PDA

View Full Version : going inside



the undisputed truth
13-11-2005, 03:52 AM
...a 1999 book by John McCrone exploring a single moment of consciousness

http://black.hollygo7.co.uk/dysturbwiki/index.php/Interview_with_McCrone

the reason I'm posting this is because it's kinda like what i'm into as far as hobbies, this and cosmology...

...just thought it might spark a discussion is all

Funny thing is i met the guy twice cos he lives in Christchurch NZ as well and was asking all sorts of questions and putting forward my own theory surrounding consciousness/intelligence and when it became a factor in the evolution of the universe if you buy into the big bang, without knowing he was some kind of expert

I had actually organised an informal meet regarding an arts/science crossover event I have in mind and he was just some random guy I got to chatting on the net with and then found out we live in the same city along with a particle physicist studying category theory
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory/

so we dragged her along as well and then I got my media producer friend along so now I'm thinking let's make a TV documentary...

synchronicitous eh ???

does anyone else have strange seemingly out of the blue events that reveal themselves to be impeccably timed opportunities or get into this sort of stuff ???

just wondering...

Omaar
13-11-2005, 10:26 AM
That interview is quite short and for this reason doesn't really get into the nitty gritty of what he's on about - is he arguing for an evolutionary view of consciousness? evolutionary neuroscience or something?

I heard some guy doing a reith lecture on that, using fact that there is a time lapse between a person performing an action and the delayed conscious sexperience of the mind of the sensation of will to perform an action after the action has taken place to argue for an evolutionary explantion for consciousness or something like that .. didn't buy it myself.

Though he did mention in the same lecture an incredible mental illness in which a subject is completely unable to deal with the reality of events around themselves and that the only explanation they find satisafactory is that they are in fact dead, so they live life as though they're in the land of the dead ... or something. can't remember what this syndrome is called though ....

There are a few of us nzers on this board btw - even an an antipodean thread somewhere ...

the undisputed truth
13-11-2005, 12:08 PM
howzit Omaar...

...here is the amazon link to the book with some good reviews on it

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880642629/102-1730170-7236163?v=glance

It's a good time to be an NZer eh ??? It's like the net has reduced our isolation but consolidated our identity

BTW McCrone is an expat kiwi who just moved back...

...personally i think the mind is collective and extant of the brain, maybe another dimension or field we tap into and feedback on during sleep then project onto a 4d screen as reality

whatever is known and can be observed was always known and can be observed, it's just we as humans aren't evolved enough to know or see it yet, we do however get glimpses through dreams, visions and deja vu...

...i'm more about instinct and intuition than reason and logic

I think>>I feel>>I believe>> I know>> I AM

DJ PIMP
14-11-2005, 08:55 PM
...personally i think the mind is collective and extant of the brain, maybe another dimension or field we tap into and feedback on during sleep then project onto a 4d screen as reality

I think>>I feel>>I believe>> I know>> I AM
Sounds like (religious) mysticism to me :)

McCrone seems to be talking about consciousness as brain function or mind - whereas Buddhism would say (transcendent) consciousness is the root of our being and mind is a layer sitting on top. What is interesting to me is his focus on the moment and his observation that the brain/consciousness is fluid, which reminds me of the naturalistic metaphors of Taoism, i.e. water is the state between heaven and earth.

I often feel the idea of living in the moment is emphasised in or is part of the conclusion of the philosophical/religious texts I've read.

Omaar: That mental condition sounds interesting. Samurai were meant to meditate on death on a daily basis so as to be entirely fearless/selfless, which in turn meant that in battle there would be no hesitation in responding to danger/stimuli, thus prolonging their life. As an aside, a great book on the warrior/philosopher tip is The Unfettered Mind by Takuan Soho - a series of zen essays written in the 1600s. It popped my noodle.

the undisputed truth
18-11-2005, 03:59 AM
hey Bleep

I'm only about a 3rd of the way through the book so can't fully comment yet on whether he thinks the mind is solely a brain function...

...hold tight til I get to the end or i might see if he wants to come here and answer your questions direct

bloody interesting stuff, would love to make tv series about this book just to get some geek mates of mine to 3d animate a neuron firing with all it's feedback loops going off as well...

tryptych
18-11-2005, 10:44 AM
I heard some guy doing a reith lecture on that, using fact that there is a time lapse between a person performing an action and the delayed conscious sexperience of the mind of the sensation of will to perform an action after the action has taken place to argue for an evolutionary explantion for consciousness or something like that .. didn't buy it myself.

Though he did mention in the same lecture an incredible mental illness in which a subject is completely unable to deal with the reality of events around themselves and that the only explanation they find satisafactory is that they are in fact dead, so they live life as though they're in the land of the dead ... or something. can't remember what this syndrome is called though ....

.

Probably V.S. Ramachandran? The experiment you're talking about was done by Benjamin Libet, and it shows that the conscious decision to act occurs after the start of the neural signal which instigates the action. It's supposed to be an argument for the non-existance of free will. I can't think off the top of my head why it might support an "evolutionary" explanation for consciousness.

It seems as if this guy, McCrone, is a pop science writer condensing parts of the school of thought which has come to be know as embodied/enactive cognitive science. This is a totally live field, with a lot of debate and theory flying around, without much consensus, apart from that the old computational model of consciousness is severly lacking.

For those interested in the idea that consciousness exists in the moment and is tied up with action, I'd recommend the classic text that started most of this thought, "The Embodied Mind":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262720213/102-4741932-4231332?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

Which explicity draws on Buddhist thought as one of its inspirations. The other axis that it depends upon is of course phenomenology - especially that of Merleau-Ponty, althought Husserl and Heidegger get a look in.

Not having read McCrone's book, but most of those within the embodied/enactive stance do not think of the mind as a function of the brain - that's the view of older, funtionalist theories of consciousness. Rather, the experience of consciousness is the acting of the brain, or even more precisely, an action which cuts across traditional boundaries of mind, brain, body and enviroment.

I'm suspicious of so called neo-Darwinian theories that attempt to reduce everything, consciousness included to principles of natural selection, partly because of their relation to capatalist economics. What do we mean by "evolutionary consciousness"? If we believe in evolution, then presumably consciousness has to have evolved... beyond that, what exactly do people mean by "evolutionary neuroscience" or whatever?


PS The way this thread is headed, I would say it belongs in "Thought", not "Art, Lit & Film"

the undisputed truth
18-11-2005, 11:13 AM
I would imagine that just as a baby has to evolve a consciousness to suit it's environment so to do does succeeding generations of man have to evolve a consciousness to suit the changing times...

...I'm not sure if he is advocating evolutionary consciousness purely based on a darwinian natural selective model but i think he might be getting around to saying that it is possible over time and that it removes the hypothesis of intelligent design

can't wait til i finish the book...

me, I'm going for a collective mind possibly even a compactified dimension of thought or a quantum field of intelligence, a harmonic attractor of sorts

Omaar
18-11-2005, 12:10 PM
Probably V.S. Ramachandran? The experiment you're talking about was done by Benjamin Libet, and it shows that the conscious decision to act occurs after the start of the neural signal which instigates the action. It's supposed to be an argument for the non-existance of free will. I can't think off the top of my head why it might support an "evolutionary" explanation for consciousness.

yep, that's the one.




I'm suspicious of so called neo-Darwinian theories that attempt to reduce everything, consciousness included to principles of natural selection, partly because of their relation to capatalist economics.

Right on. with you on that one.

re: evolutionary neuroscience - I'm guessing the idea is that conscious evolves as a mutation that aids survival, and any study of it start with this idea.

I'm thinking that 'heightened consciousness' is associated with mysticism which usually leads to a lack of desire to breed which in terms of survival of the gene/species is not really a good thing. I'm not going to go anywhere with that though right now though...


hell sd: collective mind? sounds a bit bonkers to me. what evidence is there for this?

the undisputed truth
18-11-2005, 09:55 PM
evidence, evidence we don't need no stinking evidence...

I don't know if i mentioned but i'm more about instinct and intution than reason and logic. I just got or get a feeling and follow things on from there. The classic gut reaction. I can often be most unreasonable and illogical.

but anyway, I think it was Jung with his collective consciousness and a wellspring of ideas we tap into and feedback on that got me started, then reading a bit about string theory with it's ever present compactified dimensions add in the holographic universe of Bohm

kinda like if one person has an idea anywhere in the world then it makes it easier for someone else to have it and follow on and so on. Think of non locality but apply it to thoughts.

so whats the tie in to capitalism from neo darwinist evolutionary consciousness ???

the undisputed truth
19-11-2005, 01:11 AM
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/cemi_theory_paper.pdf

ok so I just clocked this...

...drawing consciousness closer to interactive local(personal) and non local(universal) fields

tryptych
19-11-2005, 01:25 AM
so whats the tie in to capitalism from neo darwinist evolutionary consciousness ???


well.. its to do with neo-darwinian evolutionay psychology applied to organisational management. will have to write more later...

the undisputed truth
19-11-2005, 05:07 AM
hmmm..sounds interesting

you ever come across scale free networks and power laws before ???...possible tie in ???

McCrone got me onto them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network

http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html

tryptych
20-11-2005, 03:31 PM
I would imagine that just as a baby has to evolve a consciousness to suit it's environment so to do does succeeding generations of man have to evolve a consciousness to suit the changing times...


Evolution doesn't happen that fast. Changing social/cultural environments occur on the order of decades and centuries, not over the many thousands of generations that are required for natural selection of characteristics.

If one was to take a baby born hundreds of years ago, and bring it up in a modern environment, it would develop just the same as a bay from our own times.

This is the basis that allows evolutionary psychologists to make claims about modern behaviour based on very ancient naturally selected traits.


evidence, evidence we don't need no stinking evidence...

I don't know if i mentioned but i'm more about instinct and intution than reason and logic. I just got or get a feeling and follow things on from there. The classic gut reaction. I can often be most unreasonable and illogical.

Why do you bother reading scientific papers then?

That JCS paper from McFadden is quite interesting, but has quite a few holes. For instance, the idea that unconscious thoughts can't have any influence on motor neurons - that seems obviously false.

As for Darwin and capitalism, some economic theorists use natural selection to maintain that a particular kind of system (ie free-market liberalism) is somehow "natural" and an objective certainty rather than a socially constructed phenomenon. There is also a lot of work in using evolutionary psychology in management - by understanding the basic selected behaviours, people can be manipulated in the workplace.


hmmm..sounds interesting

you ever come across scale free networks and power laws before ???...possible tie in ???

McCrone got me onto them...

Possible tie in... mmm, well, yes in a way. Small-world theory (scalant-invariable networks) probably is tied into consciousness, but only because it seems to be present across all levels of life, and complex non-living systems.

I don't want to be rude, but it does seem like you're just grabbing at lots of "cool" theories withou really understanding them, and jamming them together to try and say something about consciousness.

the undisputed truth
20-11-2005, 07:45 PM
yeah, i got my own ideas on consciousness so kind of am "jamming" theories to suit...

...i do understand them, just don't really want to write a thesis on it here

on a side note, you ever come across cosmic natural selection ??? another Darwinian model applied to the universes most suited to host life.

anyway evolution, which is basically change over time with a degree of feedback to a system hopefully to improve it, is a natural process that can be applied to anything, yes even economics

...i suppose in terms of consciousness though, i'm a dualist not straight cartesian but close

so tell me about these unconcious thoughts you're having, if they're unconscious how do you know you're having them ??? ;)

tryptych
20-11-2005, 09:49 PM
yeah, i got my own ideas on consciousness so kind of am "jamming" theories to suit...

...i do understand them, just don't really want to write a thesis on it here

on a side note, you ever come across cosmic natural selection ??? another Darwinian model applied to the universes most suited to host life.

anyway evolution, which is basically change over time with a degree of feedback to a system hopefully to improve it, is a natural process that can be applied to anything, yes even economics

...i suppose in terms of consciousness though, i'm a dualist not straight cartesian but close


If you're a dualist, good god, even a Cartesian, why are you reading all this stuff by McCrone etc? All these contempory ideas in cognitive science are strongly anti-dualistic, even more so than computational thories.

Evolution is not a change over time with a degree of feedback. If it was, such simple dynamic systems as the Watt govenor would count as "evolving". I suppose they do, but only in a loose sense of the common use of evolution - not the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution via natural selection requires reproduction and the passing on of inheritable traits. Universes, as far as we know, do not reproduce. Nor do they carry inheritable information.

Also, it is in no way about an organism "improving" - simple creatures are not evolving into more complex ones. It's about a dynamic relation between species and organism, where species evolve to best fit a niche.



so tell me about these unconcious thoughts you're having, if they're unconscious how do you know you're having them ??? ;)

Most of your daily life passes unconsciously. For example, in sport - all your reactions and bodily movements happen unconsciously.

the undisputed truth
21-11-2005, 05:30 AM
the thing with these new theories on consciousness is that without understanding the eletromagnetic aspect of neurons firing and how it relates to the greater EM fields operating within our universe, they are still only best guesses...

my dualism is, like I said a collective mind, extant of the body operating within hidden dimensions or as yet undiscovered quantum fields, not quite the spirit and matter of classic cartesian duality...

...and i am reading Mc Crone to test my faith in my intuitions against logic and reason, broaden my horizons and evolve my own personal state of mind

these new cognitive thoeries are only non dualistic if they percieve the mind to be a function of the brain, not as i would have, if the brain is a processing unit for the mind which we tap into, feedback on and project onto 4d reality thus making the brain a function of the mind. Our goal then is to evolve beyond physicality to become conscious beings of pure thought transcending the multiverse as streams flitting in and out of multiple dimensions. Not just vehicles for 5 senses trapped in 4 dimensions

Universes by all accounts of the latest theories especially those of Loop Quantum Gravity do reproduce by black hole bounce, pushing beyond the singularity. Check the work of Lee Smolin and Martin Bojowald...

I would say evolution is about improvment for if a species or system doesn't and degenerates, natural selection says it will not survive for long...

...on the contrary reactions and body movements in sport happen by a conscious thought and effort of a trained mind and body to effect the action you want by thinking about it

the guy who hits the home run wanted to hit it, thought about it and made it happen. It was purely a conscious effort based on thought...

... An unconcious thought is not anything really beacuse if you are not conscious of it how can you be sure you had it ???

for instance, I just had an unconscious thought but by my awareness of it, it makes it conscious so i didn't have one...

tryptych
21-11-2005, 10:52 AM
the thing with these new theories on consciousness is that without understanding the eletromagnetic aspect of neurons firing and how it relates to the greater EM fields operating within our universe, they are still only best guesses...

my dualism is, like I said a collective mind, extant of the body operating within hidden dimensions or as yet undiscovered quantum fields, not quite the spirit and matter of classic cartesian duality...


Dualism is a belief in two different substances that make up the world. The mental and the physical. Do you believe in that or not? "Yet undiscovered quantum fields" sounds to me like physical substance that we don't know about, ie physicalism.



...and i am reading Mc Crone to test my faith in my intuitions against logic and reason, broaden my horizons and evolve my own personal state of mind

these new cognitive thoeries are only non dualistic if they percieve the mind to be a function of the brain, not as i would have, if the brain is a processing unit for the mind which we tap into, feedback on and project onto 4d reality thus making the brain a function of the mind. Our goal then is to evolve beyond physicality to become conscious beings of pure thought transcending the multiverse as streams flitting in and out of multiple dimensions. Not just vehicles for 5 senses trapped in 4 dimensions

Again, no, sorry. Being non-dualistic is simply to say that the world is made up of only one kind of stuff, ie physical matter (or mental matter, if you were an idealist). Contempory "embodied" theories of mind are both non-dualistic (physicalist) and also non-cartesian (they deny the separation between body and mind). They are not functionalist.

If you think humans have "goal" to evolve beyond their physical nature, then you don't believe, or understand, what the theory of evolution is. As someone said before, it sounds just like some kind of religious mysticism, the guiding hand of some higher power.


Universes by all accounts of the latest theories especially those of Loop Quantum Gravity do reproduce by black hole bounce, pushing beyond the singularity. Check the work of Lee Smolin and Martin Bojowald...

I would say evolution is about improvment for if a species or system doesn't and degenerates, natural selection says it will not survive for long...

I'm sorry, you're just wrong here. That might be what you say evolution is, but that's not what biologists say evolution is. "Improvement" and "degeneration" are terms from discredited Lamarckian evolution.

I'm aware of quantum loop gravity theories. And of course the theory that our univerise "bounces" back through big bang and big crunch. A cyclic system does not equal reproduction, however - as I said before, there needs to be some kind of inheritance of traits, and elimination of those unsuitable by natural selection. Talking about universes in this way is essentially meaningless. How does information pass though the singularity? What external "environment" provides the selection pressure?


...on the contrary reactions and body movements in sport happen by a conscious thought and effort of a trained mind and body to effect the action you want by thinking about it

the guy who hits the home run wanted to hit it, thought about it and made it happen. It was purely a conscious effort based on thought...

... An unconcious thought is not anything really beacuse if you are not conscious of it how can you be sure you had it ???

for instance, I just had an unconscious thought but by my awareness of it, it makes it conscious so i didn't have one...

The crucial point here is the training aspect. When you first learn to play baseball, you actions are slow, deliberate and conscious. You have to consciously think "i have to rotate my wrist just this much, apply this much force, etc etc". When you've learned a degree of skill, you no longer think about the constituent actions that make up the swing. You just think "I'm going to hit a home run". Then, commmands your brain sends to your hands to rotate a precise degree, to apply just the right force, are unconscious. You are no longer aware of those commands - they are unconscious.

the undisputed truth
21-11-2005, 07:20 PM
oh no...

...you're not going to dictate your definition of dualism to me and expect me to wear it

I suggest you read around on how many dualistic interpretations there are, there is so much more to my philosophy that can written about in your words...

...undiscovered quantum fields such as the higgs field which suppposedly attributes mass to particles may be proven with the latest hadron collider and give some substance to string theory given that it is a symmetric partner and doesn't easily fit into a model of physicality we have. It is not a substance but a field in much the same manner or magnetism is not a substance. Basically i am imagining a dimension/field of thought

your one type of physical matter doesn't wash in a mutli dimensional ,many worlds scenario as the limit of physicality is what can be sensed by entities with 5 senses in our 4 dimensions anything beyond that is metaphysical in nature and beyond our ability to understand at present which is why we are evolving towards that state

I suggest you read more on LQG and cosmological natural selsection to see the error in your remarks

guiding hand of a higher power, hmmm... dunno about that, but guided by an intelligence factor within the system yeah...attractors

If you want to speculate first causes go ahead. Of course there is a goal to evolve towards there is a goal to be achieved for everything we do.

if a species or system doesn't improve and degenerates, natural selection says it will not survive for long... are you saying this statement is wrong ???

are you confusing sub conscious with unconscious ??? one happens at a level we are not fully aware of the other is what happens when I drink too much...

tryptych
22-11-2005, 01:55 PM
oh no...

...you're not going to dictate your definition of dualism to me and expect me to wear it

I suggest you read around on how many dualistic interpretations there are, there is so much more to my philosophy that can written about in your words...

...undiscovered quantum fields such as the higgs field which suppposedly attributes mass to particles may be proven with the latest hadron collider and give some substance to string theory given that it is a symmetric partner and doesn't easily fit into a model of physicality we have. It is not a substance but a field in much the same manner or magnetism is not a substance. Basically i am imagining a dimension/field of thought


Well perhaps you'd like to explain what your definition of dualism is? If you're going to use a philosophical term in a non-standard way, we won't get much further with understanding each other. I was assuming you were talking about substance dualism. Perhaps you mean property dualism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29



your one type of physical matter doesn't wash in a mutli dimensional ,many worlds scenario as the limit of physicality is what can be sensed by entities with 5 senses in our 4 dimensions anything beyond that is metaphysical in nature and beyond our ability to understand at present which is why we are evolving towards that state

I suggest you read more on LQG and cosmological natural selsection to see the error in your remarks

guiding hand of a higher power, hmmm... dunno about that, but guided by an intelligence factor within the system yeah...attractors

If you want to speculate first causes go ahead. Of course there is a goal to evolve towards there is a goal to be achieved for everything we do.

if a species or system doesn't improve and degenerates, natural selection says it will not survive for long... are you saying this statement is wrong ???

Yes, that's right. Natural selection says nothing of the sort. Species do not have to "improve". There are species of insects that have been on this planet for millions of years, and by some measures are many times for "successful" than humans.

Maybe you should unpack that statement, and explain what you mean by "improve" and "degenerate", because to me they imply a linear progression that all species are on. Maybe you don't mean that?


are you confusing sub conscious with unconscious ??? one happens at a level we are not fully aware of the other is what happens when I drink too much...

*shrug* semantics. If you read around the field of philosophy of cognitive sciene, you'll find that the two terms are used interchangeably.

DJ PIMP
23-11-2005, 06:50 AM
I'm thinking that 'heightened consciousness' is associated with mysticism which usually leads to a lack of desire to breed which in terms of survival of the gene/species is not really a good thing.Yeah, well, the shit they don't tell you in books is that Jesus, Gandhi, Nietzsche, Buddha etc was all knee-deep in pussy macking hunnies left and right 24-7 http://www.dogsonacid.com/images/smilies/pimp.gif

the undisputed truth
28-11-2005, 05:04 AM
been a bit busy but...


Well perhaps you'd like to explain what your definition of dualism is?

...already did


Species do not have to "improve". There are species of insects that have been on this planet for millions of years, and by some measures are many times for "successful" than humans.

If there is a change in the environment and a species has to adapt, then only those who have "improved/evolved" will survive. Methinks insect evolution has plateaued over the last few million years as they haven't had to evolve to changing conditions...



*shrug* semantics. If you read around the field of philosophy of cognitive sciene, you'll find that the two terms are used interchangeably.

...semantics is all there is in verbal or written communication. My point is. if your body does something unknown to your conscious awareness. It is not a thought but an action of your brain processing reality in real time you don't think it, it just happens and what you think about it is your consciousness evaluating it's importance.

the thought follows the action (in your brain). You don't have unconscious thoughts just subconscious actions. You do have preconscious thoughts though to make up for Libet's half second delay...

what thinks you and here is the thing !!!

I want to know what YOU think not some dead philosopher or supposed expert on cognitive neuroscience...

...no evidence needed just YOUR thoughts

"I think therefore I am, I am therefore there is"

tryptych
28-11-2005, 01:34 PM
been a bit busy but...



...already did



OK, so your version of dualism is a "collective mind". Why is that dualism? It's perfectly possible to argue for some sort of collective mental entity, whilst being a physicalist - and all your talk of this collective mind being located in extra curled up dimensions suggests this. If you could stop evading the question and give a proper explanation of what you mean by "dualism" that would help.




If there is a change in the environment and a species has to adapt, then only those who have "improved/evolved" will survive. Methinks insect evolution has plateaued over the last few million years as they haven't had to evolve to changing conditions...


Ok good. So do you agree that without enviromental pressure species will not evolve by natural selection? (there will of course still be sexual selection, eg those with better mating strategies etc will increase in number)
Don't forget that "improving" is a misnomer - lots of species have "degenerated" due to selective pressure - losing the function of eyes in low light environments, vestigil limbs etc.

So what's the driving force that's going to make humans evolve to "pure energy"? What are the environmental conditions that would support it?




...semantics is all there is in verbal or written communication. My point is. if your body does something unknown to your conscious awareness. It is not a thought but an action of your brain processing reality in real time you don't think it, it just happens and what you think about it is your consciousness evaluating it's importance.

the thought follows the action (in your brain). You don't have unconscious thoughts just subconscious actions. You do have preconscious thoughts though to make up for Libet's half second delay...

what thinks you and here is the thing !!!

I want to know what YOU think not some dead philosopher or supposed expert on cognitive neuroscience...

...no evidence needed just YOUR thoughts

"I think therefore I am, I am therefore there is"

Ok, we're just talking at cross purposes here. I was at a discussion last week were someone objected to the term "subconscious" because of its unclarity - does it mean below consciousness, nearly conscious, etc? And the preffered term was "unconscious" when refering to concepts, beliefs etc that are not present to awareness yet have some intentional relation to the world.

As for what you've written above, it seems self contradictory: "if your body does something unknown to your conscious awareness. It is not a thought but an action of your brain processing reality" and "You do have preconscious thoughts though to make up for Libet's half second delay..."

So on the one hand, if you're not aware of it, its not conscious or a thought, but if you're not aware of it and it happens just before something you are aware of, it is a thought?

Preconscious is still unconscious. Unless you are going to add some sort of temporal requirement. You can be unconsciously influenced by advertising etc, and then perform some aware action which is influenced by it quite a long time later.

the undisputed truth
28-11-2005, 03:39 PM
here ya go spackboy...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/consciou.htm

...draw your own conclusions on why a collective mind extant of the body is a form of dualism. Section 3 if you want to short cut it

Could you not substitute "better" mating strategies for "improved" mating strategies ???

Lots of variations of species with degenerated traits i would say are on the way out slowly especially those whose mating strategies haven't evolved to improve the species

the driving force behind human evolution to beings of pure thought is, i would say...consciousness applied to technology maybe vice versa


So on the one hand, if you're not aware of it, its not conscious or a thought, but if you're not aware of it and it happens just before something you are aware of, it is a thought? Unless you are going to add some sort of temporal requirement

yeah something like that...

... for if you broke a preconscious moment down to its conscious thought constituents, you would realise all the thoughts you are having in the moment before you hit a home run can be quantified as conscious but your brain just glosses over it and adjusts right up until about 300milliseconds before you hit the ball

preconscious is in this instance, being aware of something before it happens by calculating and projecting a best possible scenario into the future to allow for libets half second delay...

...if your weak genepool has degenerated your ability to reason and think properly you might think it was an unconscious thought or reflex action, however an evolved personal consciousness from an improved, strong genepool would not :p

thats the difference between anticipated preconscious thoughts and why a thought truly unconscious cannot be thought of as a thought, I think :confused:

If you are consciously aware of what form of advertising they use to affect your consciousness you can choose not to be affected by it..(uh oh did he just open up the free will debate affecting consciousness)

tryptych
28-11-2005, 05:16 PM
here ya go spackboy...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/consciou.htm

...draw your own conclusions on why a collective mind extant of the body is a form of dualism. Section 3 if you want to short cut it



A potted summary of dualism vs physicalism isn't going to help here. Let me refresh the argument:

1) You say that the mind is a collective thing, hidden with "as yet undiscovered" quantum fields or dimensions.

2) You say you're dualist. But not quite a Cartesian. No explanation as to the differences.

3) Your position as stated is pefectly commensurate with physicalism (but not materialism). From the article you linked "something might be physical but not material in this sense, such as an electromagnetic or energy field. One might therefore instead be a “physicalist” in some broader sense and still not a dualist."

Again from that article "Dualists, then, tend to believe that conscious mental states or minds are radically different from anything in the physical world at all." Substance dualism proposes that there are two substances, mental and physical, with radically different properties - "something to be non-physical, it must literally be outside the realm of physics; that is, not in space at all and undetectable in principle by the instruments of physics". Non of the stuff you are talking about, from superstrings to hadrons are outside the realm of physics or undetectable by the instruments of physics. Otherwise physicists would not be conducting experiments to look for them.

"draw my own conclusions" hmm thanks, well my conclusions from that article are that you are not a dualist. If you'd like to explain aho you drew YOUR conclusions, I'm all ears.



Could you not substitute "better" mating strategies for "improved" mating strategies ???

Lots of variations of species with degenerated traits i would say are on the way out slowly especially those whose mating strategies haven't evolved to improve the species

the driving force behind human evolution to beings of pure thought is, i would say...consciousness applied to technology maybe vice versa


I'm not sure you understand. When I say "better" or "improved" mating strategies, all i mean is that the individual with those traits is going to get more mates and have more children. This is absolutely NOT linked with any kind of "advancement" - increased complexity, intelligence, etc, unless environmental pressures dictate that.

Lots of species with degenerate traits are on the way out? No, they're not. Sea dwelling mammals have "degenerated" by some yardsticks - lost limbs. Moles and other poorly sighetd creatures have lost their eyesight. None of them are on the way out. Many species are very much the same as they have been for 50 million years (especially invertebrates). non of them are going anywhere. They have reached a happy balance between enviromental and sexual pressures.

Fine if you think that driving force of human development is technology etc, but that's not the theory of "evolution". You may want to look at "Baldwinian evolution":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwinian_evolution




yeah something like that...

... for if you broke a preconscious moment down to its conscious thought constituents, you would realise all the thoughts you are having in the moment before you hit a home run can be quantified as conscious but your brain just glosses over it and adjusts right up until about 300milliseconds before you hit the ball


This is getting meaningless... thoughts that can be "quantified " as conscious but that you're not aware of?




preconscious is in this instance, being aware of something before it happens by calculating and projecting a best possible scenario into the future to allow for libets half second delay...

...if your weak genepool has degenerated your ability to reason and think properly you might think it was an unconscious thought or reflex action, however an evolved personal consciousness from an improved, strong genepool would not :p


Is that an insult?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll say this for the umpteenth time: strong or successful genes DO NOT necessarily equal higher intelligence or better "personal consciousness". Lots of wild animals under intense selection pressure have very strong genepools - especially, I would think, predator/prey dynamics where not being fast enough = death. In these situations, having advanced consciousness is going to be an evolutionary DIS-advantage. Relying on instinct is a much more useful strategy.




thats the difference between anticipated preconscious thoughts and why a thought truly unconscious cannot be thought of as a thought, I think :confused:

If you are consciously aware of what form of advertising they use to affect your consciousness you can choose not to be affected by it..(uh oh did he just open up the free will debate affecting consciousness)

Hah... sorry, if you think you can consciously choose to not be affected by advertising you are very wrong. And there's plenty of experimental evidence to prove it. And not just advertising - sexual attraction, attention, body language, hypnosis, etc.. Ever seen magicians do card forcing?

the undisputed truth
28-11-2005, 05:38 PM
1) You say that the mind is a collective thing, hidden with "as yet undiscovered" quantum fields or dimensions equates to..

>>"Dualists, then, tend to believe that conscious mental states or minds are radically different from anything in the physical world at all."

"draw my own conclusions" hmm thanks, well my conclusions from that article are that you are not a dualist. If you'd like to explain aho you drew YOUR conclusions, I'm all ears.

>>see above

I'm not sure you understand. When I say "better" or "improved" mating strategies, all i mean is that the individual with those traits is going to get more mates and have more children. This is absolutely NOT linked with any kind of "advancement" - increased complexity, intelligence, etc, unless environmental pressures dictate that.

Lots of species with degenerate traits are on the way out? No, they're not. Sea dwelling mammals have "degenerated" by some yardsticks - lost limbs. Moles and other poorly sighetd creatures have lost their eyesight. None of them are on the way out. Many species are very much the same as they have been for 50 million years (especially invertebrates). non of them are going anywhere. They have reached a happy balance between enviromental and sexual pressures.

>>why then are changing environmetal conditions causing more extinctions than ever ???

This is getting meaningless... thoughts that can be "quantified " as conscious but that you're not aware of?

>>you choose not to be aware of them

Is that an insult?

>>no, just an observation

Hah... sorry, if you think you can consciously choose to not be affected by advertising you are very wrong. And there's plenty of experimental evidence to prove it ?

>>prove i'm wrong and state your evidence though preferably in another thread...

tryptych
28-11-2005, 08:10 PM
See above? So you are going to maintain that "undiscovered quantum fields" are in fact non-physical? Good luck with that. If you want to refute my argument, and explain why collective mind = dualism, go ahead. Until then, I'm going to stick with my original thoughts: you don't understand what you're talking about.



>>prove i'm wrong and state your evidence though preferably in another thread...

I don't see why the burden of proof is on me to state evidence to prove you're wrong when you won't even explain the arguments you use to support your so-called "dualism". I'm not going to waste my time seaching for refs when you won't engage with me and state your position. It's not hard.

the undisputed truth
28-11-2005, 10:31 PM
spackb0y, it seems you have trouble connecting the dots so let me break it down for you...

undiscovered quantum fields and hidden dimensions which string theory would have us believe are compactified at every point in space, are "not physical"...

...given then, that Dualists, tend to believe that conscious mental states or minds are radically different from anything in the physical world at all."

and i believe that conscious mental states emanate from a collective dimension of thought outside of our physically percievable universe, makes them radically different from anything in the physical realm...

...and thus qualifies me as a dualist

if the collective mind uses EM fields within our brains to tranfer energy from within our 4d universe to our collective mind extant of 4d, the nature of which we don't understand then that also puts me in the dualist camp...

...with regards to your advertising affecting me unconsciously. I still state that if i am aware of the form of advertising they use I can counter the effects of it by choosing not to let it affect my buying/spending habits so the only awareness affecting me is product awareness and brand recognition

tryptych
29-11-2005, 01:26 PM
And you seem to have trouble drawing coherent lines between your dots. You are confusing the material with the physical, and metaphysics with epistemology.

EM fields are firmly within the realm of the physical. So are quantum fields and extra string dimensions, compacted in space or otherwise. If you ask any physicist who works in these areas if they are dualists, or if they are investigating something that is "not physical", they'll strongly disagree. As I said before, physics, even cutting edge cosmology still has to propose hypothesis testable by experiment. All of these supposedly mysterious things are the subject of research projects which oneday hope to prove their existence or the negative, through physical experiment. Which would not be even something attemptable if the phenomena were "outside of the realm of the physical" (and thus, one would imagine, causally separated). What you consider to be "radically different" just isn't different enough. Radically different here doesn't mean a strange part of physics that seems esoteric to us. It means being so utterly different that by definition it falls outside the realms of physical science, and cannot interact with physical matter (if you read the rest of that article you posted you will see a section entitled "Substance dualism and its objections", that should fill you in a bit).

Your second problem is confusing our knowledge of what there is (epistemology) with statements about what there is independant of our knowledge (metaphysics). Just because things are "undiscovered" or currently not "perceivable", or not "understandable" to us doesn't mean they're not physical. Atoms, radiowaves - not perceivable, but definately physical.

A further problem with this approach - you are attempting to use ideas based on one metaphysical system (physical empiricist science) to prove or support a radically different metaphysical system (dualism), which is self contradictory argument.

the undisputed truth
29-11-2005, 08:39 PM
what's your definition of physical ???

cos to me if it exists/emanates from outside of our 4d percieved universe...

...it's not physical

and you don't think a dimension of thought is radical enough ???

do you really think that the connection to our physical realm is testable ???...maybe in death or by jumping through a black hole which probably equates to the same thing

They can't even make testable predictions about stringtheory hence the landscape debacle. Not only that but they can't even explain what light is properly.

The thing most physicists are trying to crack is super symmetry in stringtheory which implies non physicality in 4d as it deals with non locality and virtual particles none of which i would say qualifies as physical

whatever man...

I think therefore I am, I am therefore it is...

...and i think I am a dualist therefore i am and have satisfied a burden of proof, you can think differently

accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

don't let someone else do it for you...

tryptych
29-11-2005, 11:08 PM
what's your definition of physical ???

cos to me if it exists/emanates from outside of our 4d percieved universe...

...it's not physical



My definition of physical is not relevent. What is relevent is the substance dualist's definition of physical, as you claim to be one. So whats that? The physical is just that which is not mental. So beliefs, desires, etc are in the realm of the mental, everything else is in the realm of the physical.

If you are going to be a dualist, and say that anything that falls outside of the realm of our 4d perceived universe is not physical, then it must be mental. So where do you draw the line? Singularities, as found in black holes, are definately beyond the realms of our perceived universe. I'd say electron clouds, subatomic particles, neutrinos are also beyond that limit. So is everything outside of our light cone. Are these things all "mental" then?






and you don't think a dimension of thought is radical enough ???

do you really think that the connection to our physical realm is testable ???...maybe in death or by jumping through a black hole which probably equates to the same thing



No of course it's not testable. That would be circular, trying to prove metaphysics with physics. You have to really start out with a metaphysical position, and work from there. Physicists start out from a position of physicalism.



whatever man...

I think therefore I am, I am therefore it is...

...and i think I am a dualist therefore i am and have satisfied a burden of proof, you can think differently


I could also think I was a dualist if I changed the meaning of the term to suit my beliefs.



accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

don't let someone else do it for you...

You can also learn a lot from other people. Especially those dead philosophers you dislike so much.

the undisputed truth
30-11-2005, 06:38 AM
I never said i was a substance dualist...

...so you can quit trying to define me then box me into your definition

what I do believe can be broadly classified to be included within a dualist pespective...

...I haven't changed the term to suit my beliefs

singularities if latest research is to be believed no longer exist and anything beyond qualifies as non physical seeing as how it doesn't physically exist within our universe...

...also loosely speaking everything is mental

I am also learning all the time even from you...

thanx

tryptych
30-11-2005, 12:47 PM
Don't know why I'm persuing this, I'm sure anyone else who's looking at this thread must be very bored by now.


I never said i was a substance dualist...

...so you can quit trying to define me then box me into your definition

what I do believe can be broadly classified to be included within a dualist pespective...

...I haven't changed the term to suit my beliefs



I did ask you much earlier what you meant by dualism, if you were talking about property or substance dualism, and you declined to respond.

I'm not trying to box you in to any definitions - you're the one who's insisting on "dualism". I'm just trying to show that there's inconsistencies in such a metaphysics and the evidence used to support it.




singularities if latest research is to be believed no longer exist and anything beyond qualifies as non physical seeing as how it doesn't physically exist within our universe...


Non-physical and "not existing" are not the same thing. Research (via the physical sciences) can never prove one way or another whether something is physical or not. Surely you must see the circularity of that?




...also loosely speaking everything is mental



Which would make you an idealist of some kind... ;)




I am also learning all the time even from you...

thanx

No, thank you. Sorry if I come across as confrontational, this is a somewaht personal area of thought to me.

the undisputed truth
30-11-2005, 10:15 PM
agree bout the boredom... :p

...so anyway i'm about 2 thirds through the book and it's hard going just visualising all that he's talking about but fascinating none the less

If you're interested i'd recommend it as he draws from and cites a lot of research and references from a lot of related fields of inquiry and being a popular writer as opposed to an academic writer he manages to convey it in laymans terms...

...so i was just thinking about what happens after we die and the spark of life leaves us, yet all the potential to continue with life still exists as a bag of useless chemicals

that spark is the EM connection we don't understand so will always have an incomplete picture of consciousness...

...in line with a lot of esoteric lore i would like to think that the common spark we share with all conscious life returns to it's place of origin which is outside of our physical universe

a dimension of thought that could if you wanted equate to heaven or hell...

mental eh ??? ;)

droid
02-12-2005, 09:47 AM
...in line with a lot of esoteric lore i would like to think that the common spark we share with all conscious life returns to it's place of origin which is outside of our physical universe

a dimension of thought that could if you wanted equate to heaven or hell...

mental eh ??? ;)


Sounds a lot like Buddhism to me! Energy can neither be created or destroyed....

the undisputed truth
03-12-2005, 09:13 PM
yeah sounds a lot like a whole bunch of stuff...

...only problem I have with buddhism is the reincarnation thing

I prefer genetic memory...

...so what you think was a past life was actually an inherited memory from an ancestor

I like the idea of life missions too, whereby your particular stream of consciousness as it abides in you and derivative of the merging streams of your ancestors has a task to complete while in this realm such that if you don't complete it, it gets passed on to your progeny...

DJ PIMP
08-12-2005, 02:38 AM
I like the idea of life missions too, whereby your particular stream of consciousness as it abides in you and derivative of the merging streams of your ancestors has a task to complete while in this realm such that if you don't complete it, it gets passed on to your progeny...one tangental example of this is parents unresolved psychological issues being passed cyclically to their kids. patterns of behaviour etc.

the undisputed truth
08-12-2005, 03:49 AM
^^^you're a celestine prophet eh ??? ;)

tryptych
08-12-2005, 12:27 PM
Lets not get started on the Celestine-fucking-Prophercies. I assume bleep was taking about psychological issues apart from Lamarckian-pseudo-mystical crap.

the undisputed truth
08-12-2005, 11:38 PM
try not to assume or project too much Spackb0y ;)

the celestine thing basically says...

...the ultimate aim of the individual is to resolve the conflicting philosophies of your parents so as not to pass them on to your progeny

plus being able to have/hold a vision, break it down to it's constituent parts and re create it in reality...

I get the feeling that if this was old times you would have burnt me at the stake by now :D

and remember, there is always room for improvement...

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

tryptych
09-12-2005, 02:39 AM
Um, no, I think you'll find it was the superstitious and ignorant who did the burning at the stake, not the rational.

I've read the Celestine prophercies and it's selfish, anti-intellectual, with the most badly informed caricature of what science is. So I'm not "assuming" or "projecting".

The bit about you parents passing on conflicts is actually the only remotely worthwhile part, but it's ruined by the mystical-deterministic trappings.

DJ PIMP
09-12-2005, 03:56 AM
I have no knowledge of the Celestine whatchamacallits at all.

Saying its the 'ultimate aim' seems weird to me... a little friction never hurt anyone. It makes me think of the story of the buddha being kept in the palace as a youth so that he never saw suffering or uglyness...

Re buddhism and reincarnation; I can't decide if its legit or if its there so that the concept of karma makes sense. Without karma carrying across life-times it doesn't hold together because good things happen to "bad" people and vice versey. Though the monks say theres specific meditation you can do to remember past lives, so who knows!

the undisputed truth
11-12-2005, 07:34 PM
so let's say you do something really bad and reincarnate as a rock...

...how does one become a very good rock so as to reincarnate further up the ladder next time ???

I didn't really get much of the mystical stuff from the celestine thing or scientific caricatures either...

...except maybe that conscious thoughts can change the 4d prison we're locked in and what was the selfish part ???

i thought it was a nice, feel good bit of fiction with a moral...

it was more the ignorant and superstitious that were burned by the supposedly rational, god fearing, religious types...

tryptych
14-12-2005, 12:38 AM
Two kinds of burning at the stake: the burning of heretics, which was generally done by religious groups, and usually for reasons of politics and power within the Christian church (the Templars, etc)

The other kind would be the burning of "witches", carried out by the superstitious. The two groups overlap some what, of course. Religious groups are not "supposedly rational" - that would be the scientists, the kind of people who opposed such superstitious persecution in the name of religion. Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

There's some truly depressing bits in the celestine profs where the "hero" abandons other people to their fate, cause it's all about "self-improvement" and "finding your own path, man". Yuck.

the undisputed truth
14-12-2005, 12:10 PM
...so what do you think it's all about then spackb0y ???

if it's not about evolution of the self and ultimately the collective...

...I can see what you mean about that book having objectivist undertones

tryptych
15-12-2005, 11:02 PM
Hah.. what do I think? Well, I think it would be arrogant of me to state what I think is going on...

I do think there is collective at work, but not collective mind in the common sense. More like Hegelian collective spirit, but without the religious bit. I'm more interested in describing what we have, what the nature of self and consciousness is, rather than speculating on the metaphysical stuff beyond.

I just think that guided or intelligent evoutionary ideas are human arrogance at us being anything more than advanced mammals.

Anyway, you should find this interesting - Leo Susskind talking about the crisis in string theory (the failure to account for acceleting expansion in the universe ), and the anthropic principle.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800.html

the undisputed truth
15-12-2005, 11:39 PM
don't get me started on expansion and black holes acting as balance mechanisms to keep the universe in a state of equlibrium like foam on a bubble bath, as one bubble gets bigger another gets smaller but it's all the one membrane connectnig all the bubbles... :confused:

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

... yeah there was a ripper of an argument between Smolin and Susskind on "the edge" about the anthropic principle

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html

BTW I don't think it's arrogant to state what you think...

...it's arrogant to assume anybody should take any notice of it though

what is this "spirit" you speak of ???

you heard of panspermia ???