Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

reply to post by Slavich

You can fully operate and be fully functional and competely normal if you had half your brain taken out at an early enough age. This alone should tell you something.

Such cases are rare, and could also be explained by brain redundancy and plasticity.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

2. If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function.

Why conscious? Unconscious interaction is incapable of collapsing a wavefunction?

Is consciousness capable of observing in an unconscious state?

Observation is what QM says is necessary.

Unconsciousness is a state of consciousness, not a new form of consciousness in itself.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Slavich

 

You can fully operate and be fully functional and competely normal if you had half your brain taken out at an early enough age. This alone should tell you something.

Such cases are rare, and could also be explained by brain redundancy and plasticity.

Oh I forgot I was talking to a PHD. LOL. Bro, My family is abunch of doctors. I've had my father explain to me how the brain develops and operates everyday. quite frankly it even gets annoying. Those cases are not rare. Brain function is only localized. When you lose sections of the brain it compensates. Thus is life. It is only when we get older that these localization become permanent.

Originally posted by Slavich

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Slavich

 

You can fully operate and be fully functional and competely normal if you had half your brain taken out at an early enough age. This alone should tell you something.

Such cases are rare, and could also be explained by brain redundancy and plasticity.

Oh I forgot I was talking to a PHD. LOL. Bro, My family is abunch of doctors. I've had my father explain to me how the brain develops and operates everyday. quite frankly it even gets annoying. Those cases are not rare. Brain function is only localized. When you lose sections of the brain it compensates. Thus is life. It is only when we get older that these localization become permanent.

Does your father have a personal view on the origins of consciousness?

reply to post by mnemeth1

4. Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility.

Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents.

en.wikipedia.org...

This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain.

You need to prove that consciousness is a case of strong emergence, and not weak emergence, before drawing such conclusions.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Determinism just sounds ****ing retarded on the face of it.

Thats not really a valid argument against it. For all we know, weak determinism (determinism including quantum randomness, which also affects biochemistry), or free will being an illusion could still be true. And according to Occams Razor, it is a preferable explanation to postulating dualist infinite consciousness models full of additional unproven entities, just to satisfy our evolved emotional needs. Constancy of the speed of light, time dilation, quantum phenomena such as entanglement all sound ****ing retarded to our minds which evolved in a macroscopic and more or less newtonian world. Yet, they are a reality.

Originally posted by Maslo
You need to prove that consciousness is a case of strong emergence, and not weak emergence, before drawing such conclusions.

No, you need to prove that subatomic particles are consciousness before claiming weak emergence is possible.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Observation is what QM says is necessary.

Observation in QM can mean interaction with another particle (such as the detector), not conscious observers.

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Determinism just sounds ****ing retarded on the face of it.

Thats not really a valid argument against it. For all we know, weak determinism (determinism including quantum randomness, which also affects biochemistry), or free will being an illusion could still be true. And according to Occams Razor, it is a preferable explanation to postulating dualist infinite consciousness models full of additional unproven entities, just to satisfy our evolved emotional needs. Constancy of the speed of light, time dilation, quantum phenomena such as entanglement all sound ****ing retarded to our minds which evolved in a macroscopic and more or less newtonian world. Yet, they are a reality.

edit on 19/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Sorry bro, but you don't have a choice in believing what you believe.

In fact, you don't have a choice in continuing to argue with me right now.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Observation is what QM says is necessary.

Observation in QM can mean interaction with another particle (such as the detector), not conscious observers.

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

Again, this is a theory of decoherence, which I covered in the OP.

Further down the page see this explanation, which is simply a rehash of what I already said.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
You need to prove that consciousness is a case of strong emergence, and not weak emergence, before drawing such conclusions.

No, you need to prove that subatomic particles are consciousness before claiming weak emergence is possible.

But you do not need conscious particles if weak emergence is true. In that case, brain would be theoretically reducible to unconscious interactions between those.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
You need to prove that consciousness is a case of strong emergence, and not weak emergence, before drawing such conclusions.

No, you need to prove that subatomic particles are consciousness before claiming weak emergence is possible.

But you do not need conscious particles if weak emergence is true. In that case, brain would be theoretically reducible to unconscious interactions between those.

Yes, you do.

That is the entire point of weak emergence.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Determinism just sounds ****ing retarded on the face of it.

Thats not really a valid argument against it. For all we know, weak determinism (determinism including quantum randomness, which also affects biochemistry), or free will being an illusion could still be true. And according to Occams Razor, it is a preferable explanation to postulating dualist infinite consciousness models full of additional unproven entities, just to satisfy our evolved emotional needs. Constancy of the speed of light, time dilation, quantum phenomena such as entanglement all sound ****ing retarded to our minds which evolved in a macroscopic and more or less newtonian world. Yet, they are a reality.

edit on 19/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Sorry bro, but you don't have a choice in believing what you believe.

In fact, you don't have a choice in continuing to argue with me right now.

Maybe I really dont. But I still perceive I do. Is it an illusion? For all we know, it could be.

Originally posted by Maslo

Maybe I really dont. But I still perceive I do. Is it an illusion? For all we know, it could be.

In which case none of what we are arguing about matters.

In fact nothing matters because we have no choice in anything.

Killing people doesn't matter and its not even the killers fault because they simply didn't have a choice.

Total nihilism.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Yes, you do. That is the entire point of weak emergence.

How come? Definition of weak emergence:

en.wikipedia.org...

Weak emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is reducible to its individual constituents.

Originally posted by Maslo
How come? Definition of weak emergence:

en.wikipedia.org...

Weak emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is reducible to its individual constituents.

If consciousness is reducible to the smallest component (subatomic particles), then those subatomic particles must be conscious entities.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Assuming your infinite external consciousness exists, what exactly would change about the existence of free will? We would be either controlled by this consciousness, random quantum noise or deterministic laws, or some combination of these. The same would apply for this consciousness. There is still no mechanism for "free will".

reply to post by mnemeth1

If consciousness is reducible to the smallest component (subatomic particles), then those subatomic particles must be conscious entities.

Nope, thats not what weak emergence of consciousness implies. It states that the property of consciousness has to be reducible to subatomic particles, contrary to strong emergence which states that its not possible. Weak emergence does not prescribe that the property in question must be present among individual reduced constituents, only that it must be reducible to them.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Assuming your infinite external consciousness exists, what exactly would change about the existence of free will? We would be either controlled by this consciousness, random quantum noise or deterministic laws, or some combination of these. The same would apply for this consciousness. There is still no mechanism for "free will".

Well for starters, free will could exist in the first place, unlike a deterministic biochemical model that precludes free will from even existing. Obviously I believe I have free will because I am conscious entity capable of recognizing my own individuality. One can not be 100% certain that we have free will, but at least with an external model such a thing is at least possible.

The mechanism for free will would be simple separation of conscious entities in a realm of pure consciousness. I assume this is the case because I can recognize my own individuality.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I had a wonderful teacher named William Samuel, and you would LOVE his work!

Here is an example for you:

There is an all-pervading Principle that rules, regulates and provides for the entire tangible universe. The various laws of physics, mathematics, music, chemistry, etc. are this Principle. These laws are so interwoven and bound to one another as to present unassailable proof of the existence of an omnipresent, single Principle being ALL.
The "That" which is being this single Principle is "God," the Absolute, the Ineffable, the That beyond a name and greater than the individual laws.
What is the one common denominator for all the known "laws"? It is AWARENESS, the means by which every law is known. The laws, and all that could ever possibly be known about them, are included within awareness. Awareness is "greater than" laws. Awareness is an aspect of the Ineffable That which is beyond all names and labels, the That Which Is, called Mind or God.

THE ALL-INCLUSIVENESS OF AWARENESS
Every sight we have ever seen has been seen within and as AWARENESS, Mind's action of Self-perception. Every sound we have ever heard has been heard within and as AWARENESS, the very consciousness that presently reads these words. Every "feeling" that has ever been felt has been another aspect of AWARENESS, Mind's Self-awareness in action.
"Identity" is awareness. Identity is not the ego who thinks life (awareness) is his personal possession and/or the gift of God. To believe we are the custodian of awareness has us identifying as a potty piece of poppycock "of few days and full of trouble." Furthermore, it has us worshiping a bestowing god that doesn't even exist. Mind, you see, doesn't bestow its Self-awareness on "another." Mind IS its OWN awareness. Mind and its action are not two, but one.

————————


Nor is Awareness separate from the images within it, any more than the television screen is separate from the cowboys and commercials there.
Therefore, we can see that our identification as awareness ITSELF is not a withdrawal from the world, from people or from the adventure of living. It is a withdrawal from our own valued opinions, notions and prejudices of them. To the contrary, this work appears as a revitalized interest in everything that appears as conscious identity (Awareness)—and that is everything! As we live childlike-awareness-being-effortlessly-aware, we find our daily experience expanding into undreamed of new action—plus the strength and means necessary for that action.
----------------------


There is a little booklet that is a free gift at his website www.williamsamuel.com I always tell people about it, because it is just a brilliant message that must be shared now!

At the top of this page www.williamsamuel.com...
you will see "2+2=Reality" click on that and it is a free PDF of the booklet.

He wrote that book in 1958. You will at first think it is a bit old fashion and 'preacher' like--- but you have to keep reading along and you will see how amazing, clear, honest, enlightening his message gets. He somehow understood the that God is Mind and This Mind and Its Awareness is being All That Is, long before anyone had talked about God and Mind as one.

Well, thank you for the good post, I understand and I say you are exactly on the right track here