Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7

[victimized]

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

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

You should also ask yourself does information exist without a human being existing?

Yes.

Does the photon interact with all other conditions for recording image....stages of interactions...sounds of interactions......a continuance of interactions?

Yes.

Is this information consciousness or a recording?

It is a recording.

Why did the human being who imposed the conditions for making values, the giving of description to the values state that they personally are a spirit?

Because the description is real, and consciousness as an organic presence is personally owned by each body presence, just as we witness. Each species in its form expresses its own conscious value and life/body interaction.

If you ask yourself a question and give yourself an answer and the answer was proven....being what scientific review considers, then why is "spirit" considered an incorrect review of personally owned consciousness?

If you review the ownership consideration of the male as his own thought about God/Creator self concept, his historical self review states that he once owned a much larger self body. When you review archaeological evidence, this historical self review is correct.

When this self consideration also reviews how it originally changed the light that activated creation, the "head" is the applier/consideration to apply change as a spiritual status.

Therefore the historical self review of conscious awareness of the male self states I originally changed light by head application.

When you review the O sound balls that formed suns/planets many of them have "head" images in them.

 

[Randall]

Here's a smart young man who's realized the same thing ...

The Illusion Of Free Will

 

[Soupie]

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

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

No.

 

[Soupie]

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.

I've already done that. You insist that consciousness is physical even though you can't explain how or why that could be. It is you that are making the assumption.

 

[smcder]

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.

Sounds good ... We can move on then. Thanks for your input.

 

[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?

No.

Clarify.

 

[smcder]

That is all I am saying, yes. If consciousness is physical, then it should be possible to cause the phenomenon via physical systems that duplicate what the necessary and sufficient physical systems of the brain do.

What substrate dependence says is it's not enough that you duplicate the functions, that consciousness may be a physical property only of certain materials, say of carbon, arranged in certain ways. Recast the functions of the mind in sillicone and you may not get consciousness. Chalmers argues against this.

Sentient Developments: David Chalmers: Consciousness is not substrate dependent

 

[smcder]

Sentient Developments: David Chalmers » Consciousness is not substrate dependent - Art Monastery Project

 

[smcder]

Clarify.

Would an answer be:

That's like asking why gravity is centered in the bones?

 

[Soupie]

Clarify.

Let's imagine that consciousness originates at a level below cells or at the level of cells. The important thing is that we are imagining it originating at a level below the level of neurons.

What neuroscientists have been increasingly discovering is that the contents of consciousness correlate with neurological processes. That is, affectual, perceptual, and conceptual contents of consciousness seem to be correlated with neurological processes.

In contrast, the contents of consciousness do not seem to correlate with other non-neural processes of the body.

Why is that?

Note: I'm not talking about the perceptual experience of the self being located being the eyes. I understand this is a perceptual and cultural phenomenon.

 

[smcder]

 

[smcder]

Let's imagine that consciousness originates at a level below cells or at the level of cells. The important thing is that we are imagining it originating at a level below the level of neurons.

What neuroscientists have been increasingly discovering is that the contents of consciousness correlate with neurological processes. That is, affectual, perceptual, and conceptual contents of consciousness seem to be correlated with neurological processes.

In contrast, the contents of consciousness do not seem to correlate with other non-neural processes of the body.

Why is that?

Note: I'm not talking about the perceptual experience of the self being located being the eyes. I understand this is a perceptual and cultural phenomenon.

Either cs is produced by the action of neurons or neurons are cells that form in response to some effect of cs ... bones:gravity

 

[smcder]

Either cs is produced by the action of neurons or neurons are cells that form in response to some effect of cs ... bones:gravity

Every cell is affected by gravity ... So a better comparison might be light or electricity etc. Specialized cells affected by these stimuli

 

[Soupie]

Every cell is affected by gravity ... So a better comparison might be light or electricity etc. Specialized cells affected by these stimuli

At the risk of confusing everyone, we could use the radio analogy.

Only certain circuits in the radio are "affected" by the radio signal from the tower. But the signal does not originate in those radio circuits; the signal originates in the tower.

In this analogy, the tower could be some other physiological process of the physical body, or a la interface theory or critical realism, a process of the "objective" body we can't perceive.

 

[smcder]

At the risk of confusing everyone, we could use the radio analogy.

Only certain circuits in the radio are "affected" by the radio signal from the tower. But the signal does not originate in those radio circuits; the signal originates in the tower.

In this analogy, the tower could be some other physiological process of the physical body, or a la interface theory or critical realism, a process of the "objective" body we can't perceive.

I started to bring up the radio analogy ... It's functionally isomorphic to mine, so I grokee that part of it.

What concerns me re Hoffmans work but which doesn't rule out the general idea are criticisms of his simulations and his mathematics both of which depend on his assumptions.

 

[Soupie]

I started to bring up the radio analogy ... It's functionally isomorphic to mine, so I grokee that part of it.

What concerns me re Hoffmans work but which doesn't rule out the general idea are criticisms of his simulations and his mathematics both of which depend on his assumptions.

Yes. However, the crucial takeaway for me still holds in the less radical—and more accepted—notion of critical realism.

Ie perception is the process of the brain (or its equivalent in objective r) creating the most adaptive approximation of what's out there. This adaptive approximation will not capture all features of what's-out-there.

And we know that what's-out-there is unlike our experience/perception of what's-out-there. Colors, sounds, smells, tastes, feels, etc. are properties of the perceptual system, not properties of what's-out-there.

 

[Soupie]

 

[smcder]

Yes. However, the crucial takeaway for me still holds in the less radical—and more accepted—notion of critical realism.

Ie perception is the process of the brain (or its equivalent in objective r) creating the most adaptive approximation of what's out there. This adaptive approximation will not capture all features of what's-out-there.

And we know that what's-out-there is unlike our experience/perception of what's-out-there. Colors, sounds, smells, tastes, feels, etc. are properties of the perceptual system, not properties of what's-out-there.

On the one hand it seems pretty obvious so what's argued against this isn't that we perceive reality as it is ... But on the other hand, there's a lot assumed in stating that we perceive whatever is most adaptive b/c that would be reality. Optical illusions etc don't contradict this nor that flowers aren't blue or whatever "in reality".

 

[smcder]

Blue is how we see light of wavelength x but remember we humans also know that wavelength. So critical realism seems to be a bit obscurantist...we can't REALLY really know reality but what does that mean? What sort of creature REALLY really could?

 

[smcder]

So you can never prove it and that's concerning. In Hoffman's case, it ties in with concerns about his models/assumptions.

When I really go for an idea I try to see what it's doing for me personally. After all what are the odds that you're likes will coincide with the way things are?