The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:07 pm

Dimebag wrote: Sorry for the waffling post, I have a tendency to do this, call it a stream of consciousness.
I got exposure to those 'streams of consciousness' when working in mental health, paranoid schizophrenics and some others coming of drugs can tell you amazingly detailed one hour long stories that perfectly fit together, yet they never actually happened. When you case manage them for a while you can see that they pick bits and pieces form various sources and put it together but they seem to forget that was the initial source. Creative people are very familiar with 'streams of consciousness', that's why we have books and movies except, unlike mentally ill, they do remember and can tell the difference between thoughts and reality.

In regards to your other thoughts I see us as evolved intellectually rather than through consciousness. Animals may be as 'conscious' as we are. I have a plant in the garden that 'wonders', it's a vine, and every day surprises me with what it does. You can see it shoot vines, hover and make some form of choices as sometimes it goes backs. Plants do not even have a brain structure but they do have receptors, so do we.

Also, a chimpanzee or a pig can have an IQ of a 4 year old. Animals can plan ahead that's why they store and built things. Something to think about...

If anything, the breakthrough of human evolution started with development of language...The topic of language could be a new very long thread in itself.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Mara wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: Not that I'm advocating incest, since I have the same cultural taboos against it that most people have, but, technically, the only logical reason to prohibit it is those nasty heritable redundant genes.
Correct, but many people including authorities have great issue with that. I think many people suffer because of the unnatural rhetorics not the natural ones. Why don't they just say to people: Incest is wrong because of genetic factors, don't go there unless you want a child with 3 eyes lol
The best answer I can come up with is that many people don't understand genetics, and tend to discard information beyond their understanding. It tends to be easier to formulate taboos than to just educate everyone. Unfortunately, it's bloody near impossible to eradicate a taboo once it's been disseminated.
Mara wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: The comparison I like to use is of people who believe a beaver's dam is entirely natural, while the Hoover Dam is horribly unnatural and a scar upon Mother Earth...lol. Never mind that the beaver's dam also destroys the local ecology if it gets out of hand.)
I sometimes wonder whether the beaver built the pyramids after all...;-)
Hmmm...perhaps the rock beaver went extinct and failed to leave fossil evidence. :mrgreen:
Mara wrote:Yep, we are as pest as other animals, and other animals can be, I would argue never as destructive as humans, but still can be very destructive. Do you think beavers have big territorial egos? like...my dam is bigger than yours ;-)
The difference is that animals are only destructive whilst following their instincts, while humans are maliciously destructive, damn the consequences. I mean, you can't attribute malice to locusts, gypsy moths, kudzu vines, Chinese bittersweet, etc.
Mara wrote:I suffered a lower back injury in my late 20ties and since then I have been living with sciatica and occasional bad days but it wasn't till my injury when I started going to the gym to make myself stronger to prevent further re-breaking and at some point, a year ago I have reached a point of being fitter than ever before, as in, I can jog for two hours and have proper muscle definition.
I wish such a regimen were possible for me. Unfortunately, the exercise intolerance that accompanies fibromyalgia stems from insufficient muscle oxygenation, overproduction of lactic acid, and dysfunctional cellular transport at the mitochondrial level. Anything more strenuous than stretching and mild yoga (both of which I practice daily) generates increased muscle weakness, spasms, and pain, plus horrendous nausea. At the same time, it's NOT a muscle-wasting disease. After nearly 19 years, and now at age 53, I've managed to maintain a weight of 60 kg and a "normal" BMI of 24, which is pretty good for my 160 cm height.
Mara wrote:All these labels of 'burden' etc. are constructed and things are much more circumstantial, specific to a particular time in life.
And to a particular person. There are many aspects of my life that others would perceive as "burdens." For example, people are frequently baffled that I manage to support two people, two dogs, and a house on a fixed disability income. Generally, they don't understand my explanation: I don't waste money on things intended to improve others' opinion of me. I'd rather eat ribeye off a thrift store dinner plate than chuck steak off an expensive china plate. I prioritize experiences over things.
Mara wrote:The trick is not to get stuck, things change, two moments are never the same.
Absolutely! Every time I have a pain flare, I remind myself that yesterday was better, and that tomorrow probably will be. Instead of wasting my energy on a pity party, I use it for necessary self-care so that tomorrow WILL be better.
Mara wrote:Even with some of the more serious mental disorders I can see so much misdiagnosis...if people would just be given a break from everyday life to process stuff without getting caught in the system and getting labelled for life, some cases of even schizophrenia would be just a temporary once-off mental breakdown. This is what happens when we repress too much reality, wishful thinking often makes things worse in those cases.
Spot on. There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation regarding mental disorders. I had a roommate with schizophrenia for several years. He wasn't a paranoid, delusional nut by any stretch of the imagination, but a thoughtful, gentle man with a fantastic sense of humor. Myself, I've had depression since puberty...and you'd never guess. I smile and laugh a LOT, even if I have to force or prompt it, because smiling prompts the production of endorphins, dopamine, and serotonin...free medicine. :mrgreen:
Mara wrote:I do believe we all have a potential the way animals do, that we can reach within ourselves as the creatures on this planet and that potential is likely greater than what we expect of ourselves, this does not apply to things such as money or other man-made concepts but it does apply to resilience, physical and creative potential, things that are in our control not based on luck and external world's response. When we look at the nature they bounce back form illness and injuries way quicker than humans for instance.
I agree. We humans tend to dwell on the negative emotions that accompany illness and injury, rather than focusing on appropriate self-care. Plus, once you accept that your brain is a master at tricking you, you take the time to be aware of your emotions and analyze what prompted them. Often, when I feel angry, it's solely because I'm hungry, thirsty, in pain, or lacking sleep. The anger isn't justified, and that knowledge enables me to change my mood. Why suffer a negative emotion when there's no need?
Mara wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: I think my choice of perceptions is a healthy one, and it's certainly the happier one. OTOH, Steve's choice of perceptions seems to make him horribly unhappy. I wonder why that is?
It is about intelligent use of internal resources to reach that potential and we all have different paths there but Steve's choice of perception requires constant self-manipulation to maintain that very unrealistic theory that his entire self-worth is based on - that must be hard work. Why would he even post that question here in the first place? To win that argument not to learn anything new.
Well said! I think a healthy self-esteem stems from a realistic analysis of self in relation to world. Too many people depend on external circumstances and other people's opinions to boost their self-esteem, completely missing the "self" part of self-esteem! Which doesn't mean puffing yourself up with delusions and justifications, but an objective analysis of your strengths and weaknesses. For example, I accept that I'm both intelligent AND ignorant, a realistic assessment that prompts me to continue learning and growing. Whereas the "god loves me the way I am" and the "I'm special" delusions cause personal stagnation. IMHO.
Mara wrote:When we are just ok with doom existence from that everything can only feel better, ha! The best theory was proposed in a book called "F**k It: The Ultimate Spiritual Way" by John C. Parkin - very empowering :-D
I've added it to my Amazon book wish list, thanks! There's a happy medium between nihilism and theology. :mrgreen:
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:09 pm

Mara wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Red IS a thing.


This is for you Steve, start from basics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOKWoDtbSk

This could be good for you as I can imagine you struggle generally in life.
I've seen this before. So you think looking at Optical Illusions answers the question of how we see Color? Or I suppose you seem to think that because there are optical illusions that there is no such thing as Color? I don't know what your intention is with this. The question still remains as to how we are experiencing Blue dots regardless if they are really there or not. I'm sure we could see Blue dots in our Dreams. Dreams are the ultimate Illusion. The question is then even if there is an Illusion: How do we experience that Illusion and what is experiencing that Illusion.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:33 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies.
Nope Steve. We answered your question over and over again. However, when we ask you questions about your ridiculous claims, you refuse to answer them. You are just another religious nut case. :lol:

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote: (Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
1) How did human consciousness travel back in time 13.8 billion years?
2) How does human consciousness exist in the single point singularity that existed before the Big Bang.

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience.
3) How can human consciousness, that only evolved 190,000 years ago, travel back 3.8 billion years to drive the first self replicating DNA chains on Earth?
4) How could human consciousness force carbon and other atoms into complex DNA chains and stop normal evolution taking place?
5) Do you have any understanding what evolution is?
6) Do you have any understanding what a singularity is?
7) Do you have any understanding what the Big Bang is?
Your questions are just Diversions from the topic as usual.

1) The speculation that I made was that maybe Consciousness (not Human Consciousness) existed before the Big Bang not that it travelled back in Time.
2) I say Consciousness must exist in some other Conscious Space concept that has connections to any existent Physical Spaces. So Consciousness is probably not in the Physical Space Singularity.
3) See 1
4)Consciousness, as I said, influences through Conscious Experience of the Experiencer. It is Conscious Pain and Pleasure that I invoke when I say Consciousness influences Evolution. It's almost certain that the most early life forms felt Pain and Pleasure. Pain and Pleasure can greatly influence the behavior of even the simplest organisms. Of course all the other possible Conscious experiences combine to create the total Conscious influence on Evolution.
5) Yes
6) Yes
7) Yes

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:52 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists...........
If we are the Physicalists, then doesn't that make you, the whole big lot of useless Nothingness? :lol:
Correction. We are the Dualists, and we are enjoying watching your Physicalist World come crashing down all around you. You really just do not have any answer to the question: How does the Experience of Red happen. You can talk about Evolutionary Mechanisms, Neural Activity, Synaptic Connections, and the Complexity of the Brain but you are never able to explain how all these things actually result in the simple Conscious experience of Red. Red is another kind of thing than that can be found in the Physical World. You cannot even describe Red because it is not in the Physical World. Red is a Property of Conscious Space not of Physical Space.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:57 pm

Mara wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies.
Nope Steve. We answered your question over and over again. However, when we ask you questions about your ridiculous claims, you refuse to answer them. You are just another religious nut case. :lol:

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote: (Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
1) How did human consciousness travel back in time 13.8 billion years?
2) How does human consciousness exist in the single point singularity that existed before the Big Bang.

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience.
3) How can human consciousness, that only evolved 190,000 years ago, travel back 3.8 billion years to drive the first self replicating DNA chains on Earth?
4) How could human consciousness force carbon and other atoms into complex DNA chains and stop normal evolution taking place?
5) Do you have any understanding what evolution is?
6) Do you have any understanding what a singularity is?
7) Do you have any understanding what the Big Bang is?
I must say, I have heard many things but Klinko beats all. Generally people who subscribe to panpsychism or New Age philosophies, who blindly believe people like Tom Campbell, Stuart Hameroff, Nassim Haramein etc. do not assume it was 'human consciousness' that is fundmanetal, they just assume it was consciousness, their 'leap of faith' is in an assumption that energy is consciousness i.e. consciousness of everything including material and immaterial, rather than what mainstream knows that energy is just..well, energy.

Klinko's version is some radical form of Hinduism mixed with monoeitstic mentality topped up by hardcore anthropocentrism and sprinkled with anything else that he comes across on the internet...Scary.
So you are Lying again or you are believing Ellards Lies. I never said Human Consciousness I said Consciousness in general. Read the Website please: http://TheInterMind.com

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:12 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:... The problem is I never said I knew what the Inter Mind was ... ... the real question that this thread and the Inter Mind Model are about. ... ... find out what I really say about things instead of making things up.
I'll just translate your own words for you, Steve ...
a) I don't know that the inter mind exists or what it would look like if it did..
b) But I'm going to insist we discuss it on the unsupported assumption that it does.
c) You lot, on the other hand, are just making things up.
Very good. At least you understand that the Inter Mind is a placeholder and must be filled with something. It is a further specification of the Explanatory Gap. The inter Mind is more of a Processing Gap. I say it's a Processing Gap in the Inter Mind Paper. The whole point of the Inter Mind Paper is to point out that Gap from a slightly different perspective than before. I'm pointing out an Unknown that exists in the Scientific understanding of Consciousness. If you say that there is no Unknown here then I guess that is one possible answer. But you have got to do better with your Explanations.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10453
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 23, 2018 2:59 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:... The problem is I never said I knew what the Inter Mind was ... ... the real question that this thread and the Inter Mind Model are about. ... ... find out what I really say about things instead of making things up.
I'll just translate your own words for you, Steve ...
a) I don't know that the inter mind exists or what it would look like if it did..
b) But I'm going to insist we discuss it on the unsupported assumption that it does.
c) You lot, on the other hand, are just making things up.
Very good. At least you understand that the Inter Mind is a placeholder and must be filled with something. It is a further specification of the Explanatory Gap. The inter Mind is more of a Processing Gap. I say it's a Processing Gap in the Inter Mind Paper. The whole point of the Inter Mind Paper is to point out that Gap from a slightly different perspective than before. I'm pointing out an Unknown that exists in the Scientific understanding of Consciousness. If you say that there is no Unknown here then I guess that is one possible answer. But you have got to do better with your Explanations.
Jesus wept, Steve!!! Is that it? Here I am taking the piss out of you and I'm CORRECT??? And I have to do better with MY explanations? This is all a joke, right? It's something you dreamt up in the pub when you and your mates were out on a general 'let's get pissed as newts' adventure? So, you have precisely zero evidence of an explanatory gap, you have precisely zero evidence of the inter mind, and you have provided precisely zero evidence that you actually understand colour vision and perception. You have sweet FA.
You have to do better - MUCH better - with your understanding of basic physics and the wiggly things it knows of, and of the world and the wriggly soft things which live on it. Alternatively, there is a selective understanding gap being demonstrated within the human race. Give me a couple of days to formulate my theory and I'll then insist it's absolutely correct unless you can provide the arguments I can't be bothered to examine to disprove it. Hey - the scientific method in operation, eh? I wish I'd always known it was this easy.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:07 pm

The Physicalists have been misinterpreting some things I have said in "The Primacy of Consciousness" section on http://TheInterMind.com. I thought that my intention was clear that a particular part was Speculative. To fix this I have added some qualifiers to the last paragraph and it now reads as follows:

Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is we can and should speculate what it could be and how it could have developed. We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. Scientists need to find a way to understand and study Consciousness. They have to stop hiding their inability to study Consciousness by trying to minimize its importance. The Primacy of Consciousness must be understood.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10453
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 23, 2018 3:11 pm

Consciousness .... or pixies.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:15 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:... The problem is I never said I knew what the Inter Mind was ... ... the real question that this thread and the Inter Mind Model are about. ... ... find out what I really say about things instead of making things up.
I'll just translate your own words for you, Steve ...
a) I don't know that the inter mind exists or what it would look like if it did..
b) But I'm going to insist we discuss it on the unsupported assumption that it does.
c) You lot, on the other hand, are just making things up.
Very good. At least you understand that the Inter Mind is a placeholder and must be filled with something. It is a further specification of the Explanatory Gap. The inter Mind is more of a Processing Gap. I say it's a Processing Gap in the Inter Mind Paper. The whole point of the Inter Mind Paper is to point out that Gap from a slightly different perspective than before. I'm pointing out an Unknown that exists in the Scientific understanding of Consciousness. If you say that there is no Unknown here then I guess that is one possible answer. But you have got to do better with your Explanations.
Jesus wept, Steve!!! Is that it? Here I am taking the piss out of you and I'm CORRECT??? And I have to do better with MY explanations? This is all a joke, right? It's something you dreamt up in the pub when you and your mates were out on a general 'let's get pissed as newts' adventure? So, you have precisely zero evidence of an explanatory gap, you have precisely zero evidence of the inter mind, and you have provided precisely zero evidence that you actually understand colour vision and perception. You have sweet FA.
You have to do better - MUCH better - with your understanding of basic physics and the wiggly things it knows of, and of the world and the wriggly soft things which live on it. Alternatively, there is a selective understanding gap being demonstrated within the human race. Give me a couple of days to formulate my theory and I'll then insist it's absolutely correct unless you can provide the arguments I can't be bothered to examine to disprove it. Hey - the scientific method in operation, eh? I wish I'd always known it was this easy.
"Arguments For The Inter Mind" and "Arguments For The Conscious Mind" have been on the website for 6 years now. Read at http://TheInterMind.com

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:47 pm

I updated the Primacy of Consciousness section on the website again (http://TheInterMind.com). The last two paragraphs now read:

Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is we can and should speculate what it could be and how it could have developed. We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. We can also speculate that the ultimate goal of Physical Evolution is to provide a better and better host for Consciousness. We can speculate that maybe the very Existence of the Physical Universe is pointless without Consciousness. Maybe the Physical Body is just some sort of incubator for the CM and the CM is the more important part. All speculations are still on the table. Remember that the only thing we know about the Physical Universe is through our Conscious experiences. Conscious Experiences are Primary to what we are.

Scientists need to find a way to understand and study Consciousness. They have to stop hiding their inability to study Consciousness by trying to minimize its importance. The Primacy of Consciousness must be understood.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:11 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mara wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies.
Nope Steve. We answered your question over and over again. However, when we ask you questions about your ridiculous claims, you refuse to answer them. You are just another religious nut case. :lol:

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote: (Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
1) How did human consciousness travel back in time 13.8 billion years?
2) How does human consciousness exist in the single point singularity that existed before the Big Bang.

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience.
3) How can human consciousness, that only evolved 190,000 years ago, travel back 3.8 billion years to drive the first self replicating DNA chains on Earth?
4) How could human consciousness force carbon and other atoms into complex DNA chains and stop normal evolution taking place?
5) Do you have any understanding what evolution is?
6) Do you have any understanding what a singularity is?
7) Do you have any understanding what the Big Bang is?
I must say, I have heard many things but Klinko beats all. Generally people who subscribe to panpsychism or New Age philosophies, who blindly believe people like Tom Campbell, Stuart Hameroff, Nassim Haramein etc. do not assume it was 'human consciousness' that is fundmanetal, they just assume it was consciousness, their 'leap of faith' is in an assumption that energy is consciousness i.e. consciousness of everything including material and immaterial, rather than what mainstream knows that energy is just..well, energy.

Klinko's version is some radical form of Hinduism mixed with monoeitstic mentality topped up by hardcore anthropocentrism and sprinkled with anything else that he comes across on the internet...Scary.
So you are Lying again or you are believing Ellards Lies. I never said Human Consciousness I said Consciousness in general. Read the Website please: http://TheInterMind.com

The Big Bang happens and ̶a̶ ̶n̶e̶w̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶U̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ Matter, Energy are created... etc
Last edited by mirror93 on Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:31 pm

is this unintelligent, ignorant, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid stupid article for real? theintermind.com
I lost the count on how many times you repeated in this stupid article that "we do" "we see" "scientists can't understand" "conscious "space" (like what consciousness has to do with space, to begin with?)
geez ..... you can only be another new ager troll
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:59 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies.
Nope Steve. We answered your question over and over again. However, when we ask you questions about your ridiculous claims, you refuse to answer them. You are just another religious nut case. :lol:

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote: (Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
1) How did human consciousness travel back in time 13.8 billion years?
2) How does human consciousness exist in the single point singularity that existed before the Big Bang.

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience.
3) How can human consciousness, that only evolved 190,000 years ago, travel back 3.8 billion years to drive the first self replicating DNA chains on Earth?
4) How could human consciousness force carbon and other atoms into complex DNA chains and stop normal evolution taking place?
5) Do you have any understanding what evolution is?
6) Do you have any understanding what a singularity is?
7) Do you have any understanding what the Big Bang is?
Your questions are just Diversions from the topic as usual.

1) The speculation that I made was that maybe Consciousness (not Human Consciousness) existed before the Big Bang not that it travelled back in Time.
2) I say Consciousness must exist in some other Conscious Space concept that has connections to any existent Physical Spaces. So Consciousness is probably not in the Physical Space Singularity.
3) See 1
4)Consciousness, as I said, influences through Conscious Experience of the Experiencer. It is Conscious Pain and Pleasure that I invoke when I say Consciousness influences Evolution. It's almost certain that the most early life forms felt Pain and Pleasure. Pain and Pleasure can greatly influence the behavior of even the simplest organisms. Of course all the other possible Conscious experiences combine to create the total Conscious influence on Evolution.
5) Yes
6) Yes
7) Yes
you're a f idiot, :lol: :lol: there is no such thing as "physical" space and a "conscious" space. You're making up stupid premises that don't even exist. Space is Space. Empty. Physical things take up SPACE (empty).

space Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/space
what is space: an empty area that is available to be used.

phys·i·cal
ˈfizik(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
"a whole range of physical and mental challenges"
synonyms: bodily, corporeal, corporal, somatic;
2.
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"pleasant physical environments"
synonyms: material, concrete, tangible, palpable, solid, substantial, real, actual, visible

physical things/ Matter take up space , you wacko

conscious - Cambridge Dictionary - Cambridge University Press
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/dic ... /conscious
conscious definition: to notice that a particular thing or person exists or is present.

Got it??? You're distorting what 'conscious' means, and you're giving your flawed new-agey premise that don't even make sense to begin with.
:paladin:

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Mara » Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:05 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mara wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Red IS a thing.


This is for you Steve, start from basics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOKWoDtbSk

This could be good for you as I can imagine you struggle generally in life.
I've seen this before. So you think looking at Optical Illusions answers the question of how we see Color? Or I suppose you seem to think that because there are optical illusions that there is no such thing as Color? I don't know what your intention is with this. The question still remains as to how we are experiencing Blue dots regardless if they are really there or not. I'm sure we could see Blue dots in our Dreams. Dreams are the ultimate Illusion. The question is then even if there is an Illusion: How do we experience that Illusion and what is experiencing that Illusion.
Wow Steve...just wow. There is no blue or red or anything else, there is a wave that you make yourself believe that you are seeing as blue, red etc. that's why perception of colours can vary from culture to culture and language to language. You trust your perceptions too much. You are a product of socio-cultural forces. Not every human being sees the world the way you do, your interpretations are not the only correct understanding. Colours cannot be studied by hard sciences because they do not exist, they are a wave form thus they sit in the area of subjective i.e. illusionary experiences.

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecom ... t-colours/
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2012042 ... t-a-colour There are many more just google it...

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:32 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists on this thread saying that I haven't explained what the Inter Mind is. Well here is what I have always said about that, taken directly from the website:
There are valid reasons why we haven't bothered to read your website.

First, your inconsistent and inappropriate capitalization, grammar errors, and semantic ambiguity make your writing difficult to read.
Check it out:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Inter Mind represent that missing Processing that takes the Neural Activity and produces the Conscious experience.
  • Unless Intermind is plural, which you've failed to denote by appending pluralization, your verb doesn't agree with your subject.
  • Since inter isn't a word, but a prefix, it should be intermind, not Inter Mind.
  • The words processing, neural activity, and conscious don't require capitalization; they're not proper nouns. You've capitalized a gerund, an adjective-noun combination, and a descriptive adjective.
  • Missing processing is both semantically awkward and factually incorrect; if the "neural activity ———> conscious experience" processing were missing, you wouldn't be self-aware.
Six errors. In one sentence. And you expect us to voluntarily submit to the mental torture of deciphering paragraphs and paragraphs of this? Try this instead:
Correct English: The Intermind is a term I've created to refer to the process by which neural activity is transformed into a conscious experience.
See how much easier that is to read and understand?

Second, everything you say requires the reader to make assumptions, suspend disbelief, and jump to your conclusions.
SteveKlinko wrote:In fact, I think the Inter Mind is but yet another thing that we do not know. It is probably counterintuitive but I think the introduction of this new unknown might actually help us understand the other unknowns in the whole Mind problem. I believe the Inter Mind Model will provide a solid Framework for the next step in the exploration of Consciousness.
Note the terms I've highlighted. You're angry because you believe we're deliberately misunderstanding you, or dismissing your idea without examining it. In reality, you've expressed your idea poorly, ambiguously, contradictorily, uncertainly, and without providing evidence. Why should we bother to read your website when you haven't bothered to do the work required to properly explain and support your idea?

Third, your explanations tend to be ambiguous and contradictory.
SteveKlinko wrote:The Inter Mind Model is a Framework not an Explanation. The Inter Mind itself is a placeholder in that Framework.
Since the intermind model consists solely of the intermind, you've used two terms to describe the same thing, which you've then defined in two entirely different ways. A book (framework) and a bookmark (placeholder) are two different things. The intermind model and the intermind are the same thing. When you state that the framework and a placeholder within that framework are one and the same, it's an equivocation fallacy. None of us is able to maintain that level of cognitive dissonance.

Fourth, you consistently ignore, deny, and discard established neurology whenever it disagrees with your idea.
No skeptic will bother reading the manifesto of a science-denier. Nor is it just you; we wouldn't bother with the treatises of a Flat Earther, a climate change denier, a creationist, etc. There's no point.

Fifth, you invent terminology, then use it repeatedly in your explanations, either failing to define it or defining it ambiguously.
Conscious light is an example of this. There are existing scientific explanations for the experience of light when actual light is not present. These explanations are different from each other, yet you lump them together as the exact same thing, then invent a term to refer to them. In fact, you have gone as far as to claim that no one has ever seen actual light, that we've only seen conscious light, which is demonstrably false. Both photoreceptors detecting actual light and the resulting neurological activity have been measured.

Sixth, there are huge holes in your comprehension of neurology. Instead of educating yourself, you've decided to fill those holes with magic.
Your argument:
A. If the conscious experience were merely the culmination of neural activity, it would be established by science.
B. Science hasn't established it.
C. Therefore, the conscious experience must be more than the culmination of neural activity.
This constitutes affirming the consequent, and it doesn't support your conclusion any more than a primitive person's ignorance of astronomy supports his conclusion that a solar eclipse is a portent from the gods. Especially because the second statement (B) only refers to science with which you, personally, are familiar. What's the point in reading the detailed argument of a person who lacks math skills arguing that 1+1=3 whilst denying all evidence that 1+1=2? Instead of stumbling around in the dark, making up terms and concepts for what you don't understand, turn on the damn light.

Seventh, you toss out ad hominems, the last resort of the person unable to support his argument.
SteveKlinko wrote:You Physicalists are Liars because you must know this is what I say about the Inter Mind or you have not read the website.
We didn't come to you and ask you to explain your ideas; you came to us. Therefore, we expect you to set out your hypothesis and all supporting evidence here. We don't need to read your website, based on what you've posted here. When one is sufficiently well-versed in astronomy and the human tendency to impose order on chaos, one can confidently call BS on the position of the astrologist without wasting time reading his treatise on the subject.

And you still haven't explained what the intermind is.
• Is it a physical structure that exists in the brain? An organ that functions as an intermediary between the processing of sensory input and the resulting "conscious experience?" If so, you can abandon your concept; brains have been dissected and no "intermind" has been discovered.
• Is it a concept you've invented? A blanket label to refer to the process by which sensory information is processed into the "conscious experience?" If so, you can abandon your concept, because we already have a name for it...we call it "thinking."
• If it's neither of these things, then define it in clear language (as described above) and provide evidence.
The burden of proof is on you, not us. And so far, you've either claimed your idea is self-evident—it's not—or you've argued from ignorance.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:56 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is...
You're arguing from ignorance again. In a nutshell, consciousness is the result of analyzing and integrating current sensory stimuli with existing memories and knowledge, emotions, survival instincts, etc. I don't think you understand how complex the human brain is, or even the complexity of our sensory organs.

Your eyes have millions of receptors that detect various colors, light intensity, size, shape, distance, motion, etc. The information from each eye is integrated to provide you with binocular vision, which allows you to perceive your three-dimensional environment. Your skin has millions of receptors that can distinguish temperature, pressure, texture, etc. Your ears can detect volume, direction, movement, etc. of sound.

The brain receives, analyzes, and integrates terabytes of information every second you're awake. And every second, it makes decisions about that huge chunk of information:
• Can this information be identified or is it an unknown? (Your brain compares the input to knowledge it already possesses, which is stored in your memory. If you've seen apples before, then your brain can identify "apple." If you've never seen durian, then your brain is clueless as to what it is...but it might make correct conclusions based on existing knowledge, like concluding "some type of fruit or vegetable" and "smells bad" and "yellow" and "spiked texture." But it'll also make incorrect conclusions based on your perceptions, like "inedible.")
• Does this information represent a threat? (This is why you're able to ignore the millions of objects in your peripheral vision...unless you sense sudden movement. Then, you'll instantly pay "conscious" attention to the movement until you're able to identify it and safely discard it as innocuous...or react to it as a threat.)
• Is this information relevant to the current situation? (If you've just eaten, a sumptuous buffet isn't relevant. But if you're starving, it is.)
• Where does this information fit into the current model of the universe? (The information is compared to existing knowledge to create associations. For me, "apple" is accompanied by the simple associations of color, shape, size, aroma, and taste, and the complex associations of the fresh scent of local apple orchards, the taste and color of cider, my mom's apple pie, memories of autumn and Thanksgiving, and more.)

The process of perception, analysis, and integration is the "conscious experience."
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

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

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17100
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:04 pm

Perhaps Bill Clinton explained it the best?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:07 pm

mirror93 wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalists think they can avoid the question that they can't answer by creating Diversions and Lies.
Nope Steve. We answered your question over and over again. However, when we ask you questions about your ridiculous claims, you refuse to answer them. You are just another religious nut case. :lol:

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote: (Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang.
1) How did human consciousness travel back in time 13.8 billion years?
2) How does human consciousness exist in the single point singularity that existed before the Big Bang.

SteveKlinko made a specific claim and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience.
3) How can human consciousness, that only evolved 190,000 years ago, travel back 3.8 billion years to drive the first self replicating DNA chains on Earth?
4) How could human consciousness force carbon and other atoms into complex DNA chains and stop normal evolution taking place?
5) Do you have any understanding what evolution is?
6) Do you have any understanding what a singularity is?
7) Do you have any understanding what the Big Bang is?
Your questions are just Diversions from the topic as usual.

1) The speculation that I made was that maybe Consciousness (not Human Consciousness) existed before the Big Bang not that it travelled back in Time.
2) I say Consciousness must exist in some other Conscious Space concept that has connections to any existent Physical Spaces. So Consciousness is probably not in the Physical Space Singularity.
3) See 1
4)Consciousness, as I said, influences through Conscious Experience of the Experiencer. It is Conscious Pain and Pleasure that I invoke when I say Consciousness influences Evolution. It's almost certain that the most early life forms felt Pain and Pleasure. Pain and Pleasure can greatly influence the behavior of even the simplest organisms. Of course all the other possible Conscious experiences combine to create the total Conscious influence on Evolution.
5) Yes
6) Yes
7) Yes
you're a f idiot, :lol: :lol: there is no such thing as "physical" space and a "conscious" space. You're making up stupid premises that don't even exist. Space is Space. Empty. Physical things take up SPACE (empty).

space Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/space
what is space: an empty area that is available to be used.

phys·i·cal
ˈfizik(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
"a whole range of physical and mental challenges"
synonyms: bodily, corporeal, corporal, somatic;
2.
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"pleasant physical environments"
synonyms: material, concrete, tangible, palpable, solid, substantial, real, actual, visible

physical things/ Matter take up space , you wacko

conscious - Cambridge Dictionary - Cambridge University Press
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/dic ... /conscious
conscious definition: to notice that a particular thing or person exists or is present.

Got it??? You're distorting what 'conscious' means, and you're giving your flawed new-agey premise that don't even make sense to begin with.
Space is more than just emptiness. Physical Space is a thing that exists in the Physical Universe. There could be no Space, in which case there is Absolute nothingness. Space is something, Space could have been 2D or 4D. Our particular Space is 3D.

I use the concept of Conscious Space as a tool to analyze Conscious experience. It helps to think outside the box when dealing with Conscious experience. When I say that Conscious experience happens in Conscious Space, I am trying to emphasize that Conscious experience can not, at this time, be analyzed by Physical Space methods, We need some new methods when we analyze Conscious experience.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:28 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:There's a lot of ranting and raving by the Physicalists on this thread saying that I haven't explained what the Inter Mind is. Well here is what I have always said about that, taken directly from the website:
There are valid reasons why we haven't bothered to read your website.

First, your inconsistent and inappropriate capitalization, grammar errors, and semantic ambiguity make your writing difficult to read.
Check it out:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Inter Mind represent that missing Processing that takes the Neural Activity and produces the Conscious experience.
  • Unless Intermind is plural, which you've failed to denote by appending pluralization, your verb doesn't agree with your subject.
  • Since inter isn't a word, but a prefix, it should be intermind, not Inter Mind.
  • The words processing, neural activity, and conscious don't require capitalization; they're not proper nouns. You've capitalized a gerund, an adjective-noun combination, and a descriptive adjective.
  • Missing processing is both semantically awkward and factually incorrect; if the "neural activity ———> conscious experience" processing were missing, you wouldn't be self-aware.
Six errors. In one sentence. And you expect us to voluntarily submit to the mental torture of deciphering paragraphs and paragraphs of this? Try this instead:
Correct English: The Intermind is a term I've created to refer to the process by which neural activity is transformed into a conscious experience.
See how much easier that is to read and understand?

Second, everything you say requires the reader to make assumptions, suspend disbelief, and jump to your conclusions.
SteveKlinko wrote:In fact, I think the Inter Mind is but yet another thing that we do not know. It is probably counterintuitive but I think the introduction of this new unknown might actually help us understand the other unknowns in the whole Mind problem. I believe the Inter Mind Model will provide a solid Framework for the next step in the exploration of Consciousness.
Note the terms I've highlighted. You're angry because you believe we're deliberately misunderstanding you, or dismissing your idea without examining it. In reality, you've expressed your idea poorly, ambiguously, contradictorily, uncertainly, and without providing evidence. Why should we bother to read your website when you haven't bothered to do the work required to properly explain and support your idea?

Third, your explanations tend to be ambiguous and contradictory.
SteveKlinko wrote:The Inter Mind Model is a Framework not an Explanation. The Inter Mind itself is a placeholder in that Framework.
Since the intermind model consists solely of the intermind, you've used two terms to describe the same thing, which you've then defined in two entirely different ways. A book (framework) and a bookmark (placeholder) are two different things. The intermind model and the intermind are the same thing. When you state that the framework and a placeholder within that framework are one and the same, it's an equivocation fallacy. None of us is able to maintain that level of cognitive dissonance.

Fourth, you consistently ignore, deny, and discard established neurology whenever it disagrees with your idea.
No skeptic will bother reading the manifesto of a science-denier. Nor is it just you; we wouldn't bother with the treatises of a Flat Earther, a climate change denier, a creationist, etc. There's no point.

Fifth, you invent terminology, then use it repeatedly in your explanations, either failing to define it or defining it ambiguously.
Conscious light is an example of this. There are existing scientific explanations for the experience of light when actual light is not present. These explanations are different from each other, yet you lump them together as the exact same thing, then invent a term to refer to them. In fact, you have gone as far as to claim that no one has ever seen actual light, that we've only seen conscious light, which is demonstrably false. Both photoreceptors detecting actual light and the resulting neurological activity have been measured.

Sixth, there are huge holes in your comprehension of neurology. Instead of educating yourself, you've decided to fill those holes with magic.
Your argument:
A. If the conscious experience were merely the culmination of neural activity, it would be established by science.
B. Science hasn't established it.
C. Therefore, the conscious experience must be more than the culmination of neural activity.
This constitutes affirming the consequent, and it doesn't support your conclusion any more than a primitive person's ignorance of astronomy supports his conclusion that a solar eclipse is a portent from the gods. Especially because the second statement (B) only refers to science with which you, personally, are familiar. What's the point in reading the detailed argument of a person who lacks math skills arguing that 1+1=3 whilst denying all evidence that 1+1=2? Instead of stumbling around in the dark, making up terms and concepts for what you don't understand, turn on the damn light.

Seventh, you toss out ad hominems, the last resort of the person unable to support his argument.
SteveKlinko wrote:You Physicalists are Liars because you must know this is what I say about the Inter Mind or you have not read the website.
We didn't come to you and ask you to explain your ideas; you came to us. Therefore, we expect you to set out your hypothesis and all supporting evidence here. We don't need to read your website, based on what you've posted here. When one is sufficiently well-versed in astronomy and the human tendency to impose order on chaos, one can confidently call BS on the position of the astrologist without wasting time reading his treatise on the subject.

And you still haven't explained what the intermind is.
• Is it a physical structure that exists in the brain? An organ that functions as an intermediary between the processing of sensory input and the resulting "conscious experience?" If so, you can abandon your concept; brains have been dissected and no "intermind" has been discovered.
• Is it a concept you've invented? A blanket label to refer to the process by which sensory information is processed into the "conscious experience?" If so, you can abandon your concept, because we already have a name for it...we call it "thinking."
• If it's neither of these things, then define it in clear language (as described above) and provide evidence.
The burden of proof is on you, not us. And so far, you've either claimed your idea is self-evident—it's not—or you've argued from ignorance.
From these comments I can see you have not read the website. You are just taking out of context clips of things I have written on this thread. Please visit http://TheInterMind.com and then make some more informed comments.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17100
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:35 pm

You make the strong inference then that reading what you post here is for idiots? ((No offense to Nikki.........but I do wonder..........))
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:45 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Since Science is unable to say what Consciousness is...
You're arguing from ignorance again. In a nutshell, consciousness is the result of analyzing and integrating current sensory stimuli with existing memories and knowledge, emotions, survival instincts, etc. I don't think you understand how complex the human brain is, or even the complexity of our sensory organs.

Your eyes have millions of receptors that detect various colors, light intensity, size, shape, distance, motion, etc. The information from each eye is integrated to provide you with binocular vision, which allows you to perceive your three-dimensional environment. Your skin has millions of receptors that can distinguish temperature, pressure, texture, etc. Your ears can detect volume, direction, movement, etc. of sound.

The brain receives, analyzes, and integrates terabytes of information every second you're awake. And every second, it makes decisions about that huge chunk of information:
• Can this information be identified or is it an unknown? (Your brain compares the input to knowledge it already possesses, which is stored in your memory. If you've seen apples before, then your brain can identify "apple." If you've never seen durian, then your brain is clueless as to what it is...but it might make correct conclusions based on existing knowledge, like concluding "some type of fruit or vegetable" and "smells bad" and "yellow" and "spiked texture." But it'll also make incorrect conclusions based on your perceptions, like "inedible.")
• Does this information represent a threat? (This is why you're able to ignore the millions of objects in your peripheral vision...unless you sense sudden movement. Then, you'll instantly pay "conscious" attention to the movement until you're able to identify it and safely discard it as innocuous...or react to it as a threat.)
• Is this information relevant to the current situation? (If you've just eaten, a sumptuous buffet isn't relevant. But if you're starving, it is.)
• Where does this information fit into the current model of the universe? (The information is compared to existing knowledge to create associations. For me, "apple" is accompanied by the simple associations of color, shape, size, aroma, and taste, and the complex associations of the fresh scent of local apple orchards, the taste and color of cider, my mom's apple pie, memories of autumn and Thanksgiving, and more.)

The process of perception, analysis, and integration is the "conscious experience."
Memories of Apples and knowledge about Apples have nothing to do with that Vivid Image you experience when you See an Apple while awake or when dreaming. If you had no Memories of Apples and no Knowledge about Apples that Image of an Apple would be just as Vivid. You are talking about lower level processing that certainly does happen. But this processing is in parallel with the experience of Seeing an apple as a Conscious phenomenon. This is all Neural Activity. You have given no Explanation of how the Neural Activity produces the Conscious experience of seeing an Apple. You are talking about the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. You are talking about the Easy Problem. You have ignored the Hard Problem. You have a Huge Explanatory Gap in what you say.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:50 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You make the strong inference then that reading what you post here is for idiots? ((No offense to Nikki.........but I do wonder..........))
I said Out of Context clips of what I had written.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:02 am

Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a property. Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. Physical Red Light does not have Redness as a property. Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a property. These are two different things. Think about the Redness of Red. Understanding Redness is the goal of this thread, During the day at idle moments take some time to look at a Red object. Think about the total inexplicable and indescribable nature of the Redness itself. What is it? It exists. It must be Explained.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17100
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:03 am

SteveKlinko wrote:If you had no Memories of Apples and no Knowledge about Apples that Image of an Apple would be just as Vivid.
O Really? What makes apples different from Durians then?

You don't even follow your own BS. BS is like that..........

.........mind the gap.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17100
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:06 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a property. Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. Physical Red Light does not have Redness as a property. Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a property. These are two different things. Think about the Redness of Red. Understanding Redness is the goal of this thread, During the day at idle moments take some time to look at a Red object. Think about the total inexplicable and indescribable nature of the Redness itself. What is it? It exists. It must be Explained.
Gibberish. not that I can't make my own sense of it...but....gibberish. There is NO SUCH THING as "physical red light." You do post thereafter consistent with this reality...but you start on the wrong foot: aka: making gibberish.

Its just basics.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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?

Pzomby
Poster
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:55 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Pzomby » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:06 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a property. Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. Physical Red Light does not have Redness as a property. Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a property. These are two different things. Think about the Redness of Red. Understanding Redness is the goal of this thread, During the day at idle moments take some time to look at a Red object. Think about the total inexplicable and indescribable nature of the Redness itself. What is it? It exists. It must be Explained.

See Fact # 2. What Do Animals See?
http://www.toptenz.net/10-illuminating- ... -color.php

"Remember how infinitesimally small our visible light spectrum is compared to what’s really out there? Just try to imagine a brand new color — it’s impossible. Or imagine trying to explain to someone who’s been blind their whole life what red looks like. You could say that it makes you feel warm and you associate it with passion, but what would they really understand or imagine red to be? They could know everything there is about light and color and it would still be as a foreign concept to them. There just aren’t words that allow someone to grasp the true meaning of something they haven’t experienced for themselves, which is known as an explanatory gap.

For example, some butterflies have our three color receptors and then an extra two: red, green, blue, ? and ?. We’d say just imagine the possibilities, but the whole point is that you can’t."

Hope this sheds some light on the subject. :)

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:If you had no Memories of Apples and no Knowledge about Apples that Image of an Apple would be just as Vivid.
O Really? What makes apples different from Durians then?

You don't even follow your own BS. BS is like that..........

.........mind the gap.
I did not remember what a Durian looked like so I Googled it. Of course, without any memories of it, I was able to See the Image of it perfectly. Memories of Things serve a different purpose than the Images of Things.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a property. Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. Physical Red Light does not have Redness as a property. Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a property. These are two different things. Think about the Redness of Red. Understanding Redness is the goal of this thread, During the day at idle moments take some time to look at a Red object. Think about the total inexplicable and indescribable nature of the Redness itself. What is it? It exists. It must be Explained.
Gibberish. not that I can't make my own sense of it...but....gibberish. There is NO SUCH THING as "physical red light." You do post thereafter consistent with this reality...but you start on the wrong foot: aka: making gibberish.

Its just basics.
It will remain Gibberish to you as long as you refuse to think more Deeply about the Consciousness problem. You need to more fully understand the Easy problem, the Hard problem, and the Explanatory Gap. When you understand these Basic concepts you will begin to understand what I am talking about. Think about the Redness of the Conscious Red experience. Is that Redness out there in the Physical World or is it inside your Conscious Mind?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:03 pm

Pzomby wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a property. Conscious Red Light has Redness as a property. Physical Red Light does not have Redness as a property. Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a property. These are two different things. Think about the Redness of Red. Understanding Redness is the goal of this thread, During the day at idle moments take some time to look at a Red object. Think about the total inexplicable and indescribable nature of the Redness itself. What is it? It exists. It must be Explained.

See Fact # 2. What Do Animals See?
http://www.toptenz.net/10-illuminating- ... -color.php

"Remember how infinitesimally small our visible light spectrum is compared to what’s really out there? Just try to imagine a brand new color — it’s impossible. Or imagine trying to explain to someone who’s been blind their whole life what red looks like. You could say that it makes you feel warm and you associate it with passion, but what would they really understand or imagine red to be? They could know everything there is about light and color and it would still be as a foreign concept to them. There just aren’t words that allow someone to grasp the true meaning of something they haven’t experienced for themselves, which is known as an explanatory gap.

For example, some butterflies have our three color receptors and then an extra two: red, green, blue, ? and ?. We’d say just imagine the possibilities, but the whole point is that you can’t."

Hope this sheds some light on the subject. :)
Yes. Very Good. Not only is some new Color unimaginable but there may be a possibility for whole new Categories of Sensory Conscious experience that we will never be able to imagine. I think you understand the Hard problem of Consciousness, so you probably understand the Explanatory Gap. This is Ironic since a pZomby is not supposed to have any Conscious experiences.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10453
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 30, 2018 2:36 pm

I remember 1970 ...
Steve ... "Oh wow, man. Look at that. Just ... look, man!"
Me ... "It's a lawn, Steve. Grass. you know? No, not that kind, It's just green grass."
Steve .. Ah, moo tucking fuch, man - it's, like, ubergreen, man. It's bigger than green."
Me ... It's very nicely mowed, Steve, but it's just grass."
Steve ... "Aw, man - you just closed your mind. You're so uncool."
Me ... "What the {!#%@} are you on, Steve?"

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:31 pm

Poodle wrote:I remember 1970 ...
Steve ... "Oh wow, man. Look at that. Just ... look, man!"
Me ... "It's a lawn, Steve. Grass. you know? No, not that kind, It's just green grass."
Steve .. Ah, moo tucking fuch, man - it's, like, ubergreen, man. It's bigger than green."
Me ... It's very nicely mowed, Steve, but it's just grass."
Steve ... "Aw, man - you just closed your mind. You're so uncool."
Me ... "What the {!#%@} are you on, Steve?"
Coffee before 6pm and Beer after 6pm.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:54 pm

There is continued confusion over the difference between Physical Red Light and Conscious Red Light. I have updated the section "Physical Space Properties and Conscious Space Properties" on the http://TheInterMind.com website.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10453
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 30, 2018 6:32 pm

End of paragraph 1 from Steve's must-read masterpiece ...
"There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection."
I stopped right there and until you rid yourself of the habit of making such opaque claims left, right and centre, I won't be going any further. I do not think you understand why, Steve, but it is a fundamental flaw in your declarative technique.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:47 pm

Poodle wrote:End of paragraph 1 from Steve's must-read masterpiece ...
"There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection."
I stopped right there and until you rid yourself of the habit of making such opaque claims left, right and centre, I won't be going any further. I do not think you understand why, Steve, but it is a fundamental flaw in your declarative technique.
Very Good. You have taken the first step. At the time I wrote that first section I was arguing with the Direct Realists. They think they really See Objects as they are out there in the Physical World. I was just trying to emphasize that we do not See Objects in the way the Direct Realists claim. We can only Detect the objects we See. So that leads into how is it that we detect Objects. The answer is that we have a Surrogate Conscious experience about the Appearance of any Object. By the way most people that have not thought about this and are reading for the first time also think they just See Objects as they are. Hope this helps.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10453
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 30, 2018 7:59 pm

Helps what, Steve? Your subject matter is immaterial. What I'm discussing is your constant unnecessary multiplication of entities. This is what you're not getting, but it would be true even if you were theorising upon the existence of elves. Here it is in the simplest possible terms ...
a) you choose a human sense.
b) you claim it doesn't work as we all thought it did.
c) you postulate a more complex version and invent a handful of bells and whistles.
d) you provide no evidence whatsoever for the added complexity.
e) you insist everyone must go to your selected site to read your inventions.
f) you claim the site as an authority for your inventions.
The stuff on your site collapses within the first few sentences. You provide a lot of assertion, but no evidence. I won't be going back there as there is no need - there's nothing there supporting your argument here.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:13 pm

Poodle wrote:Helps what, Steve? Your subject matter is immaterial. What I'm discussing is your constant unnecessary multiplication of entities. This is what you're not getting, but it would be true even if you were theorising upon the existence of elves. Here it is in the simplest possible terms ...
a) you choose a human sense.
b) you claim it doesn't work as we all thought it did.
c) you postulate a more complex version and invent a handful of bells and whistles.
d) you provide no evidence whatsoever for the added complexity.
e) you insist everyone must go to your selected site to read your inventions.
f) you claim the site as an authority for your inventions.
The stuff on your site collapses within the first few sentences. You provide a lot of assertion, but no evidence. I won't be going back there as there is no need - there's nothing there supporting your argument here.
a) True. I decided to primarily study Conscious Visual perception and specifically the experience of the color Red.
b) True. Conscious Visual perception is definitely not an Illusion and it is certainly more than Neural Activity.
c) True. The Inter Mind is placed within a new Framework for studying Consciousness.
d) False. You have not read the "Arguments for the Conscious Mind" or the "Arguments for the Inter Mind" sections.
e) True. But this is an unreasonable complaint. The point of the website is for people to read it.
f) True. But this is also an unreasonable complaint and is redundant with e.

Here are direct links to the proof sections that you claim do not exist:
For "Arguments for the Conscious Mind" Visit http://bit.ly/1Tgbz1e
For "Arguments for the Inter Mind" Visit http://bit.ly/1R1PI9g

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10453
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 » Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:21 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:Here are direct links to the proof sections that you claim do not exist:
For "Arguments for the Conscious Mind" Visit http://bit.ly/1Tgbz1e
For "Arguments for the Inter Mind" Visit http://bit.ly/1R1PI9g
Thanks for those, Steve. Not a single iota of proof in there. I'm not calling you a liar, Steve, but you obviously do not understand the concept of proof. I think I can rest my case.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:49 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Here are direct links to the proof sections that you claim do not exist:
For "Arguments for the Conscious Mind" Visit http://bit.ly/1Tgbz1e
For "Arguments for the Inter Mind" Visit http://bit.ly/1R1PI9g
Thanks for those, Steve. Not a single iota of proof in there. I'm not calling you a liar, Steve, but you obviously do not understand the concept of proof. I think I can rest my case.
I'll assume that you actually did read the Arguments sections. Sorry I was unable to convince you.