Ok and Coca-cola are 2 of the most recognized words around the world. Ranking up there with them is "huh?". It's a sound we make when we are trying to understand something and hasn't changed much over time.. Usually when someone is confused or trying to understand something, you see their head cock a lil. I am sure we've all done it, belt out a "huh?" while tilting your head. It has to do with the areas in our brain that activate when questioning something.. kind of like when you're lying or telling the truth, a lot of people's eyes will look up to one side or the other. The questioning head cock/tilt isn't restricted to humans, I know cats and dogs do it and many birds. I am sure we can find a plethora of other mammals that do it too. That "huh?" is you using your consciousness to try and understand something, same with the other animals. Make a funny noise at your dog and there's a good chance it'll look at you with a head tilt, some even make a noise. It's because our consciousness is a product of our evolution. If you want to believe that there is this omnipresent consciousness, you should be aware that it's not that same thing as the consciousness we use to ponder on the things in life and it's meaning. It's a yet undefined area of the brain that came to be through evolution, it was almost inevitable. Life started, relied mainly on subconscious reactions and then an area evolved that has more control to better survive. The ability to think outside of simple reactions, to comb through all the data and make proactive decisions. Even rats have been shown to ponder on turning left or right in a maze before they actually do it, that's consciousness processing. A basic version of ours, only we're so far advanced that our consciousness is too. Life poke and prods for knowledge, and through our evolution and self domestication have been put in a position where we can make more use of our consciousness. Things like the invention of cooking, agriculture, and food storage have made it so we don't have to scrap to live like wild animals. Even simple events like the beginning of us searching the night sky.. in doing so, we expanded our minds. Each thing adds up and our consciousness got many many many times more complex as time went on, snowballing exponentially into what it is today.. Our mental consciousness is physical, the omnipresent consciousness (that more than likely doesn't exist) isn't.
My question is: WHO is it that has access to, experiences and contemplates, the internal content (the software) of a particular brain? Check post #11 http://forum.grasscity.com/philosophy/1284330-immateriality-soul.html
consciousness is not physical because i experience in the deepest core of my being a knowing that i transferred consciousnesses from one body to another - with no physical imprints from this life anywhere on this body. one fluid moment from my birth as jiddu krishnamurti a hundred and twenty years ago to my present moment
I like that you said implode and not explode.. remember, the inner is not the outer -- this is literally the foundation for all knowledge and metaphysics, i.e., YOUR consciousness of dual perception (that is, YOUR apperception, i.e., intuitive perception, of the going-ons inside of the brain, and YOUR empirical perception of objects outside of the brain); and can never be refuted, meaning, such a truth is apriori certain, for to argue against such a position would be a self defeating (pun intended) argument.
Ponder this They have built a machine which they can hook to a cats brain and reproduce an image of what the cat see's on a screen. The image is blurry (Ie technology is still being developed) but it is possible to experience the inputs coming into another brain through the use of technology. Now if they can figure out how to translate other types of brain inputs into understandable data you might be able to read someones thoughts Further more: there was an experiment in which rats brains were linked electronically and one rat sent and input to another about what to do in a maze. This experiment was repeated with HUMAN subjects where one man caused another guys finger to move. Have you ever pondered cybernetics? The very existence of such things to me seems to suggest that consciousnesses is purely physical.
1.) A computer decoding electro-chemical information proves nothing.. actually it proves my point in post #11 2.) Think about this... a highly complex and DESIGNED computer is required in order to translate and decode the information being related to a particular test subject's brain.. so if a test subject's brain processes are like that of a computer, the question remains, who is expericing, from a first-person perspective, the information being computed inside of a brain, naturally? Like the brain of the scientist going over the data presented and decoded through technology? Certainly there is no CREATED computer scanning the operations of the scientist's brain, who is analyzing the data of gathered from his test subject. So, again I ask, who expercencies, and interprets, the brain of the scientist?
Maybe there is no one and it's just complex reactions brah Some neuroscience shit suggests Yet there is not any evidence to suggest someone DESIGNED and CREATED the brain which is exactly what you assume.
1.) Yes, physically extended and empirical processes can lead to intangible, unempirical, and spatially unextended thoughts, concepts, and ideas.. good logic. Thoughts and ideas, the very means and resources by which a human being can even begin to comprehend and rationalize what "existence" is and what "consciousness" is, cannot be measured or pinpointed by the empirical sense-organs -- the brain can. This should say something to one with understanding. 2.) "Ah, I mean, the 'scientist' say it's true, so it's gotta be true, right?" -- Kind of similar to religious peoples thinking... 3.) No, I assumed nothing... the computers and technology utilized to interpret brain waves and functions are highly complex and VERY intricately designed -- this is fact (not fiction).
1)So you explain it by just saying magic happens or just call it god and then put a million attributes on god...got it. 2) except you can go read the god damn experiment and judge for yourself. In another thread you claimed it was BS without even looking at the experiments. Good logic and smart thinkin 3)and so because we can experience something with our brains then the brains must be designed too, right?
1.) No, but, thereby, the 'materliastic' paradigm is palpably undermined -- I'm with a lack of prejudice, so, condeding such a point is only a step for me in my journey for truth; it's too bad most are honest enough with themselves to digest such a concession (and all because of thee implications -- I have to "obey"? ). 2.) I know of the experiment... don't worry about me. 3.) Believe what you will. A carefully designed machine is required in order for us to technologically interpret the patterns and operations of the brain; to some that means something, to others, it does not (I'm within the group of the former, you're probably within the group of the latter; I'm fine with that).
^ ... and yet there's a reason most scientist and philosophers are STILL looking to crack the problem of consciousness; but, if he has already "proved" whatever you say he has, then why are so many still seeking for has been decided by the nobel committee?
nothing is concrete. however, til something disproves a current knowledge pusher that's usually seen as fact.
so your going to take one clueless mans words over another because one of them has other clueless monkeys clapping for him and handing him peanuts what an intelligent bunch you are
it feels like you guys havent taken a single step in this lifetime your level of evolution is the same as a zygote billions of years ago you just fill up the canvas i need that canvas now
.. a person giving himself some sort of confidence and pride by convincing himself, and believing, that he is the only one capable of mature growth and coherent vision. Your feelings aren't fact, truth isn't determined by your emotions and feelings. And, to add, man's evolution is not biological.. it's intuitive, that is, it's a refinement and cultivation of self.