DRFseven

Do you deny that what we think depends upon brain-state? This is different than saying that our thinking depends upon brain-state as it depends upon our hearts being commanded to beat by the CNS. If brain-state does not determine thought, why does our brain have states?

John Page

...but this is not the OP - why do you think one needs to explain consciousness in order to determine that thought can be explained by mechanistic processes? Are you defining consciousness as a type of thought?

Koyaanisqatsi

I know, it freaked me out for a long time (still, one would say ).

It's hard to say, since actors only mimic other personas, not really "adopt" them, regardless of the bullshit you see with some "method" actors. In the case of my ex, she literally became "other" people, with actual physical changes observable and repeated whenever that particular personality was "on the spot" (as Billy Milligan described it; my ex described it like being "offstage" of a play, so there's even more chilling analogy, yet she was never an actress nor ever had anything to do with acting or the theatre).

I've directed plays (and was/am an actor) and there was nothing about her that betrayed anything along those lines in the slightest. In Billy Milligan's case (and this is actually documented), one of his personalities was a 56 year old Serbo-Croatian who spoke fluent whatever language they speak (polish? croat? I can't remember), yet Billy Millgan the "body" was only 36 and had never been abroad, much less studied any foreign languages.

Now, the age thing is certainly in question, since there's no way to find out how old a personality is, but the speaking fluent croat could be verified (and was) and no explanation could be found in any part of Billy's upbringing.

The personalities were all distinct, yet also served necessary functions (in both Billy's and my ex's cases; indeed in most MPS, as I've recently discovered it's been augmented to--for "syndrome" instead of "disorder.") and they all had a "teacher" personality, which, interestingly enough, at least in Billy's case was the result of all personalities getting on the "spot" at the same time, so it could very well be a case of creating roles and then assigning those parts so realistically to the psyche that they actually become "real" in some sense; as real as any "external" personality, but it certainly is odd to me, anyway, that such a fracture would come up with such diversity.

Consigning it all to the "mysteries of the mind," however, always struck me as the same sort of cop out as "God moves in mysterious ways," but the fact that each personality also had a "job" to do (such as the keeper of pain, or the protector, etc.) certainly leads one to the conclusion that trauma of sufficient nature can be inflicted so as to result in this self-contained dissasociation.

It's weird and fascinating and I think, still largely marginallized by the psychiatric community, especially. I can't help but be struck by both the coincidence and the similiarities of the description of the internal "stage" and the origins of theatre. Having been on both sides of the curtain most of my life, it always struck me as odd that anybody would enjoy sitting in a room for two hours watching other people pretend to be other people, however, and always wondered where that concept originated; being the Freudian devotee that I am, of course.

So, do we have a situation of life imitating art or art imitating life; i.e., that we are all actually "costumes" (if you will) of many different intersecting and interweaving "actors?" And I don't mean this in any supernatural sense, regardless of how it may sound; I mean it in a strict scientific examination of what the body is and how it interacts with the psyche. Materialists (of which, I am not one) would say it is entirely the product of chemical misfirings of some nature in the brain and although that is a plausible explanation, it just doesn't "ring" true, if you will (though I freely grant--as I have before--that this could simply be a residual bias due to my own early childhood indoctrination into the christian cult and having lived in a christian nation all my life).

Let me put it this way. If the body is nothing more than a sensory input device for the brain to process and "consciousness" is that "first cause," shall we say, that separates the animate from the inanimate, than, as with all other forms of technology on our planet (like radios, televisions, light generators of all kinds) there is a consistency of concept (for lack of a better term) involved that I find intriguing; that of varying wavelengths that result in varying "events," which certainly sounds like what could be happening with the human brain in regard to other "personalities;" just as changing the frequency range on your radio picks up a different station or changing the freguency range on your television set picks up a different station, etc.

The template is certainly there in just about every single thing mankind has created over the centuries and it must come from something, IMO. Acting out stories of events that happened elsewhere is one thing, but mesmerizing an audience into thinking that you are actually somebody else is quite a different phenomonon, IMO and, accordingly, I think it lies in something more complex than simple materialist thinking.

I have no proof, of course, which is why I always put thousands of caveats and disclaimers around such musings of mine, but it is there and remains persistent in my thoughts. The coincidence of my being in a play (and was forced to study about the topic by a crazed director) all about MPS at the same time I was in love with someone who would years later be diagnosed with the same syndrome is fairly staggering to begin with, but add into the mix that as this field of study became prevalent to my armchair analysis mode I started actually meeting others with MPS (that didn't know it, of course, but having seen the signs first hand and having studied what little evidence there is out there for years, suspected at the very least these things to be "true"), well, it just goes hand in hand with my skeptical nature, I guess.

But, a brain in a jar and all and I'm right back on the fence.

I was referring to the "typical" three dimensions (actually four) of Einstein's spacetime as well as, indirectly, I suppose, string theory propositions of a ten and/or twenty six-dimensional universe.

Now, am I contending that MPS is the result of personalities from the tenth dimension? No, but a good name for a "B" movie .

Is it possible that energy--such as what we call the "lifeforce"--does indeed originate from a different dimensional plane and that our bodies are merely the remotely controlled sensory input devices indigenous to these four dimensions? Sure, why not? Just as this computer represents a remotely controlled communication device from my brain to my fingers to all of your eyes and then your brains and is, as well, arguably of a different dimensional "quality" than the form of communication we are historically used to (i.e., that in using this computer to communicate, I am arguably utlizing--or "spanning"--at least two dimensions, if not three in doing so), why not? Is it "mystical?" Not in the slightest; indeed it makes sense on a cursory level at least in that we see evidence of the exact same concept all around us in just about everything we create (the consistency of concept I spoke of earlier).

So, my thinking is more along the lines of how black holes were first discovered; by looking for their effects on other objects and spacetime and the like. Basically, I'm just turning the materialist position on its head (not necessarily denying it, just altering the perspective) in order to see if (a) what we consider "material" truly is "material" and (b) if what we consider consciousness is emergent or dormant, or, as I tend to lean toward, coincident; can't have one without the other.

I know this also begs my own question and sets everything up for another infinite regress, but, as I've said before, it gnaws at me.

Indeed. Though, of course, our perception of it is entirely irrelevant to the thing iteslf. Indeed, if my "take on things" is correct, then the spatial environment we consider our "waking state" is necessarily "out there" in the true objective sense and "we" merely operate within it through our (possibly) "remotely" controlled sensory input devices. Now, "where" that places the ultimate "seat" of the consciousness if not directly in the brain is, of course, the $64,000 question and one that cult charlatans use to great advantage, but if it is merely brain dependent, then I find all of these "externalizations" (if you will; such as theatre and the computer and the radio and television and remote controlled robots and blah, blah, blah) to be exceedingly curious inventions to say the least.

Our entire history is literally replete with hundreds of thousands of examples of this "concept template," and I don't just mean in cult dogma. It's in our art, our sciences, our social interactions; it permeates our entire culture and has done so ever since mankind first started recording its history.

Hell, every night you dream your "brain in a jar" creates such an elaborately staged "reality" that often it takes several hours for people to "shake off" their dream "reality." Is this necessarily the function of that "brain in a jar?" Well, almost literally impossible to say one way or another, since we can only necessarily know one side of the issue while still "alive," of course and have no guarantee that there is anything after that state and precious little direct, verifiable evidence outside ghost stories to rely upon.

However, I do think that a study of what is around us (re: black hole discovery) might lead to at least a plausible "unified theory of everything" (if you will and if you won't, I don't care ) in regard to consciousness as necessarily a function of "brain in a jar" or not.

If both the Russians and the Americans found enough reason to instigate "remote viewing" programs (and some say they still exist), then it does seem to be more of an issue of sensory input device "tuning" to frequencies that are, at least possibly emanating from the human brain, if not from some other "place," (wherever that may be), again, in much the same mundane fashion as a radio receiver tuning to different stations.

Does it necessarily need to be outside the "brain"? No. Not necessarily, nor does it necessarily need to be outside the four dimensions of our "reality." So, again, there's the quandary.

The fact, however, that our consciousness does indeed span those four dimensions leads me toward the black hole quality of my armchair analysis.

I have no problem with that, other than, again, it is not necessary that there be "higher" dimensions; just possible that this be so and, arguably, leads to a better "fit" to the various phenomenons people have reported over the centuries, certainly, while at the same time, raising even more questions. But then, that's the fun of it .

One can also say, however, with even more evidence to support it, that all of those "phenomenons" were nothing more than either mental malfunction or wishful thinking, so, again, the fence.

I say, as a matter of enjoyable speculation, why not? As a matter of verifiable or even testable scientific investigation, that will take a hell of a lot more (though I certainly would start with the "remote viewing" tests, if I could get my hands on the raw data).

As to the "names" of "my" four dimensions, they would be "point," "plane," "cube" and "spacetime," I believe.

mhc

I think the OP was that the mechanical nature of thought is *undeniable*. If undeniabe, then necessary, and if necessary, then we need to look at context. I think consciousness is the context of thought. I guess my point is that making qualitative, absolute judgment about the way consciousness operates is tricky at best.

John Page

Of course, we can debate something that neither of us can really explain in full detail until the cows come home, however, the OP set the bar a little lower than you indicate i.e. "seriously denies", not "absolute judgement".

Cheers, John

mhc

It's less a matter of you and I being able to explain it in full detail than it is of anyone being able to explain it satisfactorily at all (i.e. consciousness). And, to suggest that none can deny a proposition (seriously or otherwise) is to suggest its necessity.

John Page

mhc:

Even if the explanation (as to consciousness and its relation to to thinking) were at hand, we would still need to understand it.

For slow-on-the-uptake-skeptical me that would probably require demonstration of how the individual parts function and their interaction to demonstrate the "emergence" of conscious characteristics in a way that made me believe this was also how *I* emerge.

Would that do it for you?

Cheers, John

mhc

No doubt. And I sure don't mean to say that the seeming intractability of the problem means that we can attempt to provide no explantions at all. But my skepticism extends to the possibility of such an understanding.

John Page

To yourself, or to all intelligent life-forms?

mhc

I'm skeptical of the possiblility of such knowledge. The objective view cannot, by definition, become subjective. To explain in physical terms what happens when a pin pricks your finger is to say nothing of what it feels like.