On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

Yeah your right, there is no provable difference.

But the same goes for a normal bicycle wheel, and one that "rolls" due to invisible pink elephants along the rim grabbing the ground with their trunks and pulling.

The pink elephant one is pretty cool, and some people might even try to push for it to be in science textbooks in schools, but you don't really *need* it because a normal bicycle wheel rolls just fine according to the known laws of physics.

Same goes for consciousness.

Totally different. There is no field of science even considering the existance of invisible pink elephants. There is a myriad of sciences investigating the brain and consiousness.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, you can't disprove that consiousness creates the brain, rather than the brain creates consiousness.

I have no idea what a soul is.

A soul is whatever this consciousness thing is supposed to be that's so undetectably playing our brains like a puppet show.

There is a myriad of sciences investigating the brain and consiousness.

Prove that your use of "consciousness" could not be performed by a pink elephant.

 

[Zeuzzz]

A soul is whatever this consciousness thing is supposed to be that's so undetectably playing our brains like a puppet show.

Its totally detectable via studying its effects on the brain. Just the cause and effect of all the neuroscience models is different.

Prove that your use of "consciousness" could not be performed by a pink elephant.

We've never detected one.

 

[quarky]

There's a few ways to study consciousness.
One of them is through intense observation and scrutiny of one's own.
Sometimes said quest is amplified through the ingestion of some amazing technological advancements; thank you Albert Hoffman and Sasha Shulgin.

As one whom has studied this from both sides; bio-chem major in college; etc, I remain of the opinion that consciousness precedes material.
I can well imagine how unpopular this opinion is here.
But it shouldn't be.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Its totally detectable via studying its effects on the brain. Just the cause and effect of all the neuroscience models is different.

We've never detected one.

Everything we've detected suggests that brain activity is solely the result of brain activity. You're trying to use Occam's Razor to trim your goatee.

 

[Modified]

The "brain as interface to consciousness" argument is pretty weak in my opinion. The fine level of brain damage that can occur due to injury - losing some specific memories but not others, some very specific abilities but not others, would indicate an extremely wide pipe, almost a tiny piece of "brain interface" for every tiny piece of memory or functionality in that "something else". Electrical brain stimulation produces similarly fine effects. That just doesn't seem reasonable. Also, personality should be something that is intrinsic to consciousness, not something determined by the interface; but brain damage can radically change personality. If a jerk has a stoke and becomes a kind person, as sometimes happens, is the "something else besides the brain" still a jerk?

 

[Zeuzzz]

If a jerk has a stoke and becomes a kind person, as sometimes happens, is the "something else besides the brain" still a jerk?

Im a way yes, but the way their damaged brain effects the way their consciousnes manifests in the material world is damaged by the strokes effects, resulting in a change in their personality.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Everything we've detected suggests that brain activity is solely the result of brain activity.

Indeed, but what caused the brain activity? We did. Not our brains, us. Brain activity is the result of our consiousness, in my opinion.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sometimes said quest is amplified through the ingestion of some amazing technological advancements; thank you Albert Hoffman and Sasha Shulgin.
.

Ineed, most people that have used such tools have come to similar reasoning I've noticed. You might like this documentary Quarky, brand new one all about the life of Sasha Shulgin

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Indeed, but what caused the brain activity? We did. Not our brains, us. Brain activity is the result of our consiousness, in my opinion.

Like I said, soul.

 

[quarky]

Ineed, most people that have used such tools have come to similar reasoning I've noticed. You might like this documentary Quarky, brand new one all about the life of Sasha Shulgin

Thanks, man.

loved it.

Risking credibility herein, I'd go as far as to say I have no interest in discussing consciousness with people that have done no homework on themselves.
Unlike many 'stoners', I've got a background in organic chemistry. I've also ingested the hell out of many novel tryptamines and phenethylamines, in the manner of a science geek; with copious notes; doses; times; background noise and so on.

To ignore all this, which will likely be ignored here, is akin to arguing about flight with people that have never flown; arguing about calculus with people that can't do long division; arguing about sex with the Pope.

even amongst the frisky, I barely want to engage with those whom haven't spent many nights alone, in total silence; fasted for at least 2 weeks; been lost in serious wilderness.

My new stance on this subject is this:

pm me if you'd like to hear about my observations.

I got infracted in this very thread, for an overly passionate (my bad) response to a luddite, probably one that wouldn't know ph from fm.

I'm too old for this crap.
Yet I'd be delighted to report on my findings.

to me, the altering of the state is the huge hope for all of us. Not space flight; not a new president; not new sources of power.

psychedelic humans.

that's our best shot at survival, imho

 

[Modified]

Im a way yes, but the way their damaged brain effects the way their consciousnes manifests in the material world is damaged by the strokes effects, resulting in a change in their personality.

Like I said, I don't buy it. That concept is silly on its face. Personality is what we are, it's the important part, and it's directly and totally (radically, at least, if I accept your view in principle) dependent on the physical brain. If there is something non-physical behind it, then that thing would be unimportant, a mere power supply at best.

 

[quarky]

More than a power supply, imho.

More than religion.

Science, of the sort we barely comprehend.

 

[!Kaggen]

Its called living like its your last day and yesterday does not exist.
No model exists for this reality.

 

[!Kaggen]

Why?

Most people take themselves far too seriously on this forum and making posts which are confusing are normally frowned upon. I think they make you human. Quarky drove that point home with such little fanfare I found it amusing ly wise.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Like I said, I don't buy it. That concept is silly on its face. Personality is what we are, it's the important part, and it's directly and totally (radically, at least, if I accept your view in principle) dependent on the physical brain. If there is something non-physical behind it, then that thing would be unimportant, a mere power supply at best.

There's not much point pursuing this line of reasoning. You could work him down to string theory and he could still argue there's demons plucking them.

 

[Belz...]

Indeed, but what caused the brain activity? We did. Not our brains, us. Brain activity is the result of our consiousness, in my opinion.

That makes no sense. Where does this consciousness come from ?

Science shows us that it's the other way around, by the way.

 

[Mr. Scott]

It is a bit of a derail, but, honestly, i was trying to answer your question to me.

I know, though I asked you why consciousness studies in particular seemed to enrage you. What I hear from you is it's just one of many areas of scientific inquiry you'd prioritize lower than others, like feeding the hungry.

You may want to dis some areas of inquiry as conforming to a religious dogma of science. I'd argue that the yield of science, including past work where no yield was anticipated, resulted in unanticipated benefits. The track record of pure science is awesome. Compare that to the track record of tradition religions. I think it's the comparison is weak. Science works.

A conscious food distribution network might be very effective. Let the AI research continue. New tools will be used for good and bad purposes. It's always been so. (I'm not afraid of conscious sex robots, though unconscious sex robots don't seem that shabby. joking!

 

[Mr. Scott]

A great video on what it means to be conscious of the future that is inevitable

http://vimeo.com/40974456

Computationalists want immortality by defining consciousness as the predictable past.
Consciousness means living for the only certain future, mortality, by battling the uncertain future daily.

"The mind fights the last war, the body the next" Nassim Taleb

I found time to watch that motivational mind candy, thanks.

Advice from hugely successful people like Steve Jobs is often worthless. The old "follow your heart/intuition/gut)" recommendation is nonsense, because we hear it from the ones who followed their heart and succeeded, but not from those who also did it and failed.

Talk to someone who won 100 million in a lottery what his secret was. He might say "I always bet on my mother's birthday, and knew, in my heart, it would some day pay off." You have to balance that with the thousands who bet on similar feelings of the future and have nothing to show for it. There are no doubt thousands who are copying Steve Jobs' advice on success, betting everything, and will end up with nothing. The rare success stories tell us very little about how to succeed ourselves. Delusional optimism is a trait we evolved for reasons easy to understand.

You know what future I feel? Awesome progress in AI, and wonderful conscious machines. I know why that's the future you don't feel.

 

[!Kaggen]

I found time to watch that motivational mind candy, thanks.

Advice from hugely successful people like Steve Jobs is often worthless. The old "follow your heart/intuition/gut)" recommendation is nonsense, because we hear it from the ones who followed their heart and succeeded, but not from those who also did it and failed.

Talk to someone who won 100 million in a lottery what his secret was. He might say "I always bet on my mother's birthday, and knew, in my heart, it would some day pay off." You have to balance that with the thousands who bet on similar feelings of the future and have nothing to show for it. There are no doubt thousands who are copying Steve Jobs' advice on success, betting everything, and will end up with nothing. The rare success stories tell us very little about how to succeed ourselves. Delusional optimism is a trait we evolved for reasons easy to understand.

You know what future I feel? Awesome progress in AI, and wonderful conscious machines. I know why that's the future you don't feel.

Oh dear you missed the whole point but confirmed the inspiration for the video.
The video was not about copying the successful outlier's history mechanically and unconsciously, but about living consciously through creativity in the now in an unpredictable world.
You falsely assume that because Jobs was successful his advice had something to do with it. No, his advice was not about how to be successful but how to be fulfilled.