Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Wow, a couple of twinkly encapsulations that I was not even aware of. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:28:15 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com jason...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about it. Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the distinctiveness of Science. However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, religion. As he does here. and there's another layer of twinkly encapsulation, of totally hilarious, gentle and only ever self-depreciating, humour and sense of humour. Of that I'm sure, but what I am not sure of, is which encapsulates which, only that the scientism or whatever is last, or least, or otherwise at the bottom, inclusive of not being, or least or last or at the bottom after the others of being, the basis or any sense fundamental or foundational or in the wider/deeper senses of what those things are, reducible from, nor they constructions or divisible into, those two encapsulations of the Richard Ruquist worldview. Which encapsulates which, though, I do not have a clue. Which is typical, actually, of him..that everything comes down to that, and not knowing that amounts to knowing nothing at all. And that's the third encapsulation that I am fairly convinced of now, both what it is, and it's position of encapsulating the first two and the fag-end gutter scientism at the dirt end of everything, and
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, javascript:jason...@gmail.com javascript: javascript:jason...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com jason...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
My god is a god of the gaps for sure. In this case the gap is the mechanism or magic that reduces a mental MWI block universe to a physical SWI universe. I say that our task is to find that mechanism. Richard On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com jason...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Another we-almost-got-it-This-time-we-are-in-the-right-track-maybe-in-a-year-or-two-we-will-understand-it-at-last-for-sure Not very related but this image made me laugh: http://bloviatingzeppelin.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Atheism.jpg 2014-05-28 17:23 GMT+02:00, ghib...@gmail.com ghib...@gmail.com: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain …morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player in this story is something called the claustrumhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum. The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of neurons just below the cortexhttp://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/cerebral-cortex.htm, and possibly derived from it in brain development. The cortex http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortex/ is the massive folded layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain functions such as language, long-term planning and our advanced sensory functions. Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many cortical areas http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortical+areas/. The visual cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+cortex/ (the region involved in seeing) sends axons (the connecting wires of the nervous system) to the claustrum, and also receives axons from the claustrum. The same is true for the auditory cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/auditory+cortex/ (involved in hearing) and a number of other cortex areas. A wealth of information converges in the claustrum and leaves it to re-enter the cortex. *The connection* Francis Crickhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/crick-bio.html – who together with James Watsonhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-facts.html gave us the structure of DNA – was interested in a connection between the claustrum and consciousness http://medicalxpress.com/tags/consciousness/. In a recent paper, published in Frontiers in Integrative Neurosciencehttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnint.2014.00020/abstract, we have built on the ideas he described in his very last scientific publication http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/. Crick and co-author Christoph Kochhttp://www.alleninstitute.org/our-institute/our-team/profiles/christof-koch argued that the claustrum could be a coordinator of cortical functionhttp://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/crick-koch-05.pdf and hence a conductor of consciousness. Such percepts as colour, form, sound, body position and social relations are all represented in different parts of the cortex. How are they bound to a unified experience of consciousness? Wouldn't a region exerting a (even limited) central control over all these cortical areas be highly useful? This is what Crick and Koch suggested when they hypothesised the claustrum to be a conductor of consciousness. But how could this hypothesis about the claustrum's role be tested? *Plant power alters the mind* [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] Salvia divinorum (Herba de Maria). Credit: Wikipedia, CC BY Enter the plant *Salvia divinorum https://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml*, a type of mint native to Mexico. The Mazatecs civilisation's priests would chew its leaves to get in touch with the gods. It's a powerful psychedelic, but not of the usual type. Substances such as LSD https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml andpsylocibinhttps://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml (the active compound in magic mushrooms) mainly act by binding to the serotonin neuromodulator receptor proteins. It is not completely understood how these receptors bring about altered states of consciousness, but a
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com jason...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about it. Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the distinctiveness of Science. However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, religion. As he does here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com jason...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about it. Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the distinctiveness of Science. However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, religion. As he does here. and there's another layer of twinkly encapsulation, of totally hilarious, gentle and only ever self-depreciating, humour and sense of humour. Of that I'm sure, but what I am not sure of, is which encapsulates which, only that the scientism or whatever is last, or least, or otherwise at the bottom, inclusive of not being, or least or last or at the bottom after the others of being, the basis or any sense fundamental or foundational or in the wider/deeper senses of what those things are, reducible from, nor they constructions or divisible into, those two encapsulations of the Richard Ruquist worldview. Which encapsulates which, though, I do not have a clue. Which is typical, actually, of him..that everything comes down to that, and not knowing that amounts to knowing nothing at all. And that's the third encapsulation that I am fairly convinced of now, both what it is, and it's position of encapsulating the first two and the fag-end gutter scientism at the dirt end of everything, and that is that he makes it so everything is for the beholder to say. But the fourth encapsulating layer, I am only just beginning to suspect that
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:28:15 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com jason...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about it. Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the distinctiveness of Science. However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, religion. As he does here. and there's another layer of twinkly encapsulation, of totally hilarious, gentle and only ever self-depreciating, humour and sense of humour. Of that I'm sure, but what I am not sure of, is which encapsulates which, only that the scientism or whatever is last, or least, or otherwise at the bottom, inclusive of not being, or least or last or at the bottom after the others of being, the basis or any sense fundamental or foundational or in the wider/deeper senses of what those things are, reducible from, nor they constructions or divisible into, those two encapsulations of the Richard Ruquist worldview. Which encapsulates which, though, I do not have a clue. Which is typical, actually, of him..that everything comes down to that, and not knowing that amounts to knowing nothing at all. And that's the third encapsulation that I am fairly convinced of now, both what it is, and it's position of encapsulating the first two and the fag-end gutter scientism at the dirt end of everything, and that is that he makes it so everything is for the beholder to
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. wellthey are interested in the hypothesis consciousness is generated by the bits between the ears. The question from me to you would be, given the typical effects of salvia are so close to key parts of your comp extension theories, how did you manage to control for the null-hypothesis? That being, salvia affects the brain like a drug, with very specific effects statistically speaking, which if you go into looking for computational, arithmetic or whatever truth, will give you 'answers' that involve the archetypal effect of the drug PLUS whatever you are imagining laid over the top? Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? You do this a lot but when I mentioned that you did the other day, you said you didn't believe me. Do you believe me now? It is a quasi-arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? Bruno, I just think it's nuts that you can be in a conversation with someone for this long and not know key high level aspects of that person's opinion relevant to the actual conversation. I acknowledge it isn't easy to grasp the distinctions another person makesbut I've made that effort with you.why haven't you made that effort with me? I'm going to have to answer another response from you on the consciousness thread, in which you simply have not understood the distinctions I make about falsification at any depth If you would make that effort, spend actual time reflecting...we could nail this conversation, and then if we wanted to (both) move on to possibly understanding more about your steps. Possibly. I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. Yes I definitely don't accept MWI. I've explained why in the past. there are massive unrealized assumptions involved in construction of MwI. I've listed some key ones...no one has addressed them...MWI is unreliable knowledge while they are in place. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Can you please repost your objections to MWI? Even I don't think it can be correct, but I would like to read your take on it. Thanks! Samiya On 29-May-2014, at 11:58 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. wellthey are interested in the hypothesis consciousness is generated by the bits between the ears. The question from me to you would be, given the typical effects of salvia are so close to key parts of your comp extension theories, how did you manage to control for the null-hypothesis? That being, salvia affects the brain like a drug, with very specific effects statistically speaking, which if you go into looking for computational, arithmetic or whatever truth, will give you 'answers' that involve the archetypal effect of the drug PLUS whatever you are imagining laid over the top? Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? You do this a lot but when I mentioned that you did the other day, you said you didn't believe me. Do you believe me now? It is a quasi-arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? Bruno, I just think it's nuts that you can be in a conversation with someone for this long and not know key high level aspects of that person's opinion relevant to the actual conversation. I acknowledge it isn't easy to grasp the distinctions another person makesbut I've made that effort with you.why haven't you made that effort with me? I'm going to have to answer another response from you on the consciousness thread, in which you simply have not understood the distinctions I make about falsification at any depth If you would make that effort, spend actual time reflecting...we could nail this conversation, and then if we wanted to (both) move on to possibly understanding more about your steps. Possibly. I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. Yes I definitely don't accept MWI. I've explained why in the past. there are massive unrealized assumptions involved in construction of MwI. I've listed some key ones...no one has addressed them...MWI is unreliable knowledge while they are in place. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum? by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On 29 May 2014, at 4:58 pm, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? Perhaps you forgot to wear a certain type of hat the other day when you mentioned that there is only one objective reality. I'd still like to be convinced about that. Personally I have never BELIEVED that consciousness is located in the brain. Why do you BELIEVE it is? Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Hi Richard, On 28 May 2014, at 21:39, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's reality. OK. That's a key point indeed. With comp it might be even worst, as we have only many-dreams, and it is an open question if those dreams glue well together to define a (unique or not) physical universe or multiverse. Clusters of multiverses are still possible, and heaven might have slightly different physical laws than Earth. My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the universe is singular and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle of the best of all possible worlds is selected. Since comp predicts consciousness and presumably a universal consciousness such a consciousness could make the selection but that is using god to fill a gap. I appreciate very much your lucidity on this. Bruno Richard On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi- arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum? by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain ...more Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player in this story is something called the claustrum. The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of neurons just below the cortex, and possibly derived from it in brain development. The cortex is the massive folded layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain functions such as language, long- term planning and our advanced sensory functions. Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many cortical areas. The visual cortex
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On 29 May 2014, at 07:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jasonre...@gmail.com jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Well, that is depending on your religious intuition or feeling. But I think that when you conceive that we might be the same person, the number of exemplars is not much important, and it permits more histories and possibilities. More generally, once you accept to use the scientific method in theology, we have to abandon the wishful thinking, even if in religion a part of wishfull thinking can be justified and might play some role (like the main axiom of G, the formula of Löb, describes already a form of working placebo/wishful-thinking, amazingly enough). Bruno Richard Jason - Reply message - From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 2:39 PM Bruno, I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's reality. My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the universe is singular and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle of the best of all possible worlds is selected. Since comp predicts consciousness and presumably a universal consciousness such a consciousness could make the selection but that is using god to fill a gap. Richard On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi- arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain ...morehttp
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On 29 May 2014, at 08:58, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. wellthey are interested in the hypothesis consciousness is generated by the bits between the ears. But this way of talking assumes the aristotelian identity thesis at the start, and is very ambiguous in the platonist setting. I would say that if consciousness is generated by the bits between tears is in direct contradiction with the idea that a brain is a machine. Indeed your consciousness is related to the infinitely many instantiation of your brain (at the right level) which exists in elementary (sigma_1) arithmetic. The bit between the ears are in your head (to sum up with a pun). The question from me to you would be, given the typical effects of salvia are so close to key parts of your comp extension theories, how did you manage to control for the null-hypothesis? ? I usually explain that the salvia experience content looks quite unlikely with comp, from the first person point of view. I have never asserted that it confirms computationalism. The only thing which goes well with comp is the fact that a mechanical perturbation of the brain entails a change in consciousness, but that very specific change is hard to believe when under salvia. people frequently experience the feeling that if they are living that experience, it has nothing to do with the intake of salvia: you feel like awakening from a dream, and the salvia plant is part of that dream. That being, salvia affects the brain like a drug, with very specific effects statistically speaking, which if you go into looking for computational, arithmetic or whatever truth, will give you 'answers' that involve the archetypal effect of the drug PLUS whatever you are imagining laid over the top? I don't know. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? ? It is the point of UDA: logic makes it impossible to locate consciousness in the brain or to attach consciousness to the working of a brain. Eventually, the working of a brain is explained by number relations, and the brain is not responsible for consciousness. Yet comp explains the role of the brain, which is no more to create consciousness, but to makes it possible for it to manifest itself with respect to other universal machines. A brain is more like a fllter of (universal) consciousness/meaning than a maker of consciousness. You do this a lot but when I mentioned that you did the other day, you said you didn't believe me. Do you believe me now? Not at all. You seem just not having read the UDA, which explains precisely why consciousness is *not* a production of the brain, once we agree that we are digitalizable machine. It is a subtle and largely ignored point, because we are too much influenced by the naturalist religion of Aristotle. It is important to grasp the way comp solves the mind-body problem. I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. Yes I definitely don't accept MWI. OK. I knew but prefer to be sure. This explains why you dislike computationalism. I've explained why in the past. there are massive unrealized assumptions involved in construction of MwI. OK. Maybe you could provide a link. I disagree of course. There are less assumption in Everett than in Copenhagen, and still less in comp. I've listed some key ones...no one has addressed them...MWI is unreliable
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:47:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: On 29 May 2014, at 4:58 pm, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? Perhaps you forgot to wear a certain type of hat the other day when you mentioned that there is only one objective reality. I'd still like to be convinced about that. Personally I have never BELIEVED that consciousness is located in the brain. Why do you BELIEVE it is? Kim I did answer your query about objective reality at the time. It is something that is said, and left appropriately vague, to represent 'that which is real' or 'that which we want to discover in science'. You can have 2 objective realities if you want Kim. Because it's a vague term, and you haven't discovered either of them and don't know if there is really 2, I would still refer to them as 'objective reality' -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jasonre...@gmail.com jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? Jason Jason - Reply message - From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 2:39 PM Bruno, I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's reality. My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the universe is singular and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle of the best of all possible worlds is selected. Since comp predicts consciousness and presumably a universal consciousness such a consciousness could make the selection but that is using god to fill a gap. Richard On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi- arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain …morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.ht ml Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On May 29, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 29 May 2014, at 4:58 pm, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? Perhaps you forgot to wear a certain type of hat the other day when you mentioned that there is only one objective reality. I'd still like to be convinced about that. Personally I have never BELIEVED that consciousness is located in the brain. Why do you BELIEVE it is? Indeed neurology provides a perfect example of this. Where do you think your vision is located? It feels like just a fraction of an inch behind your eye's lense, right? Yet the processing of visual information occurs a good 6 or 8 inches away from this perceived location, in the rear end of the brain. Jason Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jasonre...@gmail.com jasonre...@gmail.com jasonre...@gmail.comjasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard Jason Jason - Reply message - From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comyann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 2:39 PM Bruno, I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's reality. My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the universe is singular and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle of the best of all possible worlds is selected. Since comp predicts consciousness and presumably a universal consciousness such a consciousness could make the selection but that is using god to fill a gap. Richard On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi-arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.comghib...@gmail.com wrote: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings
study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
- they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain …morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player in this story is something called the claustrumhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum. The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of neurons just below the cortexhttp://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/cerebral-cortex.htm, and possibly derived from it in brain development. The cortex http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortex/ is the massive folded layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain functions such as language, long-term planning and our advanced sensory functions. Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many cortical areas http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortical+areas/. The visual cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+cortex/ (the region involved in seeing) sends axons (the connecting wires of the nervous system) to the claustrum, and also receives axons from the claustrum. The same is true for the auditory cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/auditory+cortex/ (involved in hearing) and a number of other cortex areas. A wealth of information converges in the claustrum and leaves it to re-enter the cortex. *The connection* Francis Crickhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/crick-bio.html – who together with James Watsonhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-facts.html gave us the structure of DNA – was interested in a connection between the claustrum and consciousness http://medicalxpress.com/tags/consciousness/. In a recent paper, published in Frontiers in Integrative Neurosciencehttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnint.2014.00020/abstract, we have built on the ideas he described in his very last scientific publication http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/. Crick and co-author Christoph Kochhttp://www.alleninstitute.org/our-institute/our-team/profiles/christof-koch argued that the claustrum could be a coordinator of cortical functionhttp://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/crick-koch-05.pdf and hence a conductor of consciousness. Such percepts as colour, form, sound, body position and social relations are all represented in different parts of the cortex. How are they bound to a unified experience of consciousness? Wouldn't a region exerting a (even limited) central control over all these cortical areas be highly useful? This is what Crick and Koch suggested when they hypothesised the claustrum to be a conductor of consciousness. But how could this hypothesis about the claustrum's role be tested? *Plant power alters the mind* [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] Salvia divinorum (Herba de Maria). Credit: Wikipedia, CC BY Enter the plant *Salvia divinorum https://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml*, a type of mint native to Mexico. The Mazatecs civilisation's priests would chew its leaves to get in touch with the gods. It's a powerful psychedelic, but not of the usual type. Substances such as LSD https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml andpsylocibinhttps://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml (the active compound in magic mushrooms) mainly act by binding to the serotonin neuromodulator receptor proteins. It is not completely understood how these receptors bring about altered states of consciousness, but a reduction of the inhibitory (negative feedback) communication between neurons in the cortex likely plays a role. In contrast, *Salvia divinorum* acts on the kappa-opiate receptorshttp://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/ObjectDisplayForward?objectId=318. These are structurally related, but their activation has quite different effects
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi- arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum? by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain ...more Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player in this story is something called the claustrum. The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of neurons just below the cortex, and possibly derived from it in brain development. The cortex is the massive folded layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain functions such as language, long- term planning and our advanced sensory functions. Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many cortical areas. The visual cortex (the region involved in seeing) sends axons (the connecting wires of the nervous system) to the claustrum, and also receives axons from the claustrum. The same is true for the auditory cortex (involved in hearing) and a number of other cortex areas. A wealth of information converges in the claustrum and leaves it to re-enter the cortex. The connection Francis Crick - who together with James Watson gave us the structure of DNA - was interested in a connection between the claustrum and consciousness. In a recent paper, published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, we have built on the ideas he described in his very last scientific publication. Crick and co-author Christoph Koch argued that the claustrum could be a coordinator of cortical function and hence a conductor of consciousness. Such percepts as colour, form, sound, body position and social relations are all represented in different parts of the cortex. How are they bound to a unified experience of consciousness? Wouldn't a region exerting a (even limited) central control over all these cortical areas be highly
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Bruno, I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's reality. My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the universe is singular and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle of the best of all possible worlds is selected. Since comp predicts consciousness and presumably a universal consciousness such a consciousness could make the selection but that is using god to fill a gap. Richard On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi-arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain …morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player in this story is something called the claustrumhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum. The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of neurons just below the cortexhttp://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/cerebral-cortex.htm, and possibly derived from it in brain development. The cortex http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortex/ is the massive folded layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain functions such as language, long-term planning and our advanced sensory functions. Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many cortical areas http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortical+areas/. The visual cortexhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+cortex/ (the region involved in seeing) sends axons (the connecting wires of the nervous system) to the claustrum, and also
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Jason - Reply message - From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 2:39 PM Bruno, I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's reality. My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the universe is singular and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle of the best of all possible worlds is selected. Since comp predicts consciousness and presumably a universal consciousness such a consciousness could make the selection but that is using god to fill a gap. Richard On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi-arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain …morehttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player in this story is something called the claustrumhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum. The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of neurons just below the cortexhttp://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/p/cerebral-cortex.htm, and possibly derived from it in brain development. The cortex http://medicalxpress.com/tags/cortex/ is the massive folded layer
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jasonre...@gmail.com jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard Jason - Reply message - From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 2:39 PM Bruno, I do not like comp in the form that it predicts MWI, that is Everett's reality. My perspective is based on belief, indeed religious belief that the universe is singular and that somehow a single quantum state is selected in each interaction from the assortment that can be rigorously calculated ahead of time, perhaps using the Leibniz principle of the best of all possible worlds is selected. Since comp predicts consciousness and presumably a universal consciousness such a consciousness could make the selection but that is using god to fill a gap. Richard On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nice post! Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some other not). Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of). No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for different people. Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation of consciousness. Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical formulation of the measure problem. Consciousness is not located in the brain. It is a quasi-arithmetical notion, like arithmetical truth itself. Its differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion. You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett? I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject Everett it is normal that you reject comp. (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM). Bruno On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment completely different from the physical space they were actually in - sounds familiar - they often believed to be interacting with beings such as hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures -- machines - the often reported ego dissolution, a variety of experiences in which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. -- 3p? Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The Conversation [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?] The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right corner). Credit: Brain …more http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-key-consciousness-claustrum.html Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains surprisingly poorly understood. That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon. The main player in this story is something called the claustrum http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claustrum. The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European monasteries but in the mammalian brain
