proto-consciousness field theory

baron said:
Incessant meta-analysis plus derails and insults from the sidelines. The preferred option of the poster who knows zero about the topic and resents those who do.
Click to expand...

What ever helps you sleep at night Sport.
 
Belz... said:
Ah, there we go! So the fluctuations themselves are not things. The field fluctuating is a thing, but not the fluctuations. Correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, correct as you have written it, but likely not as you intend to spin it. A field is a thing, the fluctuation of a field is another thing, but fluctuation itself not not a thing because it has no attributes.

Belz... said:
It's a damned shame that you don't get to actually determine what's real, what's a fact, and what the definitions of words are, eh?
Click to expand...

It would make it easier, I admit, but since I can't do that I rely on the accepted English definitions. I suggest you do the same.
 
Reality is not defined by how the third species of chimpanzee decides to flap its lips and tongues around to communicate.

Websters Dictionary is not the "reality creator."

Well defined and perfectly categorized nonsense is still nonsense.

"There's a word for it so it has to mean something" is asinine.
 
baron said:
Yes, correct as you have written it, but likely not as you intend to spin it. A field is a thing, the fluctuation of a field is another thing, but fluctuation itself not not a thing because it has no attributes.
Click to expand...

Right, so consciousness can't be a fluctuation, since by your own definitions it would then not exist. What you meant to say is that consciousness is a field that is fluctuating. Mind you, that's exactly the same thing, just worded differently.

So, now. Why couldn't consciousness be a brain that is processing? You do understand that this has been the actual question from the get-go?
 
Belz... said:
Right, so consciousness can't be a fluctuation, since by your own definitions it would then not exist. What you meant to say is that consciousness is a field that is fluctuating. Mind you, that's exactly the same thing, just worded differently.
Click to expand...

Now you're playing with words. If I have a sheet of paper I can measure attributes of that paper.

If I stick a rock underneath it I now have a bump in the paper (or a fluctuation if you prefer).

I can physically measure that fluctuation - it's height, breadth, volume, whatever.

If I asked you do to this you wouldn't stand there with a ruler in your hand saying, "I don't get it, how can I measure the fluctuation?" You'd understand perfectly well that you should measure the new geometry of the paper. Therefore the fluctuation in the paper is a thing with empirical properties, and it's obviously what I'm referring to when talking of 'the fluctuation'.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Reality is not defined by how the third species of chimpanzee decides to flap its lips and tongues around to communicate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reiterating my point that assigning an arbitrary description to the behaviour of an entity does not define reality, but I really don't need your input. Really.
 
baron said:
Now you're playing with words. If I have a sheet of paper I can measure attributes of that paper.

If I stick a rock underneath it I now have a bump in the paper (or a fluctuation if you prefer).

I can physically measure that fluctuation - it's height, breadth, volume, whatever.
Click to expand...

Are you going to answer my question?

Or are you going to continue to embrace the contradiction that a fluctuation is both a thing and not a thing?
 
baron said:
Thanks for reiterating my point that assigning an arbitrary description to the motion of an entity does not define reality, but I really don't need your input. Really.
Click to expand...

No you don't want input from people who aren't going to buy your "wise old man on the mountain" routine and tell you how deep and wise you are.

You most certainly need to hear from people who disagree with you, because you obviously have major issues with the very idea.
 
At the risk of butchering quantum mechanics, the idea that a particle can be a thing and not be a thing at the same time kinda makes sense to me. So I find the bickering of people trying to trap each other into logical contradictions to be - ironic? Amusing, anyway. It's a thing if we treat it as a thing, it's an action if we treat it as an action. It is matter if we're looking for matter; it is energy if we're looking for energy. Is this logical? Hell no! It's quantum mechanics.

Is light a particle or a wave? Yes!
 
Belz... said:
Are you going to answer my question?
Click to expand...

No, because you predicated it on a statement that not only don't I believe, I've proved not to be true. Therefore I logically can't provide an answer.
 
Minoosh said:
At the risk of butchering quantum mechanics, the idea that a particle can be a thing and not be a thing at the same time kinda makes sense to me. So I find the bickering of people trying to trap each other into logical contradictions to be - ironic? Amusing, anyway. It's a thing if we treat it as a thing, it's an action if we treat it as an action. It is matter if we're looking for matter; it is energy if we're looking for energy. Is this logical? Hell no! It's quantum mechanics.

Is light a particle or a wave? Yes!
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem. People half understand a layman's pop culture version of a complicated scientific idea and try to apply to Woo. It's called Deepak Chopraing.

"In quantum mechanics light exhibits the properties of both a particle and a wave" is a true statement.

"Therefore I have a soul that exists but turns magically invisible whenever big mean science looks for it because it's both a thing and not a thing because of quantum" is not.
 
baron said:
No, because you predicated it on a statement that not only don't I believe, I've proved not to be true.
Click to expand...

That you believe it is as irrelevant as the other excuses you've given so far.

When last I asked, you dodged the question by pretending that "processing" isn't a thing. Now that you've admitted that "a brain processing" IS a thing, you've walked back your objection sufficiently that the question once again comes to the forth.

Why can't a brain doing some processing be consciousness just like a particle is a field doing some fluctuating?

Stop hiding behind tricks and lies. Answer the question honestly.
 
Minoosh said:
At the risk of butchering quantum mechanics, the idea that a particle can be a thing and not be a thing at the same time kinda makes sense to me. So I find the bickering of people trying to trap each other into logical contradictions to be - ironic? Amusing, anyway. It's a thing if we treat it as a thing, it's an action if we treat it as an action. It is matter if we're looking for matter; it is energy if we're looking for energy. Is this logical? Hell no! It's quantum mechanics.

Is light a particle or a wave? Yes!
Click to expand...

But that's not accurate. The nature of the wave function is pretty well understood. The two major interpretations of QM are a) that the wave function collapses upon observation to produce what we call particles, and b) that the wave function never collapses and instead continues as a wave potential in Hilbert space. Neither one of these explanations involves confusions of terms, or a free-for all regarding definitions.
 
baron said:
Some haven't even got that far, as we can see.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is like a conspiracy theorist telling me to "do my research" or a Creationist telling me that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
 
baron said:
I'm not the one getting all angry because he can't force his opponent into addressing a straw man for a gotcha.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself. Nobody is angry at you. You haven't said anything of substance to get angry at.

We're just as always perplexed by someone who says... nothing and acts as if they're Mister Miyagi.

You're not Socrates nobody's going to make you drink hemlock because they are scared of your truth.
 
Last edited:
baron said:
I'm not the one getting all angry because he can't force his opponent into addressing a straw man for a gotcha.
Click to expand...

It's not anger to point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

Your objection to my suggestion has now been walked back, by you. Therefore, it ceases to be an effective suggestion. That's not a straw man, that's a consequence of YOUR words. If those words were in error, then clarify. You won't, because you are unable to admit to making mistakes, being ignorant or losing an argument.

But I think it's clear to anyone reading this thread that, since you've now admitted that objects taking actions are actual things with consequences in reality, your objection to the idea that a brain engaging in processing could possibly be the nature of consciousness evaporates. It follows then that you should either concede that it's possible, or come up with another objection.
 
You know, ancient philosophers had an exactly analogous problem with candle flames. A candle flame is obviously a thing. It's visible, tangibly real, persistent, has properties (hot, bright), and even has (on close examination) distinct component parts.

But its apprehension as a thing raised some questions. Most particularly, where did it go when you blew the candle out, and where did it come from when the spark was struck to light it up?

The answer they came up with was that elemental fire, which is what they theorized the candle flame is primarily made of, was not just a kind of substance. Like their other four elements, it was also a pervasive ambient presence. That presence was not so much a parallel plane of existence filled with fire; it was more like a direction of movement, emanating (in fire's case) from the south. In any case, lighting the candle brought the elemental fire making up the flame into visible manifestation. Blowing it out did not end the flame's existence; it merely dismissed it to its invisible ambient state.

If they were using our style of phrasings, they would have said that the candle flame is a fluctuation in the universal proto-fire field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom