BM Brain Theory vs. Neuroscience

[SpeedOfSound]

Hey. Jump right in and say something new under the sun.

[SpeedOfSound]

To further define consciousness as the thing we all feel is a little problematic but let's see.

As a basic assumption we can all agree that we are all conscious.

But why would I assume such a thing? I suggest that it is because I observe in others all of the capabilities that Baars outlined above.

So if I accept that assumption then I must accept that the functional is my definition of consciousness.

We can go outside that box and try to talk about what I feel subjectively. This would be all hearsay. Not grounded or supported by anything other than anecdotal introspection.

Still. The effort is fruitful I think and we should try. As long as we do not conflate what can be supported with the feelings we get when we introspect.

I recommend notation of Cfunc and Csubj for the two ideas.

Let's chew on this.

[SpeedOfSound]

LI when you start blathering about dismissing and me demonstrating things you should make it clear what claims you think I made and what such a demonstration should consist of.

[Little Idiot]

Hello SoS.
I have not been deliberatly ignoring your thread, I just assumed there were some neuroscience types getting a model together. Seems, on a quick skim, more like your trying to straighten your idea of my model.
Now I will put a bit of time in here on this thread.

Should I go through and comment on anything I want to point out as errors in your editorials of my comments? - not meaning that in a bad way, but your kind of saying what my ideas mean, you know what I am on about?

[SpeedOfSound]

Hello SoS.
I have not been deliberatly ignoring your thread, I just assumed there were some neuroscience types getting a model together. Seems, on a quick skim, more like your trying to straighten your idea of my model.
Now I will put a bit of time in here on this thread.

Should I go through and comment on anything I want to point out as errors in your editorials of my comments? - not meaning that in a bad way, but your kind of saying what my ideas mean, you know what I am on about?

I have asked some questions and would give you an opportunity to reword things. Make sure if you are changing what you wrote that you make clear to me what you had wrong to begin with so I can update my overall list of your ideas.

I see this as a thread for two ideas. My NS models and your BM models. We can intersperse discourse on them.

[Little Idiot]

I thought we needed to split the last thread up so the treeeness thread could have it's way with Tarski and math and logic as a New Way of Knowing.

Original thread: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 36#p387236

Note I have heavily added linefeeds to LittleIdiot's quotes. I have also taken them from some context and possibly changed the order in a few. If required I can provide the original link if you ask after a specific quote. LI may want to modify what he said or tighten these up. That will be accepted without prejudice. I get to do that too.

I'm taking snips of quotes from there to continue the discussion here of my idea of mind vs Little Idiots Big Mind. Hope that's okay with forum rules.


These ain't my fucking ideas they belong to LittleIdiot:
BM Big mind that imagines a universe
IM Individual mind that is a bubble in the Big Mind
BMI Imaginings of the Big Mind
PW The BMI that is the Physical World we all agree on.
R1/R2 Common sense human reality/ science as a body of knowledge extension and formalization.

Most of these are your abreviations, R1/R2 is your own creation entirely. But with that noted we can use them.
IM is not a bubble in BM, a bubble is often a second thing, like a bubble of air in coke. An IM is like a wave in an ocean, a part of the greater.
BMI is a term you created, not me.

The 'BMI' is not in the physical world; it IS the physical world.

The interaction of the 'imaginings' IS the PW,

Hmm. It's both the interactions of the imaginings AND the imaginings?

Isnt it quite reasonable to say our PW is both the things that are in it and from another perspective it is the interactions between these things. Physics studies the interactions more than the things, IMO

There is no physical world other than the imaginings as you are calling the ideas.
the laws of physics which we perceive are descriptions of this interaction of imaginings.

So BMI is Big Mind Ideas. What are ideas again? Different than imaginings?

Imaginings are your terms for ideas.
I think imaginings refers to created ideas created by mind by the imagination, but its your term so you tell me.

Both the imagining
and the individual mind
never leave the Big Mind.
There is no transformation.

So the individual mind is Something in the Big Mind? Is a BMI?
And the ideas never leave the BM.

b...but...

The experiences are creations of the individual mind
 (in the individual mind)
as response to the imaginings of the Big Mind.

so experiences are creations
the individual mind can create them
as a RESPONSE to the BMI

but you say there is no transform.

The situation is not complex. Imagine a circle inside a larger circle.
The large circle represents BM, the smaller IM.
Anything you can put in the small circle is also in the larger circle. It is possible to have things in the larger circle but not in the smaller. An event in the larger circle can enter the smaller, if the smaller moves within the larger.
Therefore, any idea within the IM is also in the BM, and although it may be a creation of the IM, it remains in the BM at all times, and is therefore also a creation in the BM.
Ideas can easily transfer between BM and IM without transform, IM can react to MB and experience its creations without leaving BM.

As I said, both IM and BMI can never leave the BM.
We dont experience the whole of the BMI we experience our physical world, which is a mental construct of our individual mind, but the origin of the mental data which the IM experiences as its environment is not the IM, it is of course BM. Thus is experience a reaction to BMI, and the individual mind experiences its own mental construction, which is a result of BMI. And there is no transform. Its all mental.

There is no transformation.

So let's' see how many things we have to talk about.

BM
IM
BMI = PW
interactions of the BMI
descriptions of the interactions. Physics.
Experiences E
Creation activity by the IM (not the brain?)
Response to BMI

Don't we also have the IM as the experiencer of it's creations?

You clear now?

[SpeedOfSound]

You clear now?

not really.

[SpeedOfSound]

BMI is the imaginings or ideas of big mind. I don't see the difference.

Okay. So BM imagines or ideas what? Every atom, particle, force in Oak1 and lays it out in space/time? Or does BM just imagine all of the possible experiences all IM's could ever have?

And then manage them all so that they make sense if a bunch of IM scientists get together and compare notes then their notes, which are also BMI, make logical sense?

feeling dizzy

[SpeedOfSound]

Imaginings are your terms for ideas.
I think imaginings refers to created ideas created by mind by the imagination, but its your term so you tell me

It's your idea that the PW is the idea of the BM. You tell me. You see a difference between idea and imagination?

Try to define idea for me. BMI can be idea or imagination. You choose. But you must understand that this is a little foggy?

You postulate a BM and then something separate form it called it's ideas. So there must be a set of ideas. DO you have some ontological basis for these ideas?

[Little Idiot]

So here is LittleIdiot theory of Brain:

the senses and brain/CNS
are to make the world
which is internal to mind
be experienced
as external to the body.

Both body and environment
are internal to both individual and Big mind,
but the environment is external to the body;
without the senses and CNS
this externalization is not possible.
Consider a dream;
we 'see' and 'hear' in the dream,
evenm though it is an imagination.
We cant experience the mental world of our dream
as-if external to our dream-body
without the action of our dream-senses.

I have, in my opinion, shown why it is not dualism, and why the senses are essential for the experience of the world which is internal to mind as external to the body.

Good to have an opinion. Notice how I unpack shit? I like it like that.

there is no physical cause for coinsciousness.
Here it is; you are saying the physical effect of SW in the brain is the recognition,
i.e. this is the awareness of the experience.
I ask you; so you can demonstrate that, right?

I know you can not.
I know this because there is no physical cause for consciousness
as SW or what ever else you guys come up with.

So you know this and you can prove it? You know for a fact that whatever we (neuroscientists) come up with can't be right?

How do you know that. Got some proof?

You misrepresent me here. I do not say 'what ever you come up with cant be right' I say what ever physical cause for consciousness you come up with cant be right, because there is no physical cause for consciousness.
I know this, because consciousness causes the experienced physical world.
But thats the crux of all our multiple thousands of posts, isnt it.

I know this one fact despite my total lack of expertise in neuroscience.
Can you? can you demonstrate this claim that you make?
Despite my lack of neuroscience,
 I am sure that this simply can not be demonstrated,
 because it is an assumption.
You can accept that if you can not demonstrate it,
then its not a scientific fact?
At best its a hypothesis,
I say its a materialistic assumption.

So what is it an hypothesis or a metaphysical assumption? Or maybe neither.

It is certainally not a demonstrated fact. I suggest its a hypothesis based on the assumption that there is a physical cause for consciousness.

I think I am well justified in reading all of the science and exhausting the resulting models to explain anything about the PW including myself. First. If that fails, and it may, then perhaps I will say woo.
So I see no assumption here. I see effort and open-mindedness to the possibility that it's all brain. I have never had anything outside physics yield an explanation before or physics fail to provide a reasonable one. Why should I reject a physical theory before exhausting the resource?

Again, you misrepresent me. I do not suggest the search is wrong, only that there will never be a sucessful end to the search. We should search out the physical cause, and only having looked until we are sure it cant be found are we able to say scientifically that it is not there to find.

For me, personally, and this is probably an emotional thing, I have adequately modeled and explained it all to MYSELF. I do not have any mind/body problem. And I do have expertise.

As I said before, your a mystic, 'you know what you know' from subjective experience, you are just in denial.

For others, all I can do is offer my models and evidence for my models and let y'all decide. That is the only demonstration of claim I can offer. Evidence for and lack of evidence against my model.

But let's be really fucking clear that my claim is that:
the evidence is for
and not against
and the model is predictive
and that is the bottom of it.

There is no absolute truth and no absolute proof of ANYTHING.

And why do you say there is no absolute truth?
Isnt that the essence of an argument from ignorance; I dont know of it, therefore it cant be.
Maybe a bit sloppy on setting out but you can see the idea from this example;
If x is an A.
And all A's are B
If B has the property Y
then x has the property Y.
Absolute proof, no?

[Little Idiot]

I know this because there is no physical cause for consciousness
as SW or what ever else you guys come up with.

I know this one fact despite my total lack of expertise in neuroscience.

A strong claim. Can you demonstrate it?

How can one demonstrate that something physical is not the cause of consciousness?
Only by demonstrating that consciousness is primary, that consciousness causes the physical.
Which you dont buy.

[Little Idiot]

It has indeed arrived,
but not where you and the neuroscientists are thinking.
It has arrived at the end of the track physical track
(as far as is traced at this point in time),
but it is still a physical effect,
an observable component of experience
(ie an object)
 it is not yet an experience,
it may be a 'physical correlate'
of the experience
but it may not yet be called 'an experience of the orange light'

So after it arrives at the next thing you have in mind you are going to tell me again that this physical effect is not crossing substance realms and is therefore not dualism.

Let's just talk out of our butts and then fix everything up by claiming it's all just one thing.

Neutral monist trick.

Its all mental.
The PW, the sense, the brain, body and CNS.
There is no crossing realms because the whole thing is mental.

[SpeedOfSound]

Its all mental.
The PW, the sense, the brain, body and CNS.
There is no crossing realms because the whole thing is mental.

Which says nothing. You could just as well say it's all physical. But we can't do either now can we?

[SpeedOfSound]

I know this because there is no physical cause for consciousness
as SW or what ever else you guys come up with.

I know this one fact despite my total lack of expertise in neuroscience.

A strong claim. Can you demonstrate it?

How can one demonstrate that something physical is not the cause of consciousness?
Only by demonstrating that consciousness is primary, that consciousness causes the physical.
Which you dont buy.

Demonstrate away.

[SpeedOfSound]

You have hardly dealt with any of the things that I quoted you saying.

For starters I ended up with a list of concepts that you introduced.

So let's' see how many things we have to talk about.

BM
IM
BMI = PW
interactions of the BMI
descriptions of the interactions. Physics.
Experiences E
Creation activity by the IM (not the brain?)
Response to BMI

Don't we also have the IM as the experiencer of it's creations?

All things you said without explanation for them. I don't know how you define them, equate them, or relate them.

Other aggravating problems are this business of individual elements of the PW or BMI's.

We have one BM with the master set and we have IM's with subsets. Of ideas? Or experiences?

Anyway. The IM sets must have both overlapping and disjoint elements.

And what would a wrong idea be? An illusion? A dream?

You made all those statements above like you have the mechanic s worked out but all I get out of you on questioning is more questions and inconsistencies.


Did you make all this shit up? Or is there a mentalism handbook somewhere?