GENIUS FORUMS

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:There is no one in charge of the brain. There is no homonculus Pincho. Like this is an ancient philosophical issue that by now should be old news. The electron theory does not resolve the homonculus problem it just begs the question.

A Homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain (Richard Gregory, 1987). Homunculus arguments are always fallacious. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.
Homunculus arguments are common in the theory of vision. Imagine a person watching a movie. They see the images as something separate from themself, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinae in the eyes and something in the brain looks at these as if they are the screen. The Homunculus Argument shows this is not a full explanation because all that has been done is to place an entire person, or homunculus, behind the eye who gazes at the retinae. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinae are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. Again this cannot be a full explanation because all that has been done is to place a little person in the brain behind the cortex. In the theory of vision the Homunculus Argument invalidates theories that do not explain 'projection', the experience that the viewing point is separate from the things that are seen (adapted from Gregory, 1987; 1990). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus)

The way to avoid the homonculus fallacy is given in the story of Nagasena and King Milinda. Simply, do not invoke the idea of a homonculus and we'll be okay. You're electron theory seems to hold that the electrons are a kind of homonculus, an imperishable entity that "uses' and views the brain. This is complete nonsense.

Basically, you are happy with us being grey matter. When we die, we die. That's the end. Nothing escapes. I find that hard to believe. You could say that 1000 years ago, I didn't exist. Now I do, and then I will not again. Whatever happens usually repeats itself somehow.

Can I not exist then exist, with no inbetween? If I were an electron I could keep going forever. But as grey matter I have popped up from nowhere. I suddenly existed, never to exist again.

Why does it matter what my affective response is to actual reality? I don't have to be happy with the Holocaust for the Holocaust to be a reality. My personal feelings about truth have nothing at all to do with the truth.

It doesn't matter if I'm happy with the facts about brains and consciousness, they are facts regardless.

Is that what this is all about? You constructing a fantasy reality that appeals to your desires, to your inclinations? So what, we are all supposed to choke down this trash in order that Pincho maintains his delusional model of reality?

You might think its a cool idea to believe you are an electron floating eternally through space and that your brain is unimportant, but this is just your fucked up fantasy to escape the fear of reality. It has absolutely no explanatory value for deviant states of consciousness or the differential capacity of consciousness in general. It explains nothing.

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:There is no one in charge of the brain. There is no homonculus Pincho. Like this is an ancient philosophical issue that by now should be old news. The electron theory does not resolve the homonculus problem it just begs the question.

A Homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain (Richard Gregory, 1987). Homunculus arguments are always fallacious. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.
Homunculus arguments are common in the theory of vision. Imagine a person watching a movie. They see the images as something separate from themself, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinae in the eyes and something in the brain looks at these as if they are the screen. The Homunculus Argument shows this is not a full explanation because all that has been done is to place an entire person, or homunculus, behind the eye who gazes at the retinae. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinae are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. Again this cannot be a full explanation because all that has been done is to place a little person in the brain behind the cortex. In the theory of vision the Homunculus Argument invalidates theories that do not explain 'projection', the experience that the viewing point is separate from the things that are seen (adapted from Gregory, 1987; 1990). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus)

The way to avoid the homonculus fallacy is given in the story of Nagasena and King Milinda. Simply, do not invoke the idea of a homonculus and we'll be okay. You're electron theory seems to hold that the electrons are a kind of homonculus, an imperishable entity that "uses' and views the brain. This is complete nonsense.

Basically, you are happy with us being grey matter. When we die, we die. That's the end. Nothing escapes. I find that hard to believe. You could say that 1000 years ago, I didn't exist. Now I do, and then I will not again. Whatever happens usually repeats itself somehow.

Can I not exist then exist, with no inbetween? If I were an electron I could keep going forever. But as grey matter I have popped up from nowhere. I suddenly existed, never to exist again.

Why does it matter what my affective response is to actual reality? I don't have to be happy with the Holocaust for the Holocaust to be a reality. My personal feelings about truth have nothing at all to do with the truth.

It doesn't matter if I'm happy with the facts about brains and consciousness, they are facts regardless.

Is that what this is all about? You constructing a fantasy reality that appeals to your desires, to your inclinations? So what, we are all supposed to choke down this trash in order that Pincho maintains his delusional model of reality?

You might think its a cool idea to believe you are an electron floating eternally through space and that your brain is unimportant, but this is just your fucked up fantasy to escape the fear of reality. It has absolutely no explanatory value for deviant states of consciousness or the differential capacity of consciousness in general. It explains nothing.

That's not what it is. I see life as a fractal.

Bees live in Hexagonal combs, have a queen, and they fly to and from a flower to collect nectar, and create honey, and do a dance to tell the other bees where the honey is.

Electrons live in hexagonal atom arrangements. They must have some reason to have a winning sperm to the egg. maybe a queen. They wait for a photon. They make a path to, and from it. Then they fire up, and make pretty colours. They do quite a few other things too.

I was just applying the fractal theory to electrons as a form of life.

what does this even mean? You haven't explained Cotard's syndrom yet... You haven't explained color-blindness or achromatopsia.

Its pretty obvious from talking to you that your knowledge/understanding of consciousness is infinitely approaching zero.

You should admit this to yourself at least.

Think about the "binding problem" in philosophy of consciousness, the electron theory is doomed at explaining this.

Animus wrote:what does this even mean? You haven't explained Cotard's syndrom yet... You haven't explained color-blindness or achromatopsia.

Its pretty obvious from talking to you that your knowledge/understanding of consciousness is infinitely approaching zero.

You should admit this to yourself at least.

Think about the "binding problem" in philosophy of consciousness, the electron theory is doomed at explaining this.

You keep switching to brain functions instead of conciousness. The thread is about conciousness, not brain functions. There is a huge difference. If I am blind I am still concious. Isn't the saying "Use Your Brain." I never heard anyone say "Be your brain."

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:what does this even mean? You haven't explained Cotard's syndrom yet... You haven't explained color-blindness or achromatopsia.

Its pretty obvious from talking to you that your knowledge/understanding of consciousness is infinitely approaching zero.

You should admit this to yourself at least.

Think about the "binding problem" in philosophy of consciousness, the electron theory is doomed at explaining this.

You keep switching to brain functions instead of conciousness. The thread is about conciousness, not brain functions. There is a huge difference. If I am blind I am still concious.

If you are blind you are not conscious of vision.

Well, let's make this clearer:

If you lose your eyes you will not be conscious of visual content representing information from your eyes. You might still be conscious of visual content self-stimulated within your visual cortex. If your visual cortex is removed you will have no conscious visual content. If area FFA of your fusiform gyrus is removed you will have no conscious recognition of faces. If your anterior cingulate sulcus is removed you will lose your conscious will, if BA40 is removed you will lose conscious perception of your self.

So, yes, consciousness and brain function are interrelated. Abulia (loss of will) is explained by abnormal function or lesion of the anterior cingulate sulcus. How does electron theory account for this?

If you remove your entire brain, as instructed, you will lose all consciousness. Or if your neural activations fall out of synchrony you will become unconscious. If you take mescalin your brain will be deprived of glutamate necessary for the normal functioning of synapses and you will lose your sense of spatial orientation, your sense of self and anything you ever cared about, you will be rapped by awe at the magnificence of reality.

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:what does this even mean? You haven't explained Cotard's syndrom yet... You haven't explained color-blindness or achromatopsia.

Its pretty obvious from talking to you that your knowledge/understanding of consciousness is infinitely approaching zero.

You should admit this to yourself at least.

Think about the "binding problem" in philosophy of consciousness, the electron theory is doomed at explaining this.

You keep switching to brain functions instead of conciousness. The thread is about conciousness, not brain functions. There is a huge difference. If I am blind I am still concious.

If you are blind you are not conscious of vision.

Well, let's make this clearer:

If you lose your eyes you will not be conscious of visual content representing information from your eyes. You might still be conscious of visual content self-stimulated within your visual cortex. If your visual cortex is removed you will have no conscious visual content. If area FFA of your fusiform gyrus is removed you will have no conscious recognition of faces. If your anterior cingulate sulcus is removed you will lose your conscious will, if BA40 is removed you will lose conscious perception of your self.

So, yes, consciousness and brain function are interrelated. Abulia (loss of will) is explained by abnormal function or lesion of the anterior cingulate sulcus. How does electron theory account for this?

If you remove your entire brain, as instructed, you will lose all consciousness. Or if your neural activations fall out of synchrony you will become unconscious. If you take mescalin your brain will be deprived of glutamate necessary for the normal functioning of synapses and you will lose your sense of spatial orientation, your sense of self and anything you ever cared about, you will be rapped by awe at the magnificence of reality.

You could do all of those things with the electrons too. Leave the brain perfectly intact, but somehow stop the electrons from being able to get to those places. Same result.

This is really confused Pincho. The brain doesn't consist of copper wiring. You can't make any strong analogies to electronics. The brain is electrochemical. I get what you are saying, but what you are saying does not eliminate the brain. You still need a medium. It isn't solely in the fllow of ions its in the computational output.

Take a look at this http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cat ... sciousness

It's the Scholarpedia.org (Peer-Reviewed Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience) list of articles on consciousness. This much is understood about consciousness in computational neuroscience. Adding to that there are electrons in the brain doesn't help at all. Besides your explanation isn't novel. There have been several field-theories of consciousness already. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Fie ... sciousness

However, none of these theories negate the existence of the brain as the paradigmatic physical medium of consciousness. It is the computational structure, in any case, which gives rise to the conscious field. I'm more inclined to think that consciousness is a virtual entity existing in a logical state space, and not a physical field of electrons. The field of electrons is constantly flowing, no electrons hang out in there. Consciousness as experience from a first-person perspective is not explained objectively except by a logical state space, a qualia space. This has no physical manifestation as such, nor is it supernatural. If I may use a loose analogy to electronics, it is like virtual memory/page file rather than physical memory/RAM in computers. The virtual memory has a physical substrate, the hard-drive, but is rather different from RAM. The logic emulates the operation of RAM on the HDD. This is just to demonstrate how a thing can be virtually different from its substrate. Ultimately RAM is better than HDD because it is on a BUS with the CPU and is closer proximity. But primarily it is physically designed for random access, while HDDs are designed for long-term storage. This analogically elucidates the relation between consciousness and the brain. For the brain operates in a way counterintuitive to conscious introspection (or so I hear, this is not my experience). There is no self in the brain, the self correlates with a mass of nerve cells. This is because the representation of self in logical space is different than the cells representing it, or even the electrons representing it.

Animus wrote:This is really confused Pincho. The brain doesn't consist of copper wiring. You can't make any strong analogies to electronics. The brain is electrochemical. I get what you are saying, but what you are saying does not eliminate the brain. You still need a medium. It isn't solely in the fllow of ions its in the computational output.

Take a look at this http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cat ... sciousness

It's the Scholarpedia.org (Peer-Reviewed Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience) list of articles on consciousness. This much is understood about consciousness in computational neuroscience. Adding to that there are electrons in the brain doesn't help at all. Besides your explanation isn't novel. There have been several field-theories of consciousness already. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Fie ... sciousness

However, none of these theories negate the existence of the brain as the paradigmatic physical medium of consciousness. It is the computational structure, in any case, which gives rise to the conscious field. I'm more inclined to think that consciousness is a virtual entity existing in a logical state space, and not a physical field of electrons. The field of electrons is constantly flowing, no electrons hang out in there. Consciousness as experience from a first-person perspective is not explained objectively except by a logical state space, a qualia space. This has no physical manifestation as such, nor is it supernatural. If I may use a loose analogy to electronics, it is like virtual memory/page file rather than physical memory/RAM in computers. The virtual memory has a physical substrate, the hard-drive, but is rather different from RAM. The logic emulates the operation of RAM on the HDD. This is just to demonstrate how a thing can be virtually different from its substrate. Ultimately RAM is better than HDD because it is on a BUS with the CPU and is closer proximity. But primarily it is physically designed for random access, while HDDs are designed for long-term storage. This analogically elucidates the relation between consciousness and the brain. For the brain operates in a way counterintuitive to conscious introspection (or so I hear, this is not my experience). There is no self in the brain, the self correlates with a mass of nerve cells. This is because the representation of self in logical space is different than the cells representing it, or even the electrons representing it.

I've been working on my theory of the Universe, and found something quite interesting about it...

I'm more inclined to think that consciousness is a virtual entity existing in a logical state space, and not a physical field of electrons. The field of electrons is constantly flowing, no electrons hang out in there.

An electron doesn't have single position, it can spread itself many miles outside of our body all at once. But can be anywhere in our skull in an instant. So all of our electrons can in fact be the same electron. It has a left side, and a right side twin. We have a left, and right brain. this could just be 1 electron doing everything.

Pincho Paxton wrote:An electron doesn't have single position, it can spread itself many miles outside of our body all at once. But can be anywhere in our skull in an instant. So all of our electrons can in fact be the same electron. It has a left side, and a right side twin. We have a left, and right brain. this could just be 1 electron doing everything.

It doesn't matter, because the content of consciousness is NOT THE SAME as an electron. Also conscious content is differentiated by a system of nerve cells. Even if all of consciousness was congruent to a single electron bouncing around in space, without a system of differentiation (as provided by neural networks) the content of the conscious electron would be NONE.

The fact is though, it isn't one electron floating around in your head. Your baseless notion does not add any explanatory value as regards the rich tapestry of consciousness, it only raises more questions. How does a single electron contain all the variant states and differentiated content of consciousness? The fact is, it doesn't. Its complete nonsense.

Honestly, is this the extent of debate about consciousness that the forum members are capable of?

mensa-maniac wrote:Hello Interested Parties

My consciousness reveals to me that my dual consciousnessess of both male and female are consciously aware of each others presence.

Please oblige me with your concept or understanding of consciousness.

Go here: Conjugial Love (Rogers) > http://e-swedenborg.com/writings/static/d6295/206.htm

Animus wrote:Honestly, is this the extent of debate about consciousness that the forum members are capable of?

It's leading edge. Just sort of strange. Nobody said the universe didn't have to be strange. Some pretty weird things happen in science.

Pincho Paxton wrote:It's leading edge. Just sort of strange. Nobody said the universe didn't have to be strange. Some pretty weird things happen in science.

What's strange is that you think you have a theory of consciousness.

I want to recommend some reading material on consciousness and brains:

Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul by Francis Crick

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy by Patricia Churchland

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey into the Brain by Paul Churchland

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


Neurophilosophy of Free Will: From Libertarian Illusions to a Concept of Natural Autonomy by Henrik Walter

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


Altered Egos: How The Brain Creates the Self by Todd E. Feinberg

http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Egos-Brai ... 0195152425


Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity by Thomas Metzinger

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self by Thomas Metzinger

http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Scienc ... 969&sr=1-1


The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary

http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Brain-N ... 0061625981


The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science by Norman Doidge

http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Change ... 0143113100


Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind by Gary Marcus

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


Conversations on Consciousness: What the Best Minds Think about the Brain, Free Will, and What It Means to Be Human by Susan Blackmore

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


Consciousness: An Introduction by Susan Blackmore

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82

Also worth a read:

Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence by David R Shaffer

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82


Psychology by Peter O. Gray

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html% ... 906P2NSD82

And let's not forget:

Kevin Solway - "Poison for the Heart" is one of the clearest expositions of wisdom ever written.

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html


Wisdom of the Infinite - An incisive book that rivals Chuang Tzu and Nagarjuna at their best. It begins with an examination of cause and effect and ends with an analysis of emptiness. It takes the reader's mind deep into the Infinite.

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ntents.htm

That "Spiritual Brain" is worth a read, but its a bit stupid. Let's put it this way, the authors never figured Dualism out. Most of the book is railing against "reductive materialism". Meanwhile the authors are both Neuroscientists, quite the contradiction. They spuriously make claims that something is immaterial then talk about what patterns of brain activity correlate. The best I can figure is that they are thinking of a logical state space, as mentioned above, but are trying to give it special properties. They never really go into detail about their own position. They more or less just attack the status quo in neurophilosophy. If you are like me and want to read stuff that is abrasive to your own understanding then its worth reading. Initially I felt a nagging feeling as I read the book, I had a strong desire to incinerate it, overcoming this temptation was a journey all in itself. However, by the time I finished it I was happy to have read it.

I think. If you want to study consciousness you have to do it a multitude of ways. One way is to study the introspective side of things, another way is to study the physical correlates. I think that it would be strange if our introspection and our physicality were disconnected. Our physical manifestation may not be a perfect description of our nature, but its a damn good platform for conceptualizing. Now, a "guru" might say that conceptualization is bad, but even this is only a concept. The purpose of conceptualizing is not to own the concepts its to clarify what is already a present phenomena. There are a lot of gurus that speak a lot of nonsense. The esoteric traditions are very useful, but they are just as misleading. Admittedly, neuroscience can be very confusing and misleading without a philosophical backbone. To take consciousness seriously we need to examine all of these ideas and observations. Perhaps the truth may be in-front of us the whole time and thinking won't bring us immediately closer. In Keith Loy's Finding Reality he argues that all we need is "Attentive Presence" and everything else is a "sideshow". Jed McKenna makes a similar argument in Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing. But these people are already coming from positions of knowledge. The reason people are not aware of reality is because they can't understand it. Loy himself claims to have spent more than a decade trying to find reality. It is useful and perhaps required to have a thought structure which facilitates the attentive presence. Simply to arrive at the understanding of "Attentive Presence" takes more than "Attentive Presence" itself. For one thing I'd have to at least read Loy's book.

There is probably never going to be a complete theory of consciousness. Not anything that someone can read and instantly become enlightened. I don't think this will happen, there is too much to learn on the road. For me the primary element of change is in the act not in the theorizing. The theorizing is a stimulant. If handled correctly it can be effective or if mishandled it can be a huge waste. As long as we know that it is possible for our minds to change then they can change, but if we don't take our hands of our ideas we fail to see beyond them. As long as we have that we shouldn't end up as drones in some nonsensical fad. Its too easy to read a book with total acceptance or florid disapproval, both approaches distort the interpretation of the reader. This happens a lot on message boards too. So, to me, consciousness is not a theory and no theory can make a person understand consciousness. They have to live it, look at it themselves. The "Attentive Presence" Kieth Loy talks about, except that if they don't have an idea of what they are looking at they probably won't see anything. They don't know where to direct their attention. Finding Reality is a multidimensional study and practice.