New Age "One" Belief = Spiritual Borg?

reply to post by EnlightenUp


I am not so sure we are derailing. I think we are getting at the deeper problem. Or should I say point of contention.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Well, if you view a "soul" as consciousness....... We don't gain a "soul" til well after birth. It's just something that coalesces.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Well, if you view a "soul" as consciousness....... We don't gain a "soul" til well after birth. It's just something that coalesces.

I think I have debated with you in this past on this

Some people believe that the brain gives the illusion of self awareness. If that is so, then how is that an illusion? If it is an illusion, then we wouldn't be aware!

This is one of the fallacies made by psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and others have made.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


We may have at that. But wasn't it about whether or not we have free will?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

We may have at that.

But wasn't it about whether or not we have free will?

It wasn't about whether or not we have free will. It was about our consciousness. Maybe it was someone else.

Basically, as this person states, that the self awareness is just an illusion. With brain damage, you are a different person. You are not you anymore. So goes the argument.

My belief (with proofs of course LOL) is that we are eternal souls. We were never "one god".

You are right. There is a conspiracy to get as many people to believe that they are one god or to worship only one god. This is how dictatorship works.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Certainly wasn't me.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Allright Just making sure

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I think the confusion is between self-awareness as an illusion and as a delusion.

An illusion only means some phenomenon is of a different nature or construction than what is apparent. A delusion means it's a false belief. It sounds like an ill-conceived copout to me.

If we were not conscious, why would the idea ever arise in the first place? Would we deny it if we were not, or rather if that did not exist at all? How could we? It would appear the only way to be able to deny the fact of consciousness is for at least one being to posess it, thereby implying that it exists. So, will a fully intelligent computer system deny that it is conscious or acknowledge it? I can see how it could answer "no" as we posess the concept to introduce into the system.

Further confusion is to equate being conscious with being self aware. Self-awareness isn't quite the same as the simple being of a subjective self. I'm sure my cat is conscious whatever the heck it sees, smells, tastes, hears, feels, wants, etc. and it is somewhat of a similar raw subjective experience to my own but does it wonder about that? Well, I don't know to be honest. I'm not sure if we're blessed or cursed.

One problem with the soul is it is a homunculus. How does pushing the explanation back further in a chain actually answer anything? I am not denying its existence, I'm denying its explanatory power. If the soul is what's conscious, just how does that work? The questions don't cease there.

If oneness is really an explanation, why is there apparent individuality? Do you recall the way compound eyes on insects are portrayed on television where it shows a bunch of separate and similar images? Yeah, I highly doubt that is the experience the insect has, it probably has a unified and merged view of all those separate eyes. My point is in the former case, why is the experience not one awarness watching the separate smaller images shown all at once on the T.V.? If its like the latter case, why is it that the separateness is apparent at all? It should be concealed to the one awareness.

I do feel like I've glimpsed the how and why about this, for however brief a period, but I cannot bring it back here. I vow to prevail though! No joke. Something new has to be brought across the threshold.

Edit: Fix missing words


[edit on 10/18/2009 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


That is a beautiful fractal. I have seen fractal trees before but I think that is the first time I've seen that particular rendering. I saved it to my computer for future reference. Thanks for posting it.

Originally posted by wylee
It has to do with whether we actually have free will, because maybe we just have the illusion of free will.

Yet if one is god and what would be the mystery?... What would inspire that being if everything is mechanical.....

Playing with and breaking the self-made rules.

Physicists keep playing around with the idea of alternate/parallel universes and have even had a good deal of success with it, including "quantum computers" that, as far as anyone can tell, work on exactly those principles. But then no one is sure how they actually work.

What would the point be in a creation of an infinite number of slightly-varying universes, except to play infinitely on the way it works out?

And it really does tie in to free will, too, I think. Because free will does exist, but also does not exist, on separate levels. Much of what we do is unconscious behavior, we do it automatically out of habit alone and never question it. THAT is NOT free will. But what we are conscious of, and especially as we increase our awareness (which is multi-dimensional itself), the more of a choice we have in our actions. The more aware we are, the greater choice we have. That is the slide-rule of "free will," imo.

And it is how the source energy is able to inform its creation, and break rules. Through us.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by EnlightenUp

I think the confusion is between self-awareness as an illusion and as a delusion. An illusion only means some phenomenon is of a different than what is apparent. A delusion means it's a false belief. It sounds like an ill-conceived copout to me.

I do not see any difference. Basically a neuroscientist will tell you that your personal identity is an illusion, or a delusion if you will.

Basically the fallacy here is this:

If self awareness is an illusion, then how come I am aware of myself? A computer can be aware of itself or the environment, but is it "aware"?

There was this toy hand at Kroger that slaps you every time you reach in to get a candy or whatever. Certainly it is aware of the movement. It detects your hand movement when it gets close so it slaps your hand. But can you say that it possesses self awareness?

Extend this to a complex computer. Will you still say that it is self aware? Is it a person? Is Data in Star Trek a real person?

If "self-awareness" is just an illusion, then why am I watching myself typing this post? Why am I experiencing this?

If we were not conscious, why would the idea ever arise in the first place? Would we deny it if we were not, or rather if that did not exist at all?

Exactly.

If oneness is really an explanation, why is there apparent individuality? Do you recall the way compound eyes on insects are portrayed on television where it shows a bunch of separate and similar images? Yeah, I highly doubt that is the experience the insect has, it probably has a unified and merged view of all those separate eyes.

That's the point I was trying to make. There is either Oneness or Manyness. If we are One, then we would be seeing every individual at the same time (compound eyes). Obviously that is not the case.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Artificial intelligence researcher Douglas Hofstadter has traced self-awareness back to open-loops in neurons and neuron networks.

It's very peculiar how this works. Not only neuron networks, but individual neurons themselves link back to themselves and create an electrical open-loop. Anyone familiar with open-loops in electrical engineering knows the unusual characteristics of these circuits. They are extremely susceptible to noise, and are chaotic. But the order that eventually emerges apparently is determined by quantum activity that is effectively amplified by the open-loop.

The neurons themselves become self-aware, in order to determine what to do next!!!

Then the larger networks they form become self-aware with the same feedback mechanism, in order for them to determine what should be done next!

You really are as much a complex society of trillions of discrete living parts, as you are 1 individual. A very beautiful example of the principle of "all is one" being taken to heart -- by your body.

reply to post by bsbray11

Artificial intelligence researcher Douglas Hofstadter has traced self-awareness back to open-loops in neurons and neuron networks.

That is just checking (looking) itself. It's like a computer program checking registers or memory or previous states. It's just feedbacking on previous states. He doesn't know what he was talking about? Dijkstra doesn't either. Neumann either.

Even so, why am I aware of myself and not you?

The neurons themselves become self-aware, in order to determine what to do next!!!

This is just looping or feedback.

You really are as much a complex society of trillions of discrete living parts, as you are 1 individual. A very beautiful example of the principle of "all is one" being taken to heart -- by your body.

LOL. I cannot deny that we are beautiful

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Artificial intelligence researcher Douglas Hofstadter has traced self-awareness back to open-loops in neurons and neuron networks.

That is just checking (looking) itself. It's like a computer program checking registers or memory or previous states. It's just feedbacking on previous states. He doesn't know what he was talking about? Dijkstra doesn't either. Neumann either.

You're right that it's 'just looking at itself'.

That is what self-awareness is, in essence.

When I am introspective, and just look at the inside of myself, and just watch my thoughts, I similarly enter an open-feedback, and it is a very peculiar state of mind, to put it one way.

The fact that we are not only self-aware, but our individual neurons are also crudely self-aware (and also directly give rise to our own self-awareness) boggles my mind. It is layers on layers, fractals, that give us such a level of consciousness.

Even so, why am I aware of myself and not you?

Realistically, neither you or I are gathering information from individual neurons right now. We are just going with the flow of the bigger neuron patterns that fire across our brain.

Only in deep meditation are we quiet enough in our thoughts to notice some of the peculiar ways our brain actually works, and even access information that should exist only outside of us. Except through entanglement and those kinds of quantum mechanisms, which are even below the threshold of individual neurons. That is where the unified field exists, though, no doubt about it, even for scientists. At or "below" the quantum level, back to the primordial field.

The neurons themselves become self-aware, in order to determine what to do next!!!

This is just looping or feedback.

I agree with everything except the word "just."

reply to post by bsbray11

You're right that it's 'just looking at itself'. That is what self-awareness is, in essence.

This is what frustrates me. It's hard to define anything and get the meaning across.

I do not know the exact term for it.

When I am introspective, and just look at the inside of myself, and just watch my thoughts, I similarly enter an open-feedback, and it is a very peculiar state of mind, to put it one way.

But you are keeping using the terms "myself", "I", etc. What does that mean?

The fact that we are not only self-aware, but our individual neurons are also crudely self-aware (and also directly give rise to our own self-awareness) boggles my mind. It is layers on layers, fractals, that give us such a level of consciousness.

I know all about fractals. At what point does a computer become an "I". That hand slapping other hands? Turning machines? What?

Data may be "self-aware" and be a "real person", but there is nobody home.

Realistically, neither you or I are gathering information from individual neurons right now. We are just going with the flow of the bigger neuron patterns that fire across our brain.

That's not the point.

I agree with everything except the word "just."

It IS "just".

This is a very, very old argument. It hasn't been settled today. Neuroscientists say it's just an illusion, i.e., there's nobody home.

"YOU" is not a product of a brain with all those neurons buzzing around.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

I do not see any difference. Basically a neuroscientist will tell you that your personal identity is an illusion, or a delusion if you will.

I would venture that it's more a matter of organizational constraints than an illusion/delusion.

Extend this to a complex computer. Will you still say that it is self aware? Is it a person? Is Data in Star Trek a real person?

Is it a person? Heck no. Is it conscious ("aware"), who knows. What if it says so? I have nothing but your word in your case so why shouldn't I believe it whatever it reports? Perhaps I'll doubt it because I could say it was deterministically programmed to give whatever answer and reasons that it did. I will want full disclosure as to its construction and knowledge base.

If "self-awareness" is just an illusion, then why am I watching myself typing this post? Why am I experiencing this?

What possible value from an evolutionary, materialistic point of view is there for having any analagous coherency between a reality and an internal representation, especially a first-person one. It seems it could work mechanistically without having "someone home". Something is afoot. Something is inching forward and struggling day by day to see itself as it is.

There is either Oneness or Manyness. If we are One, then we would be seeing every individual at the same time (compound eyes). Obviously that is not the case.

This is where I hesitate to continue my thinking. Oneness or Manyness could be a false dichotomy. Much like "wave or particle", it's really neither. It depends on the way it's measured. The truth does not seem to exist there.

Both Manyness and Oneness don't really hold up under careful scrutiny. One telltale sign is that of considering why my first-person awarness seems to be here, in this body and not in another. It seems under either condition it could just as easily be within any other being in the universe, perhaps with equal likelihood. The "anchoring problem" (that's my own nomenclature BTW) is a big problem and may even be a great deal harder than the hard problem itself unless answering the latter give real insight into the former. It is an issue under any currently available hypothesis. Anyone quick to dismiss it doesn't understand it.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

I would venture that it's more a matter of organizational constraints than an illusion/delusion.

Well, a furby is aware of it's environment and it talks and learns. It's organized. But is it a real person? Data is vastly more complex. He may say that he is a real person. But would you say that it is a real person? There is an episode where Data is on a trial. It's very difficult.

Definition is what missing. A computer may be self-aware, i.e., it responds to environment and makes decision based on environment. But that is not what is meant here.

Like I said, if it's true what they say, then we all are really not "home". If we are talking to a person, there is nobody home. I.E., if a person is a robot, I could ask it how it is. He would probably reply that it was fine or depending on the situation or the weather, not "feeling good".

I have nothing but your word in your case so why shouldn't I believe it whatever it reports?

Well, I have my word. I do not know about you

Something is afoot. Something is inching forward and struggling day by day to see itself as it is.

Something is afoot allright This something is hard to define. I say self-awareness and others say it's just a feedback or a loop. What is this? A splinter in the mind?

The "anchoring problem" (that's my own nomenclature BTW) is a big problem and may even be a great deal harder than the hard problem itself unless answering the latter give real insight into the former. It is an issue under any currently available hypothesis. Anyone quick to dismiss it doesn't understand it.

Oh thank you! That's a better term for it.

Anchoring problem.

I am me. You are you.

I do not understand how people can not grasp this.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Data may be "self-aware" and be a "real person", but there is nobody home.

Interesting. You used "nobody home" while I was working up a post with "someone home".

I will tell you what that is like. It is like no thing. Not long ago when I was driving, I literally experienced "no thing" which isn't actually an experience. An entire mile of distance and time were not there. It wasn't a memory lapse either. Of course I have experienced times where I'm not just remembering due to lack of attention. No, the street on which I was to turn was literally not there. I wasn't home. There was no sense of driving the distance or anything yet somehow something kept the car going down the road just fine. I saw the one before and the one after and that's it.

It was like being in a giant blind spot in time and space but again, not like any thing. Much like the optic nerve connection to the retina, only whats on either side was experienced and the in-between smoothly interpolated but nothing is there.

How does one describe a non-experience experience besides to say its not like any thing?

I hear my own neurons groaning under the weight of these odd experiences. Structural collapse imminent.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

You're right that it's 'just looking at itself'. That is what self-awareness is, in essence.

This is what frustrates me. It's hard to define anything and get the meaning across.

I think what you are looking to define is not exactly what I am talking about, though.

The sense of being self-aware really is essentially just an open-feedback though, that is constantly self-referencing. Consciousness itself, or just plain awareness, are different. When you take something that is conscious/aware, and plug it back into itself, though, that is where self-awareness comes from. Where consciousness itself comes from is something else entirely.

When I am introspective, and just look at the inside of myself, and just watch my thoughts, I similarly enter an open-feedback, and it is a very peculiar state of mind, to put it one way.

But you are keeping using the terms "myself", "I", etc. What does that mean?

Nothing, ultimately.

The illusion of my "self" as a discrete part in the universe, is just an illusion, reinforced by me constantly self-referencing. That I am plugged into myself like an open-feedback loop is where "I" keep getting this "I" from; "I" feel this and "I" feel that, when really "I" am just awareness plugged into a biological system with its own awareness.

I know all about fractals. At what point does a computer become an "I". That hand slapping other hands? Turning machines? What?

At the point where it asserts of its own, something along the lines of, "I think therefore I am," then you know there is something very mysterious going on inside that machine. It has become aware of itself as a discrete unit, which is ultimately an illusion, like I said, but a very common illusion and one that arises from self-reference/self-awareness. We humans are complex enough even to see that this self-awareness exists and is an illusion, that we are really just an odd extension of our environment.

Data may be "self-aware" and be a "real person", but there is nobody home.

Right, and same for many animals and other life forms that don't have our bodies. Our incredibly designed bodies is really what makes us so different. Though if some alien, or even a Buddhist monk from years in the mountains came to me, they might say "nobody is home" here, either.

I agree with everything except the word "just."

It IS "just".

If your neurons were not built this way, I guarantee you that your would not have same mental capacity as you do with them built with open-feedbacks. In other words, the amount of consciousness that is able to manifest in our physical bodies is a direct result of the way our bodies are designed and maintained, imo. Which is no different in humans as it is in animals or anything else.

This is a very, very old argument. It hasn't been settled today. Neuroscientists say it's just an illusion, i.e., there's nobody home.

"YOU" is not a product of a brain with all those neurons buzzing around

I agree completely. And there is somebody home. But there is a home, too.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


And it's funny that you should be thinking along the same lines as Deaf Alien, because I was thinking along the same lines as what you posted, but I just didn't post it, and you posted it first!

Actually, I did include it in my post, but only in a single word. I said "I" am nothing, ultimately.

The great vast emptiness. When you approach the center of the circle, you find you haven't really reached the center. The center is an infinitely small point that you can only keep approaching infinitely. So really what is "in the center," is nothing. Just like a vortex with an open hole that is the source of the spinning: there is nothing here, or there, or anywhere!

We must be amongst the most insane people posting on these forums.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Interesting. You used "nobody home" while I was working up a post with "someone home".

Interesting coincidence

I will tell you what that is like. It is like no thing. Not long ago when I was driving, I literally experienced "no thing" which isn't actually an experience. An entire mile of distance and time were not there. It wasn't a memory lapse either. Of course I have experienced times where I'm not just remembering due to lack of attention. No, the street on which I was to turn was literally not there. I wasn't home. There was no sense of driving the distance or anything yet somehow something kept the car going down the road just fine. I saw the one before and the one after and that's it.

I've had experience this phenomenon 1000's of times. I used to travel a lot. Basically I would drive long distances and then I would zone out then when I get to the destination, I would ask myself, "Did I just drive all the way here? I really don't remember!"

What happens is that you withdraw and let the automatic system take over.

See, the question is, where were you?

How does one describe a non-experience experience besides to say its not like any thing?

You simply weren't there!!!!

That's my point. There was nobody home!

The driving was so repetitious that you simply left out of boredom.

I hear my own neurons groaning under the weight of these odd experiences. Structural collapse imminent.

hehehe

It's so surprising with all those driving around I haven't crashed!