Consciousness: what do we know?

[Iacchus]

I suppose the next question would be "Is God a matterless concept?"

God is energy.

 

[Iacchus]

In addition to reading a book on biology, perhaps you now need to read a book on physics. "Energy" is another one of those terms that you think you are using properly, when you are not.

Energy is the essence, of which matter becomes the form.

 

[hodgy]

What, the part that's written down or, the part that's in your head?

Both, where appropriate.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, no doubt, the physical manifestation of pigs exist.

What the hell does that mean ? Do you EVER provide explanations or do you always remain cryptic for no reason other than bug other people ?

 

[Belz...]

God is energy.

No.

If God was energy, he'd be scientifically testable.

 

[Iacchus]

What the hell does that mean ? Do you EVER provide explanations or do you always remain cryptic for no reason other than bug other people ?

All I'm saying is that much is obvious. But, that it doesn't provide much of an explanation for why pigs or, anything else for that matter, is here. Matter is just the furthest most outcropping of energy. So, matter doesn't determine what matter is. Energy determines what matter is.

 

[Mercutio]

All I'm saying is that much is obvious. But, that it doesn't provide much of an explanation for why pigs or, anything else for that matter, is here. Matter is just the furthest most outcropping of energy. So, matter doesn't determine what matter is. Energy determines what matter is.

Iacchus, when you demonstrate that you have even the flimsiest grasp of the physics of matter and energy, we might begin to take your word for some of these things. As is, though, if you are going to make a statement like the above, you would do well to cite the appropriate peer-reviewed physics journal articles, so that the rest of us can catch up to where you are.


Oh, wait...it's you.

Or at least write out the complete story of the dream that told you this.

 

[Mercutio]

God is energy.

Thus, physicists study matter and god.

It's all so clear now...

 

[Iacchus]

Thus, physicists study matter and god.

It's all so clear now...

No, technically all that physicists study is God.

 

[Dancing David]

Ions huh? As if to say these don't generate emf when they propagate? How do you know that this isn't in fact what the brain is "tuning" into?

Because you doofus, the brain uses nuero transmitters to communicate between the nueros, the ion exchange is the way that a single nueron signals to itself that the cell is to 'fire' and release the nuero transmitter. This is like saying that a car turns because the spark plugs receive signals.

And I do mean doofus in the best possible way.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm sorry, I should have said isolate and catagorize different kinds of qualia you know of, my mistake; I just thought people would be better able to recognize the qualia of strong emotions, so I used examples of such. We (smart people) know that qualia correlates to many physical things, but in itself, it is not a physical thing.

Your assertion that people are easily able to distinguish the alleged qualia of emotions is nothing but bogus assertion, people are trained during life to distinguish thier emotions. Most adults even have a very hard time actualy distinguishing such common emotions as anger and grief, but of course your bold statement based upon intuitive logic just makes it so, if people were able to distinguish emotions so easily then there would be no need for counseling or therapy, there would be no need to crisis intervention either, and politics would never be swayed by the most persuasive but by our intellect alone.

Yes, but consider the possibility that a non-physical sub-system of an unknown kind may exist on the other end for qualia. Now eliminate that possibility logically.

Why don'y you demonstrate that an Invisible Pick Unicorn didn't make you type that?

So until you had read/ heard your first neurobiology lesson you had no idea your mind existed, right?

So you never knew that an Invisble Pink Unicorn controls you until just now?
Amazing!

I think you're a smart guy, so you should be able to figure it out.

He could if the Invisible Pink Unicorn would let him/her.

 

[Dancing David]

The ions that control 'what the neuron does' are QM level events. If I understand the situation we do not have sufficient numbers of ions to rely on statistics; ergo, what is in control, ion by ion? For an idealist, Thought (and dare I suggest qualia) is/are available. That's one reason I like Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM.

Make sense?

No I am afraid not, the predictibility of bonding is not dependant upon the number of ions at all, so why don't you just say 'godidit' instead?

 

[Dancing David]

Interesting reading. One thing that occurs to me regarding the discussion of consciousness arising from the mind versus the mind being a conduit for consciousness is: Why must it be only one or the other? We don't really understand consciousness, though we have learned a great deal about how the brain works. Why presume that those are the only two possibilities?

Interesting reading. One thing that occurs to me regarding the discussion of Invisible Pink Unicorn arising from the mind versus the mind being a conduit for Invisible Pink Unicorn is: Why must it be only one or the other? We don't really understand Invisible Pink Unicorn, though we have learned a great deal about how the brain works. Why presume that those are the only two possibilities?

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, when you demonstrate that you have even the flimsiest grasp of the physics of matter and energy, we might begin to take your word for some of these things. As is, though, if you are going to make a statement like the above, you would do well to cite the appropriate peer-reviewed physics journal articles, so that the rest of us can catch up to where you are.

There are two worlds. One which is contingent upon energy (in relation to matter) to exist, the other which is contingent upon matter (in relation to energy) to exist. This is why we refer to our world as deterministic, with just the essence of spirit or, free will. The spiritual world on the hand which, flows directly into the natural, is categorized almost entirely upon one's affection or, love.

 

[Dancing David]

And, do you deny that you're conscious and, that this is the only means you have of accepting anything? If you want proof, there it is right there.

I could be operating under the illusion that I am conscious, just because the sun exists does not mean that it is Helios driven across the sky in a chariot.

 

[Dancing David]

"Very low potentials" of what? Electrical discharge perhaps? If you have electrical discharge at any given frequency you have EMF.

And the spark plugs recieve magic signals that tell the car when to turn.

 

[Iacchus]

This is like saying that a car turns because the spark plugs receive signals.

Yes, signals that are powerful enough to cause a discharge.

 

[Mercutio]

There are two worlds. One which is contingent upon energy (in relation to matter) to exist, the other which is contingent upon matter (in relation to energy) to exist. This is why we refer to our world as deterministic, with just the essence of spirit or, free will. The spiritual world on the hand which, flows directly into the natural, is categorized almost entirely upon one's affection or, love.

I almost started to write a refutation...then realized that, until you actually support your claim, there is nothing here to refute. Borg's dreams are just as flimsy as yours; have some fun--go to a library and try to find a source, even one source, to support what you are saying here.

 

[Dancing David]

I have direct knowledge of (what I call "my") consciousness, no data whatsoever on IPUs. That's one of those 'category difference' fallacies.



What do you term interactions mediated by photon exchange? EMF is not an unreasonable approximation.

Again, what predictable and observable do you have ? Speculation is great and wonderful, but what can you predict by waving your magic words around. Great speculation but no science.

Oh sure Hamme and the exchange of photons is what causes the car to turn when I turn the steering wheel. Isn't it?

 

[Dancing David]

Right. Numbers are actually my favorite example of non-material objects. They exist, but have no material properties. We even classify them into real and imaginary, rational and irrational. If you are willing to accept that concepts as numbers and temperature exist but have no material properties in and of themselves (that is, they are not as you said above "things"), you are accepting that certain concepts exist without being comprised of matter.

A thing that is a concept is only a thing in that it is used to communicate between humans.

Numbers do not exist and stand alone, no more than the free market does. So you say that the concept of tree has an actual existance when all the trees are cut down. What happens to the concepts when the last person who can speak a language dies.