Um...the same physical body (yours, in this case) is taking in data through senses and is processing these data. One external, one internal, but only one you.
This isn't that difficult, Iacchus.
This isn't that difficult, Iacchus.
Hardenbergh
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,073
That's a good trivia question. I can't remember whether you mentioned your middle name in your online book or not. Guess I'll have to do a search.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The external stimulus arrives in the brain as a signal transmitted along a nerve. So, yes, there is "something very similar about them". The perceptions exist in the brain as brain processes, just as consciousness does.
Belz...
Fiend God
Not a bad answer; yet, how do *you* participate in that universe?
Well, at least I don't contend that the universe participates in me.
Belz...
Fiend God
Funny. Half of the time the sky is black. It isn't blue when it's black, is it ?
Iacchus said:
But then, how would you know this ?
hodgy said:
Yes. That "beyond all doubt" thing caught my attention, hodgy. It seems to me like people tend to believe in all sorts of stupid things simply because of the certainty involved. Science is much more open-minded and thus subject to change. We can't have that, now, can we ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Iacchus said:
I don't see that as obvious at all. Why is it obvious ?
Iacchus said:
Why not ? Would it make you less special, or less conscious if it did ?
Are you saying, now, that the mind and the world are similar ? Doesn't that defeat what you've been saying all along ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Whatever you say, stardust.
Who to the what now ?
LOL!
I could just as easily be thinking of a number between one and one billion and, unless you were clairvoyant (hmm ...), I doubt very much that you would be able to guess what it was. Now, just because I may know of something, and no-one else does, does that mean I don't actually know? In other words it is possible for one person to know something and another person not to.Yes, but we do know that radio waves exists (both naturally and man made) and, that they are capable of operating devices remotely. So, it's not like we've never been introduced to the idea.
Yep, and neither does one need to be an astro-physicist in order to understand this. This is just a given when working with other people.
So there is in effect a "mixing" of signals then which, we experience as "us."
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I couldn't speak to whether it is likely or unlikely. However, "just happening" seems a rather disappointing response to the question of why are we conscious?
Question: Why are the planets in motion?
Answer: It just happens.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that the lack of knowledge is the proof of something. I would not insert anything into our lack of understanding as to the precise nature of sentience. However we don't currently understand how exactly humans are conscious. Some have declared that the inability to explain consciousness through materialistic means a problem (Hard Problem of Consciousness.)
I myself am not certain any more that it truly is a problem but it certainly illustrates a lack of understanding and I think the answer that "it just happens" not satisfactory in the least. But I'm willing to wait for science to answer the questions before I decide what exactly consciousness is.
Isn't it strange though, how the night sky is not visible when our atmosphere is bombarded (and overridden) by radiation "signals" from the sun? Whereas if we were to isolate ourselves, and put ourselves in a dark room for an extended period of time, we may begin to see and experience things that we wouldn't ordinarily see, correct? So why should this be any different (necessarily) than our viewing of the night sky? How do we know for a fact that these "signals" that the brain receives are not external to it?
Last edited:
Yes, but why should you have to rely on science to tell you that you are conscious? It sounds to me like the ball is pretty much in your court. Seeing as how you own a piece of the original equipment, that is.
Last edited:
Until Fechner came along, less than 150 years ago, it was assumed that this was not a question which could be answered empirically at all. Philosophers had their notions, but were quite wrong. To think this is "just a given" shows a tremendous ignorance of philosophy, science, and history.
Depends on what you mean by "signals", and what you mean by "mixing." If the "signals" are the electrochemical local potentials, action potentials, and synaptic releases of neurotransmitters, and if the "mixing" is the astonishing, elegant processing of these incoming sensory signals via interneurons, then yes. I would agree with your statement.
Somehow I get the feeling you define both "signals" and "mixing" differently than the rest of the world does...for that matter, I am a bit wary of your scare quotes around "us".
Because the brain doesn't know anything. It is "I" who knows.
When living in a "free society," and people are allowed to think for themselves, this is a given. When living under the auspices of a tyrant or external authority, perhaps not.
And I suppose you're not familiar with any of the equipment they use in a sound studio? Those aren't the real voices of the cartoon characters that you see on TV you know.
