ReasonTalk.com

Not woo.. But inner conflict.

Is this too simple or is there more to the statement:

Conflict Creates Consciousness?

Or..

Consciousness Creates Conflict..

They're just words for stuff moving about in the ether.

Who cares, who dares,
fancy a swim?

Reasonable man wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2018

00ed9538c3a21c00d5d7e5e031fccdf8.jpg

Pain is the non-acceptance of pain.

That may not make sense, but it does.

djadalaide wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2018

Not woo.. But inner conflict.

Is this too simple or is there more to the statement:

Conflict Creates Consciousness?

Or..

Consciousness Creates Conflict..

They're just words for stuff moving about in the ether.

Who cares, who dares,
fancy a swim?

As above so below....

djadalaide wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2018

Not woo.. But inner conflict.

Is this too simple or is there more to the statement:

Conflict Creates Consciousness?

Or..

Consciousness Creates Conflict..

They're just words for stuff moving about in the ether.

Who cares, who dares,
fancy a swim?

You are all figments of my diseased imagination.

Any minute now I shall awake, but fuck knows what awaits me in the world of wakefulness.

How about this: There is only one consciousness, it just IS, then there is the universe consisting of time which just BECOMES. In a beautiful marriage a kaleidoscope of moments appears each of which would neither exist through consciousness nor time alone. Consciousness misunderstands time because it can't become, just be. Time can't reach consciousness because it can't be, it just becomes.

normen wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018

How about this: There is only one consciousness, it just IS, then there is the universe consisting of time which just BECOMES. In a beautiful marriage a kaleidoscope of moments appears each of which would neither exist through consciousness nor time alone. Consciousness misunderstands time because it can't become, just be. Time can't reach consciousness because it can't be, it just becomes.

I like this idea.

In a sense we would be painting our reality from an infinite palette of moments. And "we" would be focus points to which consciousness delegates a painting task, until merging back to the One-state again.

Some unfiltered thoughts:
Now-snapshots rendered to sequences of states, like a CPU clock handling events, with the highest frequency possible setting the speed of light.

An object in space can chose to either move its position in space, or let time pass("do nothing").

A foton updates its position in space for every single clock cycle.

An extremely fast moving object updates its position every, let's say, tenth clock cycle.

Any surplus clock cycles between the ones used for moving the object, that would be "time".

An object that doesn't move at all...spending zero energy/clock cycles to move it's atoms to another position in space, would be fastforwarding into future from a fastmoving observers view.

An object receiving huge amounts of energy to move is position would experience the opposite

normen wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018

How about this: There is only one consciousness, it just IS, then there is the universe consisting of time which just BECOMES. In a beautiful marriage a kaleidoscope of moments appears each of which would neither exist through consciousness nor time alone. Consciousness misunderstands time because it can't become, just be. Time can't reach consciousness because it can't be, it just becomes.

jappe wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018

normen wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018

How about this: There is only one consciousness, it just IS, then there is the universe consisting of time which just BECOMES. In a beautiful marriage a kaleidoscope of moments appears each of which would neither exist through consciousness nor time alone. Consciousness misunderstands time because it can't become, just be. Time can't reach consciousness because it can't be, it just becomes.

I like this idea.

In a sense we would be painting our reality from an infinite palette of moments. And "we" would be focus points to which consciousness delegates a painting task, until merging back to the One-state again.

Some unfiltered thoughts:
Now-snapshots rendered to sequences of states, like a CPU clock handling events, with the highest frequency possible setting the speed of light.

An object in space can chose to either move its position in space, or let time pass("do nothing").

A foton updates its position in space for every single clock cycle.

An extremely fast moving object updates its position every, let's say, tenth clock cycle.

Any surplus clock cycles between the ones used for moving the object, that would be "time".

An object that doesn't move at all...spending zero energy/clock cycles to move it's atoms to another position in space, would be fastforwarding into future from a fastmoving observers view.

An object receiving huge amounts of energy to move is position would experience the opposite

Yeah, computer simulation is a good way to see how fundamentally incompatible a "frame" (moment / being) and the passage of time (becoming) really are.

The funny thing about the "universe frame by frame" is that the computers speed doesn't even matter. Because the universe IS that one frame the universe itself wouldn't even notice if that computer that calculated it took ages in it's own time. For the habitants of the computed universe it would seem like the previous frame just happened. You can even go further and render the frames out of order! In each frame that is currently calculated the aliens in that universe would have the brains with all the memories from the previous frame, no matter if it was calculated before or not. Maybe the moment you read this is the first frame of our universe, calculated by a Pentium

All this and more is why I don't believe we could compute the universe (or even consciousness for that matter). We always think our current tech is the shit. When we had goats we knew the goat gods made the universe, when we built machines we thought the universe is a machine, now we build computers and think it's a computer... Pretty predictable

@bxbrkrz: Rupert, I love him but he wants it all too much sometimes Still being that "far out" and still having a relatively good stand in the scientific community is a good sign that he's for real - no UFO/NewAge/PseudoScience money maker or plain nutcase.

Rupert sounds like he's in touch with the Electric Universe concept, without saying it directly. The "far out" ideas made Newton, Einstein famous enough to brake many prior paradigm shifts.

We can't measure Consciousness, but we use it to understand it. That's the ultimate conflict.

Research in Science is NEVER settled.

bxbrkrz wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018

Rupert sounds like he's in touch with the Electric Universe concept, without saying it directly. The "far out" ideas made Newton, Einstein famous enough to brake many prior paradigm shifts.

We can't measure Consciousness, but we use it to understand it. That's the ultimate conflict.

Research in Science is NEVER settled.

Heh, there is no Electric Universe "concept" and it's "inventor" will tell you as much. I mean it's cool the guy gets enough people to give him money to keep doing what he does but it's fundamentally incompatible to what Mr. Sheldrake and other scientists do. You can't go "Hey, I think it's somehow electrical - lets see if we can find random evidence for that". It's simply now how science works and also not how Einstein or Newton came to their conclusions, quite the opposite. Then again, who knows what he might find looking at things from his angle. At least he's doing stuff and looking at stuff for the money instead of just telling people "I've got the truth, you can buy it in my book".

And we can't not just measure consciousness, we don't even have a word for what kind of thing it might be. Thats another reason why I think the people telling us conscious AI or simulated life is just some years away are full of shit. We don't even know what either of these are - how can you tell me that we'll simulate or recreate that in some years??

normen wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018

bxbrkrz wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2018

Rupert sounds like he's in touch with the Electric Universe concept, without saying it directly. The "far out" ideas made Newton, Einstein famous enough to brake many prior paradigm shifts.

We can't measure Consciousness, but we use it to understand it. That's the ultimate conflict.

Research in Science is NEVER settled.

Heh, there is no Electric Universe "concept" and it's "inventor" will tell you as much. I mean it's cool the guy gets enough people to give him money to keep doing what he does but it's fundamentally incompatible to what Mr. Sheldrake and other scientists do. You can't go "Hey, I think it's somehow electrical - lets see if we can find random evidence for that". It's simply now how science works and also not how Einstein or Newton came to their conclusions, quite the opposite. Then again, who knows what he might find looking at things from his angle. At least he's doing stuff and looking at stuff for the money instead of just telling people "I've got the truth, you can buy it in my book".

And we can't not just measure consciousness, we don't even have a word for what kind of thing it might be. Thats another reason why I think the people telling us conscious AI or simulated life is just some years away are full of shit. We don't even know what either of these are - how can you tell me that we'll simulate or recreate that in some years??

What color in Consciousness? How big is it? Does it have an internal clock? How can we code the tool using the tool that helps us code the tool not knowing what the tool is.

Not sure what creates it.

Consciousness one day appeared to us, it was there. Possibly when your mother or father confronted you with the fact that there's a you and me. That wasn't scary yet we got addicted and are afraid when we loose it. But we never missed it before it was available to us.

Even when we're not conscious about something that something still is for many others. So consciousness is a purely ego thing. A blind spot because we cannot absorb everything. A totally limitation but also a deep feeling we exsist. Which might not be true. It just is. We are the imagination of ourselves.

Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Consciousness one day appeared to us, it was there. Possibly when your mother or father confronted you with the fact that there's a you and me. That wasn't scary yet we got addicted and are afraid when we loose it. But we never missed it before it was available to us.

Uhm, that would imply that newborns are unconscious? I don't think a newborns consciousness is in any way different than ours, it's just that the brain around it doesn't decode much data yet, that consciousness gets an unfiltered random stream of data from it's senses. We already have the brain that decodes the data "table - chair - computer - angry face" and delivers that to that same consciousness - so we don't just stare wide open like a newborn.

normen wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Consciousness one day appeared to us, it was there. Possibly when your mother or father confronted you with the fact that there's a you and me. That wasn't scary yet we got addicted and are afraid when we loose it. But we never missed it before it was available to us.

Uhm, that would imply that newborns are unconscious? I don't think a newborns consciousness is in any way different than ours, it's just that the brain around it doesn't decode much data yet, that consciousness gets an unfiltered random stream of data from it's senses. We already have the brain that decodes the data "table - chair - computer - angry face" and delivers that to that same consciousness - so we don't just stare wide open like a newborn.

Yes I believe that. That newborns live unconsciously. That they are not aware of themselves 'till the moment they see themselves as a living thing, as an object.

Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Yes I believe that. That newborns live unconsciously. That they are not aware of themselves 'till the moment they see themselves as a living thing, as an object.

Alright, I see. I think the disconnect (i.e. you not remembering having experienced that time as a newborn) is just from the fact that your brain didn't "save the data in the right format yet" so to speak. And I don't quite know if we mean the same thing when we talk about consciousness. It's not really about being aware of anything in particular, like being aware of yourself. It's just _being aware_. Just like you might not be aware of yourself or remember anything about an evening in the bar. You were certainly conscious though, something experienced that Or the other way around I think that if I put your consciousness in a dogs brain you'd start barking at me and not wonder why As said maybe because it's one and the same thing in your, my and the dogs head and who knows where else - everywhere? only in the complicated systems? only where Zeus had a dump? who knows

normen wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Yes I believe that. That newborns live unconsciously. That they are not aware of themselves 'till the moment they see themselves as a living thing, as an object.

Alright, I see. I think the disconnect (i.e. you not remembering having experienced that time as a newborn) is just from the fact that your brain didn't "save the data in the right format yet" so to speak. And I don't quite know if we mean the same thing when we talk about consciousness. It's not really about being aware of anything in particular, like being aware of yourself. It's just _being aware_. Just like you might not be aware of yourself or remember anything about an evening in the bar. You were certainly conscious though, something experienced that Or the other way around I think that if I put your consciousness in a dogs brain you'd start barking at me and not wonder why As said maybe because it's one and the same thing in your, my and the dogs head and who knows where else - everywhere? only in the complicated systems? only where Zeus had a dump? who knows

I always thought that consciousness is about being aware of yourself in relationship with your surroundings.

Being in a bar and not remebering it feels like unconsiousness to me. Your brain stopped connecting you with the outside world. Zen Buddhism can stop consciousness also. You can resist pain for example. It goes unconsiously.

Thing for me is: what causes consciousness? Your brain? Some people are experiencing out of body things. Is your brain doing this? Might be a factor we all are not aware of right now.

Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Thing for me is: what causes consciousness? Your brain? Some people are experiencing out of body things. Is your brain doing this? Might be a factor we all are not aware of right now.

Our brain is a big VR simulator using data from probes like our eyes and ears, always refining the simulation based on experience and stored data (memories). To me the question is who's watching the simulation?

Rupert puts it pretty well in the video above when he says that if you believe that consciousness is a result of brain operation you have to deal with some other facts coming from that. You will in the end _have to_ say that consciousness only experiences for some reason but can't do anything - basically a bug because it cannot have a function. (This isn't just my opinion it's due to how in that case the "universe controls your brain" - again the video above starts to explain it if you're interested)

normen wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2018

Thing for me is: what causes consciousness? Your brain? Some people are experiencing out of body things. Is your brain doing this? Might be a factor we all are not aware of right now.

Our brain is a big VR simulator using data from probes like our eyes and ears, always refining the simulation based on experience and stored data (memories). To me the question is who's watching the simulation?

You only have to check out the unreal engine examples.. Its pretty much realistic down to the lighting, movement etc. So i can believe that!

Our conscious experience is just our internal representation, cognitions, perceptions and changes in state.

It's easy to perceive it as something that has to be separate from, or can not result from neuron activity, but there is nothing about our conscious experience that requires anything more.

The experience is just the processing of the state.

Machine registers pain and adjusts the state of hte perceptual model.

When the machine attempts to reconcile its internal models with the neurological model, it sees a bit of a mismatch, naturally, because the neurological interactions create emergent layers of interactions and models that cannot be described by its own model.

I think Godel's incompleteness theorem touches on this.