The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
machinegun1
New Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:49 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by machinegun1 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:43 pm

mirror93 wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:03 am
landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:20 pm
mirror93 wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:22 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:39 pm
mirror93 wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:22 pm
landrew wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:51 pm

Well, if it's nonsense, it's easy to refute, so I don't care much where t comes from.
So, let's see, we know it's false, but "easy to refute" is something very different, even more when they're using all tactics to avoid a refutation. Can you quote some of the quotes from the facebook page I linked, and point the logicall fallacies and why they're wrong?
Perhaps, we'll see in the ensuing days.
But more importantly, if something is hard to refute, it may have some merit, no matter how distasteful that seems.
If it can't be refuted, it's time to be the bigger self and recognize it has some weight.
That's the essence of the scientific method, after all.
no such thing as "bigger self".
It's hard to refute if you don't understand the methodologies used to brainwash, it's pure psychology and self-hypnosis.
There is no "too hard," there's just doing.
Are you another one of the Placid's sockpuppets by any chance?
What the heck "just doing" even means and whatdoes that have to do with what we're talking here?

There is no "bigger self", your self is just memories.
I can clearly distinguish 'memories' from myself. I remember the food I ate yesterday. I am witnessing a memory, I'm not the same as a memory, thus, the self are not memories. You can conclude that if I lose memories I am not myself anymore. Then you're talking about the personal self, the memories that made my personal self, but they change me over time. memories are not myself, they change myself.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10578
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:50 pm

OK, Matthew. I'm convinced.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Welcome Back Placid

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:39 am

Placid, the Hitler hugger AKA machinegun1 wrote: You're not a primitive animal, no human is a primitive animal, I already explained why and you couldn't argue because you really can't,
Mara and I looked up the etymology of "Animal" and posted it for you. We are right. You lied, made up some incoherent crap, and can't look anything up as you refuse to read books. :lol: :lol:

Soooooo....Placid? What does DNA do and how does it work? (You haven't got a clue, do you?)
Placid, the Hitler hugger AKA machinegun1 wrote: EVEN IF Darwinian evolution was true,
Darwinian evolution is real. You simply don't know what it is. :lol: :lol:

You don't know what evolution is,
You don't know what DNA is,
You don't know what genes are,
You don't know about comparative gene mapping,
You simply don't know anything.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:32 am

Machinegun,
What are your views on falabalism?

Mara
Poster
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Welcome Back Placid

Post by Mara » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:54 am

machinegun1 wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:36 pm
No Mara, now you're just being ignorant, you're now acting like some christians will be adamant how God of the bible exists because it has a reality outside the bible, without any argument, You're not a primitive animal, no human is a primitive animal, I already explained why and you couldn't argue because you really can't, and no matter how much you repeat it, you're just wrong. I already told you the linguistic of the word and why there is no reality to it outside its original meaning, and exists ONLY on the terms described to conceptualize and separate an understanding of species. You're like those spoiled people who can't deal with objective the truth and keep repeating the same thing over and over. EVEN IF Darwinian evolution was true, EVEN IF australopithecus {non-existent photoshopped ape-man} or whatever, was your ancestor's cousin, nothing will change the meaning of the word and why it was created.

Ignorant of what? All you have is self-manipulation and self-deception. Do you understand that you are a classic example of a brainwashed cult victim? You are caught up in feel-good dreams, dreams that make you feel better about yourself (due to dysfunctional relationship with nature and basic human experience). These dreams offer you sense of empowerment so you can get out of bed every day and continue your life. Nihilism is very difficult to accept and against psychological survival. It is natural for human psychology to reject it even though it is true. These are the reasons why it takes a great level of insight and self-awareness to be an objective scientist and do not reject the findings that go against own psychological needs which you are entirely incompetent at. Your responses to our posts demonstrate classic self-protective behaviour, as we are taking away from you something that is very valuable to you - rhetoric in your mind, neuronal networks of how you connect information that allow you to maintain this self- deception.

Professionals like me, who have worked in child protection, services specialising in supporting victims of domestic and family violence, victims of cults, and these days, sadly victims of institutional abuse (where significant % of these institutions are religious institutions) have the understanding through behavioural sciences based training and exposure to thousands of cases like yours. Time and time again these ideas are a product of psychological and emotional power and control over humans. Abusers inclusive of gurus, religious and spiritual leaders know that these are fundamental human needs and they create dependency by using these understanding. The funny thing is, they figured out behavioural science, before the behavioural scientist have. Do you know how a large portion of this research came about? Through confessions of these abusers who, at the point of being exposed, when they have nothing to lose anymore, get support so they can change and function in a society as not abusive individuals, share the strategies they use to attract and maintain their victims. You are obviously a weak individual, a person who got sucked into it at a time of trauma or any other vulnerability which is who they are looking for. Their behaviour is predatory, the difference is that is a civilised society predators to not seek out a physically wounded or weak animal but a psychologically wounded and weak animal.

I feel very sorry for you as you are clearly so far gone that you may never get your mind back. Plenty of people die this way, without ever freeing themselves from this convenient self-deception. If you need to maintain these comfortable lies to stay alive that is fine, but do not confuse your emotional needs with real objective sciences as you are not cut out for it. Apologies for this bluntly honest response but this is a Sceptic’s forum not a New Age cult group. We are not going to feed your delusions.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Welcome Back Placid

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:03 am

Mara" wrote:Their (cult leaders) behaviour is predatory, the difference is that is a civilised society predators to not seek out a physically wounded or weak animal but a psychologically wounded and weak animal.
Off Topic.
It does seem to me that the older followers of cults and cult leaders, like Placid, do think they can go off on their own and "spread the word" themselves. What I think is interesting is that they only wan't to "spread the word" to normal people. They have no interest in discussing their lunatic belief systems with other lunatics.

I have tried again and again to get Gorgeous to exchange posts with Placid or Zeuzzz or one of the other fringe dwellers, and I never have any luck. Gorgeous will endlessly spam about "Seth the channeled alien" but when we had two original Seth followers briefly posting here, who appeared in the original 16mm Seth channeling films, Gorgeous disappeared.

I don't know, but I guess Gorgeous and Klinko and Placid never get any attention in the real world, and they only post here to get some attention, from normal people. They won't talk to other weirdos because that would somehow "evidence" that they themselves are also lunatics or force them to "share the limelight".
:D

User avatar
machinegun1
New Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:49 am

Re: Welcome Back Placid

Post by machinegun1 » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:09 am

Mara wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:54 am
machinegun1 wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:36 pm
No Mara, now you're just being ignorant, you're now acting like some christians will be adamant how God of the bible exists because it has a reality outside the bible, without any argument, You're not a primitive animal, no human is a primitive animal, I already explained why and you couldn't argue because you really can't, and no matter how much you repeat it, you're just wrong. I already told you the linguistic of the word and why there is no reality to it outside its original meaning, and exists ONLY on the terms described to conceptualize and separate an understanding of species. You're like those spoiled people who can't deal with objective the truth and keep repeating the same thing over and over. EVEN IF Darwinian evolution was true, EVEN IF australopithecus {non-existent photoshopped ape-man} or whatever, was your ancestor's cousin, nothing will change the meaning of the word and why it was created.

Ignorant of what? All you have is self-manipulation and self-deception. Do you understand that you are a classic example of a brainwashed cult victim? You are caught up in feel-good dreams, dreams that make you feel better about yourself (due to dysfunctional relationship with nature and basic human experience). These dreams offer you sense of empowerment so you can get out of bed every day and continue your life. Nihilism is very difficult to accept and against psychological survival. It is natural for human psychology to reject it even though it is true. These are the reasons why it takes a great level of insight and self-awareness to be an objective scientist and do not reject the findings that go against own psychological needs which you are entirely incompetent at. Your responses to our posts demonstrate classic self-protective behaviour, as we are taking away from you something that is very valuable to you - rhetoric in your mind, neuronal networks of how you connect information that allow you to maintain this self- deception.

Professionals like me, who have worked in child protection, services specialising in supporting victims of domestic and family violence, victims of cults, and these days, sadly victims of institutional abuse (where significant % of these institutions are religious institutions) have the understanding through behavioural sciences based training and exposure to thousands of cases like yours. Time and time again these ideas are a product of psychological and emotional power and control over humans. Abusers inclusive of gurus, religious and spiritual leaders know that these are fundamental human needs and they create dependency by using these understanding. The funny thing is, they figured out behavioural science, before the behavioural scientist have. Do you know how a large portion of this research came about? Through confessions of these abusers who, at the point of being exposed, when they have nothing to lose anymore, get support so they can change and function in a society as not abusive individuals, share the strategies they use to attract and maintain their victims. You are obviously a weak individual, a person who got sucked into it at a time of trauma or any other vulnerability which is who they are looking for. Their behaviour is predatory, the difference is that is a civilised society predators to not seek out a physically wounded or weak animal but a psychologically wounded and weak animal.

I feel very sorry for you as you are clearly so far gone that you may never get your mind back. Plenty of people die this way, without ever freeing themselves from this convenient self-deception. If you need to maintain these comfortable lies to stay alive that is fine, but do not confuse your emotional needs with real objective sciences as you are not cut out for it. Apologies for this bluntly honest response but this is a Sceptic’s forum not a New Age cult group. We are not going to feed your delusions.
First of all, you completely distorted the topic, none of what you said has anything to do with what I said, I don't believe in any new age. I AM NOT PLACID. I'm not feeding any "self-delusion", this is not part of "human nature" , you're just narrating as a third person, omniscient of the truth, "ohh it's of the human nature, this and that".. hahaha, it's nothing to do with "human nature", but it's of Mara's nature avoid the fear of being wrong, which in fact you are.

I also didn't ask about your profession.
"You are obviously a weak individual, a person who got sucked into it at a time of trauma or any other vulnerability which is who they are looking for."
"I feel very sorry for you as you are clearly so far gone that you may never get your mind back. Plenty of people die this way, without ever freeing themselves from this convenient self-deception."

You're just projecting what might be your case.

Did you know, sometimes when we judge another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about yourself. Get a mirror

Mara
Poster
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Welcome Back Placid

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:26 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:03 am
Mara" wrote:Their (cult leaders) behaviour is predatory, the difference is that is a civilised society predators to not seek out a physically wounded or weak animal but a psychologically wounded and weak animal.
Off Topic.
It does seem to me that the older followers of cults and cult leaders, like Placid, do think they can go off on their own and "spread the word" themselves. What I think is interesting is that they only wan't to "spread the word" to normal people. They have no interest in discussing their lunatic belief systems with other lunatics.

I have tried again and again to get Gorgeous to exchange posts with Placid or Zeuzzz or one of the other fringe dwellers, and I never have any luck. Gorgeous will endlessly spam about "Seth the channeled alien" but when we had two original Seth followers briefly posting here, who appeared in the original 16mm Seth channeling films, Gorgeous disappeared.

I don't know, but I guess Gorgeous and Klinko and Placid never get any attention in the real world, and they only post here to get some attention, from normal people. They won't talk to other weirdos because that would somehow "evidence" that they themselves are also lunatics or force them to "share the limelight".
:D
They got that information somewhere, no one is born full of BS. There was always that first moment that started the process. Even the ambiguous terminology Machinegun1 and other use was fed to them, they just repeat it like parrots. The predatory behaviours can be indirect, on a macro level these days due to how information spreads. There are profits in it, they create entire industries of BS professions, private education providers that offer these, books are written etc. yet all of it started with a few knowing exactly what people want to hear. That is why religions still exists today. What is important to understand that there was never any good intentions at the beginning of it. Step one is to develop self-awareness, step two is to chose how to use it, and there are many ways to use it... especially when you realise that other people struggle with it as well. Majority of people go though life just responding to whatever is thrown at them.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Welcome Back Placid

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:29 am

machinegun1 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:09 am
Mara wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:54 am
machinegun1 wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:36 pm
No Mara, now you're just being ignorant, you're now acting like some christians will be adamant how God of the bible exists because it has a reality outside the bible, without any argument, You're not a primitive animal, no human is a primitive animal, I already explained why and you couldn't argue because you really can't, and no matter how much you repeat it, you're just wrong. I already told you the linguistic of the word and why there is no reality to it outside its original meaning, and exists ONLY on the terms described to conceptualize and separate an understanding of species. You're like those spoiled people who can't deal with objective the truth and keep repeating the same thing over and over. EVEN IF Darwinian evolution was true, EVEN IF australopithecus {non-existent photoshopped ape-man} or whatever, was your ancestor's cousin, nothing will change the meaning of the word and why it was created.

Ignorant of what? All you have is self-manipulation and self-deception. Do you understand that you are a classic example of a brainwashed cult victim? You are caught up in feel-good dreams, dreams that make you feel better about yourself (due to dysfunctional relationship with nature and basic human experience). These dreams offer you sense of empowerment so you can get out of bed every day and continue your life. Nihilism is very difficult to accept and against psychological survival. It is natural for human psychology to reject it even though it is true. These are the reasons why it takes a great level of insight and self-awareness to be an objective scientist and do not reject the findings that go against own psychological needs which you are entirely incompetent at. Your responses to our posts demonstrate classic self-protective behaviour, as we are taking away from you something that is very valuable to you - rhetoric in your mind, neuronal networks of how you connect information that allow you to maintain this self- deception.

Professionals like me, who have worked in child protection, services specialising in supporting victims of domestic and family violence, victims of cults, and these days, sadly victims of institutional abuse (where significant % of these institutions are religious institutions) have the understanding through behavioural sciences based training and exposure to thousands of cases like yours. Time and time again these ideas are a product of psychological and emotional power and control over humans. Abusers inclusive of gurus, religious and spiritual leaders know that these are fundamental human needs and they create dependency by using these understanding. The funny thing is, they figured out behavioural science, before the behavioural scientist have. Do you know how a large portion of this research came about? Through confessions of these abusers who, at the point of being exposed, when they have nothing to lose anymore, get support so they can change and function in a society as not abusive individuals, share the strategies they use to attract and maintain their victims. You are obviously a weak individual, a person who got sucked into it at a time of trauma or any other vulnerability which is who they are looking for. Their behaviour is predatory, the difference is that is a civilised society predators to not seek out a physically wounded or weak animal but a psychologically wounded and weak animal.

I feel very sorry for you as you are clearly so far gone that you may never get your mind back. Plenty of people die this way, without ever freeing themselves from this convenient self-deception. If you need to maintain these comfortable lies to stay alive that is fine, but do not confuse your emotional needs with real objective sciences as you are not cut out for it. Apologies for this bluntly honest response but this is a Sceptic’s forum not a New Age cult group. We are not going to feed your delusions.
First of all, you completely distorted the topic, none of what you said has anything to do with what I said, I don't believe in any new age. I AM NOT PLACID. I'm not feeding any "self-delusion", this is not part of "human nature" , you're just narrating as a third person, omniscient of the truth, "ohh it's of the human nature, this and that".. hahaha, it's nothing to do with "human nature", but it's of Mara's nature avoid the fear of being wrong, which in fact you are.

I also didn't ask about your profession.
"You are obviously a weak individual, a person who got sucked into it at a time of trauma or any other vulnerability which is who they are looking for."
"I feel very sorry for you as you are clearly so far gone that you may never get your mind back. Plenty of people die this way, without ever freeing themselves from this convenient self-deception."

You're just projecting what might be your case.

Did you know, sometimes when we judge another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about yourself. Get a mirror
I know, it is hard to see it when it is your own mind doing it.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10074
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:10 pm

For most people, it's not too difficult to separate the noise from the signal (the falsehoods from the facts). The fossils are real, I've dug them out of the earth myself, the fossil record is clear, and has been logically pieced together scientifically for over a century.

It's a massive error to imagine that the entire body of knowledge is invalidated by a few errors or intentional deceptions. If you found an error in a phone book, would you destroy the whole book? Of course not, because it's not logical. Science has made a few errors and there have been a few hoaxes, but science it self-correcting. Claims are relentlessly challenged and tested, and if they don't add up, they are rejected. If a theory has stood up to repeated testing, it acquires weight and acceptance over time.

It's clearly a fallacy to "seek to prove" a preconceived conclusion by selecting only those facts and fallacies that seem to support your own conclusions. That is anti-science, and it delivers fallacies, not facts. Don't expect to be able to refute evolution in any way, using such fallacious methods.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Cadmusteeth » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:17 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:32 am
Machinegun,
What are your views on falabalism?
I would very much like to know.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Welcome Back Placid

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:23 am

Placid AKA machinegun1 wrote:...... none of what you said has anything to do with what I said,
You said there is no such thing as evolution. We linked you to evidence clearly showing there is. You ran away.

You made up a meaning for the world "animal". We showed you the correct meaning. You ran away.

We asked you what DNA was after you denied it existed. You ran away.

Placid AKA machinegun1 wrote:Get a mirror
Hey Placid? When you are trying to pretend to be someone else, don't keep using Placid's expressions like "get a mirror". :lol: :lol:

Mara
Poster
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:12 am

landrew wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:10 pm
It's clearly a fallacy to "seek to prove" a preconceived conclusion by selecting only those facts and fallacies that seem to support your own conclusions. That is anti-science, and it delivers fallacies, not facts. Don't expect to be able to refute evolution in any way, using such fallacious methods.
Yep, in my line of work we just call it selective memory, hearing, seeing or...subjective delusions (delusions are no to be confused with hallucinations).

Existential debates are never agenda free, psychologically speaking, as we are only humans... it is much harder to accept evidence that goes against own empowerment, hope and sense of importance. It is a perpetual conflict of interest that people like Machinegun1 cannot see through.

Spiritual and religious delusions/beliefs are more prominent amongst those who experienced trauma and vulnerability, difficult to process injustice etc. Other people do not need to search for validation in philosophies and theories. This is a symptom of self-manipulation when nothing else is available to pull themselves out of dark realisations. This is also why spiritual and religious tendencies are observed to increase (there is research in psychology of ageing demonstrating this) the older the person gets due to impending mortality and lack of better/other options. We constantly negotiate inner conflicts and accept the one that works best for us at any given time, which is why I respect proper scientists so much, as these are people with an honest awareness of the self, as much as other practical skills.

In child protective services we face 70% of parents who blame their own, under 10 year old, children for being (or as they see it 'getting') sexually abused by other adults, in order to 'cover themselves' and deny that they failed to offer adequate protection and supervision...they use phrases like "there was always something wrong with that child" "my other children are normal" etc. - when you ponder that statistically significant human behaviour for a bit, then the truth of human behaviour really clarifies...how far will a seemingly civilised, often middle to higher class (educated), apparently capable of love and bond to own child, adult parent, go to protect self-worth, own-innocence and reject that very, very nasty feeling of shame and guilt. I am not even cynical here (boy, I wish that was it). Why then someone like Machinegun1 would ever drop her delusions? She has absolutely no incentive to do that, in fact, her incentives are to reject it. The only way to work with a person like Machinegun1 is to 'unpack' why she has such a problem with accepting evolution as factual, who placed the emotional association of shame and low self-worth to understanding that we have evolved from apes in her mind, hence I keep saying that she has a dysfunctional relationship with nature, she needs to feel separate to it. She seems to feels that calling her "an animal" is somewhat offensive where plenty of people consider it just factual without any emotions attached to it, negative or positive.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:33 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:16 am
Philosophers, scholars and religious people believed that humans were different from animals, that humans had a divine spark, and a conscious awareness and ability to think and act in ways other animals could not. They saw humans as something other, not connected to the animal tree but rather above it, watching over and exploiting for their own wants and needs. This view seemed obvious, we have certain capabilities that other animals don’t. We have culture, we build, we communicate, we problem solve. And yet if you look closely you will see that these behaviours and traits are shared with other animals, to lesser extents obviously.

But when evolution revealed to us our origins as a species, and the ways they were interlinked, it became hard to deny that we weren’t one of them. Maybe we could be in a separate class, but we emerged in the same way all other life emerged, and from the same roots. If a tree grows and makes fruits, are the fruits still not part of the tree? Even though they are highly distilled sources of nutrition, they are still part of the tree. And so it is for humans.
The way you say it makes it sound like the knowledge of Evolution has dropped Humans to a lower level. But knowledge of Evolution has raised the Animals up to a higher level closer to us. We can now understand that Animals too must surely have Conscious sensory Experiences, just like we do. They exist as Conscious entities like we do except they are not as smart.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10074
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:48 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:33 pm

The way you say it makes it sound like the knowledge of Evolution has dropped Humans to a lower level. But knowledge of Evolution has raised the Animals up to a higher level closer to us. We can now understand that Animals too must surely have Conscious sensory Experiences, just like we do. They exist as Conscious entities like we do except they are not as smart.
Nature has no concept of "higher" or "lower" organisms; those are human constructs. Simpler organisms are more resilient to extinction in some cases. Reptiles use food more efficiently than homeotherms. Nature picks her winners and losers, and it has nothing to do with what we consider "higher" organisms.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:58 pm

Just a reminder: This thread is about Conscious sensory perception. Specifically how do we See? What is that Conscious Light Scene that is embedded in the front of your face? It is made out of Light of all colors. I like to concentrate my study on the color Red. What is that sensation or experience of Redness that is in front of your face as you look at something Red? Redness is a thing that exists in your Mind. It exists in some kind of Conscious Realm or Conscious Space. The Redness that you see in your Mind is a surrogate for the 670nm Light that is in the external world. You have never seen the external 670nm Light but you have only seen your Conscious experience of Redness. It is your Redness. Humans with normal vision each have their own Redness. I have my Redness and you have your Redness.

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

The Inter Mind claims are already debunked

Post by mirror93 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:43 am

......... thought this lunatic had leave the forum


space; conscious; experiences; consciousness;
red,blue,yellow...........

all separated words, for separate meanings to different subjects.


We already debunked all Steve's claims at the beginning of the topic. There is nothing more to explain, now he is just acting like a spammer, since this forum doesn't BAN anyone, he will keep spamming his BS
Last edited by mirror93 on Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
:paladin:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Just a reminder: This thread is about Conscious sensory perception.
No it is not. This thread is for skeptics, on a skeptic forum, to debunk your ridiculous religious claims you made in 2012, in your hilarious "Inter Mind" religious manifesto. That's why you linked us to your website and why you called this thread the "Inter Mind" after your religion. :lol:

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:52 pm

Poodle wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:01 am
For the future reference of anyone else who feels like jumping in head first with zero knowledge, I think it worthwhile to state some basics ...
1. The generally accepted theory is that consciousness (and let's keep it to human consciousness to avoid a million levels of squirmy argument) is an emergent property of the kind of Central Nervous System that humans have.
2. Steve's Inter Mind theory is that it is not, and that there is some part of human consciousness which resides outside of any individual human organism.
That, in a nutshell, is the matter for discussion. Statement 1 makes it all internal and Statement 2 makes at least part of it external. I think Steve is away with the fairies and Steve thinks I'm away with 'em too. However, the emergent property case stays within the physical constraints of the universe whereas the Inter Mind case depends upon supra-natural phenomena (that's the politest way I can put it).
I think he goes far beyond that, he's assuming our consciousness is entirely not dependent on our brains orgnms, not a 'part of it' being non-physical and another part non-local, it's not even that, he's just creating a theory of a new dimension that exists a Steve's consciousness that is responsible for color..... or a God thing that makes him see color? I suspect he follows Harun Yahia's work, about "Allah" being the non-magical spiritual being from "Allah's dimension", that make us see color and that guided evolution...
it's just makes no sense what he says... it's entirely non falsifiable, because he doesn't make any good arguments for it. His entire website is all about that, but he does that in a woo way, there's nothing to discuss with him, he's just make new agers look smart as how dumb his theories are.
Last edited by mirror93 on Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:paladin:

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10074
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:01 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: Just a reminder: This thread is about Conscious sensory perception.
Sensory perception does not create consciousness. A furnace is aware of room temperature through the thermostat, but it has no conscious awareness. Similarly, a fish senses water temperature, and instinctively reacts to it, but it's not aware that it's a fish and it lives in a lake. Humans acquired the ability to construct a virtual model of the universe around the concept of the self, as part of that model. Only humans have consciousness. Dogs don't wonder why the seasons change and why the sun comes up. Only humans do that.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by mirror93 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:02 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:01 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Just a reminder: This thread is about Conscious sensory perception.
Sensory perception does not create consciousness. A furnace is aware of room temperature through the thermostat, but it has no conscious awareness. Similarly, a fish senses water temperature, and instinctively reacts to it, but it's not aware that it's a fish and it lives in a lake. Humans acquired the ability to construct a virtual model of the universe around the concept of the self, as part of that model. Only humans have consciousness. Dogs don't wonder why the seasons change and why the sun comes up. Only humans do that.
animals such as dogs do have consciousness
specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too.
:paladin:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:04 am

mirror93 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:52 pm
Poodle wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:01 am
For the future reference of anyone else who feels like jumping in head first with zero knowledge, I think it worthwhile to state some basics ...
1. The generally accepted theory is that consciousness (and let's keep it to human consciousness to avoid a million levels of squirmy argument) is an emergent property of the kind of Central Nervous System that humans have.
2. Steve's Inter Mind theory is that it is not, and that there is some part of human consciousness which resides outside of any individual human organism.
That, in a nutshell, is the matter for discussion. Statement 1 makes it all internal and Statement 2 makes at least part of it external. I think Steve is away with the fairies and Steve thinks I'm away with 'em too. However, the emergent property case stays within the physical constraints of the universe whereas the Inter Mind case depends upon supra-natural phenomena (that's the politest way I can put it).
I think he goes far beyond that, he's assuming our consciousness is entirely not dependent on our brains orgnms, not a 'part of it' being non-physical and another part non-local, it's not even that, he's just creating a theory of a new dimension that exists a Steve's consciousness that is responsible for color..... or a God thing that makes him see color? I suspect he follows Harun Yahia's work, about "Allah" being the non-magical spiritual being from "Allah's dimension", that make us see color and that guided evolution...
it's just makes no sense what he says... it's entirely non falsifiable, because he doesn't make any good arguments for it. His entire website is all about that, but he does that in a woo way, there's nothing to discuss with him, he's just make new agers look smart as how dumb his theories are.
The Inter Mind Model does not say that Consciousness has to be external to the Brain but it does say it could be. Nobody knows. The Inter Mind Model is a framework for thinking about Consciousness. If Consciousness can someday be Scientifically explained as being inside the Brain then that's ok. But there is no Scientific Explanation for Consciousness yet. To say Consciousness is some Emergent Property of Neural Activity is just a sequence of hollow words. It is not an Explanation of anything. There is no Scientific theory of Consciousness Emergence from Brain Activity. When Science discovers the aspect of the Brain that produces Consciousness then that aspect of the Brain will be called The Inter Mind aspect. The inter Mind is a Placeholder for that aspect of the Mind that connects the Physical Mind (Brain) to the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind is the Explanatory Gap but with more specificity as to how we should think about the Mind and Consciousness. The Inter Mind Model is a simple flow diagram. The Connections that it depicts are flow Connections between the functionality of the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind. There must be something in between these two Minds that can logically Explain how something like Neurons firing can produce an Experience of for example the Redness of Red in the Conscious Mind.

Seems to me that if Science discovers the mechanism of Emergent Property Theory, then that mechanism will have to be called the Inter Mind aspect of the Brain. However you get from Neural Activity to the Experience of Redness you will have to put some process in between the Neural Activity and the Conscious Activity of Redness. What is that process or thing that most assuredly is in between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind? If it is some undiscovered functionality of the Neurons then what is that functionality. Whatever it is, it is the Inter Mind.

What is the Redness that we See? What are all the Colors that we See? What is the Light that we See? If you are Color Blind then what are those shades of Gray that you See, or whatever it is that you See? I hope you also realize that this unleashes the 800 pound Gorilla in the room called the Conscious Self that is doing the Experiencing. The Physicalists have no answers. The Physicalists only have Diversions, outright Lies, and juvenile Insults. The Physicalists lack the sound Skeptical and Critical thinking about Consciousness that will be needed if we are ever going to understand it.

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:13 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:04 am
mirror93 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:52 pm
Poodle wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:01 am
For the future reference of anyone else who feels like jumping in head first with zero knowledge, I think it worthwhile to state some basics ...
1. The generally accepted theory is that consciousness (and let's keep it to human consciousness to avoid a million levels of squirmy argument) is an emergent property of the kind of Central Nervous System that humans have.
2. Steve's Inter Mind theory is that it is not, and that there is some part of human consciousness which resides outside of any individual human organism.
That, in a nutshell, is the matter for discussion. Statement 1 makes it all internal and Statement 2 makes at least part of it external. I think Steve is away with the fairies and Steve thinks I'm away with 'em too. However, the emergent property case stays within the physical constraints of the universe whereas the Inter Mind case depends upon supra-natural phenomena (that's the politest way I can put it).
I think he goes far beyond that, he's assuming our consciousness is entirely not dependent on our brains orgnms, not a 'part of it' being non-physical and another part non-local, it's not even that, he's just creating a theory of a new dimension that exists a Steve's consciousness that is responsible for color..... or a God thing that makes him see color? I suspect he follows Harun Yahia's work, about "Allah" being the non-magical spiritual being from "Allah's dimension", that make us see color and that guided evolution...
it's just makes no sense what he says... it's entirely non falsifiable, because he doesn't make any good arguments for it. His entire website is all about that, but he does that in a woo way, there's nothing to discuss with him, he's just make new agers look smart as how dumb his theories are.
the inter mind model does not say that consciousness has to be external to the brain but it does say it could be. nobody knows. the inter mind model is a framework for thinking about consciousness. if consciousness can someday be scientifically explained as being inside the brain then that's ok. but there is no scientific explanation for consciousness yet. to say consciousness is some emergent property of neural activity is just a sequence of hollow words. it is not an explanation of anything. there is no scientific theory of consciousness emergence from brain activity. when science discovers the aspect of the brain that produces consciousness then that aspect of the brain will be called the inter mind aspect. the inter mind is a placeholder for that aspect of the mind that connects the physical mind (brain) to the conscious mind. the inter mind is the explanatory gap but with more specificity as to how we should think about the mind and consciousness. the inter mind model is a simple flow diagram. the connections that it depicts are flow connections between the functionality of the physical mind and the conscious mind. there must be something in between these two minds that can logically explain how something like neurons firing can produce an experience of for example the redness of red in the conscious mind.

seems to me that if science discovers the mechanism of emergent property theory, then that mechanism will have to be called the inter mind aspect of the brain. however you get from neural activity to the experience of redness you will have to put some process in between the neural activity and the conscious activity of redness. what is that process or thing that most assuredly is in between the physical mind and the conscious mind? if it is some undiscovered functionality of the neurons then what is that functionality. whatever it is, it is the inter mind.

what is the redness that we see? what are all the colors that we see? what is the light that we see? if you are color blind then what are those shades of gray that you see, or whatever it is that you see? i hope you also realize that this unleashes the 800 pound gorilla in the room called the conscious self that is doing the experiencing. the physicalists have no answers. the physicalists only have diversions, outright lies, and juvenile insults. the physicalists lack the sound skeptical and critical thinking about consciousness that will be needed if we are ever going to understand it.
You don't understand how colors are seen. Since the first post some people have argued with you and you completely ignored them, you dream theory has been debunked, your theory about red and mind has been debunked, your theory about our mind and color being entangled or consciousness having to do with color makes no sense and contradicts all evidence. You clearly don't know how your misunderstanding of colors we see with our eyes has nothing to do with anything, even less with your religious woo. The fact that colors were there before humans-;animals;etc refutes your theory about consciousness and color. But I'm sure it won't debunk your attempt to say that your consciousness does not need a brain, you will keep repeating it. Because color has nothing to do with it and won't prove or disprove any of this, it's like you're saying bananas are yellow, therefore consciousness can fully exist outside of a brain. You are talking apples and oranges. So please, STOP spreading false information. If you want to keep your religious woo, do it without arguing about red color {objective} vs eyes and subjective-consciousness, because you clearly don't know anything about it, and how our eyes work.
:paladin:

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Dimebag » Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:51 am

landrew wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:01 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Just a reminder: This thread is about Conscious sensory perception.
Sensory perception does not create consciousness. A furnace is aware of room temperature through the thermostat, but it has no conscious awareness. Similarly, a fish senses water temperature, and instinctively reacts to it, but it's not aware that it's a fish and it lives in a lake. Humans acquired the ability to construct a virtual model of the universe around the concept of the self, as part of that model. Only humans have consciousness. Dogs don't wonder why the seasons change and why the sun comes up. Only humans do that.
Do you think any non human animals have visual experiences of any kind?

I do. However, I think the problem with discussing consciousness at the moment among this particular group is there seems to be disagreement over what exactly constitute properties of consciousness.

Is consciousness the quality of having experiences? Or is it something higher, like the ability to reflect upon an experience? Or the ability to think.

If you look at the way the word consciousness is used today, and as it has been for several hundred years, it is in relation to sensory experience, which is why Steve is so hung up on red, even if by itself it’s pretty meaningless. It is the subjective aspect of experience, the qualitative aspect.

When we think about how animals must perceive the world, it seems to me that they must share some aspects of consciousness that we do. They have sense organs which receive signals from the external world, and those signals really mean something to those organisms, they make a difference to survival. Their behaviour is based on what they perceive, as is our own. It’s hard to say whether many animals have anything approaching our own self-consciousness, but most likely those which survive in relation to the group would need some sense of self, which might allow them to have some level of reflective awareness.

I think that is what you are really getting at here, the reflective awareness aspect of consciousness. I think it’s fair to say that many animals must possess some kind of subjective perceptual content. However, it’s probably also fair to presume that for many if not most of those animals, the ”lights” of awareness are very dimly lit.

The awareness aspect of consciousness is that which theories such as the global workspace theory seem to be touching on. This aspect of consciousness requires some kind of short term memory aspect to consciousness which allows an organism to hold useful content such as goals, lists, thoughts, etc, within access to the wider brain. It allows the sensory information to be either acted upon, or for action to be momentarily postponed while goals are assessed. It allows the organism to make predictions and choose actions based on those predictions. If that is the aspect of consciousness you are referring to then I would have to agree that very few organisms apart from humans must possess this, though I’m not convinced there aren’t any with this capacity.

A final thing I will say is of the importance of memory to consciousness, and how this links to attention and awareness. When we are engaged in a well rehearsed task, we have the ability for automatic processes to take control of actions. There is a feeling that visual perception is occurring, as we respond to visual stimuli, and there is experience occurring, however, there is little to no memory of such experience, as the focus of awareness can be elsewhere while these tasks remain automatic. So sensory perception becomes decoupled from awareness. When this happens, it takes something away from the experience, the memory aspect, and the access to higher level functions based on those sensory perceptions. It is as if there are two systems at work, the perceptual systems, which lay down the foundational sensory layers of experience, and then the higher level awareness aspects, which seem to be more about broader implications of those sensory perceptions.

This is why this subject can be so confusing. Two people can be having two different conversations about different aspects of consciousness and not even know it.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10074
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:20 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:51 am
landrew wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:01 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Just a reminder: This thread is about Conscious sensory perception.
Sensory perception does not create consciousness. A furnace is aware of room temperature through the thermostat, but it has no conscious awareness. Similarly, a fish senses water temperature, and instinctively reacts to it, but it's not aware that it's a fish and it lives in a lake. Humans acquired the ability to construct a virtual model of the universe around the concept of the self, as part of that model. Only humans have consciousness. Dogs don't wonder why the seasons change and why the sun comes up. Only humans do that.
Do you think any non human animals have visual experiences of any kind?

I do. However, I think the problem with discussing consciousness at the moment among this particular group is there seems to be disagreement over what exactly constitute properties of consciousness.

Is consciousness the quality of having experiences? Or is it something higher, like the ability to reflect upon an experience? Or the ability to think.

If you look at the way the word consciousness is used today, and as it has been for several hundred years, it is in relation to sensory experience, which is why Steve is so hung up on red, even if by itself it’s pretty meaningless. It is the subjective aspect of experience, the qualitative aspect.

When we think about how animals must perceive the world, it seems to me that they must share some aspects of consciousness that we do. They have sense organs which receive signals from the external world, and those signals really mean something to those organisms, they make a difference to survival. Their behaviour is based on what they perceive, as is our own. It’s hard to say whether many animals have anything approaching our own self-consciousness, but most likely those which survive in relation to the group would need some sense of self, which might allow them to have some level of reflective awareness.

I think that is what you are really getting at here, the reflective awareness aspect of consciousness. I think it’s fair to say that many animals must possess some kind of subjective perceptual content. However, it’s probably also fair to presume that for many if not most of those animals, the ”lights” of awareness are very dimly lit.

The awareness aspect of consciousness is that which theories such as the global workspace theory seem to be touching on. This aspect of consciousness requires some kind of short term memory aspect to consciousness which allows an organism to hold useful content such as goals, lists, thoughts, etc, within access to the wider brain. It allows the sensory information to be either acted upon, or for action to be momentarily postponed while goals are assessed. It allows the organism to make predictions and choose actions based on those predictions. If that is the aspect of consciousness you are referring to then I would have to agree that very few organisms apart from humans must possess this, though I’m not convinced there aren’t any with this capacity.

A final thing I will say is of the importance of memory to consciousness, and how this links to attention and awareness. When we are engaged in a well rehearsed task, we have the ability for automatic processes to take control of actions. There is a feeling that visual perception is occurring, as we respond to visual stimuli, and there is experience occurring, however, there is little to no memory of such experience, as the focus of awareness can be elsewhere while these tasks remain automatic. So sensory perception becomes decoupled from awareness. When this happens, it takes something away from the experience, the memory aspect, and the access to higher level functions based on those sensory perceptions. It is as if there are two systems at work, the perceptual systems, which lay down the foundational sensory layers of experience, and then the higher level awareness aspects, which seem to be more about broader implications of those sensory perceptions.

This is why this subject can be so confusing. Two people can be having two different conversations about different aspects of consciousness and not even know it.
Definitions of consciousness vary widely and are subjective. Dictionary definitions are just a point of consensus and bear no universal authority over meanings. My personal definition disagrees with more anthropomorphic interpretations as I have said in previous posts. My criteria for consciousness is a mind that contains a model of a working universe which includes the self as part of that model. But for others it's simply based on the ability to experience sensory data. None of us are able to refute each others' definitions of consciousness, or prove that our own is the correct one.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:42 pm

mirror93 wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:13 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:04 am
mirror93 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:52 pm
Poodle wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:01 am
For the future reference of anyone else who feels like jumping in head first with zero knowledge, I think it worthwhile to state some basics ...
1. The generally accepted theory is that consciousness (and let's keep it to human consciousness to avoid a million levels of squirmy argument) is an emergent property of the kind of Central Nervous System that humans have.
2. Steve's Inter Mind theory is that it is not, and that there is some part of human consciousness which resides outside of any individual human organism.
That, in a nutshell, is the matter for discussion. Statement 1 makes it all internal and Statement 2 makes at least part of it external. I think Steve is away with the fairies and Steve thinks I'm away with 'em too. However, the emergent property case stays within the physical constraints of the universe whereas the Inter Mind case depends upon supra-natural phenomena (that's the politest way I can put it).
I think he goes far beyond that, he's assuming our consciousness is entirely not dependent on our brains orgnms, not a 'part of it' being non-physical and another part non-local, it's not even that, he's just creating a theory of a new dimension that exists a Steve's consciousness that is responsible for color..... or a God thing that makes him see color? I suspect he follows Harun Yahia's work, about "Allah" being the non-magical spiritual being from "Allah's dimension", that make us see color and that guided evolution...
it's just makes no sense what he says... it's entirely non falsifiable, because he doesn't make any good arguments for it. His entire website is all about that, but he does that in a woo way, there's nothing to discuss with him, he's just make new agers look smart as how dumb his theories are.
the inter mind model does not say that consciousness has to be external to the brain but it does say it could be. nobody knows. the inter mind model is a framework for thinking about consciousness. if consciousness can someday be scientifically explained as being inside the brain then that's ok. but there is no scientific explanation for consciousness yet. to say consciousness is some emergent property of neural activity is just a sequence of hollow words. it is not an explanation of anything. there is no scientific theory of consciousness emergence from brain activity. when science discovers the aspect of the brain that produces consciousness then that aspect of the brain will be called the inter mind aspect. the inter mind is a placeholder for that aspect of the mind that connects the physical mind (brain) to the conscious mind. the inter mind is the explanatory gap but with more specificity as to how we should think about the mind and consciousness. the inter mind model is a simple flow diagram. the connections that it depicts are flow connections between the functionality of the physical mind and the conscious mind. there must be something in between these two minds that can logically explain how something like neurons firing can produce an experience of for example the redness of red in the conscious mind.

seems to me that if science discovers the mechanism of emergent property theory, then that mechanism will have to be called the inter mind aspect of the brain. however you get from neural activity to the experience of redness you will have to put some process in between the neural activity and the conscious activity of redness. what is that process or thing that most assuredly is in between the physical mind and the conscious mind? if it is some undiscovered functionality of the neurons then what is that functionality. whatever it is, it is the inter mind.

what is the redness that we see? what are all the colors that we see? what is the light that we see? if you are color blind then what are those shades of gray that you see, or whatever it is that you see? i hope you also realize that this unleashes the 800 pound gorilla in the room called the conscious self that is doing the experiencing. the physicalists have no answers. the physicalists only have diversions, outright lies, and juvenile insults. the physicalists lack the sound skeptical and critical thinking about consciousness that will be needed if we are ever going to understand it.
You don't understand how colors are seen. Since the first post some people have argued with you and you completely ignored them, you dream theory has been debunked, your theory about red and mind has been debunked, your theory about our mind and color being entangled or consciousness having to do with color makes no sense and contradicts all evidence. You clearly don't know how your misunderstanding of colors we see with our eyes has nothing to do with anything, even less with your religious woo. The fact that colors were there before humans-;animals;etc refutes your theory about consciousness and color. But I'm sure it won't debunk your attempt to say that your consciousness does not need a brain, you will keep repeating it. Because color has nothing to do with it and won't prove or disprove any of this, it's like you're saying bananas are yellow, therefore consciousness can fully exist outside of a brain. You are talking apples and oranges. So please, STOP spreading false information. If you want to keep your religious woo, do it without arguing about red color {objective} vs eyes and subjective-consciousness, because you clearly don't know anything about it, and how our eyes work.
I know exactly how Eyes work but I don't know how I can See Color based on anything that is known about how Eyes work. I also know exactly how the Visual areas of the Brain work but I don't know how I can See color based on anything that is known about how the Visual areas work. So exactly how do we See color based on the knowledge of Eye and Brain functionality?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:51 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:20 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:51 am
landrew wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:01 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Just a reminder: This thread is about Conscious sensory perception.
Sensory perception does not create consciousness. A furnace is aware of room temperature through the thermostat, but it has no conscious awareness. Similarly, a fish senses water temperature, and instinctively reacts to it, but it's not aware that it's a fish and it lives in a lake. Humans acquired the ability to construct a virtual model of the universe around the concept of the self, as part of that model. Only humans have consciousness. Dogs don't wonder why the seasons change and why the sun comes up. Only humans do that.
Do you think any non human animals have visual experiences of any kind?

I do. However, I think the problem with discussing consciousness at the moment among this particular group is there seems to be disagreement over what exactly constitute properties of consciousness.

Is consciousness the quality of having experiences? Or is it something higher, like the ability to reflect upon an experience? Or the ability to think.

If you look at the way the word consciousness is used today, and as it has been for several hundred years, it is in relation to sensory experience, which is why Steve is so hung up on red, even if by itself it’s pretty meaningless. It is the subjective aspect of experience, the qualitative aspect.

When we think about how animals must perceive the world, it seems to me that they must share some aspects of consciousness that we do. They have sense organs which receive signals from the external world, and those signals really mean something to those organisms, they make a difference to survival. Their behaviour is based on what they perceive, as is our own. It’s hard to say whether many animals have anything approaching our own self-consciousness, but most likely those which survive in relation to the group would need some sense of self, which might allow them to have some level of reflective awareness.

I think that is what you are really getting at here, the reflective awareness aspect of consciousness. I think it’s fair to say that many animals must possess some kind of subjective perceptual content. However, it’s probably also fair to presume that for many if not most of those animals, the ”lights” of awareness are very dimly lit.

The awareness aspect of consciousness is that which theories such as the global workspace theory seem to be touching on. This aspect of consciousness requires some kind of short term memory aspect to consciousness which allows an organism to hold useful content such as goals, lists, thoughts, etc, within access to the wider brain. It allows the sensory information to be either acted upon, or for action to be momentarily postponed while goals are assessed. It allows the organism to make predictions and choose actions based on those predictions. If that is the aspect of consciousness you are referring to then I would have to agree that very few organisms apart from humans must possess this, though I’m not convinced there aren’t any with this capacity.

A final thing I will say is of the importance of memory to consciousness, and how this links to attention and awareness. When we are engaged in a well rehearsed task, we have the ability for automatic processes to take control of actions. There is a feeling that visual perception is occurring, as we respond to visual stimuli, and there is experience occurring, however, there is little to no memory of such experience, as the focus of awareness can be elsewhere while these tasks remain automatic. So sensory perception becomes decoupled from awareness. When this happens, it takes something away from the experience, the memory aspect, and the access to higher level functions based on those sensory perceptions. It is as if there are two systems at work, the perceptual systems, which lay down the foundational sensory layers of experience, and then the higher level awareness aspects, which seem to be more about broader implications of those sensory perceptions.

This is why this subject can be so confusing. Two people can be having two different conversations about different aspects of consciousness and not even know it.
Definitions of consciousness vary widely and are subjective. Dictionary definitions are just a point of consensus and bear no universal authority over meanings. My personal definition disagrees with more anthropomorphic interpretations as I have said in previous posts. My criteria for consciousness is a mind that contains a model of a working universe which includes the self as part of that model. But for others it's simply based on the ability to experience sensory data. None of us are able to refute each others' definitions of consciousness, or prove that our own is the correct one.
This thread and the Inter Mind Model are exclusively about Sensory Consciousness. Anyone arguing outside of that domain should get back on topic.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10074
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by landrew » Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:14 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:51 pm

This thread and the Inter Mind Model are exclusively about Sensory Consciousness. Anyone arguing outside of that domain should get back on topic.
And you deserve a giant raspberry for claiming to own this discussion:
:razz: :razz: :razz:
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:53 pm

Steve, stop being so pretentious. If you can't come up with a way to falsify this notion of yours, there's nothing to talk about save for what has already been brought up. So again, stop being so pretentious.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:10 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:53 pm
Steve, stop being so pretentious. If you can't come up with a way to falsify this notion of yours, there's nothing to talk about save for what has already been brought up. So again, stop being so pretentious.
From The Inter Mind website:

This Conscious Red Experience (the Experience of Redness) is how we Detect Red Light from the external Physical World. Unfortunately the experience of Redness, at least for now, can not be found in the Brain or explained by Brain Activity. Further investigation shows the Experience of Redness cannot be found in any kind of Matter, Energy, or Space so we must conclude that it is something different than any of these things. Redness is in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known and existent Scientific Category of Phenomena. Let us qualify the Space we know and call it Physical Space and then introduce a new Conscious Space as the place where our Conscious experiences like Redness occur.

Conscious Space might eventually be found to be a component of ordinary Physical Space, but until Science figures out how to deal with Consciousness we should think about Conscious Space as simply a Tool that allows Conscious Phenomena to have a place to exist for the sake of discussion. Conscious Space might seem like a strange thing right now but someday it could be an integral part of our Scientific understanding. The Conscious Space concept will be developed throughout the Inter Mind paper and in the following topics.

The website in part tries to combat the notion that the Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is not important. The Physicalists like to say it is just an Illusion. They don't even think Deep enough about what they are saying to understand that there must be Something that is Experiencing that Illusion. That Something opens up a whole new can of worms in the Physicalist thinking. The Physicalists are afraid to confront their own Conscious Existence.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:30 am

SteveKlinko wrote:I know exactly how Eyes work but I don't know how I can See Color based on anything that is known about how Eyes work.
You are lying. All humans and many many other animals and insects represent different electromagnetic frequencies, in their physical brains as colour. This is an evolved mechanism.

As DNA is the only thing carrying evolved genes, and DNA can only produce varieties of protein chains, there is no genetic mechanism to create "other dimensions" which is your debunked religious claim.

You have known this for some months and refuse to acknowledge that you crappy religious claim has been thoroughly debunked.
:lol:

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Cadmusteeth » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:01 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:10 pm
Cadmusteeth wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:53 pm
Steve, stop being so pretentious. If you can't come up with a way to falsify this notion of yours, there's nothing to talk about save for what has already been brought up. So again, stop being so pretentious.
From The Inter Mind website:

This Conscious Red Experience (the Experience of Redness) is how we Detect Red Light from the external Physical World. Unfortunately the experience of Redness, at least for now, can not be found in the Brain or explained by Brain Activity. Further investigation shows the Experience of Redness cannot be found in any kind of Matter, Energy, or Space so we must conclude that it is something different than any of these things. Redness is in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known and existent Scientific Category of Phenomena. Let us qualify the Space we know and call it Physical Space and then introduce a new Conscious Space as the place where our Conscious experiences like Redness occur.

Conscious Space might eventually be found to be a component of ordinary Physical Space, but until Science figures out how to deal with Consciousness we should think about Conscious Space as simply a Tool that allows Conscious Phenomena to have a place to exist for the sake of discussion. Conscious Space might seem like a strange thing right now but someday it could be an integral part of our Scientific understanding. The Conscious Space concept will be developed throughout the Inter Mind paper and in the following topics.

The website in part tries to combat the notion that the Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is not important. The Physicalists like to say it is just an Illusion. They don't even think Deep enough about what they are saying to understand that there must be Something that is Experiencing that Illusion. That Something opens up a whole new can of worms in the Physicalist thinking. The Physicalists are afraid to confront their own Conscious Existence.
So how do you falsify your claim? I.E. how do you demonstrate this is true? Claims are not evidence because everybody can make claims. If you're not committed to basic falabalism or never plan to, we're done.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:07 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:01 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:10 pm
Cadmusteeth wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:53 pm
Steve, stop being so pretentious. If you can't come up with a way to falsify this notion of yours, there's nothing to talk about save for what has already been brought up. So again, stop being so pretentious.
From The Inter Mind website:

This Conscious Red Experience (the Experience of Redness) is how we Detect Red Light from the external Physical World. Unfortunately the experience of Redness, at least for now, can not be found in the Brain or explained by Brain Activity. Further investigation shows the Experience of Redness cannot be found in any kind of Matter, Energy, or Space so we must conclude that it is something different than any of these things. Redness is in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known and existent Scientific Category of Phenomena. Let us qualify the Space we know and call it Physical Space and then introduce a new Conscious Space as the place where our Conscious experiences like Redness occur.

Conscious Space might eventually be found to be a component of ordinary Physical Space, but until Science figures out how to deal with Consciousness we should think about Conscious Space as simply a Tool that allows Conscious Phenomena to have a place to exist for the sake of discussion. Conscious Space might seem like a strange thing right now but someday it could be an integral part of our Scientific understanding. The Conscious Space concept will be developed throughout the Inter Mind paper and in the following topics.

The website in part tries to combat the notion that the Conscious Experience of something like the Redness of Red is not important. The Physicalists like to say it is just an Illusion. They don't even think Deep enough about what they are saying to understand that there must be Something that is Experiencing that Illusion. That Something opens up a whole new can of worms in the Physicalist thinking. The Physicalists are afraid to confront their own Conscious Existence.
So how do you falsify your claim? I.E. how do you demonstrate this is true? Claims are not evidence because everybody can make claims. If you're not committed to basic falabalism or never plan to, we're done.
The things I say are Self evident truths about the reality of the Universe that we exist in. One of the basic realizations of the Inter Mind website is that our perception of Light is not what we think it is. It is a Self Evident reality that we do not actually see, for example, the Physical Red Light which has properties such as Wavelength (680nm), but rather we See a Surrogate Redness thing that only exists in the Conscious Mind. The proof of this is so obvious it is almost childish to deny it. The proof is that we can See the Color Red in our Dreams. There is no 680nm Electromagnetic phenomenon present in the bedroom but the Color Red shines bright with the same Redness Property as when we are Awake looking at something Red.

The claim I make, that the Redness is only in our Conscious Minds, is a Self Evident reality of our Conscious existence. There is nothing to Falsify. There are only things to be Explained, and nobody has that Explanation yet.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:30 am
SteveKlinko wrote:I know exactly how Eyes work but I don't know how I can See Color based on anything that is known about how Eyes work.
You are lying. All humans and many many other animals and insects represent different electromagnetic frequencies, in their physical brains as colour. This is an evolved mechanism.

As DNA is the only thing carrying evolved genes, and DNA can only produce varieties of protein chains, there is no genetic mechanism to create "other dimensions" which is your debunked religious claim.

You have known this for some months and refuse to acknowledge that you crappy religious claim has been thoroughly debunked.
:lol:
The fact that you are still talking about Electromagnetic Frequencies and DNA once again reveals your complete ignorance of what the issue even is. We are not talking about Electromagnetic Waves. Think more Deeply about the Redness of the Red that you See in your own Mind. We all must do this thinking on our own. It is obviously more difficult for some people. It is not possible to directly tell you. I can only suggest how to approach this understanding.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Cadmusteeth » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:33 am

I think I can rightfully say that if a guy isn't committed to fallibilism, he isn't doing science right.

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by mirror93 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 pm
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:30 am
SteveKlinko wrote:I know exactly how Eyes work but I don't know how I can See Color based on anything that is known about how Eyes work.
You are lying. All humans and many many other animals and insects represent different electromagnetic frequencies, in their physical brains as colour. This is an evolved mechanism.

As DNA is the only thing carrying evolved genes, and DNA can only produce varieties of protein chains, there is no genetic mechanism to create "other dimensions" which is your debunked religious claim.

You have known this for some months and refuse to acknowledge that you crappy religious claim has been thoroughly debunked.
:lol:
The fact that you are still talking about Electromagnetic Frequencies and DNA once again reveals your complete ignorance of what the issue even is. We are not talking about Electromagnetic Waves. Think more Deeply about the Redness of the Red that you See in your own Mind. We all must do this thinking on our own. It is obviously more difficult for some people. It is not possible to directly tell you. I can only suggest how to approach this understanding.
The redness I imagine/create with my mind is not the same red I see of the apple with my eyes. If you can't distinguish it (which you can) you're full of {!#%@} and just want to troll in the forum. as it has been explained a million times for you.
:paladin:

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10578
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:48 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:07 pm
... It is a Self Evident reality that we do not actually see, for example, the Physical Red Light which has properties such as Wavelength (680nm), but rather we See a Surrogate Redness thing that only exists in the Conscious Mind ...
I see you're still using your mangled view of reality, Steve. But you're lying again. Surely, your claim is that the surrogate redness thing only exists in the Intermind? Or have you given that one up?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:44 pm

Poodle wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:48 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:07 pm
... It is a Self Evident reality that we do not actually see, for example, the Physical Red Light which has properties such as Wavelength (680nm), but rather we See a Surrogate Redness thing that only exists in the Conscious Mind ...
I see you're still using your mangled view of reality, Steve. But you're lying again. Surely, your claim is that the surrogate redness thing only exists in the Intermind? Or have you given that one up?
The Surrogate thing exists in the Conscious Mind not the Inter Mind. The Inter Mind takes the Neural Activity of the Physical Mind (Brain) and transforms this into the Surrogate thing that is input Data to the Conscious Mind processor. The Conscious Mind processor does not deal with for example 670nm electromagnetic Waves (Red) or the Standard A tone 440 Hz pressure waves. The Conscious Mind must be feed a stream of Conscious Surrogate Data like Redness and Standard A-ness. Don't think about the external World Physical Phenomenon, but rather think about the internal Conscious experience Phenomenon you are having. What are those internal Conscious Experience Phenomena?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:01 pm

mirror93 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:19 pm
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:30 am
SteveKlinko wrote:I know exactly how Eyes work but I don't know how I can See Color based on anything that is known about how Eyes work.
You are lying. All humans and many many other animals and insects represent different electromagnetic frequencies, in their physical brains as colour. This is an evolved mechanism.

As DNA is the only thing carrying evolved genes, and DNA can only produce varieties of protein chains, there is no genetic mechanism to create "other dimensions" which is your debunked religious claim.

You have known this for some months and refuse to acknowledge that you crappy religious claim has been thoroughly debunked.
:lol:
The fact that you are still talking about Electromagnetic Frequencies and DNA once again reveals your complete ignorance of what the issue even is. We are not talking about Electromagnetic Waves. Think more Deeply about the Redness of the Red that you See in your own Mind. We all must do this thinking on our own. It is obviously more difficult for some people. It is not possible to directly tell you. I can only suggest how to approach this understanding.
The redness I imagine/create with my mind is not the same red I see of the apple with my eyes. If you can't distinguish it (which you can) you're full of {!#%@} and just want to troll in the forum. as it has been explained a million times for you.
You still do not understand the issue. The Red you see when you see the Apple IS created by your Mind. If you try to just sit there and Imagine the Red Apple the sensation is probably a vague one. But when you Dream about a Red Apple the experience can be as Vivid and Real as when you are looking at a Red Apple while Awake. Your Mind is obviously creating the Redness of the Apple when you are Dreaming as a result of certain Neural Activity. When you are Awake and looking at a Red Apple there will again be certain Neural activity. Your Mind creates the Red Apple image from that Neural Activity with the same Mechanism that is uses for presenting the Apparition of the Dream Red Apple. The missing Mechanism is what I attribute to the Inter Mind. It is more generally the classic Explanatory Gap.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10578
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:08 pm

Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem
Recognise that, Steve?
You should - Occam's Razor. Don't multiply the agents in a theory beyond what's necessary. You're doing that in spades. I think I've told you this before. It isn't, of course, a law - but it's very good at weeding out overthought and fanciful ideas.
In order to discount a purely neurological explanation for colour vision, you need to have studied the neurological explanation for colour vision in depth. I have the distinct impression that you have not done this. Would that be correct?
Last edited by Poodle on Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.