Proof of Consciousness

[Yorda]

consciousness exhibits by default, a duality. a distinction b/w the experiencer and the experience itself.

you are not separate from the universe because you are a part of the universe. the separation is a mental illusion... the same illusion as in a dream... there is nothing but thoughts in a dream, so you can't be separate from anything in the dream, but you are because you think you are...

consciousness (thoughts) separates everything in the universe... it created male and female, day and night, magnetism, every duality..

i outta slap you around with a live fish

you can even see through the eye of a fish... if you hack yourself inside its mind.

 

[Cris]

Yorda,

everyone has a unique personality because everyone has unique thoughts. but consciousness is not a thought, it's the same feeling that everyone has... the feeling that I AM.

And each “I” is different. Your consciousness is an emergent property of your unique brain and mind. What you call “personality” is a result of that unique consciousness that is totally and wholly dependent on your physical brain.

everyone is the same I AM (god, existence).

I am clearly quite different to you, so you are clearly wrong.

that's why i can never cease to be, because I AM everything.

Your consciousness (the you in you) will cease to exist as soon as your brain dies. Have no doubt.

it doesn't matter if i lose my memory and my thoughts (when my body dies). my thoughts are not me because they're my thoughts, my creations... they are not me, the creator.

Your consciousness is entirely dependent on your brain. Show me a consciousness that exists independent of a brain if you think otherwise. Your ability to think, your memory, your mind, and your consciousness are all intertwined and dependent on each other. Each affects the other and all are entirely dependent on normal brain function, and all cease to function if the brain dies.

were you not you when you were 1 years old?

I was not self aware at 1 year old. My consciousness was still developing at that time since my brain was still creating neurons and synapses at a colossal rate. In most animals that necessary complexity of neurology never reaches the level that causes self awareness to the point that that lifeform can express “I am”. In the same way a child also starts at a point where its consciousness is primitive and unaware.

your personality, thoughts and memories change all the time, so you're a new person every day, but you are always you...

If I lose my memory then I will lose my identity and I will not know who I am. My consciousness and personality is dependent on a normal functioning brain. Consciousness is merely an attribute of brain function that allows perception. If my brain becomes severely damaged such that the complexity of neural networks drop below the level needed to sustain consciousness and self awareness then I will become little more than a vegetable as has been observed in many such unfortunate cases. The “I” that was would be lost forever.

if you are not you in your next life (when you've lost all your current memory and thoughts), then you are not you in this life because you don't remember your past life.

There is only one life that we can determine from current evidence, to speculate about something beyond has no merit.

 

[Gustav]

Yorda,

And each “I” is different. Your consciousness is an emergent property of your unique brain and mind.

provide citation

 

[Cris]

Cortex,

“ But where did the observing mind come from? Buddhist philosophers claim that minds are primordial and exist before entering their physical environment. In the early stages of its evolution the universe was, of course, uninhabitable for animals and humans. ”

Observations made in ignorance of neurology and how minds are possible through brain funtion.

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/anthropism.htm

A wonderfully classic and well know logical fallacy.

The universe is so finely tuned to life because it was the cause of life. Had the universe been different then either life would not have arisen or life would have been consequently different. Life is the result not the cause.

 

[Cris]

Gustav,

provide citation

Aww gee the web is full of references to consciousness as an emergent property. Pick one.

 

[SkinWalker]

Crick, Francis (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Touchstone, p.11.

Edit: here's a few more:

Sperry, R.W. (1980), Mind–brain interaction: Mentalism yes; Dualism no, Neuroscience, 5, pp. 195–206.

Byrne, A. (1993). The Emergent Mind. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University.

Chalmers, David (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory . Oxford University Press.

 

[Cris]

Cortex,

http://www.ctmu.org/ (see CTMU Primer)

This reference and the concept has been quoted many times in the past here and discussed briefly before it is universally declared utter gibberish. Nothing has changed.

The bold highlight explains why we are able to perceive each other as "individual" identities (difference), when in fact we are a holistic identity (sameness/oneness/monic/holistic).

No this is nonsense. You are clearly different to me. We each have different and unique identities. That difference is real and can be clearly perceived by each of us. No two objects can be the same. Even two identical copies of something are different in that their geographical locations must be different.

 

[Gustav]

huge mistake, you two
however i think its best if we reach some kind of a middle ground so try not to get far out into the fringe, ja?

oh
chalmers is my ally, not yours
these woo woo's could be handled without dragging out any of that crap. those hypotheses! its unproven overkill and thats why you will lose



/naptime

 

[SkinWalker]

Heh.. I'm not establishing "allies," merely providing the citations you requested. All I know of Chalmer's work is that he discusses the emergent quality of the mind. I have the text above, but haven't actually read it yet (so many stacks of texts, so little time).

 

[Gustav]

ahhh
much ado about nothing then
nipped right smartly in the bud
defanged so to speak
whatnot

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

Everything is not relative to me, I am relative to everything, since there is no way of prooving that anything exists outside of one's observational realm. To think is to assume that things outside of oneself exists. To know is to grant that mind is all that one can know, therefore, reality is not real outside of the mind, yet there is only one indivisible reality, therefore, the one reality is not a human mind, but the divine mind of God's.

If I lose my memory then I will lose my identity and I will not know who I am. My consciousness and personality is dependent on a normal functioning brain. Consciousness is merely an attribute of brain function that allows perception. If my brain becomes severely damaged such that the complexity of neural networks drop below the level needed to sustain consciousness and self awareness then I will become little more than a vegetable as has been observed in many such unfortunate cases. The “I” that was would be lost forever.

What is the reality of the one who is brain damaged? They can create a reality with the mind and give meaning, this would result in the creation of reality by their wills, thus mind would house meaningful reality. The ability to function is a matter of will, and will creates things in the mind, these things become reality. The one will is found through God.

“By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic. Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators.”

Also see these few quotes regarding the Word of God, which is a reality generative 'utterance' or projection that manifests and sustains every aspect of manifest existence.

http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/TCOTCC.html#word

4. What are polar, or dual, pairs of concepts?

a. Conceptualization always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (polar, or dual, pairs) because every concept has an opposite.
b. Reality is apparently split into polar (dual) pairs by conceptualization. However, no concept is real since Reality cannot be split.
c. The result of apparently splitting Reality into polar pairs of concepts is called duality.
d. The two concepts of a pair are always inseparable because the merger of the opposites will cancel the pair.
e. Example: "I"/not-"I" is a polar pair of concepts. If the "I" and not-"I" merge, neither concept remains.

8. What is the "I"-object?

a. The "I"-object is an assumed entity that results from identification of Awareness, which is real, with the "I"-concept, which is unreal. The "I"-object seems to exist, but clear seeing shows that it does not.
b. You are not an object and You do not exist--You are Reality (Awareness).

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

 

[Gustav]

Gustav,

Aww gee the web is full of references to consciousness as an emergent property. Pick one.

i did
it says "chris is one of us"

 

[Gustav]

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

Reality cannot be split.

in the absence of data, one can establish an axiom by concurrence
since i do not concur, it remains, an opinion

unless...
$20
deal?

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

The universe creates itself by observing itself

7.4. The quantum-classical brain

None of the traditional idealist philosophies explains how the personal "I" experience arises. This is such a persistent and compelling experience that it must be explained.

Goswami proposes a model of the brain-mind that has a quantum part and a classical part that are coupled together. In justifying the quantum part of the brain-mind, Goswami notes that the mind has several properties that are quantum-like:

a) Uncertainty and complementarity. A thought has feature, which is instantaneous content, analogous to the position of a particle.It also has association, which is movement, analogous to the velocity (or momentum) of a particle. A thought occurs in the field of awareness, which is analogous to space. Feature and association are complementary. If we concentrate on one and clearly identify it (small uncertainty), we tend to lose sight of the other (large uncertainty).

b) Discontinuity, or jumps. For example, in creative thinking, new concepts appear discontinuously.

c) Nonlocality. The correlations in the observations of different observers is a form of nonlocality (see Section 4.3).

d) Superposition. Psychological experiments by A.J. Marcel [Conscious and preconscious recognition of polysemous words: locating the selective effect of prior verbal context, in Attention and Performance VIII (1980), (Ed., R.S. Nickerson)], too complicated to be discussed here, can be interpreted in terms of a model of the subject’s brain which exists in a superposition of possibilities until the subject recognizes the object.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

 

[Gustav]

/slaps with a dead fish

i used to do the same thing
that is, until i abandoned all hope

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

But knowledge comes through thinking.

Knowledge comes through observation primarily. A thought is based on observation. Perception is what entails concept, not the other way around.

When a thought becomes knowledge it is no longer a thought because thought are assumed and subject to negation because of true/false logic. That is why to know nothing is to think nothing but to observe.

 

[Gustav]

consciousness exhibits by default, a duality. a distinction b/w the experiencer and the experience itself. until it has been conclusively proven to be wrong, and a viable alternative offered up to replace it. i will accept at face value

law of parsimony and whatnot

sorry buddy
you have setup a construct containing two objects that have an implicit and necessary relationship with one another. the viability and very existence of the construct becomes moot if the relationship is broken

iow....why bother in the first place?

there
the woo woos have taken over the asylum
flee
flee for your lives