Consciousness, memory and perception:

[Locke]

I agree, in some regard. The twenty-four hour news cycle has networks scrambling to make everything that happens immediate and relevant. This has led to some decidedly funny reactions from the news. A reporter standing on the shore of a hurricane strike.... as if we didn't know what one looks like by now.... ohhhh, lots of rain... what? wind too?... look at those waves. Or a reporter standing in front of the White House telling me what's going on while I know he must have just watched the same speech I did in their television van. :-)

But, where I disagree is that I believe that technology has been an amazing boon to thinking. What do you want to learn about? Just look it up. What are you interested in? There are people who share the same interest a mouse click away. There is an ad on television where a African child explains that this is her first experience with a computer and that her village didn't even know that man had walked on the moon. That struck a chord with me. Technology is a tool. Like any tool it can be misused. But, I'd rather have it then not.

[m4tt_666]

i agree, Locke, but you see the numbers swaying at an alarmingly rapid pace to this horrid way of thinking i have previously described. for i know it is foolish to fully indulge my own ego with fear of the future (for it simply has not happened yet, and occurs to elude), i have yet to shake the feeling of it fully, in which is what I've been passively focusing on these past few days within myself.

like i have said, i have remained in this state of balance with striking precision by focusing on the pure idea that everybody's physical matter is completely separate from the conceived phenomena of mental thought, whereby if i continue to at least believe it myself, it remains in existence somewhere.

[cousinbasil]

@B0f1:

Before I take the trouble to responding to this post in its entirety, let me focus on one thing you wrote so the point does not get lost in all the rest.

Bof1: Your thought is a stream of electrons and electrons are not subject to gravity.
cb: If thought is merely a stream of electrons, it obviously cannot move faster than light speed, since electrons cannot.
Bof1: I did not say 'merely' electrons.You are simply unaware of the cutting edge science. RF waves have already transcended the speed of light carried along the data stream/wave shattering some of the Shannon equations. In fact, the photon has exceeded the speed of light by 1/3.

Electrons push the data stream.

You are dancing around your claims.

You brought up gravity, not me. Electrons are massive (have nonzero mass) and so are subject to gravity, period.

You went on to expound:

The only way gravity could effect an electron is - if you have another electron.

This makes no sense. If you understand the concept of gravity, you would know that another electron would have almost zero gravitational effect on an electron. Any other particle with mass, such as a proton, would have a much greater gravitational effect on an electron than would another electron, albeit vastly smaller than the electromagnetic forces between the two.

For instance, the earth has a gravitational effect on free electrons

But since gravity is not relevant either to my point or yours, we can safely leave it out. The reason I responded is because your statement seems to indicate you do not have a firm grasp on some basic physical science. This makes your claims about "cutting edge" science a bit suspect to me.

But let's stop there for a moment, since that is the point I am trying to focus on.

You say here that I am unaware of the cutting edge of science. That may very well be true, since my university days are behind me. Let me assure you that even then I realized that most professors are aware of the cutting edge only in their respective disciplines.

I submit the last part of your quote above

RF waves have already transcended the speed of light carried along the data stream/wave shattering some of the Shannon equations. In fact, the photon has exceeded the speed of light by 1/3.

is unfounded. You cannot simply make a claim like that and expect your point to be made. Supply a link to something that supports it.

Because I am putting these two claims from the same post by you together:

Electricity moves at the speed of light unless it meets resistance. The reason why the current is slowed and compressed is - hello - you are thinking.

and

RF waves have already transcended the speed of light carried along the data stream/wave shattering some of the Shannon equations.

The electric field does propagate at speed of light c, as you claim. In what medium, then, does an RF wave - which is just another EM field - propagate faster than c?

There is no point in discussing anything further with you unless you back up some of your claims. I have already tried to google up something which substantiates what you are saying but have not turned up anything. But since these are your claims - that standard science has now been superseded by some putative cutting edge, you should be doing the substantiation.

Faster-than light propagation of any particle or wave, let alone an information signal, would indeed be earth-shattering news. Even as removed from the academic scene as I now find myself, I would think I would have heard of it by now.

[Locke]

Bof1

Could you be speaking about the polarization synchrotron at Los Alamos?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19957

It's interesting; but, on the surface seems to rely on the same effect that can be seen on oscilloscope screens. The illusion is very similar to looking up into the night sky and shining a laser on the moon. You can move the dot from one side of the moon to the other faster than light can travel. This all with a small change in the angle that you hold the laser. If I am mistaken about this please clarify the difference.

[cousinbasil]

You see - real logic is about who is right, its never about what is right. Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence. Although evidence and facts are stubborn things, they can be overcome by denial, ad homs, careful rewording, and the appearance of manufactured evidence.

But if all else fails - deny all the evidence and call the other guy "your just a big poopy pants" and viola - you win.

Hey, whoever said logic had to make sense?

I see I was mistaken to assume you had an education.

[Beingof1]

@B0f1:

Before I take the trouble to responding to this post in its entirety, let me focus on one thing you wrote so the point does not get lost in all the rest.

Bof1: Your thought is a stream of electrons and electrons are not subject to gravity.
cb: If thought is merely a stream of electrons, it obviously cannot move faster than light speed, since electrons cannot.
Bof1: I did not say 'merely' electrons.You are simply unaware of the cutting edge science. RF waves have already transcended the speed of light carried along the data stream/wave shattering some of the Shannon equations. In fact, the photon has exceeded the speed of light by 1/3.

Electrons push the data stream.

You are dancing around your claims.

You brought up gravity, not me. Electrons are massive (have nonzero mass) and so are subject to gravity, period.

You went on to expound:

The only way gravity could effect an electron is - if you have another electron.

This makes no sense. If you understand the concept of gravity, you would know that another electron would have almost zero gravitational effect on an electron. Any other particle with mass, such as a proton, would have a much greater gravitational effect on an electron than would another electron, albeit vastly smaller than the electromagnetic forces between the two.

For instance, the earth has a gravitational effect on free electrons

But since gravity is not relevant either to my point or yours, we can safely leave it out. The reason I responded is because your statement seems to indicate you do not have a firm grasp on some basic physical science. This makes your claims about "cutting edge" science a bit suspect to me.

But let's stop there for a moment, since that is the point I am trying to focus on.

You say here that I am unaware of the cutting edge of science. That may very well be true, since my university days are behind me. Let me assure you that even then I realized that most professors are aware of the cutting edge only in their respective disciplines.

I submit the last part of your quote above

RF waves have already transcended the speed of light carried along the data stream/wave shattering some of the Shannon equations. In fact, the photon has exceeded the speed of light by 1/3.

is unfounded. You cannot simply make a claim like that and expect your point to be made. Supply a link to something that supports it.

Because I am putting these two claims from the same post by you together:

Electricity moves at the speed of light unless it meets resistance. The reason why the current is slowed and compressed is - hello - you are thinking.

and

RF waves have already transcended the speed of light carried along the data stream/wave shattering some of the Shannon equations.

The electric field does propagate at speed of light c, as you claim. In what medium, then, does an RF wave - which is just another EM field - propagate faster than c?

There is no point in discussing anything further with you unless you back up some of your claims. I have already tried to google up something which substantiates what you are saying but have not turned up anything. But since these are your claims - that standard science has now been superseded by some putative cutting edge, you should be doing the substantiation.

Faster-than light propagation of any particle or wave, let alone an information signal, would indeed be earth-shattering news. Even as removed from the academic scene as I now find myself, I would think I would have heard of it by now.

John Singleton

Catch up slow poke.

[cousinbasil]

Like I said - my mistake assuming you were educated.

[Beingof1]

Like I said - my mistake assuming you were educated.

http://www.google.com/search?client=fir ... gle+Search

I think you are an example of those who are to stuck on stubborn to learn - because - you think you already understand. In reality, you cannot learn by holding on to your false self image. Its only a sock puppet but you think it is a real you.

[Beingof1]

Bof1

Could you be speaking about the polarization synchrotron at Los Alamos?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19957

It's interesting; but, on the surface seems to rely on the same effect that can be seen on oscilloscope screens. The illusion is very similar to looking up into the night sky and shining a laser on the moon. You can move the dot from one side of the moon to the other faster than light can travel. This all with a small change in the angle that you hold the laser. If I am mistaken about this please clarify the difference.

Sorry, did not see your link till after I posted. This is a dated article, 2004. There are other tests but I am not going to dig them all up. If you are really interested there was a nobody, cannot remember the guys name but he used an antenna from a CB radio that pulsed faster than C.

Anyway, the point is drowning in a pissing contest in which I am not interested.

Thank you tho.

[cousinbasil]

I think you are an example of those who are to stuck on stubborn to learn - because - you think you already understand. In reality, you cannot learn by holding on to your false self image. Its only a sock puppet but you think it is a real you.

Thank you so much for your penetrating insight.

[Beingof1]

I think you are an example of those who are to stuck on stubborn to learn - because - you think you already understand. In reality, you cannot learn by holding on to your false self image. Its only a sock puppet but you think it is a real you.

Thank you so much for your penetrating insight.

Are you going to take it to heart or continue to protect your self image by insulating it from reality?

[cousinbasil]

Are you going to take it to heart or continue to protect your self image by insulating it from reality?

Listen, Bof1, I am sure you mean well. But you make so many mistakes in spelling, syntax, and word usage that you come across as not a very clear thinker. Certainly, you do not express yourself very well. And your science acumen seems as if it were acquired by surfing the net. It's hard to take your arguments seriously, let alone take anything to heart.

For the record, I consider myself fortunate to have had a rigorous education, and I understand that not everybody gets that opportunity. So I am not trying to put you down. But these are your words:

Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence.

With an attitude like that, how do you expect anyone to take what you say seriously?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You don't need to have a science degree to observe natural phenomena. Otherwise none of the scientists born before the establishment of proper academia would have been scientists.

They might not have called themselves 'scientist', but philosophers, alchemists, engineers whatever. It's not exactly the same though as the discipline developing in the 17th century with journals, peer review, etc. However, when you are using the word 'scientifically', I'm interpreting it in a modern sense, as to prevent pseudo-scientific or over-speculative musings to count as such.

I don't know how they came to the conclusion that spending more time looking at "impossible" images automatically means thinking about them, and also means having an understanding of gravity and cause and effect.

Because the impossible aspect was the only thing distinguishing the picture. When combined with other experiments it provides quite interesting evidence. Today I was reading about crows being able to distinguish males from females, just by face. I wonder which instinct made that possible...

Truth be told - the article is laughable, as is your attempt to prove animals are conscious.

I'm attempting something completely different but perhaps it's flying over your head.

Animals or machines never identify things for their own sake only, i.e, are never really conscious of anything. Whatever actions they may perform are always guided completely either by instincts(in the case of animals) or programming(machines) - a "matrix", if you will.

What do you mean with "for their own sake"? Never seen crows play, chase each other around, trying to get which are for them useless objects? You need to get out more.

Which actions of a human consciousness do you think qualify for not being guided by instinct or programming (culture)? Or to include Nietzsche's variant: damaged instincts and culture? Perhaps we can talk more in depth about whatever example you can come up with.

I know a lot of people who work daily with computers, and none of them would agree with you that computers are conscious. In fact, anyone with an in-depth technical knowledge of computers would never say that computers are conscious.

We are not talking about conscious computers - yet. Your reading skills need improving! This is becoming a red herring and a distraction to the discussion. Lets talk about the possibility of some degree of consciousness in animals first. And make sure to ask the people you work with that question as well :)

[jupiviv]

I don't know how they came to the conclusion that spending more time looking at "impossible" images automatically means thinking about them, and also means having an understanding of gravity and cause and effect.

Because the impossible aspect was the only thing distinguishing the picture. When combined with other experiments it provides quite interesting evidence. Today I was reading about crows being able to distinguish males from females, just by face. I wonder which instinct made that possible...

But even then we have to come back to the question - how can we know that they are thinking about the images? Just the fact that they look at them isn't really enough evidence. The crows may be looking at them longer because their instincts guide them to recognise danger quickly and be wary in an unfamiliar environment - in fact, that is most probably the case. And besides this impossible aspect is something the scientists are thinking, about those things. How on earth can they make this leap of faith and assume that the crows are also "thinking"(which is another leap of faith in itself) of those things as impossible?

And I've seen plenty of common animals "look" at strange and impossible things for longer durations than for familiar things. Even insects regard a strange environment before doing anything in it. And hey guess what - parrots can talk!!! That must mean that if I teach a parrot to say "1+1=2" it means it understands fundamental logic!

Never seen crows play, chase each other around, trying to get which are for them useless objects? You need to get out more.

Dude, I live in Calcutta - which is crow heaven. I can see a dozen crows outside my window when I wake up in the morning. I can tell you I've never seen a crow bother with something that wasn't some form of food or nesting material. Sure, they play around with the occasional plastic car or matchbox, but they discard it the moment they find that they can't eat it or take it back to the nest.

Truth be told - the article is laughable, as is your attempt to prove animals are conscious.

I'm attempting something completely different but perhaps it's flying over your head.

No you're attempting that very thing. You lack a clear definition of consciousness, and so you are trying to include pretty much anything you can find into the label "consciousness", to counter my definition of it.

Which actions of a human consciousness do you think qualify for not being guided by instinct or programming (culture)? Or to include Nietzsche's variant: damaged instincts and culture? Perhaps we can talk more in depth about whatever example you can come up with.

One example would be this very question itself - "are our actions guided by instincts and programming?".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But even then we have to come back to the question - how can we know that they are thinking about the images?

Perhaps the question is not as important as you think. They are reacting on complex information with specific behaviour. Are you doing something inherently different?

The crows may be looking at them longer because their instincts guide them to recognise danger quickly and be wary in an unfamiliar environment

Why would the picture with gravitational impossible pictures (such as an egg floating in mid-air above a table) seem more dangerous than similar pictures which differ only by having a correct display of gravity (like the same egg lying on the same table)? And why do many other animals do not show this behaviour if it was simple instinct which all animals possess?

Even insects regard a strange environment before doing anything in it.

If they would behave differently on a for them strange paper with mathematical equations compared with a paper with just random scribbling - it would be significant. But not to you perhaps?

And hey guess what - parrots can talk!!! That must mean that if I teach a parrot to say "1+1=2" it means it understands fundamental logic!

You do not know where you're talking about as usual. Actually I grew up with a Grey parrot, she died 47 human years old. What is the exact instinct or benefit for a parrot, growing up alone, while screaming of laughter putting her head into the water so it starts bubbling as she continues to laugh?
Anyway, there's enough evidence to say they've the intelligence of a five year old and communication skills of a two year old human child. Answering complicated question, identifying hundreds of objects even when colour and shape are cleverly exchanged. Also simple additions are possible, even without pre-learning answers.

Sure, they play around with the occasional plastic car or matchbox, but they discard it the moment they find that they can't eat it or take it back to the nest.

They can at times start a whole mock fight over the useless object. The relevance of this behaviour to the discussion alludes you still?

You lack a clear definition of consciousness, and so you are trying to include pretty much anything you can find into the label "consciousness", to counter my definition of it.

I don't think you have defined it at all while you claim you have. Instead I'm more on an expedition to see where it leads.

Which actions of a human consciousness do you think qualify for not being guided by instinct or programming (culture)? Or to include Nietzsche's variant: damaged instincts and culture? Perhaps we can talk more in depth about whatever example you can come up with.

One example would be this very question itself - "are our actions guided by instincts and programming?".

In what way is this qualitatively different than "playing around with the occasional matchbox" or "dropping pebbles in a tube to get to the real stuff"?

I mean, your question does lead to something or are you just amusing yourself, blowing bubbles under water?

[jupiviv]

But even then we have to come back to the question - how can we know that they are thinking about the images?

Perhaps the question is not as important as you think. They are reacting on complex information with specific behaviour. Are you doing something inherently different?

Firstly, how do you know that the crows are actually "reacting to complex information"...? We don't even know if they are conscious yet.

About me doing something "inherently different" - it depends on what you mean by "inherently different." I'm doing something inherently different in the sense that I am conscious, and they don't seem to be.

I don't think you have defined it(consciousness) at all while you claim you have. Instead I'm more on an expedition to see where it leads.

This is downright intellectual dishonesty. I have defined consciousness quite a few times, and you have still haven't defined it even though I specifically asked you to do so more than once.

One example would be this very question itself - "are our actions guided by instincts and programming?".

In what way is this qualitatively different than "playing around with the occasional matchbox" or "dropping pebbles in a tube to get to the real stuff"?

Because it involves being conscious(to some degree) of our own actions(dropping pebbles into a tube to get to the real stuff). If our actions were in fact guided by programming, then we would never be able to even affirm that fact as true let alone question it, because affirming it would require us to be conscious of it. We couldn't be conscious of something that would necessarily include the very act of us being conscious of it.

[Beingof1]

Are you going to take it to heart or continue to protect your self image by insulating it from reality?
Listen, Bof1, I am sure you mean well. But you make so many mistakes in spelling, syntax, and word usage that you come across as not a very clear thinker. Certainly, you do not express yourself very well.

I am sure you do not understand what I am saying at all.

And your science acumen seems as if it were acquired by surfing the net. It's hard to take your arguments seriously, let alone take anything to heart.

You have no idea.

This could be why you are hearing impaired - its called form over substance or busting someone for spitting on the sidewalk or obsessive compulsive straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Can you get the message here despite my pathetic typing skills?

For the record, I consider myself fortunate to have had a rigorous education, and I understand that not everybody gets that opportunity. So I am not trying to put you down. But these are your words:

Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence.

With an attitude like that, how do you expect anyone to take what you say seriously?

Case in point - the irony is truly astounding.

You need a mirror - bad.

Do you want to know how I know you are dishonest with yourself and others?
Cousinbasil:

I see I was mistaken to assume you had an education.

When you made this statement, you told me everything. If you are incapable of honesty with others, you will surely deceive yourself. You become a victim and your mind is trapped in illusion.

The way to the way is honesty.

[cousinbasil]

That post made no sense. Because you aren't clear on how to use the "Quote" button, you attributed your words to me. Your typing skills aren't your only skills that are pathetic, Bof1. For instance, there is a "Preview" option when posting. You can view your post before submitting it. Try it. If you had done so, you might have noticed how mangled you manage to make what you are trying to say.

You keep calling me dishonest. You (try to) quote me to back this up, but never say why you think this supports your claims.

In short, you don't have much to say, you say it poorly, and resort to character assassination when all else fails. And you do that poorly as well.

But what can one expect from someone who believes this:

Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence.

Now there's irony for you. You don't even appear smart!

[cousinbasil]

FYI: The current Discover magazine has an interesting article by two noted neurologists on what consciousness is and its physical underpinnings.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Firstly, how do you know that the crows are actually "reacting to complex information"...? We don't even know if they are conscious yet.

If we know complex information is supplied and a reaction is observed, we can know that there a reaction to complex information. Unless one couldn't somehow exclude random behaviour beyond any reasonable doubt.

In the end one has to realize that consciousness might be only measurable as behaviour. There's no reason to suppose an inherent state with that name. Perhaps there even isn't.

About me doing something "inherently different" - it depends on what you mean by "inherently different." I'm doing something inherently different in the sense that I am conscious, and they don't seem to be.

In what way you are appearing conscious to me? You are reacting in a way demonstrating you realize some complex concepts as cause and effect. But you might also be a simple robot. To find the distinction is a tricky minefield.

I have defined consciousness quite a few times, and you have still haven't defined it even though I specifically asked you to do so more than once.

I haven't seen anything but variations on consciousness = consciousness. And perhaps there's nothing else than the ability to define. Meaning consciousness cannot define itself, unless it's doing it all the time.

If our actions were in fact guided by programming, then we would never be able to even affirm that fact as true let alone question it, because affirming it would require us to be conscious of it.

Why would a confirmation not be programmable? Computers confirm stuff to themselves all the time as part of some program.

We couldn't be conscious of something that would necessarily include the very act of us being conscious of it.

Then perhaps the conclusion we cannot be consciouss of the very act of being conscious is valid as well as sound?

It would perfectly reflect the idea of a "naming" that cannot be named.

[Beingof1]

Cousinbasil:

That post made no sense. Because you aren't clear on how to use the "Quote" button, you attributed your words to me.

Your self deception does not seem to be hemmed in by reality.

Your typing skills aren't your only skills that are pathetic, Bof1. For instance, there is a "Preview" option when posting. You can view your post before submitting it. Try it. If you had done so, you might have noticed how mangled you manage to make what you are trying to say.

I have not a bit of trouble reading the post and apparently neither do you. So; because I post on many different forums and do not always slow down long enough to meet your standard, I guess I would flunk your college course eh?
News flash for you - I am not in a classroom.

Do you always major on the minors and minor on the majors?

You keep calling me dishonest. You (try to) quote me to back this up, but never say why you think this supports your claims.

I will prove it at the end of this post. You will probably continue in a state of denial though because your self image would be smashed and you will feel a sense of emptiness and void - and that - is what you fear.

In short, you don't have much to say, you say it poorly, and resort to character assassination when all else fails. And you do that poorly as well.

Of course I do. Because you is much smarter.

I could not hope to keep up with your wisest grand intellect.

More punctuation and gramatical errors for you to correct and continue to miss the point by staring down the microscope.

But what can one expect from someone who believes this:

BO1:
Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence.
Now there's irony for you. You don't even appear smart!

And here is the proof of your dishonesty. This is the entire quote that you snipped and twisted to mean something entirely different than the original:

Of course it does not follow - cause you gotta win the argument - so how could it follow - impossible, cuz you might lose if it followed.

You see - real logic is about who is right, its never about what is right. Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence. Although evidence and facts are stubborn things, they can be overcome by denial, ad homs, careful rewording, and the appearance of manufactured evidence.

But if all else fails - deny all the evidence and call the other guy "your just a big poopy pants" and viola - you win.

Hey, whoever said logic had to make sense?

[Beingof1]

Let me know when you are ready to have a real discussion.

[cousinbasil]

But if all else fails - deny all the evidence and call the other guy "your just a big poopy pants" and viola - you win.

It would be "you're..." not "your..."

Also, a viola is a musical instrument. You meant "voilà."

You really are orthographically challenged, aren't you?

Let me know when you are ready to have a real discussion.

It is not possible to have a real discussion with you. No matter what I say, you will keep on claiming I am dishonest. But since you think you have proved it by this quote, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I repeated it again, would you?

See, these are your words, not mine:

Of course it does not follow - cause you gotta win the argument - so how could it follow - impossible, cuz you might lose if it followed.

You see - real logic is about who is right, its never about what is right. Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence. Although evidence and facts are stubborn things, they can be overcome by denial, ad homs, careful rewording, and the appearance of manufactured evidence.

But if all else fails - deny all the evidence and call the other guy "your just a big poopy pants" and viola - you win.

Hey, whoever said logic had to make sense?

"Viola." That cracks me up!

[Dragonspirit]

"What differentiates the rock's memory from the memory of a conscious being?"


___________


Rock has physical memory, only... Conscious human being has physical memory, and electrical and plasma memory.. Humans have at least seven "memory rivers".. I saw them.. each a different pastel colour.. Each flowing at its own rate... Looked like seven rivers stacked... The third one down was my memories of ridiculous things, unsolved items, and frights...
This item deserves a lot of honest research...

[paco]

Carmel?

Why do you talk like there is nothing in the world that discloses atype?

Is there any thing better than the real mecoy?