The temptation to think the Conscious Mind might still exist after the Physical Mind (Brain) is gone is not such a huge stretch of the imagination. If Science can someday make the case and actually show how the Conscious Light is in the Neurons the that will be great. But for now Science has not got the first Clue about what this Conscious Light could be and how it comes out of the Neurons and into the Conscious Mind.You are making a valid argument but @citizenschallengev3 won't buy it. His refusal to accept your theory is governed by his belief that the Neurons produce Conscious Light even when he cannot cite scientific proof.
That’s implying that your conscious experience creates the universe – to me that seems self-centeredness and hubris maximus.It’s not my consciousness. It’s an impersonal Conscious Experience.
“Conscious Experience of” No I think it would be more accurate to point out it’s our conceptions and mathematics are what’s breaking down,well that combined with establishing impossible expectations.
What are you talking about? Our Conscious Experience of Physical Space is being questioned by theoretical physicists. What you see is not what you get. Your conception defines your math. And when this doesn’t jive with Conscious Experience, all your fundamental physical facts of the Earth goes out the window.
My conviction come from self study, first decades lots of wrestling with the Jesus, then god question, then it got resolved and faded into a non-issue.Then it was on to the questions of self, who am I, what am I, what is my purpose, why must I die, what happens to me after I die.
And where did all that study get you? Nowhere; and the reason is that you believe that you, the Experiencer, are a product of the Neurons in Physical Space and not a phenomenon in Conscious Space.
Our lives are so active and changing, people always coming and going, family & social networks constantly changing, my body constantly changing and impacting every aspect of my interactions with the world around me – all that opposed to the manmade emotion that I don’t want to die, because I’m terrified of death and hate it, hate it, hate it, it’s bad, I don’t want to die I want to live forever, I must find a way to continue. (that is the collective “I”)As long as you believe that you, the Experiencer, are a product of the Neurons, there is no way to continue. You condemn yourself to annihilation at brain death.
All you have is handwaving – in the end there’s nothing to supposed that a light can continue glowing after the filament burns out, because the necessary hardware has been broken. Pragmatically speaking, since all I know comes through my body and its senses and it’s brain’s processing abilities, ergo once that body is broken and dead, the processing stops, the sense of awareness and memory of necessity also dissolves back into Earth’s biosphere – since we are confined to this Earth and every atom of your body has been recycled countless times, and upon your death they return to Earth.This is your one true faith, your Dharma. What Klinko has here is nothing more than a theory pointing to a gap in your reasoning. Even Donald Hoffman asserts yet another theory that Conscious Experience is an iconic interface. Putting all your self-worth into a bunch of Neurons is rather weird.
@sree You are making a valid argument but @citizenschallengev3 won’t buy it. His refusal to accept your theory is governed by his belief that the Neurons produce Conscious Light even when he cannot cite scientific proof.It is a Belief that he has. I suppose he is like most Physicalists, praying for that Revelation from Science that will show how the Conscious Light is in the Neurons. That might happen, but as of this point in time Science has no Clue.
Oh yeah, love hearing folks who believe Climate Science is a fraud, and that t rump is a hero, lecturing me on my scientific unworthiness.
Go have some more scotch.
Although #334851 seems like something that could use some dissecting.
Oops, looks like I’m out of time. Steve
This Conscious Space seems to be something in addition to Physical Space and Physical things.Sounds like you are referring to the dichotomy between Physical Reality and the Human Mindscape.
As for your Conscious Light stuff … sorry gotta f’n interruption never end… later
https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/lightandcolor/humanvisionintro/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190818101642.htm
Thank you for the link. This is all front end stuff. Follow the Neural Pathways back to the Visual Cortex and tell me where the Light comes from that you See.
@citzenschallengev3:But where does the Conscious Light come from? What is the Conscious Light? The study must go back to the Cortex for these answers.
Theres a hugely long thread about this on the Paracast Community Forums too. Last post here:
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/consciousness-and-the-paranormal-part-13.20416/post-282695
It’s been a fascinating journey. As best as can be discerned from the available information, only creatures with brains very similar to ours can experience the world. The problem isn’t simply a matter of computation, or even replication with different materials e.g. AI chips with silver neural pathways. It’s that we don’t know what facets of our biological brains are responsible for consciousness. By this I’m not saying we don’t know what structures in the the brain are responsible ( we have a really good idea ). We just haven’t identified exactly what it is about those structures that directly correlates with the existence of consciousness, and we may never know. Just like we may never know what it is about mass that correlates it directly with gravity. All we know is that it does correlate, and that the correlation can be measured and predicted. For consciousness, this is the job of neuroscience. It may never explain consciousness. But it will probably get better at describing the situations in which we find it.
Theres a hugely long thread about this on the Paracast Community Forums too. Last post here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/consciousness-and-the-paranormal-part-13.20416/post-282695It’s been a fascinating journey. As best as can be discerned from the available information, only creatures with brains very similar to ours can experience the world. The problem isn’t simply a matter of computation, or even replication with different materials e.g. AI chips with silver neural pathways. It’s that we don’t know what facets of our biological brains are responsible for consciousness. By this I’m not saying we don’t know what structures in the the brain are responsible ( we have a really good idea ). We just haven’t identified exactly what it is about those structures that directly correlates with the existence of consciousness, and we may never know. Just like we may never know what it is about mass that correlates it directly with gravity. All we know is that it does correlate, and that the correlation can be measured and predicted. For consciousness, this is the job of neuroscience. It may never explain consciousness. But it will probably get better at describing the situations in which we find it.
Thank you for the link. I’m in the Only in Your Head Camp myself. I’ve been arguing that for years. The Color that you See is Your Color. It is part of what you are as a Conscious Mind. From the TheInterMind.com point of view: You are the Color.
CCv3 said; That’s implying that your conscious experience creates the universe – to me that seems self-centeredness and hubris maximus.That is a little harsh, being that your brain can only be self-centered. What is inside the skull is all it knows. The brain has no direct access to the real world..
A more accurate assignment is “your brain makes a best guess of what it perceives is reality”. Consider that the brain does not see or hear anything. It receives millions of eletro-chemical bits of information via the neural network, which it must re-translate and compare with its stored memory, to be able to make any sense of the incoming information at all.
The memory itself was shaped long ago and may not be accurate at all depending on the initial emotional experiences that accompanied the original information.
Descartes was correct in his analogy of a “brain in a vat”, where the brain believes it is taking a stroll in the park, but the input information comes from a simulation by a computer. The brain does not know the difference, it has only the incoming information on which to rely its associated emotional responses.
“I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is “Cogito, ergo sum.” (Rene Descartes). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#NatReaAnil Seth clearly describes and demonstrates this autonomy of the brain in this tried and true lecture. He shows how the brain can misperceive "color", but also very quickly can "adjust its focus" on pertinent parts of incoming information. If there is anyone who has not yet seen this outstanding lecture, I urge all to take a few minutes and really listen to what Seth is explaining. It will change your understanding of what and how the brain interprets as reality.
If there is anyone who has not yet seen this outstanding lecture, I urge all to take a few minutes and really listen to what Seth is explaining.Very funny.