• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |

Help - I think I am GOD and thus NOTHING

Entheogenic..

The fact that observation of altering the brain alters the consciousness to me is pretty strong evidence that brain = consciousness. Prove to me that atoms exist. We can't see them. We can only do tests that suggest they are there. Same with consiousness. We don't fully understand how it can arise from matter and energy but the evidence suggests it does.. There is NO evidence to suggest that consciousness is anything other than matter and energy but ALOT of evidence to suggest it is.
 
Last edited:
^ I tend to agree...

We have trouble even finding a definition for the concept of "immaterial" consciousness, yet some of us still insist on it! It's rather silly.
 
Let us hypothesize-

a) Person-A commits a crime. Person-A then switches bodies with Person-B.
Should Person-A still get charged with the crime, no longer possessing the body
that commited the crime?

b) Person-A commits a crime. Person-A then switches minds with Person-B.
Should Person-A still get charged with the crime, no longer possessing the mind
that commited the crime?

Which would hold up in court:

-Charging the owner of the body?
or
-Charging the owner of the mind?

Let us hypothesize-

A person commits a crime. He then develops permanent amnesia. He has no recollection at all who he is, nor what they have done, or why they have done it. And they never will.

-Should he still be charged with the crime? Even though he possess brain and
mind, the memories of having done wrong are no longer present.

These are all questions to consider when determining consciousness, and whether consciousness is material or immaterial.
For is energy not matter? Is thought energy? therefore, is thought not matter as well?
A well known source of energy is heat. We've all seen fire, but what about heat? On a hot day you can see it rising from off the asphalt. Can you grab it? Knead and squish it between your fingers? But its there nonetheless.
Some materials are unseeable, while other materials are seeable, but untouchable.
Can a person truly give a definite meaning to what material and immaterial are? Or would material and immaterial hold as mutable in existence?
Fuck I could go on forever, which is why I'm taking my material ass off this immaterial post lol think people the truth is inside.
damn im outta weed. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
 
TheAppleCore said:
^ I tend to agree...

We have trouble even finding a definition for the concept of "immaterial" consciousness, yet some of us still insist on it! It's rather silly.
Click to expand...

Intangibility- Oops! The Grand Architect of the universe might have left some keys to the back door that are transient but exclusively on the "outside".

Surely there is a mathematical value and literal place for absolutely everything, but it really does appear that some keep on falling just out of sight. (That last scientist? His hindsight was 20/20! I have proven to the other humans a slightly smoother and larger defunct bag of cause and connections around myself!)

^ post up, That argument is kind of limited by the reality of perspective, I must say. If we could trade lenses, we would all just sit here and say "Holy shit!!" =D

joeyjoejoeshabadoo said:
A person commits a crime. He then develops permanent amnesia. He has no recollection at all who he is, nor what they have done, or why they have done it. And they never will.

-Should he still be charged with the crime? Even though he possess brain and
mind, the memories of having done wrong are no longer present.
Click to expand...

picture-22.png


Not only should it be legal, it is currently cool as hell in TX.
 
Last edited:
nopipesdfw said:
Intangibility- Oops! The Grand Architect of the universe might have left some keys to the back door that are transient but exclusively on the "outside".

Surely there is a mathematical value and literal place for absolutely everything, but it really does appear that some keep on falling just out of sight. (That last scientist? His hindsight was 20/20! I have proven to the other humans a slightly smoother and larger defunct bag of cause and connections around myself!)

^ post up, That argument is kind of limited by the reality of perspective, I must say. If we could trade lenses, we would all just sit here and say "Holy shit!!" =D



picture-22.png


Not only should it be legal, it is currently cool as hell in TX.
Click to expand...

sorry bro i didnt get that one. umm i live in LA...
 
Gettin' schwasted bro!

The whole mind and body trading argument you presented is one of those things that I think is a little bit too entangled to solidify points on well for me, though.
 
joeyjoejoeshabadoo said:
These are all questions to consider when determining consciousness, and whether consciousness is material or immaterial.
For is energy not matter? Is thought energy? therefore, is thought not matter as well?
A well known source of energy is heat. We've all seen fire, but what about heat? On a hot day you can see it rising from off the asphalt. Can you grab it? Knead and squish it between your fingers? But its there nonetheless.
Some materials are unseeable, while other materials are seeable, but untouchable.
Can a person truly give a definite meaning to what material and immaterial are? Or would material and immaterial hold as mutable in existence?
Fuck I could go on forever, which is why I'm taking my material ass off this immaterial post lol think people the truth is inside.
damn im outta weed. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Click to expand...

Matter is usually made up of electrons, protons and neutrons on bound together to make an atom.. energy is not..

Fire is a chemical reaction which results in heat and light.. heat is not fire.. just a product of it.. But I don't really get your point..
 
rickolasnice said:
Matter is usually made up of electrons, protons and neutrons on bound together to make an atom.. energy is not..

Fire is a chemical reaction which results in heat and light.. heat is not fire.. just a product of it.. But I don't really get your point..
Click to expand...

heat is not fire. i guess you didnt get my point. chew on it a bit. good luck :D

electrons and protons have charges.
energy is neither created nor destroyed. it exists as resting/potential and can be transfered
 
Entheogenic said:
This can be illustrated by looking at the relationship between the TV set and the TV program. The situation here is much clearer, since it involves a system that is human-made and incomparably simpler. The final reception of the TV program, the quality of the picture and of the sound, depends in a very critical way on proper functioning of the TV set and on the integrity of its components. Malfunctions of its various parts result in very distinct and specific changes of the quality of the program. Some of them lead to distortions of form, color, or sound, others to interference between the channels. Like the neurologist who uses changes in consciousness as a diagnostic tool, a television mechanic can infer from the nature of these anomalies which parts of the set and which specific components are malfunctioning. When the problem is identified, repairing or replacing these elements will correct the distortions.

Since we know the basic principles of the television technology, it is clear to us that the set simply mediates the program and that it does not generate it or contribute anything to it. We would laugh at somebody who would try to examine and scrutinize all the transistors, relays, and circuits of the TV set and analyze all its wires in an attempt to figure out how it creates the programs. Even if we carry this misguided effort to the molecular, atomic, or subatomic level, we will have absolutely no clue why, at a particular time, a Mickey Mouse cartoon, a Star Trek sequence, or a Hollywood classic appear on the screen. The fact that there is such a close correlation between the functioning of the TV set and the quality of the program does not necessarily mean that the entire secret of the program is in the set itself. Yet this is exactly the kind of conclusion that traditional materialistic science drew from comparable data about the brain and its relation to consciousness.
Click to expand...

Television is the brain and cable is consciousness? As in consciousness is being sourced outside of the brain?

Though I still dont't like it, A tv with a vcr would be a better analogy I think.
 
rickolasnice said:
Entheogenic..
We don't fully understand how it can arise from matter and energy but the evidence suggests it does.. There is NO evidence to suggest that consciousness is anything other than matter and energy but ALOT of evidence to suggest it is.
Click to expand...

Those words really do not help the philosophical conundrum. The phrase "Consciousness is matter and energy" says zero and explains nothing, sorry. Its exactly equivalent to saying "Everything is something." null and void.

Conscious IS matter & energy? I would agree, ala Chalmers, that Consciousness can only be understood as some basic property of either matter or the space-time continuum like time, mass and energy, so in that sense I agree.

Any other explanation just inevitibly ends up in a circular definition like "Its the brain experiencing itself" that has ZERO actual meaning if you actually analyse the semantics.

Consciousnes "arises"??? So where does this mysterious product of "arising" self-awareness, subjective experienced QUALIA arise AT? WHERE DOES IT EXIST? WHY EXACTLY SHOULD A BUNCH OF NERVE CELLS OR ELECTRICAL PROCESSES HAVE A "FEELING" OF WHAT IT IS "LIKE" TO "BE" IT? DOES A ROCK, A TREE? What EXACTLY *IS* IT? There was not an explananation in Plato's time and there is still exactly ZERO actual explanation today that is not just arm waving.

Despite so many people wanting to feel more psychologically secure by WISHING the problem away, the fact is is IT IS IN FACT A HUGE SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL MYSTERY... such pat reassurances are silly.

READ THIS PLEASE:

Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness
http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

1 Introduction

Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.

To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain. I critique some recent work that uses reductive methods to address consciousness, and argue that such methods inevitably fail to come to grips with the hardest part of the problem. Once this failure is recognized, the door to further progress is opened. In the second half of the paper, I argue that if we move to a new kind of nonreductive explanation, a naturalistic account of consciousness can be given. I put forward my own candidate for such an account: a nonreductive theory based on principles of structural coherence and organizational invariance and a double-aspect view of information.

BY: David J. Chalmers
Department of Philosophy
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

See also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
fragments.consc.net
consc.net

As well as Physicist Roger Penrose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_consciousness
 
Last edited:
before time, there was only heaven.
heaven is pure all knowing love
Its everything and nothing at the same time.
If something is everything and nothing at the same time then it does not exist because it isnt worth of a councious thought

Time began when something of not love entered into heaven.
Now what you always thought it now half wrong.
You want to go back to that state of infinite love
But you cant just forget the fact that something exists that isnt love
You have a limit. As time goes to infinity, youll never reach pure love
So you created the universe in an attempt to get as close as possible as you can.

The univere is just one big contridiction.
the only way to get back to that state is to become uncouncious or in other words die.
 
DwayneHoover said:
Those words really do not help the philosophical conundrum. The phrase "Consciousness is matter and energy" says zero and explains nothing, sorry. Its exactly equivalent to saying "Everything is something." null and void.

Conscious IS matter & energy? I would agree, ala Chalmers, that Consciousness can only be understood as some basic property of either matter or the space-time continuum like time, mass and energy, so in that sense I agree.

Any other explanation just inevitibly ends up in a circular definition like "Its the brain experiencing itself" that has ZERO actual meaning if you actually analyse the semantics.

Consciousnes "arises"??? So where does this mysterious product of "arising" self-awareness, subjective experienced QUALIA arise AT? WHERE DOES IT EXIST? WHY EXACTLY SHOULD A BUNCH OF NERVE CELLS OR ELECTRICAL PROCESSES HAVE A "FEELING" OF WHAT IT IS "LIKE" TO "BE" IT? DOES A ROCK, A TREE? What EXACTLY *IS* IT? There was not an explananation in Plato's time and there is still exactly ZERO actual explanation today that is not just arm waving.

Despite so many people wanting to feel more psychologically secure by WISHING the problem away, the fact is is IT IS IN FACT A HUGE SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL MYSTERY... such pat reassurances are silly.

READ THIS PLEASE:

Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness
http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

1 Introduction

Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.

To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain. I critique some recent work that uses reductive methods to address consciousness, and argue that such methods inevitably fail to come to grips with the hardest part of the problem. Once this failure is recognized, the door to further progress is opened. In the second half of the paper, I argue that if we move to a new kind of nonreductive explanation, a naturalistic account of consciousness can be given. I put forward my own candidate for such an account: a nonreductive theory based on principles of structural coherence and organizational invariance and a double-aspect view of information.

BY: David J. Chalmers
Department of Philosophy
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

See also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
fragments.consc.net
consc.net

As well as Physicist Roger Penrose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_consciousness
Click to expand...

All you are basically saying is that science doesn't fully understand how matter and energy can become consciousness.. That doesn't mean that matter and energy isn't all there is behind consciousness. More research needs to be done, fair enough. It doesn't mean consciousness is some other dimensional soul type phenomena or anythin else, other than, cells, energy and chemicals.
 
7ca5p said:
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.
Click to expand...

then why are you alive and a corpse isn't? :)

that's a pretty hard question to answer. in my opinion the answer is that we all have a bit of the divine spark keeping us moving.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
All you are basically saying is that science doesn't fully understand how matter and energy can become consciousness.. That doesn't mean that matter and energy isn't all there is behind consciousness. More research needs to be done, fair enough. It doesn't mean consciousness is some other dimensional soul type phenomena or anythin else, other than, cells, energy and chemicals.
Click to expand...


Scientific research is a process which allows us to maintain a model of the world. This is fundamental to science - it is all about the model. Subjectivity is the real thing. Subjective awareness CANNOT be modelled because a model by definition is a representation of a thing and not the thing itself! Consciousness and subjectivity are inseparable.

By its very nature subjective consciousness is outside the bounds of scientific investigation!

A Church of Science has appeared in our midst, like God it can explain everything away. GET OFF YOUR KNEES!

For the hard of thinking:

Science aims to model the world and does so very happily.

A model is a representation.

Subjective experience is by definition the experience of being the original thing and not some representation of it.

So subjective experience - consciousness - is not representable, not amenable to modelling and therefore not available to scientific inquiry.


Furthermore
The job is done; I have shown that science cannot help us understand subjective consciousness, and in fact if we consider the brain as an organ which itself models the world to achieve understanding of it, then we must give up all hope: our subjective experience will never be understood by any human means as all understanding is merely modelling.
 
Last edited:
^ Still doesn't mean that cells, energy and chemicals are not the only things that make consciousness within humans..

Basically.. there is NO evidence to suggest that consciousness is anything other than the building blocks of a brain, apart from people thinking there must be something more..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top