves", which quite frequently happens, and what is said can not be backed up, substantiate, nor clarified, then that provides a very strong indication that what they are saying is not thee actual Truth of things.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:37 pm
I need to study it more to truly comprehend it so I will have to read their posts in more detail
But just re-reading and studying the re-repeated words, which have come from "others" then you will not necessarily comprehend any thing more or further.

If people can NOT explain further what they are saying now, even with direct clarifying questions posed to "them", then that infers that they do NOT fully understand nor FULLY comprehend 'it' "themselves".

To FULLY understand and comprehend just HOW Consciousness and the brain work together, and against each other, which is very simple and easy to grasp by the way, then studying the perspective some people have of 'non duality' will NOT enlighten you to what causes what here.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:35 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:28 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:37 pm
Age wrote:
Do you have any knowledge of exactly HOW Consciousness causes a physical brain to come into existence
No I do not but I am simply referencing it as an alternative to the materialist perspective that consciousness can only exist within a brain
and so that when the brain dies then consciousness dies too - which is what evidence shows - and is why it is the natural default position

The non duality that others like Ramu and Dontaskme talk about has either Consciousness as the absolute or one
self as Consciousness arising from a state of nothing where the seer cannot be the seen and everything is illusion

I need to study it more to truly comprehend it so I will have to read their posts in more detail
Evidence does not show that when the Brain dies then Consciousness dies too. You would need some way of measuring Actual Consciousness not just the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Since we don't know how to measure Consciousness, all we can say is that we don't know what happens to Consciousness when the Brain dies. But it all depends on your perspective. if Consciousness is a separate thing that is Connected to the Brain then there is no reason to think it dies when the Brain dies. If you think the Brain itself is Consciousness then it would be logical to conclude that Consciousness dies when the Brain dies. Nobody knows for sure which way it is. I tend towards the Connection Perspective.
Are you 100% absolutely sure that "nobody knows for sure which way it is"?

surreptitious57
Posts: 4133
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:18 am

Age wrote:
If there already exists evidence for some thing then by definition evidence could not be refuted
Evidence is not absolutely reliable and so some times it can indeed be refuted
Because all it shows is that something could be true not that something is true

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:06 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:18 am
Age wrote:
If there already exists evidence for some thing then by definition evidence could not be refuted
Evidence is not absolutely reliable and so some times it can indeed be refuted
Well to me that is not evidence. To me 'evidence' is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If 'evidence' is not absolutely reliable and so could be refuted, then what do you use for reliability, which could not be refuted?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:18 am
Because all it shows is that something could be true not that something is true
If all 'evidence' shows to you is that some thing could be true, and not that some thing is true, then what is 'it', to you, that does show some thing is true?

If you can not use 'evidence', then what do you use to verify the truth or not of some thing?

surreptitious57
Posts: 4133
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pm

Evidence is the available body of facts demonstrating whether a hypothesis is true but it is always incomplete so is not entirely reliable
New evidence can either refute existing evidence or add to it but there is never a point where it becomes absolute since it is inductive
What can not be refuted is proof for proof is absolute but this applies to mathematics not to science which has to use evidence instead

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:05 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pm
Evidence is the available body of facts demonstrating whether a hypothesis is true but it is always incomplete so is not entirely reliable
Is evidence only in relation to a 'hypothesis'?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pm
New evidence can either refute existing evidence or add to it
Therefore, what was originally called "evidence" was actually in fact NOT evidence at all, to me, anyway.

See, 'you' and 'I' have two completely opposing views on this. And this helps in explaining WHY I am able to SEE and UNDERSTAND what the actual Truth of things IS, and WHY you are still looking and searching for answers.

From your perspective, what was originally called "evidence" was just some thing used to 'try to' "justify" one's already held position, already held view, already held assumption, and/or already held belief of some thing.

An OPEN person does NOT hold any position, view, assumption nor belief of ANY thing, until actual evidence comes forward, and then they still do NOT 'hold' any thing, they just remain OPEN and just express what they have observed, with the view that they have NOW, which is obviously always OPEN to change.

Also, how could an available body of 'facts' be incomplete and so not entirely reliable?

A fact is a thing known or proven to be true.

If a thing is already known or proven to be true, then how could that be incomplete, or not entirely reliable? In fact, How could a fact even change?

If some thing is a fact, then how could it suddenly not become a fact?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pm
but there is never a point where it becomes absolute since it is inductive
Since 'what' is inductive?

I think you have gone off track and are talking about some thing else entirely to what I was talking about.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:01 pm
What can not be refuted is proof for proof is absolute but this applies to mathematics not to science which has to use evidence instead
So, to you, absolutely NOTHING in science can be proven, correct?

If no, then what are you saying?

If yes, then science, literally, has nothing to with proof and truth.

Science and the scientific method, after all, only deals with what is essentially just guesses anyway, and if through science what is used to verify or falsify a 'hypothesis' is ALWAYS incomplete and NOT entirely reliable, then this would explain WHY science is so WRONG so OFTEN.

All science essentially does is just to propose more and more hypotheses, based on what was always originally incomplete and not entirely reliable to begin with.

This, combined with human beings propensity to BELIEVE what is told to them explains a tremendous amount about WHY 'you', human beings, are so far from understanding the actual Truth of things.

I use facts as the evidence to prove what IS True. What IS True is irrefutable, absolute, complete and entirely reliable.

See, unlike science, which is all always just looking at another hypothesis, which you admit science also HAS TO use what is incomplete and so not entirely reliable at all, I CAN ACTUALLY prove absolutely what I say is what IS True. I do this with PROOF. I use what IS already known and proven to be True as the evidence to prove the view, which I am expressing at any given moment of NOW.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:34 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:35 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:28 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:37 pm


No I do not but I am simply referencing it as an alternative to the materialist perspective that consciousness can only exist within a brain
and so that when the brain dies then consciousness dies too - which is what evidence shows - and is why it is the natural default position

The non duality that others like Ramu and Dontaskme talk about has either Consciousness as the absolute or one
self as Consciousness arising from a state of nothing where the seer cannot be the seen and everything is illusion

I need to study it more to truly comprehend it so I will have to read their posts in more detail
Evidence does not show that when the Brain dies then Consciousness dies too. You would need some way of measuring Actual Consciousness not just the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Since we don't know how to measure Consciousness, all we can say is that we don't know what happens to Consciousness when the Brain dies. But it all depends on your perspective. if Consciousness is a separate thing that is Connected to the Brain then there is no reason to think it dies when the Brain dies. If you think the Brain itself is Consciousness then it would be logical to conclude that Consciousness dies when the Brain dies. Nobody knows for sure which way it is. I tend towards the Connection Perspective.
Are you 100% absolutely sure that "nobody knows for sure which way it is"?
The fact that Consciousness itself cannot be measured yet means that no Scientific experiment ever conducted could show if it is a connection to the Brain or if it is inherent in the Brain. I'm 100% sure of that.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:12 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:34 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:35 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:28 pm

Evidence does not show that when the Brain dies then Consciousness dies too. You would need some way of measuring Actual Consciousness not just the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Since we don't know how to measure Consciousness, all we can say is that we don't know what happens to Consciousness when the Brain dies. But it all depends on your perspective. if Consciousness is a separate thing that is Connected to the Brain then there is no reason to think it dies when the Brain dies. If you think the Brain itself is Consciousness then it would be logical to conclude that Consciousness dies when the Brain dies. Nobody knows for sure which way it is. I tend towards the Connection Perspective.
Are you 100% absolutely sure that "nobody knows for sure which way it is"?
The fact that Consciousness itself cannot be measured yet means that no Scientific experiment ever conducted could show if it is a connection to the Brain or if it is inherent in the Brain. I'm 100% sure of that.
Well that infers that 'you', "yourself" actually do KNOW what 'Consciousness', Itself, IS. So, would you like to inform us of what the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer is to the question, What is Consciousness?"

Or, maybe you might prefer to show us the sound and valid argument for what Consciousness IS exactly?

When that is KNOWN, then that is HOW you will KNOW what happens to Consciousness when a brain stops functioning.

Also, why would some thing need to be measured to be able to show it? And, if no scientific experiment has shown you some thing, then are you completely and utterly not able to discover, learn, and/or understand things on your own?

Contrary to your BELIEF, I KNOW what happens to Consciousness when a human brain stops functioning, and, I KNOW how Consciousness is related to the brain. However, you say that you NEED some way of measuring "Actual Consciousness", which unfortunately you do not yet have.

surreptitious57
Posts: 4133
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:18 am

Consciousness for me is self awareness at both the individual and collective level
So it is not just about being alive but of having knowledge of ones own existence

However I still do not know if consciousness is something that is independent of brains
I do not think it is but I cannot be absolutely certain and so I will remain open minded

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:36 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:18 am
Consciousness for me is self awareness at both the individual and collective level
So it is not just about being alive but of having knowledge of ones own existence
This is, from my perspective, as the word 'conscious' relates very much to 'awareness'.

But in saying this one would have to accepted that Consciousness does not YET fully exist, within that body that they are in, UNTIL they have actually resolved the question, Who am 'I'? from the individual personal level AND the collective level.

When who and/or what the 'you' IS and who and/or what the 'I' is FULLY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD, then HOW Consciousness actually exists and works becomes much better KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD also.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:18 am
However I still do not know if consciousness is something that is independent of brains
When ALL-OF-THIS that I am learning to communicate better is FULLY understood, then 'you' will KNOW the Answer to this.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:18 am
I do not think it is but I cannot be absolutely certain and so I will remain open minded
Okay, but obviously if one is open, but is not curious at all, and so is not searching for, looking for, or seeking answers, then they will become none-the-wiser.

Only in wonder and curiosity one becomes Truly wiser.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:24 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:12 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:34 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:35 am


Are you 100% absolutely sure that "nobody knows for sure which way it is"?
The fact that Consciousness itself cannot be measured yet means that no Scientific experiment ever conducted could show if it is a connection to the Brain or if it is inherent in the Brain. I'm 100% sure of that.
Well that infers that 'you', "yourself" actually do KNOW what 'Consciousness', Itself, IS. So, would you like to inform us of what the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer is to the question, What is Consciousness?"

Or, maybe you might prefer to show us the sound and valid argument for what Consciousness IS exactly?

When that is KNOWN, then that is HOW you will KNOW what happens to Consciousness when a brain stops functioning.

Also, why would some thing need to be measured to be able to show it? And, if no scientific experiment has shown you some thing, then are you completely and utterly not able to discover, learn, and/or understand things on your own?

Contrary to your BELIEF, I KNOW what happens to Consciousness when a human brain stops functioning, and, I KNOW how Consciousness is related to the brain. However, you say that you NEED some way of measuring "Actual Consciousness", which unfortunately you do not yet have.
I don't know what contorted logic leads you to the conclusion that I know what Consciousness is. When I say that Consciousness cannot be measured it implies that nobody knows what Consciousness is. The day that somebody discovers how to measure Consciousness will be the day that we will know what Consciousness is and will have solved the Hard Problem.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:25 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:24 pm
I don't know what contorted logic leads you to the conclusion that I know what Consciousness is. When I say that Consciousness cannot be measured it implies that nobody knows what Consciousness is. The day that somebody discovers how to measure Consciousness will be the day that we will know what Consciousness is and will have solved the Hard Problem.
''We'' aka Consciousness cannot know what Consciousness is. ''We'' aka Consciousness can only be IT

''We'' can only BE ''knowing consciousness'' without knowing how or why or for what puropse other than to BE
Consciousness is the singularity that is everything and nothing SIMultaneously ONE without a second.

Consciousness and it's content unify in a Self-luminous singularity about which nothing can be said or known for the simple reason that anything said or known is part-and-parcel of this same one singularity.

Knowing is not known by a ''some thing'' Consciousness is the ONLY knowing there is that cannot be known again..YOU aka Consciousness are that KNOWING. Knowledge informs Consciousness the illusory nature of Consciousness as the appearance of no thing and everything SIMultaneously in the same INSTANT.

Drop the idea that Consciousness has to be some thing to be known and the whole hard problem of not-knowing what it is dissolves while IT remains regardless.

Let us compare Consciousness to something simple like a stick. We can say that the stick has a centre and two ends. The centre and the two ends are a way of conceptually dividing the stick - which can be great for practical purposes - but in actuality the centre and the two ends have no existence apart from the stick. We cannot remove them from the stick to end up with two separate ends without a centre, and a centre without two ends.

Same applies to Consciousness. IT can be conceptually divided in the perceiver, the perceiving and the perceived, but again this is all knowledge already couched within the singularity that is Consciousness knowing all ONE...Oneness cannot step outside of itself, no more than it can lift itself up by it's own bootstraps or jump over it's own shadow, for where ego I go infinitely for eternity, nowhere, now here always.



.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:24 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:25 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:24 pm
I don't know what contorted logic leads you to the conclusion that I know what Consciousness is. When I say that Consciousness cannot be measured it implies that nobody knows what Consciousness is. The day that somebody discovers how to measure Consciousness will be the day that we will know what Consciousness is and will have solved the Hard Problem.
''We'' aka Consciousness cannot know what Consciousness is. ''We'' aka Consciousness can only be IT

''We'' can only BE ''knowing consciousness'' without knowing how or why or for what puropse other than to BE
Consciousness is the singularity that is everything and nothing SIMultaneously ONE without a second.

Consciousness and it's content unify in a Self-luminous singularity about which nothing can be said or known for the simple reason that anything said or known is part-and-parcel of this same one singularity.

Knowing is not known by a ''some thing'' Consciousness is the ONLY knowing there is that cannot be known again..YOU aka Consciousness are that KNOWING. Knowledge informs Consciousness the illusory nature of Consciousness as the appearance of no thing and everything SIMultaneously in the same INSTANT.

Drop the idea that Consciousness has to be some thing to be known and the whole hard problem of not-knowing what it is dissolves while IT remains regardless.

Let us compare Consciousness to something simple like a stick. We can say that the stick has a centre and two ends. The centre and the two ends are a way of conceptually dividing the stick - which can be great for practical purposes - but in actuality the centre and the two ends have no existence apart from the stick. We cannot remove them from the stick to end up with two separate ends without a centre, and a centre without two ends.

Same applies to Consciousness. IT can be conceptually divided in the perceiver, the perceiving and the perceived, but again this is all knowledge already couched within the singularity that is Consciousness knowing all ONE...Oneness cannot step outside of itself, no more than it can lift itself up by it's own bootstraps or jump over it's own shadow, for where ego I go infinitely for eternity, nowhere, now here always.



.
To Know that Consciousness cannot be Known is to Know something about Consciousness. You must Know something about that unknowable Consciousness. How do you come to Know that Consciousness cannot be Known?

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:52 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:24 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:12 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:34 pm

The fact that Consciousness itself cannot be measured yet means that no Scientific experiment ever conducted could show if it is a connection to the Brain or if it is inherent in the Brain. I'm 100% sure of that.
Well that infers that 'you', "yourself" actually do KNOW what 'Consciousness', Itself, IS. So, would you like to inform us of what the unambiguous, irrefutable Answer is to the question, What is Consciousness?"

Or, maybe you might prefer to show us the sound and valid argument for what Consciousness IS exactly?

When that is KNOWN, then that is HOW you will KNOW what happens to Consciousness when a brain stops functioning.

Also, why would some thing need to be measured to be able to show it? And, if no scientific experiment has shown you some thing, then are you completely and utterly not able to discover, learn, and/or understand things on your own?

Contrary to your BELIEF, I KNOW what happens to Consciousness when a human brain stops functioning, and, I KNOW how Consciousness is related to the brain. However, you say that you NEED some way of measuring "Actual Consciousness", which unfortunately you do not yet have.
I don't know what contorted logic leads you to the conclusion that I know what Consciousness is.
Well if you do not know, then so be it. Was there a reason of informing us of this?

Obviously, if, however, you were somewhat curious as to what "contorted" logic lead me to the conclusion that you know what Consciousness is, then you would have asked me some sort of clarifying question, to which I would have then informed you of what I actually used to conclude that.

However, you do not show any interest nor curiosity at all, so this, to me, now infers that you believe wholeheartedly that you already know that I am WRONG, correct?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:24 pm
When I say that Consciousness cannot be measured it implies that nobody knows what Consciousness is.
One would have to know what some thing IS before they KNEW if it could be measured or not.

Do you KNOW what Consciousness IS?

If no, then HOW do you KNOW that It can not be measured?

Also, did you not read when I wrote:
I KNOW what happens to Consciousness when a human brain stops functioning, and, I KNOW how Consciousness is related to the brain.

Or, do you just wholly dismiss this and so just reject it outright also?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:24 pm
The day that somebody discovers how to measure Consciousness will be the day that we will know what Consciousness is and will have solved the Hard Problem.
There is NO hard problem, as this so called "problem", and the other perceived so called "problems", have ALREADY been solved.

I KNOW the Answers and the Solution to all those perceived "problems".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest