On Consciousness

[PixyMisa]

Don't be so embarrassingly uncomprehending. The whole point was that there is no man with two heads.

So?

The man either has two heads or he doesn't, and we can tell by examining the evidence.

All else is woo.

 

[PixyMisa]

An ad hominem argument is when, instead of challenging what someone says, you dismiss what the person says by deriding the person who says it. E.g., if I said we didn't need to take anything Zeuzzz says seriously because he's a woo, I'd be guilty of ad hominem fallacy.

Right. There's a big difference between an ad hominem argument and an insult. The former is a logical fallacy; the latter may be both accurate and justified.

 

[quarky]

Right. There's a big difference between an ad hominem argument and an insult. The former is a logical fallacy; the latter may be both accurate and justified.

I'm sorry I insulted you.
I just find you irresistibly insult able.

May I ask what you are wearing right now?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Oprah is a billionaire.

Pretty danged weird.

Yes, there's money to be made telling people comforting nonsense.

 

[annnnoid]

So?

The man either has two heads or he doesn't, and we can tell by examining the evidence.

All else is woo.

….the obvious problem being…that the vast majority of the lives of each and every one of us are a function of a condition that cannot be adjudicated in any objective manner what-so-ever. IOW…the only reliable evidence available is my own. Choose!

So…all else is most indisputably not woo.

 

[quarky]

Recently I got into a discussion about guns (we've all been talking about it lately) and remarked that I thought having a gun around the house was immoral.

What a stupid thing for me to say. I think its true, with all sorts of qualifications, since it puts everyone in the house in a certain danger of accident and so on. Still, nothing I said from that point forward could penetrate the other side; I was perceived as a religious nut trying to force my moral rules on others via the law.

I think the lesson I learned, and will no doubt need to learn again and again, is that people take these words personally, and that once they've been insulted (and there is no insult as bad as questioning someone's morals), their ears become closed.

Now I will admit that there are some hereabouts -- especially the ones talking about sin -- who are impervious to rational talk, so one may as well throw the book at them.

I hate guns, if that's any consolation.
I don't have one; don't want one.

Oddly enough, due to my felony conviction for refusing to shoot people, I'm not allowed to have guns.

How bizarre is that?

 

[annnnoid]

I hate guns, if that's any consolation.
I don't have one; don't want one.

Oddly enough, due to my felony conviction for refusing to shoot people, I'm not allowed to have guns.

How bizarre is that?

…. probably more bizarre than dumping a mystery like that and expecting no one to ask for an explanation. Another thread…another time.

 

[quarky]

…. probably more bizarre than dumping a mystery like that and expecting no one to ask for an explanation. Another thread…another time.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Check out Orange Sunshine in community forum.
I suspect it's about to go into deep storage.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I am wondering about the exact algorithm to explain this conscious experience.

I accidentally inhale 50mg of DMT following an inexact usage of a vaporizer. By the time it hits I am greeted by a choice of going up stairs or staying downstairs alone. I now have a choice, I see at least ten stairways in front of me, two of which are made of Ogres, two of which are guarded by ogres, and the rest seem to be from the seventh dimension and largely impervious to any type of laws of gravity that I have learn't from Earth (climbing them seems to only return me back to where I started)

So on a gradient of one to ten, scientifically, which stairway is my best choice? There were definitely seven, at least.

This actually happened, by the way, I'm not pulling anecdotes out of my derriere.

PS: I can expand any point made above in nearly infinite detail if requested.

 

[crhkrebs]

So on a gradient of one to ten, scientifically, which stairway is my best choice?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you question doesn't make sense. There is no science involved in deciding which hallucination is real or not, so the term "scientifically" is not appropriate.

If you are asking which staircase was the most logical or rational choice to take, then I still can't help you. One's logical ability and reasoning capacity is a function of a normal brain physiology. If the brain is damaged, ill or feverish, or under the influence of alcohol or psychotropic drugs, then normal brain function is altered. I think a good case may be made that reasoning and logic do not apply here either.

I'm not sure what the point is in choosing between different scenarios that are based on faulty, non-existent hallucinations.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you question doesn't make sense. There is no science involved in deciding which hallucination is real or not, so the term "scientifically" is not appropriate.

If you are asking which staircase was the most logical or rational choice to take, then I still can't help you. One's logical ability and reasoning capacity is a function of a normal brain physiology. If the brain is damaged, ill or feverish, or under the influence of alcohol or psychotropic drugs, then normal brain function is altered. I think a good case may be made that reasoning and logic do not apply here either.

I'm not sure what the point is in choosing between different scenarios that are based on faulty, non-existent hallucinations.

If you can't demonstrate something is not just in your head, then it's just in your head.

Go where the evidence leads you, not where your feelings lead you.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm not sure what the point is in choosing between different scenarios that are based on faulty, non-existent hallucinations.

All experience is a hallucination to an extent, all we have is cross referencing of sober states to assure us of commonality. Even this breaks down when you get color blindness, Supertaster^WPs people with schizophrenia or synthesthesia, etc.

A conscious experience, whether illicited by a foreign chemical or elicited from endogenous chemicals, does not make it any less real than others. They happen.

I can't really remember the reason why I asked the above (it was new years eve) but I'm sure there was a better reason than I've just said ....

 

[crhkrebs]

All experience is a hallucination to an extent, all we have is cross referencing of sober states to assure us of commonality. Even this breaks down when you get color blindness, Supertaster^WPs people with schizophrenia or synthesthesia, etc.

Sorry, I disagree. You are not using the common definition of "hallucination". Plus, colour blindness and schizophrenia would be examples of the brain physiology not functioning properly. Obviously, one is more debilitating than the other.

A conscious experience, whether illicited by a foreign chemical or elicited from endogenous chemicals, does not make it any less real than others. They happen.

Again, I totally disagree. Just because meaningful sensory perceptions and drug induced hallucinations are both chemically mediated in the inter neuronal spaces, doesn't give them equivalency.

Assume I throw a baseball at you to catch. You visually track the flight of the ball and continuously assess it's current position. This process in mediated by chemical neurotransmitters. If you choose to ignore the sensory information, you risk breaking your nose when the baseball strikes your face.

Now, assume you reproduce your adventure with your drug inhaler. You begin to hallucinate a "floating purple dragon", that is drifting menacingly towards you, jaws wide open. You also visually track the dragon coming towards you. This process is also mediated by the same neurotransmitters. However, now they are modulated by the presence of the hallucinatory drug. So, a particular neurotransmitter may be over or under-secreted. Or a different neurotransmitter may also be released. Or a neurotransmitter binding site may be blocked. Or the re-uptake of a neurotransmitter may be sped up or slowed down. There are many things that can go wrong here. The DIFFERENCE is, should you choose to ignore the dragon, you do NOT risk being eaten!

So yes, one experience is "less real" than the other and they both don't deserve the same credence. As I stated above, logic and reasoning ability are dependent on a properly functioning brain. Ignoring a baseball thrown at your face is an irrational choice. I don't know if the same thing can be said about a reaction towards a hallucination.

A hallucination may "seem" real at the time, but that doesn't make it so. "Seeming" and "being" are as different as "believing" and "knowing".

I can't really remember the reason why I asked the above (it was new years eve) but I'm sure there was a better reason than I've just said ....

No worries.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I think the way this thread has progressed is pretty much summed up perfectly by this image.

Especially the points people have raised about colors and perception.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Sorry, I disagree. You are not using the common definition of "hallucination". Plus, colour blindness and schizophrenia would be examples of the brain physiology not functioning properly. Obviously, one is more debilitating than the other.

Again, I totally disagree. Just because meaningful sensory perceptions and drug induced hallucinations are both chemically mediated in the inter neuronal spaces, doesn't give them equivalency.

Assume I throw a baseball at you to catch. You visually track the flight of the ball and continuously assess it's current position. This process in mediated by chemical neurotransmitters. If you choose to ignore the sensory information, you risk breaking your nose when the baseball strikes your face.

Now, assume you reproduce your adventure with your drug inhaler. You begin to hallucinate a "floating purple dragon", that is drifting menacingly towards you, jaws wide open. You also visually track the dragon coming towards you. This process is also mediated by the same neurotransmitters. However, now they are modulated by the presence of the hallucinatory drug. So, a particular neurotransmitter may be over or under-secreted. Or a different neurotransmitter may also be released. Or a neurotransmitter binding site may be blocked. Or the re-uptake of a neurotransmitter may be sped up or slowed down. There are many things that can go wrong here. The DIFFERENCE is, should you choose to ignore the dragon, you do NOT risk being eaten!

So yes, one experience is "less real" than the other and they both don't deserve the same credence. As I stated above, logic and reasoning ability are dependent on a properly functioning brain. Ignoring a baseball thrown at your face is an irrational choice. I don't know if the same thing can be said about a reaction towards a hallucination.

A hallucination may "seem" real at the time, but that doesn't make it so. "Seeming" and "being" are as different as "believing" and "knowing".

THE EYES ARE USELESS WHEN THE MIND IS BLIND

You're right, Zeuzzz, your post does summarize what these threads devolve into.

 

[Zeuzzz]

God dammit I'll have to reply to that now!

No pretty pictures this time, I promise.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

God dammit I'll have to reply to that now!

No pretty pictures this time, I promise.

You should be replying to it anyway. You think the rest of us don't notice when someone takes the time to personally give you a mostly-accurate scientific explanation and you wave it off with a handful of new age tripe?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sorry, I disagree. You are not using the common definition of "hallucination". Plus, colour blindness and schizophrenia would be examples of the brain physiology not functioning properly. Obviously, one is more debilitating than the other.

When you say 'not functioning properly' you are applying a standard as if there is a standard to start with. I don't think there is. Schizophrenia is an interesting example, if two people with perceptual realities similar to each other, yet schizophrenic in nature, were to meet a 'normal' person then the normal persons perspective on reality could be counted as a hallucination as the average perception would be the schizophrenic one.

It's just the statement 'not functioning properly' that gets me. Would you say the same for super tasters that can taste more than most people? Or people who have hearing far in excess of the normal frequencies? Or people who see purple as green but never notice this as their cross references are always the same?

Again, I totally disagree. Just because meaningful sensory perceptions and drug induced hallucinations are both chemically mediated in the inter neuronal spaces, doesn't give them equivalency.

Assume I throw a baseball at you to catch. You visually track the flight of the ball and continuously assess it's current position. This process in mediated by chemical neurotransmitters. If you choose to ignore the sensory information, you risk breaking your nose when the baseball strikes your face.

Now, assume you reproduce your adventure with your drug inhaler. You begin to hallucinate a "floating purple dragon", that is drifting menacingly towards you, jaws wide open. You also visually track the dragon coming towards you. This process is also mediated by the same neurotransmitters. However, now they are modulated by the presence of the hallucinatory drug. So, a particular neurotransmitter may be over or under-secreted. Or a different neurotransmitter may also be released. Or a neurotransmitter binding site may be blocked. Or the re-uptake of a neurotransmitter may be sped up or slowed down. There are many things that can go wrong here. The DIFFERENCE is, should you choose to ignore the dragon, you do NOT risk being eaten!

Purple dragons are not carnivores, there is no risk of being eaten either way.

Even if the person hallucinating is convinced they are going to be eaten.

It makes sense to not be tripping when playing baseball too.

So yes, one experience is "less real" than the other and they both don't deserve the same credence. As I stated above, logic and reasoning ability are dependent on a properly functioning brain. Ignoring a baseball thrown at your face is an irrational choice. I don't know if the same thing can be said about a reaction towards a hallucination.

Culture is by far the trippiest hallucination I have ever experienced. Yet the majority of people seem to be stuck inside such a hallucination without even realizing they are in it all of their lives.

A hallucination may "seem" real at the time, but that doesn't make it so. "Seeming" and "being" are as different as "believing" and "knowing".

At the time of experience the hallucination is real for all intents and purposes, for that individual person. You can not average out personal subjective experience.

Well you can, if you are adhering to strict scientific deductive logic, but science doesn't really address consciousness or subjective realities. It's more about the external world than the internal subjective experience of it.

 

[Dancing David]

When you say 'not functioning properly' you are applying a standard as if there is a standard to start with. I don't think there is. Schizophrenia is an interesting example, if two people with perceptual realities similar to each other, yet schizophrenic in nature, were to meet a 'normal' person then the normal persons perspective on reality could be counted as a hallucination as the average perception would be the schizophrenic one.

Your sopistry is appalling.

No, perception unrelated to sensations are dangerous, this is bogus. Most people with schizophrenia find their hallucination frightening, terrifying and distressing.

Two people with schizophrenia do not have over lapping perceptual realities, they do not share hallucinations in common. They both have hallucinations , yes. the hallucinations are different. So you are saying that two radio stations are the same experience, they are not?

Therefore the person who does not have false perceptions is not 'schizophrenic' by any means, they just don't have false perceptions. You are saying that two people listening to radios on different stations would say that the person without a radio is REALLY the person with the radio.

Your recent posts seem to reflect a lack of coherent forethought and are just off the cuff 'what if' material.

 

[Dancing David]

Well you can, if you are adhering to strict scientific deductive logic, but science doesn't really address consciousness or subjective realities. It's more about the external world than the internal subjective experience of it.

More wrong, the fact that you want to believe in some magic about consciousness does not mean it can not be studied with the methods of science.

You are asserting your conclusion with no evidence , a false dichotomy and a strawman.