BM Brain Theory vs. Neuroscience

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

[SpeedOfSound]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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?

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

[SpeedOfSound]

There ain't no fucking observer

Then why do we all have a first person perspective on our own experience?
Then why are neuro scientists trying to find the 'location', or 'source' of the first person perspective?
Subject: Sense of agency is generated in the brain?
If there aint no fucking observer, there aint no fucking first person perspective, because the definition of a first person is the observer, right?

Word salad with a fork. R1 talk mistaken for R2 realities. Wittgenstein will tell you why we have to talk R1 when we are explaining stuff.

But now that you introduce the paper as evidence we will get into it. I think you will find that they are finding physical correlates for it not woo.

[SpeedOfSound]

Well, you see. Actually, its the other way round.
The fact that I can be so confident about what neroscience can and can not demonstrate is suporting evidence for my model of 'absolute reality'. My model has therefore demonstrable predictive powers, within space-time you see?
Because of my model, I can make accurate predictions about neuroscience not being able to do things which counter the model of reality.
Is that not plausible?

And it is completely plausible that the physical reality could be an imaginative production of a large mind in which all individual minds are in the same relation to it as waves to the ocean.

You've gone toward the deep end here.

Your evidence is the 'fact that you are so confident'?

[The Dagda]

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.

Good grief the number of expert laymen in the world never ceases to amaze me. You know this because of what? You're indoctrination into a religion since day one, your worship of Descartes. You had a revaltion on the bus. Overwhelming observational evidence? I'll give you a clue if it isn't the last one then we have nothing to discuss oh waver of the sacred arms.

Believe it or not because I just know has never been admissible as evidence either in science, philosophy or a court of law, that would be religion. Because I'm just right alright now shut up and stop thinking about it. Pfft show me the money or get out of this dojo.

The fact that no one as yet knows how the brain works exactly means that most of neuroscience is philosophy so what? Most neuroscientists are still materialists despite many philosophers not being. What I detest is when the counter argument is you don't know the answers so my answers are either possible or right. No they are hypothetical and unfalsifiable so they are useless to science.


This may well be out of context with your argument, but frankly your logic is flawed.

If your going to use brain theory in the same sentence as science then you should say my brain hypothesis, which it probably doesn't even measure up to. Sounds like philosophical word wank to me.

[jamest]

This must be the twilight zone.

SOS, always explain your use of abbreviations at the start of a thread.

[SpeedOfSound]

This must be the twilight zone.

SOS, always explain your use of abbreviations at the start of a thread.

Added to OP

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.

Sorry. Thought you had already got the memo on this.

[GrahamH]

[jamest]

Sorry. Thought you had already got the memo on this.

Well even if I've come across their meanings elsewhere, they're easy to forget. Also, new readers might stumble across this thread.

[The Dagda]

Sorry. Thought you had already got the memo on this.

Well even if I've come across their meanings elsewhere, they're easy to forget. Also, new readers might stumble across this thread.

I'm new I got it, points and giggles.

It's obvious that he's not the op as the quote name is different from the op. That said for n00bs to forums like this who may not be BB savvy you suck.

[SpeedOfSound]

Sorry. Thought you had already got the memo on this.

Well even if I've come across their meanings elsewhere, they're easy to forget. Also, new readers might stumble across this thread.

I'm new I got it, points and giggles.

It's obvious that he's not the op as the quote name is different from the op. That said for n00bs to forums like this who may not be BB savvy you suck.

Yup. I suck. I started in the middle. This is a spin off thread.

I have also added linefeeds to LittleIdiots quotes from he other thread. I will edit to reference the original thread.

I added some qualifications to the OP in an edit. Check that out. At the beginning.

[SpeedOfSound]

This is Baars list of functions for C. It is offered toward my definition of C.

The Biological Necessity of Consciousness


Borrowed from another posts of mine. Here for reference.

Consciousness evolved to optimize the trade-off between organization and flexibility. Borrowed from Baars.

C evolved for a number of related functions to facilitate the operation of a complex memory based system of behavior.

1. It allows context setting and input comparison.
2. It is physiologically necessary for synaptic modification or learning and memory.
3. It allows for debugging and modification of automatic learned behaviors when they fail to work.
4. It can create a problem context and recruit subgoals and motor systems to carry out actions.
5. Attentional control.
6. Prioritize goals.
7. Decide between alternate plans.
8. Create analogies or partial matches of input.
9. Self-monitoring or metacognitive functions. Socialization.
10. Maintenance of a sense of self in a sense of an environment.

All borrowed from Baars chapter nine of A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness where they are well supported with hundreds of research links. I'm not going to type those for you.

I make a further claim which is unsupported, and probably can not be proven, but I personally accept it completely. I will accept it until I find proof that it's wrong.

The mechanisms in the brain that support the above function are all there is to how I feel when I feel conscious.

C is how it feels to be a brain mattering in a brain-like way.

[normal]