The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:40 am

digress wrote:He's only been dual in the sensation that he speculates science is missing much about our ability to detect experience from brain function. He is not saying he believes this to be true because of a spirit, locus of thought, or phantom thinker exists within a material world. He merely speculates that current neurological findings within the brain do not explain how actual conscious reality is bricked together in the way we experience it. Basically, he thinks we will find a way to detect if a person is seeing red without looking at or relying upon the neural transmitters in the brain or electrical wave patterns in the room. This may be dualism by definition (i dont know), but that is not what he is disseminating.
This is dualist...the belief that consciousness does not arise in the brain, which Steve has argued repeatedly.

digress wrote:I'd request you watch the video I posted above on this page if you hadn't already because Sam Harris's analogy of arguing a coin only had one side is a perfect example of the representations of your argument against SteveKlinko. It also does well to articulate (between 00:30 - 2:50 time frame) what science can't yet tell us about the subjective experience, aka SteveKlinko's very same basis for discussion.
It's more characteristic of Steve's argument. I'm arguing that the brain is both sides of the coin; he's arguing that something other than the brain is the other side of the coin...without having provided any evidence for his hypothesis in spite of multiple requests by any number of members.

digress wrote:I didn't read anything about the supportive idea for dualism or a religion. Those are categories you've labeled SteveKlinko presentation as being from your own ego on the subject.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. My argument has literally nothing to do with my self-esteem or some misguided opinion of my own self-importance. It's based solely on neurology, which Steve has repeatedly denied is relevant, including the study on the claustrum I quoted to you in which neurologists were able to "turn off" a patient's consciousness by stimulating her claustrum. The patient remained conscious, but was utterly unaware of herself and her surroundings and did not respond to stimuli. The experiment was successfully repeated ten times with the same result.

digress wrote:If I came into this thread and didn't know a thing about dualism then there is nothing about SteveKlinko's presentation that would convince me dualism is something I should start believing. Though I may postulate the conclusion myself -- SteveKlinko is not directly asking we deduce anything without further scientific research on the matter.
Yes, he is. He's asking us to conclude, not deduce, that consciousness does not arise in the brain, but in some abstract place he's dubbed "the inter mind." He consistently insists that the brain alone could not possibly generate consciousness. That's dualism, regardless of whether it has a specific religious bent or not.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:44 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
digress wrote:He's only been dual in the sensation that he speculates science is missing much about our ability to detect experience from brain function. He is not saying he believes this to be true because of a spirit, locus of thought, or phantom thinker exists within a material world. He merely speculates that current neurological findings within the brain do not explain how actual conscious reality is bricked together in the way we experience it. Basically, he thinks we will find a way to detect if a person is seeing red without looking at or relying upon the neural transmitters in the brain or electrical wave patterns in the room. This may be dualism by definition (i dont know), but that is not what he is disseminating.
This is dualist...the belief that consciousness does not arise in the brain, which Steve has argued repeatedly.

digress wrote:I'd request you watch the video I posted above on this page if you hadn't already because Sam Harris's analogy of arguing a coin only had one side is a perfect example of the representations of your argument against SteveKlinko. It also does well to articulate (between 00:30 - 2:50 time frame) what science can't yet tell us about the subjective experience, aka SteveKlinko's very same basis for discussion.
It's more characteristic of Steve's argument. I'm arguing that the brain is both sides of the coin; he's arguing that something other than the brain is the other side of the coin...without having provided any evidence for his hypothesis in spite of multiple requests by any number of members.

digress wrote:I didn't read anything about the supportive idea for dualism or a religion. Those are categories you've labeled SteveKlinko presentation as being from your own ego on the subject.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. My argument has literally nothing to do with my self-esteem or some misguided opinion of my own self-importance. It's based solely on neurology, which Steve has repeatedly denied is relevant, including the study on the claustrum I quoted to you in which neurologists were able to "turn off" a patient's consciousness by stimulating her claustrum. The patient remained conscious, but was utterly unaware of herself and her surroundings and did not respond to stimuli. The experiment was successfully repeated ten times with the same result.

digress wrote:If I came into this thread and didn't know a thing about dualism then there is nothing about SteveKlinko's presentation that would convince me dualism is something I should start believing. Though I may postulate the conclusion myself -- SteveKlinko is not directly asking we deduce anything without further scientific research on the matter.
Yes, he is. He's asking us to conclude, not deduce, that consciousness does not arise in the brain, but in some abstract place he's dubbed "the inter mind." He consistently insists that the brain alone could not possibly generate consciousness. That's dualism, regardless of whether it has a specific religious bent or not.

It is not fair to say I have not provided any evidence. If you could understand Conscious Light like I explain it on The Inter Mind website then you might get closer to understanding my argument. Do you understand that Conscious Light is different than Physical Light (Electromagnetic Energy)? You see Conscious Light while Dreaming when asleep. You see Conscious Light when you rub your eyes the right way. After Images are Conscious Light. There is no Physical Light correlated with any of these things. When you are awake your Brain converts Physical Light to Conscious Light. This time the Conscious Light is correlated to the Physical Light but you are still only seeing Conscious Light. You have never seen Physical Light. You only always see Conscious Light. That Conscious Light is a real thing for you. It exists in reality. It's not an illusion. It is a Conscious thing. If it is explainable by Science then is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it made out of some aspect of space? What the heck is it? Sure seems like it is something that Science has no clue about. Seems like we will need to admit that there is a world of Conscious experience out there that needs an explanation. The Explanatory Gap is alive and well. The Hard Problem is alive and well. This has always been the heart of my argument. I have always stated some form of this in my replies and it is loud and clear on http://TheInterMind.com website. You just don't accept it as an answer.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:41 am

"Conscious Light"?

A good example of a severe tell for idiocy: creating your own language.

Imaginary facts to support imaginary claims. At least its consistent.............. as in so easy to ignore.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:35 am

SteveKlinko wrote:It is not fair to say I have not provided any evidence.
Yes, it is. You've provided a bunch of references from other dualists who also claim that consciousness is not a function of the brain. That's not evidence.

The study I posted to you about the woman whose consciousness was turned off and on by stimulating her claustrum, where the results were repeated 10 times out of 10 attempts? That's evidence. For my argument, that is.

SteveKlinko wrote:If you could understand Conscious Light like I explain it on The Inter Mind website then you might get closer to understanding my argument. Do you understand that Conscious Light is different than Physical Light (Electromagnetic Energy)? You see Conscious Light while Dreaming when asleep. You see Conscious Light when you rub your eyes the right way. After Images are Conscious Light. There is no Physical Light correlated with any of these things.
More manufactured New Age nonsense. When you see light in dreams, you're drawing the experience of seeing physical light from your memory. Neuropsychologist Mark Solms confirmed that patients with damage to their parietal lobes do not dream.
The parietal lobe integrates sensory information among various modalities, including spacial sense and navigation (proprioception), the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch (mechanoreception) in the somatosensory cortex which is just posterior to the central sulcus in the postcentral gyrus, and the dorsal stream of the visual system. The major sensory inputs from the skin (touch, temperature, and pain receptors), relay through the thalamus to the parietal lobe.

Several areas of the parietal lobe are important in language processing. The somatosensory cortex can be illustrated as a distorted figure – the homunculus (Latin: "little man"), in which the body parts are rendered according to how much of the somatosensory cortex is devoted to them. The superior parietal lobule and inferior parietal lobule are the primary areas of body or spacial awareness. LINK

Rubbing your eyes...
A phosphene is a phenomenon characterized by the experience of seeing light without light actually entering the eye. Phosphenes can be directly induced by mechanical, electrical, or magnetic stimulation of the retina or visual cortex as well as by random firing of cells in the visual system.

Grüsser et al. showed that pressure on the eye results in activation of retinal ganglion cells in a similar way to activation by light. LINK

After images...
After images occur because photochemical activity in the retina continues even when you are no longer experiencing the original stimulus. Negative afterimages are caused when the eye's photoreceptors, primarily known as rods and cones, adapt to overstimulation and lose sensitivity. Newer evidence suggests there is cortical contribution as well. Positive afterimages, by contrast, appear the same color as the original image. They are often very brief, lasting less than half a second. The cause of positive afterimages is not well known, but possibly reflects persisting activity in the brain when the retinal photoreceptor cells continue to send neural impulses to the occipital lobe. LINK
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:38 am

From what I can tell, conscious light is basically a placeholder for whatever our explanation of conscious visual experience ends up being.

I am, however, having doubts about the simplicity of the idea. For instance, our visual perception contains not only a "conscious light screen", but also a myriad of more abstract visual properties which are extracted from the visual scene, such as movement, shapes, colours. There are people with damage to certain visual areas who have trouble recognising faces. So our visual experience is inextricably tied to our knowledge OF it.

Think about it for a minute, if you were to have a visual experience without the ability to know about it, and use that knowledge, then effectively you can't say you have that experience.

So already to have a conscious experience and be aware of it, we need to have more abstract knowledge of that experience. A conscious experience without this will fade quickly, almost as soon as it appears, and only be useful to unconscious automatic processes.

When I think about it, what is missing from the concept Steve has invented, is the difference between focussed and broad attention. Furthermore, our focussed attention can, whenever necessary, introspect, and ignore external conscious experience from the focussed attention, leaving only the broad automatic consciousness driving our unconscious processes.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:49 am

Its rare to find so much bull crap loaded into one post such as we have here. Amazing. I can't believe anyone would do it honestly, and also can't believe anyone would enjoy doing it as a goof.

Its almost like having an experience I'm not aware of and posting about it but not having experienced anything. Know what I mean? ..................... But more importantly seems to me that experiences that are not part of our consciousness should really be garblefarbed as "Unconscious Light." But.... I dither.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:30 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Its rare to find so much bull crap loaded into one post such as we have here. Amazing. I can't believe anyone would do it honestly, and also can't believe anyone would enjoy doing it as a goof.

Its almost like having an experience I'm not aware of and posting about it but not having experienced anything. Know what I mean? ..................... But more importantly seems to me that experiences that are not part of our consciousness should really be garblefarbed as "Unconscious Light." But.... I dither.

Were you referring to my previous post? If so would you kindly address the points you have a problem with, so I may respond to your criticism, rather than using ridicule as a tool in place of reason.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:15 pm

Dimebag wrote:From what I can tell, conscious light is basically a placeholder for whatever our explanation of conscious visual experience ends up being.

I am, however, having doubts about the simplicity of the idea. For instance, our visual perception contains not only a "conscious light screen", but also a myriad of more abstract visual properties which are extracted from the visual scene, such as movement, shapes, colours. There are people with damage to certain visual areas who have trouble recognising faces. So our visual experience is inextricably tied to our knowledge OF it.

Think about it for a minute, if you were to have a visual experience without the ability to know about it, and use that knowledge, then effectively you can't say you have that experience.

So already to have a conscious experience and be aware of it, we need to have more abstract knowledge of that experience. A conscious experience without this will fade quickly, almost as soon as it appears, and only be useful to unconscious automatic processes.

When I think about it, what is missing from the concept Steve has invented, is the difference between focussed and broad attention. Furthermore, our focussed attention can, whenever necessary, introspect, and ignore external conscious experience from the focussed attention, leaving only the broad automatic consciousness driving our unconscious processes.

Yes there are all kinds of parallel things happening when we have a Visual experience. But I am interested in the Visual experience itself. I think you can separate it out from the other things. Recognizing a face is just one of those other things. The Visual experience probably exits as vividly as ever even without recognition.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:25 pm

There is no external vision. Our eyes gather the data, but the visual experience all takes place inside the brain. Our brains make a model of what is seen, and our vision is the model. This model may be remembered and again viewed during sleep when dreaming. There is no external vision outside the brain. What we see can be recorded using MRI testing while we are awake, and again while we are dreaming. It is all the passage of nerve impulses through the neural nets of the brain. If it were a magical mind outside the brain, why is it recorded by an instrument that measures brain activity ?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:13 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:It is not fair to say I have not provided any evidence.
Yes, it is. You've provided a bunch of references from other dualists who also claim that consciousness is not a function of the brain. That's not evidence.

The study I posted to you about the woman whose consciousness was turned off and on by stimulating her claustrum, where the results were repeated 10 times out of 10 attempts? That's evidence. For my argument, that is.

As I have said before you have no idea what was going on with her actual Consciousness. They were only working with the Neural Correlates of Consciousness.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:If you could understand Conscious Light like I explain it on The Inter Mind website then you might get closer to understanding my argument. Do you understand that Conscious Light is different than Physical Light (Electromagnetic Energy)? You see Conscious Light while Dreaming when asleep. You see Conscious Light when you rub your eyes the right way. After Images are Conscious Light. There is no Physical Light correlated with any of these things.
More manufactured New Age nonsense. When you see light in dreams, you're drawing the experience of seeing physical light from your memory. Neuropsychologist Mark Solms confirmed that patients with damage to their parietal lobes do not dream.

How exactly do you get the memory of Physical Light from your memory? How do you see it? You have a huge Explanatory Gap here. You can't just say things.

The parietal lobe integrates sensory information among various modalities, including spacial sense and navigation (proprioception), the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch (mechanoreception) in the somatosensory cortex which is just posterior to the central sulcus in the postcentral gyrus, and the dorsal stream of the visual system. The major sensory inputs from the skin (touch, temperature, and pain receptors), relay through the thalamus to the parietal lobe.

Several areas of the parietal lobe are important in language processing. The somatosensory cortex can be illustrated as a distorted figure – the homunculus (Latin: "little man"), in which the body parts are rendered according to how much of the somatosensory cortex is devoted to them. The superior parietal lobule and inferior parietal lobule are the primary areas of body or spacial awareness. LINK

Very Good. But I don't get your point here. These are just more Neural Correlates of Consciousness.

Nikki Nyx wrote:Rubbing your eyes...
A phosphene is a phenomenon characterized by the experience of seeing light without light actually entering the eye. Phosphenes can be directly induced by mechanical, electrical, or magnetic stimulation of the retina or visual cortex as well as by random firing of cells in the visual system.


Grüsser et al. showed that pressure on the eye results in activation of retinal ganglion cells in a similar way to activation by light. LINK


Phosphene ... that's a good word that explains nothing about how we see actual Light when we rub our eyes. Do you mean it doesn't fascinate you that you can see Light without there being any Light? Don't you think that shows that the Light we see is something different than we have always thought it was? What is that Light you see when you rub your eyes? It is Light just like any other Light you see. How can we have Light inside our heads like that?

Nikki Nyx wrote:After images...
After images occur because photochemical activity in the retina continues even when you are no longer experiencing the original stimulus. Negative afterimages are caused when the eye's photoreceptors, primarily known as rods and cones, adapt to overstimulation and lose sensitivity. Newer evidence suggests there is cortical contribution as well. Positive afterimages, by contrast, appear the same color as the original image. They are often very brief, lasting less than half a second. The cause of positive afterimages is not well known, but possibly reflects persisting activity in the brain when the retinal photoreceptor cells continue to send neural impulses to the occipital lobe. LINK

Yes of course that is going on. But you are missing the point of how is it that we are seeing Light. But where does the Light come from. It is a Conscious experience beyond what the Retina and Neurons are doing. How do the Photoreceptors and Neurons give us the Light experience.? You have a huge Explanatory Gap here.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no external vision. Our eyes gather the data, but the visual experience all takes place inside the brain. Our brains make a model of what is seen, and our vision is the model. This model may be remembered and again viewed during sleep when dreaming. There is no external vision outside the brain. What we see can be recorded using MRI testing while we are awake, and again while we are dreaming. It is all the passage of nerve impulses through the neural nets of the brain. If it were a magical mind outside the brain, why is it recorded by an instrument that measures brain activity ?

MRI scans don't measure Conscious experience they only measure Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Just because we don't know what it is yet doesn't make it Magical.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:21 am

No, it is not magical at all. It is simply nerve impulses passing through nerve fibers. Anything more is pure fantasy and totally unnecessary as a conjecture.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:No, it is not magical at all. It is simply nerve impulses passing through nerve fibers. Anything more is pure fantasy and totally unnecessary as a conjecture.

Even though conscious experience boils down to nerve impulses passing through neural networks, it isn't as simple as that. It must be the process by which it occurs which makes it "special" compared to nerve impulses which don't arise into consciousness. We must understand that process, or "recipe" for conscious experience, going from waves of representative nerve impulses passing through the neural network, to the point where those waves of impulses become a conscious experience. Once we know what that process is, we can determine if it is special to the biology of neural networks of our specific kind, or if the same process can be replicated in non biological networks. This will tell us something about the nature of conscious experience.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:No, it is not magical at all. It is simply nerve impulses passing through nerve fibers. Anything more is pure fantasy and totally unnecessary as a conjecture.

These are the things we know:

1) Nerve Impulses pass through Nerve Fibers
2) A Conscious experience of Light happens

You invoke 1) and then say it is all explained. But you have only pointed out once again a Neural Correlate of the Conscious Light experience. You completely ignore the experience itself. You act like there is no 2) only 1). Since there most certainly is a 2) there must be an explanation of how 1) causes 2). This is the Explanatory Gap and this is also the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:32 pm

There is no gap, Steve. Except in your understanding.
The brain creates models. This can be shown as it happens with NMR testing. Consciousness is just another model. It is your personal weakness that you refuse to see this.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:36 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no gap, Steve. Except in your understanding.
The brain creates models. This can be shown as it happens with NMR testing. Consciousness is just another model. It is your personal weakness that you refuse to see this.

Lance, I'm curious, do you think it's possible to have unconscious models or representations? If so, what is special about conscious models, which allows them to have a conscious quality?

It is clear that our conscious experiences are constructions, but they are faithful representations, I would almost call them "imprints" from the external world. We have different categories which these imprints are constructed from, such as shape, colour, position in perceived space, but the imprints themselves take information from the world around us, and apply them to our neural networks. Almost like the way a wave passes through a body of water. Our neural networks and the neurotransmitters and action potentials are the medium, or water, and the experiences are the waves. The analogy only holds to a point, because not all "waves"passing through our medium become conscious. But that is how I view the information.

There seems to be a point which, if one of these waves has content which can be immediately useful or novel or is above a certain cutoff point, from which information is filtered into our conscious experience, that it becomes at least minimally conscious. If that same signal can compete against the myriad of other incoming signals, to the point where it is deemed attention worthy, it then becomes the "central focus", and becomes aware, above all other signals.

That signal can be used for many different uses then, allowing abstract thought to be applied to it, such as planning for physical action, or assessment of threat or usefulness; avoid or approach behaviour, or simply flagging for later use.

Conscious awareness is a two layer system. Nothing can come into awareness until it passes through both systems, the first broadly but low level conscious system, then the second focussed system. The first system has a low threshold to pass into, but memory of this system is very limited, but the second system has a higher threshold, and requires the use of many different areas of the brain, allowing longer term storage of the information for later use if necessary. But these two streams of experience are interwoven seamlessly, so they seem as one. This adds to the deceptive nature of our conscious experience.

Furthermore, the second focussed system can ignore streams of external minimally conscious signals and instead focus on its own internally generated content, which allows for thought both heuristic in nature (right hemisphere) or logical and verbal (left hemisphere), introception, the conscious focus of balance, prediction, in fact we have so many different capabilities which are allowed by this second system focussing on internal content it could be the greatest faculty we possess. These are my own thoughts on the structure of consciousness, pieced together in recent months and years, and no doubt corrections and additions and changes will occur.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:45 pm

None of what you say, Dimebag, requires the use of magic. That can all be accomplished with neural pathways.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:None of what you say, Dimebag, requires the use of magic. That can all be accomplished with neural pathways.

Yes, I don't deny this. What I am not certain of is if it can also be accomplished through a different medium, or if the process is so much entwined in the biological nature of our neuro anatomy that it could not be achieved any other way. Neurological processes seem very specific, however I wonder if there are other ways to achieve the underlying function which consciousness requires. I am pessimistic as to the ability to achieve an equivalent conscious function using different wetware.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:42 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no gap, Steve. Except in your understanding.
The brain creates models. This can be shown as it happens with NMR testing. Consciousness is just another model. It is your personal weakness that you refuse to see this.

I continue to be amazed at how you think saying "The Brain Creates Models" explains everything. You are just saying "The Brain Creates Consciousness" with different words. How does this happen? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You have a huge Explanatory Gap.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests