Some thoughts on human conscious

[Code zombie]

As most people believe in it is inevitablely true that the "Human mind is like software running on a computer hard drive". Ok then in that case:

take a computer, which is a whole bunch of particles and make them act in such a way that they create an amazing ghoul which evaluates everything with sadness chemicals, madness chemicals, or chemicals for every different situation that make it act one way or the other. now one chemical leads to the another and another and someday the ghoul dies. What we have made? A creepy poppet. Now unfortunately it seems no one has realized yet the difference between "acting" and "being" instead they tend think there is a way one can make "acting" into "being". This is common sense not philosophy, what do you really have when we have a bag of organic matter that acts as if it is existing but really does not and is not anything more then a bag of organic matter? well that question answers itself doesn't it. So what is organic matter now? well its just matter, it does not "care", it is does not "feel" and most importantly it is always itself no matter how we put it together to make it act. before our conscious illusion was created nothing was defined as anything(matter does not decide to define itself, it only acts), so there was nothing. Now wait if matter was "nothing to begin with" is it possibly that it can be put together in such a way to act like it is alive and can construct being from acting? Most neuroscientists would say that conscious is an illusion created by the mind? but an illusion must act on something to exist and also were is the illusion stored? You should at least be consistent with your logic, when there is nothing, there is nothing you cannot fool nothing by creating more of nothing in such a way that you can turn nothing into something. what can you fool if there is nothing to fool. Science is perfectly practical and I’m not one of those crazy people who say throw away science, but you must understand science has never ventured into the field of conscious because it has not been differentiated from biology. And if anyone has something that contradicts what I just said please say it I definately would like to know were and why I'am thinking wrong.. But no pointless things please. Also I’m sure you guys already know this but there are still three classified reports held by the CIA on that crazy psychic phenomenon stuff, sounds like the government has a bad case of wishful thinking, don’t you think?

[PixyMisa]

As most people believe in it is inevitablely true that the "Human mind is like software running on a computer hard drive". Ok then in that case:

take a computer, which is a whole bunch of particles and make them act in such a way that they create an amazing ghoul which evaluates everything with sadness chemicals, madness chemicals, or chemicals for every different situation that make it act one way or the other. now one chemical leads to the another and another and someday the ghoul dies. What we have made? A creepy poppet. Now unfortunately it seems no one has realized yet the difference between "acting" and "being" instead they tend think there is a way one can make "acting" into "being".
Being is acting.

That's why it's a verb.

This is common sense not philosophy, what do you really have when we have a bag of organic matter that acts as if it is existing but really does not and is not anything more then a bag of organic matter?A human being?

well that question answers itself doesn't it.Yup.

So what is organic matter now?Technically, compounds containing carbon.

well its just matter, it does not "care", it is does not "feel" and most importantly it is always itself no matter how we put it together to make it act.It's the processes carried out on this material substrate that care, and feel, and so on.

before our conscious illusion was created nothing was defined as anything(matter does not decide to define itself, it only acts), so there was nothing.Non-sequitur.

Now wait if matter was "nothing to begin with"It wasn't.

is it possibly that it can be put together in such a way to act like it is alive and can construct being from acting?Insofar as the question makes sense at all, the answer is yes.

Most neuroscientists would say that conscious is an illusion created by the mind?Most? I don't know. But some, yes.

but an illusion must act on something to exist and also were is the illusion stored?In the brain.

You should at least be consistent with your logic, when there is nothing, there is nothing you cannot fool nothing by creating more of nothing in such a way that you can turn nothing into something.No, that's your assertion; we never said anything of the sort.

what can you fool if there is nothing to fool.Oh, I'm sure if you wait a minute, there'll be someone along...

Science is perfectly practical and I’m not one of those crazy people who say throw away science, but you must understand science has never ventured into the field of conscious because it has not been differentiated from biology.Why should we understand that? It's patently false.

And if anyone has something that contradicts what I just said please say it I definately would like to know were and why I'am thinking wrong.Most of what you just said is wrong.

Start here (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-00Fall-2004/LectureNotes/index.htm). It's the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series, presented by Professor Jeremy Wolfe. It's engaging and informative and will open up whole new vistas into the human mind.

But no pointless things please.Nothing I write is pointless.

Also I’m sure you guys already know this but there are still three classified reports held by the CIA on that crazy psychic phenomenon stuff, sounds like the government has a bad case of wishful thinking, don’t you think?Uh, yeah.

[godless dave]

I think you mean "consciousness". Also, consider using paragraph breaks for easier reading.

[Dancing David]

Um try to define what you mean by consciousness, then we can discuss. Is a car 'fast' when it is not moving?

[Wudang]

And the old classic "if my consciousness exists where does it go when I'm sleeping?" for another confusion of types.

[Code zombie]

this is basicly the answer: YOU NEVER WERE ALIVE AND NEVER WILL BE. Fair enough.. Btw I like the answers on this forum, they are so vague and entertaining. "I Think therefore I'am" no wait thats wrong. Its more correct to say "I Think, because I'am responding to enviromental stimuli". Now it suddenly hit me its unfair to prosecute criminals for their crimes, they are only responding to enviromental stimuli.

[Code zombie]

And the old classic "if my consciousness exists where does it go when I'm sleeping?" for another confusion of types.

Your dreams, if you don't have dreams, tough, your a zombie.

[Twiler]

Okay, how can you perform a scientific test to distinguish between 'acting' and 'being'?

[paximperium]

Its more correct to say "I Think, because I'am responding to enviromental stimuli". Now it suddenly hit me its unfair to prosecute criminals for their crimes, they are only responding to enviromental stimuli.
A criminal who performs a crime is still libel for their crimes. They responded to a stimuli a specific way that is detrimental to society therefore society(via their own response to environmental stimuli ie the crime itself) responds by persecuting them. Try again.

[Wudang]

Your dreams, if you don't have dreams, tough, your a zombie.

A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing. Are you saying we dream all night long? Hint: follow PixyMisa's advice.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now it suddenly hit me its unfair to prosecute criminals for their crimes, they are only responding to enviromental stimuli.
And punishing them hopefully changes their future behavior. This is why we punish children. Also, we incarcerate criminals to protect other citizens.

You don't even have to consider the question of ultimate responsibility.

~~ Paul

[SisterSmile]

As most people believe in it is inevitablely true that the "Human mind is like software running on a computer hard drive". Ok then in that case:


1. I don't think most people believe this. They'd rather believe they are something more than an ordinary computer application.
2. Even if most people believe in it, that doesn't make it inevitably true. Most children believe in the tooth fairy, but that doesn't make her a real person.

You want a serious debate on the oversimplified premise that the "Human mind is like software running on a computer hard drive" ?
I'm sorry but I can't argue sensibly on such a premise. Your rant on "matter being nothing, but still matter acts" brings nothing to this discussion. You throw concepts like mind, brain, consciousness all on one heap, package all in the idea of "illusion" and expect us to say anything more than pointless ?


BTW : Software doesn't run on a hard drive, it's stored on a hard drive.

[Wudang]

An old bug bear of mine is why so many people who gibber on about the mind never bother taking even the slightest note of what science has actually shown in the fields of psychology, neurology, biochemistry etc.

[rocketdodger]

Okay, how can you perform a scientific test to distinguish between 'acting' and 'being'?

Simple. If it is you doing the acting, then it is being. Otherwise it is just acting.

[rocketdodger]

An old bug bear of mine is why so many people who gibber on about the mind never bother taking even the slightest note of what science has actually shown in the fields of psychology, neurology, biochemistry etc.

Or artificial intelligence, or even mathematics for gods sake.

[Wudang]

Today I am being an actor.

[rocketdodger]

Now unfortunately it seems no one has realized yet the difference between "acting" and "being" instead they tend think there is a way one can make "acting" into "being".

"being" is merely the subjective form of "acting."

Any other questions?

[Hokulele]

take a computer, which is a whole bunch of particles and make them act in such a way that they create an amazing ghoul which evaluates everything with sadness chemicals, madness chemicals, or chemicals for every different situation that make it act one way or the other.


Methinks you understand computer science as much as you understand philosophy.

[Wudang]

Ready rd?
"To do is to be" Socrates

[Dancing David]

this is basicly the answer: YOU NEVER WERE ALIVE AND NEVER WILL BE. Fair enough.. Btw I like the answers on this forum, they are so vague and entertaining. "I Think therefore I'am" no wait thats wrong. Its more correct to say "I Think, because I'am responding to enviromental stimuli". Now it suddenly hit me its unfair to prosecute criminals for their crimes, they are only responding to enviromental stimuli.

How many conflated ideas do you have here?

Try defining consciousness, then we can talk.

The issue of what is life is another one. The physical body 'lives'. What is life, a continuum of observable events.

Thoughts occur for more than response to enviromental stimulus, although with the external sensation, thoughts will not develop.

Free will is another issue.

So , welcome to the forums.

I think I am a p-zombie. i have all the behaviors of consciousness, but i am not conscious.

Are you here to talk or just rant and run?

[Ashles]

Also I’m sure you guys already know this but there are still three classified reports held by the CIA on that crazy psychic phenomenon stuff, sounds like the government has a bad case of wishful thinking, don’t you think?
What three classified reports? Do you have a link to explain what three reports you are talking about?

[Ron_Tomkins]

but you must understand science has never ventured into the field of conscious

...ness? Yes it has. Neuroscience, for one, does exactly that.

You're rambling. Do some basic research first, then expose your ideas in a coherent manner.

[Wudang]

Amazon lists 1307 books on consciousness in science and nature.

[Beerina]

Commence debabb

As most people believe in it is inevitablely true that the "Human mind is like software running on a computer hard drive".

Not necessarily. It's more akin to a candle flame, if you ask me. Though software, in operation, is electrons going through metal, it's power is in its virtual aspect.

But a conscious mind isn't a virtual thing. It's a real, physical phenomenon. And thus has a real, physical explanation. So you can't just "plug and play" the brain's data-processing operations onto some other processor, electronic or a bunch of pullys and buckets, and expect a real conscious mind to arise.

A conscious mind arises from some kind of physical stuff interacting, and a bunch of electrons and metal is not the same as neurons is not the same as pullys and buckets.

Ok then in that case:

Take a computer, which is a whole bunch of particles and make them act in such a way that they create an amazing ghoul which evaluates everything with "sadness" chemicals, "madness" chemicals, or chemicals for every different situation that make it act one way or the other.

Though the interaction for each emotion is much more complex, it's an ok analogy for now.


...

Now one chemical leads to the another and another and someday the ghoul dies. What we have made? A creepy pouppet.

Now unfortunately it seems no one has realized yet the difference between "acting" and "being" instead they tend think there is a way one can make "acting" into "being".

Is the ghoul the old philosophical "zombie", a creature which acts exactly like a human, but is not conscious?

I will interpret "existing" in the following as "existing as a consciousness".

This is common sense not philosophy, what do you really have when we have a bag of organic matter that acts as if it is existing but really does not and is not anything more then a bag of organic matter? well that question answers itself doesn't it.? So what is organic matter now?

Well it's just matter, it does not "care", it is does not "feel" and most importantly it is always itself no matter how we put it together to make it act.

Before our conscious illusion was created

Are you referring to the zombie/ghoul as an "illusion" of consciousness? Or another philosophical principle that consciousness itself is an illusion (something that never made sense to me.) I have an experience, and therefore it exists, and therefore arises out of something out there, whatever "out there" means, but it is a physics of some kind.

It seems you mean the latter. So...

nothing was defined as anything(matter does not decide to define itself, it only acts)

BTW, I would suggest matter and energy only exist, without consciousness per se.

so there was nothing. Now wait if matter was "nothing to begin with" is it possibly that it can be put together in such a way to act like it is alive and can construct being from acting?

Assuming that reality contains the "physics" from which consciousness could arise.

And yes, you can construct such a thing. As Searle says, "We are one such machine."

[Would m]ost neuroscientists would say that conscious is an illusion created by the mind?

No. The time to start looking scientifically is now (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html).


Most of the rest of this argument seems to be claiming what I'm saying, which is it must arise from existing stuff somehow.

...deletia...

Science is perfectly practical and I’m not one of those crazy people who say throw away science, but you must understand science has never ventured into the field of conscious

See link above.

[slingblade]

Kids say the darndest things.

[Beerina]

Just one driveby return and read some reasonable comments. :(