Help - I think I am GOD and thus NOTHING

[SecondPull]

IamMe has formed a positive correlation with the correct.

 

[readthenewsohboy]

IamMe90, that was very eloquent

 

[moe.ron]

Alan Watts - To Know that You are God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL_qMeDv9rA

not really something to use heroin over, IMO, but I guess you can think yourself into anything

 

[The Smoking Man]

i don't think you understand the subtle difference between causality and correlation; the problem of causality is one that is largely discussed in philosophy so it's not a surprise that a lot of science students take "causality" for granted

i'm telling you that you absolutely cannot explain the translation from physical to phenomenological. i dare you to

all you've done is provided correlative processes - this neuron interacting with this causes this change in consciousness - it's all correlation. but tell me how our conscious experience, which is NOT phenomenologically the same as external sensory perception, occurs as a result of those interactions? you can't. you can break down the correlative processes ad infinitum into a chain of microprocesses, but they're still correlative in nature. all you're doing is describing consciousness in terms of physical processes - which does not the bridge the inherent disconnect between them.

I ask you how physical neurological interaction translates into conscious experience. you say that "its oscillatory properties of thalamic neurons and corticothalamic excitatory postsynaptic potentials"

I can still ask you how that interaction produces conscious phenomena. I'm not sure how else to break it down but there it is. "causality" breaking down into nothing more than correlation is a longstanding problem in philosophy that has been addressed in my ways. hume largely left it alone; kant tried to account for causality by claiming it as an priori faculty of the human mind. regardless of your solution, you can't get around the fact that you will never be able to descriptively/causally tell me how conscious phenomena are caused at the very fundamental level by physical processes

the problem with scientists is that sometimes they are blinded by the efficacy of their own research, in terms of pragmatic results. your correlative knowledge of neuro-cognitive processes as they relate to consciousness is extremely useful, but that doesn't mean that you can know everything there is to know about consciousness. believe it or not, philosophy can and does point out legitimate limitations on the scope of your research. that is why there is a huge branch of philosophy called "epistemology" that deals with the inherent and structural limitations of knowledge.

On the same token, though, you can't say that there is more going on - you (or we, rather) just can't know that.

 

[IamMe90]

uh, I'm not sure I understand your point.

Yes, I can say "something more is going on." There are clear correlations between physical interactions and states of consciousness. We know the connection to be causal, we just don't know how. I don't see how you can argue against that in a meaningful way - you can invoke skepticism but it doesn't mean much.

 

[Tunnelfission]

When I have trips and feel as the godhead they're never egotistical at all... I just feel as if I am life, therefore I am all life, I am myself and my friends and the trees and the rocks simultaneously. everything is god therefore this one is also god, or I can see through gods feelings.

god is everything, therefore I am god as everything is...therefore I AM god as well. In higher states of consciousness like this "I" call myself "this one"...as if I were god!

anyone...?

 

[DwayneHoover]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

There are many philosophical stances on consciousness, including behaviorism, dualism, idealism, functionalism, reflexive monism, phenomenalism, phenomenology and intentionality, physicalism, emergentism, mysticism, personal identity, and externalism.

Phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness) is simply experience;[20] it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center. These experiences, considered independently of any impact on behavior, are called qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia. The hard problem of consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness , formulated by David Chalmers in 1996, deals with the issue of "how to explain a state of phenomenal consciousness in terms of its neurological basis".[21]​

Why so? There is nothing more at play. Consciousness is a biological process in the brain; Biological processes can be explained in terms of chemicals and physical interactions of forces and charge.

total bullshit.

ok, so go ahead, explain please. why/how do electrons and chemicals come to posses an inner subjective "feeling", an inner sensation that it is "like" something to "be" them? why should this process occur? what exactly causes it? no scientist or philosopher has the slightest coherent explanation that does not end in a circular definition that explains exactly nothing about the core mystery.

this has been a prime mystery of philosophy and biology for milenia.

YOU are being a totally ignorant uneducated ass by not understanding where the state of this dilemma really is, and insisting you know some proven answer. You are behaving like quite a fool spewing bile at others as you have done because you disagree with their questions and think you know it all.

If electrochemical events in the brain "generate" consciousness, then what, exactly, is the input to this generator and what exactly is the "product" that is being "generated"? In what ontological basis/realm/space does it exist? Can you touch it, weigh it, measure it? If it is not a physical thing... THEN WHAT IS IT??? WHERE DOES IT EXIST?

You are equating "Brain" with "consciousness." If the physical structures/PROCESSES of the brain are the ultimate and final ground and basis of consciousness, then WHAT IS IT that is "having" the sensation of "what it feels like to be a brain"?

You cant answer "the brain is having the experience of what it feels like to be a brain". That is totally invalid self-canceling circular reasoning that simply sidesteps this fundamental question that has been being argued about for millennia.

WHY should certain constructions of neurons/nerve signals/etc possess an internal subjective sensation of what it "feels like" to be them?

There is no conclusive answer to this. Certain physicists/philosophers (David Chalmers for one) have come to conclude that all prior purely physicalist attempts to answer "The Hard Problem" of philosophy are just tautological proclamations and fail totally to answer to the actual questions being posed, and conclude that like Space and Time, CONSCIOUSNESS must be concluded to be some basic fundamental property OF REALITY ITSELF that our brains have been devised by evolution to CAPTURE and EXPLOIT (akin to how they capture and exploit sound and light in the furtherance of genetic survival/propagation) not totally create on their own out of nothing, which would be akin to a miracle.

Chalmers argues that purely physicalist explanatory processes merely address aspects of the "easy" problem. Eccles and others have pointed out the difficulty of explaining the evolution of qualia, or of 'minds', which experience them, given that all the processes governing evolution are physical and so have no direct access to them.

And so on. Its all not nearly as cut-and-dried as your excessively certain blurtations have proclaimed. Educate yourself...

See links from these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

The following is a VERY good summary of how "we" got here and the issues at bay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Phenomenal_and_access_consciousness

 

[rickolasnice]

^ If I were to alter your brain, physically or chemically.. I can alter you.. this pretty much = YOU = protons, neutrons and electrons all connected in a fantastically amazing way = consciousness. If you were anything else, how can you explain the fact that if i alter a part of your brain then i will ultimately alter a part of you? Alter the brain, you alter consciousness.. Take away the brain, you take away consciousness..

Consciousness, i believe, is a ghost in the machine.

 

[Mountain Magic]

Well no need to worry OP, we are god but only a part, like a toe is only part of you, so relax man, i don't see my toe freaking out trying to inject dmorph to pretend its not part of me... haha

 

[Mountain Magic]

At least IAMWE can be bothered argueing with educated ignorance, i gave up long ago, when people turn atheism into ther own religion, that's their fault, the smell of arrogance kills my urge to even start argueing, some people read one Dawkins book and seem to just spit the shit straight away, just cos i catch a trout doesnt mean its the only type of fish in the river.

 

[rickolasnice]

^ Eh?

 

[Solipsis]

Wouldn't this fit better in the Philosophy & Spirituality department?

 

[7ca5p]

i'm telling you that you absolutely cannot explain the translation from physical to phenomenological. i dare you to

Memory is phenomenological. Damaging the hippocampus removes the ability to encode long term memories. The medial septum in the hippocampus, the central node of the theta system, is damaged, then this effect is observed 100% of the time. Which brings it all back to electrical energy; the hippocampus generates some of the largest EEG signals of any brain structure. In some situations the EEG is dominated by regular waves at 3–10 Hz.

---------------------------------------------------

You are equating "Brain" with "consciousness." If the physical structures/PROCESSES of the brain are the ultimate and final ground and basis of consciousness, then WHAT IS IT that is "having" the sensation of "what it feels like to be a brain"?

WHY should certain constructions of neurons/nerve signals/etc possess an internal subjective sensation of what it "feels like" to be them?

Firstly, suprise suprise.... you've monumentally misunderstood my point, which renders the majority of your post irrelevant. Which is a shame, considering the effort it looks like you put in to it.

I never once equated

"Brain" with "consciousness."

I am saying that consciousness is a product of interaction of chemicals and physical forces. To echo rickolasnice, everything is just protons, neutrons and electrons. Each of these particles obeys the laws of physics. These include electrical charge, spin of elementary particles, Lorentz transformations, and asymptotic freedom.

This is not a theory, this is not radical - this is tested, proven information.

If electrochemical events in the brain "generate" consciousness, then what, exactly, is the input to this generator and what exactly is the "product" that is being "generated"? In what ontological basis/realm/space does it exist? Can you touch it, weigh it, measure it? If it is not a physical thing... THEN WHAT IS IT??? WHERE DOES IT EXIST?

With this in mind, your question looks rather silly.

1. What is it? Interactions of particles and physical forces.

2. Where is it? Brain.

3. What is the product being generated? Consciousness.

I cannot answer WHY the organisation of these particles creates consciousness, but it does. much in the same way that I can answer WHY the organisation of these particles create the chair you are sitting on, but they do. Which is why life is so amazing. Sub atomic particles are the building blocks of everything. Did you read that? EVERYTHING The brain included. The brain is not exempt from the laws of physics. So conciousness, although not physical itself, is governed by physical relationships between molecules.

Educate yourself, perhaps a reading lesson would benifit you.

 

[DwayneHoover]

Ah my friend you are the one missing the point. A chair is a physical object subject to newtons laws of motion etc. A consciousness is NOT. To just claim "protons and electrons and energy generate consciousness" is an utterly facile and useless remark, as if there is nothing remarkable about this statement, as if there is nothing further to be understood. The fact is the translation from physical entities to conscious awareness is a COMPLETE MYSTERY. It is the CORE of what is being discussed, and you, as typical of other physicalists, are just trying to brush it under the carpet and pretend the "problem" of this explanatory gap does not exist... it does exist and it is a BIG DEAL!

What you apparently glossed over in my post is the theory of Chalmers, and also that of "Panpsychics" (nothing to do with anything paranormal, btw), and the "Mysterian" school of thought (again, an actual strain of philosophical inquiry, look it up), is that there exists a basic and fundamental "field" or "elemental" consciousness a-priori about the universe, whose nature is not the "result" of anything our brains do, but that is harnessed in some way by them. This is totally at odds with your "its all just atoms" arguments that dismiss any and all mystical understandings with one giant broom.

Have you ever taken a large dose of a psychedelic? Have you ever experienced "ego-loss"?

 

[7ca5p]

Ah my friend you are the one missing the point. A chair is a physical object subject to newtons laws of motion etc. A consciousness is NOT. To just claim "protons and electrons and energy generate consciousness" is an utterly facile and useless remark, as if there is nothing remarkable about this statement, as if there is nothing further to be understood. The fact is the translation from physical entities to conscious awareness is a COMPLETE MYSTERY. It is the CORE of what is being discussed, and you, as typical of other physicalists, are just trying to brush it under the carpet and pretend the "problem" of this explanatory gap does not exist... it does exist and it is a BIG DEAL!

What you apparently glossed over in my post is the theory of Chalmers, and also that of "Panpsychics" (nothing to do with anything paranormal, btw), and the "Mysterian" school of thought (again, an actual strain of philosophical inquiry, look it up), is that there exists a basic and fundamental "field" or "elemental" consciousness a-priori about the universe, whose nature is not the "result" of anything our brains do, but that is harnessed in some way by them. This is totally at odds with your "its all just atoms" arguments that dismiss any and all mystical understandings with one giant broom.

Have you ever taken a large dose of a psychedelic? Have you ever experienced "ego-loss"?

I never said conciousness WAS physical. I said:

consciousness is a product of interaction of chemicals and physical forces.

which is 100% true.

If you take all the mechanisms in the brain and replicated the chemical and electrical relationships between them in a laboratory. You would have created a conciousness artificially. Conciousness is a product of all the neuronal communication.

Its just a fact that atoms, organised in the way they are in the brain make conciousness.

I have taken large dose psychadelics, but am unsure if I have ever reached ego loss, or according to a thread in here a while back, whether ego loss even exists. I believe it probably does. Why? will that suddenly make me skeptical of the reason why 10+10 = 20?

 

[telepathetic]

Well no need to worry OP, we are god but only a part, like a toe is only part of you, so relax man, i don't see my toe freaking out trying to inject dmorph to pretend its not part of me... haha

i love you

 

[telepathetic]

I never said conciousness WAS physical. I said:

which is 100% true.

If you take all the mechanisms in the brain and replicated the chemical and electrical relationships between them in a laboratory. You would have created a conciousness artificially. Conciousness is a product of all the neuronal communication.

Its just a fact that atoms, organised in the way they are in the brain make conciousness.

I have taken large dose psychadelics, but am unsure if I have ever reached ego loss, or according to a thread in here a while back, whether ego loss even exists. I believe it probably does. Why? will that suddenly make me skeptical of the reason why 10+10 = 20?

yes, it will. try a dmt breakthru where they'll prove to you why 2 = 5 etc
And no, you would not have created a conciousness artifically, you're talking out your ass

 

[specialspack]

I never said conciousness WAS physical. I said:

which is 100% true.

If you take all the mechanisms in the brain and replicated the chemical and electrical relationships between them in a laboratory. You would have created a conciousness artificially. Conciousness is a product of all the neuronal communication.

Its just a fact that atoms, organised in the way they are in the brain make conciousness.

I have taken large dose psychadelics, but am unsure if I have ever reached ego loss, or according to a thread in here a while back, whether ego loss even exists. I believe it probably does. Why? will that suddenly make me skeptical of the reason why 10+10 = 20?

Well, no. It's an open empirical question whether replicating the systems in the brain in the lab would produce consciousness.

See Davidson's swampman argument, and the surrounding commentary for philosophical debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_man

The problem with your consciousness/chair analogy is that you fail to take into account other fundamental aspects of human consciousness - including embodiment and emotion, for starters.

The better, famous analogy is that of walking. "Walking" is an emergent behaviour, but no one would say that walking is located in the legs. Walking is the dynamical relationship between body, legs, ground, gravity...

In the same way, consciousness is the dynamical relationship between mind, body, world and others.

So conciousness, although not physical itself, is governed by physical relationships between molecules

You seem confused - is consciousness physical or not?

 

[IamMe90]

Memory is phenomenological. Damaging the hippocampus removes the ability to encode long term memories. The medial septum in the hippocampus, the central node of the theta system, is damaged, then this effect is observed 100% of the time. Which brings it all back to electrical energy; the hippocampus generates some of the largest EEG signals of any brain structure. In some situations the EEG is dominated by regular waves at 3–10 Hz.

---------------------------------------------------

ugh dude you're just missing the point. you can have a 100% correlation between states of consciousness and physical processes in all cases and that will still never allow you to explain how it actually happens. At this point, you're just being stubborn.

I never said conciousness WAS physical. I said:

which is 100% true.

If you take all the mechanisms in the brain and replicated the chemical and electrical relationships between them in a laboratory. You would have created a conciousness artificially. Conciousness is a product of all the neuronal communication.

Its just a fact that atoms, organised in the way they are in the brain make conciousness.

And I'm saying even if you're right about that you still can't tell me HOW consciousness is made, only the relevant processes that somehow establish it. But what you can't tell me how the processes establish creating consciousness, only what they are and how they interact. Which doesn't get at the basic question you've been ignoring.

 

[7ca5p]

You seem confused - is consciousness physical or not?

I answer that question in the quote of mine you added into your post.....

---------------------------------------------

And no, you would not have created a conciousness artifically, you're talking out your ass

Your reading through yours.

What I wrote was that if you replicate the system that creates conciousness, then you will create counciousness. What bit can't you accept about that?

Scientists will very soon be able to create artificial intelligence with its own conciousness.

You cannot dismiss a valid point without contributing contrary evidence, which you have failed to do. IamMe seems to be good at it, and I am enjoying reading his/her posts, however much they are not enjoying reading mine. Yours however was a blight on the discussion in my opinion.

Read my posts properly or don't bother replying.