It's real

[Cris]

Cyperium,

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".

That is how labels are used.

… since the "material" that the dream is made of is not physical,

Please more clearly define non physical material. There is no such thing as far as we know.

even if the physical through it's logical patterns makes natural representations of the dreams.

Try this as an example. Take a large bunch of bricks and arrange them into ‘logical’ patterns that form a house. The bricks are still bricks but is the house material or immaterial? I’d hope you’d agree that the house is very physical. Same thing with neural networks – they are very physical and the patterns they form can be dreams – something formed from something physical must itself be physical, just like the house.

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.

The image is physical since it is composed of physical components. It cannot be otherwise.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

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

The vibrations are the building blocks of the sound. All are physical.

You shouldn't be so fast rationalising away everything! Even the obvious!

To the uninformed the earth is flat, it is so obvious.

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

That is how labels are used.

Please more clearly define non physical material. There is no such thing as far as we know.

Non-physical material is what the dream is, physical material is what patterns representing the dream is. You don't experiance the patterns, you experiance the dream.

Try this as an example. Take a large bunch of bricks and arrange them into ‘logical’ patterns that form a house. The bricks are still bricks but is the house material or immaterial? I’d hope you’d agree that the house is very physical. Same thing with neural networks – they are very physical and the patterns they form can be dreams – something formed from something physical must itself be physical, just like the house.

But if the bricks only showed a description of a house (and not actually buildt the house) then the description would be physical, but the actual house (hidden behind the descriptions) are not physical, but simply an idea that the bricks represent.

When the house is visualised through the description, the house is not physical but the description is.

The image is physical since it is composed of physical components. It cannot be otherwise.

The physical only describes it, the visualisation of the image, the experiance of the image is non-physical. The experiance cannot be measured since it happens beyond what is physical even if the physical corresponds to the experiance.

 

[KennyJC]

Cyperium, I am sorry to be the one to tell you this - But God created a universe where everything could be explained. Are you really so sure you want to scoff at his handywork and risk going to hell?

Fear not, the explainable doesn't disprove God, it just means your religion is a pile of shit.

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

The vibrations are the building blocks of the sound. All are physical.

No the vibrations are the building blocks of the patterns in the brain. The sound comes when interpreting these patterns into the right experiance.

The sound is non-physical and is a representation of the vibrations in the air.

Just like color is the representation of the lightwaves.

Can you anywhere in the brain or anywhere in any physical area within you or outside of you see a green wall when visualising a green wall?

Then where is the green wall?

See?

No, of course you don't so let me explain it once more for you.

Let's say you visualise a green apple, you have it clearly in your head, it's green, looks tasty. But nowhere in any physical area inside you or outside of you can you find that same apple that you visualise (and by same I really do mean same, not an apple outside in the garden (if you have one)).

The apple is then since it cannot be found in it's current form and color physically, non-physical.

Actually the color can't exist in the physical world, since there are no colors, only lightwaves, vibrations. Color is completly non-physical. Color is used to represent lightwaves.

There are no colors in the brain, when you think of a green apple, that apple cannot be found in it's current shape (the apple) in the brain. Only when deciphering the data in the brain can the apple be found, but only by experiance can it again be visualised (either on computer screen or by interpretation) and that experiance is in itself non-physical.

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium, I am sorry to be the one to tell you this - But God created a universe where everything could be explained. Are you really so sure you want to scoff at his handywork and risk going to hell?

It's no problem, I only describe what I feel is true and to my best understanding, without any false motives. That is allowed.

 

[KennyJC]

Cyperium, you are trying to say that the workings of the brain is not of the physical world.. I'm guessing to insinuate the existence of a soul. But from what I am aware of without throroughly reading up on the workings of the brain (that's ok since you obviously haven't either), the brain consists of electrical activity.

If we can decide wether or not electrical activity is of the physical world, then I believe we have our answer.

 

[duendy]

Cyperium, you are trying to say that the workings of the brain is not of the physical world.. I'm guessing to insinuate the existence of a soul. But from what I am aware of without throroughly reading up on the workings of the brain (that's ok since you obviously haven't either), the brain consists of electrical activity.

If we can decide wether or not electrical activity is of the physical world, then I believe we have our answer.

IFwe for example takethe 'electrical activity of the brain'---THAT can be measuredd cant it? but the feeling--the meaning of is, the sense cannot be measured......this is the 'hard problem' you are onfusing measuring brain activity, wit meausrin feeling itsefl. but you canna, otherwiiiise it woudna be the 'hard problem' would it?

 

[KennyJC]

IFwe for example takethe 'electrical activity of the brain'---THAT can be measuredd cant it? but the feeling--the meaning of is, the sense cannot be measured......this is the 'hard problem' you are onfusing measuring brain activity, wit meausrin feeling itsefl. but you canna, otherwiiiise it woudna be the 'hard problem' would it?

No of course you can't measure feeling. All I am saying is that there is strong circumstancial evidence (at least) that electrical activity is what makes us all tick and what makes us all feel. Therefor if electrical activity is of the physical world then feelings etc are fundamentally rooted to the physical world alongside it.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

Non-physical material is what the dream is, physical material is what patterns representing the dream is. You don't experiance the patterns, you experiance the dream.

And here is where you need to bring those two ideas together. Those neural patterns, when focused, are the experience. They are part of what makes you you. The neural patterns are the dream.

But if the bricks only showed a description of a house (and not actually buildt the house) then the description would be physical, but the actual house (hidden behind the descriptions) are not physical, but simply an idea that the bricks represent.

That made no sense.

The physical only describes it, the visualisation of the image, the experiance of the image is non-physical.

No this is still wrong. The image is physical, and the experience of the image is also physical. We perceive the image through the eyes and the optic nerve where neural patterns are created in the brain. The action of the brain when the focus is on those patterns is a physical activity, i.e. electrons and synapses are active.

The experiance cannot be measured since it happens beyond what is physical even if the physical corresponds to the experiance.

Theoretically it can be measured since any experience must be the result of neural activity.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

No the vibrations are the building blocks of the patterns in the brain.

No – vibration is the method used for sound transmission through a non-vacuum.

The sound comes when interpreting these patterns into the right experiance.

Sound is received through the ears which are connected to the bran where more neural networks are formed. Recognition and memory of previous sounds also occur as brain (neural) activity.

The sound is non-physical and is a representation of the vibrations in the air.

Sound is entirely physical and formed as vibrations in a non-vacuum. We can detect these vibrations and convert them into physical neural patterns. Interpretation of the sounds is once again a physical activity in the brain. At no point in this sequence is anything non-physical.

Can you anywhere in the brain or anywhere in any physical area within you or outside of you see a green wall when visualising a green wall?

Then where is the green wall?

It’s a mental image formed by a physical neural network in your brain. I don’t see any problem with this. Are you confusing actual objects with mental images of objects?

See?

See what? I don’t see a case for anything non-physical.

Let's say you visualise a green apple, you have it clearly in your head, it's green, looks tasty. But nowhere in any physical area inside you or outside of you can you find that same apple that you visualise (and by same I really do mean same, not an apple outside in the garden (if you have one)).

The apple is then since it cannot be found in it's current form and color physically, non-physical.

Again this is simply a physically held mental image (neural network) inside your brain.

Actually the color can't exist in the physical world, since there are no colors, only lightwaves, vibrations. Color is completly non-physical. Color is used to represent lightwaves.

Of course colors are physical, as you say these are the properties of light which are all very physical. You seem to be confusing labels with objects again. As someone here has said many times – don’t confuse the map for the territory.

There are no colors in the brain, when you think of a green apple, that apple cannot be found in it's current shape (the apple) in the brain.

Yes they can, they are all held as mental images (neural patterns) within the brain.

Only when deciphering the data in the brain can the apple be found, but only by experiance can it again be visualised (either on computer screen or by interpretation) and that experiance is in itself non-physical.

This may be one of the fundamental problems in your thinking. Don’t think of neural networks as data and don’t think of the brain like a computer. But rather consider each neuron as a computer in its own right which holds its own type of data, and the brain as a massive parallel network processing system. The image of the apple for example is not just data but an active processing component of your brain. I.e. the neural network and the experience are one and the same thing. All such experiences are the result of neural activity and are extremely very physical.

 

[kenworth]

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?

havent had time to think about it,am going to japan on tuesday.will ponder at a less stressful time and come up with a coherent statement (i hope)

 

[duendy]

No of course you can't measure feeling. All I am saying is that there is strong circumstancial evidence (at least) that electrical activity is what makes us all tick and what makes us all feel.

me::not 'makes us feel'.....only that electrical activity in the brain can be measured....to claim tat 'makes' us feel is the same reductive scintific assumption that matter produces consciousness

Therefor if electrical activity is of the physical world then feelings etc are fundamentally rooted to the physical world alongside it.

but surely you'fve hard of OBEs and NDEs...where consciousness seems to be aware 'outside' the brain?......i am not being dualist here. i agree with Christian de Quincey,that matter-energy and consciousness ALWYS are togther yet distinct.....but this doesn't discount awareness that is not 'in' thephysical brain

 

[KennyJC]

but surely you'fve hard of OBEs and NDEs...where consciousness seems to be aware 'outside' the brain?......

Yes, although that's better discussed in pseudoscience.

 

[duendy]

Yes, although that's better discussed in pseudoscience.

AHAAA...see what you do right there? it is fragmenting inquiry!...and/or specialization. this is what has happened where all forms of exploration is divided. sos you get one grpup not knowing what nother groups ideas are. tis is a problem througout modern institutions
you CANNOT discuss what we are talking about without realizing the necessity of multidisciplined inquiry

 

[KennyJC]

Duendy. I am sorry but the importance you place with OBE's are within. I do not know how a person can see and hear without the aid of the tools that make us do so as we are used to.

There is a thread in the pseudoscience forum which has discussions on this. If you think OBE's have creadbility then you shall have to explain other concious imperfections like ghosts and UFO's.

I like to think I am using what is given to me, and that I do not wish to induldge in fantasy, like you and theists are keen to do. But if history has told us anything: It is that things can be explained. So I would suggest to you that since there are things we can not yet detail 100%, that does not mean we should indulge in the imaginary world.

 

[duendy]

Duendy. I am sorry but the importance you place with OBE's are within. I do not know how a person can see and hear without the aid of the tools that make us do so as we are used to.

There is a thread in the pseudoscience forum which has discussions on this. If you think OBE's have creadbility then you shall have to explain other concious imperfections like ghosts and UFO's.

I like to think I am using what is given to me, and that I do not wish to induldge in fantasy, like you and theists are keen to do. But if history has told us anything: It is that things can be explained. So I would suggest to you that since there are things we can not yet detail 100%, that does not mean we should indulge in the imaginary world.[/QUOTE]

you claim that history has shown us we can explain everything?...then please explain this: how come that in science there continues the 'mind/body problem'--which is a continuation of the very old dualstic division between Nature and 'spirit'. And that also involved in this UN-explained inquiry, is the 'hard problem' (David Chalmers) in science....?

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

No – vibration is the method used for sound transmission through a non-vacuum.

Sound is received through the ears which are connected to the bran where more neural networks are formed. Recognition and memory of previous sounds also occur as brain (neural) activity.

The vibrations in the air causes receptors in the ear to vibrate making them send signals to the brain, where the signals cause a pattern similiar to that of the vibration. Nowhere here is the sound to be found.

The sound is found when these patterns are recognised as a sound and experianced as such, thus the sound has been found. The sound is entirely non-physical and is the non-physical representation of the physical vibrations - and the physical patterns formed by those vibrations.

It’s a mental image formed by a physical neural network in your brain. I don’t see any problem with this. Are you confusing actual objects with mental images of objects?

It's the mental image that I'm talking about, not the physical neural network. The mental image is in it's own right non-physical. Again, it's not the actual objects I am talking about but the actual existance of the purely mental objects formed by physical patterns in the brain.

See what? I don’t see a case for anything non-physical.

Then you are blind, and I mean it.

Again this is simply a physically held mental image (neural network) inside your brain.

I don't care what holds the image, just that the image as experianced is non-physical.

Of course colors are physical, as you say these are the properties of light which are all very physical. You seem to be confusing labels with objects again. As someone here has said many times – don’t confuse the map for the territory.

The property is physical, but the experiance of the property is non-physical as you said. It's the map I'm talking about not the territory and the map in this sense is non-physical (as the color we see is the non-physical representation of the property of light).

Yes they can, they are all held as mental images (neural patterns) within the brain.

It is when these mental images can be seen as they really are (instead of neural patterns) that they become non-physical (the way we understand it).

This may be one of the fundamental problems in your thinking. Don’t think of neural networks as data and don’t think of the brain like a computer. But rather consider each neuron as a computer in its own right which holds its own type of data, and the brain as a massive parallel network processing system. The image of the apple for example is not just data but an active processing component of your brain. I.e. the neural network and the experience are one and the same thing. All such experiences are the result of neural activity and are extremely very physical.

I will think more about that later. But first we have to look at what makes the experiance (why is it experianced instead of all the mumbo-jumbo that is not experianced) and we have to look at how a apple becomes a processing component and the relation between that and the experiance.

Can you explain further what you mean.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

We are going round in circles here somewhat.

I know exactly what you mean but you need to make the leap to the next step before you can understand where you are wrong.

Think about what you mean when you say "experience", or "recognition", or "mental image". You are still stuck at the stage where you imagine yourself seperate from your brain. Fuse the two and your confusion will disappear.

Now, how exactly the brain does what it does is not going to be so easy to explain.

 

[Bowser]

Cyperium

I think what you are searching is the fact that all external experience is, in truth, internal. Even time is a concept of mind. You can view the experience as being internal or external, but all is mind.

Give this site a look: http://www.lifeisadream.org/sri_ramana.cfm

It is a curious thing to consider.