Questioning Consciousness

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby chump » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:47 pm

To me, Jon's logic makes perfect sense. People see what they supposed to see.




1. Matter is not solid. It is mostly empty space. Remember Dr. Tiller saying... "Within all the atoms and molecules - all the space within them - the particles take up an insignificant amount of the volume of an atom."

2. We also learned through the Double Slit Experiment that these "particles" that make up matter are not particles all the time. They are "waves until they are observed, and then they "pop" into being a particle in a specific location, In fact, these "particles" are actually waves most of the time.

3. We learned that there is a field that exists as waves of possibilities and contains an infinite number of wave frequencies to create the physical universe that we see. This is where all "particles" live as waves until they are observed and "pop" into a specific physical location.

4. We also learned how a hologram is made using a two-step process...


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

"Reality is a merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Albert Einstein

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


"My brain is only a receiver. In the universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength, inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists."
NIcola Tesla

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


Our senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, etc. - are not really sensing some independent "reality" "out there," but in fact are first projecting that reality so that it appears to be "out there...

It's not just a one-way street of incoming perception, but a two-way street of projection first, and then perception...

... Apparently, once our brain converts the wave frequencies downloaded from the Field (by collapsing the wave function), it projects the results "out there" and makes it appear that we are surrounded by a "holographic 3D total immersion movie...

... Once again, as Pibram said, "our brains mathematically construct 'hard' reality by relying on input from a frequency domain."
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby minime » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:32 pm

minime » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:58 pm wrote:If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.


...while you were feuding...
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby chump » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:09 pm

I was wondering what Bernie Taupin doin' these days and found his interesting blog.



http://www.berniejtaupin.com/taupin---h ... cle-8.html

T Bone Burnett’s moving keynote address given at AmericanaFest, the Americana Music Festival & Conference, Thursday, September 22, 2016...

Image

Read more



https://americansongwriter.com/2016/09/ ... e-address/

T Bone Burnett’s AmericanaFest Keynote Address

By popular demand, we are pleased to release the transcript of T Bone Burnett’s moving keynote address given at AmericanaFest, the Americana Music Festival & Conference, Thursday, September 22, 2016. — Americana Music Association



Written By T Bone Burnett // September 23, 2016

I have come here today first to bring you love. I have come here to express my deep gratitude to you for your love of music and of each other. And, I have come here to talk about the value of the artist, and the value of art.

When Michaelangelo was painting the great fresco The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel, he came under intense criticism from various members of the church, particularly the Pope’s Master of Ceremonies — a man named Cesena- who accused him of obscenity. Michaelangelo’s response was to paint Cesena into the fresco in the lowest circle of hell with donkey ears and a serpent coiled around him devouring, and covering, his nether regions, so to speak.

Cesena was incensed and went to the Pope demanding he censor Michaelangelo for this outrage, and the Pope said, “Well, let’s go have a look at it. ”So, they went down to the chapel, and when the Pope stood in front of the fresco, he said to Cesena, “You know, that doesn’t look like you at all.”

See, the Pope didn’t want to jack around with Michaelangelo. Michaelangelo was making things that were going to last for hundreds of years. His stuff was going to outlive the Pope’s ability to do anything about it, so the Pope bowed to the inevitable. The Pope was afraid of a painter.

The painter could create another dimension between Heaven and Earth. Flat ceilings seemed to come down into the room in three dimensions. He painted rooms where priests and the church could sit and be transported to- and engulfed in — a higher realm, learning ancient stories- thoughts kept alive over centuries. And he did it by mixing together things he found laying around on the ground- sand and clay and plants. He was a fearsome alchemist.

Art is not a market to be conquered or to bow before.

Art is a holy pursuit.

Beneath the subatomic particle level, there are fibers that vibrate at different intensities. Different frequencies. Like violin strings. The physicists say that the particles we are able to see are the notes of the strings vibrating beneath them. If string theory is correct, then music is not only the way our brains work, as the neuroscientists have shown, but also, it is what we are made of, what everything is made of. These are the stakes musicians are playing for.

I want to recommend a book to you — The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul.

John Wilkinson, the translator, in his 1964 introduction, describes the book this way — “The Technological Society is a description of the way in which an autonomous technology is in the process of taking over the traditional values of every society without exception, subverting and surpassing those values to produce at last a monolithic world culture in which all technological difference and variety is mere appearance.” This is the core of the dead serious challenge we face.

The first nuclear weapon was detonated on the morning of July 16, 1945, at 5:29 and 45 seconds.

At that moment, technocrats took control of our culture.

Trinity was the code name of that explosion. It was an unholy trinity.

Technology does only one thing — it tends toward efficiency. It has no aesthetics. It has no ethics. It’s code is binary.

But everything interesting in life — everything that makes life worth living — happens between the binary. Mercy is not binary. Love is not binary. Music and art are not binary. You and I are not binary.

Parenthetically, we have to remember that all this technology we use has been developed by the war machine — Turing was breaking codes for the spies, Oppenheimer was theorising and realising weapons. Many of the tools we use in the studio for recording — microphones and limiters and equalizers and all that — were developed for the military. It is our privilege to beat those swords into plowshares.

We live in a time in which artists are being stampeded from one bad deal to another worse deal. No one asks the artists. We are told to get good at marketing. I have to say — and I think I probably speak for every musician here — that I didn’t start playing music because I sought, or thought it would lead to, a career in marketing.

And, as we are being told that, our work is being commoditised — the price of music is being driven down to zero.

I am working with a group called C3, the Content Creators Coalition run by Rosanne Cash and Jeffrey Boxer to develop an Artists Bill of Rights. Jeffrey is here today to meet afterward with anyone who wants to get into this. The first right artists have is the right to determine what medium they work in. The second is the right to set the price of their work.

Every person worthy of the name atist, from Rembrandt to Paul Cesanne to Picasso to Jackson Pollack

From William Shakespeare to Tennessee Williams to James Baldwin and Jack Kerouac

From Bach to Stravinski to Mahler to John Adams

Every one of those artists made art that to be understood, the world had to change.

They did not adapt to the world, the world had to adapt to them.

The technocrats suggest we crowd source.

I suggest we not.

The very thing an artist does is figure out what he likes.

The technocrats — the digital tycoons — the iTopians — look down on artists. They have made all these tools and they think we should be grateful — subserviant even — and use their flimsy new tools happily to make them ever more powerful. But we can make art with any thing. We don’t need their tools. Music confounds the machines.

So the iTopians have controlled the medium and the message for a generation now. And they are making a complete hash of things. The clearest and most pervasive proof of this is the psychedelic political season we are in, which we can see playing out in every election around the world.

Before the atom bomb, we had begun to project idealized versions of people up on screens, while the people whose images were projected would hide behind the screens, knowing they could never measure up.

After the atom bomb, we have automated that process. On Facebook, everybody is a star. The idealistic, lysergic promise of the 1960s has been mechanized, allowing us to become ever more facile conterfeiters.

The mask has become the face.

Malcolm Muggeridge said that the kingdom Satan offers a man is to the kingdom of God as a travel poster to the place it depicts.

This internet technology that has been so wildly promoted as being the key, the final solution, to our freedom, has become our prison. What the false prophets of the internet said would replace governments and nation states and commerce, and create a free world of community and sharing, has led instead to a consolidation of wealth and power that makes the monopolies of the early 2oth Century — Morgan and Rockefeller and Carnegie — look weak and ineffective.

Ethan Zuckerman, the director of the MIT Media Lab has apologized for his part in creating what he calls a “fiasco”. Tim Berners Lee, who diagrammed the schematic for our current internet on a napkin, said at Davos last year that the internet needs to be rearchitected.

Our 21st Century communication network, regarded by its early adherents with a religious fervor, has been turned into a surveillance and advertising mecnanism. The World Wide Web is just that — a web that ensnares everyone who uses it.

Artists must not submit to the demands, or the definitions of, the iTopians.

Lastly, I am here to speak specifically about American music.

This country has been led by artists from Thoreau and Emerson through Walt Whitman to Woody Guthrie, through Thelonious Monk and Charlie Parker, to Presley and Dylan to The Last Poets and Kendrick Lamar. The Arts have always led the Sciences. Einstein said that Picasso preceded him by twenty years. Jules Verne put a man on the moon a hundred years before a rocket scientist did. Medieval stained glass windows are examples of how nanotechnology was used in the pre-modern era. Those artists were high technologists, and many other things- they were aestheticians, ethicists, conjurers, and philosophers, to name a few.

They took risks. Risks a technocrat could never take. Artists risk everything in everything they do. Risk is what separates the artist from the artisan. Art is not a career, it is a vocation, an inclination, a response to a summons.

We, in this country, have defined ourselves through music from the beginning — from Johnny Has Gone for a Soldier in the Revolutionary War, to The Star Spangled Banner in the War of 1812, to John Brown’s Body and the Battle Hymn of the Republic in the Civil War, to the incredible explosion of music of the last century that was called Jazz, or Folk Music, or Rock and Roll, or Country Music — because although our music has taken many different paths, it is all of a piece and a most important part of our national identity — of US.

Music is to the United States as wine is to France. We have spread our culture all over the world with the soft power of American music. We both have regions — France has Champagne, we have the Mississippi Delta. France has Bordeaux, we have the Appalachian Mountains. France has Epernay, we have Nashville. Recorded music has been our best good will ambassador. The actual reason the Iron Curtain fell, is because the Russian kids wanted Beatles records. Louis Armstrong did more to spread our message of freedom and innovation than any single person in the last hundred years. Our history, our language, and our soul are recorded in our music. There is no deeper expression of the soul of this country than the profound archive of music we have recorded over the last century.

This is the story of the United States: a kid walks out of his home with a song and nothing else, and conquers the world. We have replicated that phenomenon over and over. We could start with Elvis Presley, but we could add in names for hours — Jimmie Rodgers, Rosetta Tharpe, Johnny Cash, Howlin Wolf, Mahalia Jackson, Bob Dylan, John Coltrane, Billie Holiday, Loretta Lynn, Chuck Berry, Hank Williams, Aretha Franklin, Jack White, Dr. Dre. That is the American Character. That is Johnny Appleseed.

At last year’s MusicCares tribute to Bob Dylan, Jimmy Carter said, “There’s no doubt that his words of peace and human rights are much more incisive and much more powerful and much more permanent than any president of the United States.” I believe that is undeniable.

That’s who the artists are. We can’t forget that.

So, in conclusion, there is this sense that the technocrats are saying, “Look, we’re just going to go ahead and do this, and we’ll sort it all out later.” As they did with the atom bomb.

As artists, it is our responsibility to sort it out now.

Barnett Newman said, “Time passes over the tip of the pyramid.” By that he meant that there is a lot of room at the bottom of the pyramid to put things, but that as time passes, gravity washes them down into the sand. But if you put something right on the tip of the pyramid, it stays there.

We aspire to put things on the tip of the pyramid. That is our preference — our prefered medium.

Digital is not an archival medium.

Technology is turning over every ten years. Their technologies don’t and won’t last.

Our art, if we do it right, will.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby freemason9 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:25 pm

I recommend Black Elk Speaks, it's a good read.
The real issue is that there is extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new.
User avatar
freemason9
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby chump » Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:00 am

User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby dada » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:45 am

Thank you for presenting that excellent T Bone steak, Mr. chump. Worth commenting on, but I'm still digesting it. I'll be thinking on it at work today, certainly.

"Barnett Newman said, “Time passes over the tip of the pyramid.” By that he meant that there is a lot of room at the bottom of the pyramid to put things, but that as time passes, gravity washes them down into the sand. But if you put something right on the tip of the pyramid, it stays there.

We aspire to put things on the tip of the pyramid. That is our preference — our prefered medium.

Digital is not an archival medium.

Technology is turning over every ten years. Their technologies don’t and won’t last.

Our art, if we do it right, will."


It isn't time and gravity that washes them down, though. It's the goddess of sand. She decides what lasts, and what is sand.

---

minime wrote:
minime » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:58 pm wrote:If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.


...while you were feuding...


This brings to mind something I read recently. Some ideas to chew on. I've refrained from placing any 'key phrases' in bold type. Ben Watson:

"In the 1940s, Adorno and Horkheimer still spoke of two worlds, but they saw that standardization of culture was linked to industrial capitalist forms of manufacture, and so, as that form became everywhere the dominant form, in its trail would follow a global standardization of cultural forms. The dying peasant in China - or at least the peasant’s cousin, the factory worker - is exposed eventually to the same images and sounds. The extension of the standardised domain brings with it the promise of pleasures that are never fulfilled but keep people hoping and holding on to the edge of the abyss, instead of struggling out of it.

But there is a flip-side.

A global working class is forged, with common reference points. Even in Adorno’s day, such exposure to identical cultural experiences was developing. After all, it was in 1928 that Coca Cola entered the Chinese market, though - given its repulsion again when Sino-US relations were bad - it was not until September 2002 that Coca Cola could announce its 50% share of the Chinese beverage market, and rising. Worldwide, experience of labour and cultural experience standardise, shrinking that field of experience, but making the points of contact more extensive. If there is now a common language, of work processes and management-speak, of products and advertising, of establishment political slogans world-wide, there is also be a world-wide language of criticism, of counter-slogans, of organization and resistance. A single language is shared –and languages - even individual words - can be made to say very different things, depending on the spin. Subversion too has the chance to be universally understood, and that means universally reiterated to potentially devastating effect. This is where art and politics conjoin. Or, better, cultural practice is recast.

No longer is art met by an anti-art that was excited by the massifying and anti-hierarchical powers of labels, packaging, illustrated magazines. Or a cool aestheticism of the new glossy object caught on the new glossy photographic paper.

Perhaps this commercialised effusion has become too much a part of our environment to propose new modes of social relations beyond art, and the system of inequity that shores it up. Instead anti-culture is needed - a more specific type of subversion of the signs that exist. No longer is it enough to incorporate them into artistic statements.

Pop Art showed that Dada’s commercial redeployments might simply, in the end, flatter the market. The imagery of commercial detritus has to be detonated, challenged on the level of the sign itself, as in today’s anti-logos, anti-brandings and subvertisements. All these practices recognise both the spread of the power of the corporations, but can also exploit the widespread intelligibility of capitalist commercial signage. As much as the world-wide deployment of the commodity excites businessmen and advertisers who forge their grand-scale images, increasingly it is subversion of these common factors that excites art activists, and is carried out by sometimes high-tech, sometimes low-tech, local means. The wish is to speak globally to a global field of domination, in which populations are more normally expected to remain mute and adopt the role of consumer.

In the mid-1920s, Walter Benjamin considered the language of the streets, in his book One Way Street, a book that signalled his break with traditional modes of literary scholarship, with its subheadings retrieved from street signage and advertisements. Its programmatic opening clause asserted that the languages of mass communication provide the template for modern articulation. Benjamin proposed the urgent communication of the telegram, postcard, leaflet or the economically articulate photomontage. He writes:

true literary activity cannot aspire to take place within a literary framework this is, rather, the habitual expression of its sterility. Significant literary work can only come into being in a strict alternation between action and writing; it must nurture the inconspicuous forms that better fit its influence in active communities than does the pretentious universal gesture of the book - in leaflets, brochures, articles and placards. Only this prompt language shows itself actively equal to the moment.

Benjamin saw mass communications dialectically. Universally understood languages - words, forms, reference points - emerge. However, at the same time, there is a danger of control of meanings from above, of a degradation, of an emptying out of meaning as words and signs are hitched to selling commodities or selling newspapers or selling political lines and ideology, and all experience is filtered through exchange relations. Benjamin recognised an equally dialectical strategy to combat this, and quotation was at its core: if found materials are cited in critical contexts there is a chance of regaining expressability in an age of degraded communication. The languages around us are the vehicles of communication, but they must be re-imbued with meanings for us. In a letter to Gershom Scholem in August 1935, Benjamin set such redemptive quoting at the heart of his method, a salvaging of scraps, the penetrant but trivial flotsam of our daily lives, and, in redeploying them, re-articulate them. He recorded his ‘attempt to hold the image of history in the most unprepossessing fixations of being, so to speak, the scraps of being’.

Such a strategy of redeeming the scraps and rubbish is connected to another of Benjamin’s espousals- the promotion of a new and positive concept of barbarism, as presented in Benjamin’s 1933 essay ‘Experience and Poverty’. ‘A NEW BARBARISM’- this has become something of a catchphrase now, operative as category in bestsellers such as The Coming Anarchy by warmongering US journalist Robert Kaplan or the liberal moral critique in The Empire and the New Barbarians by Jean-Christophe Rufin from Doctors Without Borders. Michael Hardt and Toni Negri also speak of barbarism, though positively, in fact drawing on Walter Benjamin, in a part of Empire called ‘New Barbarians’. Benjamin is evoked as author of a strategy of ‘new, positive notion of barbarism’. Quoting from Benjamin’s vignette ‘The Destructive Character’, they write of how the poverty of experience obliges the barbarian to begin anew, that the ‘new barbarian ‘sees nothing permanent. But for this very reason he sees ways everywhere’.

For Hardt and Negri, the new barbarians ruin the old order through affirmative violence. Hardt and Negri argue, then, for the progressive nature of barbarism following the collapse of the Soviet Union. A migrant barbarian multitude - former ‘productive cadres’ who desert socialist discipline and bureaucracy in a bid for freedom. Its barbarianism manifests in modes of life - their bodies transform and mutate to create new posthuman bodies, fluid both in sexuality and gender ascription, cyborgish and simian, bodies that are ‘completely incapable of submitting to command’, and ‘incapable of adapting to family life, to factory discipline, to the regulations of a traditional sex life’. There is a technological supplement to this. Hardt and Negri write: ‘The contemporary form of exodus and the new barbarian life demand that tools become poietic prostheses, liberating us from the conditions of modern humanity.’ And these protheses are, according to Hardt/Negri, those of the ‘plastic and fluid terrain of the new communicative, biological, and mechanical technologies.’

But Hardt and Negri’s Benjaminian barbarian is misconceived. This fluidity and self-modification mistakes itself if it believes it draws on Benjamin’s ‘positive concept of barbarism’. Benjamin’s barbarism relates to art producers and consumers and is instead strategic and negational - that is to say it operates in contradictory relation to the points of tension, rather than setting up a parallel existence. Experience – Erfahrung – is on the wane, noted Benjamin in the 1930s, and war’s technological traumas have instated experience as Erlebnis, as adventure, as shock. This is an impoverished form of experience, but, as realist, Benjamin advises that the poverty of experience be acknowledged so as to begin anew, through this ‘new positive concept of barbarism’. Artists should not ignore or mourn experience’s impoverishment, but retransmit it, precisely by imitating the technology and the forms that give rise to alienation. ‘Experience and Poverty’ applauds cultural producers who do this, who incorporate formally, in various ways, capitalism’s alienating ‘barbarism’: Brecht with his social-political dramaturgy of alienation, Adolf Loos with his brute unornamented buildings, and Paul Scheerbart with his utopian figments of telescopes and aeroplanes and space rockets transforming people who now live new mass and public lives inside glass houses.

Also invoked are the cubists who drew on mathematics to re-form the world stereoscopically, and Paul Klee who borrows the work of engineers, his figures are car-like, mechanical and with interiors rather than innerness, or souls. Benjamin says that they are conceived on a car’s drawing board’ and just ‘as a good car in its bodywork obeys above all the necessities of the motor’ they obey ‘their interior in the expression on their faces. The interior more than inwardness: that is what makes them barbaric.

Present too in the list of barbaric producers is early Disney with his deranged film-world of spirited technologies and animals. The laughter that his films set off can sound barbaric or inhuman, but that is only because it is a damaged articulation on the part of the exploited. The audience craves some dreamy form of compensation in the jaws of shock experience. What Benjamin finds is that Mickey Mouse films mock the technology that rules over people in the labour process, in particular, while at the same time understanding the utopian impulse that this technology plugs. This is no sleek techno-fetishism, as promoted by New Objectivity and others since. In fact, the film scenarios turn technical invention back into a feat of nature.

In so doing they oblige audiences to confront how technology rules over them as a fetish, as second nature. But it also gives an inkling of how technology might work with them in the service of liberation.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby chump » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:20 pm

User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby chump » Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:19 pm


http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/02/16/l ... loved-one/
DENVER (CBS4) – A Denver-based company called Living Urn is offering people living memorial of their loved ones.

(video at link above)


“It is incredibly beautiful and I cannot wait to see him bloom,” said a dewy eyed Lou Hillier, who is waiting for spring. That’s when a tree planted outside his home will blossom, and he knows his Dad is behind it.

Image
Lou Hillier’s father (credit: CBS)


Hillier told CBS4’s Britt Moreno his dad is in the pot the tree was planted in.

“Every day I get to walk by and say hi and he’s a part of my life,” he said.

Image
Lou Hillier (credit: CBS)


Hillier’s father died suddenly and he, like many others, was faced with what to do with his father’s remains.

Hillier could not bear the thought of spending thousands of dollars on a burial nor the permanency of scattering his father’s ashes, so he planted them. It’s a new trend for people wanting loved ones who passed to stay in their lives.

Mark Brewer owns Living Urn. He says he’s offering people living memorial of their loved ones.

“A greener, less expensive way to deal with death,” he said. “Trees help the environment. They provide oxygen. If you bury someone in the ground they are just taking up space.”

Brewer sells biodegradable urns. They are a foot tall, and Brewer says you can put “a pinch or an entire person’s ashes” in the urn. His local business is now an international one.

Some critique the new take on a green thumb afterlife, saying it’s unethical.

Brewer realizes it’s not for everyone, and Hillier says what others call “untraditional” doesn’t make sense.

He chose a redwood tree for his Dad.

“That’s him. Absolutely. The roots of that tree are literally growing out of his ashes and that is a powerful concept,” he said.

When the tree grows too big for the pot, Hillier plans on planting it on a nearby golf course. He said he feels comforted knowing his Dad will be there on the fairway with him.

Moreno asked Hillier what his Dad would say about the urn.

“I think he would say that’s pretty cool,” Hillier said...
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Elvis » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:06 pm

chump wrote:Image
...
Hillier could not bear the thought of spending thousands of dollars on a burial nor the permanency of scattering his father’s ashes, so he planted them. It’s a new trend for people wanting loved ones who passed to stay in their lives.



When my dad died, I wanted to fertilize a pot plant with his ashes, then smoke the pot. (Didn't happen for a number of reasons.) I do like Hillier's idea.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7433
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:17 pm

https://qz.com/919819/giant-neurons-fro ... ciousness/

Nobody yet understands how a collection of mushy cells in the brain gives rise to the brilliance of consciousness seen in higher-order animals, including humans. But two discoveries give scientists vital clues to how human consciousness works.

In 2014, a 54-year-old woman went to George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates in Washington, DC, for epilepsy treatment. In extreme cases like hers, one option is to introduce electrodes into the brain regions that may be causing epileptic seizures. During the treatment, however, doctor Mohamad Koubeissi and his team accidentally found what seemed to be a consciousness on-off switch in the brain.

When electrodes near a region called the claustrum were stimulated in the woman’s brain, she stopped reading and blankly stared into space. She didn’t respond to calls or gestures, and her breathing slowed down. When the stimulation was stopped, she regained consciousness and had no memory of the lost period. This only happened when the stimulation was to the claustrum, and no other region.

The woman’s case proved to be just the evidence that Christof Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science was looking for to advance his understanding of consciousness. Koch believes that the densely connected claustrum is the “seat” of consciousness in the brains (of at least humans and mice, which he has studied extensively).

Now, in an announcement first reported in Nature, Koch has found additional evidence that supports his hypothesis. While studying imaging techniques on mouse brains, Koch uncovered three giant neurons—brain cells that transmit signals—emanating from the claustrum and connecting to many regions in both hemispheres of the brain. One of those neurons wraps around the entire brain like a “crown of thorns,” Koch told Nature. He believes that the giant neuron may be coordinating signals from different brain regions to create consciousness.

The neurons have remained hidden so far, because imaging techniques used to study individual neurons are still quite rudimentary. The most commonly used method involves inserting a dye into a single neuron and tracing its path by hand. The labor-intensive method has only yielded a handful of neurons mapped this way.

To make his discovery, Koch developed a method where only neurons of the claustrum were activated, in the presence of a drug. He could then study them under UV light, which caused those specific neurons to emit fluorescent light.

The 20th century has a seen a lot of progress in brain science, and some of it has been in assigning brain functions to biological parts of the organ. Consider face blindness, a condition that can prevent sufferers from remembering even what their parents or their spouses look like. We’ve learned that these people have a problem in a specific region in the brain called fusiform face area, which stops them from forming the face-to-person connection that most people take for granted.

But solving the problem of consciousness, and finding its physical pathways, has eluded scientists thus far. Though Koch’s hypothesis about the claustrum will need a lot more research to be proven, his is one of the most advanced theories pinpointing the biological origins of consciousness. If he is correct, it will be a big step forward towards understanding what makes the human experience so unique.
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:56 pm

^^^^ Cool! I went looking to find where in the brain the claustrum was located (cause I couldn't remember!) and I found this:

A Giant Neuron Has Been Found Wrapped Around the Entire Circumference of the Brain

This could be where consciousness forms.

BEC CREW 28 FEB 2017

Image


http://www.sciencealert.com/a-giant-neuron-has-been-found-wrapped-around-the-entire-circumference-of-the-brain
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Elvis » Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:29 pm

Nobody yet understands how a collection of mushy cells in the brain gives rise to the brilliance of consciousness


And good luck with that, I say.

I have given this much thought. I'm all for studying "the brain," but if the premise is that consciousness can only be the product of a biological brain, they're never figure it out because they're chasing a rainbow.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7433
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby SonicG » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:35 am

Elvis » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:29 am wrote:
Nobody yet understands how a collection of mushy cells in the brain gives rise to the brilliance of consciousness


And good luck with that, I say.

I have given this much thought. I'm all for studying "the brain," but if the premise is that consciousness can only be the product of a biological brain, they're never figure it out because they're chasing a rainbow.


It was the psilocybin mushroom at the end of the mushroom as Mckenna taught us...oh wait, he was CIA so ....never mind...back to the eternal search...or what I like to paraphrase as "Where did I leave my fucking keys this time?"
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby 0_0 » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:52 am

It's a shame Schopenahuers philosophy, through no fault of his own or his philosophy, got tainted by the nazis using his terms like in triumph des willens and stuff, cos he really gives a great explanation. Reading his collected work is like a long mushroom trip! Not per se a feel good trip, but ok.. altho it's not as pessimistic as a lot of people seem to think it is either.
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby dada » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:09 am

Knowing how a car works is one thing. Why a car works is another.

Is consciousness a similar "vehicle?" Are we getting anywhere faster? Are there drawbacks? Should there be emission standards. How far can we take this analogy.

"Consciousness" is enough to keep the human beings on planet earth functioning on a basic level. I picture a time-lapse film of cities and highways. You could live a whole life, just being conscious. Is there more? What do you think.

The writer's blind spot is revealed in the choice of adjectives. "mushy" brain cells, "brilliant" consciousness. Creeping gnosticism. Fine, but it isn't science, it's pop-science.

Eh, just some thoughts swimming around in my big crown of thorns neuron this morning.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests