The brain is just a receiver, it's obvious that the brain receives information, through the eyey, ears... and other parts of the sensory system. But also all the other forces that act on it, inside the natural laws everything obeys to, are received. (Of course this also is the case for a stone flying through the universe experiencing forces, or the body as whole)
This begs the question if consciousness is really created in the brain, and not received.
Is the body just a vehicle, and if so, does the ride ever end?
>The brain is just a receiver No, it receives, processes and emits information. We cannot understand our own conscience because we're inside of it, this is why we need to keep in mind a constant idea of the ''transcendent'' in order to being self-conscient.
>>41821304 I swear we can pick up signals (to a certain extent). I mean hasn't anyone else here just gone "huh I feel like so and so is gonna call me soon" then sure enough 3 seconds later you get a call from said person. Same goes for texts.
>>41821304 for all intensive purposes consciousness may as well be the totality of "everything", and our consciousness a heavily filtered version of. We are both inside and outside of this heavily filtered version, we can be attached or detached from our filtered version but only to a certain degree
>>41822187 A lame example would be feeling angry. This modifies our perception of the outside. We can be inside the feeling and act on it externally, or detached acknowledging there is anger brewing but not being inside the anger activity, instead observing it, however being outside of it, although it is within us which indicates layers of consciousness
>>41822052 I know what you mean, stuff like that can happen and one doesn't really know what to ascribe it to.
On another note, some people think there will be a plug, and then your brain is plugged to a pc, then you're transhuman, when 1. You're already plugged to it, there's a connection 2. Scanning the brain from the outside, and also sending information that way is much more clean
A computer is just an extension of your brain. Like a stick is the extension of the beak of a bird fishing something out of a hole.
>>41822324 UV light a force we cannot detect with our naked senses without the aid of science or technology, at one point to the human mind simply did not exist, our naked eyes could not see or , nor our senses detect it. Obviously it exists. How many other instances of of energy forces and phenomenon can we not detect today. Very hard to quantify, nay impossible, but our understanding of external phenomenon often is severely hampered by our sense filters that support us to remove "noise" we do not need in order to navigate our surroundings, yet that noise is real phenomenon taking place that we would need to, I suppose, you technology and science to detect again. Boy oh boy, there is so little we know in comparison to totality. Mankind certainly tries to his best tho to understand
>>41821304 Your sensory organs are part of your brain. The mind/body dichotomy is a western construct, in reality they are one and the same system. >>41822324 >A computer is just an extension of your brain Yes partly, only with very high input lag.
I want to elobaroate on further indicators that the brain is just a receiver.
When the computer is just an extension of the brain like a stock, is to a monkey's hand, fishing something out of a hole, then I should be able to project consciousness onto a projection field on a computer. I just did.
>>41822499 I think it's infinite, even if you was about to encounter the boundaries of the universe, you would push them away by creating further complexity through the act.
>>41822479 And I reaffirm what I said in my first comment. We can't fully understand human conscience because we're inside of it, we're part of it. We can only understand the universe by participation.
We know we have a conscience because some things are self-evident, but cannot be proven.
>>41821304 When subatomic particles are observed, they behave in a different manner. I don't think we're exclusive or outside of the present reality, we are it as much as anything else. The universe experiencing itself.
>>41821304 OP is correct... The lump of gray jello inside our skulls is merely a densely interconnected antennae that receives, perceives, and dips into the pool of conscious energy that surrounds us.
Think about it. We are limited in the bandwidth of energy that we can process by our sensory system. Some people can pick up on more, and others don't have a clue.
As an analogy, the brain is akin to a cable subscription. Some people have the extended package with Starz, HBO, and the ability to watch 10 NFL games simultaneously. Others are destined to stumble through life with a 13" black and white t.v. that only picks up CBS.
There is far more energy traveling around us, through us, and within us than we are aware of.
I, for instance, am convinced that dolphins are a bit more conscious than we are. Their limbic systems are more densely interconnected, their gyri and sulci are more convoluted, and there are reports of telepathy in porpoises.
It's all about the bandwidth and the hardware/wetware...
>>41822696 Yeah, I think mankind has great difficulty charting biological interactions as they are very complex and don't really follow predictable paths that can be forecast. It's tough going.
I believe we have already created tech which passes the turing test, however, I am highly skeptical computer AI will develop the complexity of consciousness we have, beyond being a primitive approximation.
>>41822324 We are already plugging brains in. I know for a fact that DARPA is pursuing a project to implant/alter memory chips in the human hippocampus. Of course our government always pursues such endeavors for "the greater good", right? Wink Wink..
>>41822951 Yes, our senses heavily filter, by design. If we were acutely aware of all phenomenon around us, I predict we could not walk down the street, it would be a case of total sensory overload. Even the street itself would become but 1 physical phenomenon amongst hundreds or thousands.
Probably just curl into fetal position, nothing more you could do.
>>41823120 not sure, does he preach conversion or death? Im comfortable with people following dogma if it is kept the fuck out of face, they are welcome, because at the end of the day, dogmatic understandings change over time. A 20 year olds perception / dogma will not be the same as they hold at age 50, dogma is malleable. That is the nature of dogma. Still science also re invents itself constantly, other than having an evidential thresh hold required to prove phenomenon
>>41823169 >how do we know that we're aware of everything if our senses are all we can go by?
We are literally not aware. All phenomenon will have an effect on other phenomenon, but only until such point we can measure or observe the effect against phenomenon we can detect, do we realize or have awareness of that energies existence.
Our senses aren't faulted, but are designed or evolved to allow us to navigate our surroundings, that filtering by virtue must leave a lot out, its survival based, not totality based.
Why do human beings use such little portions of their brains? Or do we use most of it but just don't understand how it works? As time goes on, and we evolve, will we learn how to use more of our brains? Maybe we will be able to have senses that we never thought was possible, like telepathy. I'm really sorry if i sound retarded, i'm very unneducated about this.
>>41823403 >Why do human beings use such little portions of their brains? because each part of the brain is responsible for different tasks. If you wanted to use much of your brain, you would have to do multitasking.
For example listening, talking, doing pushups and thinking about math problems at the same time. Of course, if you could do that...
>>41823403 Dude, I know top tier physicians that made patents for huge companies, with their inventions in mass products in global use, and they believe in some weird stuff normies would put off as soucery or some shit. Enjoy the ride.
>>41823315 God is what/whom you believe it to be, and an ideal that is inside of everyone. Beautiful idea, but the book version(s) are pretty bogus.
Raised strictly catholic, and glad in retrospect, because that allowed me to realize the guilt that is associated with strict dogma. I've always struggled with the concept of god not needing to be inside of a book or a building. As I get older, am becoming more comfortable with it. Also, scientist, but not atheist by any means.
>>41822698 >>41823200 You guys should look into the works of quantum physicist Dr. Amit Goswami aka The Quantum Activist aka wrote the text book on quantum mechanics 101 still used today. This idea is very similar to his.
>>41823403 We use all of it and we understand very vaguely how it works. (search ablative neurosurgery) We don't have telepathy, simply because a brain encased in a thick bone armor is not conductive to telecommunication.
>>41823404 >>41823554 Conscience is not a random creation of the brain, it's printed in the own nature of the universe. Humans can only be conscient because conscience is a latent possibility in the universe, which is an actual character of God.
If you deny God, you simply can't know anything and there's no point in discussing things at all.
>>41823440 Neuropsychological models are elegant, but the brain is an onion. Alzheimer's strips the brain from it's outer layers first, thus decreasing the efficacy of the machine. It's all about the hardware/wetware Croatia bro.
>>41823549 my understanding, the concept of our brains receiving information that we have not yet measured or named in a scientific white paper level, yet is interacting / being received by our brain s right now, and/or determining our behavior / functioning right now.
>>41823315 I treat God as the ultimate truth, that that is perceived and all that that is not perceived, the ONE. But I don't regard the statements about God as ultimately true, or complete. Religion make statements about God, I don't think they are complete. I like all religions but I accept none.
I agree, i think it's arrogant for human beings to think they are capable of fully comprehending god. I don't know if he does or doesn't exist, but if it created everything we know, who are we to think we know what it really is.
>>41823608 Our consciousness could well be described as miraculous. Perhaps this is why it is so impossible to pin down. It could even be, but a single atom ( or smaller ) of God consciousness, or the closest we can experience to that which cannot be explained, yet is "real" not imagined
>>41823808 They are real within the confines of our sense filter. We perceive the object "mirror" because we have filtered it down to be a reflective object to our physical phenomenon then labelled it "mirror" and installed it in bathrooms
>>41823520 I dont think thats the case.. You would remember your past lives then, since you dont loose your dropbox account when switching computers. If you dont believe in past lives, just think what are the odds that this is your first life in an infinite universe.
>>41823915 I think counciosness arises outside of brain. Its a feedback mechanism which allows you to shape your subconciosness. All your ideas and actions come from subconciosness. You are only aware of your decisions when they are already made. But conciosness helps you modify subconciosness for future decisions.
>>41823909 Onion is just a very bad analogy. You could say avocado or broccoli and that would be just as correct. We have a more developed neo-cortex, but that doesn't equate to adding another layer. More like expanding a wing in a manor.
>>41823769 >>41823798 >Sounds a bit dogmatic Dogmas are the foundation of our reasoning. As I said above, you can't find the truth denying the truth. The dogma is affirming what is self-evident as being true. When people say that everything they know may not be true, then there's no point in finding the truth or discussing metaphysics at all.
And yes, I mean consciousness (in portuguese, conscience and consciousness are the same thing, and they actually are).
I mean that everything that is possible to exist in the universe must be pre existent in the creator of the universe and latent in the universe itself. Therefore, the creative force of the universe has consciousness.
i like this, as it is a can of worms subject and interesting to me.
either everything is predestined or not. Most certainly our biology controls our behavior. Do we have options within this confine to behave in different ways. Perhaps. if so, our options will also be limited to our biological confines, we simply cannot behave outside of them.
All I know is nobody has the free will not to recognize their skin is burning if set on fire ( while awake ) however humans who are trained enough do have the free will to not react to the pain, although they will be aware their nerves are firing pain signals. Classic example the burning monks.
Ultimately, it could be the more "training" we have on the human condition the more freedom we have to respond , react to the stimulus, but again it is always biologically walled off.
I do not have the freewill to transform into a butterfly, at this time, and doubt I will within this life time.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.