RE: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 javascript: [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: 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 frame the velocity is infinite.
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:22:48 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg *Sent:* Monday, October 28, 2013 8:40 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 expression
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 30 Oct 2013, at 02:29, LizR wrote: On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 prime numbers, it is obvious that there are other kind of existence. then brings in the implausibility of sense and the necessity for a homunculus
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 and transparency, Arithmetic truth is indeed the most universal reflection of the Absolute available - so if we want a public representation of the Absolute, that is fine with me. Since the Absolute is sense, however, we must be careful to realize that only private presentation is primitively real. Public forms and functions are only
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 stat...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com 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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comwrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com wrote: Allegedly Stathis
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 (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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 the abyssalness of the mindscape. Comp prohibits nothing, not even 0=1,
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 insulting the machine, by what looks like prejudice, as you admit not trying to study them. To me that's just pointing to the pet rock and saying 'you're hurting his feelings. You should study geology.' I am showing you *all of this* is sense, and you
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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
On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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
On 30 October 2013 00:37, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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
On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:08:53 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 30 October 2013 00:37, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: 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
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:29:21 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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
On 10/29/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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 http://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
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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
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 mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: 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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On Monday, October 28, 2013 12:40:43 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 28 October 2013 00:10, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://medicalxpress.com/news/**2013-10-neural-brain-harder-** disrupt-aware.htmlhttp://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 motionhttp://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 brainhttp://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???* 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 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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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 stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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
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 stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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
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 stat...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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 stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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
On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: 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 stat...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 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
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 the brains hundred
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 javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *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 neurological time. Our perceptual window is larger gauge. Like c, within any inertial frame the velocity is infinite. Our range of perception attenuates near the border of the window, but it is more like a radio losing a station as the dial moves off of it than a computer moving building an image out of insufficient pixels.
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 29 October 2013 12:54, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com 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
On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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 http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that specifically processes visual motionhttp://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 brainhttp://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???* 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.
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: 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 http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that specifically processes visual motionhttp://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 brainhttp://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???* 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
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 stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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 http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that specifically processes visual motionhttp://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 brainhttp://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???* 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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
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=373campaignid= 196zoneid=79loc=1referer=http%3A%2F%2Fmedicalxpress.com%2Fnews%2F2013-10- neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.htmlcb=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 message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop
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 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:46 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *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 brainhttp://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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 28 October 2013 00:10, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://medicalxpress.com/news/**2013-10-neural-brain-harder-** disrupt-aware.htmlhttp://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 motionhttp://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 brainhttp://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???* 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 what you would expect if consciousness does, in fact, supervene on neurochemistry. What you need to support your case is the opposite effect: consciousness is different while the brain is the same. --
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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.
