It's real
- Thread starter Cyperium
- Start date
not really. itis idealism. the conept tat 'mind' is more omportan and predominant than 'matter'....but what idealsm does is create a psychological SCHISM between 'mind' and 'matter', whilst what we NEED isan understanding that both includes 'matter' and 'mind' as co-equalsBowser said: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.
Ok, consider this;
The physical neural networks cannot change as quickly as the dream, the impulses can though, thus we can say that the dream is arranged by these impulses which travel through the neural networks.
Still there is nowhere to be found the color green within these impulses, thus the actual dream, not the impulses/neural networks that formed it must be non-physical. Because the color green is non-physical, the notion that the color green is physical, the way we know it, is absurd (what is it composed of?, as it's only composed of the color green - if you tried to break it down it would only become fainter).
If "physical" is what is real or what exists then yes, feelings are physical. But "physical" applies to what can be measured and feelings as they are cannot be measured, only the physical neural networks and the physical impulses that forms the dreams can be measured, the actual dream can't.
This is not weird in any way, you can only measure the physical representation of the feeling. The feeling itself is just not to be found in a physical way.
So what is the difference between the physical character of the feeling and the non-physical?
I think the difference is that the non-physical gives the meaning of the physical. No physical process can represent this meaning, since the meaning is a symbol of what the physical represents. Thus the world we see is covered in meaning representing colors, hardness, sound, smell, all representations of the physical properties. Meaning can only be defined non-physically and understood that way (since any meaning would be meaningless without the experiance which is the awareness of the meaning).
And awareness as such is non-physical.
The physical neural networks cannot change as quickly as the dream, the impulses can though, thus we can say that the dream is arranged by these impulses which travel through the neural networks.
Still there is nowhere to be found the color green within these impulses, thus the actual dream, not the impulses/neural networks that formed it must be non-physical. Because the color green is non-physical, the notion that the color green is physical, the way we know it, is absurd (what is it composed of?, as it's only composed of the color green - if you tried to break it down it would only become fainter).
If "physical" is what is real or what exists then yes, feelings are physical. But "physical" applies to what can be measured and feelings as they are cannot be measured, only the physical neural networks and the physical impulses that forms the dreams can be measured, the actual dream can't.
This is not weird in any way, you can only measure the physical representation of the feeling. The feeling itself is just not to be found in a physical way.
So what is the difference between the physical character of the feeling and the non-physical?
I think the difference is that the non-physical gives the meaning of the physical. No physical process can represent this meaning, since the meaning is a symbol of what the physical represents. Thus the world we see is covered in meaning representing colors, hardness, sound, smell, all representations of the physical properties. Meaning can only be defined non-physically and understood that way (since any meaning would be meaningless without the experiance which is the awareness of the meaning).
And awareness as such is non-physical.
Last edited:
Cyperium,
In a similar way when recreational drugs are used or even tobacco, it is the synapses that are affected and made to fire abnormally, the more severe effects range from hallucinations, to euphoria, to madness.
The best I have found so far on the cause of dreams is that during sleep the brain takes time to have the proteins replaced in its synapses. These are connections between neurons that are not electrical. During normal activity the protein is consumed and must be replenished frequently, a primary justification for sleep where we are defenseless. As the synapses are “altered” by new protein they will tend to cause random neural firings which we experience as dreams. Without sleep and dreaming our synapses would cease to function and we would die.
In a similar way when recreational drugs are used or even tobacco, it is the synapses that are affected and made to fire abnormally, the more severe effects range from hallucinations, to euphoria, to madness.
The image of the color green is held as neural networks. These are physical.
Externally it is a specific frequency of light, which is physical, and in the brain it is recorded as a neural pattern, which is physical.
Gibberish.
Numerous clinical trials have had no problems isolating and stimulating brain areas that result in specific feelings. If I can find those references again I’ll post them. Feelings are simply neuro-chemical brain activity – i.e. entirely physical and largely measurable. What we can’t measure is due to our poor instrumentation rather than any inherent impossibility.
You are implying it is impossible. I strongly suspect that when we can instrument the brain in far more sophisticated ways then we should be able to interpret neural networks which include dreams. This is merely an engineering problem yet to be solved.
Entirely wrong.
Again – entirely wrong.
Nice to see that dreams have alot of purpouse, though that does not have anything to do with the case.Cris said:
The image? What is that image composed of? Green? How is it interpreted so that we experiance 'green'? Where physically is the 'green' that we experiance?
Sure. Then it is experianced as green, and the green is not physical. Even if you could take the patterns and interpret it using a computer and displayed on the screen to be green, it doesn't matter cause we don't have a screen to display it on, thus the screen that it is displayed on is physical and the physical green marks on the screen is too, but we don't have that. Therefor the green marks that we experiance is *not* physical (and it's so obvious that I don't even know why I have to explain this to you).
You don't have to, I know that it is that way.
What did I say was impossible? To measure the actual feeling physically, yes. Not to measure the areas in the brain making up the feeling or the signals that represent it. I didn't say the physical was impossible to measure, I said that physical *is* what can be measured, the definition of physical. Was I wrong in that?
Sure, I have no doubt about that, would be hard for a computer to interpret a feeling though, maybe with words like "ouch - pain" or such...but a image should work and a sound too. You still haven't got a clue what I mean though.
Cyperium,
But you brought up dreams and didn’t know what they were.
Once again – neural networks – and the experience is neural networks – you are your neural networks – this is how the brain/you operates. There is nothing else and it is all totally physical.
Experiences are physical. Why do you say they aren’t?
The experience of green is a physical process, if it weren’t so then you would not be able to experience it.
Cyperium
Why do you continue to argue that which is taught in high school science classes? You either choose remain ignorant on how the brain works because it is in your nature, hence you are religious, or it conflicts with your religious beliefs?
Either way, you are clearly showing that religion either causes or is the result of ignorance or both.
Why do you continue to argue that which is taught in high school science classes? You either choose remain ignorant on how the brain works because it is in your nature, hence you are religious, or it conflicts with your religious beliefs?
Either way, you are clearly showing that religion either causes or is the result of ignorance or both.
The dreams in this context is to show that there are *not* any physical green wall in your brain while you dream about it. Thus the green wall *must* be non-physical even by logic (by logic). The fact that the physical represents a green wall gives rise to the non-physical experiance of the green wall. We see the meaning behind it which is what I talked about earlier.Cris said:
When I see a dream, I don't see neural networks. Why?
Because they aren't. Should I lie to you? How then are you going to see what I mean?
Even though a physical process represents green, what it *represents* is not physical!
So tell me;
We have the design of the dream in the neural networks, but where is the physical mental green? I haven't seen anything green within my brain.
Look here; green! See, a physical representation of green. Where in that do you see the green?
That pattern in the brain represents the same waves that meets the eyes is clear, it's physical. The pattern *must* give rise to a underlying truth since it represents reality (please try!), it is that truth that is the experiance, the meaning behind.
? I wasn't aware I was, they really didn't talk that much about it in highschool.(Q) said:
nope wrong.I haven't ignored anything. I refute that the braincells and electrons and neural networks is the same as the experiance. The experiance may very well be the representation of the various patterns in the brain, however it is still non-physical...
Let's say you create a code representing 'green' nobody else understands it, but the code still yields green (just not to anyone but you), that is what is non-physical and the experiance is the finding of the green, the underlying truth of the code, is green. It's not physical, but it's there (hiding - in a way).
Q, it never occured to you that you might be wrong? We still don't know that much about the brain as to say for sure how experiances work. Or else you are ignoring quite a bit.
Last edited:
Ok, I have found that there are two ways to look at this, since I understand that my way of looking at it seems to be the right way I can also understand that your way of looking at it seems to be the right way for you.
Nevertheless I want to discuss this, since I really believe my way of looking at it is the right way! For me, it is obvious, like "my hands are there". I can understand that your way seems as obvious to you.
This is why this discussion is of increasing interest for me (since both parts can produce equal compelling arguments - as it is seen for both as if their view were correct).
I've researched the net for some information about this matter, maybe you can understand my view better if given from a different angle from different people.
Main area - The problem of consciousness
Unanswers (about the problem of consciousness)
A sceptic about consciousness - this is actually *very* similiar to our discussion! Though it's fictional be sure to read it and they are *very* interested to hear from you.
For fairness sake, here's a link that supports your view:
What is consciousness?
Is there a "hard problem" of consciousness?
Also here is a objective stand with good information about this subject and also recognises that it is a problem, the information seems very reliable with sources etc.
Facing up to the problem of consciousness
Note: You in this post means the ones refuting my views on this, I'm sure there are other "you's" that support my view also.
Nevertheless I want to discuss this, since I really believe my way of looking at it is the right way! For me, it is obvious, like "my hands are there". I can understand that your way seems as obvious to you.
This is why this discussion is of increasing interest for me (since both parts can produce equal compelling arguments - as it is seen for both as if their view were correct).
I've researched the net for some information about this matter, maybe you can understand my view better if given from a different angle from different people.
Main area - The problem of consciousness
Unanswers (about the problem of consciousness)
A sceptic about consciousness - this is actually *very* similiar to our discussion! Though it's fictional be sure to read it
and they are *very* interested to hear from you.For fairness sake, here's a link that supports your view:
What is consciousness?
Is there a "hard problem" of consciousness?
Also here is a objective stand with good information about this subject and also recognises that it is a problem, the information seems very reliable with sources etc.
Facing up to the problem of consciousness
Note: You in this post means the ones refuting my views on this, I'm sure there are other "you's" that support my view also.
Last edited:
Cyperium,
Some good references and I admit I haven't read all of the text yet before replying here. The issue has come up a number of times here in the past, without any meaningful conclusions of course. But for now I will quote one single statement from the final article that largely echoes statements I made earlier in this thread -
One of the main issues is trying to imagine ourselves as part of the issue. We are so used to observing things that are separate from us that it is difficult to perceive ourselves as quite different. Just exactly how does a group of neural activities give rise to the emergent property of experience?
I’ll leave it there for now until I have read some more.
Some good references and I admit I haven't read all of the text yet before replying here. The issue has come up a number of times here in the past, without any meaningful conclusions of course. But for now I will quote one single statement from the final article that largely echoes statements I made earlier in this thread -
And one of my earlier statements -
One of the main issues is trying to imagine ourselves as part of the issue. We are so used to observing things that are separate from us that it is difficult to perceive ourselves as quite different. Just exactly how does a group of neural activities give rise to the emergent property of experience?
I’ll leave it there for now until I have read some more.
Finding that answer would be knowing why the processess work, and it does take more than measurement of neurons. At least it seems that way to me. Finding the answer is breaking the code of the brain and also understanding why it works, a computer needs a interface, we are in the world, in reality. That's the difference and it is a important one. It isn't enough to show on a screen ones thoughts, sure the translator has got it right, but we still don't know why.Cris said:
I'm guessing that the first computer that can read the brain, would be one that is evolved without human knowledge of why, similiar to the brain itself.
But there is a why! Because it works! That, to me, is *very* exciting.