|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Brian FletcherBrian Fletcher Date: Mar 31, 2008 05:00
>>
>> I'm actually heading towards explaining the illusion of consciousness,
>> and I'm getting there...
>>
>
> I agree with much of what you say. But why is consciousness an
> illusion? Is the quality of "wettness" of hydrogen and oxygen
> molecules enmass, an illusion? No it is a quality of these atoms
> interacting in changing relationships over time.
It is only when one looks through 'non relative eyes' does the illusion
become apparent.Knowing a brick is made up of vibrating energy doesnt dampen
the pain when it drops on your foot.
At a more subtle and powerful level, the 'state of mind' people have, such
as victim consciousness (relationships are dominated by this state) can be
seen clearly as illusion. Made real by the observer.(s)
Below you make references to some amazing scientific speculations, with
tuble construction etc...but makes no progress into the 'reality of life'.
|
| Show full article (5.77Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Mar 31, 2008 07:36
On Mar 30, 11:25Â pm, c...@ kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote: >> If we are to discuss intelligence, we must first make our peace with
>> the relationship between body and soul. Some, of course, are not aware
>> that there is a problem. Let them be happy in their ignorance. Do not
>> disturb.
>
>> Others are aware of a pseudo-problem that they lay to a poor choice of
>> words, a misuse of language. They tend to be very, very clever. They
>> turn on a spigot, and a rush of words befogs the question.
>
>> Soul (spirit, essence, psyche, mind, consciousness, awareness,
>> intelligence, intellect, mentality, self, individuality, persona,
>> personality, conscious mental field, self awareness, sentience,
>> executive function).
>
>> All these words imply an uneasiness with soul. All these words imply
>> an object, or something approaching an object. Something we might
>> carry about in a watch pocket and take out for display at an
>> appropriate time. ...
|
| Show full article (10.68Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Curt WelchCurt Welch Date: Mar 31, 2008 07:47
Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:>>
>> I'm actually heading towards explaining the illusion of consciousness,
>> and I'm getting there...
>>
>
> I agree with much of what you say. But why is consciousness an
> illusion?
Well, the post was my attempt to answer that. If you think I didn't
already answer it that in the post, it's obvious I need to keep working on
it. :)
Consciousness is not the illusion. The illusion is the disconnect we all
sense between our perception of physical events outside the head, and
physical events inside the head.
> Is the quality of "wettness" of hydrogen and oxygen
> molecules enmass, an illusion?
No, it's not an illusion in any sense. That's just our brain's response to
the sensory signals produced by water.
|
| Show full article (14.41Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: rprp Date: Mar 31, 2008 07:49
On 31 Mar, 17:00, "Brian Fletcher" gmail.com> wrote:>>> I'm actually heading towards explaining the illusion of consciousness,
>>> and I'm getting there...
>
>> I agree with much of what you say. But why is consciousness an
>> illusion? Is the quality of "wettness" of hydrogen and oxygen
>> molecules enmass, an illusion? No it is a quality of these atoms
>> interacting in changing relationships over time.
>
> It is only when one looks through 'non relative eyes' does the illusion
> become apparent.Knowing a brick is made up of vibrating energy doesnt dampen
> the pain when it drops on your foot.
>
> At a more subtle and powerful level, the 'state of mind' people have, such ...
|
| Show full article (6.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Curt WelchCurt Welch Date: Mar 31, 2008 08:21
> I the only statements of yours that I can't entirely concur with is your
> one that expresses confidence in us being able to build sufficiently
> complex and correctly adaptively self-organizing (brain mimicking)
> machines in only two decades. The only chance that we may do so may be
> in 50 to hundred years is if we find a way to 'let lose' a rapidly
> automatically evolving AI-algorithmic entities that would then
> necessarily/inevitably also endanger us slowly primarily/originally
> evolved critters. ;>
A few decades are optimistic, but I'm an optimist on this subject.
I put the possibility of such a short time frame on my estimate because of
my beliefs about the basic function of the brain. Though our behavior is
extremely complex (far more so than any machine man...
|
| Show full article (3.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim TylerTim Tyler Date: Mar 31, 2008 09:22
Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
> I the only statements of yours that I can't entirely concur with is your
> one that expresses confidence in us being able to build sufficiently
> complex and correctly adaptively self-organizing (brain mimicking)
> machines in only two decades. The only chance that we may do so may be
> in 50 to hundred years is if we find a way to 'let lose' a rapidly
> automatically evolving AI-algorithmic entities that would then
> necessarily/inevitably also endanger us slowly primarily/originally
> evolved critters. ;>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AlphaAlpha Date: Mar 31, 2008 07:29
>>>
>>> I'm actually heading towards explaining the illusion of consciousness,
>>> and I'm getting there...
>>>
>>
>> I agree with much of what you say. But why is consciousness an
>> illusion? Is the quality of "wettness" of hydrogen and oxygen
>> molecules enmass, an illusion? No it is a quality of these atoms
>> interacting in changing relationships over time.
>
> It is only when one looks through 'non relative eyes' does the illusion
> become apparent.
WTF does that mean!?
|
| Show full article (1.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AlphaAlpha Date: Mar 31, 2008 06:55
> Sir Frederick wrote:
>
>> Hubris R US :
>>
>> http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html
>>
>>
>> NICHOLAS HUMPHREY
>> Psychologist, London School of Economics; Author, The Mind Made Flesh
>>
>> I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick,
Tricks still are existents. So now we have to try and discover why it seem
so prevalent and so tied to our capabilities awareness and experiences;
without it we would be zombies, all function and no experience.
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AlphaAlpha Date: Mar 31, 2008 07:21
> soul = consciousness
Soul DNE consciousness thus rendering the remarks based on that fanciful
notion erroneous. Conflating two terms with obviously different meanings,
now that we have made some progress in the sciences and also analysis of
what soul-speak meant in the past, is where some tend to end the argument
because they are unable to argue the merits of the case.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: AlphaAlpha Date: Mar 31, 2008 07:18
"turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:38d7cb82-9581-4ad0-97cb-21ccee79a680@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 7:45 pm, "rs...@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Turtoni: Maturana and Varela[11] showed
that the brain is massively involved with creating worlds of
experience for us with meager input from the senses.
Alpha: He does envision, I believe, a VR approach to constructing models of
worlds.
Turtoni: Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins[12] sums up the interactive
view of experience: "In a way, what sense organs do is assist our
brains to construct a useful model and it is this model that we move
around in. It is a kind of virtual reality simulation of the world."
The enactive approach is not inconsistent with that, even though Dawkins is
mistaken in other areas.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
