The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
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.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
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: 13891
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

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
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
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
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
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: 13891
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

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: 766
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: 424
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11194
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: 424
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: 424
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11194
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: 766
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: 424
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11194
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: 766
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11194
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: 766
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: 424
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.

mattb
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby mattb » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:31 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You have a huge Explanatory Gap.

I don't know what the general view is here on the Hard Problem, but I've never been that excited by David Chalmers question. In asking 'how does seeing the color blue create the sensation of blue?' he's basically asking, where do sensations of the external world finally end up?

I reckon like most people here I can remember the moment, aged around 7 or 8, when I suddenly had the realisation "If I'm looking at the world, who or what is inside my head looking at that world?!", as if my perceptions are being witnessed by someone (the real me?) sitting in a mental movie theatre.

But in time I realised that's not a worthwhile question. The question is a product of our hunter-gatherer brains, which give us the ability to switch from being in a flow state, when doing something that requires our fullest attention and a physical reaction to the moment, to the analytic mode of experiencing the world as subjects and objects, allowing us to analyse and plan. Neither of these is absolutely true, they are only useful points of view.

So to me Chalmers is getting stuck on looking for the witness in the movie theatre who sits there and receives all the sensory stuff.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:23 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
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.
It's only dualists who have a problem, Steve. From everyone else's perspective, there is no 'hard problem,' no 'explanatory gap.'

Your insistence that medical science doesn't support consciousness arising from the brain flies in the face of all the evidence skeptics have provided in this thread. At this point, you're simply denying reality. You're like the Christian who insists that homosexuals are committing 'sin,' in denial of the scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and baffled by people who don't share his belief in a Bronze Age, Middle Eastern, patriarchal mystery religion.

If that Christian changed his perspective, he would realize that the strictures in Leviticus were sensible in the Bronze Age, but outdated now that we have sanitation, health care, refrigeration, microscopes, meat thermometers, and other modern developments.

And if you changed your perspective, you would realize there's no 'hard problem,' no 'explanatory gap' that is not explained by medical evidence. But as long as you persist on separating mind from body, this discussion is fruitless.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:12 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
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.
It's only dualists who have a problem, Steve. From everyone else's perspective, there is no 'hard problem,' no 'explanatory gap.'

Your insistence that medical science doesn't support consciousness arising from the brain flies in the face of all the evidence skeptics have provided in this thread. At this point, you're simply denying reality. You're like the Christian who insists that homosexuals are committing 'sin,' in denial of the scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and baffled by people who don't share his belief in a Bronze Age, Middle Eastern, patriarchal mystery religion.

If that Christian changed his perspective, he would realize that the strictures in Leviticus were sensible in the Bronze Age, but outdated now that we have sanitation, health care, refrigeration, microscopes, meat thermometers, and other modern developments.

And if you changed your perspective, you would realize there's no 'hard problem,' no 'explanatory gap' that is not explained by medical evidence. But as long as you persist on separating mind from body, this discussion is fruitless.

So in your opinion, there is no real mystery as to what processes create consciousness? Our conception of conscious experience and our understanding of neuroscience are currently at their end points? I think if you are going to be honest you must admit that we have no real idea what processes in the brain necessarily produce consciousness. Yes, we know there are many brain structures involved, and we know different parts play different roles, but we have no idea why, when you put all these pieces together, you get a conscious experience. A true scientific theory must make predictions. Until we can get to a point in our understanding about consciousness that we can make testable predictions based on a hypothesis, we cannot say we have gotten anywhere near solving this problem.

I don't deny that the brain is entirely responsible for our consciousness, for our ability to reflect on our senses and have an "interior" experience. Our current understanding of consciousness is like having a puzzle laid out in front of us, but we have no idea how to put all the pieces together, because we can't imagine how our conscious experience could be broken down.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
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 Jan 08, 2018 6:00 pm

Dimebag wrote:So in your opinion, there is no real mystery as to what processes create consciousness? Our conception of conscious experience and our understanding of neuroscience are currently at their end points?
Straw man, Dimebag. That's not what I said, and you are misrepresenting my viewpoint which I've elucidated multiple times in this thread.
Dimebag wrote:I think if you are going to be honest you must admit that we have no real idea what processes in the brain necessarily produce consciousness. Yes, we know there are many brain structures involved, and we know different parts play different roles, but we have no idea why, when you put all these pieces together, you get a conscious experience. A true scientific theory must make predictions. Until we can get to a point in our understanding about consciousness that we can make testable predictions based on a hypothesis, we cannot say we have gotten anywhere near solving this problem.
But...we ARE at that point. The claustrum is the brain structure that organizes everything into a conscious experience, as proven by the neurosurgeon who 'turned off' a patient's claustrum and temporarily 'turned off' her consciousness. He replicated the results multiple times. The link is somewhere in this thread.
Dimebag wrote:I don't deny that the brain is entirely responsible for our consciousness, for our ability to reflect on our senses and have an "interior" experience. Our current understanding of consciousness is like having a puzzle laid out in front of us, but we have no idea how to put all the pieces together, because we can't imagine how our conscious experience could be broken down.
The issue with dualism is that it DOES try to imagine how our conscious experience is broken down...and it makes conclusions that are fallacious, based on belief, not science. Dualists misguidedly believe that the whole is somehow greater than the sum of its parts, that there must be something 'mystical' about it because they don't understand it. It's like claiming that wireless wifi is impossible unless you add 'magic' into the mix.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:21 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote: But...we ARE at that point. The claustrum is the brain structure that organizes everything into a conscious experience, as proven by the neurosurgeon who 'turned off' a patient's claustrum and temporarily 'turned off' her consciousness. He replicated the results multiple times. The link is somewhere in this thread.

I think it means we are on the right track, but the claustrum is not a brain process, it is a location or area of the brain. We don't currently have a theory of how it might integrate all our moment to moment experiences into one continuous experience. We also don't know how other facets such as attention, memory, intentional action, etc, fit into the broader picture of this structure. It's all well and good to point to a location and say, "that's what does it" but saying that doesn't enlighten our understanding of how it does it. We need to take what we currently know about the structures involved and see how they fit together. Unfortunately there aren't enough people in neuroscience who are willing to focus on theory. We need more people like Jeff Hawkins, who currently operates a lab working to investigate how the cortex does what it does using modelling and simulation of a cortical column. Maybe we need an Elon Musk of the Neuroscience world to shake the industry up, get it excited and motivated to attack the problem from different angles.
Nikki Nyx wrote:The issue with dualism is that it DOES try to imagine how our conscious experience is broken down...and it makes conclusions that are fallacious, based on belief, not science. Dualists misguidedly believe that the whole is somehow greater than the sum of its parts, that there must be something 'mystical' about it because they don't understand it. It's like claiming that wireless wifi is impossible unless you add 'magic' into the mix.
I agree, trying to form an understanding of consciousness which is not biologically based is pointless and misguided. Consciousness may not be more than the sum of its parts, it is however, equal to the sum of its parts, and the parts themselves require all the other parts in order to form consciousness. This is an emergent process, but one which has built what we have today from existing brain structures, just possibly tweaking or enhancing certain capacities which give us a reflective capacity compared to our furry counterparts. And yet our brains have been tweaked in just the right way for our special capacities to emerge. I agree, it's not magical, it's not a secret sauce we add to the mix, but don't underestimate the importance of viewing all the pieces working together, over time. A conscious moment is not really that, it actually happens over some small amount of time, and is therefore a process. Which means we need to catch it in the act, not just freeze it in time to study it.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:24 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: But...we ARE at that point. The claustrum is the brain structure that organizes everything into a conscious experience, as proven by the neurosurgeon who 'turned off' a patient's claustrum and temporarily 'turned off' her consciousness. He replicated the results multiple times. The link is somewhere in this thread.
I think it means we are on the right track, but the claustrum is not a brain process, it is a location or area of the brain. We don't currently have a theory of how it might integrate all our moment to moment experiences into one continuous experience.
But we do know why. The claustrum is connected to nearly every other structure in the brain. It's the conductor for the orchestra. To extend the analogy, each member of an orchestra has a particular function, and each of them is a virtuoso, but they cannot come together to perform a symphony without the conductor.
Dimebag wrote:We also don't know how other facets such as attention, memory, intentional action, etc, fit into the broader picture of this structure.
Those areas of the brain are all interconnected with the claustrum.
Dimebag wrote:We need to take what we currently know about the structures involved and see how they fit together. Unfortunately there aren't enough people in neuroscience who are willing to focus on theory. We need more people like Jeff Hawkins, who currently operates a lab working to investigate how the cortex does what it does using modelling and simulation of a cortical column. Maybe we need an Elon Musk of the Neuroscience world to shake the industry up, get it excited and motivated to attack the problem from different angles.
That's a good start, but some of it will require attaining knowledge in fits and starts, since it would be unethical to request volunteers to undergo unneeded neurosurgery just so we can mess around with their claustrums (er...claustra?).
Dimebag wrote:I agree, trying to form an understanding of consciousness which is not biologically based is pointless and misguided. Consciousness may not be more than the sum of its parts, it is however, equal to the sum of its parts, and the parts themselves require all the other parts in order to form consciousness.
Perhaps I was too hasty in saying that. Consciousness is more than the sum of its parts in the same way an orchestra is. After all, it's all well and good to have a fantastic memory, but it's not much good unless it's integrated with sensory input, emotions, decision-making, language, etc. In Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Lewy body dementia, numerous studies have shown amyloid deposits and neurofibrillary tangles (aggregates of tau protein) in the claustrum, which explains why these patients frequently retain their long-term memories, but are unable to tie them into 'now.' They retain their consciousness, but it's dysfunctional because the interconnections are affected.
Morphometrical studies were performed in all parts of the claustrum along its whole extension. The claustrum in control brains was free of neurofibrillary and amyloid pathology except for one case with few senile plaques in the paramygdalar part. In AD affected brains the most severe changes were found in the paramygdalar part connected with the entorhinal cortex (neuronal loss -46%; 698 +/- 244.6 neurofibrillary tangles per mm3, tangle/neuron ratio -6.8 +/- 2.4%). In other parts of the claustrum related mainly with the neocortex pathological changes were significantly less expressed. LINK

Dimebag wrote:This is an emergent process, but one which has built what we have today from existing brain structures, just possibly tweaking or enhancing certain capacities which give us a reflective capacity compared to our furry counterparts. And yet our brains have been tweaked in just the right way for our special capacities to emerge. I agree, it's not magical, it's not a secret sauce we add to the mix, but don't underestimate the importance of viewing all the pieces working together, over time. A conscious moment is not really that, it actually happens over some small amount of time, and is therefore a process. Which means we need to catch it in the act, not just freeze it in time to study it.
I agree that the process is complex and requires additional study. It seems as if the most progress is neurology has been made through studying dysfunctional brains and how they differ from functional ones. In the study where the neurosurgeon 'turned off' the patient's consciousness via the claustrum, the purpose of the surgery was to alleviate intractable epilepsy. The discovery was an accident.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:51 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
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.


Steve your basically asking how does a conscious experience happen?
Then you assume there is a huge explanatory gap that needs to be filled by coming up with the ultimate evasive answer to the ever appearing hard question ..

Wouldn't you have to separate yourself from your 'conscious experience' to know how that 'conscious experience' is happening?

That's what the mind is trying to do when it wants to know the hard question of consciousness..., it is trying to look at itself. Honestly Steve, do you believe this is possible? Can you split yourself in two and become the separate observer of the observed? Or is there no way you can separate yourself from what you are looking at?

And is it not just language that is creating the illusion of separation in the first place?

A language that is common to all human beings alike ..of which we either agree or disagree with depending on our cultural beliefs and conditions?

Language is a useful tool for communication, but as soon as you say a word is an object, you have already separated yourself from the object even though that illusory separation is only ever sourced from you and you alone. You are never separated from what you project.

It's the same for everyone, everything is doing same.



------
Something clever should go here.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:29 pm

placid wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
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.


Steve your basically asking how does a conscious experience happen?
Then you assume there is a huge explanatory gap that needs to be filled by coming up with the ultimate evasive answer to the ever appearing hard question ..

Wouldn't you have to separate yourself from your 'conscious experience' to know how that 'conscious experience' is happening?

That's what the mind is trying to do when it wants to know the hard question of consciousness..., it is trying to look at itself. Honestly Steve, do you believe this is possible? Can you split yourself in two and become the separate observer of the observed? Or is there no way you can separate yourself from what you are looking at?

And is it not just language that is creating the illusion of separation in the first place?

A language that is common to all human beings alike ..of which we either agree or disagree with depending on our cultural beliefs and conditions?

Language is a useful tool for communication, but as soon as you say a word is an object, you have already separated yourself from the object even though that illusory separation is only ever sourced from you and you alone. You are never separated from what you project.

It's the same for everyone, everything is doing same.



------

I think Conscious experiences are separate existent things, like the experience of the color Red. The Redness of the Red does not exist in the Physical World. It is purely a Conscious experience. I don't usually say anything about the observer because I really don't know what that is. It is what I am and I don't know what I am. But the bottom line is that anytime I talk about Conscious experience there is always an implied observer involved. I agree that the observer is experiencing an aspect of itself when it experiences Red.

But Red is just one of the billions of Colors of Light that you experience when you See something. The scene you See is made out of Light. It is painted on a 2 dimensional Conscious Light Screen that is embedded in the front of your face. The important realization is that the Conscious Light that is painted on that screen is not Physical Light. It is an internal Conscious Light. We have never seen Physical Light only Conscious Light. Even the hard core Materialist would recognize that we are not seeing Physical Light but Conscious Light. It might all be a Physical Brain process but it is surely inside the Brain and is a separate thing than the Physical Light that is in the external Physical World. So even the Materialist would have to agree that the Light we experience is inside us and in fact we are that Light. It is part of what we are. The observer is the Light.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:06 am

SteveKlinko wrote:

I think Conscious experiences are separate existent things, like the experience of the color Red. The Redness of the Red does not exist in the Physical World. It is purely a Conscious experience. I don't usually say anything about the observer because I really don't know what that is. It is what I am and I don't know what I am. But the bottom line is that anytime I talk about Conscious experience there is always an implied observer involved. I agree that the observer is experiencing an aspect of itself when it experiences Red.

But Red is just one of the billions of Colors of Light that you experience when you See something. The scene you See is made out of Light. It is painted on a 2 dimensional Conscious Light Screen that is embedded in the front of your face. The important realization is that the Conscious Light that is painted on that screen is not Physical Light. It is an internal Conscious Light. We have never seen Physical Light only Conscious Light. Even the hard core Materialist would recognize that we are not seeing Physical Light but Conscious Light. It might all be a Physical Brain process but it is surely inside the Brain and is a separate thing than the Physical Light that is in the external Physical World. So even the Materialist would have to agree that the Light we experience is inside us and in fact we are that Light. It is part of what we are. The observer is the Light.


Thanks for the feedback Steve.

I'm not getting what you mean by ''Physical Light'' ..what is that?

Also, it is my view that there is no ''we'' that sees anything, the seer is only ever one with the seeing, there is no ''other'' seer, there is only this one light reflecting or projecting itself everywhere which doesn't reside inside or outside of any object, rather it's source is unknowable, and yet here it is in all it's glory, it's all now-here no-where.

And I still don't get why there is an Explanatory Gap pertaining to the Hard Question of what is Consciousness?

If there is quite clearly and Self evidently only LIGHT ...then why the need for the question, and why is it hard, because for me, it's very easy, in that there is no ''we'' which implies an illusory''other''...

Removing the ''other'' where is the Gap?

I've really tried to understand what you are searching for when you present the idea that there is an Explanatory GAP..

I really have a problem understanding that you believe there is a Gap....I really would like to know what you mean by that..thanks?
Something clever should go here.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28089
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:09 pm

placid wrote:I'm not getting what you mean by ''Physical Light'' ..what is that?

Unbelievable.

1) Atoms radiate these things called "photons".
2) "Photons" have various electromagnetic frequencies.
3) Animals on Earth evolved red, green and blue "cones" in our eyes to convert photon wave frequencies into combinations that we perceive as colour in our frontal lobes of our brains.
4) That is how a colour TV works.

You don't know anything do you?
:lol:
colour TV.jpg


placid wrote:Also, it is my view that there is no ''we'' that sees anything,
Then why do we have eyes with cones that do this?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28089
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:32 pm

placid wrote: Also, it is my view that there is no ''we'' that sees anything, the seer is only ever one with the seeing, there is no ''other'' seer, there is only this one light reflecting or projecting itself everywhere which doesn't reside inside or outside of any object,


for the record Steve, Placid is a cult member of the Advaita Vedanta cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:03 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
for the record Steve, Placid is a cult member of the Advaita Vedanta cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta


I can only know what I cannot know.
Something clever should go here.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:14 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
placid wrote:I'm not getting what you mean by ''Physical Light'' ..what is that?

Unbelievable.

1) Atoms radiate these things called "photons".
2) "Photons" have various electromagnetic frequencies.
3) Animals on Earth evolved red, green and blue "cones" in our eyes to convert photon wave frequencies into combinations that we perceive as colour in our frontal lobes of our brains.
4) That is how a colour TV works.

You don't know anything do you?
:lol:
colour TV.jpg

placid wrote:Also, it is my view that there is no ''we'' that sees anything,
Then why do we have eyes with cones that do this?


Wow, congrats for re-discovering a knowledge that existed before you knew about it. In other words, your discovery is not your knowledge is it you fool ..you're just the mechanical spokesman, the instrument for the manifestation of knowledge that the silent intelligence uses to make sense of it's reality.

In other words, you're a human sound and vision TV regurgitating information that already exists. Duh!

It's not that ''you'' know anything, you don't know, you are the known, that's the wisdom of oneness, itself.

You're ego wants to take the limelight and all the credit .. Awareness hears the cry of the heart and it's unconditional love grants it centre stage..because it's unconditional, it allows everything the heart desires to happen... even the murder and slaughter of the Jews....Don't you know anything ?
Something clever should go here.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:38 am

I know one thing, placid - you don't know when to stop.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:20 am

Poodle wrote:I know one thing, placid - you don't know when to stop.



No one cares.

Actually, I take quite long breaks from this forum, how about you?

Oh and just so you know, the only way out of this is to stop thinking, are you prepared to stop thinking, or is thinking out of your control?
Something clever should go here.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
for the record Steve, Placid is a cult member of the Advaita Vedanta cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta


Bye the way, I think Steve is man enough to think for himself about this allegation, he doesn't need you to point out the obvious for him.

Placid cannot be a member of a cult called AV..because AV is about the truth of existence being Nondual....it has no followers.

Followers are for those who are lost.

Steve and I are discussing ideas, Steve is a real man, he's mature and intelligent enough not to discuss people unlike you ..you small minded little boy.

Image
Last edited by placid on Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Something clever should go here.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:32 am

placid wrote:... Followers are for those who are lost.

I feel you may be a little confused, placid. Leaders are for those who are lost. Followers may or may not be lost and, if they are lost, they can ... errrmm ... follow. See how that works?

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:35 am

Poodle wrote:
placid wrote:... Followers are for those who are lost.

I feel you may be a little confused, placid. Leaders are for those who are lost. Followers may or may not be lost and, if they are lost, they can ... errrmm ... follow. See how that works?


There is no one leading you except your own shadow, look its behind you.
Something clever should go here.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:43 am

Here we go again. Why must you always come up with this twaddle, placid? It's easy to be a philosopher if philosophy means spouting sheer nonsense. It's even more easy if the device of simple reversal is deployed ad nauseam.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:47 am

Poodle wrote:Here we go again. Why must you always come up with this twaddle, placid? It's easy to be a philosopher if philosophy means spouting sheer nonsense. It's even more easy if the device of simple reversal is deployed ad nauseam.



You do go on don't you?

Without you there is no me, you just can't exist without me...please continue, I know you want to, you can't help yourself.
Something clever should go here.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby placid » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:52 am

You could just ignore yourself, aka me, but you can't do that can you, otherwise you'd stop replying to me, but you can't stop replying to me because you like poking your fingers in all the pies in case you think your missing something.

It takes real maturity to ignore the chattering mind.

It's your master and your its slave.

Or

It's your slave and you are the master.

Ho Ho Ho
Something clever should go here.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests