Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7

[smcder]

Dude: It's not that I don't get the HPC, and because I know you're smart enough to understand what I've been saying, suggesting I don't get can only be taken as yet another jibe. So how about something more constructive ( or at least more entertaining ) than that?

I don't think you do.

Can you explain it back to me from a neutral pov - as if you were teaching it?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

In your own words off the top of your head.

I hope you can. Then i can take it off my bucket list.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

@Soupie do you get the sense that R gets the HP? Am I wrong? What am I missing in terms of explaining it. I think you cant dismiss it as incoherent without accounting for the problem it points to ...

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

@Soupie do you get the sense that R gets the HP? Am I wrong? What am I missing in terms of explaining it. I think you cant dismiss it as incoherent without accounting for the problem it points to ...

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

I don't want to pile on @ufology but yes, I too wonder if he truly groks it. The following comment of his is an example of why I question:

Those who see "the problem" have arbitrarily isolated experience from the set of "physicalist terms" to create the "problem",

If he truly thinks that consciousness has been "arbitrarily" isolated from all other known phenomena, then one must assume he doesn't grok the hp.

 

[smcder]

I don't want to pile on @ufology but yes, I too wonder if he truly groks it. The following comment of his is an example of why I question:


If he truly thinks that consciousness has been "arbitrarily" isolated from all other known phenomena, then one must assume he doesn't grok the hp.

It's not a dogpile. Frustrated that it's back to the same ole. Some of it is a verbal dispute and I may address that. Something else though too and I may address that.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

The hard problem is how to get experience from physical materials and processes. You can object to Chalmers' "something it is like" formulation and you can object to Nagel's arguments in WILTBAB as rhetorical but they are meant to be rhetorical and to point out the absurdity of trying to account for the subjective objectively - Nagel is very deliberate and aware in arguing this way - so it makes no sense to dismiss it as rhetorical...that's the point!

So to say the hard problem isn't a problem to be solved makes no sense when it's the problem everyone in AI is trying to solve ... how to make a sentient, intelligent system.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

The other thing is we are maturing in terms of everything now is presenting as a hard problem. The few, classical, clearly definable and solvable problems fall out in logic, math, axiomatic systems...where the answer is defined in the problem. What mow is the case is that the awfull(awe-full) complexity and messiness of reality is front and center in everything we do and how do we cope with that? Our very identity breaks down not into reduction but into complexity and inter-complexity. We, our intelligence and consciousness are inseparable from the background and history of our environment - we are embodiedded (to coin a second term) ... This is what I mean by AI as "intelligence on rails" ... Our own intelligence is also on rails but we seem to have may be some transcendent ability to cut ourselves out of context maybe so that there is something in human intelligence that seems then, if not at odds, at least set out against our context which may be why we feel ill at home ... If we are disciplined to stop ourselves from positing answers, from looking for home, then maybe a more mature "science" (meaning an organized body of knowledge) may come out of this suspension... So my manifesto is to be wary of answers, of those driving for home, of skeptics and dreamers alike...but rather to dream of being ill at ease, of not finding or making a home, of discovering that the whole universe is as out of place as we are.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

irst, a superintelligent AI may bypass consciousness altogether. In humans, consciousness is correlated with novel learning tasks that require concentration, and when a thought is under the spotlight of our attention, it is processed in a slow, sequential manner. Only a very small percentage of our mental processing is conscious at any given time. A superintelligence would surpass expert-level knowledge in every domain, with rapid-fire computations ranging over vast databases that could encompass the entire internet. It may not need the very mental faculties that are associated with conscious experience in humans. Consciousness could be outmoded.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Second, consciousness may be limited to carbon substrates only. Carbon molecules form stronger, more stable chemical bonds than silicon, which allows carbon to form an extraordinary number of compounds, and unlike silicon, carbon has the capacity to more easily form double bonds. This difference has important implications in the field of astrobiology, because it is for this reason that carbon, and not silicon, is said to be well-suited for the development of life throughout the universe.

If the chemical differences between carbon and silicon impact life itself, we should not rule out the possibility that these chemical differences also impact whether silicon gives rise to consciousness, even if they do not hinder silicon’s ability to process information in a superior manner.



Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

The Problem of AI Consciousness | KurzweilAI


Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Awareness during anesthesia: how sure can we be that the patient is sleeping indeed?



Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

That should make you less sure about loss of consciousness generally not just during anesthesia. But one consequence of this is the robustness of consciousness i.e. consciousness is very important if it's so difficult to take away, right? Of note is that even "deeply anesthetized" patients can be affected by auditory stimuli without being able to recall them. It's long been held in Buddhism and other contemplative traditions that hearing is the very last thing to go as consciousness leaves the body in death and if you need to rouse a monk from even the deepest meditation you do so by whispering his name in his ear.

QED

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

I don't want to pile on @ufology but yes, I too wonder if he truly groks it. The following comment of his is an example of why I question:
If he truly thinks that consciousness has been "arbitrarily" isolated from all other known phenomena, then one must assume he doesn't grok the hp.

Let's try this another way: The common basis for the mind-body problem is that the human body ( including the brain ) is viewed a physical entity while the mind is viewed as a non-physical something else. Therefore the assumption that the mind is a non-physical something else must be made, or there is no "problem," and this is what I meant by an "arbitrary isolation" of the mind from the set of physical objects and phenomena.

In contrast, from the physicalist perspective I subscribe to, the mind ( or consciousness or whatever other synonym you prefer ), is also a physical phenomena, which means that there is no physical component plus some other mystical non-physical component. Therefore logically, from this perspective, there is no mind-body problem as it has been outlined above. This view doesn't deny there is a distinction between the mental and the physical, it just looks at the difference as being the conceptual difference between the subjective and the objective.

Perhaps in your worldview there is the physical plus some other non-physical mystery component that would explain consciousness. However in my worldview, if that mystery component were discovered, it would simply be added to our inventory of physical phenomena. Chalmers makes this point in one of the videos I've posted more than once when he says, to paraphrase, that when science cannot account for a phenomena using the existing set of fundamental building blocks, then perhaps it's time to add a new one. Maybe now you can see that just because someone has a different viewpoint, it doesn't mean they don't comprehend the issues?

 

[Soupie]

The Problem of AI Consciousness | KurzweilAI


Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Excellent.

Let's suppose that human consciousness does not originate at the level of neurons in the brain. Let's say it originates at a lower physiological scale.

Serious question: Why are we conscious of information in (physiological states of) the brain?

If consciousness arises at the, say, cellular level, beyond the combination problem, why would this consciousness center on information located in the brain?

We seem to have no conscious awareness/access to many/most of the physiological process going on within the body at any given moment. Indeed we are not aware of most of the physiological states of the brain, even those that we sometimes have access to.

So if consciousness doesn't supervene at the neural level—and it may not—why does it spend all its time hanging out there?

 

[Soupie]

The common basis for the mind-body problem is that the human body ( including the brain ) is viewed a physical entity while the mind is viewed as a non-physical something else. Therefore the assumption that the mind is a non-physical something else must be made, or there is no "problem," and this is what I meant by an "arbitrary isolation" of the mind from the set of physical objects and phenomena.

No, its not an "assumption" that the mind is non-physical. The hard problem is not an "assumption."

Explaining how the mind could be physical is a problem. A hard problem. Not an assumption. Not an arbitrary decision.

No one can present an explanation of how consciousness can be physical (i.e. Causally interact with the physical realm). No one.

If you don't grok that, you don't grok that.

 

[victimized]

So is wetness.
I've not glossed over anything. Rather, I've discussed specific facets of the subject within the parameters of the immediate discussion. If you would like to open up the discussion to include, "the profound mystery that is conscious awareness", then by all means, we can certainly entertain that. On that facet, I'd say that "profoundness" is a rather subjective thing, dependent on a particular context and worldview.

One might just as easily be of the view that because there are billions of people with consciousness and more being born every day, that consciousness is quite mundane, a daily occurrence that is mostly taken for granted, and why it exists is no more profound a question than why anything else exists. If that sounds like a "glossing over", you're entitled to that opinion. But then again, have you considered why anything else should exist? Before you answer that maybe check here: Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A "why" question is answered with a "because" response, and one response to why consciousness exists is because it's useful in motivating behavior that contributes to the survival of our species. If it had no usefulness it would have gone by way of the tail, quadrupedalism, hairy knuckles, and extremely bushy eyebrows. Then again there's still a few throw-backs around with hairy knuckles and extremely bushy eyebrows, so perhaps some female members of our species still find them attractive.

As the query of consciousness is a concept a human life owns, then only the human life owns the concept. We review Nature in its natural habitat minding its own business....and the only business we own ourselves is our own self.

We know by self evidence that we are created by 2 adult parents....a male adult and a female adult. We also know that they have sexual intercourse, the sperm incepts the egg, the egg forms the cell and the baby grows and is born. We know that the parents keep the baby safe until it is able to take care of its own person.

We also know that we eat to survive for the energy of the atmosphere does not keep us alive. We also drink water for the water of the atmosphere does not keep us alive. We take shelter from the elements, for we know the elements can harm us. We live, and we survive.

Therefore we know by self evidence that we are surviving on Planet Earth.

We also know by self evidence there is choice of a lifestyle, and this lifestyle was introduced....civilization and its structures, trade, value and ownership for self purposes, not for equality or the purpose of family and mutual support and mutual conditions. And this condition belongs to a brotherhood of males who took over by force the lifestyle of the natural life. These human beings are now the human beings who after taking ownership and valuing all items on Planet Earth for self gain, invention and resourcing are the same brotherhood who are now trying to resource the concept "consciousness" as if it is a Universal consideration.

Therefore due to the condition that a human being is aware of "want" the aspect of "truth or reality" as a human survival state is being ignored, due to lifestyle.

If you ask the history of self awareness and stories and concepts, and values and then review the natural life, the natural awareness has stated....came from the same place that all of the Nature that is balanced in a support system came from. Therefore you have to imply by this review that a higher condition existed as the same form of support condition.

The reasoning to this advice is the consideration of science.....everything is changed from a higher state into a lower state. The only condition that allows for a lower state to emerge into a higher state is through the status evolution.

Therefore the reasoning to human de-evolution and the status that maintains by self evidence in archaeology determines that human life was once in a higher state....it de-evolved into a mutated life form due to past life cellular irradiation, the atmospheric body cooled and evolved and amassed and allowed for evolution to occur.

If you reason to the experience of life, the only condition in which a human being, the higher conscious consideration in Nature is inquiring, experience has given the evidence to the inquiry.

2 conditions of evidence has allowed the human life to understand why it is conscious, how it can consider information as values without even existing when the values were formed as a human organic life or consciousness.....spirit manifestation.

The first condition is to be a spirit yourself, having arrived into a manifested organic life from a higher condition. The second status of awareness is to question who you are and how did you get here. The status of inquiry states....the lower spirits manifested before you and you came after them. The aware status was to view, interact with, be affected by deceased human and animal life....spirit re-visiting.

The second is to be aware of conversion, the scientific aware status that informs the human male and advised the human male that he was the Creator self of all of Creation.....a male. What title he gave himself in this review is inconsequential, for it was his own human self that made the inquiry. When he applied the ability to convert, the ancient atmospheric fed back advice states that he built a pyramid in the form of a mountain's "inside energy reaction" and also a Temple in the design of a transmitter, and then converted matter.

In the condition of converting he then unnaturally manifested the evil spirit, which demonstrated to his own self that his spiritual awareness was correct. That he had in fact created/conjured the evil spirit. So his own review that he was the Creator self as a concept is correct. His review that the light was once in the same place where his own higher spiritual self once existed. When he asks himself....how did he come into being or manifestation, it was to realize that he changed his own light origin.

Therefore he has had in person 2 identification circumstances to impose a review where he can ascertain in his own self organic spiritual nature, that he is a spiritually aware conscious presence.......consciousness itself in manifestation.....that he caused his own demise and manifested into a lower state because he altered his own higher state.....that he was aware of conversion for his own person/self/spirit had converted and that he can change/alter and destroy at will.....which he is currently re-instating as a self aware consideration that in fact all he ever achieves is his own self destruction.

 

[victimized]

Assume determinism and that consciousness is produced by the actions of the brain ... then:

Big Bang .... particles> energy> forces>atoms> molecules>cells> organisms>brains, consciousness(experiences)

The causal chain starts with BB... do these arrows reverse at any point? If the experience of pleasure, which is a "brain product", motivates the organism, that means it induces a physcial change ...

So:

pleasure>brain(cells, molecules, atoms, forces) ... what do this reversal mean for billiard ball concepts of determinism? (bank shot!)

OR

Big Bang .... particles> energy> forces>atoms> molecules>cells> organisms>brains(consciousness/experiences) BUT

brains>cells ... etc ... only the physical changes in the brain have causality, experiences are epiphenomenal... the problem with dismissing overdetermination is that the physical changes in the brain are necessary and sufficient for the change in behavior which accounts for learning, motivation etc so we don't have to speak about pleasure.

Stimulus > brain response, physical changes in the brain account for learning and pleasure is just the subjective of dopamine squirts ... no overdetermination because the tree is only one cause and ome effect ... pleasure is not an effect its the subjective aspect of the physical changes



Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Why are you speaking as singular concepts when you exist as a whole concept.....the problem of a human being trying to get destroyed. You exist as a whole self....not a brain cell.

How do you know about a big bang, when everything exists as a value/record/image/sound in the presence of its own concept? Where is the information that advised you that a "big bang" created everything?

Do big bangs exist in the current model of the Universal creation....yes they do!

When you make this review....do you and are you in a state where you yourself as an organic presence with all of created creation not existing?

Therefore if you are not then you are making incorrect conclusions and statuses...for you do exist in this form of presence.

I would then impose a consideration of your own consciousness.....are you yourself aware of your brain cells exploding?

 

[Randall]

No, its not an "assumption" that the mind is non-physical ...

In the context of my posts that is exactly the assumption and that assumption is shared by others, e.g.

"The mind–body problem is the problem of explaining how mental states, events and processes—like beliefs, actions and thinking—are related to the physical states, events and processes, given that the human body is a physical entity and the mind is non-physical." - Wikipedia.
​

From there, various versions can be found that hinge on the idea that mental phenomena aren't physical. You could still point out that there are other ways of looking at the mind-body problem that fall outside the context above, but that doesn't justify assuming I don't understand the concepts you're talking about. So it's a good idea to avoid such assumptions and instead provide a coherent explanation for why you think what I've said doesn't make sense within the context it has been framed. If we can't do that, then there's no point in further discussion. Just go on believing what you want to believe and assume that others who don't share your view just don't get what you're talking about.

 

[victimized]

In the context of my posts that is exactly the assumption and that assumption is shared by others, e.g.

"The mind–body problem is the problem of explaining how mental states, events and processes—like beliefs, actions and thinking—are related to the physical states, events and processes, given that the human body is a physical entity and the mind is non-physical." - Wikipedia.
​

From there, various versions can be found that hinge on the idea that mental phenomena aren't physical. You could still point out that there are other ways of looking at the mind-body problem that fall outside the context above, but that doesn't justify assuming I don't understand the concepts you're talking about. So it's a good idea to avoid such assumptions and instead provide a coherent explanation for why you think what I've said doesn't make sense within the context it has been framed. If we can't do that, then there's no point in further discussion. Just go on believing what you want to believe and assume that others who don't share your view just don't get what you're talking about.

If you were deceased...do you still have a mind?

The answer is no.

You have to be living, have a physical presence, an active brain function to have a mind condition.

Yet when a scientist who exists in this state then implies conditions that imposes consciousness exists without a life force is to then gain what he is imposing.....no life force or the attack of the life force.

We do not exist outside of our own self.

The organic presence is affected by feed back....and feed back exists outside of our own organic self. Yet if we were deceased there would be no feedback that would relate to the human organic presence/awareness or organic conscious expressions.....therefore once again there would be no other conscious consideration of being informed by an informant.

So if you have an ability to think about your own non existence, then do so without imposing your presence and you might get information correct for once.

If only animals existed as the lower organic form of conscious awareness, the natural photon recording of sound/voice/imagery would only feed back the same presence of the condition of the conscious expression of the animals.

The conclusion for the occult scientists who have been studying consciousness and wanting the concept of consciousness as a higher state to exist outside of their own persons so that ...ie their own personal mind/life and presence is safe.....that they could manipulate this consciousness for self benefit, self gain, new resourcing is a fallacy and always was.

When you review an occultist scientist presence and ask them why they imposed the condition of the atmospheric presence/Creator to be God and a male, is to question their own ego status.

 

[smcder]

Excellent.

Let's suppose that human consciousness does not originate at the level of neurons in the brain. Let's say it originates at a lower physiological scale.

Serious question: Why are we conscious of information in (physiological states of) the brain?

If consciousness arises at the, say, cellular level, beyond the combination problem, why would this consciousness center on information located in the brain?

We seem to have no conscious awareness/access to many/most of the physiological process going on within the body at any given moment. Indeed we are not aware of most of the physiological states of the brain, even those that we sometimes have access to.

So if consciousness doesn't supervene at the neural level—and it may not—why does it spend all its time hanging out there?

Are you asking why you feel like your consciousness is centered in your head?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk