On Consciousness

[quarky]

Are there people like me?

As per becoming hateful, its not my norm, that's for sure.

"Complaining that it won't feed the hungry is missing the point of what really matters."

Evidently, I have no idea what really matters.

Machines are our slaves?
Possibly got that backwards.

What would i rather be mesmerized by?
Nature. Beauty. Color. Music.

Creating better jobs?
Are you serious?

The most sophisticated technology on Earth has created endless, really really crappy jobs.
Perhaps you need to get out more often?

I recoil, frankly, at the manifest destiny aspect of technology, regardless of what it represents. I'm not a bit anti-science. I'm quite educated, even.
Crappy, pointless science, yes. I'm opposed.

There's always some new weapon that's going to make war obsolete, for instance.
meanwhile, my country and its scientists are still busy making more land mines to spread all over the planet.

What's it all about?

Arrogance of science.
Science that shoves itself down people's throats, for the aggrandizement of the few.
Pointless, crappy science, of the sort, that frankly, can't wrestle itself out of a paper bag, yet is very proud of itself.

Science that can't recognize when it is utterly failing.
Science that is so far up business's butt, that it can't see the light of day.
Elitism. Myopia. Denial of history and reality.

I love science.
Too bad its mostly turned to crap.
science is about to cause our own demise.

Though, being unwilling to see that; to step back and say, "Gee, maybe things aren't going so well; maybe we should take a good hard look at the reality of the human condition today, and reassess the value of many so called scientific advancements.

The idea that AI robots will improve the quality of human life is hilarious.
But have at it. i simply object to the notion that all science is self-justified and good, when in fact, most of it today is hopelessly corrupt and flawed.

I object to the religion and the faith that seems to come with science. Science will save us. Science will get us to the stars. Science will end disease and aging.
Sure it will. and Jesus will save us too. What fantastical crapola. what stunning arrogance. What disregard for all other life.
I'm atheistic and scientific. I love the method. i hate the religion of science.

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by quarky

Are there people like me?

As per becoming hateful, its not my norm, that's for sure.

"Complaining that it won't feed the hungry is missing the point of what really matters."

Evidently, I have no idea what really matters.

Machines are our slaves?
Possibly got that backwards.

What would i rather be mesmerized by?
Nature. Beauty. Color. Music.

Creating better jobs?
Are you serious?

The most sophisticated technology on Earth has created endless, really really crappy jobs.
Perhaps you need to get out more often?

I recoil, frankly, at the manifest destiny aspect of technology, regardless of what it represents. I'm not a bit anti-science. I'm quite educated, even.
Crappy, pointless science, yes. I'm opposed.

There's always some new weapon that's going to make war obsolete, for instance.
meanwhile, my country and its scientists are still busy making more land mines to spread all over the planet.

What's it all about?

Arrogance of science.
Science that shoves itself down people's throats, for the aggrandizement of the few.
Pointless, crappy science, of the sort, that frankly, can't wrestle itself out of a paper bag, yet is very proud of itself.

Science that can't recognize when it is utterly failing.
Science that is so far up business's butt, that it can't see the light of day.
Elitism. Myopia. Denial of history and reality.

I love science.
Too bad its mostly turned to crap.
science is about to cause our own demise.

Though, being unwilling to see that; to step back and say, "Gee, maybe things aren't going so well; maybe we should take a good hard look at the reality of the human condition today, and reassess the value of many so called scientific advancements.

The idea that AI robots will improve the quality of human life is hilarious.
But have at it. i simply object to the notion that all science is self-justified and good, when in fact, most of it today is hopelessly corrupt and flawed.

I object to the religion and the faith that seems to come with science. Science will save us. Science will get us to the stars. Science will end disease and aging.
Sure it will. and Jesus will save us too. What fantastical crapola. what stunning arrogance. What disregard for all other life.
I'm atheistic and scientific. I love the method. i hate the religion of science.

What strange ideas. Let's try not to derail the conversation from consciousness, OK? If you want to discuss what you hate about "the religion of science" that would be a neat topic for its own thread. Start one! The people who might enjoy it will miss out if they don't want to bicker about what a Turing Machine is (reference not to you but to others re the "Explain Consciousness for the Layman" thread still flopping like a gasping fish on a sidewalk).

I noticed you didn't continue the discussion on sex robots, which you and leumas initiated. I'd like to play with that one.

It sounds like you've said that we could never make consciousness machines, but if we did, we'd make sex robots, and that would be bad.

I don't mean to straw man you, but that's what I think your position distills to after I fill in the gaps. Have I got it right? What would be bad about conscious sex robots?

[!Kaggen]

We assume all of consciousness can be rationalized into a mathematical equation. Sure, that part which involves the past, our abstract thoughts. Our feelings are also part of our consciousness. Our feelings are not abstract they are the "here and now", our direct experience of the presence. Our will is also part of our consciousness. Our will is not abstract we see the results of it in the way we change the physical world into the future. Our feelings and our will are not the past by definition so we cannot abstract them mathematically. Consciousness without feeling and willing is not consciousness.

Even with thinking (abstracting the past) we are not necessarily conscious of our thoughts unless we have an active imagination.
Mechanically processing thoughts in a neat sequence has little to do with imagination. Imagination is when thinking becomes meaningful through a physical representation of the thought process. The free hand drawing of a circle requires imagination using the equation X 2 + Y 2=r2 to draw a circle doesn't. When a child learns to draw a circle freehand it becomes conscious of a circle through the experience. Knowing the equation of a circle does not mean one is conscious of a circle.

Imagination is the way through which we become conscious of thoughts, intuition is the way we become conscious of our feelings and inspiration the way we become conscious of our willing.

An algorithmic approach to consciousness is a contradiction as algorithms in their very nature do not require consciousness.

The trick of defining conscious as an algorithm is just that, a trick.
It will fool some in the same way technology fools children into believing Shrek is real. So I not surprised it is a popular amongst gaming programmers since they make there living by tricking children. And the holy grail would be the trick to get kids to believe in a conscious program. A good start is to get them to experience less and less of the world directly and more and more of it filtered through technology. This process is well under way with kids now interacting through social media with their peers and spending their free time "exploring the world" through video games.
The dumbing down process has began and soon the main trick will be convincing enough. As the behaviorist say, if it behaves like a duck it is a duck.

[!Kaggen]

Below are two examples of what human consciousness is capable of when conscious in thought, feeling and willing.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The ability to adapt to the unpredictable real world is clear to see and requires acute conscious awareness of thought, feeling and willing.
These particular examples are clearly inspirational and we see the future on humanity when we watch people willing the future consciously like this.

These abilities are what make humans unique.
Computers are only extensions of our thoughts(abstractions of the past) and without a conscious thought (imagination- thinking the future), conscious feeling (intuition-feeling the future) and conscious willing (inspiration- seeing the future) they will not be conscious.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by quarky

Are there people like me?

As per becoming hateful, its not my norm, that's for sure.

"Complaining that it won't feed the hungry is missing the point of what really matters."

Evidently, I have no idea what really matters.

Machines are our slaves?
Possibly got that backwards.

What would i rather be mesmerized by?
Nature. Beauty. Color. Music.

Creating better jobs?
Are you serious?

The most sophisticated technology on Earth has created endless, really really crappy jobs.
Perhaps you need to get out more often?

I recoil, frankly, at the manifest destiny aspect of technology, regardless of what it represents. I'm not a bit anti-science. I'm quite educated, even.
Crappy, pointless science, yes. I'm opposed.

There's always some new weapon that's going to make war obsolete, for instance.
meanwhile, my country and its scientists are still busy making more land mines to spread all over the planet.

What's it all about?

Arrogance of science.
Science that shoves itself down people's throats, for the aggrandizement of the few.
Pointless, crappy science, of the sort, that frankly, can't wrestle itself out of a paper bag, yet is very proud of itself.

Science that can't recognize when it is utterly failing.
Science that is so far up business's butt, that it can't see the light of day.
Elitism. Myopia. Denial of history and reality.

I love science.
Too bad its mostly turned to crap.
science is about to cause our own demise.

Though, being unwilling to see that; to step back and say, "Gee, maybe things aren't going so well; maybe we should take a good hard look at the reality of the human condition today, and reassess the value of many so called scientific advancements.

The idea that AI robots will improve the quality of human life is hilarious.
But have at it. i simply object to the notion that all science is self-justified and good, when in fact, most of it today is hopelessly corrupt and flawed.

I object to the religion and the faith that seems to come with science. Science will save us. Science will get us to the stars. Science will end disease and aging.
Sure it will. and Jesus will save us too. What fantastical crapola. what stunning arrogance. What disregard for all other life.
I'm atheistic and scientific. I love the method. i hate the religion of science.

This post make perfect sense to me and the ideas are not strange at all.
They are ideas from a realist who has had his hands dirty.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Quarky, why is it that people like you become so hateful when engaged in discussions like this? Really, I'm asking you to look inside your heart and try to understand why, on topics like this, you resort to these emotional excesses. Leumas also reacted this way -- blistering rage at the suggestion that machines could be conscious. What's this all about? I really want to understand.

May I suggest you read

"The Abstract Wild" by Jack Turner

A quote from one of the essays: The Abstract Wild: A Rant

"It is now often said (ever since Wendell Berry stated it so clearly and forcefully) that our ecological crisis is a crisis of character, not a political or social crisis. This said, we falter, for it remains unclear what, exactly, is the crisis of modern character and, since character is partly determined by culture, what, exactly, is the crisis of modern culture. The question is important for anyone who loves the natural world, but the answer will not be found in the writings of Thoreau, or Muir, or ecologists -deep or otherwise.

Whether we focus on homogeneity or character, I believe that anger is a clue. Anger, anguish, and anxiety are all related to the Latin angere(perhaps clearest in the German angst) and they retain the cognate senses of distress, suffering, affliction, vexation, grief, and oppression. The initial sense, interestingly, is one of constriction-narrow,tight,strangled, a choking - as in angina, a constriction in the heart that cuts off the vital life force of blood. Something like that is happening to us now - the cutting off of life force."

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

What strange ideas. Let's try not to derail the conversation from consciousness, OK? If you want to discuss what you hate about "the religion of science" that would be a neat topic for its own thread. Start one! The people who might enjoy it will miss out if they don't want to bicker about what a Turing Machine is (reference not to you but to others re the "Explain Consciousness for the Layman" thread still flopping like a gasping fish on a sidewalk).

I noticed you didn't continue the discussion on sex robots, which you and leumas initiated. I'd like to play with that one.

It sounds like you've said that we could never make consciousness machines, but if we did, we'd make sex robots, and that would be bad.

I don't mean to straw man you, but that's what I think your position distills to after I fill in the gaps. Have I got it right? What would be bad about conscious sex robots?

It is a bit of a derail, but, honestly, i was trying to answer your question to me.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by quarky

It is a bit of a derail, but, honestly, i was trying to answer your question to me.

Btw, Mr. Scott, you might have me a tad wrong. Alan Turing is a hero to me.
A very brief perusal of my history here should convince you that I'm no prude.
i'm not opposed to conscious sex robots, nor do I think its particularly impossible. Mostly, I think its a bit silly, but perhaps only because I've always been able to get a fleshier date.

I should think that intimacy might be devalued through employment of such technological breakthroughs. That may be the crux of my dismay. Some science seems to have no purpose at all, or even a cynical purpose. Some of it, of course, is fantastic. Its this evaluation that I sense has significance.

I like the smell of real roses. The cgi type don't do it for me. People may need a relationship with organic life forms. i certainly do. Studying them; observing them; its science. I'd rather play chess with you than big blue.

[!Kaggen]

A great video on what it means to be conscious of the future that is inevitable

http://vimeo.com/40974456

Computationalists want immortality by defining consciousness as the predictable past.
Consciousness means living for the only certain future, mortality, by battling the uncertain future daily.

"The mind fights the last war, the body the next" Nassim Taleb

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

a) consciousness > brain = woohoo
b) brain > consciousness = neuroscience

consciousness = undetectable or measurable scientifically, unless paradigm a) is assumed false and paradigm b) is adopted is the form of brain > consciousness synonymity.

Still, in both, consciousness = undetectable or measurable scientifically. So we can not say anything about it yet with any real authority.

The > in this relationship has no provable directional preference, even though its always assumed to be unidirectional for current models to work within the framework they have been created. Change the direction to consciousness > brain and most models will still work.

Example:

What if we send a periodic EM pulse through someone brain disrupting their conscious thought processes and speech?

a) You interfered with their consciousness being processed by the brain by effecting real world testable neurochemcial data, thus the brain interpreted the conscious messages incorrectly.

b) You interfered with their consciousness by interfering with the brain, thus the brain produced the changes in their consciousness.

^ the provable difference anyone?

Wow really need to work on writing my thoughts in a more coherent way when rushed. Did anyone understand this? Or should I re phrase it? After re-reading im not so sure I would understand my point if I was someone else.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Wow really need to work on writing my thoughts in a more coherent way when rushed. Did anyone understand this? Or should I re phrase it? After re-reading im not so sure I would understand my point if I was someone else.

I was going to ask if you had any more.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by quarky

I was going to ask if you had any more.

You crack me up :-)

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by quarky

I was going to ask if you had any more.

I do somewhere will need some brain 'fuel' before I post more though, hard to articulate my point of view hungover. Tbh devils advocate esque posts might be better for the philosophy forum, but I tend to get better reactions and more challenging counter arguments to such ideas here, thus more fun.

And I dont think people need to think things are getting as heated here as much as they have, its very easy to confuse a discussion online with a heated argument, theres no body language to read.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

You crack me up :-)

Why?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Wow really need to work on writing my thoughts in a more coherent way when rushed. Did anyone understand this? Or should I re phrase it? After re-reading im not so sure I would understand my point if I was someone else.

I thought it was plenty clear. "You can't prove there isn't a soul." That about cover it?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

We assume all of consciousness can be rationalized into a mathematical equation. Sure, that part which involves the past, our abstract thoughts. Our feelings are also part of our consciousness. Our feelings are not abstract they are the "here and now", our direct experience of the presence. Our will is also part of our consciousness. Our will is not abstract we see the results of it in the way we change the physical world into the future. Our feelings and our will are not the past by definition so we cannot abstract them mathematically. Consciousness without feeling and willing is not consciousness.

Even with thinking (abstracting the past) we are not necessarily conscious of our thoughts unless we have an active imagination.
Mechanically processing thoughts in a neat sequence has little to do with imagination. Imagination is when thinking becomes meaningful through a physical representation of the thought process. The free hand drawing of a circle requires imagination using the equation X 2 + Y 2=r2 to draw a circle doesn't. When a child learns to draw a circle freehand it becomes conscious of a circle through the experience. Knowing the equation of a circle does not mean one is conscious of a circle.

Imagination is the way through which we become conscious of thoughts, intuition is the way we become conscious of our feelings and inspiration the way we become conscious of our willing.

An algorithmic approach to consciousness is a contradiction as algorithms in their very nature do not require consciousness.

The trick of defining conscious as an algorithm is just that, a trick.
It will fool some in the same way technology fools children into believing Shrek is real. So I not surprised it is a popular amongst gaming programmers since they make there living by tricking children. And the holy grail would be the trick to get kids to believe in a conscious program. A good start is to get them to experience less and less of the world directly and more and more of it filtered through technology. This process is well under way with kids now interacting through social media with their peers and spending their free time "exploring the world" through video games.
The dumbing down process has began and soon the main trick will be convincing enough. As the behaviorist say, if it behaves like a duck it is a duck.

Agree with most of this.

Heres how I see it. The problem that I see with the traditional brain = computer = mind is that it should mean that when a computer gets up to the processing ability of a human it should become conscious in some way. I very much doubt that it would, AI proponents frequently make that claim, but there is absolutely no evidence that machines can be conscious in any way, or could be in the future.

The problem with this is that the people who make these claims (that the brain is nothing more than a computer) assume that the neurons in the brain, and their connections, the synapses, work as fundamental units in real life. They hypostatize their (brilliantly sucessful neurochemical) mathematical models to have far deeper meaning than they do. So for example we have roughly ten billion neurons, with about a thousand or ten thousand connections to other neurons, which gives us about 10¹⁵ operations per second, with each neuron acting as a fundamental unit. The problem that i see with that is that neurons are much, much more complex than a simple switch. The capacity of a neuron seems much greater than that, the numerous binary type of models we have invented for many consiousness related things are a models to help understand the continuum that is consciousness. They are a mathematical tool to try to make sense of something that remains inherently non mathematical. Penrose has discussed this in quite some depth, suggesting a quantum explanation that uses non atypical types of mathematics.

You can keep going down (as many people are) the current reductionalist road, looking at what comprises neurons, like microtubules and cytoskeletons and finding out the role these may play, trying to find some sort of deeper meaning to consiousness. The problem with that is that even if we go down to that level and accept that microtubules are the fundamental units of consciousness, that still does not explain the coninuous flowing nature of consciousness, agency and self awareness. It's just more reductionism, it does not solve the problem.

Post of mine from ages back, which gives my old views on the matter, don't agree with this all anymore:

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I dont think that there ever was a deterministic stage, I think that consciousness has always been here, down at the deepest vacuum level (unified field level) and the deterministic processes are just what the consciousness percieves.

Looking at the relationship between consciousness and material reality, you have to consider whether the material world can be derived from a conscious reality, or even whether consciousness itself could be the fundamental building blocks of the material universe.

It all comes down to what consciousness is. If your a very materialistic scientist you'll say its just a bunch of neurons acting like a computer. But its impossible to explain how a mass of neurons can ultimately become aware of itself, why computers with similar capabilities dont have conscious attributes, etc.

You need to evaluate reality and what makes something real to us via our senses. If you kick a rock and hurt your toe it feels real, you might hear sounds, bump into people, etc. Experiences are also very consistant, if you see a car driving down a street it just doesn't disappear it keeps going, so there is a consistancy with time. And you also have a cross comparison, I can ask you what you see and you can ask me what I see. Thing is that all of these criteria come back to how real it feels to us, as when I cross reference with you you are part of my reality too. So if I hear someone out there agreeing with my consious observation it still has to do with what I am perceiving, just in this case how I perceive them; whether or not what I percieve is real or not is not scientifically provable. Yet we do this every minute of every day.

Imagine mechanistic sun system with planets and no inhabitants. The system is completely deterministic mechanically. But what if a passing group of conscious entities came along and inhabited a planet and moved the orbit of some? This has gone from being a mechanical deterministic system to a non determinsitic system by simply adding in consiousness and free will.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I thought it was plenty clear. "You can't prove there isn't a soul." That about cover it?

No, you can't disprove that consiousness creates the brain, rather than the brain creates consiousness.

I have no idea what a soul is.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

a) consciousness > brain = woohoo
b) brain > consciousness = neuroscience

consciousness = undetectable or measurable scientifically, unless paradigm a) is assumed false and paradigm b) is adopted is the form of brain > consciousness synonymity.

Still, in both, consciousness = undetectable or measurable scientifically. So we can not say anything about it yet with any real authority.

The > in this relationship has no provable directional preference, even though its always assumed to be unidirectional for current models to work within the framework they have been created. Change the direction to consciousness > brain and most models will still work.

Example:

What if we send a periodic EM pulse through someone brain disrupting their conscious thought processes and speech?

a) You interfered with their consciousness being processed by the brain by effecting real world testable neurochemcial data, thus the brain interpreted the conscious messages incorrectly.

b) You interfered with their consciousness by interfering with the brain, thus the brain produced the changes in their consciousness.

^ the provable difference anyone?

Yeah your right, there is no provable difference.

But the same goes for a normal bicycle wheel, and one that "rolls" due to invisible pink elephants along the rim grabbing the ground with their trunks and pulling.

The pink elephant one is pretty cool, and some people might even try to push for it to be in science textbooks in schools, but you don't really *need* it because a normal bicycle wheel rolls just fine according to the known laws of physics.

Same goes for consciousness.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Heres how I see it. The problem that I see with the traditional brain = computer = mind is that it should mean that when a computer gets up to the processing ability of a human it should become conscious in some way. I very much doubt that it would, AI proponents frequently make that claim, but there is absolutely no evidence that machines can be conscious in any way, or could be in the future.

What you don't take into consideration is that you know nothing about 1) computing, 2) the brain, 3) advances in A.I.

If that *is* taken into consideration, it becomes clear that you are wrong.

In particular, there has been an amazing amount of progress when it comes to neural network models demonstrating fundamentally conscious behaviors in the last 10 years.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

What you don't take into consideration is that you know nothing about 1) computing, 2) the brain, 3) advances in A.I.

If that *is* taken into consideration, it becomes clear that you are wrong.

In particular, there has been an amazing amount of progress when it comes to neural network models demonstrating fundamentally conscious behaviors in the last 10 years.

Heard about this before, got a link? Conscious behaviours in what sense?

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

What you don't take into consideration is that you know nothing about 1) computing, 2) the brain, 3) advances in A.I.

To say I know nothing is wrong. The veractity of what I know is another question entirely.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Yeah your right, there is no provable difference.

But the same goes for a normal bicycle wheel, and one that "rolls" due to invisible pink elephants along the rim grabbing the ground with their trunks and pulling.

The pink elephant one is pretty cool, and some people might even try to push for it to be in science textbooks in schools, but you don't really *need* it because a normal bicycle wheel rolls just fine according to the known laws of physics.

Same goes for consciousness.

Totally different. There is no field of science even considering the existance of invisible pink elephants. There is a myriad of sciences investigating the brain and consiousness.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

No, you can't disprove that consiousness creates the brain, rather than the brain creates consiousness.

I have no idea what a soul is.

A soul is whatever this consciousness thing is supposed to be that's so undetectably playing our brains like a puppet show.

Quote:

There is a myriad of sciences investigating the brain and consiousness.

Prove that your use of "consciousness" could not be performed by a pink elephant.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

A soul is whatever this consciousness thing is supposed to be that's so undetectably playing our brains like a puppet show.

Its totally detectable via studying its effects on the brain. Just the cause and effect of all the neuroscience models is different.

Quote:

Prove that your use of "consciousness" could not be performed by a pink elephant.

We've never detected one.

[quarky]

There's a few ways to study consciousness.
One of them is through intense observation and scrutiny of one's own.
Sometimes said quest is amplified through the ingestion of some amazing technological advancements; thank you Albert Hoffman and Sasha Shulgin.

As one whom has studied this from both sides; bio-chem major in college; etc, I remain of the opinion that consciousness precedes material.
I can well imagine how unpopular this opinion is here.
But it shouldn't be.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Its totally detectable via studying its effects on the brain. Just the cause and effect of all the neuroscience models is different.

We've never detected one.

Everything we've detected suggests that brain activity is solely the result of brain activity. You're trying to use Occam's Razor to trim your goatee.

[Modified]

The "brain as interface to consciousness" argument is pretty weak in my opinion. The fine level of brain damage that can occur due to injury - losing some specific memories but not others, some very specific abilities but not others, would indicate an extremely wide pipe, almost a tiny piece of "brain interface" for every tiny piece of memory or functionality in that "something else". Electrical brain stimulation produces similarly fine effects. That just doesn't seem reasonable. Also, personality should be something that is intrinsic to consciousness, not something determined by the interface; but brain damage can radically change personality. If a jerk has a stoke and becomes a kind person, as sometimes happens, is the "something else besides the brain" still a jerk?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Modified

If a jerk has a stoke and becomes a kind person, as sometimes happens, is the "something else besides the brain" still a jerk?

Im a way yes, but the way their damaged brain effects the way their consciousnes manifests in the material world is damaged by the strokes effects, resulting in a change in their personality.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Everything we've detected suggests that brain activity is solely the result of brain activity.

Indeed, but what caused the brain activity? We did. Not our brains, us. Brain activity is the result of our consiousness, in my opinion.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by quarky

Sometimes said quest is amplified through the ingestion of some amazing technological advancements; thank you Albert Hoffman and Sasha Shulgin.
.

Ineed, most people that have used such tools have come to similar reasoning I've noticed. You might like this documentary Quarky, brand new one all about the life of Sasha Shulgin

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Indeed, but what caused the brain activity? We did. Not our brains, us. Brain activity is the result of our consiousness, in my opinion.

Like I said, soul.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ineed, most people that have used such tools have come to similar reasoning I've noticed. You might like this documentary Quarky, brand new one all about the life of Sasha Shulgin

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Thanks, man.

loved it.

Risking credibility herein, I'd go as far as to say I have no interest in discussing consciousness with people that have done no homework on themselves.
Unlike many 'stoners', I've got a background in organic chemistry. I've also ingested the hell out of many novel tryptamines and phenethylamines, in the manner of a science geek; with copious notes; doses; times; background noise and so on.

To ignore all this, which will likely be ignored here, is akin to arguing about flight with people that have never flown; arguing about calculus with people that can't do long division; arguing about sex with the Pope.

even amongst the frisky, I barely want to engage with those whom haven't spent many nights alone, in total silence; fasted for at least 2 weeks; been lost in serious wilderness.

My new stance on this subject is this:

pm me if you'd like to hear about my observations.

I got infracted in this very thread, for an overly passionate (my bad) response to a luddite, probably one that wouldn't know ph from fm.

I'm too old for this crap.
Yet I'd be delighted to report on my findings.

to me, the altering of the state is the huge hope for all of us. Not space flight; not a new president; not new sources of power.

psychedelic humans.

that's our best shot at survival, imho

[Modified]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Im a way yes, but the way their damaged brain effects the way their consciousnes manifests in the material world is damaged by the strokes effects, resulting in a change in their personality.

Like I said, I don't buy it. That concept is silly on its face. Personality is what we are, it's the important part, and it's directly and totally (radically, at least, if I accept your view in principle) dependent on the physical brain. If there is something non-physical behind it, then that thing would be unimportant, a mere power supply at best.

[quarky]

More than a power supply, imho.

More than religion.

Science, of the sort we barely comprehend.

[!Kaggen]

Its called living like its your last day and yesterday does not exist.
No model exists for this reality.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Why?

Most people take themselves far too seriously on this forum and making posts which are confusing are normally frowned upon. I think they make you human. Quarky drove that point home with such little fanfare I found it amusing ly wise.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Modified

Like I said, I don't buy it. That concept is silly on its face. Personality is what we are, it's the important part, and it's directly and totally (radically, at least, if I accept your view in principle) dependent on the physical brain. If there is something non-physical behind it, then that thing would be unimportant, a mere power supply at best.

There's not much point pursuing this line of reasoning. You could work him down to string theory and he could still argue there's demons plucking them.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Indeed, but what caused the brain activity? We did. Not our brains, us. Brain activity is the result of our consiousness, in my opinion.

That makes no sense. Where does this consciousness come from ?

Science shows us that it's the other way around, by the way.

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by quarky

It is a bit of a derail, but, honestly, i was trying to answer your question to me.

I know, though I asked you why consciousness studies in particular seemed to enrage you. What I hear from you is it's just one of many areas of scientific inquiry you'd prioritize lower than others, like feeding the hungry.

You may want to dis some areas of inquiry as conforming to a religious dogma of science. I'd argue that the yield of science, including past work where no yield was anticipated, resulted in unanticipated benefits. The track record of pure science is awesome. Compare that to the track record of tradition religions. I think it's the comparison is weak. Science works.

A conscious food distribution network might be very effective. Let the AI research continue. New tools will be used for good and bad purposes. It's always been so. (I'm not afraid of conscious sex robots, though unconscious sex robots don't seem that shabby. joking!

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

A great video on what it means to be conscious of the future that is inevitable

http://vimeo.com/40974456

Computationalists want immortality by defining consciousness as the predictable past.
Consciousness means living for the only certain future, mortality, by battling the uncertain future daily.

"The mind fights the last war, the body the next" Nassim Taleb

I found time to watch that motivational mind candy, thanks.

Advice from hugely successful people like Steve Jobs is often worthless. The old "follow your heart/intuition/gut)" recommendation is nonsense, because we hear it from the ones who followed their heart and succeeded, but not from those who also did it and failed.

Talk to someone who won 100 million in a lottery what his secret was. He might say "I always bet on my mother's birthday, and knew, in my heart, it would some day pay off." You have to balance that with the thousands who bet on similar feelings of the future and have nothing to show for it. There are no doubt thousands who are copying Steve Jobs' advice on success, betting everything, and will end up with nothing. The rare success stories tell us very little about how to succeed ourselves. Delusional optimism is a trait we evolved for reasons easy to understand.

You know what future I feel? Awesome progress in AI, and wonderful conscious machines. I know why that's the future you don't feel.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

I found time to watch that motivational mind candy, thanks.

Advice from hugely successful people like Steve Jobs is often worthless. The old "follow your heart/intuition/gut)" recommendation is nonsense, because we hear it from the ones who followed their heart and succeeded, but not from those who also did it and failed.

Talk to someone who won 100 million in a lottery what his secret was. He might say "I always bet on my mother's birthday, and knew, in my heart, it would some day pay off." You have to balance that with the thousands who bet on similar feelings of the future and have nothing to show for it. There are no doubt thousands who are copying Steve Jobs' advice on success, betting everything, and will end up with nothing. The rare success stories tell us very little about how to succeed ourselves. Delusional optimism is a trait we evolved for reasons easy to understand.

You know what future I feel? Awesome progress in AI, and wonderful conscious machines. I know why that's the future you don't feel.

Oh dear you missed the whole point but confirmed the inspiration for the video.
The video was not about copying the successful outlier's history mechanically and unconsciously, but about living consciously through creativity in the now in an unpredictable world.
You falsely assume that because Jobs was successful his advice had something to do with it. No, his advice was not about how to be successful but how to be fulfilled.