Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:22:48 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Monday, October 28, 2013 8:40 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we 
> are aware of it
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
> Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we 
> are aware of it
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact 
> of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects 
> were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex 
> two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal 
> red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color 
> and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. 
> What they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as 
> their minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the 
> gorilla suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the 
> sequence in which they were being tested on.
>
> What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man 
> in the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant 
> (for the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they 
> saw. How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something 
> that has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our 
> perception.
>
> From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very 
> efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant, 
> unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning 
> the raw film into the finished movie.
>
>
> >> I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from 
> recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is 
> actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another. 
> What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing 
> gorillas it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of 
> experienced anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects 
> sense to be a solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the 
> brain makes mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high 
> fidelity reality out of senseless mistakes.
>
> Craig
>
> When you use the term “the public medium” you seem to be invoking some 
> kind of shared super-consciousness or at the very least a shared repository 
> of everything that is (or the even more extended set “everything that is or 
> that could have been”), in which case, yes the snippets of film that ended 
> up on the cutting floor and are conspicuously absent from our experience – 
> do still exist in this universal medium.
>
> But the point is that they do not exist, in so far as the personal 
> experience of reality is concerned – they have been excised by the 
> brain/mind and removed from the sense streams before the brain/mind’s 
> edited experience is flowed into the metaphorical spring within our minds 
> from which we perceive reality as a state of emanating being and a dynamic 
> current world – the now (not the metaphysical spiritual now, especially, 
> but rather the quotidian now of common experience)
>
>
> Right, but I am saying that everything else does that editing too. There 
> is no unedited perspective that 'simply is', all there can ever be is what 
> seems to be relative to some inertial frame of perception. Even then, we 
> may be able to access some things that may seem to be edited out (under 
> hypnosis for example). But yeah, sure, our human experience does not 
> include (and would not include) the sum total of all non-human experiences. 
> We don't perceive magnetically like a bird might, but that doesn't mean 
> that our lack of awareness as humans means that the awareness that we do 
> have is lacking in some way. It can't by definition. Each person has 
> exactly one human experience of living a human life and there is no unit of 
> comparison beyond what it actually is to define what it should be. That's 
>

RE: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 8:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are
aware of it

 



On Monday, October 28, 2013 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com  ] On Behalf Of Craig
Weinberg
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com  
Subject: Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are
aware of it

 



On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact of
our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects
were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex
two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal
red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color
and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. What
they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as their
minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the gorilla
suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the sequence in
which they were being tested on.

What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man in
the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant (for
the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they saw.
How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something that
has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our perception.

>From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very
efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant,
unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning
the raw film into the finished movie.


>> I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from
recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is
actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another.
What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing gorillas
it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of experienced
anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects sense to be a
solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the brain makes
mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high fidelity
reality out of senseless mistakes.

Craig

When you use the term “the public medium” you seem to be invoking some kind
of shared super-consciousness or at the very least a shared repository of
everything that is (or the even more extended set “everything that is or
that could have been”), in which case, yes the snippets of film that ended
up on the cutting floor and are conspicuously absent from our experience –
do still exist in this universal medium.

But the point is that they do not exist, in so far as the personal
experience of reality is concerned – they have been excised by the
brain/mind and removed from the sense streams before the brain/mind’s edited
experience is flowed into the metaphorical spring within our minds from
which we perceive reality as a state of emanating being and a dynamic
current world – the now (not the metaphysical spiritual now, especially, but
rather the quotidian now of common experience)


Right, but I am saying that everything else does that editing too. There is
no unedited perspective that 'simply is', all there can ever be is what
seems to be relative to some inertial frame of perception. Even then, we may
be able to access some things that may seem to be edited out (under hypnosis
for example). But yeah, sure, our human experience does not include (and
would not include) the sum total of all non-human experiences. We don't
perceive magnetically like a bird might, but that doesn't mean that our lack
of awareness as humans means that the awareness that we do have is lacking
in some way. It can't by definition. Each person has exactly one human
experience of living a human life and there is no unit of comparison beyond
what it actually is to define what it should be. That's just how relativity
works, like c - it's absolutely anchored.



Are you saying that our experience of reality 

 

 

The point that interests me is that our brain/mind is a superb on the fly
editing and reality reification engine;

I disagree there. I propose that should be flipped. There is no reification.
It is not a simulation of any kind. It is the expectation of external
reality that is misguided from the absolute perspective. There is no editing
in time, because human time is not neurological time. Our perceptual window
is larger gauge. Like c, within any inertial f

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Oct 2013, at 19:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:06:52 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:52:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That assumes that being alive implies separation from Platonia -  
that our essence is isolation rather than absolute.


True for our 3p relative "position" in histories.
Half true for our 1p (the BP part of Bp & p).

Would it help to think of "&" as sense? Then you would derive B and  
p the other way around.




p = -B / &

B = & /

A proposition p is defined as a disbelief (-B) divided by sense (or  
multiplied by maximum insensitivity, i.e. computation). It is a that  
which has all doubts truncated from its consideration. Get it?


A belief B is defined as sense (in this modal logic context, sense  
is already truncated to refer to &, a sense of agreement and logical  
recontextualization of multiple conditions into one) divided by  
(whatever is believed...*not* necessarily a proposition. The vast  
majority of belief is not in propositions.. propositions are  
truncating measurements.).


What I propose is that you put all of arithmetic truth into the &,  
so that Bp and p become nothing but a positive and negative end of a  
single dipole. God = &. Not a God of the gaps but of the  
permeability across all gaps. The diagonalization of virtual self- 
gapping that remains perpetually ungapped in equal measure. PDM =  
Pansensitive Dovetailing Monad = sense = &


This is nonsense.










What we see in reality I think supports my version.


I can use what we see to refute a theory. Not so much to support it.

You are using it to support that theory (that theories are only  
refutable).












Sense has no reason to communicate since any receiver would not be  
able to communicate unless it could already sense.


Like arithmetic truth, who win all war, without any army, and not  
saying one word.


Sure. Arithmetic truth and Sense are almost twins, but only one of  
the two can be the authentic absolute.


All right. Then Arithmetical Truth is the absolute in comp.

I like that. It goes along with the other ideas I've had about water  
being the absolute in biology, or light being the absolute in  
physics. It ties together.



But that's has to be taken with a grain of salt. The quantfiied Noùs  
(qG*) is incomplete even with the Arithmetical Truth as Oracle. But  
I will not insts, as it is not so important, and need a lot of math.


if you say so...







I was saying that the machines already know that if you decide that  
she is not thinking, she has no mean to prove you wrong. Comp   
explains why machines will fear you.


She has no means to prove what I have decided either. I think the  
whole notion of machines having fear is too silly to even call  
science fiction.


Then Strong AI and comp are false. To compare it to science fiction  
is not an argument. To say that machine's cannot fear is equivalent  
with invoking actual infinities in nature, and that is considered as  
fantazy by 99%9 of scientist. But I avoid such type of remark, as  
they are not argument.


It's not invoking infinity, it's invoking a distinction between  
difference-in-kind and difference-in-degree. Feeling cannot be  
reduced to a quantity of unfeeling subunits. I suggest the relation  
is not linear-inevitable, but rooted in proprietary access by  
realization of significance through unrepeatable historical  
'leveling up' experiences. It's neither finite nor infinite nor non- 
finite or non-infinite. Quality is the opposite of quantity.


Sure. But the point is that arithmetic seen by insider machines is  
full of quality, with comp.










Again, not because I don't like technology, or wouldn't rather be a  
computer myself, but because it obviously is not true of the world  
we live in.


How could you say that it is obvious in a list where most people  
consider it as the only plausible explanation.


Because I think that people are considering the logic of the theory  
as a theory about logic, rather than really assessing what the  
nature of our experience actually is. I think that people are  
falling for the prefrontal cortex's story about its own verbal  
cognition and not looking at the deep creative mind and surface  
sensations.


Some people do that. But even machine's can't do that when looking  
inward.










Computer science excels in solving the recursive regress. There are  
many fixed points which solve them.

The universality comes from some closure properties.

But there is no plausible entry for sensory experience, and no way  
of bridging it to this hypothetical non-sensory existence.


For you, who admit not studying the field.

That may be why I can see the that color of the emperor's clothes  
cannot be a mathematical expression.


You confuse the math reality with the symbolic expr

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:06:52 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:52:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>
> That assumes that being alive implies separation from Platonia - that our 
> essence is isolation rather than absolute. 
>
>
> True for our 3p relative "position" in histories.
> Half true for our 1p (the BP part of Bp & p). 
>

Would it help to think of "&" as sense? Then you would derive B and p the 
other way around. 



p = -B / &

B = & /

A proposition p is defined as a disbelief (-B) divided by sense (or 
multiplied by maximum insensitivity, i.e. computation). It is a that which 
has all doubts truncated from its consideration. Get it?

A belief B is defined as sense (in this modal logic context, sense is 
already truncated to refer to &, a sense of agreement and logical 
recontextualization of multiple conditions into one) divided by (whatever 
is believed...*not* necessarily a proposition. The vast majority of belief 
is not in propositions.. propositions are truncating measurements.).

What I propose is that you put all of arithmetic truth into the &, so that 
Bp and p become nothing but a positive and negative end of a single dipole. 
God = &. Not a God of the gaps but of the permeability across all gaps. The 
diagonalization of virtual self-gapping that remains perpetually ungapped 
in equal measure. PDM = Pansensitive Dovetailing Monad = sense = &

 

>
>
>
> What we see in reality I think supports my version. 
>
>
> I can use what we see to refute a theory. Not so much to support it.
>

You are using it to support that theory (that theories are only refutable).
 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sense has no reason to communicate since any receiver would not be able 
>> to communicate unless it could already sense.
>>
>>
>> Like arithmetic truth, who win all war, without any army, and not saying 
>> one word.
>>
>
> Sure. Arithmetic truth and Sense are almost twins, but only one of the two 
> can be the authentic absolute.
>
>
> All right. Then Arithmetical Truth is the absolute in comp.
>

I like that. It goes along with the other ideas I've had about water being 
the absolute in biology, or light being the absolute in physics. It ties 
together.

 

> But that's has to be taken with a grain of salt. The quantfiied Noùs (qG*) 
> is incomplete even with the Arithmetical Truth as Oracle. But I will not 
> insts, as it is not so important, and need a lot of math.
>

if you say so...
 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> I was saying that the machines already know that if you decide that she 
>> is not thinking, she has no mean to prove you wrong. Comp  explains why 
>> machines will fear you.
>>
>
> She has no means to prove what I have decided either. I think the whole 
> notion of machines having fear is too silly to even call science fiction. 
>
>
> Then Strong AI and comp are false. To compare it to science fiction is not 
> an argument. To say that machine's cannot fear is equivalent with invoking 
> actual infinities in nature, and that is considered as fantazy by 99%9 of 
> scientist. But I avoid such type of remark, as they are not argument. 
>

It's not invoking infinity, it's invoking a distinction between 
difference-in-kind and difference-in-degree. Feeling cannot be reduced to a 
quantity of unfeeling subunits. I suggest the relation is not 
linear-inevitable, but rooted in proprietary access by realization of 
significance through unrepeatable historical 'leveling up' experiences. 
It's neither finite nor infinite nor non-finite or non-infinite. Quality is 
the opposite of quantity.

 

>
>
>
> Again, not because I don't like technology, or wouldn't rather be a 
> computer myself, but because it obviously is not true of the world we live 
> in.
>
>
> How could you say that it is obvious in a list where most people consider 
> it as the only plausible explanation.
>

Because I think that people are considering the logic of the theory as a 
theory about logic, rather than really assessing what the nature of our 
experience actually is. I think that people are falling for the prefrontal 
cortex's story about its own verbal cognition and not looking at the deep 
creative mind and surface sensations.
 

>
>
>
>> Computer science excels in solving the recursive regress. There are many 
>> fixed points which solve them. 
>> The universality comes from some closure properties.
>>
>
> But there is no plausible entry for sensory experience, and no way of 
> bridging it to this hypothetical non-sensory existence.
>
>
> For you, who admit not studying the field. 
>

That may be why I can see the that color of the emperor's clothes cannot be 
a mathematical expression.


>
>
>  
>
>>
>> ? Everything can find sense.
>>
>>
>> No, only the universal machine, notably looking in their own head (so to 
>> speak). looking outside their head can accelerate or

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:52:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That assumes that being alive implies separation from Platonia -  
that our essence is isolation rather than absolute.


True for our 3p relative "position" in histories.
Half true for our 1p (the BP part of Bp & p).




What we see in reality I think supports my version.


I can use what we see to refute a theory. Not so much to support it.










Sense has no reason to communicate since any receiver would not be  
able to communicate unless it could already sense.


Like arithmetic truth, who win all war, without any army, and not  
saying one word.


Sure. Arithmetic truth and Sense are almost twins, but only one of  
the two can be the authentic absolute.


All right. Then Arithmetical Truth is the absolute in comp. But that's  
has to be taken with a grain of salt. The quantfiied Noùs (qG*) is  
incomplete even with the Arithmetical Truth as Oracle. But I will not  
insts, as it is not so important, and need a lot of math.







I was saying that the machines already know that if you decide that  
she is not thinking, she has no mean to prove you wrong. Comp   
explains why machines will fear you.


She has no means to prove what I have decided either. I think the  
whole notion of machines having fear is too silly to even call  
science fiction.


Then Strong AI and comp are false. To compare it to science fiction is  
not an argument. To say that machine's cannot fear is equivalent with  
invoking actual infinities in nature, and that is considered as  
fantazy by 99%9 of scientist. But I avoid such type of remark, as they  
are not argument.




Again, not because I don't like technology, or wouldn't rather be a  
computer myself, but because it obviously is not true of the world  
we live in.


How could you say that it is obvious in a list where most people  
consider it as the only plausible explanation.





Computer science excels in solving the recursive regress. There are  
many fixed points which solve them.

The universality comes from some closure properties.

But there is no plausible entry for sensory experience, and no way  
of bridging it to this hypothetical non-sensory existence.


For you, who admit not studying the field.







? Everything can find sense.


No, only the universal machine, notably looking in their own head  
(so to speak). looking outside their head can accelerate or distract  
that process.


What is an example of something that isn't a universal machine?


An adder, a multiplier, a fridge, a clock, a bridge, a house, most  
computer software, etc. Among the i of the phi_i, the universal number  
are scarce.


A universal machine is a very special sort of machine.




If there are non-machines that are gods, why would there need to be  
machines also who are people?


Because the number exists and have complex relations making it so.

That's not anywhere near an answer as far as I can tell. If a number  
exists, and complex relations make it so, what does that have to do  
with dictating what is machine, what is non-machine, what are gods  
and who are people?



The set of functions from N to N is not enumerable, the computable  
functions is enumerable.
The set of subset of N is not enumerable, yet the set of enumerable  
set is enumerable.


The computable is a tiny part of math. Most math learned in high  
school is not computable. You need to do intuitionist mathematics to  
limit yourself to the effective, or to the computable etc.


So, if you identify an entity by its set of beliefs, machine have  
enumerable set of beliefs, and non machine or gods, refers to non  
enumerable set of beliefs.
You need some amount of math to understand explicit example, like the  
set of set theoretical sentences true in all transitive models of ZF.  
I have given reference to books.











Again it seems completely unfalsifiable. Comp keeps morphing from  
'UMs can emulate consciousness' to 'gods and daemons exist (who are  
conscious) which are not machines.


No, it is well known mathematical theorems. The logicians study  
machines and non-machines all the time. Most attributes of machines  
are themselves non-machines, and some are Löbian entities.


But you can study Löbian entities without ascribing to them literal  
awareness.



Perhaps, we can always do that. That is why zombie are logically  
possible.




Not plowing yields uncultivated land.
Thus, it is beneficial to have a goal to move to.

Not taking action to make things happen, so nothing happens. It is  
better to work towards a goal.


Pretty good I think. Without pretense. It perfectly describes back  
to me my own intention here. I do not try to impose an agenda, I  
only show you what I am looking at. The super-personal reflections  
which can work through inanimate objects without turning those  
objects into literal subj

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 03:17, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno, Craig and Learned discussion partners:
it is hard even to "read-in" into the endless back-and-forth you  
exude. At least for me - pretending that I still retain may  
subjectivity (don't misunderstand: I deny anything 'objective' if  
not adjusted by our own sub). We are not capable of even following  
the infinite complexity of which we got little morsels to chew on.  
  Now I have a question:


What would you call  -  S E N S E  - ?
Craig: the Absolute.
 We cannot know anything 'absolute', only a humanly adjusted shadow  
of it.


Bruno states that the arithmetic 'truth' can (or rather could?)  
express the absolute - but never showed - even tried how to DO IT.


I think I did. It comes from the fact that elementary arithmetical  
proposition are true independently of us, and that if comp is correct,  
it is absolutely undecidable that there is anything more. Keep in mind  
that we know since Gödel that the arithmetical truth transcend all  
possible theories.




Not even hinted to a method HOW to attempt it. ( Comp? or using many- 
many numbers???)


"In your brain"??? WHO is there pretending to be the SELF ("I") ?


The doctor does not need to know what is your first person I, to  
understand that the brain in your skull is indeed your brain.





whatever is in our brain (matter, physiological energy, motion and  
connectivity) has been accounted for in reductionist sciences


OK.



- no 'sense' sowed up.


It can't. You cannot see in any 3p way, any 1p feature. This can be  
explained by machine about their own 1p.

G* proves Bp & p   <-> Bp, but G does not.


If we detect 'something like that', it is self-referential thinking  
and changes from era to era (maybe only in days). No 1st person. We  
just think of it.


But it is what we need to recover the stable physical reality.




And feel so.
And: talk about it.
So: what are we talking about?


About the relation between mind (histories and 1p notions) and body- 
code (computations and 3p notion).


Bruno




John M


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel
>>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable  
"PHYSICS"?

>>
>> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable
>> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
>>
>> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense
>> contradict such deterministic law.
>>
>> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts
>> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding
>> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into
>> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",
>> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all
>> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-
>> constellation.
>
> Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
>
> Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-
> gap, etc.

No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a
question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of
machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a
matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the
introspective machine.

Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed),


You might be dreaming.




but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that  
appear out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence.  
It's just haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be  
precisely mapped and deconstructed mathematically does not give it  
the power to change matter. What has been overlooked is the  
possibility that matter is an appearance within experience, of  
experience which has alienated itself - followed different histories  
in parallel or phase-shift.





> I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be
> anything more or less than sense.

This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what
is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable
feature like consciousness, etc.

There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most  
self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full  
stop.


Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way,  
if only because it escapes definition.
So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p. It is an important data,  
and its immediacy and obviousness is certai

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 02:29, LizR wrote:

On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the  
body. Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.


Goo goo goo joob!

Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could  
maybe do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.



Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake  
up, your matter would be as real to you as anything every could be  
to anyone. If you can define matter in terms other than what has  
been detected by our minds using our body's sense, and/or an  
instrument's sense, then you might have cause to doubt me, but  
nobody has any other definition available to them.


Well I did apologise. Anyway I agree with your reply - if you'd said  
that in the first place, it wouldn't have sounded like gobbledegook.


It's no problem, I don't mind if people think it sounds ridiculous  
(I can often see it that way too if I read it again a couple days) I  
just have had so many thousands of hours of conversation with people  
which are like 70% complaints about how I write or what right I have  
to say anything, 25% being told warmed over versions of freshman  
year science class, and maybe 5% actually talking about whether this  
model I'm talking about might actually work.


I'd be happy to join the 5% if I could understand it. Since I've  
managed to understand comp up to the MGA that should be a possibility.


We will come back to MGA (UDA step-8) soon or later. Thanks for  
acknowledging UDA1-7.


Bruno






--
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/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:52:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:01:25 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> > 
>> > On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> > > 
>> > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>> > > 
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> > >> 
>> > >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: 
>> > >> 
>> > >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel 
>> > >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable   
>> > "PHYSICS"? 
>> > >> 
>> > >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable 
>> > >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense 
>> > >> contradict such deterministic law. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts 
>> > >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding 
>> > >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into 
>> > >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions", 
>> > >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all 
>> > >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re- 
>> > >> constellation. 
>> > > 
>> > > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me. 
>> > > 
>> > > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the- 
>> > > gap, etc. 
>> > 
>> > No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a 
>> > question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of 
>> > machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a 
>> > matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the 
>> > introspective machine. 
>> > 
>> > Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed), 
>>
>>
>> You might be dreaming. 
>>
>
> Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body. 
> Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that   
>> > appear out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence.   
>> > It's just haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be   
>> > precisely mapped and deconstructed mathematically does not give it   
>> > the power to change matter. What has been overlooked is the   
>> > possibility that matter is an appearance within experience, of   
>> > experience which has alienated itself - followed different histories   
>> > in parallel or phase-shift. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be 
>> > > anything more or less than sense. 
>> > 
>> > This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what 
>> > is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable 
>> > feature like consciousness, etc. 
>> > 
>> > There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most   
>> > self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full   
>> > stop. 
>>
>> Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if   
>> only because it escapes definition. 
>>
>
> Communicability would be redundant though. 
>
>
> In platonia, yes. You can survive without publishing, but you have to wait 
> for heaven. Hereby, you need to communicate, because it is the job. For 
> this you need to start from notions that your audience has already study, 
> so that you can share initial statements and reason from them.
>

That assumes that being alive implies separation from Platonia - that our 
essence is isolation rather than absolute. What we see in reality I think 
supports my version. If we had to begin with abstract notions to initialize 
communication, we would fail to develop language. Isn't it obvious that the 
converse is more true? We begin to communicate by diverging from common 
consciousness, from familiarity and gesture. We point, we imitate, we 
laugh. We do not initialize a bootstrap code and demand that our neighbors 
read the manual.
 

>
>
>
>
> Sense has no reason to communicate since any receiver would not be able to 
> communicate unless it could already sense.
>
>
> Like arithmetic truth, who win all war, without any army, and not saying 
> one word.
>

Sure. Arithmetic truth and Sense are almost twins, but only one of the two 
can be the authentic absolute. Given that measurement (_metric) is 
meaningless without some sense to measure and some sensed to be measured, 
it is absolutely clear which is the absolute head and which is its tail. 
Because of the nature of sense, its reflectivity 

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:01:25 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:

> >
> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:

> >>
> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
> >>
> >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel
> >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable
> "PHYSICS"?
> >>
> >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable
> >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
> >>
> >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense
> >> contradict such deterministic law.
> >>
> >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed  
contradicts

> >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding
> >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into
> >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",
> >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all
> >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-
> >> constellation.
> >
> > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
> >
> > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-
> > gap, etc.
>
> No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a
> question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of
> machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter  
is a

> matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the
> introspective machine.
>
> Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed),


You might be dreaming.

Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the  
body. Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.





> but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that
> appear out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence.
> It's just haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be
> precisely mapped and deconstructed mathematically does not give it
> the power to change matter. What has been overlooked is the
> possibility that matter is an appearance within experience, of
> experience which has alienated itself - followed different histories
> in parallel or phase-shift.
>
>
>
>
> > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none  
could be

> > anything more or less than sense.
>
> This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of  
what
> is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non  
justifiable

> feature like consciousness, etc.
>
> There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most
> self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full
> stop.

Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if
only because it escapes definition.

Communicability would be redundant though.


In platonia, yes. You can survive without publishing, but you have to  
wait for heaven. Hereby, you need to communicate, because it is the  
job. For this you need to start from notions that your audience has  
already study, so that you can share initial statements and reason  
from them.





Sense has no reason to communicate since any receiver would not be  
able to communicate unless it could already sense.


Like arithmetic truth, who win all war, without any army, and not  
saying one word.






So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p.

The theory of 1p is easy, you just have to imagine the opposite of 3p.


That's a fuzzy unclear oversimplification.






It is an important data, and
its immediacy and obviousness is certainly a clue.
Then, if you do the math, you can intellectually understand why
machines looking inward describes something which looks very much like
that.

I think it would look the same if the machines weren't looking  
inward at all. The same vending machine can sell cigarettes, candy  
bars, live ostrich eggs, or just empty space. It doesn't impress me  
that it doesn't know what the things that it sells are or where they  
come from.


This remind me a Joke.
Hardy: "-Do you think a machine can think?"
Laurel: "-hmm... I don't think "
Hardy: "I am not asking if *you* can think, but if *machine* can think!"

The machine knows what she is selling. I was saying that the machines  
already know that if you decide that she is not thinking, she has no  
mean to prove you wrong. Comp  explains why machines will fear you.












> All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory
> context.

You bet. It is OK.


Sure, but the other bet, that there can be some kind of existence  
outside of sense,


Unless you disbelieve in the existence of the prim

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:17:40 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> Bruno, Craig and Learned discussion partners:
> it is hard even to "read-in" into the endless back-and-forth you exude. At 
> least for me - pretending that I still retain may subjectivity (don't 
> misunderstand: I deny anything 'objective' if not adjusted by our own sub). 
> We are not capable of even following the infinite complexity of which we 
> got little morsels to chew on.   Now I have a question:
>
> What would you call  *-  S E N S E  -* ? 
>

Experience. To receive from and participate in anything other than nothing. 
To discern between difference and indifference and to make a difference 
that can be discerned.

 

> Craig: *the Absolute*.
>  We cannot know anything 'absolute', only a humanly adjusted shadow of it. 
>

In one sense I agree - in another, being able to make that statement would 
be equally impossible under the same logic. We cannot know that we cannot 
know. The fact that we can 'know' anything, and that knowledge is locally 
certain but absolutely uncertain also gives us some insight. If sense is 
the Absolute, then it's presence is universal, and this would help explain 
the paradoxical nature of epistemology...it is relative in an absolute 
sense, and absolute in a relative sense, or even absoluteness *as* relative 
sense. 


> Bruno states that the *arithmetic* 'truth' *can* (or rather *could?*) 
> express the absolute - but never showed - even tried how to DO IT. Not even 
> hinted to a method HOW to attempt it. ( Comp? or using many-many numbers???)
>
> *"In your brain"*??? WHO is there pretending to be the SELF ("I") ? 
> whatever is in our brain (matter, physiological energy, motion and 
> connectivity) has been accounted for in reductionist sciences 
> - no *'sense'* sowed up. 
> If we detect 'something like that', it is self-referential* thinking* and 
> changes from era to era (maybe only in days). No 1st person. We just think 
> of it. 
> And *feel so*. 
> And: talk about it. 
> So: what are we talking about? 
>

Yes, it is hard to get around that little problem of who or how would 
matter and energy pretend to be bound together as a person, when doing so 
would require that they are already aware of each other. It's circular 
reasoning...the pile of puppet parts that pretends to be fooled into acting 
like the puppet that it never was.

Craig

 

> John M
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>  
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel
>>> >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"?
>>> >>
>>> >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable
>>> >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
>>> >>
>>> >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense
>>> >> contradict such deterministic law.
>>> >>
>>> >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts
>>> >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding
>>> >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into
>>> >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",
>>> >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all
>>> >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-
>>> >> constellation.
>>> >
>>> > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
>>> >
>>> > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-
>>> > gap, etc.
>>>
>>> No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a
>>> question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of
>>> machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a
>>> matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the
>>> introspective machine.
>>>
>>> Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed),
>>>
>>
>>
>> You might be dreaming.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that appear 
>>> out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence. It's just 
>>> haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be precisely mapped and 
>>> deconstructed mathematically does not give it the power to change matter. 
>>> What has been overlooked is the possibility that matter is an appearance 
>>> within experience, of experience which has alienated itself - followed 
>>> different histories in parallel or phase-shift.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none cou

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:57:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 10/29/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: 
>>
>>>  On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>

 Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the 
 body. Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.

   Goo goo goo joob! 
>>>  
>>>  Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could 
>>> maybe do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.
>>>
>>>   
>> Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake up, 
>> your matter would be as real to you as anything every could be to anyone. 
>> If you can define matter in terms other than what has been detected by our 
>> minds using our body's sense, and/or an instrument's sense, then you might 
>> have cause to doubt me, but nobody has any other definition available to 
>> them.
>>  
>   
> There is another definition and is in fact the one we use. Matter is the 
> stuff we agree about with other people as having certain properties of 
> duration and location.  Of course if you're a solipist you're on you're own.
>

What is stuff? 

I would say that stuff is "what has been detected by our minds using our 
body's sense, and/or an instrument's sense," is it not?

We agree about lots of things having properties of duration and location. A 
headache for example.


> Brent
>
> 
>>   Well I did apologise. Anyway I agree with your reply - if you'd said 
> that in the first place, it wouldn't have sounded like gobbledegook.
>  
>  -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3615/6790 - Release Date: 10/29/13
>
>
>  

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[John Mikes]

Bruno, Craig and Learned discussion partners:
it is hard even to "read-in" into the endless back-and-forth you exude. At
least for me - pretending that I still retain may subjectivity (don't
misunderstand: I deny anything 'objective' if not adjusted by our own sub).
We are not capable of even following the infinite complexity of which we
got little morsels to chew on.   Now I have a question:

What would you call  *-  S E N S E  -* ?
Craig: *the Absolute*.
 We cannot know anything 'absolute', only a humanly adjusted shadow of it.

Bruno states that the *arithmetic* 'truth' *can* (or rather *could?*)
express the absolute - but never showed - even tried how to DO IT. Not even
hinted to a method HOW to attempt it. ( Comp? or using many-many numbers???)

*"In your brain"*??? WHO is there pretending to be the SELF ("I") ?
whatever is in our brain (matter, physiological energy, motion and
connectivity) has been accounted for in reductionist sciences
- no *'sense'* sowed up.
If we detect 'something like that', it is self-referential* thinking* and
changes from era to era (maybe only in days). No 1st person. We just think
of it.
And *feel so*.
And: talk about it.
So: what are we talking about?
John M


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >
>> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel
>> >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"?
>> >>
>> >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable
>> >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
>> >>
>> >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense
>> >> contradict such deterministic law.
>> >>
>> >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts
>> >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding
>> >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into
>> >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",
>> >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all
>> >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-
>> >> constellation.
>> >
>> > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
>> >
>> > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-
>> > gap, etc.
>>
>> No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a
>> question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of
>> machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a
>> matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the
>> introspective machine.
>>
>> Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed),
>>
>
>
> You might be dreaming.
>
>
>
>
>  but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that appear
>> out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence. It's just
>> haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be precisely mapped and
>> deconstructed mathematically does not give it the power to change matter.
>> What has been overlooked is the possibility that matter is an appearance
>> within experience, of experience which has alienated itself - followed
>> different histories in parallel or phase-shift.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be
>> > anything more or less than sense.
>>
>> This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what
>> is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable
>> feature like consciousness, etc.
>>
>> There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most
>> self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full stop.
>>
>
> Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if only
> because it escapes definition.
> So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p. It is an important data, and its
> immediacy and obviousness is certainly a clue.
> Then, if you do the math, you can intellectually understand why machines
> looking inward describes something which looks very much like that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory
>> context.
>>
>
> You bet. It is OK.
>
>
>
>
>  There is nothing there to be evident except for this relativity of
>> presence shared with the contents and contexts of eternity. Justification
>> is nothing but a sense of comparison among subordinate sense experience.
>> You are looking for something that you have already found but won't accept
>> it.
>>
>
> I found it in my head, and I show that all universal machine "lookin

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[meekerdb]

On 10/29/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg > wrote:



On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:


Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the 
body. Get
rid of your body, and your dream is matter.

Goo goo goo joob!

Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could 
maybe do
with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.


Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake up, 
your matter
would be as real to you as anything every could be to anyone. If you can 
define
matter in terms other than what has been detected by our minds using our 
body's
sense, and/or an instrument's sense, then you might have cause to doubt me, 
but
nobody has any other definition available to them.



There is another definition and is in fact the one we use. Matter is the stuff we agree 
about with other people as having certain properties of duration and location.  Of course 
if you're a solipist you're on you're own.


Brent



Well I did apologise. Anyway I agree with your reply - if you'd said that in the first 
place, it wouldn't have sounded like gobbledegook.


--
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/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3615/6790 - Release Date: 10/29/13



--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:29:21 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>

 On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

> On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>>
>> Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the 
>> body. Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
>>
>> Goo goo goo joob! 
>
> Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could 
> maybe do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.
>
>
 Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake 
 up, your matter would be as real to you as anything every could be to 
 anyone. If you can define matter in terms other than what has been 
 detected 
 by our minds using our body's sense, and/or an instrument's sense, then 
 you 
 might have cause to doubt me, but nobody has any other definition 
 available 
 to them.

 Well I did apologise. Anyway I agree with your reply - if you'd said 
>>> that in the first place, it wouldn't have sounded like gobbledegook.
>>>
>>
>> It's no problem, I don't mind if people think it sounds ridiculous (I can 
>> often see it that way too if I read it again a couple days) I just have had 
>> so many thousands of hours of conversation with people which are like 70% 
>> complaints about how I write or what right I have to say anything, 25% 
>> being told warmed over versions of freshman year science class, and maybe 
>> 5% actually talking about whether this model I'm talking about might 
>> actually work.
>>
>> I'd be happy to join the 5% if I could understand it. Since I've managed 
> to understand comp up to the MGA that should be a possibility.
>

Sure, it seems like you are picking up on it so far. I'm always available 
for questions. The main thing is to go to the very root assumptions of 
Western cosmology and flip them. Instead of a universe from nothing, I 
start from everything and then move inward through masking. Sense is 
subtractive, like the spectrum is from white light.
 

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:08:53 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 30 October 2013 00:37, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
>
> >> >> Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural 
> processes. 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most 
> >> > logical 
> >> > fallacies. 
> >> 
> >> I suppose you could say causes outside of the physical universe, such 
> >> as God or top-down causation by consciousness, are part of nature and 
> >> part of physics, but most people would not use these words this way. 
> > 
> > 
> > From my view, there is no public physical universe that is not also 
> private 
> > physical experience. There is no unseen light, no unheard sound, to 
> unfelt 
> > bodies. To me, "outside the physical universe" means only a dream or 
> > imagination, where what is felt is uncoupled from public effect. While 
> we 
> > dream, our body remains present in its inertial frame of animal 
> experience, 
> > but it has no perspective of its own. 
> > 
> > People's words are outdated. We have played out a hand that was picked 
> > centuries ago by dead geniuses. Since then we have not had a chance to 
> pause 
> > and reassess what the strange new ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg 
> really 
> > mean when we look at the implications of them from the absolute 
> perspective. 
> > We have been playing with gigantic machines to study the fantastically 
> > distant and tiny, but no matter how far we go, it increasingly doesn't 
> make 
> > sense when compared with our own experience, and it increasingly doesn't 
> > make sense itself. 
> > 
> > Multisense Realism is a way to acknowledge that this has become a wild 
> goose 
> > chase, and posits that if we start over from scratch, it becomes more 
> > sensible to see relativity as identical to perceived awareness, and all 
> > physical forces naturally fall out of that awareness as elaboration of 
> > sensory motive inertia. Two different feelers sharing the same feeling 
> are 
> > entangled. They are not particles but if a third feeler will feel a 
> > particulate stimulation from them. Space and time might be created here, 
> by 
> > the disentanglement - the indifference and entropy which extends out in 
> > response to the significance of making a difference with sense 
> interaction. 
> > 
> > Craig 
>
> Consciousness is not externally detectable.


Externality is not detectable outside of consciousness. Which would make 
perfect sense if physics supervenes on consciousness (really sense). 
 

> If it were, we would not 
> be having these discussions: instead, we would wave the Consciousness 
> Detector over the computer and read out the result. So if 
> consciousness has top-down causal efficacy, that would mean an 
> undetectable force caused matter to move.


No, it would mean nothing of the sort. Every force is detectable only 
through consciousness. There is no force outside of consciousness,  no 
"charge" or "field". All of it is feeling and somewhat intentional effect. 
No matter how many times I say it, how many metaphors I use, you will never 
be able to see that the director of a movie need not be present within the 
movie projector to cause the movie to occur. Your view of the universe has 
no room for you to exist in it. It has no discernment between life and 
death, person or object. You would need a massive brain event to interrupt 
your left hemisphere long enough to guess that there is a whole other half 
of the universe that you are missing.
 

> In experiments, that would 
> look like a magical or supernatural effect. If you don't like the 
> words "magical" or "supernatural" then use different words, but no 
> such strange effects have been observed. 
>

Every effect that can ever be observed is a strange effect. You aren't 
getting that sense is Absolute.

Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[LizR]

On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>>
 On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the
> body. Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
>
> Goo goo goo joob!

 Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could
 maybe do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.


>>> Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake up,
>>> your matter would be as real to you as anything every could be to anyone.
>>> If you can define matter in terms other than what has been detected by our
>>> minds using our body's sense, and/or an instrument's sense, then you might
>>> have cause to doubt me, but nobody has any other definition available to
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Well I did apologise. Anyway I agree with your reply - if you'd said
>> that in the first place, it wouldn't have sounded like gobbledegook.
>>
>
> It's no problem, I don't mind if people think it sounds ridiculous (I can
> often see it that way too if I read it again a couple days) I just have had
> so many thousands of hours of conversation with people which are like 70%
> complaints about how I write or what right I have to say anything, 25%
> being told warmed over versions of freshman year science class, and maybe
> 5% actually talking about whether this model I'm talking about might
> actually work.
>
> I'd be happy to join the 5% if I could understand it. Since I've managed
to understand comp up to the MGA that should be a possibility.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>

 Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the 
 body. Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.

 Goo goo goo joob! 
>>>
>>> Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could 
>>> maybe do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.
>>>
>>>
>> Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake up, 
>> your matter would be as real to you as anything every could be to anyone. 
>> If you can define matter in terms other than what has been detected by our 
>> minds using our body's sense, and/or an instrument's sense, then you might 
>> have cause to doubt me, but nobody has any other definition available to 
>> them.
>>
>> Well I did apologise. Anyway I agree with your reply - if you'd said that 
> in the first place, it wouldn't have sounded like gobbledegook.
>

It's no problem, I don't mind if people think it sounds ridiculous (I can 
often see it that way too if I read it again a couple days) I just have had 
so many thousands of hours of conversation with people which are like 70% 
complaints about how I write or what right I have to say anything, 25% 
being told warmed over versions of freshman year science class, and maybe 
5% actually talking about whether this model I'm talking about might 
actually work.

Craig

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 30 October 2013 00:37, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>> >> Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes.
>> >
>> >
>> > That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most
>> > logical
>> > fallacies.
>>
>> I suppose you could say causes outside of the physical universe, such
>> as God or top-down causation by consciousness, are part of nature and
>> part of physics, but most people would not use these words this way.
>
>
> From my view, there is no public physical universe that is not also private
> physical experience. There is no unseen light, no unheard sound, to unfelt
> bodies. To me, "outside the physical universe" means only a dream or
> imagination, where what is felt is uncoupled from public effect. While we
> dream, our body remains present in its inertial frame of animal experience,
> but it has no perspective of its own.
>
> People's words are outdated. We have played out a hand that was picked
> centuries ago by dead geniuses. Since then we have not had a chance to pause
> and reassess what the strange new ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg really
> mean when we look at the implications of them from the absolute perspective.
> We have been playing with gigantic machines to study the fantastically
> distant and tiny, but no matter how far we go, it increasingly doesn't make
> sense when compared with our own experience, and it increasingly doesn't
> make sense itself.
>
> Multisense Realism is a way to acknowledge that this has become a wild goose
> chase, and posits that if we start over from scratch, it becomes more
> sensible to see relativity as identical to perceived awareness, and all
> physical forces naturally fall out of that awareness as elaboration of
> sensory motive inertia. Two different feelers sharing the same feeling are
> entangled. They are not particles but if a third feeler will feel a
> particulate stimulation from them. Space and time might be created here, by
> the disentanglement - the indifference and entropy which extends out in
> response to the significance of making a difference with sense interaction.
>
> Craig

Consciousness is not externally detectable. If it were, we would not
be having these discussions: instead, we would wave the Consciousness
Detector over the computer and read out the result. So if
consciousness has top-down causal efficacy, that would mean an
undetectable force caused matter to move. In experiments, that would
look like a magical or supernatural effect. If you don't like the
words "magical" or "supernatural" then use different words, but no
such strange effects have been observed.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[LizR]

On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body.
>>> Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
>>>
>>> Goo goo goo joob!
>>
>> Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could
>> maybe do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.
>>
>>
> Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake up,
> your matter would be as real to you as anything every could be to anyone.
> If you can define matter in terms other than what has been detected by our
> minds using our body's sense, and/or an instrument's sense, then you might
> have cause to doubt me, but nobody has any other definition available to
> them.
>
> Well I did apologise. Anyway I agree with your reply - if you'd said that
in the first place, it wouldn't have sounded like gobbledegook.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body. 
>> Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
>>
>> Goo goo goo joob! 
>
> Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could maybe 
> do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.
>
>
Laugh if you must, but if you were in a dreaming coma and never wake up, 
your matter would be as real to you as anything every could be to anyone. 
If you can define matter in terms other than what has been detected by our 
minds using our body's sense, and/or an instrument's sense, then you might 
have cause to doubt me, but nobody has any other definition available to 
them.



-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[LizR]

On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body.
> Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
>
> Goo goo goo joob!

Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could maybe
do with a bit of "poeticisation" to really work.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:01:25 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > > 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel 
> > >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable   
> > "PHYSICS"? 
> > >> 
> > >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable 
> > >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. 
> > >> 
> > >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense 
> > >> contradict such deterministic law. 
> > >> 
> > >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts 
> > >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding 
> > >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into 
> > >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions", 
> > >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all 
> > >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re- 
> > >> constellation. 
> > > 
> > > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me. 
> > > 
> > > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the- 
> > > gap, etc. 
> > 
> > No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a 
> > question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of 
> > machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a 
> > matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the 
> > introspective machine. 
> > 
> > Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed), 
>
>
> You might be dreaming. 
>

Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body. 
Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
 

>
>
>
> > but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that   
> > appear out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence.   
> > It's just haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be   
> > precisely mapped and deconstructed mathematically does not give it   
> > the power to change matter. What has been overlooked is the   
> > possibility that matter is an appearance within experience, of   
> > experience which has alienated itself - followed different histories   
> > in parallel or phase-shift. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be 
> > > anything more or less than sense. 
> > 
> > This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what 
> > is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable 
> > feature like consciousness, etc. 
> > 
> > There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most   
> > self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full   
> > stop. 
>
> Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if   
> only because it escapes definition. 
>

Communicability would be redundant though. Sense has no reason to 
communicate since any receiver would not be able to communicate unless it 
could already sense.
 

> So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p. 


The theory of 1p is easy, you just have to imagine the opposite of 3p.
 

> It is an important data, and   
> its immediacy and obviousness is certainly a clue. 
> Then, if you do the math, you can intellectually understand why   
> machines looking inward describes something which looks very much like   
> that. 
>

I think it would look the same if the machines weren't looking inward at 
all. The same vending machine can sell cigarettes, candy bars, live ostrich 
eggs, or just empty space. It doesn't impress me that it doesn't know what 
the things that it sells are or where they come from.
 

>
>
>
>
>
> > All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory   
> > context. 
>
> You bet. It is OK. 
>
>
Sure, but the other bet, that there can be some kind of existence outside 
of sense, then brings in the implausibility of sense and the necessity for 
a homunculus regress between sensory and (hypothetical) nonsensory 
phenomena.  


>
> > There is nothing there to be evident except for this relativity of   
> > presence shared with the contents and contexts of eternity.   
> > Justification is nothing but a sense of comparison among subordinate   
> > sense experience. You are looking for something that you have   
> > already found but won't accept it. 
>
> I found it in my head, and I show that all universal machine "looking   
> in their head" can find something quite similar. 
>

? Everything can find sense.
 

>
> You are just 

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel
>>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable  
"PHYSICS"?

>>
>> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable
>> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
>>
>> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense
>> contradict such deterministic law.
>>
>> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts
>> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding
>> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into
>> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",
>> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all
>> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-
>> constellation.
>
> Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
>
> Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-
> gap, etc.

No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a
question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of
machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a
matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the
introspective machine.

Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed),



You might be dreaming.



but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that  
appear out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence.  
It's just haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be  
precisely mapped and deconstructed mathematically does not give it  
the power to change matter. What has been overlooked is the  
possibility that matter is an appearance within experience, of  
experience which has alienated itself - followed different histories  
in parallel or phase-shift.





> I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be
> anything more or less than sense.

This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what
is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable
feature like consciousness, etc.

There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most  
self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full  
stop.


Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if  
only because it escapes definition.
So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p. It is an important data, and  
its immediacy and obviousness is certainly a clue.
Then, if you do the math, you can intellectually understand why  
machines looking inward describes something which looks very much like  
that.






All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory  
context.


You bet. It is OK.



There is nothing there to be evident except for this relativity of  
presence shared with the contents and contexts of eternity.  
Justification is nothing but a sense of comparison among subordinate  
sense experience. You are looking for something that you have  
already found but won't accept it.


I found it in my head, and I show that all universal machine "looking  
in their head" can find something quite similar.


You are just insulting the machine, by what looks like prejudice, as  
you admit not trying to study them.




I am showing you *all of this* is sense, and you are responding that  
you are looking for something *else*.


Not really. I want to understand the origin of sense.



If you accept the premise however (yes, doctor of primordial  
identity pansensitivity) then you must accept that it is  
ontologically impossible that there could be anything *else*, by  
definition.


I want my proof to be mechanically checkable. I play the game of  
science, you don't.
I have no problem with that, except when you draw negative conclusion.  
Humans are used to make negative prose on possible others.  To make  
prose and get negative proposition is, with all my naive frankness,  
bad philosophy.
Jewish, Black, Indians, Women, Gay, Marijuana smokers, are often  
victims of that type of philosophy.





Unlike Comp, it does not assert the supremacy of arithmetic truth,  
but then add in dreaming numbers, resurrection by mechanical  
incantation, duplicated persons, machines emulating other machines  
which think they aren't machines (even though Comp prohibits any  
possibility of what else there would be besides machines.).


Not at all. Arithmetical Truth is full of gods, and daemons, which are  
non-machines. Comp is a vaccine against the reductionism of the  
finite, and the infinite. To understand comp is to understand 

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel   
> >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? 
> >> 
> >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable   
> >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. 
> >> 
> >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense   
> >> contradict such deterministic law. 
> >> 
> >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts   
> >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding   
> >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into   
> >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",   
> >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all   
> >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re- 
> >> constellation. 
> > 
> > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me. 
> > 
> > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the- 
> > gap, etc. 
>
> No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a   
> question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of   
> machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a   
> matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the   
> introspective machine. 
>

Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed), but forces, 
fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that appear out of nowhere 
and do things without any tangible presence. It's just haunted space. That 
the haunting of the space can be precisely mapped and deconstructed 
mathematically does not give it the power to change matter. What has been 
overlooked is the possibility that matter is an appearance within 
experience, of experience which has alienated itself - followed different 
histories in parallel or phase-shift.
 

>
>
>
> > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be   
> > anything more or less than sense. 
>
> This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what   
> is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable   
> feature like consciousness, etc. 
>

There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most 
self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full stop. 
All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory 
context. There is nothing there to be evident except for this relativity of 
presence shared with the contents and contexts of eternity. Justification 
is nothing but a sense of comparison among subordinate sense experience. 
You are looking for something that you have already found but won't accept 
it. I am showing you *all of this* is sense, and you are responding that 
you are looking for something *else*. If you accept the premise however 
(yes, doctor of primordial identity pansensitivity) then you must accept 
that it is ontologically impossible that there could be anything *else*, by 
definition. 

Unlike Comp, it does not assert the supremacy of arithmetic truth, but then 
add in dreaming numbers, resurrection by mechanical incantation, duplicated 
persons, machines emulating other machines which think they aren't machines 
(even though Comp prohibits any possibility of what else there would be 
besides machines.). Comp may mistake self referential logic for a self, but 
I don't. I have no problem a sentence that we read as "this sentence is 
lying" as a trivial syntactic contradiction rather than a profound puzzle 
that reveals the ontology of consciousness.


> To start from sense is like to start from God. This answers nothing   
> (even if there is a God). 
>

It is to start before God, and before arithmetic, truth, and even before 
'starting'. Your are still vastly underestimating the hubris that I intend. 
Sense = the Absolute, means that there has never been anything else, and 
there can never be anything else.
 

>
> On the contrary, comp explains 100% of matter, and 99,9% of sense, but   
> explain 100% of why it remains 0.01% of a necessary non comprehensible   
> aspect of the inside first person view. 
>

The entire universe fits in the 0,1% of sense that comp fails to find. 
Everything else is a reflection of that sense. Comp is inside out.
 

>
> Anyway, the solution is testable, so you should be happy that we might   
> refute comp. 
>

Comp may be testable (using consciousness) but consciousness is not 
testable using comp. 

Craig
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena 

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:

What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel  
(like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"?


I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable  
lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.


Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense  
contradict such deterministic law.


That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts  
a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding  
anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into  
sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",  
"Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all  
primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re- 
constellation.


Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.

Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the- 
gap, etc.


No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a  
question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of  
machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a  
matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the  
introspective machine.




I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be  
anything more or less than sense.


This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what  
is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable  
feature like consciousness, etc.


To start from sense is like to start from God. This answers nothing  
(even if there is a God).


On the contrary, comp explains 100% of matter, and 99,9% of sense, but  
explain 100% of why it remains 0.01% of a necessary non comprehensible  
aspect of the inside first person view.


Anyway, the solution is testable, so you should be happy that we might  
refute comp.













I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with  
the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of  
explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year  
and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon  
recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as  
parts of a "PHYSICAL World".
It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind  
(consciousness???)


OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery  
of the universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable  
sense) makes possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and  
capable of self-transformation, of those machines.


Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of self- 
transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex,  
but they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True  
beauty, whether in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece,  
introduces an experience which is literally unimaginable before it  
appears. It is not self-transformation, but revelation of simple,  
iconic presentations which relate to nothing but their own brand of  
pleasure, and to the history of all beauty and pleasure. It has not  
exterior truth which it mediates for, as we have proved with  
commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product that has  
nothing to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for  
whatever we attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation.


My feeling is that you have a limited view on mathematics.

True, but that may be what is required. If you want to understand  
what it all is, and don't have the math to fall back on, then you  
have to think more deeply about the question. We need a limited view  
of mathematics.


Hmm That looks like obscurantism to me.




Computers are much better at it.


Today's computer have no view of mathematics at all. They have no  
other view than the view of the universal person. If you want, they  
are enlighten, and the hard thing is to incarnate them in the  
terrestrial plane, in some relevant ways relatively to us.





You miss that quality and first person notion can be handled,  
accepting some definition.


No, I think that you miss that they cannot be handled by any  
definition,


On the contrary, I give a proof that they have no definition. Many  
features of the introspective machines lacks definition, to begin by  
truth.




because all definitions are already first person qualities. They are  
perspectives on perspectives - sense making of sense making.


You seem to believe that there can be no third person account of an  
axiomatic of the first person notion.


Right. Why would third person need an account of anything when first  
person is already the only accountant?


Exactly. But again, that is a reason to appre

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:52:49 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 29 October 2013 12:54, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes  wrote: 
> >> > What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like 
> any 
> >> > other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? I consider 
> it 
> >> > the 
> >> > explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at 
> the 
> >> > level 
> >> > of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 
> BC, 
> >> > in 
> >> > 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we 
> >> > develop 
> >> > upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as 
> >> > parts 
> >> > of a "PHYSICAL World". 
> >> > It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind 
> >> > (consciousness???) 
> >> 
> >> Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes. 
> > 
> > 
> > That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most 
> logical 
> > fallacies. 
>
> I suppose you could say causes outside of the physical universe, such 
> as God or top-down causation by consciousness, are part of nature and 
> part of physics, but most people would not use these words this way. 
>

>From my view, there is no public physical universe that is not also private 
physical experience. There is no unseen light, no unheard sound, to unfelt 
bodies. To me, "outside the physical universe" means only a dream or 
imagination, where what is felt is uncoupled from public effect. While we 
dream, our body remains present in its inertial frame of animal experience, 
but it has no perspective of its own.

People's words are outdated. We have played out a hand that was picked 
centuries ago by dead geniuses. Since then we have not had a chance to 
pause and reassess what the strange new ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg 
really mean when we look at the implications of them from the absolute 
perspective. We have been playing with gigantic machines to study the 
fantastically distant and tiny, but no matter how far we go, it 
increasingly doesn't make sense when compared with our own experience, and 
it increasingly doesn't make sense itself.

Multisense Realism is a way to acknowledge that this has become a wild 
goose chase, and posits that if we start over from scratch, it becomes more 
sensible to see relativity as identical to perceived awareness, and all 
physical forces naturally fall out of that awareness as elaboration of 
sensory motive inertia. Two different feelers sharing the same feeling are 
entangled. They are not particles but if a third feeler will feel a 
particulate stimulation from them. Space and time might be created here, by 
the disentanglement - the indifference and entropy which extends out in 
response to the significance of making a difference with sense interaction.

Craig


>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any 
>> other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? 
>>
>>
>> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful 
>> laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
>>
>> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict such 
>> deterministic law.
>>
>
> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts a 
> single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding anything, I 
> am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into sense: "Laws", 
> "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions", "Probability"...all of that invisible 
> voodoo is gone. It's all primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own 
> alienation and re-constellation.
>
>
> Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
>

Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-gap, etc. 
I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be 
anything more or less than sense.
 

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help 
>> of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was 
>> different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the 
>> explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena 
>> partially absorbed/understood as parts of a "PHYSICAL World". 
>> It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind 
>> (consciousness???)
>>
>>
>> OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery of the 
>> universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable sense) makes 
>> possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and capable of 
>> self-transformation, of those machines.
>>
>
> Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of 
> self-transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex, but 
> they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True beauty, whether 
> in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece, introduces an experience 
> which is literally unimaginable before it appears. It is not 
> self-transformation, but revelation of simple, iconic presentations which 
> relate to nothing but their own brand of pleasure, and to the history of 
> all beauty and pleasure. It has not exterior truth which it mediates for, 
> as we have proved with commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product 
> that has nothing to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for 
> whatever we attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation. 
>
>
> My feeling is that you have a limited view on mathematics. 
>

True, but that may be what is required. If you want to understand what it 
all is, and don't have the math to fall back on, then you have to think 
more deeply about the question. We need a limited view of mathematics. 
Computers are much better at it.

You miss that quality and first person notion can be handled, accepting 
> some definition.
>

No, I think that you miss that they cannot be handled by any definition, 
because all definitions are already first person qualities. They are 
perspectives on perspectives - sense making of sense making.
 

> You seem to believe that there can be no third person account of an 
> axiomatic of the first person notion. 
>

Right. Why would third person need an account of anything when first person 
is already the only accountant?
 

> That's a category error. Math must be 3p, but can talk about 1p, and even 
> seems to imply it, as the arithmetical 1p hypostases should illustrate.
>

I think that's an illusion. Math's version of 1p is an empty light socket 
with a bulb drawn around it. All references to 1p come from our minds - our 
generosity in sharing our awareness in whatever we look at that seems to 
have a face, or does something that seems to require knowing. In the proper 
light, all of these empty promises and paste jewels will be exposed as the 
pathetic fallacy...a trompe 'loeil that is as spectacular as any could ever 
be.

Craig


> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would 
>> impose an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress.
>>
>> Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and this is 
>> mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art to accept it 
>> and move on.
>> That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to see 
>> how wrong they were.
>>
>> François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was sincerely 
>> disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model showing the 
>> Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are shown true.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:

What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like  
any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"?


I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful  
laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.


Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict  
such deterministic law.


That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts a  
single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding  
anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into  
sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",  
"Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all  
primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re- 
constellation.


Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.







I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the  
help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of  
explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and  
today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon  
recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as  
parts of a "PHYSICAL World".
It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind  
(consciousness???)


OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery  
of the universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable  
sense) makes possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and  
capable of self-transformation, of those machines.


Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of self- 
transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex,  
but they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True  
beauty, whether in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece,  
introduces an experience which is literally unimaginable before it  
appears. It is not self-transformation, but revelation of simple,  
iconic presentations which relate to nothing but their own brand of  
pleasure, and to the history of all beauty and pleasure. It has not  
exterior truth which it mediates for, as we have proved with  
commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product that has nothing  
to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for whatever we  
attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation.


My feeling is that you have a limited view on mathematics. You miss  
that quality and first person notion can be handled, accepting some  
definition. You seem to believe that there can be no third person  
account of an axiomatic of the first person notion. That's a category  
error. Math must be 3p, but can talk about 1p, and even seems to imply  
it, as the arithmetical 1p hypostases should illustrate.


Bruno





Craig



You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would  
impose an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress.


Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and  
this is mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art  
to accept it and move on.
That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to  
see how wrong they were.


François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was  
sincerely disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard  
model showing the Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when  
we are shown true.


Bruno









On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou  
 wrote:




On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes  wrote:
Allegedly Stathis wrote:
If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will  
be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating  
that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the  
brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would  
be evidence of supernatural processes.


I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently  
known/knowable.
Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"?  
The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is  
partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different  
from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics?
I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we  
perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed  
from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in  
the future.

Agnostically yours
John Mikes

It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known  
physics, but with any physics.



--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 29 October 2013 12:54, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes  wrote:
>> > What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any
>> > other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? I consider it
>> > the
>> > explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the
>> > level
>> > of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC,
>> > in
>> > 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we
>> > develop
>> > upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as
>> > parts
>> > of a "PHYSICAL World".
>> > It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind
>> > (consciousness???)
>>
>> Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes.
>
>
> That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most logical
> fallacies.

I suppose you could say causes outside of the physical universe, such
as God or top-down causation by consciousness, are part of nature and
part of physics, but most people would not use these words this way.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we 
> are aware of it
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact 
> of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects 
> were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex 
> two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal 
> red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color 
> and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. 
> What they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as 
> their minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the 
> gorilla suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the 
> sequence in which they were being tested on.
>
> What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man 
> in the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant 
> (for the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they 
> saw. How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something 
> that has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our 
> perception.
>
> From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very 
> efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant, 
> unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning 
> the raw film into the finished movie.
>
>
> >> I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from 
> recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is 
> actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another. 
> What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing 
> gorillas it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of 
> experienced anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects 
> sense to be a solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the 
> brain makes mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high 
> fidelity reality out of senseless mistakes.
>
> Craig
>
> When you use the term “the public medium” you seem to be invoking some 
> kind of shared super-consciousness or at the very least a shared repository 
> of everything that is (or the even more extended set “everything that is or 
> that could have been”), in which case, yes the snippets of film that ended 
> up on the cutting floor and are conspicuously absent from our experience – 
> do still exist in this universal medium.
>
> But the point is that they do not exist, in so far as the personal 
> experience of reality is concerned – they have been excised by the 
> brain/mind and removed from the sense streams before the brain/mind’s 
> edited experience is flowed into the metaphorical spring within our minds 
> from which we perceive reality as a state of emanating being and a dynamic 
> current world – the now (not the metaphysical spiritual now, especially, 
> but rather the quotidian now of common experience)
>

Right, but I am saying that everything else does that editing too. There is 
no unedited perspective that 'simply is', all there can ever be is what 
seems to be relative to some inertial frame of perception. Even then, we 
may be able to access some things that may seem to be edited out (under 
hypnosis for example). But yeah, sure, our human experience does not 
include (and would not include) the sum total of all non-human experiences. 
We don't perceive magnetically like a bird might, but that doesn't mean 
that our lack of awareness as humans means that the awareness that we do 
have is lacking in some way. It can't by definition. Each person has 
exactly one human experience of living a human life and there is no unit of 
comparison beyond what it actually is to define what it should be. That's 
just how relativity works, like c - it's absolutely anchored.
 

>  
>
> The point that interests me is that our brain/mind is a superb on the fly 
> editing and reality reification engine;
>
I disagree there. I propose that should be flipped. There is no 
reification. It is not a simulation of any kind. It is the expectation of 
external reality that is misguided from the absolute perspective. There is 
no editing in time, because human time is not neurologic

RE: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are
aware of it

 



On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact of
our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects
were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex
two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal
red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color
and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. What
they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as their
minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the gorilla
suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the sequence in
which they were being tested on.

What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man in
the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant (for
the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they saw.
How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something that
has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our perception.

>From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very
efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant,
unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning
the raw film into the finished movie.


>> I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from
recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is
actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another.
What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing gorillas
it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of experienced
anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects sense to be a
solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the brain makes
mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high fidelity
reality out of senseless mistakes.

Craig

When you use the term “the public medium” you seem to be invoking some kind
of shared super-consciousness or at the very least a shared repository of
everything that is (or the even more extended set “everything that is or
that could have been”), in which case, yes the snippets of film that ended
up on the cutting floor and are conspicuously absent from our experience –
do still exist in this universal medium.

But the point is that they do not exist, in so far as the personal
experience of reality is concerned – they have been excised by the
brain/mind and removed from the sense streams before the brain/mind’s edited
experience is flowed into the metaphorical spring within our minds from
which we perceive reality as a state of emanating being and a dynamic
current world – the now (not the metaphysical spiritual now, especially, but
rather the quotidian now of common experience)  

The point that interests me is that our brain/mind is a superb on the fly
editing and reality reification engine; that our experience is the result of
various complex and multi-variant processes that occur within us and that a
measurable lag time has elapsed by the time we first experience the
well-spring of our “now” – that is we experience reality post facto.

Far from denigrating the mind – I am quite fascinated by it; by how it has
evolved; by how it seems to work; by its algorithms. I also believe it is
fruitful to try to work out how the mind/brain works down to the basic logic
and memory operations and the essential algorithms. In fact one of the
reasons to study the mind is to learn how the brain mind goes about doing
things – and possibly even develop a radical alternative chip architecture
that will be far more energy efficient (at the tradeoff of introducing
random noise as less and less energy is used to flip gates). The brain uses
around 20 watts – so clearly there is room for improvement in the silicon
toasters we use to do logic operations and store data.

I am especially interested in learning how the brain manages to so clearly
discern signal from noise (and it’s a very noisy environment). How the brain
arrives at executive decisions – and how it does this at different scales of
complexity. Does it use quorum based consensus building algorithms? How does
the brain decide when and how much to edit out; or conversely amplify a
signal? Does the brain work primarily within local micro-regions doing
discreet tasks and reporting up to higher order network nodes; or is a lot
more of the brain’s activity than might at first seem intricately bound up
with all manner of other threads of networked activity that is happening in

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes > 
> wrote: 
> > What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any 
> > other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? I consider it 
> the 
> > explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the 
> level 
> > of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, 
> in 
> > 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we 
> develop 
> > upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as 
> parts 
> > of a "PHYSICAL World". 
> > It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind 
> > (consciousness???) 
>
> Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes. 
>

That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most logical 
fallacies.

"Morality is what good people do, because of their goodness"

 

>
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> > > 
>
> > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes > 
> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> Allegedly Stathis wrote: 
> >>> If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be 
> >>> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that 
> there is a 
> >>> change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in 
> the 
> >>> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural 
> >>> processes. 
> >>> 
> >>> I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently 
> >>> known/knowable. 
> >>> Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The 
> >>> demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial 
> and 
> >>> whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's 
> going on 
> >>> indeed. Explained by physics? 
> >>> I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we 
> perceive 
> >>> - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from 
> time-period to 
> >>> time-period and is likely to change further in the future. 
> >>> Agnostically yours 
> >>> John Mikes 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known 
> physics, 
> >> but with any physics. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Stathis Papaioannou 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> >> To post to this group, send email to 
> >> everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes  wrote:
> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any
> other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? I consider it the
> explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level
> of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in
> 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop
> upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts
> of a "PHYSICAL World".
> It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind
> (consciousness???)

Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes.

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes  wrote:
>>>
>>> Allegedly Stathis wrote:
>>> If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
>>> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a
>>> change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
>>> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
>>> processes.
>>>
>>> I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently
>>> known/knowable.
>>> Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The
>>> demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and
>>> whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on
>>> indeed. Explained by physics?
>>> I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive
>>> - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to
>>> time-period and is likely to change further in the future.
>>> Agnostically yours
>>> John Mikes
>>
>>
>> It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics,
>> but with any physics.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
>
> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any 
> other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? 
>
>
> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful laws, 
> not relying to actual infinities or magic.
>
> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict such 
> deterministic law.
>

That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts a single 
scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding anything, I am 
absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into sense: "Laws", "Forces", 
"Fields", "Wavefunctions", "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is 
gone. It's all primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation 
and re-constellation.


>
>
> I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help 
> of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was 
> different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the 
> explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena 
> partially absorbed/understood as parts of a "PHYSICAL World". 
> It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind 
> (consciousness???)
>
>
> OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery of the 
> universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable sense) makes 
> possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and capable of 
> self-transformation, of those machines.
>

Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of 
self-transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex, but 
they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True beauty, whether 
in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece, introduces an experience 
which is literally unimaginable before it appears. It is not 
self-transformation, but revelation of simple, iconic presentations which 
relate to nothing but their own brand of pleasure, and to the history of 
all beauty and pleasure. It has not exterior truth which it mediates for, 
as we have proved with commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product 
that has nothing to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for 
whatever we attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation. 

Craig


>
> You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would impose 
> an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress.
>
> Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and this is 
> mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art to accept it 
> and move on.
> That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to see 
> how wrong they were.
>
> François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was sincerely 
> disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model showing the 
> Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are shown true.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes >wrote:
>>
>>> Allegedly Stathis wrote:
>>> *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be 
>>> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is 
>>> a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the 
>>> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural 
>>> processes.*
>>>
>>> I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently 
>>> known/knowable. 
>>> Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The 
>>> demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and 
>>> whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on 
>>> indeed. Explained by physics? 
>>> I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we 
>>> perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from 
>>> time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. 
>>> Agnostically yours
>>> John Mikes
>>>
>>
>> It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, 
>> but with any physics. 
>>  
>>
>> -- 
>> Stathis Papaioannou 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@goog

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:

What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like  
any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"?


I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful  
laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.


Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict  
such deterministic law.




I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the  
help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation.  
It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is  
the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of  
phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a "PHYSICAL  
World".
It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind  
(consciousness???)


OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery of  
the universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable sense)  
makes possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and capable of  
self-transformation, of those machines.



You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would  
impose an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress.


Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and this  
is mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art to  
accept it and move on.
That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to  
see how wrong they were.


François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was  
sincerely disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model  
showing the Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are  
shown true.


Bruno









On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:




On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes  wrote:
Allegedly Stathis wrote:
If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be  
different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that  
there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or  
a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be  
evidence of supernatural processes.


I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently  
known/knowable.
Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"?  
The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is  
partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different  
from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics?
I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we  
perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed  
from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in  
the future.

Agnostically yours
John Mikes

It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known  
physics, but with any physics.



--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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/groups/opt_out.


--
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/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[John Mikes]

What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any
other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? I consider it
the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the
level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500
BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we
develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood
as parts of a "PHYSICAL World".
It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind
(consciousness???)




On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
>
> On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Allegedly Stathis wrote:
>> *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
>> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
>> a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
>> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
>> processes.*
>>
>> I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently
>> known/knowable.
>> Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The
>> demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and
>> whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on
>> indeed. Explained by physics?
>> I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive
>> - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to
>> time-period and is likely to change further in the future.
>> Agnostically yours
>> John Mikes
>>
>
> It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics,
> but with any physics.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 12:40:43 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 28 October 2013 00:10, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>
 http://medicalxpress.com/news/**2013-10-neural-brain-harder-**
 disrupt-aware.html

 We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed 
> in the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and 
> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, 
> neuroscientists 
> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative 
> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step 
> closer to answering this question.
>   
> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known 
> visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make 
> visual 
> images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular 
> rivalry 
> happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains 
> cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches 
> back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images 
> are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to 
> enter our consciousness.
>
> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static 
> picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. 
> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing 
> in 
> a 'motion  area' that 
> specifically processes visual 
> motion. 
> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not 
> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the 
> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.
>
> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously 
> processing motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of 
> the moving image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, 
> zapping had no effect.
> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between 
> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
> brain. 
> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be 
> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the 
> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more 
> resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. 
> Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable 
> and 
> noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the 
> question of how this neural stability is achieved.


 Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make 
 sense *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *
 conscious???*

>>>
>>> If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be 
>>> different if the conscious state is different. 
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but consciousness does not supervene on neurochemistry, since we 
>> can change our neurochemistry voluntarily. 
>>
>
> Then we would see the neurochemistry changing contrary to the laws of 
> physics, but we do not, despite your gross misinterpretation of the term 
> "spontaneous neural activity".
>

That's like saying "We can't change the channel on the TV, or we would see 
some new colors of pixels that are not RGB.". In order to understand why my 
interpretation of spontaneous neural activity is the more correct 
interpretation, you would have to consider the possibility of top-down 
control to begin with. 

If you insist upon a flat picture of physics, where the TV actors and the 
audience at home must all live inside the patterns of the TV screen then 
you will not be able to find any significant truths about consciousness. 
You have to get out of the box, and right now, you are so far into the 
cardboard, you can't even find the box you're in. 

The term "spontaneous neural activity" is not a mistake, nor is it exotic 
or subtle, even if some of the scientists who use it are not aware of the 
implications for its erosion of determinism. Just because neural activity 
on one level is also caused by sub-neural activity on another, does not 
mean that it is not also causing its own activity, or serving the causes of 
the total intention of the person whose brain and body it is.
 

>  
>
>> We can change each others neurochemistry intentionally. That aside, 
>> certainly ordinary animal consciousness correlates to neuroche

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes  wrote:

> Allegedly Stathis wrote:
> *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
> a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
> processes.*
>
> I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently
> known/knowable.
> Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The
> demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and
> whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on
> indeed. Explained by physics?
> I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive
> - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to
> time-period and is likely to change further in the future.
> Agnostically yours
> John Mikes
>

It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics,
but with any physics.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 28 October 2013 00:10, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>> http://medicalxpress.com/news/**2013-10-neural-brain-harder-**
>>> disrupt-aware.html
>>>
>>> We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed
 in the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and
 which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists
 Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative
 Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step
 closer to answering this question.

 Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known
 visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual
 images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry
 happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains
 cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches
 back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images
 are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to
 enter our consciousness.

 Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static
 picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds.
 Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in
 a 'motion  area' that
 specifically processes visual 
 motion.
 The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not
 have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the
 amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.

 So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously
 processing motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of
 the moving image. When the moving image was being perceived, however,
 zapping had no effect.
 This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between
 conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
 brain.
 Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be
 disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the
 rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more
 resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect.
 Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and
 noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the
 question of how this neural stability is achieved.
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make
>>> sense *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *
>>> conscious???*
>>>
>>
>> If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
>> different if the conscious state is different.
>>
>
> Sure, but consciousness does not supervene on neurochemistry, since we can
> change our neurochemistry voluntarily.
>

Then we would see the neurochemistry changing contrary to the laws of
physics, but we do not, despite your gross misinterpretation of the term
"spontaneous neural activity".


> We can change each others neurochemistry intentionally. That aside,
> certainly ordinary animal consciousness correlates to neurochemistry, so
> that conscious states would be *represented* publicly as different
> neurochemical patterns (and also different facial expressions, body
> language, vocal intonation, smells that dogs can detect, etc...lots of
> expressions beyond just microphysical containment). Changing the brain
> chemistry changes consciousness, but this study shows that the brain
> chemistry fights back. Being conscious is to resist noise being introduced
> from the microphysical level. It is top-down as well as bottom up. We are
> not mere puppets of neurochemistry, neurochemistry is also our puppet show.
>
>
>
>> Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in
>> the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be
>> evidence of supernatural processes.
>>
>
> This study alone should convince you that this iron law you have adopted
> is obsolete. The fact that it does not only shows that you are not looking
> at evidence, but ideology. This experiment shoes conclusively a change in
> the microphysical public brain which is actively ignored by the top down,
> macrophenomena of private physics.
>

I can't see how you would think the article shows what you think it shows.
It claims that there must be something different about the brain when it is
processing information consciously, which is

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact 
> of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects 
> were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex 
> two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal 
> red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color 
> and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. 
> What they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as 
> their minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the 
> gorilla suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the 
> sequence in which they were being tested on.
>
> What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man 
> in the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant 
> (for the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they 
> saw. How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something 
> that has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our 
> perception.
>
> From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very 
> efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant, 
> unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning 
> the raw film into the finished movie.
>

I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from 
recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is 
actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another. 
What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing 
gorillas it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of 
experienced anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects 
sense to be a solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the 
brain makes mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high 
fidelity reality out of senseless mistakes.

Craig

 
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:46 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are 
> aware of it
>
>  
>
>
> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html
>
> We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in 
> the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and 
> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists 
> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative 
> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step 
> closer to answering this question.
>
> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual 
> illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images 
> invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens 
> when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then 
> decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth 
> between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for 
> our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our 
> consciousness.
>
> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture 
> to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. 
> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in 
> a 'motion <http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/> area' that specifically 
> processes visual motion <http://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/>. 
> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not 
> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the 
> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.
>
> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing 
> motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving 
> image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no 
> effect.
>
> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between 
> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
> brain<http://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/>. 
> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be 
> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the 
> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more 
> 

RE: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Chris de Morsella]

Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact of
our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects
were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex
two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal
red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color
and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. What
they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as their
minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the gorilla
suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the sequence in
which they were being tested on.

What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man in
the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant (for
the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they saw.
How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something that
has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our perception.

>From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very
efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant,
unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning
the raw film into the finished movie.

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware
of it

 

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html

We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in
the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and which
reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists
Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative
Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step
closer to answering this question.

 
<http://medicalxpress.com/openx/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=373&campaignid=
196&zoneid=79&loc=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fmedicalxpress.com%2Fnews%2F2013-10-
neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html&cb=79bd1b8ee7> 

Their research, published in Current Biology, used a well-known visual
illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images
invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens
when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then
decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth
between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for
our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our
consciousness.

Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture to
cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. Simultaneously
they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in a 'motion
<http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/>  area' that specifically processes
visual motion <http://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/> . The effect
was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not have any
effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the amount of
time the static image was perceived grew longer.

So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing
motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving
image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no
effect.

This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between
conscious and unconscious motion representation in the brain
<http://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/> . Whenever motion is unconscious, its
neural representation can easily be disturbed, making it difficult for it to
gain the upper hand in the rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it
apparently becomes more resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise
has no effect. Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a
more stable and noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which
raises the question of how this neural stability is achieved.


Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense on
purpose ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually conscious???

 

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this 

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[John Mikes]

Allegedly Stathis wrote:
*If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
processes.*

I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently
known/knowable.
Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The
demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and
whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on
indeed. Explained by physics?
I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive -
at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to
time-period and is likely to change further in the future.
Agnostically yours
John Mikes


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
>
>
> On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html
>>
>> We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in
>>> the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and
>>> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists
>>> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative
>>> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step
>>> closer to answering this question.
>>>
>>> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known
>>> visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual
>>> images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry
>>> happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains
>>> cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches
>>> back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images
>>> are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to
>>> enter our consciousness.
>>>
>>> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static
>>> picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds.
>>> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in
>>> a 'motion  area' that
>>> specifically processes visual 
>>> motion.
>>> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not
>>> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the
>>> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.
>>>
>>> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing
>>> motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving
>>> image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no
>>> effect.
>>> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between
>>> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
>>> brain.
>>> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be
>>> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the
>>> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more
>>> resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect.
>>> Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and
>>> noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the
>>> question of how this neural stability is achieved.
>>
>>
>> Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense
>> *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???*
>>
>
> If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
> a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
> processes.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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:/

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html
>>
>> We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in 
>>> the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and 
>>> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists 
>>> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative 
>>> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step 
>>> closer to answering this question.
>>>   
>>> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known 
>>> visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual 
>>> images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry 
>>> happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains 
>>> cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches 
>>> back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images 
>>> are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to 
>>> enter our consciousness.
>>>
>>> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static 
>>> picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. 
>>> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in 
>>> a 'motion  area' that 
>>> specifically processes visual 
>>> motion. 
>>> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not 
>>> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the 
>>> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.
>>>
>>> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing 
>>> motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving 
>>> image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no 
>>> effect.
>>> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between 
>>> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
>>> brain. 
>>> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be 
>>> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the 
>>> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more 
>>> resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. 
>>> Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and 
>>> noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the 
>>> question of how this neural stability is achieved.
>>
>>
>> Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense 
>> *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???*
>>
>
> If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be 
> different if the conscious state is different. 
>

Sure, but consciousness does not supervene on neurochemistry, since we can 
change our neurochemistry voluntarily. We can change each others 
neurochemistry intentionally. That aside, certainly ordinary animal 
consciousness correlates to neurochemistry, so that conscious states would 
be *represented* publicly as different neurochemical patterns (and also 
different facial expressions, body language, vocal intonation, smells that 
dogs can detect, etc...lots of expressions beyond just microphysical 
containment). Changing the brain chemistry changes consciousness, but this 
study shows that the brain chemistry fights back. Being conscious is to 
resist noise being introduced from the microphysical level. It is top-down 
as well as bottom up. We are not mere puppets of neurochemistry, 
neurochemistry is also our puppet show.

 

> Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in 
> the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be 
> evidence of supernatural processes.
>

This study alone should convince you that this iron law you have adopted is 
obsolete. The fact that it does not only shows that you are not looking at 
evidence, but ideology. This experiment shoes conclusively a change in the 
microphysical public brain which is actively ignored by the top down, 
macrophenomena of private physics.

Craig
 

>
>  
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html
>
> We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in
>> the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and
>> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists
>> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative
>> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step
>> closer to answering this question.
>>
>> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual
>> illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images
>> invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens
>> when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then
>> decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth
>> between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for
>> our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our
>> consciousness.
>>
>> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture
>> to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds.
>> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in
>> a 'motion  area' that
>> specifically processes visual 
>> motion.
>> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not
>> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the
>> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.
>>
>> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing
>> motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving
>> image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no
>> effect.
>> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between
>> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
>> brain.
>> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be
>> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the
>> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more
>> resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect.
>> Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and
>> noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the
>> question of how this neural stability is achieved.
>
>
> Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense
> *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???*
>

If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
processes.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

[Craig Weinberg]

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html

We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in 
> the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and 
> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists 
> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative 
> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step 
> closer to answering this question.
>   
> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual 
> illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images 
> invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens 
> when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then 
> decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth 
> between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for 
> our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our 
> consciousness.
>
> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture 
> to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. 
> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in 
> a 'motion  area' that specifically 
> processes visual motion . 
> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not 
> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the 
> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.
>
> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing 
> motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving 
> image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no 
> effect.
> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between 
> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
> brain. 
> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be 
> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the 
> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more 
> resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. 
> Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and 
> noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the 
> question of how this neural stability is achieved.


Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense *on 
purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???*

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.