DRFseven

Hi, ex. One point that maybe is not coming through to koy is that learning in a human (as compared to a machine) always comprises a change in chemical composition of the neurons that respond to the stimulus. The result is that the individual's actual behavior changes to reflect this cellular change. This describes the learning process.

Koy, are you maybe saying that cellular changes do not describe sentient thought? Is that the "sticking point" you are referring to?

Koyaanisqatsi

What would be the difference?

You are not addressing the most important point I raised to you; the fact that these people would have no idea what the word "soul" meant unless they were already programmed with such a concept and terminology.

Your analogy would only be applicable if the church I went to was a congregation of absolute materialists who have never heard the word "soul."

If they were intelligent people who weren't programmed to believe that they are just right and nothing else can ever be right as a necessary condition of being a member of the church, yes.

And had never heard of the word "soul," yet were easily programmed to believe in it.

I seek only to deconstruct that programming so that those same ignorant people don't remain ignorant for their entire lives.

Because that would be the truth...

So, let me get this straight, luvluv. You're saying that Jesus lied to people about the true nature of their (and his) existence because they were too stupid to understand the truth, which is not the case.

Jesus lied to people about the true nature of their (and his) existence because he was a cult leader who sought to manipulate and control them for his (and his cult's) agenda and never knew the "true" nature of human existence, but was able to manipulate those ignorant people because he intuited just enough of the innate truth to sell it.

This is the .0001 percent of the puzzle: how does a "zero" (inanimate) become a "one" (animate). Jesus/Paul took that question that is universal to all and said, "We have the answer. The answer is that a mystical God King magically *poofed* the zero to a one in order to punish us all for not obeying him! He then split himself into flesh and I AM I AM so fear and obey me! When authority hits you, let them. When the elite wants your property, give it to them. Do no ever question anything at all for your entire lives, for I am love and I will save you when you're dead, but there's no guarantees and you'll probably burn eternally in hell with everyone else."

What I am attempting is what Jesus should have said, had he actually been a legitimate teacher actually concerned about humanity discovering the true nature of their existence, so you keep getting it wrong. Jesus/Paul (whoever actually created the cult) did the polar opposite of what I am attempting; to free the mind, not enslave it.

See the distinction? That's why your analogy and my use of the analogy ends at the terminology level.

See? You couldn't have provided a more perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are one hundred and eighty degrees in the wrong direction, which is why you can hear "I come to bring a sword, not peace," and think, "I come to bring peace, not a sword."

They're aware of a "self;" only the cult calls it a "soul" in any relevant way and this is precisely my point. It is not a "soul," it is a "self," and its origins have nothing to do with a magical god king that created us all in order to punish us for not worshipping him.

This is exactly how the cult uses just enough of the truth to manipulate and control you.

Another example--in keeping with my theory-thing here--is the notion that God is "in" all of us and "whosoever hurts the least among you" hurts God; I contend this is the sub conscious projection of the innate "true nature" of all matter being conscious (again, refer back to my extension of Freudian projection theory on this).

We are all telling ourselves over and over and over again in our art, literature, religion, science the clues to our "true nature" (for lack of a better term), thus, when cult dogma says, "God is in all of us and we are all a part of God," the correct translation is "all matter is conscious and therefore we are all connected on a fundamental, inherent level to every single particle in the entire four dimensional universe," IMO.

This puts the focus on the right topic and not on a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked us all into existence in order to punish us for our sins.

Got it? The innate, intuitive truth is stolen by the cult in order to tack on the fear-based ending designed to enslave people, not free them.

Categorically false. You are describing the result of necessary cult programming so that no one in the cult discovers they are being lied to about the "true" nature of the self (and the cult).

What is "self-evident" in need of no explanation about a "spirit" that is magically breathed into you somehow by an ineffable, all powerful, vengeful God who is to be feared because of his ability to kill both body and spirit in the eternal fires of an unimaginable place called "Hell?"

Everything about that nonsense screams for explanation, which is why the members are conditioned never to ask for it, just except it on faith (or face Hell for not doing so).

Religion--ultimately--does not and never has sought to help people in "learning how to live." It's a dictatorial construct: live the way we tell you to live or face Hell.

The way that decree is softened and the ultimate agenda hidden, of course, is through the rehashing of simplistic platitudes, such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Basic, ancient humanism that's as old as cave paintings.

Just look at the New Testament. All the creators of the christian cult did was rewrite the Old Testament!

Also false. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "The truth shall set you free?" How can you "learn how to live" if everything you have been told about life is a bald-face lie, or, worse, just enough of the truth to get you to face in the completely opposite direction, as I contend you are doing, evidenced by your comments above? That the fundamental basis for your entire existence is a cult sham to get you to become largely subservient, compliant, worker drones, conditioned to suffer now and be rewarded later (the slave mentality and underlying purpose of christianity, IMO)?

How can "learn how to live" on your own if you are told lies? You can't, which is why cult members don't learn how to live on their own, they are dependent upon the cult for guidance, which is, of course, the goal and purpose of the cult.


Well, that's because I just came up with it (over the last couple of months) and am openly posting it here because most of the people who post here are exceedingly intelligent, critical thinkers that will help me either improve and augment the theory or show me why it is not tenable and/or missing a crucial explanatory element that would force me to discard it.

It is necessarily mutable, unlike christianity, I should add, and that's why the scientific approach is superior to cult mentality.

I have freely granted over and over that my thoughts are not complete on this matter, which is precisely why I've posted it and opened it up to skeptical scrutiny.

Again, you are demonstrating the detrimental qualities of your cult conditioning; seeking any excuse possible in order to dismiss a concept because it threatens the cult. I have freely granted it is not complete. In fact, this is only the second time I have posted it and the first time I have posted it in any detail (thanks greatly to excreationist and DRF and to you for critically assailing it).

My glass on this is not even one-tenth full yet and you're saying, "No one's thirst will be quenched with such a little bit of water! Destroy the whole glass!"

Again, more evidence of the detriments of cult mentality. You've just stated that "people" need to be lied to in order for it to do them any good in their daily lives.

It's astounding to me that you so clearly and plainly understand exactly what cults do and why they do it--you're parroting the Grand Inquisitor from The Brother's Karamazov, by the way--and yet cannot then self reflect upon their own words enough to see how unnecessary and horrific the meaning and resultant view on life truly is.

What good is the possible truth when people need lies to get through the day?

How could you possibly understand the purpose and intent of the scientific method when you've been so operantly conditioned to accept and, worse, believe that statement to be true?

Before cult members heard the word "soul," they didn't have "common parlance," so the introduction of that term was just as confusing and convoluted as what I've posted; the difference being, of course, that I'm not threatening anyone into just accepting it or be thrown into Hell.

That's the great thing about being free from a cult; you don't have to KNOW, you only have to engage other intelligent, free thinking people into examining the construct/theory (whatever) to see where it goes from there and how it helps )or detracts) from the always mutable, ever growing field of knowledge and understanding.

It's an open-ended system, which is of course why cult members are programmed to fear it. After all, their systems were shut down two thousand years ago.

How? Did I say "This is absolutely true. Accept it or burn eternally in Hell?"

In a colloquial sense only, which is why I took such great pains to clearly delineate that fact.

In a cult context, however, as your post clearly demonstrates, precisely the opposite is the case, because I am not describing what a soul is; I am seeking to destroy the entire concept of a "soul" from a cult context and correcting for all of the cult programming.

No, it is not. The "soul" (in a cult context) is a magical spirit-being that a mystical, ineffable, necessarily incomprehensible fairy god king controls and created and which "he" can destroy if you do not do as "he" says (aka, what the cult tells you "he" says), which is nothing more than an intellectual/emotional club cult members are beaten into submission with.

No, he wasn't, because he said that your "soul" was created as a means to punish or reward you in death by a vengeful, genocidal, "all loving," aka, logically inconsistent being that does not and could not exist.

And this particular MOL told his audience this in order to make them subservient to the Romans, aka, any elite, controlling authority, with such sophisms as "turn the other cheek" when any such Authority strikes you because you should only fear that which can destroy your soul in hell; aka, me and by extension my fellow cult members.

Fear me and let Authority do whatever it wants to. Render unto Caesar that which is yours, because you are sheep and sheep are to be shorn, bludgeoned and eaten by the ruling elite.

Only if you want your 3 year old daughter to grow up with an intelligent, inquisitive mind.

The reason you aren't understanding what I'm talking about is because you think Jesus/Paul told the truth, which they did not.

The used part of "the truth" to tell ultimate lies, so in your analogy, you're suggesting I tell my 3 year old daughter that babies come from an all loving, all knowing, all seeing, invisible Father who will punish her eternally if she doesn't believe what I'm telling her to be "the truth."

Good night, honey! God loves you and will destroy your soul in hell. Nighty night!

No, I'm not. I'm positing what consciousness is; the self, not the "soul."

The word "soul" (as I explained before) is too contextually charged to be useful in anything other than a colloquial sense. It implies a spiritual being that is like some sort of ethereal carbon copy of us; software that God boots up only to then eject and either put on his shelf or burn in his incinerator.

True. But if you pointed to a human being and said, "A magical fairy god king created being, animated with something called a 'soul' that the king removes at will and either throws into a lake of fire to suffer eternally for not obeying him or gives wings and a harp for it to sing his glory for all eternity" then you would be lying (or, more appropriately, heinously deluded).

No, I was not "wrong," since that wasn't the entirety of the lie, you just conveniently redacted that part.

What? No, he would have to be saying something that he knows is false or couldn't possibly know to be true and when questioned, threatens the questioner with heinous punishment for not accepting what he says to be true with the addendum, "I know this to be true because God told me it was true."

For the ten billionth time, fictional creatures from ancient mythology cannot tell anyone anything, so if someone believes they are telling the truth, then yes, you can't say that they are lying, which is why I qualified all of this by saying Jesus/Paul/Creators of the cult.

The creators of a cult know they are lying, even if they ultimately delude themselves as much as they have deluded their followers.

This is, however, a trivial and pointless observation, so I'll just grant it and move on. People who believe they are telling the truth cannot necessarily be said to be lying.

Happy?

Fine. Granted.

Only the person who created the lie and those who know it to be a lie would be the liars, all right?

My mistake was in not clearly defining that, though I suppose an argument could be made that anyone who inculcates others into believing a lie because they in turn believe a lie are all guilty of lying to themselves, the point is trivial.

The snake oil salesmen are the creators of the lies, i.e., Jesus/Paul/Mark/Whoever created the christian myths. Happy?

No. To be a snake oil salesman, you have to know you are selling a lie, granted.

However, I will addend that once the snake oil has been revealed for what it is and the salesmen who didn't know they were selling watered down whiskey, snake venom and urine--as difficult as that would be to accept considering they're the ones who mix it all up and sell it and live with it and see the detrimental effects it has on people--unless they truly are so deeply deluded should never sell the stuff again.

Qualified enough?

False. Deconstruct the dogma and you see that the doctrines state that an individual human is born worthless and in sin; that they know nothing and never can know anything, for wisdom is foolish.

They are taught repeatedly that their suffering in this life will be rewarded in the next and that if they believe "as a child would" they will be saved once they are dead, thus conditioning them to except their living fate with humility and inaction against their oppressors.

They are taught that they should love their neighbor as they love themselves, yet also told that they are full of sin and hubris and self-glorification in God's eyes, which in turn results in them actually loving their neighbors precisely as they love themselves, which is to say, horrifically for the vast majority, particularly those who do not share their beliefs.

They are told to never do as the hypocrites do and pray to their savior in private at the same time they are told to spread the message and do as the hypocrites do.

They are told that works and deeds and fervent belief will get them into heaven and that nothing they do will get them into heaven.

They are told that what they do unto the least of their brothers so they do unto God at the same time they are told that God is separate from them and only reveals himself to a select few; that he is all powerful and vengeful in his infinite love and goodness.

They are told that their savior is a god of peace and love and infinite mercy who comes with a sword and that their souls will go to heaven when they die, unless they are thrown into the lake of fire to burn for all eternity.

They are told he is "Justice" when it is abundantly clear that he is not.

In short, they are told so many contradictory and mutually exclusive lies that they have no real idea at any given moment just exactly what it is they believe in (which is why there are some 20,000 divergent sects throughout the world), except for the anchor/mantra, "Jesus Christ," yet they have no clue who or what this thing truly is; Father, Son, Holy Ghost; a Son of god that is also the Father who came to earth to be sacrificed to himself so that we could all be saved from himself.

It's called cognitive dissonance and it is deliberate, no question about that, so someone at some point was lying for the express purpose of controlling the minds of ignorant, innocent, superstitious people.

Strawman. Throw a rock anywhere in the Bible Belt and you hit one of 'em.

Better still, just lurk around these fora. Any Calvinist/Fundamentalist will do.

No, they don't. That's what your preacher obfuscates and uses to gloss over what the Bible says.

Oh, and of course my favorite that supports so nicely what I was getting at before about slave mentality to the ruling elite:

And here's a little veiled threat about seeking knowledge:

And just for the hell of it (couldn't resist) a little bit about suffering that serves nicely to illustrate several of my points about how fear and suffering is used as a means to manipulate and control and condition:

Fear is replete throughout the book just as "do not be afraid" is--like injecting the poison so that you can control through the antidote--and they are used as tools of manipulation:

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to go back to the OT to make my point since Jesus didn't care about it and based nothing upon it other than, of course, to assuage everything set up in it, thereby representing the antidote to the poison.

Of course, there is Mary's song:

And let's not forget how fear is used later in Luke:

And of course, my all time favorite from Luke:

Start cross-quoting all you want, but nothing tops this one and it will only reinforce my points, not counter them.

Fear and the removal of fear is used in exactly the same way that a master of torture first breaks the man of any external/internal allegiances. The removal of fear serves to bind the broken man to his torturer, so that he gives them (of his own free will) his allegiance, or hadn't you read Orwell's 1984 yet?

Talk about a strawman. My "argument" in this regard was largely drawn out by you and had little to nothing to do with my theory, other than in my desire to reconcile the mythology of cult mentality; to cull from those myths any possible truths and how those truths might lead us to a better understanding of who and what we are in an intelligent manner, not based on fear and inculcation.

Really? Let's test that. Shout out at the top of your lungs with all of the anger you can possibly muster (with nobody around you, if you like), "My God is a child murderer! I rebuke Him and defile His holy name for all eternity!"

Yes, I know, which only proves my point about the effectiveness of cognitive dissonance, because without original sin, there is no purpose for Jesus' death.

Don't "believe" in original sin and you don't believe Jesus died for the stated purpose he died for.

You're actually demonstrating exactly what lead me initially to my theory; the fact that you can selectively discard things you know to be untrue, yet retain other things that are equally untrue, just not as obvious in your eyes.

Why stop with original sin? I'm sure you don't believe the earth is six thousand years old, or that God created Adam out of dirt and Eve out his rib (or even in a literal Adam and Eve) even though, according to the bible, Jesus did believe these things, so, I should thank you rather than provoke you.

You're right. You are living proof, but, with everything else so far about your posts, living proof in favor of my theory, you just haven't peeled enough layers off; haven't "burrowed deep" enough down to really get at the truth the way I contend my theory does.

At least more so than what you have so far been able to do. Think of it this way (I do): we're both peeling an onion; you've only removed the first two or three layers, I'm at two or three layers from the center.

All warrior-deity cults--which are the predominant, most active, most popular cults in this world--follow this same formula.

In fact, I can think of no cult that doesn't use fear and the destruction of the self as a necessary precursor to the cult/savior stepping in to rebuild that self into "cult self."

Can you? Buddhism, I suppose, but they have no deity in the same way as Judeo/Christian, Muslim and Islamic cults.

At the same time he told you that God only knows and nothing you do or think or practice or preach ultimately means anything to God or guarantees you salvation--other than belief--while also telling you to live this "quality" life in his footsteps, giving up all that you are and believe in and own, etc., etc.

Right, which is why Jesus said:

It makes perfect sense. Love is hate and hate is love and one must first hate in order to love and you cannot love without hating and black is white.

Yes, actually, it is as the many quote bombs I dropped readily demonstrate.

Want some more? We can literally do this all day. You, of course, will present only those quotes that you have personally decided you will believe in, right?

\

Wow.

Ummm...no, but God does...including the unintended pregnancy, at least from Mary's perspective.

You mean strength like this...?

Or were you referring to strength such as this...?

What comfort to know that God will destroy the enemies of righteousness, eh? Like those damned Jews that are God's chosen people, of which Jesus was their Messiah?

But what was it they had done that Paul was so distraught about? "Blameless?"

What a shock that people who are conditioned to fear God at the same time they are conditioned to turn to God for help would do precisely what their conditioning mandated.



You don't fear the dark anymore because you turned on a light. Think about that for ten seconds--and not metaphorically for once in your life--and perhaps you'll see my point.

I see. So, granting your assertion (which I don't, by the way, but for the sake of argument), you are saying that lies are the best way to go when someone comes to you for comfort.

How very christian of you.

Not at all. They center on the malicious intent that is so clearly evident even in the most heavily veiled obfuscations.

No, actually they don't. It is a question of ultimate good outweighing ultimate bad, not whether or not some good can be found within and in spite of an ultimately detrimental institution.

There were "good" Nazis just as there are "good" KKK members and even "good" politicians, but that doesn't exonerate what the Institutions as a whole do.

As before and always, Hate the sin, not the sinner.

The flipside to that in this context, by the way, would be, Praise the sinner, not the sin.

And through their inaction, deprive society of their arguably necessary active participation and possibly vibrant, intelligent, breakthrough contribution!

You constantly contradict yourself; always offering the view that black is white and that is why I so desperately seek to eradicate such derailed thinking by seeking to reconcile the power and allure of cult belief with science.

Again, thereby removing themselves from otherwise vibrant participation and active participation in the betterment of all humanity, all because they have been programmed to think they have the answers and the rest of humanity is doomed to eternal damnation.

You could not prove my point more perfectly than you are here doing.

Yet you post here in an attempt--just in this thread alone--to dismiss a theory I have regarding the origins of consciousness that apparently threatens your beliefs.

As am I, believe it or not, so where does that get us?

I will take that wager and instruct you to turn on CNN at any given point to prove you wrong, especially these days with the removal of "under god" from the pledge of allegiance (which should be removed itself) and the endless Middle East debacles, which are entirely based ultimately on differences of religion (again, as Paul readily demonstrated above).

Just by being an American and carrying around money with "In God We Trust" you are proven wrong. You are an active participant in an organized religion, just as I am, every time you vote.

Categorically false. Even the simplest deconstruction of the doctrines (which you, by the way, selectively discard for no discernable reason) proves you are incorrect.

Again, it makes no difference if you are the most reformed member of the KKK, you're still a member of the KKK.

What is even worse, however, which you are apparently blind to, is those who call themselves members of the KKK but pretend that none of their shit stinks as a result, simply because they have never actively participated in a lynching and "in their hearts" do not believe that such action is what the doctrines of the KKK actually condone.

I WAS a christian; my parents are christian; my relatives are christian; in fact, one of my Aunts is a Born Again because she believed (and took no medication and saw no doctors) that she had been possessed by the Devil--Satan himself--for two years and the Lord finally saw fit to "drive him out."

I have first hand knowledge of everything I speak out against.

Again, precisely the opposite. The reason they believe what they believe is entirely scientific, you just have to know which discipline of science to look under.

Um, no, you might but "we" christians don't. As you went to such pains to point out earlier, it is the "soul" that goes to heaven; the spirit who then receives a new body, if you're Mormon, in heaven, but the earthly body stays buried in the ground.

And which "faith" would that be? Your own personal faith, where there is no original sin yet still a reason for Jesus' death on the cross, perhaps?

Who knows, who cares? There are over 20,000 disparate sects and none of them agree so to say that there is "a" faith is itself a baseless claim and we have gone so far from the topic by now that I'm sorry I brought any of this up to begin with.

Ummm...I'm not threatening you with eternal damnation?

"Belief" is for children.

That apparently scares the living shit out of you. Why? I have stated repeatedly that this is precisely what it is and detailed as best as I can what I base it upon.

Why would you fear an "unproven theory" (which is technically redundant, by the way) that I have freely granted repeatedly is little more than my own speculation based upon several different concepts?

What the hell are you talking about? I told you over and over again that this was a theory, an hypothesis that I am grappling with that I think addresses the issue of "where" and "how" consciousness, just not necessarily "whence" consciousness.

Have I put a gun to your head, either literally or metaphorically? Have I told you that if you do not believe what I say on faith alone that you will be thrown in a lake of fire for all eternity?

Have I told you to fear me, yes me, for my theory has the power to destroy both your body and your soul in hell?

Again, luvluv this post of yours is the absolute living proof of exactly the kinds of warped, detrimental mentality cult thinking instills, whether it was self-inflicted (as you claim) or not.

For all of the reasons posted here.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd rather discuss the incompleteness of my theory with anyone who does not strike out against it with so much fear.

Speaking of Shakespeare, "The Lady doth protest too much, methinks."

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Could be. For me it all boils down to the word "become."

It "becomes" something sentient means that it goes from black to white with no gradations in between. It isn't as if you can be almost pregnant, just as you can't be almost sentient.

This is where my speculation needs clarification, definitely. That's the nexus point for me.

It's a lot like counting from zero to one. Mathematically, it is impossible to actually count from zero to one, since between zero and one is an infinite regress of decimal points, thus mathematicians say, ".99999999 repeating is equivalent to 1, for all practical purposes," which, again, to me, is a cheat.

It's a cheat that works certainly for all practical purposes, but, again, when you seriously burrow down there is that nexus point where science and religion merge, since it certainly can be said that stating ".99999 repeating equals 1" is a "leap of faith."

The same I think is true of the theory of emergent consciousness. No matter how many feedback loops effect how many other feedback loops, they are still only giving rise to more/different feedback loops in the same infinite regress as .99999 repeating and it is only a cheat (it seems to me), ultimately, to just say, "well it's close enough for all practical purposes."

Does that help and is everyone sick and tired of this?


luvluv, you need not answer. You have made your position abundantly clear.

John Page

Koy:

Would it help if we amended to "learning how to live under god."?

Is it a coincidence that the mafia and the catholic church are both based in Italy - they both seem to be experts in "buy in" to the system.

Cheers, John

Jobar

[mod hat] (whispers) Koy, please stick to the topic. [/mod hat]

WHOOP!! WHOOP!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAH! Tell it! Tell it! PREACH IT LIKE IT IS!!!




Koy, it is always sheer pleasure to watch you tear the mask of goodness, love and purity off the evil and cynical and power-mad face of Christianity!

I must re-read your posts prior to this last one, before I can make any reasonable commentary on your theory of consciousness. I too have long since discarded any notion of a 'ghost in the machine' but *I* still wonder about my own self- it's a bit like looking into opposing mirrors through a pinhole. I know that I know that I know that I know- how many loops must there be to generate consciousness? Some with negative feedback, some with positive- what a piece of work is man's mind!

Koyaanisqatsi

excreationist--

I'm grouping your three posts into this one response in case Jobar boots us off for being so off topic, and again, I apologize/thank everyone's indulgence in helping me attack my theory.

As I have mentioned several times, it is by no means complete (just...emergent... )

Yes, I would think that is the logical progression of my theory; all matter is conscious/alive in the same manner as we say that we are all conscious/alive.

I'm going to go with that for $500, Alex.

Yes, I know and that's the problem for me. "Learn" implies that the brain is already self (i.e., conscious) aware.

Perhaps I'm not using these terms technically enough. Please refer to what I posted in response to DRF and I'll try to clarify as I go here.

Again, for me it comes down to the word "becomes."

Well, again, it's the "self-motivated" paradox. How can one be "self-motivated" prior to there being a "self?"

One could just as easily design the camcorder to be autonomous and interact intelligently with their enviroment, however. Perhaps a robot would have been a better analogy.

No, but theoretically, it could and thus would mimic humanity.

Again, the analogy was flawed, but not, I think, the intended point behind the analogy.

No, I am saying that because Shakespeare evoloved naturally, the "mysterious" force at work is that all matter is conscious, thus a pile of rocks remains a pile of rocks because a rock is consciously remaining a rock, if only on a meta conscious level not necessarily available to empiricism.

Again, I'm seeking to explain away as much mystical thinking as possible by partly taking mystical thinking head on and deconstructing it to find a possible scientific, logical explanation or, at the very least, logically ocnsistent explanation.

Too true .

Well, yes, it is, in the sense that we examined and discovered how it is that some animals lived in the sea then evolved onto land. The "missing link" was discovered; not so, I think, with the emergent "missing link" of consciousness/sentience.

Parially. I think first and foremost, that all matter is conscious (mindmatter) and that this level of existence (the fourth dimensional universe) is simply an expression of mindmatter; similar I guess to the movie The Matrix, only there is no separation of the dreamer and the dream; the mind and the matter.

If you speak French, for example, then only people that understand French (primarily) will be able to understand you, yet the concepts/ideas that you are communicating can just as easily be spoken by you in English for English speakers to understand, which means that the concepts/ideas have an inherent "communicativeness" about them that are then available in some non-communicative fashion, awaiting communication.

How they get communicated (French or English) is thus merely the expression of the "communicativeness" of those ideas.

So, in this analogy, "French" would be the equivalent (and function) of "Four dimensional universe" and English would be the equivalent (and function) of "Tenth dimensional univers" and the "communicativeness" of those ideas would be equivalent (and function) of "consciousness."

Hmmm...Something is definitely missing, but it's getting late and the weekend calls...

Not necessarily. There is still, I contend, a missing link and it is found in the word "becomes."

For me, that nexus point is still magical thinking.

Yes, but all this explains is the functioning of the hardware; it does not necessarily explain the emergence of a unifying meta whole that is somehow a sum of its parts.

You have definitely described the parts, just not, I think, the mechanism that unifies the parts in a manner that could be called "consciousness," IMO.

Learning only means more feedback loops are required and thus created; it doesn't necessarily address the meta stage of connecting the whole.

At least not that I can see and again, I'm no expert, so please bear with me.

The rocks are not "just a pile of rocks." Each one is just as conscious and self aware as Shakespeare is, the difference being that their awareness is one of "rock" awareness as Shakepeare would be one of "human" awareness.

Then, you're saying that at some nexus point as a process of "learning" consciousness emerges, but, again, if you deconstruct that into nexus point, you can't find it though this thinking, IMO.

The very term "learning" in this context implies consciousness prior to there being a consciousness, which is, again, why I argue for mindmatter; all matter is conscious as a necessary, contingent quality.

Thus there is no nexus point and the question of "how conscious" is removed on this level. The question then becomes "whence conscious?"

That implies that the brain is merely symbiotic with the rest of the body, but it still does not address at what point does the consciousness emerge as a sum of the whole.

The word "learns" is, IMO, here equivalent to "becomes" and doesn't address it. Again, for something to learn to be sentient would mean that its sentience was merely dormant, awaiting for it to be discovered, but that puts us back at my theory.

Now you're into a chicken and the egg, since the "first" brain would have to be originally switched on in order to in turn switch all of the other brains on in the same manner and, I contend, once again back at my theory.

There was no "first brain" because all matter is conscious.

Again we see the religious overtones, BTW.

How do you know? Do you speak rock?

I'm being semi-facetious, of course, but again, i fear homocentrism may be clouding your judgement. Not that it isn't sound, just as a possible caveat offered up.

No, just as Shakespeare can't get bored one day and become a pile of rocks.

Koyaanisqatsi

It's a gift . You're too kind...

It's funny you should say this because I gave it up too until recently (after having posted here for so long).

So many people believe some variation on this theme (as did I for a long time prior to my deprogramming), so I started deconstructing it all down recently and seeing patterns and blah, blah, blah and came to the conclusion that mindmatter is one thing, nothing more or less mysterious than Einstein concluding spacetime to explain the phenomenon of relativity.

All matter is conscious and thus there is no "nexus" point; no "ghost" in the machine since the construst would necessarily be ghostmachine. Simple.

And certainly fun at parties.

Again, it doesn't address "whence consciousness," necessarily, but it does attempt to reconcile a whole bunch of shit, which is always nice and might, just might, get us closer to "whence consciousness."

Anyway, have a good weekend all. I intend, by the way, to very shortly loose consciousness...

Bien sur.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

DRFseven

But there are plenty of things that become something else as a result of complexity. Doesn't a note become a song? Separate molecules become water? A fingertip that feels fine becomes a painful fingertip?

I have to go have a picnic in the rain.

excreationist

Koyaanisqatsi:
Yes, I would think that is the logical progression of my theory; all matter is conscious/alive in the same manner as we say that we are all conscious/alive.
So what happens if a person is blown to pieces in an explosion? Are they still conscious/alive?

"Learn" implies that the brain is already self (i.e., conscious) aware.
What about the AI concept of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&q=%22machine+learning%22" target="_blank">"machine learning"</a>? If a bumblebee is trained to go through a maze or learns to associate certain colours with food, it would be learning... but I don't think it is self aware. Immune systems can also learn I think, but I'm not saying they're "aware".

Perhaps I'm not using these terms technically enough. Please refer to what I posted in response to DRF and I'll try to clarify as I go here.

Again, for me it comes down to the word "becomes."
Well some things are aware and some things aren't. It's similar to how some things are solids and some things are liquids, or how some things are in one piece and other things are not in one piece. e.g. say there was a large solid object that was then broken into two pieces. Before there was one piece - then there wasn't one piece any more - there were two. I don't think that's very magical.

Well, again, it's the "self-motivated" paradox. How can one be "self-motivated" prior to there being a "self?"
I mean autonomous... like a cell or a worm... they aren't told what to do by some person (like a robot might be). And I'm not saying that cells and worms are aware, just that they are autonomous - which is only one of the things that must be satisfied to fit my definition of an aware system.

One could just as easily design the camcorder to be autonomous and interact intelligently with their enviroment, however. Perhaps a robot would have been a better analogy.
But to be aware it would also need to have goals/desires and learn for "itself" (the machine) new behaviours and infer how the world works. (Instead of being explicitly programmed, like most robots) BTW, making a camcorder be autonomous and interact intelligently with its environment has been a very hard problem for AI researchers. And it is a different matter to have a robot that *learns*/infers these behaviours (through encouragement/discouragement) rather than having it all preprogrammed in.

"It [the camcorder] doesn't learn new behaviours and problem solving strategies..."

No, but theoretically, it could and thus would mimic humanity.
Camcorders have a very straight-forward design (as far as the circuits go). If you added in all that extra functionality (for it to learn new behaviours) it would be much more than an ordinary camcorder. If it really could learn/infer new behaviours it would do that depending on the reward and punishment for its behaviours - like a dog.

"that is the point of learning about the world. It [the camcorder] just does the same old thing - record video."

Again, the analogy was flawed, but not, I think, the intended point behind the analogy.
I'm saying that a camcorder doesn't "learn" in the way that aware systems (like mammals) do.

No, I am saying that because Shakespeare evoloved naturally, the "mysterious" force at work is that all matter is conscious, thus a pile of rocks remains a pile of rocks because a rock is consciously remaining a rock,
But maybe the rock is intending on becoming Shakespeare after billions of years of evolution, but it just has to wait around for this to happen... it sounds like you're saying that everything that is something (like a rock or a radio) wants to be that something and acts like it. What if a person doesn't want to be a person any more and wants to be superman instead? Does this give them super-human powers? Or someone might want to become Einstein... does this make them instantly turn into Einstein?

if only on a meta conscious level not necessarily available to empiricism.

Again, I'm seeking to explain away as much mystical thinking as possible by partly taking mystical thinking head on and deconstructing it to find a possible scientific, logical explanation or, at the very least, logically consistent explanation.
Saying that a radio is conscious and doesn't talk back simply because it *chooses* to behave like a radio sounds pretty mystical to me.

...we examined and discovered how it is that some animals lived in the sea then evolved onto land. The "missing link" was discovered; not so, I think, with the emergent "missing link" of consciousness/sentience.
Well it depends on what you mean by consciousness/sentience... do you mean animal-type awareness, new-born baby type awareness or philosopher-level consciousness? I talked about Piaget's stages earlier which shows there are many different levels of awareness/consciousness in humans. The problem is that people have such fuzzy definitions of where the line is and you say that there is no line - that all things are conscious. BTW, since everything is conscious, do you ever feel embarrased when you are naked and your wall or ceiling or clothes can sense you?

About English and French - they are just sounds that we associate with patterns in our experiences. By speaking those sounds out loud you can trigger those associations in someone else's brain.

So, in this analogy, "French" would be the equivalent (and function) of "Four dimensional universe" and English would be the equivalent (and function) of "Tenth dimensional universe" and the "communicativeness" of those ideas would be equivalent (and function) of "consciousness."
I sort of understand...

According to emergent theory, at some nexus point, the "zero" (if you will) becomes a "one."

"And in the definitions I gave earlier, of aware systems and Piaget's stages, I described how this happens."

Not necessarily. There is still, I contend, a missing link and it is found in the word "becomes."

For me, that nexus point is still magical thinking.
Basically in Piaget's stages, you start off with a baby, which has a lot of potential, then it learns more and more about the world, including how to use symbols/language. Once it has learnt enough language, it is said to have crossed to the next stage. Perhaps it is like how a tadpole changes into a frog. There is a fuzzy region where it is both a tadpole and a frog, and then it is a frog. I'm saying that awareness has a long continuum, starting at about the level of mammals and maybe birds and going up to philosophers.

"LEARNING is involved to reach high stages of cognitive development and also desires and goals - they motivate the learning of new problem-solving behaviours so that it seeks and avoid things through inference."

Yes, but all this explains is the functioning of the hardware; it does not necessarily explain the emergence of a unifying meta whole that is somehow a sum of its parts.

You have definitely described the parts, just not, I think, the mechanism that unifies the parts in a manner that could be called "consciousness," IMO.
Well this is my definition for an aware system:

Aware sytems ...receive input and respond according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works (self-motivated, acting on self-learnt beliefs). ["self" refers to the system as a whole]

My definition for awareness is similar...
The process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works.

I think awareness is a continuous process, and involves the system responding at least in the past, rather than always being a passive observer. I think having the ability to affect some of our experiences is an important part of learning since it lets us test our beliefs and gives a reason to care about our experiences. If we were always passive observers, it is pointless what we think since we can't change our environment at all.

Learning only means more feedback loops are required and thus created; it doesn't necessarily address the meta stage of connecting the whole.
I'm saying that learning is one of the components of an aware system - it is not the only thing. And its motivational system (avoiding bodily pain, seeking coherence and newness, etc) is what motivates (directs/focuses) that learning.

The rocks are not "just a pile of rocks." Each one is just as conscious and self aware as Shakespeare is, the difference being that their awareness is one of "rock" awareness as Shakepeare would be one of "human" awareness.
So what things have "human" awareness then? Just humans that are at least about 1 or 2 years old and maybe some chimps? That's what I mean by "consciousness" - I mean human-level awareness (Piaget's final stages). (And by "awareness" I mean basic mammal-type awareness)

Then, you're saying that at some nexus point as a process of "learning" consciousness emerges, but, again, if you deconstruct that into nexus point, you can't find it though this thinking, IMO.

The very term "learning" in this context implies consciousness prior to there being a consciousness, which is, again, why I argue for mindmatter; all matter is conscious as a necessary, contingent quality.

Thus there is no nexus point and the question of "how conscious" is removed on this level. The question then becomes "whence conscious?"
I'm saying that there are two things - "awareness" - which mammals and maybe birds have - and a much high form of it - "consciousness" - this is somewhere at Piaget's higher stages. So the thing that was learning is already aware - but it isn't fully "conscious" until it does lots of learning and reaches Piaget's higher stages. A lot of people use awareness and consciousness as complete synonyms though.

The word "learns" is, IMO, here equivalent to "becomes" and doesn't address it. Again, for something to learn to be sentient would mean that its sentience was merely dormant, awaiting for it to be discovered, but that puts us back at my theory.
Humans have the potential to become philosophers, but I doubt a newborn baby has information in its brain that tells it how to be a philosopher that is just switched on later in life. I'm saying that being a philosopher is perhaps the highest stage of consciousness. And it is a style of thinking that is learnt as we progress through life, and many people never acquire that ability. I'd say that a newborn baby is more or less "aware" according to my definition of awareness.

"So what do you think starts brain activity in a foetus/embryo?"

Now you're into a chicken and the egg, since the "first" brain would have to be originally switched on in order to in turn switch all of the other brains on in the same manner and, I contend, once again back at my theory.

There was no "first brain" because all matter is conscious.
Does this mean that all matter is highly intelligent? (since I think consciousness implies intelligence)

DRFseven

I think the "missing link" is the change that occurs in the organism due to experience. This change, which consists of cellular modifications, defines learning and results in the organism displaying different behavior. Humans are more dependent on cultural learning than any other species and, likewise, show more consciousness than any other species.