I didn’t dismiss anything
That’s how things are. But he’s saying they don’t. We wants to have it both ways, how some things move us and other things are us just doing it to ourselves. But that doesn’t answer how that “us doing it to ourselves” bit even starts.
I have shown direct lines in his claims about that and links that show otherwise. Like how he said you can create the feeling of connection with someone rather than do the stuff like bonding with other people. That way you don’t have to do the song and dance, you can just make the feeling of connection.
What he is saying is that stuff doesn’t make you feel but rather it’s your belief about the stuff, which implies you get to choose how you feel about something. His part about nature and music doesn’t hold up if that is true. But this still doesn’t explain how the belief affects how you feel.
When you think you are drawing lines, you are adding in your misunderstanding and assumptions to get to your preconceived notions.
It starts with understanding who you yourself is.
=======================================
The universe is an amazing place, and we each get to decide what we will be present to.
In my world it’s been a pretty interesting . . . , er, how to put it,
Dark, you might appreciate the pin-ball analogy. Bouncing from one event to the next.
For instance, as if on cue, this interesting little “research paper” comes across my path.
It lines up all the pretty little straw men in a row.
A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness
Summary: Consciousness can not simply be reduced to neural activity alone, researchers say. A novel study reports the dynamics of consciousness may be understood by a newly developed conceptual and mathematical framework.
Source: Bar-Ilan University - August 11, 2022
"But how the brain creates the conscious experience and what area of the brain is responsible for this remains a mystery.
According to Dr. Nir Lahav, a physicist from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, “This is quite a mystery since it seems that our conscious experience cannot arise from the brain, and in fact, cannot arise from any physical process.”
As strange as it sounds, the conscious experience in our brain, cannot be found or reduced to some neural activity. . . . "
As a result, we can’t reduce the conscious experience of what we sense, feel and think to any brain activity. We can just find correlations to these experiences.
Since our whole body is engaged with the brain to produce “consciousness” we shouldn’t expect brain scans to be enough to encompass the whole of the experience.
Dr. Lahav and Dr. Neemeh recently published a new physical theory in the journal Frontiers in Psychology that claims to solve the hard problem of consciousness in a purely physical way.
According to the authors, when we change our assumption about consciousness and assume that it is a relativistic phenomenon, the mystery of consciousness naturally dissolves. In the paper the researchers developed a conceptual and mathematical framework to understand consciousness from a relativistic point of view.
No mention of the body as a whole. No mention of all of our neural systems being the product of evolution meeting challenges and all that entails.
Using the mathematical tools that describe relativistic phenomena in physics, the theory shows that if the dynamics of Bob’s neural activity could be changed to be like the dynamics of Alice’s neural activity, then both will be in the same cognitive frame of reference and would have the exact same conscious experience as the other.
Now the authors want to continue to examine the exact minimal measurements that any cognitive system needs in order to create consciousness.
No recognition for the complexity of the symphony of challenges and decisions your body needs to make every day - or for that matter, no mention of the myriad of thoughts happening within our active mindscape, only to have new thoughts superimposed on them.
But they say they got a mathematical formula to explain it?
No mention of consciousness being at heart an interaction with environment. Nor of consciousness being a fleeting thing of the moment.
========================
Reddit u/Obserwhere
August 18, 2022 at 10:29 pm gave a good response within my relativistic framework:
There is no consciousness as such, so people are looking for something that doesn’t really exist.
It’s like how there’s no light of a lamp as such.
What is the light of a lamp? It is an emergent phenomenon of the merging of the lamp, the wiring, with a source of electricity.
Note how there’s no light in any of the merged elements, yet when they merge, light emerges.You can look for the light in the elements (lamp, wiring, electricity) all your life and you will never find any.
So the same goes for consciousness. Where does consciousness come from?
It starts with the merging of a sense organ & its object, called contact; when there is contact, there emerges sensation – something is sensed. (Note that this is as close to reality as we can get; from here, everything is interpretation.)
When there is sensation, there emerges perception; When there is perception, there emerges mental fabrication; and finally when there is mental fabrication, there emerged consciousness.
Next sensation – – – next consciousness.
So like with the light example: you can look all your life for consciousness in the body with its organs, in its senses, in the contact- perception – mental fabrication — yet you will never find it. …
I’ve said this several times in different ways. First, we are born with instincts that are imperfect and lead to thinking errors. We start feeling before we take our first breath. It takes 25 years for our brains to complete development so we’ve created a lot of false beliefs in that time, bad habits, incorrect beliefs. If we mature, we can look back and correct some of that, or we can just keep “doing it to ourselves”, making those mistakes.
Could it be you are projecting?
What of it?
What do you suggest I’m projecting?
What’s the point of linking to a post I wrote and that you ignored.
I want to deconstruct the Chalmers head game. I believe it’s worth the skeptical eye. Your signaling it’s a ridiculous question, how could anyone question the great philosophers of our age.
Then when I point out, look at the world we created for ourselves, you imply that’s irrelevant. I still need to bow down at their feet - (and ignore all the lessons life has dolled out to me) - and all the self absorbed assumption they repeat over and over and that then bears fruits like this thing.
A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness
Summary: Consciousness can not simply be reduced to neural activity alone, researchers say. A novel study reports the dynamics of consciousness may be understood by a newly developed conceptual and mathematical framework.
Source: Bar-Ilan University - August 11, 2022
What does that piece of writing and conjecture offer regular people who are confused by themselves and god and what their life is about - and are striving to understand themselves more clearly?
Or science in general for that matter.
Oh and yes, all of that does lead into the question of, How do we control our emotions?
A good start would be by better understanding what your body is made out of, where it came from, and how your body communicates with itself and the outside world, how it’s the product of evolution, etc. etc.
You say I’m dismissing, but it’s you who said “so what”.
I don’t always have time to respond to everything in real time. I’ve been in a car for 3 days, had some time.
I don’t think anything is ridiculous.
But you don’t deconstruct it. You say “so what” and long posts about how it’s irrelevant and suggest other priorities. I don’t know why I missed it, but we’ve been talking completely past each other. It’s not about one line of logic or another. We see a difference of priorities.
You say the Chalmers problem isnt worth discussing, that we should be focusing on biology. I don’t see why we can’t do both.
I mean asking: Why does a bat feel like a bat?
Without immediately answering, because a bat inhabits a bat’s body, within a bat oriented world.
What’s up with that?
Can anyone explain, where the philosophical mystery lies?
How does a bat know it feels like a bat, any more than a human knows they feel like a human. I mean, unless you know what it is like to feel something different, then how do you know what it’s like feel as you are? If you’ve never experienced happiness before, then how do you know it’s happiness?
If you’re satisfied with the tautology, then no. If you are looking for water in a desert, you might try thinking like a lizard.
Evolution of sensory abilities.
You have to experience an event before you can become conscious of it.
A single-celled Paramecium “experiences” an obstacle before it responds with evasive action. This is without a neural network, but it does have microtubules which are more fundamental information carriers than neurons.
In this case the “experience” is purely kinetic, which nevertheless triggers a physical response. It is the microtubule network that responds to kinetic disturbance (see cilia and flagella).
The mechanism functions via mathematical “differential equations” and this ability to “differentiate” is subject to evolutionary refinement and eventual experiential cognition and understanding of the incoming information or in the case of neural networks, the production of “action potentials”, in response to the sensory stimulant.
I believe that in the case of extraordinary human brain development over a relatively short evolutionary period, this may be due to a rare “beneficial chromosomal mutation”.
The difference between human brain and all other ape brains is so stark that this must be a result of “sudden drastic change”, rather than a gradual change over long periods of time.
Are you saying humans don’t know they feel like a unique living beings, within a unique body, and that everything about our life revolved around our body?
Are you implying you don’t have a personal connection with yourself?
Because it feels good, the body feels relaxed and nice, way better than the other thing you experienced previously that must have felt miserable or dead.
I’m sorry that feels like a mind experiment out of a philosophy class. In the real world we are social beings, we interact, we ourselves know the difference between happiness and scared, we can recognize these same emotions in people all over the world.
A smile is a smile everywhere and getting pierced by malevolent rage filled eyes makes everyone want to poop. Bet you a buck. 
We can recognize the wreckage of people for whom life has been a failure. They do exist, but here I’m concerned with those who still have hope.
You’re saying I can’t assume that your sense of happiness at receiving a touching gesture isn’t similar mine or the next guy?
I honestly think you don’t understand what we are talking about here.
Not really, it’s just not as you say and I’ve shown as such.
You’re doing what he does, kicking the can down the road. What false beliefs? What bad habits? How does one make those judgments if according to him nothing makes us feel anything and it’s our belief system. How does that belief system get off the ground and how does it affect you? Why does believing something yield a mindset, he says it’s the meaning you assign it. But how does that meaning get assigned and what makes it matter and how does this happen without emotions? He’s putting the cart before the horse and so are you.
You keep missing the mark.
You’re not answering their question. What is good? What is relaxed? What is nice? You’re using words that can’t point to these things directly. It’s like someone talking to me about gratitude when I can’t feel it.
EVerything else just sounds like a judgment leap, as if it’s self evident when it’s not.
That’s actually not true.
Yes. I’ll give an example, my ex boyfriend got people at a support group I visited to sign Happy Birthday for me when it was my birthday. I hated it because I don’t like stuff like that and he knew. It was the same when he filled my room with balloons another b-day and I had to pop them all. What YOU consider touching isn’t the same as what others do and even then people might not receive it the same way.
You’ve lost the thread at this point.
Feeling good is caused by endorphin production in response to electrochemical stimulation.
Yes, biomechanics do rely on EM “differential equations” (dynamic processing) that result in the production of “action potentials” such as endorphins, etc.
That doesn’t mean the thing doesn’t exist.
Fill a stomach that’s been hungry feels good to most any creature it happens too.
Relaxed is something that can be read through the body’s physiological responses.
Feeling threatened isn’t the same as feeling irritated. etc
So that is what you believe.
Now that’s a very different thing, isn’t it?
Of course not the same things make us happy -
and it’s always iffy guessing what will thrill someone else.
But that’s very different from claiming a satiated belly, evokes roughly the same biological/emotional feelings among different humans.
The feeling itself, say perhaps being p’d off because someone complete misreads you, and makes assumptions about what will make you happy that are totally wrong.
The feelings experience by the hurt recipient run along consistent tracks.
As for “you can’t assume that!”
Guess that comes down to either accepting that I’m one human, internally built pretty much like all other humans. An animal with my herd. There are individual differences but step back and the similarities become more important then our slight uniqueness from each other.
Or perhaps another option is to presume you are some unique Being of infinite possibility because a God created you, and god can do anything it wants.
To one a touch may produce endorphins, to another it may not, depending on prior programming.
Some families are very physical, hugging, kissing… other families are remote, aloof, cold.
Key component there.
But our bodies process our sensory input in pretty much the same ways,
depending on prior programming.
For me, it comes back to evolutionary origins, and biological constraints informing who I am:
Question: I would like to know more on how the seven basic emotions were arrived at. Play is serious business, think of sports and the global power messages at the Olympic games when ranking countries’ medal achievements. What led to the understanding and it being seven rather than another number of emotions?
=====================
Okay, fair enough. Which family do you think most children would want to belong to? 