It's real

[kenworth]

it seems that what is identified as "me" alters depending on which sense i am relying on at that moment.

 

[charles cure]

it seems that what is identified as "me" alters depending on which sense i am relying on at that moment.

when is it, do you think, that you are only relying on information received by just one of your senses?

 

[gendanken]

Where did I say that?

Oops.
See, you have this habit of putting quotes in italics and I have a habit of fucking up who wrote what when they italicize and not block quoted text.

Mi malo. (*#&$*()#$&(*#&)$(&#(*$&#()*&$&$&#*(&$(#&(*$&(

one raven:
Maybe you could drag Cyperium back in here.

 

[kenworth]

when is it, do you think, that you are only relying on information received by just one of your senses?

when something flies close to my face and i move to aviod it:eyes.when im in the woods trying to hear where something is coming from:ears etc etc.

 

[charles cure]

when something flies close to my face and i move to aviod it:eyes.when im in the woods trying to hear where something is coming from:ears etc etc.

right, but just because youre receiving information primarily from one of your senses doesnt mean you arent using the rest of them. all of your senses are active all of the time (unless you are somehow disabled) and even though you might be receiving more important information from one than from another, the rest of them dont just cease to send their input.

 

[kenworth]

right, but just because youre receiving information primarily from one of your senses doesnt mean you arent using the rest of them. all of your senses are active all of the time (unless you are somehow disabled) and even though you might be receiving more important information from one than from another, the rest of them dont just cease to send their input.

*sigh* thats what i meant.i didnt mean that when im trying to listen out for something i go blind.i thought that would be obvious.

 

[charles cure]

*sigh* thats what i meant.i didnt mean that when im trying to listen out for something i go blind.i thought that would be obvious.

right, but i guess what im saying is that "who you are" doesnt change depending on what sense youre relying on, because youre always relying on all of them, the focus just changes temporarily.

 

[kenworth]

right, but i guess what im saying is that "who you are" doesnt change depending on what sense youre relying on, because youre always relying on all of them, the focus just changes temporarily.

but at times when the focus is on one of your senses the location of "me" changes,ie im worried about loosing the sense that i am relying heavily on and so i think of it as my "self".shit,this is degenerating into hand wavy bollocks.i have an idea in my head but i cant express it properly.have the same problem with the fact that we are here.

 

[charles cure]

but at times when the focus is on one of your senses the location of "me" changes,ie im worried about loosing the sense that i am relying heavily on and so i think of it as my "self".shit,this is degenerating into hand wavy bollocks.i have an idea in my head but i cant express it properly.have the same problem with the fact that we are here.

i dont know, i guess i just dont get it. i agree to disagree. sorry if i missed your point.

 

[kenworth]

its my fault,ive not been very clear.,will come back to it if i think of a better way to explain

 

[one_raven]

I think kenworth is referring to the focus and direction of his conscious thought changing, not the sum of who he is, but his state of mind and state of being in that moment -which could drastically change your mood, reactions, emotional state and many other factors that will add up to change the "you" in that moment.
The "net" rather than "gross" you.

Does that make sense?
Is that what you meant, kenworth?

 

[Bowser]

I think kenworth is referring to the state of being an emotion or being aware of an emotion as it passes through his being. conscious thought... his he one or the other?

 

[Bowser]

I think kenworth is referring to the state of being an emotion or being aware of an emotion as it passes through his being. conscious thought... his he one or the other?

I should have said:
conscious thought... He is one or the other.

 

[Cyperium]

no one understands it because it doesnt make sense. i guess youre saying something like that you have a soul and thats where you feel things and your body is just a huge receptor of information that allows the soul to experience things. well even if you thought this way, you still cant have one without the other, if the sould resided in the body or was trapped in it, the fact that you cant interact with the spirit after its gone kind of points to its need for the body and its direct relation to it.
now if youre not in a fantasy world believeing in souls and crap, then you realize that your feelings are indeed brought on by a complex set of reactions that begin with physical sensation and are not independent of it. but hey keep going with whatever point you were trying to get across, it will reach a spot where it becomes impossible to justify your view with any type of evidence or logic at all if it hasnt already.

The non-physical representation of yourself is needed, otherwise any physical pattern would be meaningless as it wouldn't have anything to interpret it.

Any pattern focused on will be "solved", but how do you differentiate between orderly patterns and patterns of just mumbo-jumbo?

That's the question, but you haven't got as far as to understand why that is the question. So if you please try to understand what I'm saying then maybe you can answer or give suggestions as to what answer is correct.

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

Try this - you are your brain. The term "feeling" is just a label for a set of activities in your brain. You feel because that is what your brain is doing.

You are tying yourself in knots here because you are trying to think of yourself as something seperate - all clinical evidence especially from subjects with brain damage show a direct correlation between brain function and thoughts, feelings, memories, etc.

I.e. you and your brain are one and the same thing.

The term "feeling" is not just a label for a set of activities, the term "feeling" applies to what is felt, we feel something, thus the term "feeling".

Seperate? I dunno, false assumptions again, I don't follow mainstream ideas just because they are "mainstream ideas", I follow some mainstream ideas because they happen to coincide with my previous knowledge and my previous understanding of how I and the world works. It's fun sometimes though to try to understand how these mainstream ideas work, and sometimes they are very logical and understandable, but then we have to understand *what* is logical and understandable so that we can look at the rest and see if that too is logical and consistent.

What I know is that the physical cannot in itself offer a full explanation of dreams, since the "material" that the dream is made of is not physical, even if the physical through it's logical patterns makes natural representations of the dreams.

If you through logical codes make a picture, the picture itself as a whole is not yet visible, since we don't have anything to interpret the picture, to the picture itself it is only mumbo-jumbo and looks like random information.

But the interpreter can if interpreted correctly see the image. The image (represented by physical patterns) is in itself not physical (but "behind" the code), therefor the image is experianced as non-physical, since it cannot be experianced as physical since there is no physical picture, but only physical patterns representing the picture.

 

[(Q)]

What I know is that the physical cannot in itself offer a full explanation of dreams, since the "material" that the dream is made of is not physical, even if the physical through it's logical patterns makes natural representations of the dreams.

Then, it appears that what you know and what IS known are two different things. Mumbo-jumbo?

 

[Cyperium]

What I know is that the physical cannot in itself offer a full explanation of dreams, since the "material" that the dream is made of is not physical, even if the physical through it's logical patterns makes natural representations of the dreams.

Then, it appears that what you know and what IS known are two different things. Mumbo-jumbo?

What I know and what IS known are two different things as you say.

If we say that this code represents "12345":
98734

then we have right next to it just "mumbo-jumbo":
534978

How do we know which code represents something ordered?

Especially when it comes to images and such which are not immediatly recognized as such.

We are physical, but we experiance something non-physical. A sound - as it is - is not physical, while vibrations in the air is physical. The sound is then something that represents the physical "sound" - vibrations.

The same way the feelings are representations of the physical conditions, whether they be patterns in the brain or whatever, but the feelings - as felt - is non-physical in character and a green wall in a dream cannot be pictured physically - as is (sure, if a computer could interpret the signals in the brain that makes up the green wall, then it would be pictured, but the picture experianced by the subject cannot since it is non-physical).

 

[(Q)]

We are physical, but we experiance something non-physical.

Nope. That has never been shown, nor can it.

A sound - as it is - is not physical

Wrong, it is completely of the physical world.

but the feelings - as felt - is non-physical in character

You keep repeating that, but it is complete BS.

 

[duendy]

We are physical, but we experiance something non-physical.

me::ie te brain is physical and can be measured, but subjective consciousness and feeling is not physical and cant be measured. itisn't 'in' the brain.

Nope. That has never been shown, nor can it.

me::Have you heard of the 'Hard Problem' in science?They are talkin about it

A sound - as it is - is not physical

Wrong, it is completely of the physical world.


but the feelings - as felt - is non-physical in character

You keep repeating that, but it is complete BS.

but why? explain why it is BS? thankyou

 

[Cyperium]

We are physical, but we experiance something non-physical.

Nope. That has never been shown, nor can it.

Sure it can be shown, pretty easily, but I guess it's like the saying "they hear, but they do not hear".

A sound - as it is - is not physical

Wrong, it is completely of the physical world.

The vibrations is, but the sound is not. The patterns representing the sound, but the sound is not!

but the feelings - as felt - is non-physical in character

You keep repeating that, but it is complete BS.

No it's not! You shouldn't be so fast rationalising away everything! Even the obvious!