Consciousness question

[Mercutio]

And if what I'm saying is true, why should the burden of proof fall upon me? I simply won't have it.

As I just said, and you ignored, it's not your choice to ignore it. I explained why above; I will not repeat myself here. You can choose not to meet this burden, of course, in which case your ideas will be justifiably dismissed by any and all. But by choosing not to support your belief, you choose to let it die.

So, if you choose not to respond to this burden of proof, you are telling us you don't care enough about your ideas to even attempt to support them. That's fine by me, of course; I think they are completely unsupportable. But what you cannot do is "simply [not] have it."

 

[Iacchus]

As I just said, and you ignored, it's not your choice to ignore it. I explained why above; I will not repeat myself here. You can choose not to meet this burden, of course, in which case your ideas will be justifiably dismissed by any and all. But by choosing not to support your belief, you choose to let it die.

Yes, and if you gave me a 20 million dollar grant to study it, maybe I could? So, don't bother me about the details.

So, if you choose not to respond to this burden of proof, you are telling us you don't care enough about your ideas to even attempt to support them. That's fine by me, of course; I think they are completely unsupportable. But what you cannot do is "simply [not] have it."

Yet much of what I understand can be discerned by reading the Bible? So, how is it that you are unable to understand?

 

[Iacchus]

I interact with spirits all the time. Both in my mind and, in what you folks refer to as dreams. And yes, for some strange reason, it seems to persist as well.

Whats the difference between this assertion and one of an schizophrenic?

Not much, because we are both examining the same "symptoms."

Besides, its not unusual at all for all of us. You are not "special". We all dream with imaginary people all the time. Thats right, we all and all the time.

Yes.

 

[Iacchus]

There is absolutely no reason for anyone, yourself included, to give any credence whatsoever to it. The fact that you do simply underscores the fact that you do not critically analyze your ideas in the slightest.

But then again, if people are merely mechanisms, and that presumes an existence which is purely physical, who cares? For then all we have to deal with are the "symptoms." Which, is quite convenient for those who make the rules (enter Occam's razor here) but, it doesn't necessarily get to the root cause of the problem.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, and if you gave me a 20 million dollar grant to study it, maybe I could? So, don't bother me about the details.

Well, that was random.

So, if you are 20 million bucks away from anything approaching evidence, why do you, yourself, believe? You really should not, if you are telling the truth here.

Yet much of what I understand can be discerned by reading the Bible? So, how is it that you are unable to understand?

Maybe I just know more about the Bible than you do. Starting with its worth as a source for such information as this...

 

[Mercutio]

But then again, if people are merely mechanisms, and that precludes an existence which is purely physical, who cares? For then all we have to deal with are the "symptoms." Which, is quite convenient for those who make the rules (enter Occam's razor here) but, it doesn't necessarily get to the root cause of the problem.

Your memory is getting worse. You said that just 4 posts back. Didn't make any sense the first time, either.

But then again, if people are merely mechanisms, and that precludes an existence which is purely physical, who cares? For then all we have to deal with are the "symptoms." Which, is quite convenient for those who make the rules (enter Occam's razor here) but, it doesn't necessarily get to the root cause of the problem.

Ah, I see it is merely "oops" now.

 

[Iacchus]

So, if you are 20 million bucks away from anything approaching evidence, why do you, yourself, believe? You really should not, if you are telling the truth here.

Because it's really not about the money?

Maybe I just know more about the Bible than you do. Starting with its worth as a source for such information as this...

Well, fortunately for me I was not brought up by Bible thumpers, so I had the opportunity to look at it without the bias of having someone force it down my throat. It makes a big difference.

 

[Iacchus]

Your memory is getting worse. You said that just 4 posts back. Didn't make any sense the first time, either.

Ah, I see it is merely "oops" now.

I was afraid it was going to get overlooked. And yes, it makes plenty of sense to me.

 

[Mercutio]

Because it's really not about the money?

Then why did you ask for it? Are you just trying, yet again, to avoid having to support your unsupportable ideas?

Well, fortunately for me I was not brought up by Bible thumpers, so I had the opportunity to look at it without the bias of having someone force it down my throat. It makes a big difference.

And yet you still rely on it for "evidence" on matters of consciousness? But will not look at any of the scientific literature that addresses consciousness?

Sorry, your position on the matter is hardly admirable. Worse, actually, than before you cited the bible as a source.

 

[Mercutio]

I was afraid it was going to get overlooked. And yes, it makes plenty of sense to me.

Look up the word "precludes". Then see if your post still makes sense.

 

[Iacchus]

Look up the word "precludes". Then see if your post still makes sense.

You're right, I think I should have used the word "precede." It's funny, because I've used this word in the proper context before. Shame on me.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, I do realize that this is precisely what others believe.

So, other souls are in disagreement with your soul. Those other souls are wrong and you are correct. Poor souls.

 

[Mercutio]

You're right, I think I should have used the word "precede." It's funny, because I've used this word in the proper context before. Shame on me.

"precede" does not work in that context either. What is it you are trying to say?

 

[HypnoPsi]

Well gosh, you don't have to go to surgery to satisfy that example. You become unconscious (by that definition) practically every night. During REM sleep, you may skirt consciousness what with dreams and such, but for most of the night you do not have continuous, (legible?) thoughts about your environment.

Idealists/dualists have never been able to give a reasonable answer to that question either.

Nonsense. If someone is awakened during REM sleep they will say that they were dreaming and (if you let them focus rather than distracting their attention) they'll remember bits of their dream. If they are awakened during deep sleep they will say they were thinking but have significantly more difficulty recalling or describing what they were thinking about.

I don't know what this feels like to anyone else, but in my own case it's like being awakened when you are so deep in thought about something that you're completely absorbed by it. For what it's worth, my own personal theory is that the ego/self becomes dissipated during sleep - and much more profoundly so during anaesthesia.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't know what this feels like to anyone else, but in my own case it's like being awakened when you are so deep in thought about something that you're completely absorbed by it. For what it's worth, my own personal theory is that the ego/self becomes dissipated during sleep - and much more profoundly so during anaesthesia.

Yep, because this ego/self is not a substance, nor an independent entity, nor it has any ontological status on its own. Human consciousness, our precious ego, its just the complex result of several things, a world, a brain, a language and how memory functions.

 

[Tricky]

Nonsense. If someone is awakened during REM sleep they will say that they were dreaming and (if you let them focus rather than distracting their attention) they'll remember bits of their dream. If they are awakened during deep sleep they will say they were thinking but have significantly more difficulty recalling or describing what they were thinking about.

That would suggest to me that they begin to think as they come out of deep-sleep mode. Obviously, you cannot remember "not-thinking" but the fact that they poorly remember very recent thoughts says to me that there weren't many very recent thoughts, perhaps only those that accompanied the transition from unconcious to fully conscious mode. That seems more likely to me than having deep-sleep thoughts which you immediately forget.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Yep, because this ego/self is not a substance, nor an independent entity, nor it has any ontological status on its own. Human consciousness, our precious ego, its just the complex result of several things, a world, a brain, a language and how memory functions.

Can you offer conclusive proof of this claim?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Mercutio]

Can you offer conclusive proof of this claim?
_
HypnoPsi

"Conclusive proof"? How many things in science do we have "conclusive proof" of?

There is considerable evidence to support what BDZ said; if you want to find it, just look for the things we keep telling Iacchus to read or watch, but which he ignores.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Iacchus, I am sorry to hear you have been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

You talk about this deeper knowledge, but any sort of genuine inquiry into how you know what you know is true is rejected. You refuse to acknowledge this. This MAY be a product of your mental state. I would seriously consider taking your medication once again. There is the matter of the doctor's qualifications, but when you mention the "state", I get the impression it is more likely you are dealing with qualified doctors.

I know that what the medicine does to you may seem to dull your senses. What I don't know is why that's the case. It may be that's exactly the point. Your objectivity may in fact be lost due to mental issues, or not. I can say that it is only for your benefit to continue the medication. Do not try to find some stray justification for this. The government is not trying to "silence" you. You are free to talk. Not once the entire time you've been at this board have you been banned. Further, you can say whatever you want and the government won't feel threatened at all. They have no idea what you are talking about either.

The only thing I'm afraid of is that you will attempt to harm someone. Please, if at any point you get the idea that you must "show someone the truth of the spirit" by killing or otherwise doing something to them so they can see it for themselves, DO NOT DO IT.

 

[HypnoPsi]

That would suggest to me that they begin to think as they come out of deep-sleep mode. Obviously, you cannot remember "not-thinking" but the fact that they poorly remember very recent thoughts says to me that there weren't many very recent thoughts, perhaps only those that accompanied the transition from unconcious to fully conscious mode. That seems more likely to me than having deep-sleep thoughts which you immediately forget.

Not really - and in fact that's totally counter to the whole materialistic idea. Brains are very active during all stages of sleep and work as much in concert at night as they do during waking hours - if not moreso.

The argument that consciousness "goes away" during deep sleep or anaesthesia is an argument that consciousness is something other than electrochemical or electromagnetic brain activity.

Why should consciousness go away during anaesthesia or deep sleep if consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon or emergent property of nerual activity (which continues in deep sleep and anaesthesia)? What theory explains that from a solely materialistic view of consciousness?

And what of the materialistic support for robot consciousness? How and why should we ever assume robots conscious rather than in a state of something akin to permanent anaesthesia or deep sleep?

For an interesting take on this there is the first paragraph and last five paragraphs of the following article:http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/painless.html

The above link reminds me somewhat of Sir Roger Penrose's ideas about quantum gates and microtubules - maybe anaesthetics really do interfere with the connection of consciousness to the body. The fact of the matter is, quite frankly, that we don't know.

What we do have, clearly, is the ability to alter something about consciousness somehow either by temporarily eliminating it entirely from the brian or wiping out memory of the time spent under anaesthesia (or a combination of both). Having a variable factor that we can manipulate is the beginning of a scientific investigation but we have no idea where it will lead us.

One thing is clear: the idea that brain activity produces consciousness and anaesthetic eliminates it are mutually exclusive. The hypothesis has to become further refined somehow.
_
HypnoPsi