The Metaphysical Consciousness

[doronshadmi]

Consciousness is nothing more then your mind's ability to create a cognizent picture of the world given its various sensory inputs.

Consciousness at its simplest state, does not need any agent in order to directly know itself.

On the basis of this simplicity complex expressions like objectivity\subjectivity may emerge.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Consciousness at its simplest state, does not need any agent in order to directly know itself.

On the basis of this simplicity complex expressions like objectivity\subjectivity may emerge.

Waiter my word salad needs some dressing. Perhaps a low fat vingerette?

 

[JaysonR]

When I saw his post I was going to post the hilited but I figured you'd be along soon and correct him, not that I expect it to do much good he seems to be firmly wedded to the "consciousness is a mystery" belief which is rapidly becoming the last gasp of woo.

The ability to read a 'No' as 'Yes" is apparently a requirement to sustain belief.

I don't believe in "woo", am an athiest, and Neuroscience and the medical field use the term for classification quite well.

We do have aspects of the matter remaining to clarify, but that doesn't mean there is room for turning consciousness into super powers.
Hardly.

So please stop insisting that I am looking for supernatural elbow room when I have been explaining just the opposite.

 

[JaysonR]

The entirety of everything that could be described as consciousness absent special pleading tacked on nonsense can be understood within the framework of what how we know the brain's neurological process work in completely natural and Woo free manner.

The idea that "consciousness" is some vast unexplained wasteland of mystery and unknown only works if you both A) Ignore practically everything modern neuroscience has learned in the last few decades and B) Specifically add meaningless, vague, navel gazing gobbledegook to it to give whatever pet Woo you have something to explain.

Consciousness is nothing more then your mind's ability to create a cognizent picture of the world given its various sensory inputs. Adding stuff to that concept in order to make it Woo friendly is, at best, unnecessary and intellectually dishonest.

I get that consciousness being this spooky unknowable thing "outside the realm of science" is a deeply held Woo Slinger chestnut, but it's not true.

I understand consciousness better then I do the designated hitter rule in Baseball.

In general I agree, but I think "nothing more than" over simplifies.
That is what we are trying to learn, why we built Blue Brain (the Cern of Neuroscience).
We don't yet have an outline of how exactly it works entirely, and the aspects we do have are ever complex.
Top-down modeling is at its near limit and we need things like Blue Brain to try to build Bottom-up modeling.
Look up Henry Markram; it is very exciting work.

 

[bruto]

It is irrelevant if you don't take it as an analogy.

By my Tree analogy this tree is the entire existence that has one trunk and many branches, such that the trunk is not one_of_many thing of that existence, where each given branch is always one_of_many thing of that existence.

Being not one_of_many thing means that this oneness is not a member of the collection of many relative things (the naturally variant aspect of that existence), but it is the naturally absolute (and therefore invariant aspect of that existence) that enables the natural coordination among the many relative things, where each relative thing is always one_of_many thing of this existence.

Such existence is not limited to any degree of complexity exactly because no relative thing contradicts the further variant expressions of the other relative things of that existence, exactly because of the simplicity of the absolute as the natural consistency among complexity.

You are right. I do not see a tree as an analogy for a concussion, and bringing up a tree does not do the job of explaining anything about a concussion, which is the thing I'm addressing primarily here. Not that it really matters, since you also have not answered my questions about the tree. What differentiates the trunk from the branches? Where is the line drawn? What about trees with multiple trunks? What about a multiplicity of single trunked tress that are part of a single organism, like aspens?

Tell me, not by analogy, but by saying it, what is the invariant aspect of a concussion?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So please stop insisting that I am looking for supernatural elbow room when I have been explaining just the opposite.

Honestly man that's the impression I'm getting as well.

You say you accept the neurological model but there's a lot of those vague, hinting, winking side nudges at "Unknowns" It's language we generally see from people trying to get a foot of Woo in the door.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm not winking, but there are aspects we don't know...but that does not perrmit an open door to supernaturalism.

Can you give an example so I can correct my articulation?

 

[doronshadmi]

Tell me, not by analogy, but by saying it, what is the invariant aspect of a concussion?

Concussion is the result of poor coordination among relative (and therefore variant) many things.

So in order to develop the coordination among relative (and therefore variant) many things, we need absolute (and therefore invariant) common foundation that actually enables the harmony that naturally prevents concussion, in the first place.

In other words, concussion is a concrete alert sign for the need of the invariant among the variant.

 

[JaysonR]

Concussions are the result of greatly coordinated neurotransmissions breaking their circuits.

In order to coordinate cognition, it appears neurotransmissions need simultaneous gamma wave pulses; not concussions.

That is akin to saying we need to break every mechanical curcuit in the car because "running" is accomplished by disperate parts of lesser coordination than the moment all parts stop in a wreck.

 

[Donn]

Concussion is the result of poor coordination among relative (and therefore variant) many things.

This description covers just about anything.

So in order to develop the coordination among relative (and therefore variant) many things, we need absolute (and therefore invariant) common foundation that actually enables the harmony that naturally prevents concussion, in the first place.

Meditation gives-rise to the sensation of invariance. You decide this is a real thing. The circle is complete.

Invariance is faith.

 

[bruto]

Concussion is the result of poor coordination among relative (and therefore variant) many things.

So in order to develop the coordination among relative (and therefore variant) many things, we need absolute (and therefore invariant) common foundation that actually enables the harmony that naturally prevents concussion, in the first place.

In other words, concussion is a concrete alert sign for the need of the invariant among the variant.

Of course first of all we've narrowed the definition of "concussion" to its medical one, leaving out all the other uses of the word which can denote any of a number of sudden and explosive events, including natural events such as the fall of a tree, the eruption of a volcano, or the sound of thunder. But let us stick to the medical concussion.

You have, in essence, simply said that a concussion occurs when things collide which should not have collided. So what? All you've really said with your usual doubletalk is that in some unspecified ideal world where unspecified ideal conditions are met, bad things would not happen. But we live in the real world. It does not oblige.

So what have you really said here other than the trivial and worthless observation that accidents would not happen in a perfect world?

Aside from all this, there is, of course, a serious and continuing flaw in the way you are going about this. You keep on saying that there is an "invariant" aspect to everything, which is missed by those who do not see the world through your lens. Now, though, when we get to concussion, it turns out, apparently, that it is the concussion itself which is missing its "invariant" aspect. What good is it to see the invariant ideal if the real world operates as it always has?

 

[JoeMorgue]

But how do we define the qualia within invariance of the quantum energy of the duality that exists beyond the event horizon of the formless?

 

[Donn]

You don't define it, you grasp it. Invariably.

 

[SusanB-M1]

But how do we define the qualia within invariance of the quantum energy of the duality that exists beyond the event horizon of the formless?

Nice one!!

 

[bruto]

I would point out as an afterthought that Doronshadmi's explanation to the question of "what is the invariant aspect of a concussion" is, of course, a statement that understanding invariance avoids a concussion. This is, quite obviously, not a description of a quality of concussion. Not having a concussion is not one side of having a concussion any more than non-being is a kind of being.

 

[doronshadmi]

Of course first of all we've narrowed the definition of "concussion" to its medical one,

No at all.

It is exactly the evolution of the linkage among the invariant AND the variant, which enables complexity (the relative, which is naturally variant) that is in direct proportionality with simplicity (the absolute, which is naturally invariant)) among it.

This evolution takes place all over space\time phenomena, but you are not aware of it as long as you get reality only in terms of its variant aspect.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not having a concussion is not one side of having a concussion any more than non-being is a kind of being.

Not having a concussion (medical or not) is an evolutionary goal for harmonious reality, and you, bruto, whether you like it or not, are a participator of it.

 

[JaysonR]

Concussions are reduced by increasing the skull thickness.
It has nothing to do with evolving "harmonious reality" - as if that is how evolution even works! Seen a platypus recently?

Concussions aren't a thing to get rid of - you can't get rid of them.
Our brains run on electrochemical circuits, and as long as that is the case, then those circuits can be interrupted, and as long as we can interrupt those circuits with a big enough blow, then a concussion will happen.

You can reduce the chances with safety equipment, or our species could grow thicker skulls (unlikely, since the prevailing assessment is that we grew thinner skulls to allow our neurology and to allow the jaw more flex with less rigid pull on the brain cavity so that speech was more possible).

Whether you like it or not, you don't wish up some jumbo about how we work and then just start talking like a soothe sayer on a mountain top - you are just human.

And hell man, if that's not enough to be thrilled about...****...I'm sorry for you.

 

[bruto]

No at all.

It is exactly the evolution of the linkage among the invariant AND the variant, which enables complexity (the relative, which is naturally variant) that is in direct proportionality with simplicity (the absolute, which is naturally invariant)) among it.

This evolution takes place all over space\time phenomena, but you are not aware of it as long as you get reality only in terms of its variant aspect.

But that is not what you wrote in your previous post, where it was quite clear and explicit that you were addressing the medical meaning of the term. Just adding a layer of undecipherable gibberish does not change what you have already said. Read it again.

Not having a concussion (medical or not) is an evolutionary goal for harmonious reality, and you, bruto, whether you like it or not, are a participator of it.

So in the harmonious reality of your ideal world there will be no lightning, no trees will fall when they die, no volcanoes erupt, no icebergs calve?

Evolution is a phenomenon of life. It is misapplied to all else. The earth itself may change but it does not evolve. Nor, for that matter, is the word "goal" properly applied to evolution. But even if it were, my participation in such an evolutionary goal would be arguable at best. My part in human evolution was completed over thirty years ago. I had a nearly fatal concussion two and a half years ago. Evolution ends with breeding, you know.

You still have not really answered the question, anyway. Quite some time ago you asserted that a concussion has, itself, an invariant aspect. No matter how invariant you can say the goal of avoiding a concussion might be, that is not a quality of concussion. You have caught yourself, it seems, in a linguistic trap that is well populated by other fuzzy thinkers and mystics, of discussing the attributes and details of what does not exist.

 

[doronshadmi]

But that is not what you wrote in your previous post, where it was quite clear and explicit that you were addressing the medical meaning of the term.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10219359&postcount=928 there is nothing that is limited only to the medical aspect.

So in the harmonious reality of your ideal world there will be no lightning, no trees will fall when they die, no volcanoes erupt, no icebergs calve?

No phenomenon will prevent the further complexity development of any other phenomenon.

Evolution is a phenomenon of life.

Exactly, reality is developing into a one organism that all of its aspects are in harmony with each other.