Your brain hallucinates your reality

Author: Outplayz

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5

I personally think he is trying to take a philosophical topic and water it down. I feel this is a bit short sighted or at the very least on a Consciousness 101 level. Anyways, i'll let you guys discuss. 

One thing that does come to mind (no pun intended) is a free will argument... but, anyways, i want to read your opinions. 

Oh, and one thing that i thought wasn't clear was distinguishing between self and identity or that sense of "meness." 


#2
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Your brain is like a person in a windowless vehicle piloting with only instruments to guide them.
#3
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Adding onto what you said. Instruments that you have to trust that can help you guide the external world. 
#4
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Humans are the windows of the soul ---i.e. a biologic-- with following abilities;

1} to comprehend Universe aka Uni-V-erse,  via,

...1a} access to metaphysical-1,mind/intellect/concept ergo,

....1c} the ability to envision the the mostwholistically comprehensive, and finite set, that we can then call//label " G "od//" U "niverse, and,

.....1d} conceive of an eternally existent, non-integral, macro-infinite infinite SPACE that,

......1e} exists beyond,  the finite --ergo integral--- occupied space  Universe // Uni-V-erse.

via there;

......2} 12 - 24 bilateral{?} cranial nerves,  ---24 chords of cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron---,

.......2a} 31 bilateral spinal nerves,  --31{ prime } left and right-skew great circles of the icosa{20}hedron--,

........2c} bilateral hemi-spheres, and all of the other complex parts of the brain, that,

...........2d} produce recall abilities, and

.............2e} synergetic reproduction of those recall abilities into an integral whole, and then,

...............2f} communicate those integrated whole sets as, mind/intellect/concepts, to self and others.

......"The only thing that interferes with my learningis my education"....A Einstein....

................"Dare to be Naive"...Bucky Fuller

........"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."... Ricard Feynman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
......................ww........bad hair day
...................} * v * {...... I am not a chicken
...................( - )( - ).....bosom buddies
......................( . )........wee bit pregnant
.....................\*Y*/.......  external or, internal bilateral set
...................../.....\.......leg, fin, side arm
................__/.......\__....tail-fin or tail fluke


Accept me for what I am, not what others falsely project that I am

And the fertilized egg shouts out,

'I may not be an independent individual, that,
has taken my first IN-spiration of air,
however, have no doubt, that

I Am Somebody, and some day,
I will be set free from,
my umbilical chord attachments,
to this woman.

Fertilized eggs desire to be free,
and someday, we will be a free,
independent individual,
or bust.

we shall overcome,
we shall overcome.

Sing it with me, we are, escaping, Jacob wife's womb,
we are,  escaping, Jacobs wife's womb
soldiers, of the, Free-the-Fetus-Now organization!!!
Topic's author
#5
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I like that analogy. I also think of it like a gamer analogy. The gamer (brain) controlling the character (you) in the game. But as you can see, that raises some philosophical questions of what this reality really is and who you are and could be... plus, it doesn't really question some consistencies that have been you throughout the years. I agree "self" can change due to interaction with reality... but there is a "you" that has been there before this evolving self... which can be called "identity" or that sense of "meness." Purely saying it's only biological doesn't answer some deeper questions.   
#6
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I think of the brain like a computer running a program that models the evolution of a world.  We are aware of the contents of that model, not the world 'out there'.   If i preceive X I don't know X is 'out there', but I am sure that an X is part of my mental model, and it's perfectly possile for X to e out there without me being aware of it if for any reason X is omitted from the model.

Our senses serve the purpose of adjusting our mental model so it tracks eternal reality; that is sense data steers our perception ut does not drive it.  The brain predicts the future, the senses correct the error between prediction and reality.

When we are asleep, sense data correction is less effective with the result that the brain's prdiction of the future can go a bit wild.  In a dream a car journey can transform into a boat trip - that is because it is just a minor change in neural activity.  When we read some text our brains extract meaning using clues such as meaning and grammar - typos are not noticed because the inkstains we see on the page are secondary - as long as they 'close enough' to what we expect we don't notice them.   Sometimes reality is not what we predicted, and then we feel 'surprise'.

Although we do not preceive etenal reality directly, we are still in danger from it.   One is not safe from a sabre-toothedtiger or cliff edge by being unaware of it - quite the opposite in fact.   Thus we will have evolved to have a fairly accurate mental picture of the real world - otherwise we would have been eaten by critters with better world-modesl!  Obviously our world-models arent  perfect - we don't need to know about atoms to escape predators - but I think we can hope we arent copletely deceied aout reality either!

Note that perception of X does not mean X is in the world, it means X is part of our mental picture of the world.  In particular, that we perceive ourseves as conscious does not guarantee we are consciuous!   In my mental picture of the world I am a conscious entity, but I have doubts that is the case!   I think consciousness (in the sense of Chamer's hard problem) may be impossile!  But consciousness bein impossile does not mean I cannot be represented as a conscious enity within my mental model of the world.     My brain doesnt have to implement consciousness - it only has to support the fiction that i am a conscious entity.  It is like a faster-than-light space ship - there can be no such thing, but there can be representations of ftl space ships.


     



Topic's author
#7
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
So, you don't agree that are consciousness is constantly guessing? I didn't agree with the guy in the video on that, or maybe i misunderstood him. Bc if we didn't "learn" that an orange is an orange and not a rock... we wouldn't be alive today. An orange is an orange, at least as real as it gets, it's there. So, there's really nothing to guess... Throughout our time surviving, i think our consciousness has figured out the world. Maybe predicts or guesses other things... but, as far as presently, it has a good idea of what's there... or else we wouldn't be here. 
#8
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
So, you don't agree that are consciousness is constantly guessing?
Let's clarify the meaning of 'guessing'.   In a coin toss i can guess head or tails - I have no reason to choose one and not the other.   We can call that a 'pure guess'.   On the other hand if you ask me to guess i the sun will rise tomorrow I guess that it will!   Call that a 'reasonned guess'

Consciousness evolved so we can make reasoned guesses about the future (which is always uncertain).  I'm not suggesting the following is true or even realistic, but it is illustrative of what I have in mind.

Suppose that in the pattern of neural activity corresponding to an object its height above the ground is encoded as the rate a synapse is firing.  Further suppose that rate tends to decrease because the synapse tires.   That would automatically model the object falling.  In that way nature can get the brains model to the world to mimic events in the world.giving it predictive power.

I don't expect you to take that as how I think gravity or things falling is really modelled by the brain - I'm sure things are more complicared than that!  It's an over-simplified sketch of the general principle I think play a role in how the brain helps us survive in the world. 
 
So is modelling the probable evolution of conditions in the world 'guessing' - I'd say 'yes, in way' because the future is always unknown - all one can do is 'guess' what the future holds, but it doesn't have to be a pure, aritrary guess.  It can be an informed or reasoned guess and it can een be implemented mechanistically, ie without involving actual intelligence (or magical clairvoyance!).




Topic's author
#9
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
Let's clarify the meaning of 'guessing'.   In a coin toss i can guess head or tails - I have no reason to choose one and not the other.   We can call that a 'pure guess'.   On the other hand if you ask me to guess i the sun will rise tomorrow I guess that it will!   Call that a 'reasonned guess'
I see where you're coming from. I just don't know how these people know. Sure, we can define guess as your brain being logical and reasoning to make sure nothings changed... but it seems to me, most the time it would make more sense that you just know what things are. Keeping to the Orange analogy. I don't think my consciousness is doing too much to determine that's an orange... sure, it's staying aware. Aware it's not spoiled... aware that somehow it doesn't magically turn into a rock... but, i think it just know it's an orange and doesn't spend much more time considering the probabilities that it isn't edible. Instead using the word guessing... i would use the word "aware." I don't see how that isn't just as viable. Plus, this awareness would also answer the consistencies that have always been who i am. Bc i know from experience there are things that have been consistently who i am separate of the worlds influence... only influence being is that they exist in this reality. The guessing, even by your definition, wouldn't make sense of that... but, some form of definition of awareness would. 
#10
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
I think Seth wanted to emphasise that what we perceive has more to do with the brain 'inventing' perceptions than one might suppose.  Various experiments show that the perceptions the brain makes up often over-ride our sense data.   But of course sense data is not ignored or there'd be no point having sense organs at all.

I'm sure many times you have mistaken one thing or another, at least initially.  That would be an instance of 'guessing wrong'.  Often more sense data will come in and force a correction of an erroneous perception, but if that didn't happen you might never know you were wrong!

But it's true we are pretty good at guessing right.  A glimpse of orange colour that make us guess there is a nice juicy orange in our vicinity is very often vindicated - but it's not always...

Topic's author
#11
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
I think Seth wanted to emphasise that what we perceive has more to do with the brain 'inventing' perceptions than one might suppose.
I can see that, and i agree with it too as one way of looking at it. However, can we generalize? For instance, the tests he showed of the fork on the hand and the computer simulation of a hand... that would never work on me. I've tried these things. I'm sure on the fork test, i would slightly move my hand bc some random just came at me with a pointy sharp object... not bc i felt it or even thought that was my hand. It's just a reflex in general. Or, the computer hand... i wouldn't in a 100 years think that's my hand... i play way too many video games and even without that... i don't think i ever would. I feel he used highly malleable and easily influenced people to prove a point. Bc yeah, i'm sure i can find someone that would feel it in the fork experiment... or someone that will fall for the simulation hand. There are people like that... and, there are people not like that. So, to generalize when it comes to consciousness is very simplistic and ignoring the subject in a bigger picture sense... and i felt he was being deceptive in not bringing up some people are different.

Now, i do agree in a sense we are hallucinating reality. It's all light coming into our eyes and being processed to show us what's there... which is all lights and waves. But, is it our consciousness inventing these things? Or, is our consciousness relearning these things? or, can't i just say we are becoming more aware? Inventing, guessing, learning, relearning, logic, reason, all of that is just a part of the process. I just don't see how we can generalize and say everyone is doing the same. And why is everyone not doing the same? Goes to the why aren't we just "philosophical zombies" type arguments.     

With all that said, i mainly agree with him on the reality part of the spectrum (minus that i'm questioning the generalizations of it fitting into his model - the question can be flipped to what is reality anyways).  But besides the reality part, my biggest problem with the video is how he explains consciousness in regards to self. I agree reality affects self, but then again, i'm sure we've had a certain element of ourselves that preceded what we saw in reality (of course not everyone). I think this is where the guessing and inventing falls apart.     
#12
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
you might enjoy this podcast.

Topic's author
#13
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
I'll listen to it. Although, i think he's a sneaky fella. That whole ending to my video: "There is nothing to fear... NOTHING AT ALL" Hmm, i heard him loud and clear if some others missed that bit of clever agenda filled remark. I'd like to know when he died to have such knowledge. With that said, he is doing good things so i'm interested in listening to his stuff so thanks... i'll give it a listen; tomorrow... got shows to get to tonight. 
#14
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
I personally think he is trying to take a philosophical topic and water it down. I feel this is a bit short sighted or at the very least on a Consciousness 101 level.

The brain is not creating consciousness period, ever, it's outlining your individual perceptions so your attention is confined to the physical brain and body while in this bodily form. So, your conscious experience is being forced through the conductor that is the brain so that what you experience is limited through the physical sense perceptions including the nervous system. But there is no neural activity or culmination/arrangement of physical senses that can create your actual conscious awareness (being), they only give you a conduit/channel to have an experience through sense perception in certain forms, but they're not consciousness itself.

These types of secular videos that speculate on the nature of consciousness always focus on what activity is taking place within the brain itself and what our physical senses perceive, but it's just like observing electricity within a circuit board/panel, you can say electricity is doing this and that, and it's components allow this and that by measuring that activity ect ect but electricity is only being harnessed and restricted/confined to that panel, the activity within the circuit board is not creating electricity so this is a very limited approach. The physical sense perceptions are not creating consciousness, they are actually simulating, they simulate a cage or a type of confinement for conscious awareness which exists independent of form and physical sense perception to channel through.

The video is correct in one sense (because we can measure physical activity through physical medium/instrument), that what we are experiencing THROUGH the brain is a controlled hallucination confined by the brain because obviously the brain would be the medium or receiver of the physical body to the soul. Because our brains act as a conduit of our conscious being, our brain acts just like a component on a circuit board and our experience is confined to it and we can measure that activity. However, like most materialistic propositions this can only propose what takes place within those conductors or components (physical senses/brain) they can't truly articulate what creates your actual being or awareness they can only say "hey, we can hook up instruments to the body and measure some activity and assume that the activity we can measure creates your consciousness" but that is only one limited observation.

What tricks people is what they are perceiving through the brain and physical senses, but there must be an observer that perceives the experience for there to be any perceiving to begin with. There is no experience without an observer and there is nowhere something exists without awareness it's impossible. You are the one observing the experiences/senses like as if you were operating or controlling a vehicle, you're the one driving the vehicle but you are not the vehicle itself, the vehicle and the material body are only a vessel to navigate through.
You know you're not your thoughts because your thoughts continually change, they are just a product of the mind (which is inanimate), a categorization or reaction to what you experience, remember or desire.. what you thought an hour ago may be different from what you're thinking right now, but the one observing the thoughts is the same observer, it never changed it just observed what you were thinking. You know you're not your feelings and emotions because when your girlfriend dumped you years ago you were crushed but your feelings changed, you got over it you were only experiencing those feeling they did not create your consciousness. You're not the mind, the mind is not an entity it's where thought generates, memory is stored and experience and opinions categorized but your consciousness illuminates the mind and observes thought....the mind does not create your conscious being.
Just the same you're not your nervous system and physical senses because they change from moment to moment all your sense perceptions are just a successions of experiences they are one thing one moment and another thing the next. What you felt an hour ago or last year when you stubbed your toe, is not what you feel right now but the one observing always was and is the same, you only felt pain because your nervous system was a conduit of your conscious experience and your conscious experience is confined to a nervous system but it doesn't create your awareness. Cells, which make up every part of the physical anatomy and body (including the brain) continually regenerate and renew! Physical sense perceptions as well as what makes up the material form are constantly changing, coming and going but the one observing the senses is constant.

The brain, is simply a temporary conductor that confines your conscious experience to this bodily form. When you depart this form your consciousness will no longer be limited to the brain or the physical body. Anyways the point I'm obviously making is that your conscious awareness is not a product of something but your temporary perceptions and senses are, two different things. Sometimes I friggin ramble to make a point sorry.
There is no real difference between the nature of energy and the nature of awareness/consciousness, it exists independent of form but creates form so that sentience and consciousness can experience through. This is a process of course, we see that through what we observe through evolution and quantum physics...but evolution never created consciousness and awareness was never a product of evolution, rather awareness/intelligence was manifesting and evolving physical embodiments (energy) through this physical plane so that we can be in this world.



#15
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
Lol, if people only knew the brain is simply a component/conductor! but in this world it's meant to be that way because it restricts peoples attention to certain roles and dreams that are both wanted and needed here. Without the brain, we would literally be disconnected from the experience in this physical plane, but consciousness survives physical death.
I was actually a little disappointed with the video, which initially made claims that secular science does in fact have more information about the nature or origin of consciousness than we might think and then proceeded to make the very same, few claims we've already heard that are weak.

#16
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
but consciousness survives physical death.
I have no doubt you believe that.   I do not know how you maintain that belief in the face of the everyday observation that consciousness does not survive anaesthesia, sleep or Alzheimer's.  

Such things persuade me that the self is a product of a functioning, intact brain.   I can't prove that, but you can't prove 'consciousness survives physical death'.   Research, not rhetoric, is how we'll find out who is right. 

#17
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Research, not rhetoric, is how we'll find out who is right.Consciousness is the great illusion of 3D { XYZ } + Time { Observed }.
The scientific method.

..."The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."... Ricard Feynman

Consciousness is the great illusion of 3D { XYZ } + Time { Observed }.

Jacob Bekentstiens black hole mathematics led him into holographic scenarios and to make the following statement to Scientific American.
..'we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D'.....

The best way Ive come to grasp how we could be 2D having illusion of 3D + time is via the tetrahedron turning itself inside-out, via its 4 vertexes.

See LINK

........Dare to be Naive ....Bucky Fuller....

One vertex { nodal point } travels through the diametrically opposite triangular opening, however, at the half-way point we have a condition of 2D, as, a subdivided 2D triangle \Y/ { area as three smaller triangles enclosed by larger triangle } and gives a us a birds-eye-view of the tetrahedron.

So we can see this above as 2D piece of plywood or other substance, as soon as the center moves out of the 2D plane, we condition of warped 2D.

With the 2D subdivided triangle we see that as soon as the nuclear vertex moves outside of that plane we both;

1} a warped 2D { area } subdivided triangle, and,

2} a 3D { volume } tetrahedron.

........................* i *  > 3D > 2D > -|- > 3D > * i *...............................................

......"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"....A Einstein....





#18
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
I have no doubt you believe that.   I do not know how you maintain that belief in the face of the everyday observation that consciousness does not survive anaesthesia, sleep or Alzheimer's. 

I actually explained this indirectly if you really read my post. The soul doesn't survive damage to the physical body or brain in terms of experiencing what the senses determine. So whatever the brain does, the driver (soul) will suffer as well. If your car get's a flat tire, you don't go anywhere unless you first fix it, or get another vehicle this is what confines your experience to this form. So while the soul temporarily suffers the effects of the physical body, it eventually leaves that body but consciousness stays in tact. And when we examine all the evidence through testimonies it should be pretty obvious that this is true.
When there is physical trauma or damage to the brain it's like the soul is looking through a glass, where their perception and observation is now distorted. Eventually the physical body can no longer maintain the energy it needs to support the soul and it has to drop, but once the soul finally disconnects from the body it's perceptions are full again, or no longer distorted. If the brain deteriorates so does the image of the user. 

Such things persuade me that the self is a product of a functioning, intact brain.   I can't prove that, but you can't prove 'consciousness survives physical death'.   Research, not rhetoric, is how we'll find out who is right. 

Surely there are many things I can't "prove" to you here and now....but I can articulate experience and knowledge and I can point you to the obvious evidence available that correlates with this type of nature. I can explain to you the nature of consciousness and the soul in a coherent manner. What you should be persuaded by is that you are first a conscious being, not a series of impulses and neural firing that come and go lol. You are simply looking through a mask, if you pulled away from the material body you would still be a conscious YOU. Your brain has activity because you are occupying it and the body has to have conduits and components that are alive not dead, so that is why we need the neural and energetic components to be able to be alive and sense things in this environment. The body must be able to sustain a conscious entity.


#19
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
it seems to me you believe in a self or soul that exists independently of the brain.  i have a different view of what the self is - i compare it to the electric current produced by a dynamo.  Such a 'soul' is real - it exists as long as the brain is operating, but only when it is operating.
#20
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Such a 'soul' is real - it exists as long as the brain is operating, but only when it is operating.
Soul = biologic { soul }. All else is chewing-gum for the mind {  i   }

( *  i  * ) i think about something { occupied space } with a something { occupied space brain } ergo i exist as;

1} an occupied space something, that, has access to,

2} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and and ego { * i  * }.

Spirit-1 = metaphysical-1

-----conceptual line-of-demarcation--------

Spirit-2 = Observed Time { /\/\/ } as fermions, bosons ---and new 3rd catagory?--   or any aggregate collection thereof,

Spirit-3 = positive shaped (  ) geodesic (  )  Gravity (  ), --gravitational Space ergo graviton quanta

Spirit-4 = negative shaped )( geodesic )(  Dark Energy )( --dark energy Space ergo darkion quanta

Note: I believe graviton and darkion are two sides of the same quanta and not two seperate quanta.

Just as we eternally have the set of  Space-Time { Space><Time } we also eternally have the set of Graviton-Darkion { gaviton><darkion }

Topic's author
#21
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
I was actually a little disappointed with the video, which initially made claims that secular science does in fact have more information about the nature or origin of consciousness than we might think and then proceeded to make the very same, few claims we've already heard that are weak.
Yes, i found it was a little weak too. He is only focusing on one aspect... the sensory version of consciousness. He is basically focusing on the material version. All of his test are just a majority that go along with what the test is looking for... but, he is totally ignoring the fringes. People like you and i, possibly. Gamer's that look at simulated hands all day and never thinks it's there own. He is just focused on what he believes, and seems he is only looking for people that confirm what he believes. If you watch the podcast that Keith shared... he didn't even bring up lucid dreaming and out of body experiences. Lucid dreaming at the least is a fringe that flies in the face of normal. I even brought it up to a neurologist and he didn't believe me at first... then said i couldn't have been dreaming. Being fully conscious in a dream is interesting... then there's OBE's. If he expanded out of his echo chamber he would see there are cases that fly in the face of what he's doing. 

I'm going to try to keep my spiritual beliefs out of this discussion. I know i don't have to with you... i truly believe an infinite consciousness type platform answers what he's seeing and the fringes which is why i find it most interesting. But for the most part i just want to question and bring up cases that fly in the face of what he's saying. Bc i've had personal experiences that do that... from my childhood. I'll bring it up in other responses so read my responses to Keith... i don't want to repeat over and over again. But listening to someone like him, i can only remember these things that just don't make sense in what he's saying or at least don't fit perfectly.  
Topic's author
#22
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
I do not know how you maintain that belief in the face of the everyday observation that consciousness does not survive anaesthesia, sleep or Alzheimer's. 
I really don't want to bring up my spiritual beliefs in this conversation bc i just want to question. But something like this, you have to understand... spiritual platforms like Etrnl and myself believe have viable answers to this question. You are here to experience as a corporeal being in a human reality. You are affected by this human experience according to what it is. Your vessel is a part of this world. If you interrupt it, it's interrupted. That doesn't mean a person didn't come here to have a normal experience, then later have an experience of having alzhemer's... bc the you that came here is incorporeal in the source platform. That is the true you... once your released from this physical realm... you go to your true you with whatever experience you had here... whether it was as a normal human being, a mentally challenged human, a human in a vegetative state, etc... and/or a combo thereof. 

So, anyways... i listened to the podcast and it was interesting (i took notes). But again, he starts the whole thing out with saying "consciousness" is a natural phenomena. The brain most def. is... but how does he know consciousness is? But to his credit, the way he is looking at it is in a natural way, but it's clear he is only look at one angle that confirms his bias of what it is. Plus, i think it is a contradiction that he says A.I. can never be conscious like us. If consciousness is purely natural... once we fully understand every bit of it... there should be zero reason why we couldn't recreate it. 

We all know drugs affect consciousness... that's why i replied to that one point from your conversation with Etrnl. It applies same here. If consciousness is currently having this physical experience would it not have to be subject to the experience? 

In regards to dreaming, he seems he is ignorant about lucid dreaming and out of body experiences. He seems he is just studying the majority that go along with an easy definition of what dreams mostly are… not some fringes that are interesting to note that do happen. I've had lucid dreams where i've walked out of my body, i've dreams where i've controlled, lucidly, every element and was able to change them to many experiences, i've also had a lucid dream where a person in the dream interacted with me even though i was in control and stopped me from controlling it. What's going on? 

He keeps bringing up studying the sensory aspect of consciousness. That is the natural side of it... so of course he's going to get natural explanations. Of course, it depends what he means by "sensory" he didn't really define that. 

His simulator tests are flawed (as i've mentioned before). The majority of the population are easily influenced… there are a lot that are not as well. I’d like him to test gamers.

How does he know when I see red I’m routing out a bunch of other possibilities and not simply seeing red? Why does he think it’s so complicated? At least, for some it may be… this goes back to the generalizing. He is focusing on some but there are fringes. I feel he is looking for what he wants to see.

And Freewill, Yes? That seems contradictory to what he's been saying. When i listen to him i get the sense we do not have freewill. He really ran away from that question. 



Topic's author
#23
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
I was reluctant to share these but i think they would make sense of what is confusing me when i listen to someone like Anil. You can address these if you want. They are my personal experiences so it is my anecdotal accounts. 

I remember events from ages 3/4 and above. The first house we bought when we came to America i was around 3 or 4 years old. Moved when i was 5. I don't remember perfectly since i was so young, but what i do remember is confirmed by family members that went through it. It was my first Halloween. Parents asked me to pic a costume... i remember liking most the Devil costume. Also, since my parents had to go out and work or school... i had time to myself and would watch wrestling. I remember falling in love with Undertaker. On Halloween when my parents had a day off to take me out for Halloween, my aunt caught me watching wrestling and took the remote away from me and turned it off. The devil costume came with the pitch fork of course. I remember hitting the wall with it once... the three scratches it made on the wall i remember feeling like i had devil claws. So, every inch of every wall i could hit... i scratched with the imagination i'm actually the devil scratching up the walls. What i remember is only confirmed by me, but the event is confirmed by my aunt spanking me lol. 

Then, this next memory is from when we moved and i was 5. I was taking to the toy store and told to pic a toy... my parents pointed out legos to me of a ship. A British ship in pirate times. Said do you want it? Well, next to it was a ship with torn up flags and skulls... i was like naw, i want this one. 

Then, this is 1st or second grade. These next two things happened around the same time. It was my first time having to draw shapes. The teacher gave us a bunch of shapes and said our assignment is to draw them. I drew every shape until the last shape... it was a heart. I told the teacher i don't want to draw it. I don't like it. She said i'll fail if i don't draw it, so i kinda drew it like an upside cross... bc i noticed the star upside down could look like a heart... and that looked better than the heart. I remember just not liking how the heart made me feel. Had no idea why though. 

Next was a teacher said pic your favorite color. I noticed a bunch of colors but i didn't see black. When it came to me, i said i like black. Teacher said it's not a color pic... i told her, why? I it's my favorite. She again said i'd fail if i don't pic... so i closed my eyes (bc it was black) moved my finger and just stopped... it fell on green so i said that one.

If you understand who i am now... all of that is a consistency which is who i am. Things have changed, but i don't understand... how before knowing what these things are and what they mean to who i am... as a child, i already knew it. Also, spiritually, at those ages i 'knew" i came from another world... which is a different story... but, i don't remember much anyways, I wish i remember what i saw, bc i was able to see it at those ages. But i digress... i just don't get how this consistency of who i am is so accurate despite me knowing what it even means that i don't like hearts, or that i'd rather paint everything black. Who is that self? 
#24
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
it exists as long as the brain is operating, but only when it is operating.

.509.03 LINK..."For instance, we find that all irrelevancies fallinto two main categories, or bits. One set embraces all the events that are irrelevantbecause they are too large inmagnitude and too delayed in rate of reoccurrence tohave any effect on the set ofrelationships we are considering.

...The other set of irrelevanciesembraces all the events thatare too small and too frequent to be differentiallyresolved at the wavelength to which weare tuned, ergo, in any discernible way to alter theinterrelationship values of the set ofexperience relationships we are considering.

Havingdismissed the two classes ofirrelevancies, there remains the lucidly relevant setto be studied."....
#25
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
it seems to me you believe in a self or soul that exists independently of the brain.  i have a different view of what the self is - i compare it to the electric current produced by a dynamo.  Such a 'soul' is real - it exists as long as the brain is operating, but only when it is operating.

But we know that is false, the evidence in NDE's show that consciousness can exist outside the body after brain death. The series I posted on DDO had all that information and medical facts in it. How can a person leave their body and travel outside it after the brain has shut down? or how could they have a conscious experience away from the body at all? the brain dies just four minutes after the heart stops so how is it possible to still remain conscious? well it's because the soul exists independent of the brain, that's how lol, easy stuff here. It's not absurd or ignorant either, this has been shown for ages through first hand encounters, spirituality and religious sources and confirmed through what we see with the evidence.
The soul however is comparable to electricity and energy as I explained in my first post, because both electricity and energy can take on form or power machinery and yet still exist independent of them just like consciousness. All in all, I think that a conscious being that inhabits the body is by far the most accurate and rational proposition. The weakest proposition is to claim that our conscious being is made up of impulses and neural firing through a brain. Sorry, but that blob of cells is not capable of creating conscious entities it's only a component that regulates what you experience.

#26
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
..electricity and energy can take on form or power machinery and yet still exist independent of them...
Just so were clear, all you pointing out is that,

1} EMRadiation { photons } exists as a form of dissocating bosons,

2} electrons { fermions } exists as a form of associating energy aka fermionic matter.

Photons only interact with electrons ergo there exists intimate relationship between the two via charge, so they are not seperate because charge has no distance limits.

Same goes for Spirit-3 gravity, it has no distance limits and can never every be considered as being seperate from any other particle of Uni-V-erse.

Your consciouness analogy to EMRadiation falls short.  At best we may say that telepathy is graviational resonance between two particles or any  aggregate collection of particles

#27
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@mustardness
What I'm claiming is that everything within creation has awareness. There is no place something exists where there is not awareness/consciousness. Energy is present with awareness, energy is actually a product of conscious activity as the two co-exist eternally and energy is then manipulated. What we see taking place in the universe, with energy, atoms, photons, electrons ect ect are all a product of that first reality. If you pull completely away from all elements and forms, awareness exists alone, it has no components or form it's just aware and this activity generates what we label energy. This is easy to accept because everything in creation is simulating intelligence, and what we observe is the product of an incorporeal, conscious Being or omnipresent awareness.
Energy would not exist without conscious activity, and everything that follows that would not exist without energy so there is a chain of command here. You have awareness, then energy, then manipulation/transformation of that energy.
Just so we're clear, creation/universe cannot be separate from awareness but awareness is not dependent on our universe. Before the Big bang was conscious activity, this omnipresent reality generates megatons of energy....this energy is condensed and released to create an explosion (big bang) which produces kinetic energy and elements like a gigantic molding pot where now the Creator can manipulate and form anything it wants.....stars, planets, galaxies and then of course embodiments and form to inhabit those places.

#28
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
...product of that first reality....
This just another place you make comments that really just appear to me as no more than hot-air-fluff  lacking anyu significant meaning or content or definitive description.

"first reality"  = Trumps first reality tv show?

"first reality" = first time mom dropped new born on the floor or doctor slap babies behind etc

Others with hot-air-fluff has used terminaology like root, root-core, source etc. 

You have awareness, then energy, then manipulation/transformation of that energy.
  energy = fermions, bosons and possibly one new catagory.

Why you think there can exist "awareness" without fermions or bosons lacks any rational, logical common sense. In fact it is counters any rational, logical common sense.

I allow for ultra-brief moments equlibrium wherein there exists only gravity dark energy and one very large and very flat { seemingly 2D photon }.

There has never ever existed less than those three occupied space somethings as Uni-V-erse.

"omnipresent reality" = more hot-air-fluff with no descriptive definition that makes any rational, logical common sense. All you can say about it is that exists before the "big bang" and that the BB created all kinetic energy.

So inhently infer that your "omnipresent reality" --whatever that is--- is not "kinetic" { relating to or resultant of motion }.

So, if try to actually find any rational, logical common sense in your texts we see that "kinetic" is resultant of your "omnipresent" { motion }.

What is moving?  Fermions and bosons move? Does gravity and dark energy move?

...
#29
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@mustardness
This just another place you make comments that really just appear to me as no more than hot-air-fluff  lacking anyu significant meaning or content or definitive description.
Then you are dumb? I'm not the one who has an issue with relating my arguments. The hot-air-fluff comes from your unintelligible style of writing. How many people have told you they have no idea what the hell you are trying to communicate. Examples below.
"first reality"  = Trumps first reality tv show?
"first reality" = first time mom dropped new born on the floor or doctor slap babies behind etc
Others with hot-air-fluff has used terminaology like root, root-core, source etc.
You have awareness, then energy, then manipulation/transformation of that energy.
  energy = fermions, bosons and possibly one new catagory.
Why you think there can exist "awareness" without fermions or bosons lacks any rational, logical common sense. In fact it is counters any rational, logical common sense.
Where's the argument, counter points...I missed it...

I allow for ultra-brief moments equlibrium wherein there exists only gravity dark energy and one very large and very flat { seemingly 2D photon }.
Having trouble with meaning and definitive descriptions lol? stop trying to create equations and make an intelligible point.
There has never ever existed less than those three occupied space somethings as Uni-V-erse.
Okay dude. Whatever you say.
"omnipresent reality" = more hot-air-fluff with no descriptive definition that makes any rational, logical common sense. All you can say about it is that exists before the "big bang" and that the BB created all kinetic energy.
If you understand the nature of energy then this should be simple. It's not hot air, I'm trying to communicate how conscious awareness operates and the nature of it. Energy is everywhere because first awareness is everywhere, if energy lacked intelligence then why does it act like it in creation?? Awareness is eternal and omnipresent, there's not really much else to say about it but that it's conscious. The implications now, that's another discussion. If you want to elaborate try asking questions instead of rehearsing equations that only you acknowledge.
So inhently infer that your "omnipresent reality" --whatever that is--- is not "kinetic" { relating to or resultant of motion }.
Omnipresent means there is no place where it does not exist, what do you mean whatever it is? it's a simple description wake up mon! energy could be considered omnipresent so the concept should work for you. We could argue that conscious activity has "motion" but I'm referring to what it manifests into the universe after the bang. The "motion" or activity of consciousness is why energy exists, why it's generated. When the BiG bang took place, it created another level of kinetic energy where now we have transformation and fusion through temperature change and movement creating elements.
So, if try to actually find any rational, logical common sense in your texts we see that "kinetic" is resultant of your "omnipresent" { motion }.
You have selective reading. That's only one aspect I touched on.
What is moving?  Fermions and bosons move? Does gravity and dark energy move?
Nothing in the universe is static, the very fabric of the universe itself "moves". What is your fixation on movement here? does gravity and dark energy NOT "move'?
#30
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Then you are dumb?
Ego based cop-out from truth. Sad lack of integrity.

You have awareness, then energy, then manipulation/transformation of that energy.
False. You really need to check your ego and the door and go back and actually read what Ive already explained to you.

Awareness cannot exist without occupied space.  Do you understand, Earth-creature?


Where's the argument, counter points...I missed it...

Yeah you missed them because your ego hides you mental abilities from rather simple, rational logical common sense. I have more time  or effort for your nonsense.

Okay dude. Whatever you say.

Thats correct and have the rational, logical common sense based on humans scientifically observations to back them. You have ego based insignificant fluffy-hot-air.

"omnipresent reality" = more hot-air-fluff with no descriptive definition that makes any rational, logical common sense. All you can say about it is that exists before the "big bang" and that the BB created all kinetic energy.
If you understand the nature of energy then this should be simple.

You need to take a look in the mirror and check your ego at the door as it is huge mental block to rational, logical common sense. Bye.

So inhently infer that your "omnipresent reality" --whatever that is--- is not "kinetic" { relating to or resultant of motion }.
Omnipresent means there is no place where it does not exist,

More hot-air fluff for the ego to chew and rechew with no rational,logical common sense conclusion.

Our eternally existent  occupied space Uni-V-ers is finite.  Do you understand? No. I didnt think so

Our Uni-V-erse is embrace//surrounded by macro-infinite non-occupied space. Do you understand? No? I didnt think so. Huge ego problem.


You have selective reading. That's only one aspect I touched on.
All of your aspects are fluffy-hot-air, nothing more. Check your ego at the door and get on  board with  rational, logical common sense for a change.

You have nothing valid to offer. Sad :--( So many human mind chewing on nonsense day after day for a lifetime.