Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 05:47 AM
New Britain
April 16, 2024, 12:05 AM
Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM
What's happened to the fo...
April 11, 2024, 01:00 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 01, 2024, 12:10 PM
Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM
Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM
Pakistan: The Nation.....
January 28, 2024, 02:12 PM
Gaza assault
January 27, 2024, 01:08 PM
Nawal El Saadawi: Egypt's...
January 27, 2024, 12:24 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain

 (Read 21142 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #60 - May 13, 2009, 08:20 PM
    Let's take by hypothesis that there is a secondary mental/spiritual/non-physical reality as well.

    Then I can ask: well, given this mental "essence"... HOW do we see actually?
    How does the non-physical essence actually see?

    That would still go unanswered.
    It would still be unsatisfactory.
    We should better theorize a third non-physical and non-spiritual reality.
    But then HOW does that reality actually make us see?

    So theorizing 2+ concurrent realities is completely inconsequential, unless we can actually find them useful somehow.
    Sure, they are possible... but irrelevant to anything except maybe feeling special cause they make you feel like "there is more to me than in this brick next to me"
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #61 - May 15, 2009, 03:16 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 13, 2009, 08:16 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 12, 2009, 09:50 PM
    Have you heard of the story of the person who can see, yet he is in a community of blind people who have never seen before?

    The person who can see tells them that he can see. The blind people have never come across this word "seeing" before, nor "vision" nor "colour" or "dark" or anything that can be associated with vision.

    The person tries to explain it to them, but their materialism and their scepticism, even makes him doubt that he can see. Maybe he is just pretending he can see, because he WANTS to see, he WANTS to have this sense he thinks nobody else has got. They dismiss the person with vision as talking nonsense. They say to him, "saying you believe in vision and have it yourself is like saying I believe in ajdgoogbis. It's nonsense. Now get over here and let us gauge your eyes out!"

    This story provides a strong criticism of falsificationism.

    Excuse me but I'm being hassled to revise :p (Have an exam tomorrow morning) Funnily enough, this is relevant to it.

    And the person that can see can actually demonstrate that he can see.


    How??
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #62 - May 15, 2009, 03:23 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 13, 2009, 08:20 PM
    Let's take by hypothesis that there is a secondary mental/spiritual/non-physical reality as well.

    Then I can ask: well, given this mental "essence"... HOW do we see actually?
    How does the non-physical essence actually see?

    That would still go unanswered.
    It would still be unsatisfactory.
    We should better theorize a third non-physical and non-spiritual reality.
    But then HOW does that reality actually make us see?

    So theorizing 2+ concurrent realities is completely inconsequential, unless we can actually find them useful somehow.
    Sure, they are possible... but irrelevant to anything except maybe feeling special cause they make you feel like "there is more to me than in this brick next to me"


    I admit that I don't understand how the mental dimension works, in the same way as I don't know how to explain vision to a person who has never seen before.

    I conclude there must be an extra-physical dimension because consciousness, amongst other things like vision and emotion and thought doesn't seem to be able to be explained by science, which is the study of what is physical.

    I'm going to discontinue this discussion because it seems like I cannot understand you and you cannot understand me. You doubt my sincerity excessively and therefore I think this discussion is unlikely to yield results.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #63 - May 15, 2009, 04:17 PM
    For what its worth as a neutral observer, I have agreed with each of your posts, at one time and another. Its just one of those open questions that no one really knows the answer too, so it was always going to be difficult to reach a conclusion - well done for trying though Afro
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #64 - May 18, 2009, 06:40 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 15, 2009, 03:16 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 13, 2009, 08:16 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 12, 2009, 09:50 PM
    Have you heard of the story of the person who can see, yet he is in a community of blind people who have never seen before?

    The person who can see tells them that he can see. The blind people have never come across this word "seeing" before, nor "vision" nor "colour" or "dark" or anything that can be associated with vision.

    The person tries to explain it to them, but their materialism and their scepticism, even makes him doubt that he can see. Maybe he is just pretending he can see, because he WANTS to see, he WANTS to have this sense he thinks nobody else has got. They dismiss the person with vision as talking nonsense. They say to him, "saying you believe in vision and have it yourself is like saying I believe in ajdgoogbis. It's nonsense. Now get over here and let us gauge your eyes out!"

    This story provides a strong criticism of falsificationism.

    Excuse me but I'm being hassled to revise :p (Have an exam tomorrow morning) Funnily enough, this is relevant to it.

    And the person that can see can actually demonstrate that he can see.


    How??

    By describing to a blind person, from a distance, what movements he is currently doing.
    If you want to make it even more fail proof, if I were the one doing it I could ask one blind person to actually GRAB me and hold me while another blind person he trusts walks a dozen paces away and then faces us and moves his arms or something, and I can describe what he's doing. And they can swap place and repeat.

    And I can repeat that ad nauseam until it counts as hard proof for them.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #65 - May 18, 2009, 07:00 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 15, 2009, 03:23 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 13, 2009, 08:20 PM
    Let's take by hypothesis that there is a secondary mental/spiritual/non-physical reality as well.

    Then I can ask: well, given this mental "essence"... HOW do we see actually?
    How does the non-physical essence actually see?

    That would still go unanswered.
    It would still be unsatisfactory.
    We should better theorize a third non-physical and non-spiritual reality.
    But then HOW does that reality actually make us see?

    So theorizing 2+ concurrent realities is completely inconsequential, unless we can actually find them useful somehow.
    Sure, they are possible... but irrelevant to anything except maybe feeling special cause they make you feel like "there is more to me than in this brick next to me"


    I admit that I don't understand how the mental dimension works, in the same way as I don't know how to explain vision to a person who has never seen before.

    I conclude there must be an extra-physical dimension because consciousness, amongst other things like vision and emotion and thought doesn't seem to be able to be explained by science, which is the study of what is physical.

    I'm going to discontinue this discussion because it seems like I cannot understand you and you cannot understand me. You doubt my sincerity excessively and therefore I think this discussion is unlikely to yield results.

    I can understand you, hence why I could pinpoint a question you are ultimately unable to answer: how can you tell if anything, other than yourself, is conscious?

    And science is not the study of what is physical. It's the study of anything that has a phenomenon we can sense in any way.
    That includes vision, emotion and thought. They cannot be studied DIRECTLY, of course, because they are abstractions. Exactly like gravity. As far as we know there is no physical entity associated to "gravity", it's just an abstract model to explain some phenomena we perceive.

    Ultimately, we have no idea what exactly these things are that we call "matter", "space", "time", "energy". You want to add "mind/soul/something" to the picture. Fine. But if you cannot come up with how that "mind/soul" is related to everything else, it's completely irrelevant to anything.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #66 - May 18, 2009, 07:13 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 18, 2009, 06:40 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 15, 2009, 03:16 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 13, 2009, 08:16 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 12, 2009, 09:50 PM
    Have you heard of the story of the person who can see, yet he is in a community of blind people who have never seen before?

    The person who can see tells them that he can see. The blind people have never come across this word "seeing" before, nor "vision" nor "colour" or "dark" or anything that can be associated with vision.

    The person tries to explain it to them, but their materialism and their scepticism, even makes him doubt that he can see. Maybe he is just pretending he can see, because he WANTS to see, he WANTS to have this sense he thinks nobody else has got. They dismiss the person with vision as talking nonsense. They say to him, "saying you believe in vision and have it yourself is like saying I believe in ajdgoogbis. It's nonsense. Now get over here and let us gauge your eyes out!"

    This story provides a strong criticism of falsificationism.

    Excuse me but I'm being hassled to revise :p (Have an exam tomorrow morning) Funnily enough, this is relevant to it.

    And the person that can see can actually demonstrate that he can see.


    How??

    By describing to a blind person, from a distance, what movements he is currently doing.
    If you want to make it even more fail proof, if I were the one doing it I could ask one blind person to actually GRAB me and hold me while another blind person he trusts walks a dozen paces away and then faces us and moves his arms or something, and I can describe what he's doing. And they can swap place and repeat.

    And I can repeat that ad nauseam until it counts as hard proof for them.


    This does not demonstrate sight. It demonstrates that you can know something that is happening from a distance. Indeed, this will be very intriguing for the blind people, but it does not help the blind people in understanding sight.

    In effect, it demonstrates that "I can know about something which is happening from a distance."
    However, to describe sight as a tool that makes you know about something which is happening from a distance is insufficient.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #67 - May 19, 2009, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 18, 2009, 07:13 PM
    This does not demonstrate sight. It demonstrates that you can know something that is happening from a distance. Indeed, this will be very intriguing for the blind people, but it does not help the blind people in understanding sight.

    In effect, it demonstrates that "I can know about something which is happening from a distance."
    However, to describe sight as a tool that makes you know about something which is happening from a distance is insufficient.

    And who cares?
    You have demonstrated with any degree of certainty they desire that you possess a sense they do not have.

    If you want to be anal and you want me to come up with more hypothetical experiments that could make blind people comprehend "the nature of vision" better , that can be done.
    For example, one could prove them that vision works in water. And in between water and air.
    And if there is "glass" available, you can demonstrate them that vision works through this solid material called glass. And you can also prove to them that they can feel the direct "heat" radiating from a fire through the other side of a glass surface.

    All of that is pretty sufficient for them to stop thinking that your additional sense is imaginary.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #68 - May 19, 2009, 02:01 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 19, 2009, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 18, 2009, 07:13 PM
    This does not demonstrate sight. It demonstrates that you can know something that is happening from a distance. Indeed, this will be very intriguing for the blind people, but it does not help the blind people in understanding sight.

    In effect, it demonstrates that "I can know about something which is happening from a distance."
    However, to describe sight as a tool that makes you know about something which is happening from a distance is insufficient.

    And who cares?
    You have demonstrated with any degree of certainty they desire that you possess a sense they do not have.

    If you want to be anal and you want me to come up with more hypothetical experiments that could make blind people comprehend "the nature of vision" better , that can be done.
    For example, one could prove them that vision works in water. And in between water and air.
    And if there is "glass" available, you can demonstrate them that vision works through this solid material called glass. And you can also prove to them that they can feel the direct "heat" radiating from a fire through the other side of a glass surface.

    All of that is pretty sufficient for them to stop thinking that your additional sense is imaginary.


    Please tell me what you don't understand about what I said:

    This does not demonstrate sight. It demonstrates that you can know something that is happening from a distance. Indeed, this will be very intriguing for the blind people, but it does not help the blind people in understanding sight.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #69 - May 20, 2009, 06:43 PM
    Define "understanding" then.
    Cause I obviously have no idea what you mean with such verb.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #70 - May 20, 2009, 06:44 PM
    Or, if you cannot define "understanding", tell me some examples of how can tell if "person A does not understand phenomenon B"
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #71 - May 20, 2009, 06:46 PM
    And, once you have done that, tell me how your interpretation of "understanding sight" is of any relevance with the supposed skepticism of blind people regarding a sense they do not possess and which you can demonstrate them that you have.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #72 - May 20, 2009, 07:31 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 20, 2009, 06:46 PM
    And, once you have done that, tell me how your interpretation of "understanding sight" is of any relevance with the supposed skepticism of blind people regarding a sense they do not possess and which you can demonstrate them that you have.


    Because I predict that if the blind people adopted the same approach as you adopted against me in this debate then they would try and explain the situation in terms of things they already understand, and NOT accept the existence of a new sense called "sight" which the person with sight cannot even describe.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #73 - May 21, 2009, 01:46 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 20, 2009, 07:31 PM
    Because I predict that if the blind people adopted the same approach as you adopted against me in this debate then they would try and explain the situation in terms of things they already understand, and NOT accept the existence of a new sense called "sight" which the person with sight cannot even describe.

    But the person with sight can describe some of the properties of sight, and prove that such sense exists. And can come up with ways to tell the blind people how to test if a person possesses sight or not.

    You could not do that regarding "consciousness".
    The closest thing you came up with was somehow implying that an information processing system that looks and feels and reacts in such way as to pass as human must somehow be conscious by definition.
    But you refused to dwell on that notion.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #74 - May 21, 2009, 02:07 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 21, 2009, 01:46 PM
    But the person with sight can describe some of the properties of sight


    Like?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #75 - May 22, 2009, 01:01 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 21, 2009, 02:07 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 21, 2009, 01:46 PM
    But the person with sight can describe some of the properties of sight


    Like?

    Again?
    Ok.

    He can prove them that his sense works through air.
    And through water.
    And through certain solid materials.
    And through combinations of those.
    And through vacuum.

    And if glass is available, he can prove them that this solid material through which his sense works allows "heat rays" to pass through as well.

    And he can prove that it works better during the day than during the night.

    That's some properties.
    Sure, you now will say that it's not enough to "understand sight" according to your definition of "understanding something" (which you do not want to share, btw).
    But those properties make them able to make a distinction between this "new sense" and other senses they are familiar with.
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #76 - May 22, 2009, 10:24 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 22, 2009, 01:01 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 21, 2009, 02:07 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 21, 2009, 01:46 PM
    But the person with sight can describe some of the properties of sight


    Like?

    Again?
    Ok.

    He can prove them that his sense works through air.
    And through water.
    And through certain solid materials.
    And through combinations of those.
    And through vacuum.

    And if glass is available, he can prove them that this solid material through which his sense works allows "heat rays" to pass through as well.

    And he can prove that it works better during the day than during the night.

    That's some properties.


    No. They're not properties. They're uses. When I say properties, I mean to say, that a property of a fruit is that it contains its own seeds. A use of a fruit would be that it can feed hungry people. I wouldn't say that one of the properties of fruit is that it feeds hungry people.

    So, yet again, how can a person with sight describe some properties of sight to a blind person? Can you tell me EVEN ONE?!
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #77 - May 24, 2009, 10:07 AM
    I don't get your definition of property, then.

    Define "property"
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #78 - May 24, 2009, 10:21 AM
    When I talk about "property" I mean this acception:
    "an attribute common to all members of a class"

    So, in the example of fruits, having seeds is not a property (cause what we label as "fruit" sometimes can have no seeds).
    And feeding people is not a property (cause what we label as "fruit" might not be edible).
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #79 - May 24, 2009, 11:00 AM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on May 24, 2009, 10:07 AM
    I don't get your definition of property, then.

    Define "property"


    The property of something is something which can help you picture that thing in your mind.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #80 - May 24, 2009, 06:39 PM
    Picture as in "visualize"?
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #81 - May 24, 2009, 11:45 PM
    How about property as in "the description of that object which would be true whatever the circumstance surrounding it.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #82 - June 08, 2009, 02:21 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on May 24, 2009, 11:45 PM
    How about property as in "the description of that object which would be true whatever the circumstance surrounding it.

    I'll resurrect this thread cause I remembered it by mentioning it on the abortion thread...

    So, the color of an object is not a property? (it depends on the light spectrum hitting the object, and on the relative speed between object and observer)

    And weight is also not a property? Nor is mass, I guess? Since you cannot define gravitational or inertial mass without taking into the picture the interaction between the given object and other surrounding entities.

    And non-objects have no properties?
    Gravity? Prime numbers? Sonnets?
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #83 - June 08, 2009, 02:24 PM
    What's a property according to you, on practical terms?
    The more-or-less precise description of a physical configuration of particles that make up something material?
    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #84 - July 04, 2009, 03:58 AM
    consciousness is just a bunch of neurons firing simultaneously because we have billions of receptors all over the body, may they be sensory, pain, pressure or whatever.

    consciousness is just a result of constant sensory input. get rid of all your sensory receptors in the body and we can't survive.

    i've always felt the question of what is consciousness a silly one. even though i know the post isn't about what it is.

    what interests me is, how thoughts are stored in the brain, so if they're stored as a collection of neurons connected tp dofferent association areas of the brain,, and if not then how. this also asks the question why is one association area so distinct from all the others in the brain when looking at the brain physically, all it is a bunch of nerve cell bodies and axons forming grey and white matter respectively.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #85 - July 04, 2009, 10:16 AM
    So consciousness to you is like milk? You can't have 1 milk, you just have bucket fulls of it, or more or less of it? But consciousness seems to be distinctly quantifiable.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #86 - July 04, 2009, 10:35 AM
    Quote from: sharkheart on July 04, 2009, 03:58 AM
    what interests me is, how thoughts are stored in the brain, so if they're stored as a collection of neurons connected tp dofferent association areas of the brain,, and if not then how. this also asks the question why is one association area so distinct from all the others in the brain when looking at the brain physically, all it is a bunch of nerve cell bodies and axons forming grey and white matter respectively.

    Its a good question, and for me, all part of the consciousness question which is very difficult to grasp as a concept.  The religious have it easy as they just tend to put it all under the 'spirit' umbrella.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #87 - July 06, 2009, 05:02 PM
    Check out this documentary. Very interesting. Might upset the most cynical materialists though.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I9-XxBAEsQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKv3rrFO0LU&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjTgKPOkFuA&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA37uNa3VGU&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-sk2qW1tcc&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9CDCZLRL9g&feature=related
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: 'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
     Reply #88 - January 29, 2010, 08:36 AM
    *necro*
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »