Progress in consciousness?

so in a darkened room, under negative pressure, filled with various artefacts; if nothing makes a sound, or can be reached by the observer, it all does not exist?
Has Bishop Berkley been reincarnated?

Cracker barrel philosophy:

Hit takes one to know one.

Not eloquent pershaps, but quite explicit.

Shame on your for repeating yourself, pretending like your comment wasn't already picked to death. Please ignore this comment...we have already proven beyond opinion that it is false.

To treat the unknown with derision only compounds ignorance. This thread, which started with such promise, has been held back by those of lower vision. Replete with those that would seek to be associated with what they see as knowledge. Why is it ever so?

"Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer":
"Such uses of one's own biocomputer as the above can teach one profound truths about one's self, one's capabilities. The resulting states of being, of consciousness, teach one the basic truth about one's own equipment as follows:

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits.

In the province of the mind is the region of one's models, of the alone self, of memory, of the metaprograms. What of the region which includes one's body, other's bodies? Here there are definite limits.

In the network of bodies, one's own connected with others for bodily survivalprocreationcreation, there is another kind of information:

In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits.

But, once again, the bodies of the network housing the minds, the ground on which they rest, the planet's surface, impose definite limits. These limits are to be found experientially and experimentally, agreed upon by special minds, and communicated to the network. The results are called consensus science."

Here is an occassion, my first reply to this thread which is not a reply to anyone else. I introduce a new sub-topic for discussion.

I don't think the human mind is capable of an original thought.

Let me clarify. First, notice that nearly everyhing that we classify as "original" is always inspired by other things. Nowadays, everything is based on our previous knowledge of whatever work has been done before...and I think this can be traced back all the way to inspiration from nature. But I understand inspiration doesn't necessarily mean unoriginal.

Our minds have an incredible ability to recognize patterns, and recognize beauty and cleverness in patterns. We have a general idea of beauty and cleverness intrinsicly, but this also develops as we see examples of art and media as we grow older. And we can identify these patterns.

Now, nothing is truly random...but many unplanned and unpatterned events happen in our lives which we can recognize these patterns in. When I think I have written an original poem, I realize...I didn't actually think of it...I just thought of all the words I had already known...and tried rearranging them in all the combinations that grammatically or almost grammatically work...and then used my ability to detect beauty on each one.

When I paint a picture, there's no originality there either...painting is a procedure for most people. You know what order to paint foreground and background, etc, you have learned this. You know what techniques to use. You know you're not supposed to use the exact colors. You know what you're supposed to do to compose a scene well. You don't say these things out loud and you might not want to admit it but you're mind is doing it. And the difference between a skilled painter and a bad one is their ability to look at other paintings and detect what patterns and qualities are beatufiul...anyone can notice that a painting is beautiful, but it takes a certain way of thinking to actually figure out precisely WHAT about the painting makes it good...so that it can be transferred into one's own paintings. It's not possible for painters of the cave man days to do paintings like today, they have nothing to copy/get inspiration from.

Then there are people who don't seem to copy. People with new and original styles. This is because we recognize that sameness is boring, and that new things and uniqueness are a necessary pattern for beauty also...but the way in which their styles develope is not original in the sense of original thought. Perhaps their hand motion causes them to paint in a slightly funny way, and they make an accident which looks good, and they keep doing the accident.

I think accidents and nature are the main source of originality. You see somethign unplanned and unexpected, which the world passes be...but one person is able to say "aha! that does fit the definition of beauty" and they can notice precisely what is beautiful about it...and translate that into another form of medium.

Some thoughts come not from recognizing beauty, but from logical analyzation. For instance, famous people like Einstein didn't just make up crazy original theories becuase he could do that...he had data, which was like a puzzle, which he then thought of the most logical and probable solutions for that had no contradictions...like all scientists.

To clarify one last time what I'm saying...I don't think the human mind can create a new idea...I think we can only recognize good ideas by noticing patterns where beauty exists or using logic given facts.

If you can think of any example that you don't think fits this idea, let me know and I'll think about it.

I guess stuh, that makes the 'big bang' the only truly original event.

I see creativity differently; while all ideas call on prior thought, experimentation, and manipulation as guides, or inspiration; each new idea differs in the manner that snowflakes differ; perhaps a small insignificant variance, or whole structural rethink, either way it is inherently a new (not necessarily better, or worse) idea.

DOH! I tried so hard to be specifici...but I failed completely, because this is not at ALL what I am talking about...

I am talking about only IDEAS by PEOPLE....I'm not talking about events.

I'm saying that I don't think the human consciousness is capable of producing an IDEA which is new...we can only RECOGNIZE patterns and use logic to manipulate them.

i can see i should have said:

my, my stuh, i'd never thought of it that way.
What an original idea!

Stuh,
You might be interested in this thread "Say Something Original:"

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26861

Stuh,
You might be interested in this thread "Say Something Original:"

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26861

Oops, maybe I should add the requisite insults. Something like:

"Omigod, what are your credentials?! This has already been discussed on another thread!

Could you please try to come up with something more original? Or are you simply trying to prove your thesis by being purposely repetitive?"

But I won't do that. I'm sure I've done the same thing more than once. Just ask Asherman.

If it cannot be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, or touched, .... it does not exist.

sar·don·ic Audio pronunciation of "sardonic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sär-dnk)
adj.

Scornfully or cynically mocking. See Synonyms at sarcastic.

Just thought I would help you out.

Question:
When presented with a divergent thought or idea it is best to ....
A.
Squelch it before it spreads.
or
B.
Discuss the material ... preferably without rancor.
or
C.
Treat it with derision because you really do not understand it.

Thank you for your indulgence.

Gelisgesti, in addition to the five senses, we have senses of body states such as kinesthetic, emotional, and pain. (Are you having problems with your meds? Your comments to Bo were ill-tempered)


BoGoWo, we are in agreement. I do not believe in an immortal soul but was merely explaining why some other people adore the idea of human consciousness as the epitome of creation.

Re your vision of consciousness, I see us as sparking grains of sand on a beach, soon to be buried by an endless progression of new grains bourn in by the tides.


stuh505, where have I erred in my understanding of neural processes?

The parameters of the brain are never the same twice, and a tiny variation could be enough to change the outcome of the decision-making process.

Agreed that a robot (or the ubiquitous zombie) would not behave like a human being since emotions, not logic, are the basis of many of our choices.

Agreed that all ideas have a basis in previous ideas, but if there is no original thought, where did we get all of the ones that simply did not exist a hundred years ago?

tcis, I noticed that this thread was getting off topic. You previously made a comment indicating that you wanted to see it get on topic. So this was my attempt to do so, by bringing up a new idea related to human consciousness. I guess you aren't so interested in focusing on the topic, are you? There is nothign repetetive abotu this idea, nobody on this thread has mentioned it before including myself.

Gelisgeti, the answer to your question is not A or C, because it could be a good idea, and a good idea should not be lost. The answer is also not necessarily B, it depends on the nature of the idea. If the idea is reasonable, it should be discussed without rancor...but some ideas can be identified as unreasonable and ruled out before moving to the discussion phase. Thank you for the definition of sardonic. Did you get that from my previous post on this thread, where I posted the definition already? just curious. Also, I noticed you have, for a third time, stated your little "if it cannot be seen..." statement....I am sure everyone has already seen it. Perhaps you should consider putting it in your profile though if you are going to insist on stating it repeatedly and ignoring all attemps to discuss it when people start discussing it. You really have no right to mention it until you address the numerous critical flaws that have been pionted out in it.

Terry,



ill get back to you on this when i have re-briefed myself, i dont want to say anythign incorrect



yes very true



by replacing the word idea with thought i think the meaning gets a little confused. ill stick with ideas. like i said, i can see 2 ways for new ideas to come about.

1. by recognizing patterns that we observe, and realizing that the patterns are good for some reason such as beauty or usefulness.

2. by making logical deductions from facts which we observe

if you have a particular idea which does not seem to fit into one of these categories, post it

Hi Terry .... ill tempered, nah. Haven't you ever had a bite that itched like crazy untill you finally scratched it?
I'm afraid my meds just let me do simple stuff like drink a glass of water or walk, nothing in there for distemper.

In the data highlighted above, wouldn't certain information have to remain the same for predictable results like remembering where the car is parked, your home address, wife's name, kids etc etc?

On the robot deal .... I always thought that emotions were due to the electrical activity brought about by chemical reactions usualy triggered by base senses. What need of baser senses would a robot have?

Gelis, on the highligted data...im sure terry and i are in agreeance here...the data input is literally everyting. it includes all memories in your entire life, every sense perception, the state of your current consciousness and emotions...everything that could possibly have any affect on your decision is a parameter. It depends on the individual as to which information is going to be more or less important in making the decision. But the purpose is not to predict what decisions people would make, because predicting them would be just as difficult as making a computer that could mke your same decisions...ie, impossible. not only is there too much data to process, but many of the inputs such as our consciousness and intelligence could not be represented abstractly.

on the robot deal...i think emotions are much more complex than this. if emotions were simply chemical reactions that triggered electrical activity in the brain then our emotions would be extremely predictable for one thing, which they are not. i think that emotions are only qualified by our consciousness and are hence part of it.

Its not too hard to see that we are making progress in collective social consciousness, tcis.

Take one concrete example: Over the centuries, slavery has slowly has been reduced worldwide. It is still there. But in general, more of humanity probably recognizes it as wrong compared to 2,000 years ago.

Admittedly, the progress is like 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. The Iraq War is 4 steps back.

most eloquent; and i might add:

that if we have been able to create a degree of 'sparkle' during our brief 'window' on 'infinity, it will augment the brilliance of the beach sand, and pass on to future generations.

if we take into account, our species long dark primitive history, and the hard wiring that drives us, i think you would find predicting emotional reactions much easier than is currently thought!

it's all about 'pushing' the right 'buttons!

There, the 'buttons' are being worn out!

ok, i dont work with neural networks (yet...)...my mom does, but i know that the network learns by modifying the multipliers of each input signal relative to the difference in the desired result. it reaches a decision the same way it learns; by simply plugging in the inputs and seeing what the output neaurons yield, which can only be a 0/1. but a combination of 0's and 1's can give a more complex answer of course. im pretty sure that there is no adding or subtracting of neurons from the network, that would seem to defeat the purpose.

bogowo, i think i promised to get back to you on the evolution thing...anyway i was wrong. i could have sworn there was another process in effect but if there is i coudnt find mention of it.




yeah they are fairly predictable but if it were as suggested, all people would have the same emotions under the same circumstances