What is the definition of “I”? -- “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-HW

[Kid Eager]

I was going to add they should have placebo seance devices… but my head nearly broke.

Yeah, well... even if people did get MPD from doing seances, it doesn't establish that the causal agent is that hypothesised in the NCB model....

Keep your head intact for the important stuff, like the recipe for Hoisin Beef Stirfry, and the name of that really nice cabernet you had last week.

 

[Donn]

Ha. Yeah, priorities.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

I can't wait for your report on the experiments.

Neurocluster Brain Model was built based on the results of big experimental database. Then the predictions of Neurocluster Brain Model were crosschecked with additional experiments. We have already done that, and now it is your turn to do the experiments to check whether predictions of Neurocluster Brain Model are confirmed or not. So just go and carry out the experiments instead of your philosophical-theoretical blabber.

Not much of a control group.
It should be people of similar demographic segments who don't do seances at all, to establish MPD in comparable populace.
People should be radomly assigned to the test or control groups *without knowing nor discovering during the experiement the purpose or expected outcomes of the experiment* .

I was going to add they should have placebo seance devices… but my head nearly broke.

Feel free to improve the experimental setup in order to improve the quality of gathering of statistical data.
Just take statistically large sample of people and split them into two groups: 1) an “experimental group”, and 2) a “control group.”
Just go ahead and do that – carry out the experiment instead of your philosophical-theoretical blabber.

Yeah, well... even if people did get MPD from doing seances, it doesn't establish that the causal agent is that hypothesised in the NCB model....

If experimental results will show the statistical correlation between “séances” and invocation of sleepwalking/MPD incidents then Neurocluster Brain Model is considered more likely to be correct.

However what is more important here is that the model of “indivisible-single-consciousness” does not permit the possibility of “invoking spirits”. According to the model of “indivisible-single-consciousness” the “spiritualistic séances” should not exist at all.
So just go ahead and carry out the experiment of “invoking spirit” instead of your philosophical-theoretical blabber. Check out experimentally whether “spiritualistic séances” exist or not.
In order to ascertain the existence of autonomous neuroclusters personally for you, it is enough to receive several meaningful messages from the “invoked spirit” which instantaneously can be identified as “these are not my thoughts for sure” – that will be enough proof for you personally.

 

[Donn]

Are we the International Experimenters For Larks and Breadcrumbs Forum? I haven't checked in a while; may be.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

Are we the International Experimenters For Larks and Breadcrumbs Forum? I haven't checked in a while; may be.

Donn’s inability to carry out simple experiments due his religious beliefs is not the scientific argument.

If you have not done the experiment then you are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model.
If you have not done the experiment then your philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.

The experimental setup is very simple and the cost of equipment is less than a dollar. All you need are: 1) the needle; 2) the thread; 3) one standard A4-size sheet of paper. Almost everyone has these items in home. You can carry out the experiment right now instead of your philosophical-theoretical blabber.

The most popular religious dogma claims that man has “indivisible-single-consciousness”, the adepts of this religious dogma will fight until “the last drop of blood” defending the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.
We will repeat again a homework task for the development of logical thinking for religious adepts who have strong religious fanatic faith that “man has indivisible-single-consciousness”:
Are you completely sure that your brain is really able to contain one(1) personality? What about the scenario when one(1) personality is unable to fit in the brain, and only half(1/2) or a quarter(1/4) or a tenth(1/10) of personality is able to fit in the brain – how about that? Let’s suppose that we claim that your brain is too small to contain whole one(1) personality, one(1) personality is unable to fit into your brain/head, and we claim that your brain/head contains only tenth(1/10) of personality – flag into your hands, go ahead and try to disprove the claim that your brain contains only tenth(1/10) of personality. The reasoning behind that is very simple: if man’s brain is able to fit one(1) personality then such man is able to carry out scientific experiments to check whether experimental results confirm the predictions of model/theory or not, however if the man’s brain is too small to fit one(1) personality then such man says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence”.

In case if some readers are too afraid to carry out the experiment of “spiritualistic séances” then there is an alternative experiment which is much safer. The alternative safe experiment is the investigation of the dream characters.
It is very easy to prove experimentally that dream-characters do have their own “awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc”. The experiment setup is very easy. Next time when you go to sleep and when you have a dream and when you see some dream-character-of-human-form (father/mother/brother/sister/friend/relative/etc) in your dream, go closer to that dream-character and ask him a simple question: “do you have your own awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc?” and then wait for the answer from that dream-character.
Let’s raise a simple question: who is the best expert to decide whether dream-character has “awareness/consciousness” or not?
The answer is obvious: the best expert in this question is the dream-character himself.
So your job is very simple – just ask the dream-character himself whether he has “awareness/consciousness” or not.

In case if you have troubles to carry out this experiment during the dream (inability to control yourself during the dream) then this problem has easy technical solution – just use the techniques developed by Michael Raduga and you will be able to achieve lucid dream and/or OOBE state.
For more details please read articles in mass media about Michael Raduga's experiments at page:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_articles.html
The techniques for artificial induction of OOBE and/or lucid dreaming phenomena are described in details in Michael Raduga’s books which are available at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_books.html
The more efficient way to get acquainted with techniques of Michael Raduga is to watch video lectures instead of reading books, which are available at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_videos.html

 

[tsig]

Donn’s inability to carry out simple experiments due his religious beliefs is not the scientific argument.

If you have not done the experiment then you are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model.
If you have not done the experiment then your philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.

The experimental setup is very simple and the cost of equipment is less than a dollar. All you need are: 1) the needle; 2) the thread; 3) one standard A4-size sheet of paper. Almost everyone has these items in home. You can carry out the experiment right now instead of your philosophical-theoretical blabber.

The most popular religious dogma claims that man has “indivisible-single-consciousness”, the adepts of this religious dogma will fight until “the last drop of blood” defending the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.
We will repeat again a homework task for the development of logical thinking for religious adepts who have strong religious fanatic faith that “man has indivisible-single-consciousness”:
Are you completely sure that your brain is really able to contain one(1) personality? What about the scenario when one(1) personality is unable to fit in the brain, and only half(1/2) or a quarter(1/4) or a tenth(1/10) of personality is able to fit in the brain – how about that? Let’s suppose that we claim that your brain is too small to contain whole one(1) personality, one(1) personality is unable to fit into your brain/head, and we claim that your brain/head contains only tenth(1/10) of personality – flag into your hands, go ahead and try to disprove the claim that your brain contains only tenth(1/10) of personality. The reasoning behind that is very simple: if man’s brain is able to fit one(1) personality then such man is able to carry out scientific experiments to check whether experimental results confirm the predictions of model/theory or not, however if the man’s brain is too small to fit one(1) personality then such man says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence”.

In case if some readers are too afraid to carry out the experiment of “spiritualistic séances” then there is an alternative experiment which is much safer. The alternative safe experiment is the investigation of the dream characters.
It is very easy to prove experimentally that dream-characters do have their own “awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc”. The experiment setup is very easy. Next time when you go to sleep and when you have a dream and when you see some dream-character-of-human-form (father/mother/brother/sister/friend/relative/etc) in your dream, go closer to that dream-character and ask him a simple question: “do you have your own awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc?” and then wait for the answer from that dream-character.
Let’s raise a simple question: who is the best expert to decide whether dream-character has “awareness/consciousness” or not?
The answer is obvious: the best expert in this question is the dream-character himself.
So your job is very simple – just ask the dream-character himself whether he has “awareness/consciousness” or not.

In case if you have troubles to carry out this experiment during the dream (inability to control yourself during the dream) then this problem has easy technical solution – just use the techniques developed by Michael Raduga and you will be able to achieve lucid dream and/or OOBE state.
For more details please read articles in mass media about Michael Raduga's experiments at page:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_articles.html
The techniques for artificial induction of OOBE and/or lucid dreaming phenomena are described in details in Michael Raduga’s books which are available at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_books.html
The more efficient way to get acquainted with techniques of Michael Raduga is to watch video lectures instead of reading books, which are available at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/michael_raduga_videos.html

Ya really oughter 'spect my religion. If I want to beleive I'm the procuct of Jungle Juice and sweet monkey lurve, then that'll bee OK 'cause I'm Murican.

 

[Donn]

You say experiment, when you mean personal experience. These two are oil and water.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

Donn’s inability to carry out simple experiments due his religious beliefs is not the scientific argument.
If you have not done the experiment then you are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model.
If you have not done the experiment then your philosophical-theoretical blabber has no value whatsoever.

Ya really oughter 'spect my religion. If I want to beleive I'm the procuct of Jungle Juice and sweet monkey lurve, then that'll bee OK 'cause I'm Murican.

It does not matter what kind of religion is the faith of tsig. What matters here is that tsig is not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model because tsig did not do the experiment.

The difference between the scientist and the religious adept is the following:
1) The scientist does the experiment and checks out if the predictions of the model/theory are confirmed or not, and then based on the experimental results the scientist makes conclusions.
2) The religious adept says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence”.

Neurocluster Brain Model is scientific model, so if you want to check whether it is correct or not – all you need to do is to carry out the experiments which are described in Neurocluster Brain Model.
If you have not carried out the needed experiments, if you do not have experimental results, then you are not qualified as scientist to make the judgment, your judgment is based purely on religious dogmas.
The most popular religious dogma claims that man has “indivisible-single-consciousness”, the adepts of this religious dogma will fight until “the last drop of blood” defending the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.

You say experiment, when you mean personal experience. These two are oil and water.

Donn misunderstands what is the scientific experiment.
When Galileo was dropping balls of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa – that was personal experience of Galileo Galilei. When other people had repeated Galileo’s experiments that was personal experience of those people. That is exactly what the science is.

=======================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment
According to a biography by Galileo's pupil Vincenzo Viviani, in 1589 the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei had dropped two balls of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass.[1]:19–21 Via this method, he supposedly discovered that the objects fell with the same acceleration, proving his prediction true, while at the same time disproving Aristotle's theory of gravity (which states that objects fall at speed relative to their mass). At the time when Viviani asserts that the experiment took place, Galileo had not yet formulated the final version of his law of free fall. He had, however, formulated an earlier version which predicted that bodies of the same material falling through the same medium would fall at the same speed.[1]:20 This was contrary to what Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight.[1]:9[2] While this story has been retold in popular accounts, there is no account by Galileo himself of such an experiment, and it is accepted by most historians that it was a thought experiment which did not actually take place.[3][4] An exception is Drake, who argues that it took place, more or less as Viviani described it, as a demonstration for students.[1]:19–21, 414–416
Galileo arrived at his hypothesis by a famous thought experiment outlined in his book On Motion.[5] Imagine two objects, one light and one heavier than the other one, are connected to each other by a string. Drop this system of objects from the top of a tower. If we assume heavier objects do indeed fall faster than lighter ones (and conversely, lighter objects fall slower), the string will soon pull taut as the lighter object retards the fall of the heavier object. But the system considered as a whole is heavier than the heavy object alone, and therefore should fall faster. This contradiction leads one to conclude the assumption is false.
=======================

 

[Donn]

Nope it's not the same. However, bait on; 'tis amusing.

 

[Kid Eager]

This is getting tedious.

A hypothesis, founded upon nothing but a long list of assertions, is the epitome of the blabber that the OP is complaining about, in response to being extensively and frequently corrected on valid scientific experimental constructs and what constitutes evidence.

No doubt another wall of text will again seek to transfer the burden of proof and torture words into meaning whatever suits him best...

 

[Donn]

No doubt another wall of text will again seek to transfer the burden of proof and torture words into meaning whatever suits him best...

It's a rather tedious game of forum tennis. If it keeps going, the bulk of Wikipedia will have been quoted and we'll have all the points.

 

[Dancing David]

Very simple, seances attract brain mites. Brain mites like to burrow into the part of the brain that handles sleep cycles, causing sleep walking, blackouts, etc.

Thus wearing a tin foil cap can help....

 

[Dancing David]

And yet what follows is quite long and absent any substance. Do you not understand the difference between anecdote and explanation?

I suspect this answer will be quite interesting

 

[RussDill]

Any chance of getting a Rule 4 ruling? The excess copy/pasted content in neuroclusterbrain's posts waste a lot of time in trying to locate is actual responses.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

This is getting tedious.

It's a rather tedious game of forum tennis.

content in neuroclusterbrain's posts waste a lot of time in trying to locate is actual responses.

“Being tedious” and your personal inabilities (like for example “inability to locate responses”) is not the scientific argument.
What matters here is that Kid Eager, Donn, RussDill are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model because they did not do the experiment.

 

[tsig]

“Being tedious” and your personal inabilities (like for example “inability to locate responses”) is not the scientific argument.
What matters here is that Kid Eager, Donn, RussDill are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model because they did not do the experiment.

Try this experiment, drink a quart of whiskey, do many hits of acid and smoke all the dope you can.

Until then you are not qualified.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

How is a séance proof of autonomous mini minds? It could still be imagination, delusion, lying, actual ghosts, and so on. Aren't there better setups to check if consciousness is divisible than threading a needle until you start sleepwalking? If not, there should be.
And why this talk of neuroclusters? Can they be identified? Or is this just a poetic description?

 

[RussDill]

Try this experiment, drink a quart of whiskey, do many hits of acid and smoke all the dope you can.

Until then you are not qualified.

Really what he needs to do is learn Navajo and then read this 300 page treatise that I discovered on geysers.

 

[Kid Eager]

“Being tedious” and your personal inabilities (like for example “inability to locate responses”) is not the scientific argument.
What matters here is that Kid Eager, Donn, RussDill are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model because they did not do the experiment.

You are evading responsibility for substantiating your blabber. No amount of deflection is going to make up for the shallowness and lack of evidence to support the NCB hypothesis.

One would think that as the author of the model, some effort would surely have been exerted on finding evidence for it? Instead we get walls of text, no evidence, and a push for us to perform random activities, AS IF THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE!

Very unscientific. THe NCB hypothesis currently has more in common with a short story than it does a scientific hypothesis.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

How is a séance proof of autonomous mini minds? It could still be imagination, delusion, lying, actual ghosts, and so on. Aren't there better setups to check if consciousness is divisible than threading a needle until you start sleepwalking? If not, there should be.

One of “better setups to check if consciousness is divisible” is to do the homework tasks for the development of logical thinking, which are listed below.

Please raise your hands all readers who believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.
Question for Porpoise of Life: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”?


Homework task for the development of logical thinking #1: please explain very detailed – why do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? We will remind that religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness” has no experimental proof whatsoever, the dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness” is based on strong religious fanatic faith.

No, I don't know of any other theory quite that silly. I'll also say that there is no place in the brain where you could hide a second personality, much less 30 or 40 extra personalities.

Homework task for the development of logical thinking #2: barehl claims that brain has no place to fit a second personality. Please explain very detailed – why the brain should be able to fit one(1) personality? If two personalities do not fit in, then the same principle is valid for one(1) personality as well – there is not a single reason why the brain should be able to fit one(1) personality. Please provide at least one proof that your brain/head is able to fit one(1) personality. Let’s suppose that we claim that your brain is too small to contain whole one(1) personality, one(1) personality is unable to fit into your brain/head, and we claim that your brain/head contains only tenth(1/10) of personality – flag into your hands, go ahead and try to disprove the claim that your brain contains only tenth(1/10) of personality. The reasoning behind that is very simple: if man’s brain is able to fit one(1) personality then such man is able to carry out scientific experiments to check whether experimental results confirm the predictions of model/theory or not, however if the man’s brain is too small to fit one(1) personality then such man says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence”.