Multiple consciousnesses in one body

pl0bs · **#21** by **pl0bs** » Apr 18, 2015 7:46 pm

Animavore wrote:Do I look to an electric eel's organ when I want to understand how the heart works?
Your analogy is getting dumber.

The heart specialises in pumping fluids, which is just motion, and has been around long before hearts. Btw, electric charge also plays an important role in the heart.

Neither does the electric charges in the brain. What's your point?

Ppl make the claim that C vanishes. Now you can see how unnatural that would be.

This fucks up your analogy even further. Electric charges are electric charges. It doesn't matter how complex the machine is that generates them. It's still the same thing. There is no complexity to fundamental particles.

Electric shocks can differ in strength, shape/direction.

What is the relationship between complexity of material substance and the complexity of immaterial substance? Why does one affect the other?

Because of monism. They are the same on some fundamental level that we dont know of right now.

Water isn't like electricity at all. Your analogies are wild and all over the place.

I can actually pick any system from nature and it will support my views on consciousness (because i base my views on what is known about nature), and reject the supernatural ones of materialism. Water, electric charge, spacetime, tvs, the internet, toilet paper, etc. None of them work the way materialists claim consciousness does.

Explain this process otherwise all you're doing is saying stuff.

Simple example. Remove one type of lightcone from the eye and the complexity of vision is decreased (one can see fewer different colors).

Explain how C has variety? How does C make use of the information one gets from vibrations in the ear to create sound?

Another analogy for you: shine light at a prism, and it diffracts into different wavelengths. A simple C can, because of the structure of the brain, have many different kinds of experiences.

Youre welcome.

pl0bs · **#22** by **pl0bs** » Apr 18, 2015 7:52 pm

Didnt you see i said that C existed before space did?

Animavore · **#23** by **Animavore** » Apr 18, 2015 7:56 pm

pl0bs wrote:The heart specialises in pumping fluids, which is just motion, and has been around long before hearts. Btw, electric charge also plays an important role in the heart.

That still deosn't explain how the brain works.

pl0bs wrote:Ppl make the claim that C vanishes. Now you can see how unnatural that would be.

Nope. They make the claim the brain ceases functioning.

pl0bs wrote:Electric shocks can differ in strength, shape/direction.

But not in complexity.

Pwned.

pl0bs wrote:Because of monism. They are the same on some fundamental level that we dont know of right now.

You may as well of said, "Because; reasons". You don't seem to know jack about the stuff you are asserting happens with some authority.

pl0bs wrote:I can actually pick any system from nature and it will support my views on consciousness (because i base my views on what is known about nature), and reject the supernatural ones of materialism. Water, electric charge, spacetime, tvs, the internet, toilet paper, etc. None of them work the way materialists claim consciousness does.

None of them work the same way as each other either. Does anything you say at all actually have a point?

pl0bs wrote:Simple example. Remove one type of lightcone from the eye and the complexity of vision is decreased (one can see fewer different colors).

Nope. The range of vision is decreased. Not the complexity.

This doesn't explain at all how C branches out into sound, sight, semll, taste etc. Not even close.

pl0bs wrote:Another analogy for you: shine light at a prism, and it diffracts into different wavelengths. A simple C can, because of the structure of the brain, have many different kinds of experiences.

How does the structure of the brain seperate C into a myriad experiences?

pl0bs wrote:
Youre welcome.

Thanks for nothing.

Animavore · **#24** by **Animavore** » Apr 18, 2015 7:56 pm

pl0bs wrote:Didnt you see i said that C existed before space did?

I usually hear what people say.

pl0bs · **#25** by **pl0bs** » Apr 18, 2015 8:22 pm

Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Didnt you see i said that C existed before space did?

I usually hear what people say.

Do you agree that C existed before space did?

Animavore · **#26** by **Animavore** » Apr 18, 2015 8:25 pm

pl0bs wrote:
Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Didnt you see i said that C existed before space did?

I usually hear what people say.
Do you agree that C existed before space did?

This suggests space had a beginning. I can't say for certain it did. Therefore I can't agree or disagree.

pl0bs · **#27** by **pl0bs** » Apr 18, 2015 8:33 pm

Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:The heart specialises in pumping fluids, which is just motion, and has been around long before hearts. Btw, electric charge also plays an important role in the heart.

That still deosn't explain how the brain works.

pl0bs wrote:Ppl make the claim that C vanishes. Now you can see how unnatural that would be.

Nope. They make the claim the brain ceases functioning.

pl0bs wrote:Electric shocks can differ in strength, shape/direction.

But not in complexity.

Pwned.

pl0bs wrote:Because of monism. They are the same on some fundamental level that we dont know of right now.

You may as well of said, "Because; reasons". You don't seem to know jack about the stuff you are asserting happens with some authority.

pl0bs wrote:I can actually pick any system from nature and it will support my views on consciousness (because i base my views on what is known about nature), and reject the supernatural ones of materialism. Water, electric charge, spacetime, tvs, the internet, toilet paper, etc. None of them work the way materialists claim consciousness does.

None of them work the same way as each other either. Does anything you say at all actually have a point?

pl0bs wrote:Simple example. Remove one type of lightcone from the eye and the complexity of vision is decreased (one can see fewer different colors).

Nope. The range of vision is decreased. Not the complexity.

This doesn't explain at all how C branches out into sound, sight, semll, taste etc. Not even close.

pl0bs wrote:Another analogy for you: shine light at a prism, and it diffracts into different wavelengths. A simple C can, because of the structure of the brain, have many different kinds of experiences.

How does the structure of the brain seperate C into a myriad experiences?

pl0bs wrote:
Youre welcome.

Thanks for nothing.

I dont feel like responding to all that, so i wont.

But at least youve got a little glimpse of the rational and natural way to look at consciousness, and at how irrational materialism is. Imagine someone came up to you and said that atoms are created in toilet rolls and dont exist outside of them. Or that when a toilet roll is crushed, the atoms totally vanish. Or that some new force exists in toilet rolls, because they are sooo complex.

Btw, to see how the different kind of experiences may actually stem from an undifferentiated simpler C, you need to first imagine the simpler forms of those sensory experiences. So lets take sight and sound. Imagine you only see the color white, you see no different shades or intensities or speckles, just one constant color. You will find that you have gone virtually blind. Now imagine you are hearing one sound, no different tones or volumes, just one constant sound. You will find you have gone virtually deaf. Compare those two states with eachother and see if you can tell them apart.

pl0bs · **#28** by **pl0bs** » Apr 18, 2015 8:34 pm

Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:
Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Didnt you see i said that C existed before space did?

I usually hear what people say.
Do you agree that C existed before space did?

This suggests space had a beginning. I can't say for certain it did. Therefore I can't agree or disagree.

Big bang.

Clive Durdle · **#29** by **Clive Durdle** » Apr 18, 2015 8:35 pm

Multiplicity

How multiple are you?

Have you ever woken in the small hours groaning with embarrassment at the memory of something you did the night before? Or watched someone you thought you knew well turn into a stranger before your eyes?

We each tend to think that we are just one person - a single, continuous, and consistent self. But the truth is that we are each a group of personalities and we slip and slide from one to the other as we encounter different situations.

Once each personality recognises the others, they can start to recognise each others' strengths and weaknesses and between them decide which one should be in control at any time.

Multiplicity explains how personalities are made and kept separate in the human brain, how to discover it in yourself and how to recognise, identify and take control of your various personalities.

Published by Little Brown (March 2008 in UK, April 2008 in US).

http://www.ritacarter.co.uk/books.html

Animavore · **#30** by **Animavore** » Apr 18, 2015 8:45 pm

pl0bs wrote:I dont feel like responding to all that, so i wont.

Because you can't.

pl0bs wrote:
But at least youve got a little glimpse of the rational and natural way to look at consciousness, and at how irrational materialism is.

Nope. All I've learned is how lacking in explanation your views are.

pl0bs wrote:Imagine someone came up to you and said that atoms are created in toilet rolls and dont exist outside of them. Or that when a toilet roll is crushed, the atoms totally vanish. Or that some new force exists in toilet rolls, because they are sooo complex.

This doesn't even qualify as a red-herring.

pl0bs wrote:Btw, to see how the different kind of experiences may actually stem from an undifferentiated simpler C, you need to first imagine the simpler forms of those sensory experiences. So lets take sight and sound. Imagine you only see the color white, you see no different shades or intensities or speckles, just one constant color. You will find that you have gone virtually blind. Now imagine you are hearing one sound, no different tones or volumes, just one constant sound. You will find you have gone virtually deaf. Compare those two states with eachother and see if you can tell them apart.

Meaningless gibberish. And, of course, none of it expalins the how of anything.

Animavore · **#31** by **Animavore** » Apr 18, 2015 8:46 pm

pl0bs wrote:Big bang.

What about it?

SafeAsMilk · **#32** by **SafeAsMilk** » Apr 18, 2015 9:40 pm

I wonder how long he'll go on without presenting any evidence for consciousness existing without brains, and ignoring that we only see consciousness in things with brains...as long as you don't stretch the definition so much that you yelling at a rock and having your breath knock some sand off it makes the rock conscious.

Pwned. Again. Awaiting more herrings and projections.

pl0bs · **#33** by **pl0bs** » Apr 18, 2015 9:54 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:<snaps>and ignoring that we only see consciousness in things with brains<snaps>

Oh? Evidence?

pl0bs · **#34** by **pl0bs** » Apr 18, 2015 9:55 pm

Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Big bang.

What about it?

Space began.

Animavore · **#35** by **Animavore** » Apr 18, 2015 10:43 pm

pl0bs wrote:
Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Big bang.

What about it?
Space began.

Are you sure?

Onyx8 · **#36** by **Onyx8** » Apr 18, 2015 10:45 pm

pl0bs wrote:
Animavore wrote:
pl0bs wrote:Big bang.

What about it?
Space began.

Says who?

Scar · **#37** by **Scar** » Apr 18, 2015 11:00 pm

pl0bs wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:<snaps>and ignoring that we only see consciousness in things with brains<snaps>
Oh? Evidence?

Since when do you care about evidence?

epepke · **#38** by **epepke** » Apr 19, 2015 5:23 am

Split-brain patients, in whom the corpus callosum has been cut, express the experience of watching their hands reach for something that they did not want. They also talk to themselves a lot. The best explanation, I think, is that the two hemispheres in their brains are acting independently, making what we could call decisions.

That's as close to talking about multiple consciousnesses in a body as I am comfortable with.

The comment about the subconscious is, I think, not as bad as it might appear. Although no such thing as a Freudian or Jungian subconscious exists, the ideas can be taken as metaphorical representations of something that is real and is much better understood now than it was then. The process that I think was approximated by "sublimation into the subconscious" is pretty well understood these days.

The fundamental error was thinking of the subconscious as a "thing," when it's really a rough approximation of a process. This is also the error that I think pl0bs is making with consciousness.

chairman bill · **#39** by **chairman bill** » Apr 19, 2015 9:04 am

Scar wrote:Since when do you care about evidence?

When it in any way supports his case, otherwise it doesn't count

pl0bs · **#40** by **pl0bs** » Apr 19, 2015 10:57 am

epepke wrote:The fundamental error was thinking of the subconscious as a "thing," when it's really a rough approximation of a process. This is also the error that I think pl0bs is making with consciousness.

Its just a different noun, thats it.

For anyone who thinks things are seperate from processes: try to come up with a thing with no processes going on.

Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Re: Multiple consciousnesses in one body

Who is online