BenDhyan » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:07 am wrote:To the materialistically inclined , the question is rhetorical as such persons naturally cannot imagine a state of mind they have not yet realized.[2,3]
I know this could sound awfully condescending,
but let me make it clear that we each have our own goals in life, who is to say which is superior to another.
My point is that our beliefs shape our destiny, and each realizing their own destiny is more important than wasting time debating which is correct.....they are all true.
dada » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:50 pm wrote:The computer metaphor requires a holographic model to solve the problem of the display. The problem here is that a hologram is generated in a space, and there is no space for the hologram to be generated in. We're forced to say it is a virtual hologram, one that doesn't occupy a space.
The avatar or camera through which the virtual hologram is viewed must also be generated within this virtual construct that occupies no space. Fine, but at what point is it fair to say we are using a scientific framework to describe a religion? A complex religion, certainly, but a religion nonetheless. A complex religion wearing a lab coat.
JackRiddler » Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:31 am wrote:BenDhyan » Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:07 am wrote:To the materialistically inclined, the question is rhetorical as such persons naturally cannot imagine a state of mind they have not yet realized.
Undefined term. Unsubstantiated claim. Strawman.I know this could sound awfully condescending,
It might, but it lacks the intimidation factor.but let me make it clear that we each have our own goals in life, who is to say which is superior to another.
Eh, kind of leaving it all to the wind. Sure. Whatever.My point is that our beliefs shape our destiny, and each realizing their own destiny is more important than wasting time debating which is correct.....they are all true.
Oof. "Beyond good and evil," it's all in the "destiny," could be accused of justifying anything and everything; though really it tends to a big lazy nothingburger, so it may be okay from the standpoint of a consequentialist morality. Free-spirit it all the way, man.
But on the last. No, truth can be elusive, contestable, can definitely be plural, may not even exist, but under no circumstances are "all true." I can see why you would like that.
Elvis » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:03 pm wrote:DrEvil wrote:I'm still in the strictly materialist camp of consciousness. There's just so many things supporting it, and pretty much every explanation I see that goes beyond that has a strong whiff of religion, which to me is just wishful thinking.
My view of "non-local" consciousness is derived from evidence (including evidence published by institutional scientists), not from religion. I've repeatedly invited you to look at the evidence, but for one reason or another you decline. On the one occasion I recall you responding to some data, you waved it off without addressing or properly disputing it. Therefore on this question I claim the rigor.
October 1, 2018
Zen Gardner, Guest
I’ve always been fascinated by the clear commonalities of religions and philosophies, and their intermingling with mysticism and the so-called occult – which is nothing more than sequestered teachings of the same.
I’m similarly bewildered by the tendency of humanity to take things out of context, or as stand alone proposed truths which may appear incomplete and therefore untrue by themselves.
Everything Leads to Unity – Separation is an Illusion
It all fits together like a multi-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, as I perceive it – each aspect or seemingly partial truth a reflection or incidence in another context of the same derived essence. Fractals, as beautifully illustrated by the Mandelbrot sets, are the tracers of this dimensional reality. Applied to human knowledge and understanding, this same living metaphor can give great insight as to the true nature of our amazing universe as well as our perception. Not just scientifically, but in our language declination, interpretive skills, and deeper sensory capabilities on many mundane as well as esoteric levels.
It’s all inter-connected as well as inter-dependent. This is the magic of conscious awakening, tapping into the plane of inter-connectivity, which Carl Jung referred to as the collective unconscious. Whatever it is, so many aspects of religious and spiritual teachings, deep philosophical and metaphysical thought, and now even post-mechanistic science, are identifying this same common denominator.
The terms for this have become somewhat flacid in the modern information onslaught, but unity consciousness is pretty spot on. Just how we’re interconnected defies the limitations of human reason. For a purpose – we’re here to arise through this in-flesh existence. Why? We can only conjecture. But apparently we are souls of some sort learning and growing through the experience. Any way we look at it, the challenge is before us and we are somehow aware of these mind-boggling and astoundingly wonderful aspects.
The Debilitating Power of Perceived Separation
Assuming you agree with me that there is an underlying unity within the Universe, at whatever level or levels, why then experience separation at this plane of existence as we do? Why the struggle to find and affirm unity if that is the inherent nature of all things? Why isn’t it inherent?
It is. Just at a different level of perception, the revolving prism through which we gaze.
This brings us directly to our dualistic paradigm we have apparently been dropped into. It reminds me of the caterpillar going through its metamorphosis, an illustration we cannot side step. Nor the many other seemingly nonsensical cycles of this magnificent creation we were born into – however limiting it can seem to whomever, and which that bothersome “other” nature within us senses at some level since birth. The perceived dualism is just a lack of understanding and/or recognition, at very profound levels.
This may appear laced with assumptions to the skeptic, but those who can hear this will hear. Some here amongst us will refuse to allow or even consciously recognize these other “bothersome” sensations, but that’s a choice anyone can make in this playing field.
Another great majestic mystery is that of free will, our unfettered power of choice. Of course this is being infringed upon through social as well as technological programming, but I contest it cannot ever be fully erased or overcome. Especially if we discern those clear signs that such are being foisted upon us and our freedom to not participate at any given time. The early warning system does not fail, but most today are blowing past that and suffering the sad consequences. It was and is still a choice.
But separation, the literal idea that we or anything is literally separate at its ultimate energetic level, is the illusion. This is spoken about since the Tao Te Ching, through Buddhism, the Summerian and Egyptian teachings, Greek philosophy and many unsung movements, all of which were later replayed in the Bible and gnostic teachings at varying levels of interference. And on and on. I can’t possibly go into the deeper aspects of this, but suffice it to say that adopting a worldview of separation brings hate, greed, competition, intolerance, and division on every level.
And the suffocation of love.
And what is the interpersonal as well as societal result? For one, disharmony and strife. But ultimately? An easily manipulated race by anyone or anything seeking control. That’s just the nature of things. That there are such entities or even people who’d capitalize on this phenomenon is for each individual to find out for themselves, but it is a truth.
What we need to know is that even this is part of the process in this experience. It dovetails with everything about our challenge here and to me only stands to reason, as well as being confirmed bythe mountains of evidence as to the truth of it.
So Aspects and Fractals? The Wind Up…and Out
Everything has its derivative, it’s counterpart or playmate, as quantum physics has discovered. It’s all energetically connected and cannot be separated from anything. Quantum entanglement is one of the coolest terms and ideas to date, but we’re only just touching the periphery of things, still. Every so-called, or self-proclaimed I should say, advanced civilization has thought it was the cat’s meow with what it discovered. Hardly any humility except in a precious few. A repeated meme even in recorded history.
We know what happened to the ones we know about. Atlantean culture seems to have gone the same way, but many will shun that idea. I don’t. And who knows who their precedents were? All I know is, the cycle is breakable, individually for sure, and collectively we will have to see, but the opportunity awaits.
Our lower human avarice and thirst for knowledge and power seems to know no bounds. Yet some beautiful men and women instead stand up to such unconscious tirades, and yet stand in awe. I salute those brave and beautiful souls.
I contend we are living in the darkest of ages. Technology means nothing without conscious awakening. Those in “authority” are just inventing new cages for the suppressed and more advanced war machines as the planet is plundered, as seems to be the repeating trend through the ages. We really don’t know the whole story – we’ve been cut off from our linear, historical past. But what is evident is evident.
The cover up is not by accident. We might soon learn something and thereby break the cycle. It’s truly up to us, as astounding as that may seem. But it’s true.
Never mind knowing everything, we know enough.
While consciousness calls.
JackRiddler » Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:57 am wrote:.
1. Doctor Not-Who: The mind is never going to be computable. Hey, assertion, I know. Go for it. Simulations of it are by definition computable, of course, and at some point the transhumanists may successfully sell everyone on a simulation so good it must be the real thing. It won't be. Certainly not as long as the current round of nerds are pursuing it. I guess those are all faith assertions.
2. dada: Now you're the one stuck in metaphors, hologram and screen and space and whatnot. Leaving aside the totally solipsistic possibilities -- I mean if you're willing to allow me that much -- then you and I and everyone else claiming a mind's eye currently exist and have consciousness. Doesn't matter if we're in a Matrix -- we have individual consciousness, just like in the movie. Doesn't matter what consciousness "is," whether it's inherent and arises in us from our material make-up, or if it is something bigger and outside and we are just tendrils of it. Even as tendrils, each tendril has its own sub-consciousness to the extent where it experiences life as an individual. It also doesn't matter what other beings or objects may also possess consciousness, or be tendrils, or whatever. Side question. Are we willing passengers on this train of thought, so far? Can we accept this moderate philosophical realism so far? Okay:
So our memory-images and imagined visualizations/smellizations/innersongs/conjured sense-perceptions obviously exist. (I won't even go into whether they are "material," as I consider that a misunderstanding. They don't move stuff in our surroundings, but they do exist. Everything that exists is material, or immaterial, the distinction is false or way too squishy to be posited as a significant dichotomy.) So where do these images "live" before or after we conjure-recall-fall prey to them? Where do they "come from"?
Again, I hope you're willing to grant certain assumptions: that we didn't each just blink into existence this very second, complete with our memories that never happened. We experienced things, we remember them; our memories are constantly re-remembered and unreliable and occasionally hallucinated, but nevertheless deeply entrenched in actual past experience that we lived through. Also, we remember all this junk we've learned individually, words, maps, Star Trek episode titles, etc. So this stuff is not in consciousness, can be called into consciousness, can be associated into consciousness surprisingly by whatever else we happen to be doing or thinking, can pop in at seeming random, etc., and yet for all the caveats memories are amazingly consistent from occurrence to occurrence, suggesting some relatively stable "store" of memory located "somewhere" outside consciousness whenever we are not conscious of it. (Quotes because I hate all these words insofar they all block or pre-define too much that IS necessarily there but IS NOT observed; I don't want the terminology to become the debate, here.)
This memory-place has not been observed as a hard drive. It would have quantum-level electrons playing the 0s and 1s, I suppose. That sounds so scientific, but it has not been observed, it is a purely speculative entity. So where the hell is it? You keep asking where the hell we image any of it, the location of the hologram or screen, which is a great question, but one that I consider separate (obviously we are imaging the whole damn time, for example by seeing or hearing anything).
For today, I'm playing with the totally unsubstantiated idea, hardly new to me or you (hell, I first picked it up reading Heinlein's story about Dr. Pinero at age 13 or something) that each living thing is an organism-worm noodling through the relatively inanimate surrounding four-dimensional matter-energy-filled space, and the current front of said worm (you in the present) is in touch with echoes of all that it passed through before. For today, this is no more ridiculous to me than the hard-drive metaphor. So there.
Also: if a simulation is so good you can't tell the difference, how do you know there is a difference?
0 - 1. On - off. Dark - Light. In - Out. Cold - Hot. Pain - Pleasure. Boy - Girl. Friend - Foe. Good - Evil. As above - So below...… Seems to me, mathematically metastasizing, this is where matters began and end.
A lotta philosophers strive to compare their parallel plane to the planet we apparently seem to share - an alternate reality, if you will... some flatulant, flunky, false flag philosophy, or preferring to refer to my regular reality as geo or ego-centric because from my perspective, and probably yours - in our mutually exclusive shared experience, our world is infinite in every direction, our horizon is essentially always eye level, nobody knows what's far below, while our Sun and Moon and star constellations cross our sky - like a series of signals - wa-ay up high...
JackRiddler » Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:40 am wrote:.
The last point doesn't contradict what I said. Sure, they know locations within the brain within which memory appears to reside (based on measured electrical activity), with the further evidence of what happens when said parts of the brain are damaged. (Of course, this doesn't contradict receiver theories but let's forget that.)
The location doesn't tell you how it works. You know how a hard drive works. You know how a heart works. (You even sort of know why a heart works, if you accept that it's tautological.) You do not know how memory is stored, how it is accessible, how it can just pop back on its own, how it can be on your mind without your being aware of it, etc. If conceived as information (possibly a false paradigm for conscious experience, but I know you're devoted to it), the stored experience of a year probably still adds up to more than what's currently stored on every electronic medium in the world. How is it "written," "stored," "accessed" (if these words really describe how it is done), then rewritten and restored and relayered with each remembrance? Instantaneously, no load time. Where are the ones and twos you believe must be there? (Or the triads, or whatever.) What is their medium?
Who says our minds "run" on something? Like Windows runs on a Lenovo? What does the something on which minds run, run on? Seems to me you'll be as ready to keep laying down a theoretical substrate beneath the theoretical substrate, or a first cause behind the first cause, as any theist worth his pillar of salt.
It's why I've often put up the horror movie reality that the quick-and-dirty fix for synthetic consciousness is going to be hybrid. They'll run a computer on a cow brain, eventually they'll grow human brains with computers attached.
Also: if a simulation is so good you can't tell the difference, how do you know there is a difference?
If by simulation you mean (as I did) one that we talk to (as opposed to one that we exist in, like the Matrix), I will know there is a difference after it's fooled me and its programmer shows the code and the machine it "runs" on. I will know (faith assertion?!) that it's not conscious, even if it's programmed to produce every response that a conscious entity might in such a way as to fool me. I will know that it's not even conscious on the level of an insect or a microbe, because I know (faith assertion?!) that consciousness is a quality of being alive, and the threshold is being alive, not processing power. That is what I meant.
Leaving aside metaphysics, this idea that if something can fool you it's a consciousness will eventually be known as Turing's Fallacy. We have that shit already every day, machines outwit the shit out of us, and they are not conscious. This is why there a distinction nowadays is commonly made between artificial intelligence and consciousness.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests