Dimension of the Mind

[boobaa]

First of all, the science behind what you mentioned is already completely wrong. Our brain is a large nerve. If you can't comprehend how the brain works than get out of the thread and stop spreading nonsense. You don't understand how the chemical reactions work in the brain and your "chemicals in a glass" analogy makes no sense at all if you do, there is no nerve endings and receptors to receive information from these chemicals. I am sure that since you commented on all this though you know exactly what dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, epinephrine do and you know the complex workings of all the neurotransmitters in our brain. The ability to be self aware and think is created through the system that is the brain, the answer is not in one part....it is many parts working in unison to form consciousness. Not to mention that with out the memories growing that people have there is no consciousness. You throw in memories, emotions, and the five senses....and BAM... you get a being after a while that has created his own identity and now can say " I am because I say I am". Essentially your conscious awareness is your identity built over time.



True, as long as both are beliefs. unfortunately for you I am stating facts and not beliefs.



you first. Why would consciousness exist in the after life with no brain to function it? When you sleep your brain shuts off parts of the conscious mind. How does it feel when you sleep and not dream? You are aware of nothing and have no sense of time and space....no conscious mind..it is at idle...death is that but permanent...not really hard to imagine either if you think about it.



Actually it was a pretty good and straight forward answer. You make no sense by calling her less smart. If anything you have failed so far in justifying any intelligence yourself, you have proven very well that you don't KNOW how the brain works or anything about it.

Don't be so agressive, OV. You seem like some kind of fundamentalist who is also oppressing his opinion too much to the others. Your kind of persons are the reason why people like Galilei were ignored... Exactly what nonsense do I spread by asking a question and raising a hypothesis without actually stating anything?
If you mean my first post, then you should understand already that that was half irony against vashtis empty fact post and also an opening for discussion that can lead into some fine arguments.

You are missing the point here. I know very well how the brain works, at least how people nowadays think it works.
You should get more into neurology, nanophysics and quantrum physics theories to widen your beliefs that are based on facts that we never actually see or touch. Bible was based on facts also...
You could learn that smallest particles almost act like they have their own mind, they react completely diffferently. Already there are laboratories that have one and the same particle in two different places at once. I guess that raises a good question about what is randomness and reality. If its all an illusion and one thing can exist in so many places, there are so many possibilities and our basis of mind is full of it. Quantrum physics, at some point, does prove that our world is only imaginary.
One more thing, world actually consists of nothing afterall, or lets just call it energy. So how cam we see the molecules and stuff just like we see them? It really is only about interpretation, because particles realy arent made up from much anything... So what creates the interpretation?

And about that sentence about my beliefs and your facts. First, your facts are also beliefs, because you believe the book, the physics, everything. Second, that statement you quoted didn't involve you at all, so why bother and try so hard?

And about that last statement. there is a possibility, you never know.
__________________

[Only-virgins]

I wonder if the internet is self-aware yet. Not sure how we could check tho... guess I'll have to wait until my computer starts communicating back w/me while I'm online.

Hey... wait a minnit....

I would fly over to your place Indi to prove to you that I am a human behind a keyboard and not your computer but I fear you would make me your permanent pool boy.

[IndiReloaded]

I would fly over to your place Indi to prove to you that I am a human behind a keyboard and not your computer but I fear you would make me your permanent pool boy.

Actually, I have just sent you an e-ticket. But don't be surprised when you arrive at the address to find a room w/a sleek, sexy supercomputer begging to be 'fingered' by a knowledgable unix user.

[Only-virgins]

And about that last statement. there is a possibility, you never know.

I am being no more or less aggressive than you are. I don't really care. half the things you say are nonsense so I am not replying to you after this anymore. I am sure Noah's Ark was completely based on facts in the bible and so was Jesus's rise after death....yea right. I have taken quantum physics and have plenty knowledge in microbiology and science. What you do wrong is you present these hypothesis for an argument but you present no support for them. I can sit here and claim that ninja turtles are the cause of our conscious mind on a different planet again...shredder is the cause of our evil emotions. There is also the brain character too! ...IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW. there is always the possibility, you never know. The reality is that you either choose to believe what is tested and in font of you or you will always be one of the mystical/spiritual people who likes to believe in the wild spooky cookie stuff. It is the entire religious debate all over again. No more from me. I have made my opinion and have stated proven facts.

[Only-virgins]

Actually, I have just sent you an e-ticket. But don't be surprised when you arrive at the address to find a room w/a sleek, sexy supercomputer begging to be 'fingered' by a knowledgable unix user.

lol, I like the warmth of a human body personally ...it gets my "circuits" going.

[IndiReloaded]

They are just having a foo-foo brain stretching exercise, OV. I've had lots of these (usually along w/lots of alcohol).

Roger Penrose (yes, THAT Penrose) thinks that consciousness is the result of quantum effects w/in our nervous system. He even wrote a book on it (Shadows of the Mind). Is he insane? Probably. Is it fun to think about... I think so. I don't worry unless somebody starts to actually fund this stuff w/public money.

[IndiReloaded]

lol, I like the warmth of a human body personally ...it gets my "circuits" going.

Can't help you then, hon, sorry. I'm the 'cool' sort of dinkum-thinkum.

Hear there are good PhD programs in Vancouver tho... lots of young, pretty girls to study too.

[Only-virgins]

Hear there are good PhD programs in Vancouver tho... lots of young, pretty girls to study too.

Hmmm, I could always use one of those......the PhD of course!

[boobaa]

OV should learn to separate fact from hypothesis or just a mere investigating question. Don't you question anything, OV? Just state whats wrong and whats right? You act like this in many threads, like you were pissed on something. I know I can be arrogant too, but that doesn't justify you. Try be a bit less arrogant to those who are not as smart as you, ok?
Noahs Ark? Well, people shure believed it was a fact back in the day because that was the only explanation, seemed logical at the times. Same goes with Earth being flat, lightwaves, etc which actually had proof until more proof came about the opposite...

Double slit theory proves the particle in two places stuff... it has now being conducted in very diverse ways with very diverse molecules in many laboratories...

But then again, most of that is still a theory. In fact, most of the science is. We do not know how the brain works, therefore some of your rare statments that can be found between accusations have not much value. Its like I ask how the thought works, and you answer its the brain (just like vashti did)....

I don't know what foo-foo means, but I have always liked to filosophy over things without actually any reason. And what is wrong with that?

[Tiay]

Something like that... doubt I will kill myself, I am more rational.

good to know

Tiay, it appears as though you're just eager to argue.

are you saying it was a Freudean slip? ^.^ well, I promise you, I find arguing about pretty much everything pointless. By arguing, I mean trying to sway someone else to your view, and by debate I mean exchanging views. However, technically an argument can be part of a debate, so, maybe my definitions are off.

I find it somewhat ironic that you contradict yourself, again.

Are you referring to when I said that you don't understand the physical workings of the brain? That was simply my answer to your question. I am not claiming it as truth. it is simply my view. It is part of my, well, argument. I don't mean it as an insult to your intelligence, either. The physical workings of the brain is something that we simply don't seem to know everything about. Unless you've studied the brain for years, saying that you do not understand the physical workings of the brain is not an insult.

I particularly find it irritating that you are putting words in my mouth and assuming my knowledge and stand on things.

yes, i'm assuming that you have not been studying the workings of the brain all these years. I could be wrong. I for one think it is a reasonable assumption.
What words did I put in your mouth?

It is logical to think that this conversation could be enjoyed by someone with an open mind. Someone like you is just going to tell me (in a nutshell) that I am stupid, and that I should just accept things the way science has theorized, and blah blah blah. I really do not need people closemindedly advocating such things in this thread. If you are going to post something in this thread, please take into consideration the atmosphere I have created for this thread; I am not 'cherry-picking'.

you clearly are doing so. You say "Someone like you"; so i've already been put in a category of people who'd tell you to accept things as science suggests they are. Someone like me is not fit for this thread. So you're excluding the type of person who'd put forward scientific arguments. That's. called. cherry. picking. You explained it so well yourself in the above paragraph, that I don't really know what to add.

I'm not saying, however, that this is a bad thing. It's not like you're cherry picking candidates for a study, on the result of which hinges the sale of a controversial drug, thus resulting in the deaths of hundreds. Or something. You're just picking who to talk to about something. We all do this to some extent.
Clubs meet to talk about specific things all the time. People even label their views on certain things like religion and politics so that they can associate with like-minded people, and so that they can surround themselves with television channels and newspapers that are grounded on the same beliefs and opinions.

This is great, because you don't have to keep defending the reasons for your beliefs to people who have completely different ones. Instead, you can file out and explore the nuances of your belief with people who already agree with on the major factors involved.

However, that way you wont find any fundamental challenge of your beliefs in the debate. And that's fine if that's what you want. But don't pretend you're having a proper, all inclusive debate here. If you want to sit at the brain-and-consciousness-are-separate-things table, and only talk to people also sitting at that table, then that's fine with me. I'll be across the room at the science-explains-everything table. Just remember to wander away from your table now and then... put your views to someone at another table and see what happens.

[/rant]

[IndiReloaded]

I don't know what foo-foo means, but I have always liked to filosophy over things without actually any reason. And what is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. 'Foo-foo' is just my nonsense word for things that may be intellectually interesting, but aren't actually testable in a scientific sense. Fun to think about, but only in the sense of 'brain stretching' rather than actually expecting to increase our actual factual knowledge base on a subject. Sort of like discussing art, or philosophical ideas.

OV should learn to separate fact from hypothesis or just a mere investigating question. Don't you question anything, OV?

I think hypothesis = investigating question, boobaa. They are the same. Meaning a question that will produce facts that either adds to or detracts from the strength of a theory. OV probably thinks the same.

Discussions of the nature of consciousness are necessarily esoteric & I think everyone posting here understands this. While there is some interesting neuroscience being done, truth is noone really knows how to even ASK the questions yet, much less test hypotheses leading to answers.

If you like thinking about this subject, I would suggest the movie 'What the Bleep do We Know?'; the 'scientists' in the movie are mostly nuts (IMO) but the ideas are fascinating both of themselves & how ppl respond to thinking about them.

[vashti]

Its like I ask how the thought works, and you answer its the brain (just like vashti did)....

I don't know why you keep dragging me into this. I only answered 2 questions:

1) what gives (us) the ability to be conscious (to which I answered reticular activating system)

2) how do we know a rock isn't conscious (to which I answered it lacks a brain).

To the best of my knowledge, these are both true statements. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. Otherwise, leave me outta this.

[IndiReloaded]

I don't know why you keep dragging me into this. I only answered 2 questions:

1) what gives (us) the ability to be conscious (to which I answered reticular activating system)

The only addition I have to this is replace 'conscious' with 'awake'. I am assuming you are talking about those nasty cat studies where they sectioned their brainstems above & below regions of the RAS? In some cases, the cats couldn't wake up (but were alive) in others they were perpetually awake & couldn't sleep (and eventually died).

I know how to measure 'awakeness'. I haven't the foggiest how to measure 'consciousness'. In cats or humans. For all I know, little Ms. Meow w/her sectioned brainstem was perfectly conscious in her dream state, chasing Jerry around the barnyard. About as useful a question tho, as 'what is the sound of one hand clapping'.

Besides, based on my observations, there are a lot of unconscious humans walking around.

Slap me for being a pedant, anytime Vash.

[anachronistic]

good to know



are you saying it was a Freudean slip? ^.^ well, I promise you, I find arguing about pretty much everything pointless. By arguing, I mean trying to sway someone else to your view, and by debate I mean exchanging views. However, technically an argument can be part of a debate, so, maybe my definitions are off.




Are you referring to when I said that you don't understand the physical workings of the brain? That was simply my answer to your question. I am not claiming it as truth. it is simply my view. It is part of my, well, argument. I don't mean it as an insult to your intelligence, either. The physical workings of the brain is something that we simply don't seem to know everything about. Unless you've studied the brain for years, saying that you do not understand the physical workings of the brain is not an insult.


yes, i'm assuming that you have not been studying the workings of the brain all these years. I could be wrong. I for one think it is a reasonable assumption.
What words did I put in your mouth?



you clearly are doing so. You say "Someone like you"; so i've already been put in a category of people who'd tell you to accept things as science suggests they are. Someone like me is not fit for this thread. So you're excluding the type of person who'd put forward scientific arguments. That's. called. cherry. picking. You explained it so well yourself in the above paragraph, that I don't really know what to add.

I'm not saying, however, that this is a bad thing. It's not like you're cherry picking candidates for a study, on the result of which hinges the sale of a controversial drug, thus resulting in the deaths of hundreds. Or something. You're just picking who to talk to about something. We all do this to some extent.
Clubs meet to talk about specific things all the time. People even label their views on certain things like religion and politics so that they can associate with like-minded people, and so that they can surround themselves with television channels and newspapers that are grounded on the same beliefs and opinions.

This is great, because you don't have to keep defending the reasons for your beliefs to people who have completely different ones. Instead, you can file out and explore the nuances of your belief with people who already agree with on the major factors involved.

However, that way you wont find any fundamental challenge of your beliefs in the debate. And that's fine if that's what you want. But don't pretend you're having a proper, all inclusive debate here. If you want to sit at the brain-and-consciousness-are-separate-things table, and only talk to people also sitting at that table, then that's fine with me. I'll be across the room at the science-explains-everything table. Just remember to wander away from your table now and then... put your views to someone at another table and see what happens.

[/rant]

Jumping to conclusions again?

You can take part, just don't advocate. Don't tell me what I should and shouldn't think. I am quite sick of that.

[anachronistic]

I still think we are all just characters in a video game. Put another quarter in, have another go...

I think something similar. Except I believe that one eventually comes to know how to end this process.... when they are ready.