My Ghost Story

[Cosmic Yak]

Consciousness as an emergent property of brains? If the brain functions as a lens for the consciousness that resides in all of the dimensions that the mathematical theory states exists then that is exactly what the research would reflect.

There is no consciousness outside of our brains. A brain would have to be present for the consciousness to express itself in our physical reality. My idea is that the brain works as a lens or receiver for that consciousness, the one that animates the body. What you see in the brain is the chemical process that allows that to happen.

I know this is just your idea, or speculation or whatever, but humour me: which part of the human brain do you think acts as a receiver or lens?

Revising my assumptions. I don't think I'm wrong in interpreting and synthesizing the research that is a synthesis of various disciplines. My assumption that it was actually my mother might be wrong. It could have been me in that other dimension using that dream figure of my mother to try to warn me of some impending doom, possibly change it, or be prepared to deal with it. I say this because if we are truly multidimensional beings then there would be no need for my dead mother to warn me of anything in a dream, she could simply tell me in that other dimension, or I would see it for myself.

So far, these have included a cool film you saw, and Alice in Wonderland. It baffles me that you think that these are better or more insightful than the totality of scientific research into consciousness, the human brain, and other dimensions.
And no, this isn't really challenging your own assumptions. You are still convinced that you had an extraordinary visitation by some kind of entity whose existence would overturn decades of research and evidence, rather than just a dream.Why are you so opposed to this idea? Do you have so much invested in your position that you are unable to even consider you may be wrong? Everyone gets it wrong sometimes- it's no big deal. If you've studied spirituality, as you say you have, you should remember that there is no ego to offend. Just leave it and move on.

 

[dlorde]

There is no consciousness outside of our brains. A brain would have to be present for the consciousness to express itself in our physical reality. My idea is that the brain works as a lens or receiver for that consciousness, the one that animates the body.

We know that bodies can be animate without consciousness, so what are you suggesting consciousness consists of in this idea? what is it's function? what does it do that the brain cannot do without this consciousness 'expressing itself'? what does 'expressing itself' consist of?

p.s. The brain is not a receiver.

 

[Donn]

Ah, that was a great article. The light fairy.

Jodie, did you read it?

 

[JayUtah]

What you see in the brain is the chemical process that allows that to happen.

If the effects are fully explained by the chemical process, then there's no need to go looking for other causes, no matter how neat those causes might seem. Science is all about not multiplying causes without good reason. That's not to say we shouldn't imagine systems that might be more complex than what we see here and now. But we shouldn't confuse that imagination with the present need to explain and predict the natural world. When the time comes that effects are no longer explained by processes we know about, then we can look to imagination to provide hypotheses for us to test in search of more complex models.

...to create AI.

I wonder how much you've studied artificial intelligence. Computers really don't work anything like the human brain does. While we can model in hardware and software some of the processes we think the brain employs, all we ever come up with is mimicry of the outcome. What we call artificial intelligence is mostly a collection of techniques that work on computer, which allows it to perform some of the tasks we traditionally associate with intelligent beings. But we make no representation that it accomplishes that performance the same way an organic brain would.

Revising my assumptions. ... My assumption that it was actually my mother might be wrong. It could have been me in that other dimension using that dream figure of my mother to try to warn me of some impending doom, possibly change it, or be prepared to deal with it.

Well, I commend you for being willing to introspectively challenge your earlier interpretations. But you're just trading one farfetched claim for another equally lacking in parsimony. Okay, you're willing to concede that the "dream figure" wasn't necessarily the literal soul of your mother communicating with you from some other dimension. That's a noteworthy revision. But in all fairness you still haven given us anything that can't be explained simply by a dream of the type we know all humans experience. It is more likely that your dream figure was simply a dream figure.

Your evolving explanation still sounds very much like you really want to believe in multidimensional communication, that your experience was a manifestation of that, and that an explanation will be forthcoming by embracing the foggy fringes of metaphysics. Again, you can believe what you want. But you can't credibly call it science unless you adhere to the scientific method.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette I don't think I've been emotional or upset about my discussions regarding the afterlife. This isn't the first thread I've had this type of discussion about the topic and so far they've been fairly civil, for the most part. I actually enjoy them very much.

Glad to hear you enjoy them, and it is entirely possible I am wrong, but I am not ready to discard the hypothesis yet.

For starters, I don't completely buy that you have not been emotional or upset. You react as if being personally attacked. Moreover, you repeatedly accuse those who question you of being upset or offended. It's a projection sort of thing that I'm seeing.

I grew up in the bible belt and my Dad was a rocket scientist who worked under Werner Von Braun at Red Stone Arsenal in Alabama. Huntsville was a unique little town since there was a high number of professionals living there during the glory days of the space program. Despite it being in the deep south I was lucky enough to receive a very good education because of the tax base and demographics of the population.

Excellent. Completely irrelevant, but excellent.

However, were I to announce that I received a message from my dead mother I'ld get push back even in the deep south, even from other Christians depending on what denomination they belonged. It would be different from what I'm hearing here, it would go something like this " a demon tried to change the future", or some such nonsense. Life is full of give and take. I've met my fair share along the way. If I took all of this personally do you really think I'ld be coming back for more time and time again?

Depends on your motives and on what you get out of it. You would hardly be the first to keep coming back in spite of being challenged. For some, it is being challenged that is their reason for coming.

To me, people like JayUtah that resort to cussing you are people that are dealing with their own issues and happen to take it out on you on the forum because there will be little or no repercussions from it.

Possible but completely unsubstantiated. More likely is that his actually rather limited swearing is a combination of his personal style and his frustration at what amount to your non-answers.

It really has nothing to do with me other than how I choose to respond.

That's the case for everyone. So far your choices have been not to respond substantively. You have certainly responded at length but not substantively and not coherently.

This just happens to be one of my favorite subjects to talk about.

Cool. Seriously.

I remember over hearing my dad and his coworkers discussing the "many universe" theory in the early 60's when I was a child. I was so impressed by the conversation that, as a child, I reread "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through The Looking Glass" hoping to find clues on how to get to these other places. I was also hung up on "The Wizard of Oz" for the same reason because this was the only way I could understand what other dimensions might look like at the time. That's the extent of my emotional attachment to the topic. It reminds me of home.

That is actually a rather large emotional attachment, and it is echoed in the subject of your dream. It is also indicative that your understanding of the topics is fairly limited.

 

[JayUtah]

For some, it is being challenged that is their reason for coming.

Indeed, the UFO community relies upon this principle. "He must be telling the truth. Why would anyone make up a story that means they get ridiculed?" And the answer, according to Oscar Wilde, is that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Quite a number of people would rather be taunted, criticized, and laughed at just as long as they aren't ignored.

Over the years I've noticed that fringe claimants sometimes need some satisfaction regarding their critics, either to pretend to have bested them in debate, or to come to some comforting postulate about why the critics have "inappropriately" rejected the claim. This often leads to the kind of performance art we see in a number of ISF threads. Regardless of why we believe something, we (humans) want to frame our beliefs in the appearance of fact, reason, and science. It's ironic that sometimes we do this precisely by rejecting as "closed-minded" or "biased" the very facts, reason, and science that we presume to court.

More likely is that his actually rather limited swearing is a combination of his personal style and his frustration at what amount to your non-answers.

Indeed, I'm not secretly working through my own "issues," as Jodie suggests. Nor am I habitually vulgar. ("GTFO" is about as vulgar as saying the phrase "the f-word" instead of the word.) But she needs some pretext for rejecting me, as well as all the other critics. So it might as well be for "cussing." Anything to avoid having to deal with the actual issues I raised.

 

[Jodie]

I know this is just your idea, or speculation or whatever, but humour me: which part of the human brain do you think acts as a receiver or lens?

You'ld first have to establish that there was something to catch before you could try to define what part of the brain or process made it a type of receiver.

So far, these have included a cool film you saw, and Alice in Wonderland. It baffles me that you think that these are better or more insightful than the totality of scientific research into consciousness, the human brain, and other dimensions.

The film was an example to illustrate the concept that the multidimensional theories suggest, not provide evidence. The books by Lewis Carroll were used to explain why I was interested after over hearing discussions about other dimensions as a child.

And no, this isn't really challenging your own assumptions. You are still convinced that you had an extraordinary visitation by some kind of entity whose existence would overturn decades of research and evidence, rather than just a dream.Why are you so opposed to this idea? Do you have so much invested in your position that you are unable to even consider you may be wrong? Everyone gets it wrong sometimes- it's no big deal. If you've studied spirituality, as you say you have, you should remember that there is no ego to offend. Just leave it and move on.

I'm not offended by lack of agreement. It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong when there has been no one looking for consciousness in other dimensions. We've only had MRI and CT scanners for a few decades and atom smashers for even less time that that. These tools are pretty new so I wouldn't expect for this kind of research to happen anytime soon assuming they could be used to look for consciousness in other dimensions.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

I'm not offended by lack of disagreement. It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong when there has been no one looking for consciousness in other dimensions. We've only had MRI and CT scanners for a few decades and atom smashers for even less time that that. These tools are pretty new so I wouldn't expect for this kind of research to happen anytime soon assuming they could be used to look for consciousness in other dimensions.

This is the lack of understanding bit. First, MRIs and CT scans can't look for other dimensions. Second, and more important, no one has looked for leprechauns in other dimensions, either. This likely sounds flippant, but it's not. Third, and still more important, the nature of consciousness has been explored for quite a long time, and everything points to it being dependent upon the material and processes of the brain that we experience here and now without regard for other dimensions.

 

[JayUtah]

It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong when there has been no one looking for consciousness in other dimensions.

That's not how science works. You're making specific, affirmative claims. And people are pointing out that you have no evidence for them. They're not trying to convince you. They're explaining why they themselves remain properly unconvinced of your belief.

 

[Jodie]

We know that bodies can be animate without consciousness, so what are you suggesting consciousness consists of in this idea? what is it's function? what does it do that the brain cannot do without this consciousness 'expressing itself'? what does 'expressing itself' consist of?

p.s. The brain is not a receiver.

Depends on what you call animation. A functioning body without consciousness is just a body. Example- a partial mole as a result of a molar pregnancy. It contains DNA, teeth or other developed body structures, even brain cells but no one would consider it to be a conscious living being.

Those in a vegetative state or partial vegetative state have brain damage. That brain damage prevents the person from experiencing reality as we do, but it doesn't mean they lack consciousness on some level, their lens is just broken. To me, expressing consciousness means that you have the capability of using the brain as a tool to develop the necessary skills to survive and interact in this world.

If consciousness exists in these other dimensions then it would require a structure or means to process information from that dimension, not necessarily a physical brain. Since we only have research that indicates that these other dimensions exist, it would be a far stretch for me to try to guess how disembodied consciousness would work in these areas.

 

[Donn]

Frogs send consciousness to all brains via unknown ribbits. The bullfrog bodhi is the source of all thoughts.

Jodie will ignore this.

 

[Jodie]

That's not how science works. You're making specific, affirmative claims. And people are pointing out that you have no evidence for them. They're not trying to convince you. They're explaining why they themselves remain properly unconvinced of your belief.

I'm making specific assertions of belief knowing full well that there is no research that will back up my ideas, not now, and certainly not in the near future. Some have very kindly explained why they don't agree, others have insisted I'm mistaken. My point is that lack of evidence for a concept is not synonymous with being mistaken, in this case, it's simply an untested concept.

 

[JayUtah]

My point is that lack of evidence for a concept is not synonymous with being mistaken

My point is you expect someone to prove you wrong. You must prove you're right.

 

[Garrette]

In a general sense you are correct, but you have expanded the concept to the point of uselessness. That's why I mentioned leprechauns earlier and frogs and have rabbits have been mentioned more recently.

Aimed at Jodie, not JayUtah.

 

[Jodie]

Indeed, the UFO community relies upon this principle. "He must be telling the truth. Why would anyone make up a story that means they get ridiculed?" And the answer, according to Oscar Wilde, is that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Quite a number of people would rather be taunted, criticized, and laughed at just as long as they aren't ignored.

Over the years I've noticed that fringe claimants sometimes need some satisfaction regarding their critics, either to pretend to have bested them in debate, or to come to some comforting postulate about why the critics have "inappropriately" rejected the claim. This often leads to the kind of performance art we see in a number of ISF threads. Regardless of why we believe something, we (humans) want to frame our beliefs in the appearance of fact, reason, and science. It's ironic that sometimes we do this precisely by rejecting as "closed-minded" or "biased" the very facts, reason, and science that we presume to court.



Indeed, I'm not secretly working through my own "issues," as Jodie suggests. Nor am I habitually vulgar. ("GTFO" is about as vulgar as saying the phrase "the f-word" instead of the word.) But she needs some pretext for rejecting me, as well as all the other critics. So it might as well be for "cussing." Anything to avoid having to deal with the actual issues I raised.

I'm only rejecting your approach, other than insults, nothing you've offered has been a positive contribution until the last couple of questions. I'm being sarcastic here, but in what world do you live in where it is appropriate to tell someone to GTFO a forum no matter what the reason? That does demonstrate that something about my idea required a visceral reaction from you, which would be your issue.

 

[JayUtah]

...where it is appropriate to tell someone to GTFO a forum no matter what the reason?

Asked and answered. You keep coming back to this over and over again, ignoring practically everything else I've written. Why are those four little letters so gawldurned important to you? Are you that desperate to dismiss your critics?

 

[Garrette]

I'm only rejecting your approach, other than insults, nothing you've offered has been a positive contribution until the last couple of questions. I'm being sarcastic here, but in what world do you live in where it is appropriate to tell someone to GTFO a forum no matter what the reason? That does demonstrate that something about my idea required a visceral reaction from you, which would be your issue.

No, and this lends credence to the idea that it is attention-seeking on your part. I'm not quite there yet, but I haven't dismissed it yet.

It is difficult to believe that you cannot imagine that the GTFO is, as I said and JayUtah confirmed, simply a combination of his style and his frustration. That frustration does not even need to be at you specifically but at the type of posters you sometimes typify -- those who post wild claims, dismiss counter arguments without reading and/or understanding them, and blame the miscommunication on the skeptics.

You are either gaming for attention or humor, or you need to step back and observe your behavior objectively.

 

[JayUtah]

It is difficult to believe that you cannot imagine that the GTFO is, as I said and JayUtah confirmed, simply a combination of his style and his frustration.

Not even really frustration, except in the sense that debate is often just inherently frustrating. "Visceral reaction" is Jodie's characterization, not mine or yours. It suggests a need to paint me as some kind of emotional loose cannon that she can safely ignore.

The figure of speech means "Unless you have evidence, it doesn't matter what else you have." No more, no less.

 

[Garrette]

Not even really frustration, except in the sense that debate is often just inherently frustrating. "Visceral reaction" is Jodie's characterization, not mine or yours. It suggests a need to paint me as some kind of emotional loose cannon that she can safely ignore.

The figure of speech means "Unless you have evidence, it doesn't matter what else you have." No more, no less.

Understood and agreed. My point being that Jodie's insistence on the only explanation being that she has gotten to you, if sincere, is evidence of the attention-seeking hypothesis and, if feigned, is evidence of the gaming hypothesis. There may be something else, but I don't see it.

 

[Jodie]

If the effects are fully explained by the chemical process, then there's no need to go looking for other causes, no matter how neat those causes might seem. Science is all about not multiplying causes without good reason. That's not to say we shouldn't imagine systems that might be more complex than what we see here and now. But we shouldn't confuse that imagination with the present need to explain and predict the natural world. When the time comes that effects are no longer explained by processes we know about, then we can look to imagination to provide hypotheses for us to test in search of more complex models.

Quantum physics and mechanical physics are diametrically opposed theories but when you interject the mathematics for dimensional space, they work together. So far that theory remains unproven.

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

I wonder how much you've studied artificial intelligence. Computers really don't work anything like the human brain does. While we can model in hardware and software some of the processes we think the brain employs, all we ever come up with is mimicry of the outcome. What we call artificial intelligence is mostly a collection of techniques that work on computer, which allows it to perform some of the tasks we traditionally associate with intelligent beings. But we make no representation that it accomplishes that performance the same way an organic brain would.

It's because one can't replicate what one doesn't understand. No one has a clear idea of exactly what consciousness is yet to artificially recreate it here.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531146/what-it-will-take-for-computers-to-be-conscious/

Well, I commend you for being willing to introspectively challenge your earlier interpretations. But you're just trading one farfetched claim for another equally lacking in parsimony. Okay, you're willing to concede that the "dream figure" wasn't necessarily the literal soul of your mother communicating with you from some other dimension. That's a noteworthy revision. But in all fairness you still haven given us anything that can't be explained simply by a dream of the type we know all humans experience. It is more likely that your dream figure was simply a dream figure.

How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?

Your evolving explanation still sounds very much like you really want to believe in multidimensional communication, that your experience was a manifestation of that, and that an explanation will be forthcoming by embracing the foggy fringes of metaphysics. Again, you can believe what you want. But you can't credibly call it science unless you adhere to the scientific method.

I've based my premise on what science states is possible, not confirmed. When you really start reading this stuff with any regularity you'll find that we really don't know very much about our own theory of mind and how it works in the physical world, much less postulating how it would work in other dimensions we aren't consciously experiencing. It's all speculation at this point and I enjoy that process.