“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#618556 Apr 19, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Which makes your proposition nothing more than god of the gaps dressed up in scientific language. If you create these scenarios in which you allow for a hypothetical piece of evidence to be suggestive of a brain emergent consciousness, and then immediately rule out its relevance because "something deeper" could be going on, you are making your position meaningless. If your position is simply "well, you can't rule it out," then it's no position at all.
Below the quantum world is the wizarding world of Harry Potter.

Muggles will never understand.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#618557 Apr 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
Just heard on TV that the Boston Bomb Boys were Islamic.
WTF
Did you mean, "Well that figures."?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618558 Apr 19, 2013
Pokay wrote:
I'm a friggin molecule. I'm an unconscious molecule that is living a lie and believing it is conscious; my consciousness is not real, it is meaningless because it just a "reaction" or state of unconscious matter that just so happens to be "here".
Sounds like someone on an acid trip. But that's what you guys sound like when you think you know what consciousness is or where it originates. That is your reality. Not that I need meaning; I would rather I had none, but I still feel that consciousness is eternal.
Even if it were possible to know it originates from molecular interaction, does that really give us understanding?
There is no absolute knowledge for us. What that means is that we have invented everything we think and talk about. Every word is a "label", not an understanding of what something truly is.
I sometimes say that the only thing we know for sure is that we exist, and while true, we still don't know what that "means". Existence itself is beyond our explanation.
I have not once said I know what consciousness is - I have repeated several times that it is currently not knowable. I have only said that I think it originates from the brain, which given the evidence, is not an unreasonable proposition.

You are wandering into the esoteric, but I agree with the general idea of what you are saying. However, I don't know at what point we could say we understand what something "truly is" anyway, so the use of words and labels to describe abstract concepts is as good a solution as any. And yes, we can't be certain of anything except our existence, and even that confounds because the fact that there is anything at all is awe inspiring. The consideration that there might have been nothing at all is equally mind boggling.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618559 Apr 19, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's because what you are implying isn't even what quantum consciousness theory is saying. I'm sorry If you cannot see that ,but that IS exactly what I showed you. Your assertion doesn't even make sense, in your approach the problem you believe is beyond scientific ability to comprehend , so it makes sense that any theory can be correct. The truth to this is, that it is beyond "your" comprehension, so any theory makes sense to you.
But this is not the position those who do know and understand these theories, which is exactly the point made by Tim and I both.
But you cling to invoking "quantum" to mystify the subject.
Everyone has a life outside topix Pokay. So go ahead and ignore what I posted and believe what you want. Someone once put it to me this way. Because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it is something no one understands.
What was penrose's theory? That the brain works as a "wavefunction collapser?" That sounds more like a theory on the brain's relation to the world, not a theory of consciousness itself.

There is one thing I agree with pokay on, and that is that we don't yet know how consciousness emerges from the brain, but I don't agree with where he takes that point - his claim that since we don't know the mechanism that all observations and ideas about consciousness are meaningless. You're right, he does use the word "quantum" to mystify the issue, as if the simple suggestion that subatomic particles follow the laws of quantum mechanics is reason enough to believe consciousness is quantum in nature. To me, it's almost like someone who doesn't understand computers saying that since quantum mechanics govern tiny particles, and since computers are ultimately made up of tiny particles, that all computers are secretly quantum supercomputers. That's not the best analogy since we know hot computers work, but still..

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618560 Apr 19, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But do you spend enough time with your children?
But at first are girls at the beach a way to help sooth the guilt, but afterwards when you leave thinking about how you could have treated your family, do you feel ridden with guilt afterwards?
Your posts reveal a lot more about you than they do about anything else.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true

#618561 Apr 19, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you mean, "Well that figures."?
Good one....wish I had thought of that..:-)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618562 Apr 19, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> I'm not trying to say my assertion makes sense. I'm saying no assertion makes sense until we at least establish a mechanism for consciousness. You are saying that your assertion makes more sense than mine. It does not. Science admits it yet you think you are above the greatest minds on earth.
It all boils down to what I said a couple posts ago, that a group of 'consciousness-capable molecules' and a group of 'consciousness-incapable molecules' can both react to or recognize a stimulus, but one of them is aware of it while the other just reacts.
There is no molecular difference that we can put our finger on, but obviously there is a difference. What is that difference? When you can tell me then you can toot your horn.
Well, if you could point to a group of non conscious molecules that were as complex as the brain, and still weren't conscious, that support dualism. I don't think such an example exists, however. A sunflower responds to stimuli, but I would say the difference between the "non conscious capable" molecules of the sunflower and the "conscious capable" molecules of the brain is pretty apparent.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618563 Apr 19, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>What evidence do you have that we are seeing the origination of that thought rather than the transmittance of an already-created thought?
And if you can prove we are seeing the origination then you still can't prove whether it is of quantum or molecular origin until you establish a mechanism for consciousness that is TESTABLE!
I don't follow this logic. To me, again, it's like saying that we can't reasonably assume that mass is involved in gravity because we don't understand the mechanism of gravity.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618564 Apr 19, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> Hold on a minute psycho pants. You did not address my point. I was thinking of abiogenesis when I said "groups of molecules react to a stimulus" so yes I am humoring you and not using the "singular".
Stay with me here Mr. A.D.D., let's go back to the moment in time just as the first consciousness was about to start functioning (assuming there was a 'first' and not an eternal one). With me?
Up til that point the molecules were undergoing reactions as they reacted to stimuli (changes in their surroundings). With me?
Ok, what is different about that last reaction that caused the whole thing to all of a sudden become aware of itself rather than just react to the stimulus as it has been doing all along?
Come on, you can do it, this should be a walk in the park.
You're saying that molecules react and form thought patterns but you don't say how they can become aware of themselves? That's the whole pie right there. How does a molecule become aware of itself? It is impossible that any science can even approach that you psycho.
Who knows? There are many interesting ideas as to how that happened. You're talking about the jump from consciousness to self awareness, right?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618565 Apr 19, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> I knew you were too psycho to understand. We all can agree that if consciousness was something that 'came into being'(rather than always being in existence) then there was a time when there wasn't consciousness and a time when there was, and the amount of awareness is besides the point.
A bunch of molecules are either aware of themselves or not you idiot. So yes there must have been an instant in time when it went from 'non-aware' to 'aware'. I'm talking about awareness you idiot. if something is the tiniest bit aware of itself then it is aware of itself, a tiny bit. That's all I have time for now, go back and rewrite your bullsh*t and address the point this time.
Your comprehension is non existent
Well, there is a difference between awareness of self and awareness. My dog is certainly aware, but she has no sense of self as far as I know.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618566 Apr 19, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
Just heard on TV that the Boston Bomb Boys were Islamic.
WTF
Not good. Further justification for... something not good I assume.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618567 Apr 19, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Below the quantum world is the wizarding world of Harry Potter.
Muggles will never understand.
And below that is the lore of JRR Tolkein. It's a little known fact that our world is in fact a collection of literary constructs.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#618568 Apr 19, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>What was penrose's theory? That the brain works as a "wavefunction collapser?" That sounds more like a theory on the brain's relation to the world, not a theory of consciousness itself.
There is one thing I agree with pokay on, and that is that we don't yet know how consciousness emerges from the brain, but I don't agree with where he takes that point - his claim that since we don't know the mechanism that all observations and ideas about consciousness are meaningless. You're right, he does use the word "quantum" to mystify the issue, as if the simple suggestion that subatomic particles follow the laws of quantum mechanics is reason enough to believe consciousness is quantum in nature. To me, it's almost like someone who doesn't understand computers saying that since quantum mechanics govern tiny particles, and since computers are ultimately made up of tiny particles, that all computers are secretly quantum supercomputers. That's not the best analogy since we know hot computers work, but still..
I agree that we just like gravity, we have not answered all the questions, but am positive that consciousness was developed by the formation of the neural network and that it expanded it's complexity over time. That it was the ability of cells to store and share bits of information that led to the formation of the neural network, and the evolution of it that created consciousness.

Quantum mind is an attempt to explain quantum events from a human physical perspective, and deals with the superposition of information..thus making part of thought process a quantum event, so when thinking part of our thought is entangled.
Penrose suggested microtubules in the brain are what entangles information in the thought process and is why wave collapse happens due to the conscious effect of the observer.
It's a theoretical physics stab at explaining how the brain works like a quantum computer by joining space/time itself to connections in the brain.

Here is a precise definition of it's implications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#618569 Apr 19, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that we just like gravity, we have not answered all the questions, but am positive that consciousness was developed by the formation of the neural network and that it expanded it's complexity over time. That it was the ability of cells to store and share bits of information that led to the formation of the neural network, and the evolution of it that created consciousness.
Quantum mind is an attempt to explain quantum events from a human physical perspective, and deals with the superposition of information..thus making part of thought process a quantum event, so when thinking part of our thought is entangled.
Penrose suggested microtubules in the brain are what entangles information in the thought process and is why wave collapse happens due to the conscious effect of the observer.
It's a theoretical physics stab at explaining how the brain works like a quantum computer by joining space/time itself to connections in the brain.
Here is a precise definition of it's implications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%...
Thanks for link.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#618570 Apr 19, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I've always wondered what a sunrise or sunset looks like in the "Land Down Under".
I'd love to visit your country, but I've heard mixed feelings bout us Americans.
This is what I've heard...
The Aussie men don't like us, because when we come to Australia, the Aussie women dig us and want to be around us, which upsets the men.
Is this a myth or just bullshite?
:o)
http://www.whyworldwhy.com/wp-content/uploads...

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#618572 Apr 20, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>All ya need is duct tape an' a pistol.
paddles?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#618573 Apr 20, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
And a van with no back windows.
Wait, you're talking about something else.
Stop telling people how we met.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#618574 Apr 20, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you mean, "Well that figures."?
They were obviously gay.

Ooops, I'm not on the Christian forum.

Never mind.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#618575 Apr 20, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>And below that is the lore of JRR Tolkein. It's a little known fact that our world is in fact a collection of literary constructs.
Today you are you!
That is truer than true!
There is no one alive who is you-er than you!

Dr. Seuss

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#618576 Apr 20, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
Stop telling people how we met.
I just want you to know, I don't hold a grudge.

The hair all grew back. We're cool.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 min USA Born 579,041
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 min Happy Lesbo 609,821
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 10 min Freebird USA 9,238
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min AN NFL FAN 121,450
Is it ever wrong to discriminate? 20 min Boom Boom Boom Bo... 2
Poll Do misspelling and bad grammar bother you? (Dec '07) 20 min Jenji 15
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 27 min RiccardoFire 97,987
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 270,110
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr bad bob 176,207
More from around the web