|
On July 03 2013 19:09 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 18:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 18:42 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? Your brain is translating your "thoughts" (which is something physical in your brain, just like your memories etc..) into a language (a level of abstraction of the information higher than your "thoughts"). It can be speaking, typing, writing or any other actions. With that you can affect everything else in the "material world" (you are affecting me right now). Note that the word thoughts is probably misleading, because it's definition is more an abstract concept than anything else. so skipping over a few logical inductions, you and doubleupgradeobbies! are saying that we all are physical variations of a quantum universe, right? (since your physicality and mine are exactly the same at atomic level, yet those same atoms give rise to different thoughts, the difference could only be explained via quantum theory, right?) Not at all. Again, think of a computer. You and I can sit with identical computers, but mine can be running a different program than yours. We can run the same program and get different results, because I have different data in memory. Same is true with the brain, you having a different emotion about an event doesn't have to come from some quantum mechanics, it's enough that you have different memories and experiences saved in your brain which the event gets associated with.
you are just agreeing with me. at atom level, a different emotion, a different program, different memories and experiences are just quantum variations.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 03 2013 18:57 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 18:42 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? Your brain is translating your "thoughts" (which is something physical in your brain, just like your memories etc..) into a language (a level of abstraction of the information higher than your "thoughts"). It can be speaking, typing, writing or any other actions. With that you can affect everything else in the "material world" (you are affecting me right now). Note that the word thoughts is probably misleading, because it's definition is more an abstract concept than anything else. so skipping over a few logical inductions, you and doubleupgradeobbies! are saying that we all are physical variations of a quantum universe, right? (since your physicality and mine are exactly the same at atomic level, yet those same atoms give rise to different thoughts, the difference could only be explained via quantum theory, right?)
Nope. We might 'possess' or 'consist of' atoms that behave the same way. But we have a different amount of them, we have different distributions of different elements/isotopes, and their arrangement is vastly different (obviously), that is to say we are biologically different, heck we're even genetically different (I would hope  ). On top of all that, even if we are to dismiss the chemical components of brain biology, we would have different numbers of neurons/axons and they would be arranged and interconnected in vastly different ways. Then, again, on top of that, we have had vastly different life experiences, which both feeds back into how the brain is wired, as well has the sorts of input it has had to process.
So to make another analogy(cos I love me some analogies), if we were to think of both of us as two computers. We would have different architectures(say your a standard PC, and I'm a soft processor configured onto an FPGA), different brands of components(eg you have intel parts, I am Altera), different operational resources (you have a more powerful GPU), are running different algorithms (eg your playing a game, I'm acting as a controller for some industrial automation). And on top of all that even if we were running the same algorithm, we'd be in different program states.
So just like the 2 computer systems, while we consist of atoms that behave generally in the same ways, on top of that we are even in the same family of machine (PCs, software processors, same principle really. Or in our case carbon based DNA encoded lifeforms) the arrangement of those atoms, is overwhelmingly different. We are different on architectural, algorithmic and state based levels. Is it really surprising that we don't come up with the same thoughts?
The difference is not really in quantum theory, quantum effects are so small, and we are such large systems that quantum effects sort of get averaged out with so many quantum interactions coexisting. We are, however, vastly different emergent behaviours resulting from immensely complex and immensely numerous interactions of the rules of physics (including quantum effects).
In short, we run on the same basic set of rules, but those rules can interact with each other allowing incredible range of possibilities (without being inconsistent with the original rules), we are two vastly different expressions(in the greater scheme of things we're not that different, but whatever) out of the essentially infinite number of possible expressions that arise from those rules interacting with each other.
|
On July 03 2013 19:19 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 19:09 Tobberoth wrote:On July 03 2013 18:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 18:42 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? Your brain is translating your "thoughts" (which is something physical in your brain, just like your memories etc..) into a language (a level of abstraction of the information higher than your "thoughts"). It can be speaking, typing, writing or any other actions. With that you can affect everything else in the "material world" (you are affecting me right now). Note that the word thoughts is probably misleading, because it's definition is more an abstract concept than anything else. so skipping over a few logical inductions, you and doubleupgradeobbies! are saying that we all are physical variations of a quantum universe, right? (since your physicality and mine are exactly the same at atomic level, yet those same atoms give rise to different thoughts, the difference could only be explained via quantum theory, right?) Not at all. Again, think of a computer. You and I can sit with identical computers, but mine can be running a different program than yours. We can run the same program and get different results, because I have different data in memory. Same is true with the brain, you having a different emotion about an event doesn't have to come from some quantum mechanics, it's enough that you have different memories and experiences saved in your brain which the event gets associated with. you are just agreeing with me. at atom level, a different emotion, a different program, different memories and experiences are just quantum variations.
I don't see where you get that idea. The contents of your computers RAM memory has nothing to do with quantum variations. Obviously, the electricity in the RAM and the physical memory is made up of molecules and in turn atoms and thus in turn quantum particles, but the variations of the quantum particles make no difference in what is saved in the RAM (if it did, RAM memory wouldn't work. Nor would anything else for that matter.)
|
On July 03 2013 19:25 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 18:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 18:42 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? Your brain is translating your "thoughts" (which is something physical in your brain, just like your memories etc..) into a language (a level of abstraction of the information higher than your "thoughts"). It can be speaking, typing, writing or any other actions. With that you can affect everything else in the "material world" (you are affecting me right now). Note that the word thoughts is probably misleading, because it's definition is more an abstract concept than anything else. so skipping over a few logical inductions, you and doubleupgradeobbies! are saying that we all are physical variations of a quantum universe, right? (since your physicality and mine are exactly the same at atomic level, yet those same atoms give rise to different thoughts, the difference could only be explained via quantum theory, right?) Nope. We might 'possess' or 'consist of' atoms that behave the same way. But we have a different amount of them, we have different distributions of different elements/isotopes, and their arrangement is vastly different (obviously), that is to say we are biologically different, heck we're even genetically different (I would hope ). On top of all that, even if we are to dismiss the chemical components of brain biology, we would have different numbers of neurons/axons and they would be arranged and interconnected in vastly different ways. Then, again, on top of that, we have had vastly different life experiences, which both feeds back into how the brain is wired, as well has the sorts of input it has had to process. So to make another analogy(cos I love me some analogies), if we were to think of both of us as two computers. We would have different architectures(say your a standard PC, and I'm a soft processor configured onto an FPGA), different brands of components(eg you have intel parts, I am Altera), different operational resources (you have a more powerful GPU), are running different algorithms (eg your playing a game, I'm acting as a controller for some industrial automation). And on top of all that even if we were running the same algorithm, we'd be in different program states. So just like the 2 computer systems, while we consist of atoms that behave generally in the same ways, on top of that we are even in the same family of machine (PCs, software processors, same principle really. Or in our case carbon based DNA encoded lifeforms) the arrangement of those atoms, is overwhelmingly different. We are different on an architectural, algorithmic and state based level. Is it really surprising that we don't come up with the same thoughts? The difference is not really in quantum theory, quantum effects are so small, and we are such large systems that quantum effects sort of get averaged out with so many quantum interactions coexisting. We are, however, vastly different emergent behaviours resulting from immensely complex and immensely numerous interactions of the rules of physics (including quantum effects).
now you are just making statements  . if i were to ask you why those statements came to be true (not whether or not they are true) how would you reply?
ex:
But we have a different amount of them, we have different distributions of different elements/isotopes, and their arrangement is vastly different (obviously), that is to say we are biologically different, heck we're even genetically different (I would hope ).
why do we have a different amount of them?, why do we have different distributions, why do have different isotopes, and so on ...
i am calling them chain linked quantum variations. even if you state that they exist because you observe them that way it wouldn't explain why you observe them that way or why they exist that way.
your logic is at a macroscopic scale and contained within what you can observe. go beyond it or at least switch to a microscopic scale: the first amoeba that came to exist was a result of a quantum variation within atoms in a given environment.
your computer analogy, all computer analogies, fail on a basic level. you defined 1 and 0. 1 and 0 so implicitly the algorithm, exist because you said so, because you created them. you can't apply the same logic to atoms or the universe or whatever else because you didn't define those, because you would be talking about God 
( i read your edits)
|
So you all here believe dan dennet, that self consciousness is just an ilusion and the byproduct of a huge "army of idiots" saying yes or no?
And that in the end, if we make a system of enough bits and program it the right way it would be self aware like we are?>
Am curious about how you people see self consciousness, i can not deduct a clear vieuw on this in these posts.
How are you guys seeing (self) consciousness?
|
On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces
yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this:
if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so.
basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale?
a universe with thoughts.
our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe.
|
|
|
On July 03 2013 20:07 Rassy wrote:
So you all here believe dan dennet, that self consciousness is just an ilusion and the byproduct of a huge "army of idiots" saying yes or no?
And that in the end, if we make a system of enough bits and program it the right way it would be self aware like we are?>
Am curious about how you people see self consciousness, i can not deduct a clear vieuw on this in these posts.
How are you guys seeing (self) consciousness?
yes, definitely yes. For me, this is something which is bound to happen (it might take a while obviously).
|
I am not too sure on the exact details, but doesn't self consciousness arise at a given age ?
So it would start with sensorial inputs, creating a basic consciousness, and only later the brain would be able to recognize those as his, maybe from the fact that his feelings seem differents from anyone else's.
The evolution of the brain from birth is something missing from the computer analogy, but it seems crucial to me.
|
On July 03 2013 20:21 Rassy wrote:
Yes that is perfectly possible in theory
geez, i give up on you guys and annything interesting coming from this thread.
if you are so advanced!, entertain this idea: when everything is(pre)determined, nothing is expendable.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 03 2013 20:04 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 19:25 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 03 2013 18:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 18:42 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? Your brain is translating your "thoughts" (which is something physical in your brain, just like your memories etc..) into a language (a level of abstraction of the information higher than your "thoughts"). It can be speaking, typing, writing or any other actions. With that you can affect everything else in the "material world" (you are affecting me right now). Note that the word thoughts is probably misleading, because it's definition is more an abstract concept than anything else. so skipping over a few logical inductions, you and doubleupgradeobbies! are saying that we all are physical variations of a quantum universe, right? (since your physicality and mine are exactly the same at atomic level, yet those same atoms give rise to different thoughts, the difference could only be explained via quantum theory, right?) Nope. We might 'possess' or 'consist of' atoms that behave the same way. But we have a different amount of them, we have different distributions of different elements/isotopes, and their arrangement is vastly different (obviously), that is to say we are biologically different, heck we're even genetically different (I would hope ). On top of all that, even if we are to dismiss the chemical components of brain biology, we would have different numbers of neurons/axons and they would be arranged and interconnected in vastly different ways. Then, again, on top of that, we have had vastly different life experiences, which both feeds back into how the brain is wired, as well has the sorts of input it has had to process. So to make another analogy(cos I love me some analogies), if we were to think of both of us as two computers. We would have different architectures(say your a standard PC, and I'm a soft processor configured onto an FPGA), different brands of components(eg you have intel parts, I am Altera), different operational resources (you have a more powerful GPU), are running different algorithms (eg your playing a game, I'm acting as a controller for some industrial automation). And on top of all that even if we were running the same algorithm, we'd be in different program states. So just like the 2 computer systems, while we consist of atoms that behave generally in the same ways, on top of that we are even in the same family of machine (PCs, software processors, same principle really. Or in our case carbon based DNA encoded lifeforms) the arrangement of those atoms, is overwhelmingly different. We are different on an architectural, algorithmic and state based level. Is it really surprising that we don't come up with the same thoughts? The difference is not really in quantum theory, quantum effects are so small, and we are such large systems that quantum effects sort of get averaged out with so many quantum interactions coexisting. We are, however, vastly different emergent behaviours resulting from immensely complex and immensely numerous interactions of the rules of physics (including quantum effects). now you are just making statements . if i were to ask you why those statements came to be true (not whether or not they are true) how would you reply? ex: Show nested quote +But we have a different amount of them, we have different distributions of different elements/isotopes, and their arrangement is vastly different (obviously), that is to say we are biologically different, heck we're even genetically different (I would hope ). why do we have a different amount of them?, why do we have different distributions, why do have different isotopes, and so on ... i am calling them chain linked quantum variations. even if you state that they exist because you observe them that way it wouldn't explain why you observe them that way or why they exist that way. your logic is at a macroscopic scale and contained within what you can observe. go beyond it or at least switch to a microscopic scale: the first amoeba that came to exist was a result of a quantum variation within atoms in a given environment. your computer analogy, all computer analogies, fail on a basic level. you defined 1 and 0. 1 and 0 so implicitly the algorithm, exist because you said so, because you created them. you can't apply the same logic to atoms or the universe or whatever else because you didn't define those, because you would be talking about God ( i read your edits)
I'll start off by saying the rules of quantum physics (and physics in general) came to be true, my honest answer would be: 'Why is not a meaningful question for the state of existence, or at the very least not one that we can meaningfully answer at this stage'
Usually when people explore the question of 'Why?' in science they actually mean 'How?' eg emergent behaviours being explained as the interaction of their constituent behaviours, and how those interactions occur. If you really mean Why?, then you are making the assumption that reality has a purpose. I personally don't see any evidence suggesting purpose to existence, but if there is, I don't pretend to understand what that purpose is, in fact I don't even pretend to be able to imagine what cognitive tools I would need to be able to understand that purpose.
So for all those macroscopic statements, the why is effectively synonymous with the how, the answer to 'Why?' is because these interactions are consistent the laws of physics. The 'How?' are those laws of physics themselves.
It's when you get down to when you can no longer ask how? that it gets tricky. I believe quantum physics, gravity, other theories at the cutting edge of theoretical physics are just the frontier of a long chain of 'How?'. If we boiled down all of existence to that level, and:
-You asked me 'How?' I would say that we are at the extent of our knowledge, I certainly don't know more than our physicists.
-You asked me 'Why?' I would say that the question can't be meaningfully answered.
As for why this particular expression of existence is observed, when there are near infinite possible states that are still consistent with the laws of physics, I still think this implies a purpose to existence. It could have been any of the possible consistent states, there is no particular reason it had to be this one, but it did have to be some state and at the end of the day this state is as valid as any other, why not?
|
On July 03 2013 20:37 Cynry wrote:
I am not too sure on the exact details, but doesn't self consciousness arise at a given age ?
So it would start with sensorial inputs, creating a basic consciousness, and only later the brain would be able to recognize those as his, maybe from the fact that his feelings seem differents from anyone else's.
The evolution of the brain from birth is something missing from the computer analogy, but it seems crucial to me.
There is always something missing from analogies, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy, it would simply be brain = computer.
We are biological creatures, we all come from simple DNA, this DNA doesn't have any consciousness either but it gives the "guidelines" to create the brain. Once the brain is fully functional, it can start solving more difficult problems. If you want to take the building time of the computer into account, it's kinda the same thing.
|
Edit : no no no I won't be mean today
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 03 2013 20:37 Cynry wrote:
I am not too sure on the exact details, but doesn't self consciousness arise at a given age ?
So it would start with sensorial inputs, creating a basic consciousness, and only later the brain would be able to recognize those as his, maybe from the fact that his feelings seem differents from anyone else's.
The evolution of the brain from birth is something missing from the computer analogy, but it seems crucial to me.
Only because we are using models of both computers and the brain that are too simplified.
From the computer perspective, you might be able to achieve some definition of self awareness through machine learning algorithms and such (obviously not yet). It becomes more analogous if you had some kind of reconfigurable device (like an FPGA) that was able to reconfigure itself on the fly, in conjunction with learning algorithms (since the brain does kinda reconfigure itself, not just the 'software'). In which case a computer could like a brain start off not capable of self conciousness/awareness, but 'grow into it'.
From a more materialistic perspective, you could say that the brain of an underdeveloped baby that hasn't yet achieved self conciousness is in fact incapable of self conciousness, it is merely capable of ACHIEVING self conciousness. In which case it is only considered self concious once it has achieved it. In which case the computer analogy would still work, since there is no rule that there self awareness has to be achieved via an internal process, just happens that the brain is a system that does that. Nothing stopping a computer from just being self aware with the right algorithm/hardware.
|
On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Show nested quote +Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action.
First there are different levels of abstraction in describing the world. Biological concepts are not invalidated by us saying that physics is behind them all. Same goes for psychological concepts. They are just abstractions of the important aspects of the physical description so we do not drown in unnecessary details. Your quote is the same.
Treating psychologically means talking (and other interactions) and that means external input to the system. The fact that brain processes "information" means that external stimuli change the brain itself, because by processing those information brain changes itself. Nothing non-physical is required. The only thing required is for the brain to not be closed system, and brain is not closed system. So no issue there at all.
|
So the question wouldn't be "what is self consciouness ?" because it is constructed by the brain, but rather how come we possess the ability (and the need ? Humans can't live without that, right ?) to construct this concept ? Any evolution specialist around ?
|
On July 03 2013 20:39 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 20:21 Rassy wrote:
Yes that is perfectly possible in theory
geez, i give up on you guys and annything interesting coming from this thread. if you are so advanced!, entertain this idea: when everything is(pre)determined, nothing is expendable.
I am not advanced at all, and i am sry for me getting annoyed with some of the posters here and showing that in that post (not you btw)
I dont know what to think of that idea, and it does not realy entertain me, i dont even realy know exactly what the word expendable means in this context.
Have fun with this thread, i wont post on it annymore. I sincerely hope something good and interesting regarding the workings and the origin of selfconsciousness will come out of the thread.
We can all repeat what we have learned,and we can all learn from the multiple sources around the internet and librarys.
And since nearly everyone learns the same verry few new things come to the surface in these discussions.
I am looking for new and original ideas since thoose are what bring science forward. New ideas and discussions about them are rare though, since it is much safer to stick with things most people agree on and wich you have learned, then you dont risk making a fool out of yourself by saying something stupid or having silly ideas.
Am sry to have disrupted the discussion here and wont try it again.
|
Is this question all bits and bytes?
|
On July 03 2013 20:14 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 19:00 snejja wrote:On July 03 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 03 2013 17:47 DertoQq wrote:On July 03 2013 17:37 xM(Z wrote:so how would you explain phobias? or, if everything is physical, why are phobias 'treated' psychologically?. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can be beneficial. Cognitive behavioral therapy allows the patient to challenge dysfunctional thoughts or beliefs by being mindful of their own feelings with the aim that the patient will realize their fear is irrational why would the realization of the irrationality of said fear, treat/cure a physical mechanism?. even if it would not provide a cure, it does seem like the mind/consciousness has some control power over the manifestation of physical mechanisms. my general/current take on stuff: one can not control the reaction but he can control the action. laws of the universe/physics/chemistry/biology control the reaction, free will controls the action. Because a psychological treatment is technically a physical treatment. Every time you speak to someone you alter his brain physically. When someone is sad, it is easier to give him a reason not to be sad instead of opening his brain and cutting through it. then, if our thoughts/reason can affect the physical world why would it be limited to only our physical body?. why our thoughts couldn't affect everything else in the material world? because weak electric impulses and small amount of chemicals, confined in a biologically armored head have very little possibility to affect anything beyond brain itself and connected to brain muscles/organs. they could affect EEG, though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain–computer_interfaces yes but the point i wanted to eventually get to with that, is this: if we, with our weak electric impulses can (and do) control our own physical body why couldn't another entity, like the universe, control its own body?. it would definitely have the energy to do so. basically if a mechanism is valid at a micro scale, why wouldn't it be valid at a macro scale? a universe with thoughts. our evolution pre-determined by thoughts of the universe.
Because our control of our body is result of biological evolution and has evolutionary purpose. Universe could have the same property, but as far as we know it is not true. It would require universe to be purposeful in the same sense as organisms are. Our current view is that universe is just a bunch of matter organized by physical laws. But as I said it could be so, but what is relevance of this to this discussion ?
|
On July 03 2013 20:07 Rassy wrote:
So you all here believe dan dennet, that self consciousness is just an ilusion and the byproduct of a huge "army of idiots" saying yes or no?
And that in the end, if we make a system of enough bits and program it the right way it would be self aware like we are?>
Am curious about how you people see self consciousness, i can not deduct a clear vieuw on this in these posts.
How are you guys seeing (self) consciousness?
I wouldn't call it an illusion, more like an ingrained fallacy. "Yes yes of course my brain is designed to have experiences, but that doesn't explain why I am having experiences!" Except it does, because you are your brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
