100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Truth | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Is truth true because we believe it or do we believe it because it is true? If everyone thinks something is true, and it is not true, is it true or not? If not, how would you know? it is a pointless question with no answer so why waste time on it?  and that's the TRUTH....thbbbbbt....  So why did you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 'brain' is like a computer. The 'mind' is the operating system and software. The spirit self (the authentic self) is the user. Then who's the SYSTEMS ANALYST? ? ? Its a fallacy to look for an ultimate decider in the brain. There is no finish line where data crosses the line and becomes conscious, there is no ultimate observer, or analyst in the brain. Our first person perspective gives rise to the illusion that this must be so . . . it is incorrect, yet tempting to visualize. "Its a fallacy to look for an ultimate decider in the brain. It is ignorant not to. You are wrong about that Jeromy. But you are right that it isn't "a man" behind the curtain.  (This is just your opinion anyway. You don't have enough data to know this is incorrect.) Self is self. The consciousness behind the curtain is the ultimate self. It is you, it is me, it is all that is. I am not "a brain." You are not a brain. If that is all we are, then we don't even exist, because this that you call 'matter' is nothing but light and sound and vibration. It is a dream, a holographic illusion. It is all created by MIND. It has been demonstrated that the decisions (executed by the brain) are made before the brain goes into action. The brain only executes the decision. It does not make the decision. Also, when manipulating parts of the brain to make a subject's arm move, the doctor could cause the arm to move by touching a place in the brain. Also, the subject could make the arm move. Always, the subject knew when he was making the arm move and when the doctor was doing it. So... who is the subject? From where is he making his decisions? Why can't he prevent the doctor from causing his arm to move if he is the brain? If the doctor has control of the brain and the arm moving decision, how and from where does the subject make the decision? What I am getting at, is if the brain MAKES the decision to move the arm, then why can both the subject and the doctor initiate the command to cause the brain to make the arm move? The conclusion is that the brain does not make the decision. It simply executes the command from stimuli it receives from the decision maker. If "who we are" were only "our brains," then we could be completely and totally controlled like robots with the right technology and programing. There would be no free will involved. Your conclusions are flawed. You are incorrect. Not only that, they are illogical and incomplete. The issue with timing you raised has been settled. In fact it is a particularly strong piece of evidence against a center point, or analyzer existing. "Consciousness Explained" By Dan Dennet goes into great detail on this issue and other related issues. Great I would love to see your so-called proof. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 07/06/09 08:51 AM
|
|
Great I would love to see your so-called proof. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Dennett's book is your primary source of argument I will order it and read it and then we can discuss it later. If it is not your primary source please let me know what is. This is what wikipedia said about Dennetts arguments.
There is disagreement about the validity of Dennett's arguments. Critics of Dennett's approach, such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel, argue that Dennett's argument misses the point of the inquiry by merely re-defining consciousness as an external property and ignoring the subjective aspect completely. This has led detractors to nickname the book Consciousness Ignored and Consciousness Explained Away.[3][4] Dennett and his supporters, however, respond that the aforementioned "subjective aspect" as commonly used is non-existent, and that his "re-definition" is the only coherent description of consciousness. Dennett himself actually used "Consciousness Explained Away" as a heading inside the book. I think that the problem does lie in the way some philosophers define words, particularly "consciousness." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
WorldCreation
on
Mon 07/06/09 09:10 AM
|
|
The term "mathematics" and the verbal means we use to communicate it with are a potential facade, but call it what you want there is a natural pulse or rhythm to life and all living that is potentially the only realm truth there is no matter how you care to express it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 07/06/09 10:37 AM
|
|
If Dennett's book is your primary source of argument I will order it and read it and then we can discuss it later. If it is not your primary source please let me know what is. This is what wikipedia said about Dennetts arguments. There is disagreement about the validity of Dennett's arguments. Critics of Dennett's approach, such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel, argue that Dennett's argument misses the point of the inquiry by merely re-defining consciousness as an external property and ignoring the subjective aspect completely. This has led detractors to nickname the book Consciousness Ignored and Consciousness Explained Away.[3][4] Dennett and his supporters, however, respond that the aforementioned "subjective aspect" as commonly used is non-existent, and that his "re-definition" is the only coherent description of consciousness. Dennett himself actually used "Consciousness Explained Away" as a heading inside the book. I think that the problem does lie in the way some philosophers define words, particularly "consciousness." If I break down the components of a calculator and show how each component works, I loose the innate calculation of a calculator. If an artist shows you every single brush stroke and explains the purpose behind every brush stroke, do you still get the overall motivation? No. Reducing something always losses the emergent properties. The real question is can we understand the functions that create those emergent properties without reduction? The problem is not in understanding consciousness, its in our expectations of qualia which is emergent and not an isolated property. From a first person perspective the question of consciousness will never be answered, becuase what comes out, the output can be classified via experience, but what goes in is merely data. The functions that create experience are hidden from the first person perspective on purpose to eliminate perceptual overload. So trying to break down these functions using that same first person perspective may allow us to keep the good feeling, but we still cannot explain the functions of phenomenology. 1st person you keep your feelings and experiences but cannot explain phenomenology objectively, 3rd person and you can explain phenomenology but it then lacks subjectivity and rightly so . . . I really do not know why this surprises people, its like answers that arise from non-euclidean geometry, they may be true, but our lack of imaginations does not do it justice, so it continues to "feel" wrong even though it explains ALL of the phenomena accurately. Here is a good recent article. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316201459.htm This article is interesting, it gives us greater insight becuase these people already had a reason to allow us access inside there skulls. That is a point most critics just don't get. If we are studying human consciousness it really hampers the effort that we cannot just test on anyone we want by surgical methods. Ethics slows progress and rightly so . . this should explain the slow going, but some just want to prop up there dualistic concepts and so point to this as if it supports there ideas . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article you linked:
"The present work suggests that, rather than hoping for a putative unique marker – the neural correlate of consciousness – a more mature view of conscious processing should consider that it relates to a brain-scale distributed pattern of coherent brain activation," explained neuroscientist Lionel Naccache, one of the authors of the paper." What does this mean to you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article you linked: "The present work suggests that, rather than hoping for a putative unique marker – the neural correlate of consciousness – a more mature view of conscious processing should consider that it relates to a brain-scale distributed pattern of coherent brain activation," explained neuroscientist Lionel Naccache, one of the authors of the paper." What does this mean to you? To me it illustrates that increasingly complex phenomena are found to arise from networks of lesser complex structures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 07/06/09 02:46 PM
|
|
From the article you linked: "The present work suggests that, rather than hoping for a putative unique marker – the neural correlate of consciousness – a more mature view of conscious processing should consider that it relates to a brain-scale distributed pattern of coherent brain activation," explained neuroscientist Lionel Naccache, one of the authors of the paper." What does this mean to you? To me it illustrates that increasingly complex phenomena are found to arise from networks of lesser complex structures. I agree. There is no single physical place in the brain that points to consciousness. That is consistent with the holographic construct of the brain. Information, memories etc. are distributed throughout. Just like your computer's hard drive, information can be stored anywhere. Defrag it and it is moved around. Now excuse me while I go defrag my brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Wed 07/08/09 02:31 AM
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain...
(MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?)  However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 07/08/09 03:02 AM
|
|
Is truth true because we believe it or do we believe it because it is true? If everyone thinks something is true, and it is not true, is it true or not? If not, how would you know? it is a pointless question with no answer so why waste time on it? and that's the TRUTH....thbbbbbt.... So why did you? just asking... didn't spend much time on it..... charitable community service! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain... (MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?) However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . The Cartesian theater is a firmly rooted idea . . . and upon inspection of modern research plainly incorrect, yet is such a pervasive idea that it even trips up the thinking of professionals in the field. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 07/08/09 01:02 PM
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain... (MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?) However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . What do you mean by "Who?" Are you looking for the names of specific beings? Suppose you were a spirit and you wanted access to a particular world. Access points were randomly becoming available. Perhaps a small hole would open up into the world. Would you be picky about which hole you entered if you wanted in bad enough? Probably not. You enter the hole and you discover your consciousness inside of a body about to be born. You have no idea what you are being born into. That is the random method. Another method would be that you get the privilege of 'seeing' your parents before you are born and choosing whether or not you wish to be born. Not all spirits will choose the earth incarnation experience. Most won't. There are infinite number of spiritual beings in the mind worlds. They all have their own jobs and functions, just like any world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain... (MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?) However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . What do you mean by "Who?" Are you looking for the names of specific beings? Suppose you were a spirit and you wanted access to a particular world. Access points were randomly becoming available. Perhaps a small hole would open up into the world. Would you be picky about which hole you entered if you wanted in bad enough? Probably not. You enter the hole and you discover your consciousness inside of a body about to be born. You have no idea what you are being born into. That is the random method. Another method would be that you get the privilege of 'seeing' your parents before you are born and choosing whether or not you wish to be born. Not all spirits will choose the earth incarnation experience. Most won't. There are infinite number of spiritual beings in the mind worlds. They all have their own jobs and functions, just like any world.  In the holographic reality (what I call MAYA) all things are possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain... (MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?) However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . The Cartesian theater is a firmly rooted idea . . . and upon inspection of modern research plainly incorrect, yet is such a pervasive idea that it even trips up the thinking of professionals in the field. I am reading that Book Jeromy. I'm on the third chapter. So far he hasn't gotten much to the point of explaining consciousness, but I like his approach so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain... (MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?) However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . The Cartesian theater is a firmly rooted idea . . . and upon inspection of modern research plainly incorrect, yet is such a pervasive idea that it even trips up the thinking of professionals in the field. I am reading that Book Jeromy. I'm on the third chapter. So far he hasn't gotten much to the point of explaining consciousness, but I like his approach so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain... (MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?) However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . The Cartesian theater is a firmly rooted idea . . . and upon inspection of modern research plainly incorrect, yet is such a pervasive idea that it even trips up the thinking of professionals in the field. I am reading that Book Jeromy. I'm on the third chapter. So far he hasn't gotten much to the point of explaining consciousness, but I like his approach so far. Thanx a lot, JB, for a poetic & realistic explanation! Sounds like you've been through the motion of re-incarnation a few times yourself..  Another words, "spirits" have no "Freedom of Choice" as to what peice of flesh they're gonna possess? ("You have no idea what you are being born into. That is the random method.") Yet, at the same time you maintain that "some spirits will Not choose the earth incarnation experience'... That indicates they do have some degree of choice: "choosing whether or not you wish to be born." I guess, that explains why some people are born Schizoid -- because two or more spirits enter the same body! * * * And, since you mentioned "there are infinite number of spiritual beings in the mind worlds -- they all have their own jobs and functions, just like any world" -- ISN'T THERE SOME KIND OF A HIERARCHY as to Who, Whem, Where? ? ? (without that, there wold be a total chaos, an Anarchy, if yo wish! -- er, as they wish!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanx a lot, JB, for a poetic & realistic explanation! Sounds like you've been through the motion of re-incarnation a few times yourself.. Another words, "spirits" have no "Freedom of Choice" as to what peice of flesh they're gonna possess? ("You have no idea what you are being born into. That is the random method.") Yet, at the same time you maintain that "some spirits will Not choose the earth incarnation experience'... That indicates they do have some degree of choice: "choosing whether or not you wish to be born." I guess, that explains why some people are born Schizoid -- because two or more spirits enter the same body! * * * And, since you mentioned "there are infinite number of spiritual beings in the mind worlds -- they all have their own jobs and functions, just like any world" -- ISN'T THERE SOME KIND OF A HIERARCHY as to Who, Whem, Where? ? ? (without that, there wold be a total chaos, an Anarchy, if yo wish! -- er, as they wish!) Yes I imagine there is quite a hierarchy in place and also even 'power struggles' in some worlds just like in ours. (Heck even the Bible talks about 'the war in heaven.') As for "choice of the piece of flesh," yes they do have some general choices but there are sometimes not very many choices available and they will grab whatever they can get! They know that the flesh can be molded and circumstances can be changed once they get in. Their 'karma' is nothing more than the wisdom and knowledge they have obtained in their other lives that they manage to retain when they arrive here. My apologies to hard core skeptics who believe this is a bunch of fantasy. Oh well.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Thu 07/09/09 10:08 PM
|
|
Thanx a lot, JB, for a poetic & realistic explanation! Sounds like you've been through the motion of re-incarnation a few times yourself.. Another words, "spirits" have no "Freedom of Choice" as to what peice of flesh they're gonna possess? ("You have no idea what you are being born into. That is the random method.") Yet, at the same time you maintain that "some spirits will Not choose the earth incarnation experience'... That indicates they do have some degree of choice: "choosing whether or not you wish to be born." I guess, that explains why some people are born Schizoid -- because two or more spirits enter the same body! * * * And, since you mentioned "there are infinite number of spiritual beings in the mind worlds -- they all have their own jobs and functions, just like any world" -- ISN'T THERE SOME KIND OF A HIERARCHY as to Who, Whem, Where? ? ? (without that, there wold be a total chaos, an Anarchy, if yo wish! -- er, as they wish!) Yes I imagine there is quite a hierarchy in place and also even 'power struggles' in some worlds just like in ours. (Heck even the Bible talks about 'the war in heaven.') As for "choice of the piece of flesh," yes they do have some general choices but there are sometimes not very many choices available and they will grab whatever they can get! They know that the flesh can be molded and circumstances can be changed once they get in. Their 'karma' is nothing more than the wisdom and knowledge they have obtained in their other lives that they manage to retain when they arrive here. My apologies to hard core skeptics who believe this is a bunch of fantasy. Oh well. Thanx, JB. First of, allow me to join you in appologies to hard core skiptics, who suggested studying some questionable theories -- I wouldn't want to get even more confused than I already am: thus, I'll take JB's word about it, since she already started reading... ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------- Nevertheless, JB, I couldn't completely escape the confusion: at first, you mentioned -- referring to "spirits" -- "You have no idea what you are being born into. That is the random method". And now you say, "yes they do have some general choices but there are sometimes not very many choices available and they will grab whatever they can get..." And what about the individual's Free Will -- is it completely dissolved? Example: in my early 20's, I've known a guy -- very clever and quite an ambitious fellow -- who was determined to make something of himself. Unfortunately, the circumstances prevented him from pursuing his dreams: instead of dwelling the books, he'd rather have fun with his friends... Though, once, he confided in me: apparently, he was tormented with his inability of forcing himself to devote the necessary attention to his dreams -- the temptation of having fun has been overpowering... Thus, he began contemplating a temporary tragedy that would knock him out of the vicious circle of Work-Fun... But he's been afraid of inflicting harm upon himself -- therefore he found himself stuck in indecision... In time, his brother has gone on a trip outside of the country... And my friend took his brother's car -- unaware of the fact that the tires were completely bald... And he got involved in the automobile accident! (suffering a Clinical death!) For 12 days he's been in a coma, and just before the doctors decided upon turning the life-support system off, he opened his eyes... Took him another year to recover... And then he entered the university! Today, he's a Programmer/Analyst. What's happened in that case? Have the "spirits" changed during his Clinical death? Or has it been the same one all along? I know, that's a tall order to fill... Nevertheless, I'd value your opinion, if you could shed a bit of light into this dark matter! __________________ ____________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 07/10/09 05:55 AM
|
|
But of course, there's no specific spot in the brain for the consciousness -- a man (or a woman) behind the curtain -- that, most probably, is scattered throughout the brain... (MAY BE a man (or a woman) IN THE MIRROR?) However, what the scientists cannot pin point is the origin of the consciousness, i.e. a specific organ -- Hypothalmus? -- where the consciousness originates from. Another words, since the sight and the sound require at least a little experience for distinquishing from various other noises (both, visual and, especially, audible as a primary sense), then AT WHICH POINT DOES THE "SPIRIT" ENTER THE BODY? ? ?* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AND WHO DECIDES WHICH SPIRIT ENTERS INTO WHICH BODY?. . . . . . The Cartesian theater is a firmly rooted idea . . . and upon inspection of modern research plainly incorrect, yet is such a pervasive idea that it even trips up the thinking of professionals in the field. I am reading that Book Jeromy. I'm on the third chapter. So far he hasn't gotten much to the point of explaining consciousness, but I like his approach so far. Jeremy, |
|
|
|
|
