Sree, your main purpose in life right now is to be a bad example. Thinking that Klinko’s evidence and logic are on par with Galileo’s is exactly what is wrong with the world today. It’s why we can’t have real conversations about the real problems of the world.
On par with Galileo? What do you think Galileo looked like to the Pope in 1616? He looked like Klinko, to you, in 2020 and that was why the Pope dissed him the way you are contemptuous of Klinko. Who knows if there is something to the Inter Mind Theory? Whether or not the world salute this Theory 400 years from now is not the point. It's how we, as humanists, treat each other that matters. Do you think parents are setting bad examples when they are supportive of their kids in their endeavors regardless of reality? Or should they tell them to give up and throw in the towel because they are going nowhere?
The priests prevented that 500 years ago, then we kicked them out of the universities and out of government, but people like you missed the comfort of easy answers and let them back in.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, Lausten.
Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth – all owe their origins to the gospel.
Probably no segment of American society has turned out a greater number of illustrious graduates than New England’s Ivy League. Labels like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, still carry their own mystique and a certain aura of elitism and prestige.
Yet perhaps it would surprise most to learn that almost every Ivy League school was established primarily to train ministers of the gospel – and to evangelize the Atlantic seaboard. (The Forerunner.)
It was only a matter of time before the in-coherency became the norm for you Sree. Klinko is not like Galileo and I am not like the Pope. I was raised on all the simple and real information about ghosts and where babies come from and how the earth was formed. I never thought of the things Popes from the 16th century talked about as anything other than myth. The methods that Galileo was just starting to make mainstream were taught to me in elementary school. Take your woo-woo somewhere else. There are plenty of people who believe it.
I like the analogy to Galileo but I think it was Copernicus that first proposed the Heliocentric viewpoint. Galileo was able to increase support for the Copernican model through his observations using a telescope.
Thank You. Nice diagrams, but I have been studying these things for 20+ years. The role Microtubules play in Consciousness is highly speculative at best. Fact is nobody knows what is going on with Consciousness at this point in time. Huge Hard Problem and Explanatory Gap exists in the Scientific understanding of Consciousness.
In what way are microtubules highly speculative? Considering that they represent all the functions of the neural network, what do they lack in potential which disqualifies them from serious consideration?
If anything, what do you believe is a more defined approach to the question of the “hard problem”? You know that the hard problem must be an emergent extra quality which is a result of a complex pattern acquiring an extra “dimension”
p.s. have you ever considered the hard problem of “wetness” of water. Is an H2O molecule "wet’? If not, how is that a bunch of H2O becomes wet when at a certain temperature range and not wet when at higher or lower temperature range? These emergent properties are a product from density of the pattern, no?
There are several trillion microtubules in you body and brain, more microtubules than cells! In fact MT regulate mitosis, they form the spindle which regulates (a computing function) cell division in all eukaryotic organisms. Their function is “speculative”? You may want to revisit your inquiries into microtubules from 20 years ago…
write4u: In what way are microtubules highly speculative? Considering that they represent all the functions of the neural network, what do they lack in potential which disqualifies them from serious consideration?
Their function with respect to Consciousness is Highly Speculative. Nobody has the first clue about what role the Microtubules have in Consciousness. It’s all just talk.
write4u: If anything, what do you believe is a more defined approach to the question of the “hard problem”? You know that the hard problem must be an emergent extra quality which is a result of a complex pattern acquiring an extra “dimension”
I reject your limitation “that the hard problem must be an emergent extra quality which is a result of a complex pattern acquiring an extra “dimension””. Nobody has the first clue about what a solution to the Hard Problem would look like.
write4u: p.s. have you ever considered the hard problem of “wetness” of water. Is an H2O molecule “wet’? If not, how is that a bunch of H2O becomes wet when at a certain temperature range and not wet when at higher or lower temperature range? These emergent properties are a product from density of the pattern, no?
Yes of course the old Emergent property of wetness from molecules of water. So what. This is pure speculation that Consciousness will be a similar type of Emergent thing. There is not the first clue that Consciousness will be found to Emerge from properties of Neurons. This is just more Speculation and talk.
write4u: There are several trillion microtubules in you body and brain, more microtubules than cells! In fact MT regulate mitosis, they form the spindle which regulates (a computing function) cell division in all eukaryotic organisms. Their function is “speculative”? You may want to revisit your inquiries into microtubules from 20 years ago….
Their function with respect to Consciousness is completely Speculative. Ok, since you are so up to date on Microtubules, tell me what the Mechanism is that produces Consciousness. Hope you realize that if you can come up with that Mechanism then you will have solved the Hard Problem.
write4u: In what way are microtubules highly speculative? Considering that they represent all the functions of the neural network, what do they lack in potential which disqualifies them from serious consideration?
Microtubule function with respect to Consciousness is Highly Speculative. Nobody has the first clue about what role the Microtubules have in Consciousness. It’s all just talk.
write4u: If anything, what do you believe is a more defined approach to the question of the “hard problem”? You know that the hard problem must be an emergent extra quality which is a result of a complex pattern acquiring an extra “dimension”
I reject your limitation “that the hard problem must be an emergent extra quality which is a result of a complex pattern acquiring an extra “dimension””. Nobody has the first clue about what a solution to the Hard Problem would look like.
write4u: p.s. have you ever considered the hard problem of “wetness” of water. Is an H2O molecule “wet’? If not, how is that a bunch of H2O becomes wet when at a certain temperature range and not wet when at higher or lower temperature range? These emergent properties are a product from density of the pattern, no?
Yes of course the old Emergent property of wetness from molecules of water. So what. This is pure speculation that Consciousness will be a similar type of Emergent thing. There is not the first clue that Consciousness will be found to Emerge from properties of Neurons. This is just more Speculation and talk.
write4u: There are several trillion microtubules in you body and brain, more microtubules than cells! In fact MT regulate mitosis, they form the spindle which regulates (a computing function) cell division in all eukaryotic organisms. Their function is “speculative”? You may want to revisit your inquiries into microtubules from 20 years ago….
Their function with respect to Consciousness is completely Speculative. Ok, since you are so up to date on Microtubules, tell me what the Mechanism is that produces Consciousness. Hope you realize that if you can come up with that Mechanism then you will have solved the Hard Problem.
Before you post your message above, highlight those paragraphs you want to quote by clicking on the " sign. They will come out like this:
write4u: In what way are microtubules highly speculative? Considering that they represent all the functions of the neural network, what do they lack in potential which disqualifies them from serious consideration?
Before you post your message above, highlight those paragraphs you want to quote by clicking on the ” sign. They will come out like this:
Thank You. Ok, I had to go to another browser to to see the quote icon. Let's if this works from this browser. Is there a way to preview?
write4u: In what way are microtubules highly speculative? Considering that they represent all the functions of the neural network, what do they lack in potential which disqualifies them from serious consideration?
Microtubule function with respect to Consciousness is Highly Speculative. Nobody has the first clue about what role the Microtubules have in Consciousness. It’s all just talk.
write4u: If anything, what do you believe is a more defined approach to the question of the “hard problem”? You know that the hard problem must be an emergent extra quality which is a result of a complex pattern acquiring an extra “dimension”
I reject your limitation “that the hard problem must be an emergent extra quality which is a result of a complex pattern acquiring an extra “dimension””. Nobody has the first clue about what a solution to the Hard Problem would look like.
write4u: p.s. have you ever considered the hard problem of “wetness” of water. Is an H2O molecule “wet’? If not, how is that a bunch of H2O becomes wet when at a certain temperature range and not wet when at higher or lower temperature range? These emergent properties are a product from density of the pattern, no?
Yes of course the old Emergent property of wetness from molecules of water. So what. This is pure speculation that Consciousness will be a similar type of Emergent thing. There is not the first clue that Consciousness will be found to Emerge from properties of Neurons. This is just more Speculation and talk.
write4u: There are several trillion microtubules in you body and brain, more microtubules than cells! In fact MT regulate mitosis, they form the spindle which regulates (a computing function) cell division in all eukaryotic organisms. Their function is “speculative”? You may want to revisit your inquiries into microtubules from 20 years ago….:)
Their function with respect to Consciousness is completely Speculative. Ok, since you are so up to date on Microtubules, tell me what the Mechanism is that produces Consciousness. Hope you realize that if you can come up with that Mechanism then you will have solved the Hard Problem.
steveklinko said; Their function with respect to Consciousness is completely Speculative. Ok, since you are so up to date on Microtubules, tell me what the Mechanism is that produces Consciousness. Hope you realize that if you can come up with that Mechanism then you will have solved the Hard Problem.
Do I claim to have come up with any "hard answers"? We are unraveling the mechanism and we do know that consciousness is an emergent ability residing in the neural network and perhaps at even smaller scales in the combinatory richness of processing by the microtubules within that neural network.
Instead of asking about the “hard problem”, why don’t we start with “hard facts”? We know that consciousness is the ability to process external sensory information, is an internal ability present in almost all biological organisms, from single celled paramecium which can learn from physical experience, to insects who start feeding when the atmospheric pressure drops, to humans who can anticipate long range trends and plan for future expected developments, such as building dikes to prevent future floods.
Perhaps we can start with examining the importance of the suffix “-ness”.
-ness
a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state (and often, by extension, something exemplifying a quality or state):darkness; goodness; kindness; obligingness; preparedness. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ness?s=t
Consciousness is an "abstract" noun of an emergent quality over and above the abilities of the individual components. And we can control consciousness. Ask Stuart Hameroff , the anesthesiologist who, during an operation, renders you into an unconscious object and brings you back to a conscious being again.
Interestingly, we are selective about which part of the brain is rendered unconscious. Even when some parts of the brain are unconscious, other parts of the brain (the interoceptive part) remains active, albeit at a a sub-conscious level. Which would suggest that consciousness is found in the parts of the brain that can be rendered unconscious. We know where the smoking gun is buried and I have no doubt that eventually we will decipher the form and function of consciousness.
Do I claim to have come up with any “hard answers”? We are unraveling the mechanism and we do know that consciousness is an emergent ability residing in the neural network and perhaps at even smaller scales in the combinatory richness of processing by the microtubules within that neural network.
We do Not know that Consciousness is an Emergent ability. That is Speculation.
Instead of asking about the “hard problem”, why don’t we start with “hard facts”? We know that consciousness is the ability to process external sensory information, is an internal ability present in almost all biological organisms, from single celled paramecium which can learn from physical experience, to insects who start feeding when the atmospheric pressure drops, to humans who can anticipate long range trends and plan for future expected developments, such as building dikes to prevent future floods.
These Hard Facts do nothing to solve the Hard Problem.
Perhaps we can start with examining the importance of the suffix “-ness“.
-ness
a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state (and often, by extension, something exemplifying a quality or state):darkness; goodness; kindness; obligingness; preparedness. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ness?s=t
Consciousness is an “abstract” noun of an emergent quality over and above the abilities of the individual components. And we can control consciousness. Ask Stuart Hameroff , the anesthesiologist who, during an operation, renders you into an unconscious object and brings you back to a conscious being again.
Interestingly, we are selective about which part of the brain is rendered unconscious. Even when some parts of the brain are unconscious, other parts of the brain (the interoceptive part) remains active, albeit at a a sub-conscious level. Which would suggest that consciousness is found in the parts of the brain that can be rendered unconscious. We know where the smoking gun is buried and I have no doubt that eventually we will decipher the form and function of consciousness.
We have no idea what is happening to the Consciousness of people under anesthesia. It is all after the fact reporting. They could be having all kinds of Conscious Experiences in their Conscious Minds. They are just not remembering. It is well known that we completely forget most of our Dreams.
steveklinko said; We do Not know that Consciousness is an Emergent ability. That is Speculation.
No it is not. The evidence of emergent consciousness is all around us. You just refuse to look at it from a purely objective perspective. The entire concept of evolution is the gradual emergence of ever more complex patterns.
These Hard Facts do nothing to solve the Hard Problem.
Have you tried? Stuart Hameroff has and he knows what he is talking about. Do you?
We have no idea what is happening to the Consciousness of people under anesthesia. It is all after the fact reporting. They could be having all kinds of Conscious Experiences in their Conscious Minds. They are just not remembering. It is well known that we completely forget most of our Dreams.
Apparently you have not read Hameroff and if you have, you may not have paid enough attention to his explorations, conclusions, and and falsifications. Here is the short version again as it lays out the current knowledge of brain function and the potential contained in the function of microtubules as the fundamental information processing mechanism in all Eukaryotic organisms.
steveklinko said; We have no idea what is happening to the Consciousness of people under anesthesia. It is all after the fact reporting. They could be having all kinds of Conscious Experiences in their Conscious Minds. They are just not remembering. It is well known that we completely forget most of our Dreams.
People under anesthesia are NOT conscious and do not have ANY conscious experiences. They do not dream. The brain still has subconscious control over bodily functions, but these are not conscious functions whether under anesthesia or not. Interoception is a subconscious control function of the brain. It does not need to be conscious.
Homeostasis
In biology, homeostasis is the state of steady internal, physical, and chemical conditions maintained by living systems.[1] This is the condition of optimal functioning for the organism and includes many variables, such as body temperature and fluid balance, being kept within certain pre-set limits (homeostatic range). Other variables include the pH of extracellular fluid, the concentrations of sodium, potassium and calcium ions, as well as that of the blood sugar level, and these need to be regulated despite changes in the environment, diet, or level of activity. Each of these variables is controlled by one or more regulators or homeostatic mechanisms, which together maintain life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis
Homeostasis is an unconscious function. It’s what keeps us alive when under anesthesia.
@write4u: Apparently you have not read Hameroff and if you have, you may not have paid enough attention to his explorations, conclusions, and and falsifications. Here is the short version again as it lays out the current knowledge of brain function and the potential contained in the function of microtubules as the fundamental information processing mechanism in all Eukaryotic organisms.
Hameroff has some interesting theories at the Neural Correlates of Consciousness level. Resonances and Oscillations sound good but the connection to Consciousness is still just a speculation. Using Hameroff's theories, how do Resonances and Oscillations produce an Experience of Redness in the Mind?
@sree: In your opinion, has consciousness anything to do with the brain?
My current speculation is that the Brain connects with a Consciousness concept. I think the best reply to your question would just be to take you to the section of the Inter Mind website that talks about this: http://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Inter Mind website that talks about this: http://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.
No, something is wrong with the above analysis. None of what is posted is what happens in reality. There is no need to read further, regardless of the logic the rest. The presentation is based on a false premise and interpretation of sensory, neural, and brain functions.
Nice try, but this perspective is completely wrong.
p.s. In-depth brain science is very recent as compared to other scientific disciplines. The importance of nano scale Microtubules is just being realized due to the more advanced abilities to make observations at extremely small scales.
This may help in following the chronology from observation to the brain’s experience of colors.
My current speculation is that the Brain connects with a Consciousness concept.
Ok, I read through most of your Theory and followed your reasoning. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought and time to track it out. Basically, you have formulated two "dimensions"(Physical and Conscious) and they are linked by the "Inter-Mind" (IM). I note that you are offering your Theory as an explanation of consciousness and not claiming that it is the absolute truth. I can accept that. Like you, Darwin also offered his Theory as an explanation. I hope you will be as lucky as him and gain similar support from the scientific community to prove that IM is the absolute truth.
Your explanation of Life after Death is interesting because it matches up with Buddhist thought. In this short clip, Alan Wallace seems to be elucidating your Conscious Mind.
@sree: Ok, I read through most of your Theory and followed your reasoning. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought and time to track it out. Basically, you have formulated two “dimensions”(Physical and Conscious) and they are linked by the “Inter-Mind” (IM). I note that you are offering your Theory as an explanation of consciousness and not claiming that it is the absolute truth. I can accept that. Like you, Darwin also offered his Theory as an explanation. I hope you will be as lucky as him and gain similar support from the scientific community to prove that IM is the absolute truth.
Your explanation of Life after Death is interesting because it matches up with Buddhist thought. In this short clip, Alan Wallace seems to be elucidating your Conscious Mind.
Thank You for reading about The Inter Mind, and for the good words. The Wallace clip was interesting. I too have noticed some parallels to Buddhist and Hindu thinking.
