It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Brain=Mind? How Valid Is Strict Materialism?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism


Processing is performed by following sets of rules. The difficulty with this analogy, that minds or brains are akin to computers, is the Chinese room thought experiment, which presents difficulties for computational mind-theories. A computer cannot learn or understand when it is simply following a set of rules, or is programmed by outside forces as it is being told what and how to “think”, rather than thinking and learning on its own accord.


i think we can both agree that a human brain is somewhat more capable than an actual computer. ie it is designed to operate itself instead of relying on an outside intelligence.


A computational mind would process information at a consistent rate, as determined by the power of its “hardware”, and would never take shortcuts, optimize its efficiency, speed up the process through experience, make mistakes, do it differently etc. until it was programmed to do so. This is simply not the case with “mind”.


indeed. a rigid network is less fluid with live feed data than a flexible one.


If my post history is any indication, I am of the opinion there is no mind, spirit, consciousness, ego etc. To me, these are ghosts and superstitions that require exorcism.


opinions are a very uncertain platform from which to launch exorcisms. and im well aware of what you think...including your crusade against labels, despite the fact that every language on earth is comprised completely of labels.


edit on 20-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

The Universe (I include alternates.) is a conscious entity which employs nodes. Individually we are nodes. It does not mean we are not in constant communication but that communication is constant between all of it's constituent parts but that filters are established to distinguish between rocks, plants and more complex organisms.

Think of gravity, quantum events, etc, as communicative instead of merely fields and causative agents.

Why are these segregations necessary has been my wonder. The only thing I see that is a constant in the Universe is that it desires to evolve. In order to do so it requires a SOMEWHAT stable platform. Time is used to permit both the evolution and platform. At any one instant, everything is stable. To evolve requires that the identical stability not dictate the future. So a new moment is allowed to emerge as a logical next step.

Each step is permitted to change within STATISTICAL parameters. This permission is what grants guided and fluke changes. Any change which is contrary to evolving will be snuffed out through processes such as returning to the mean. The mean itself will change incrementally as time moves.

If the Universe has utility for extra normal devices such as the 'paranormal', we can expect those to be incorporated. Since I have some experience in the weird, it is my observation that this has occurred. It will likely continue until it serves no purpose. The conservation of 'stuff' is a major tenet of those who are firmly attached to the physical. The same type of conservation could easily be applied to consciousness. It is a tool that the Universe uses to maintain a flexible continuity.

Everything is mutable and every instant a new beginning. How does the Universe hold itself together? We know at the Planck level intervals,the bubbling of the Quantum Foam stops. What starts it again? What device keeps track of past patterns? My thought is our whole concept has to be whole. Attempting to distinguish the Physical from the metaphysical is alike to sorting out the Universe into chunks of Dark Matter, Baryonic Matter, Electromagnetic Forces and Dark Energy and thinking they are separate. Inclusive thinking is required and our nature is to sort, configure and manage the disparate unlinked. It is something to grow out of.

We do not toss a hammer after one nail. We discard it when it lacks usefulness. My suspicion is that the Universe does the same. If an afterlife aids in evolving I'll see you on the flip-side. If it doesn't, I won't be surprised. ('Cause I'll be dead.)

In any case, until refinements in techniques and apparatti permit direct interaction (spirit boxes?) we'll be best served by open minds. You node, it's true.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: largo

are you saying that the entire universe is comprised of molecular/energetic syntax? like a giant book?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: largo

are you saying that the entire universe is comprised of molecular/energetic syntax? like a giant book?


I for one like that idea



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: TzarChasm







am i to assume you are out of substance to contribute to this conversation? because if that image is anything to measure by, id say you're scraping bottom.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: largo

are you saying that the entire universe is comprised of molecular/energetic syntax? like a giant book?


I for one like that idea


i am not opposed to it. i do feel it could be refined but it is definitely a starting point.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




am i to assume you are out of substance to contribute to this conversation?


If assuming is your modus operandi, by all means. The reason I posted the picture is because a banned member of ATS said the exact same phrase to me many times. Oddly enough, he was banned around the same time you joined. Perhaps a coincidence?

If not, I apologize, but I miss that person's insight.


edit on 21-10-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: TzarChasm




am i to assume you are out of substance to contribute to this conversation?


If assuming is your modus operandi, by all means. The reason I posted the picture is because a banned member of ATS said the exact same phrase to me many times. Oddly enough, he was banned around the same time you joined. Perhaps a coincidence?

If not, I apologize, but I miss that person's insight.



im aware. as i said ive looked through some of your threads...maybe i didnt mention that before. but i came across the phrase and it stuck in my mind. perhaps i can provide similar insight.

do you believe in coincidence?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: SystemResistor
a reply to: TheJourney

If the mind is a software, then it can exist without the hardware (brain) however, it is meant to be used to control the brain, like a user (you) uses the software (mind) to control the brain (hardware).



Am I missing something here? How can software exist without hardware???? Serious question!



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jheated5

The user owns the software, and uses it with the hardware. The software is the programming that you own, some software is given to you, and others you program yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join