Jasper10

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The one you didn't study in school, and are now desperately trying to debunk so you can appear educated. Look, it takes some of us longer to get it, but once you try learning actual science instead of this weird mental masturbation where you make it up based on ignorance, it gets easier to put together. Science is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an onion. It's all connected, and you need to put a LOT of effort into learning, but ultimately it will be worth much more than what you're doing. Remember, your computer and GPS work because Einstein was right.

Any it doesn’t take much effort to debunk it does it?

What would you know about what I know? …you need to get control of that ego of yours…it’s your downfall.

Science,presence,awareness,experience,consciousness,thoughts and emotions are all interconnected you mean.

Believe me I have put a lot of effort into learning how it is all interconnected and you are very lacking in your understanding and even the bit you think you know is utter nonsense and the present scientific theory is about to collapse, so I ask you once again,who is this authority on science you speak of?

14 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Ha Ha …are you sure of that or are you speculating?

You never made mention to all the matter disappearing into many many of your mainstream sciences black holes, so how can it possibly all disappear into a single hole (point)?
 

You’ve missed the important bit of my post out.

You see it is so easy to dismantle the present theories and I could tell you loads more but you don’t want to know because you don’t want to learn and your blinkin egos get in the way.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well.., I wouldn’t say I’ve been missing it, Bob

Ha Ha is that all you have got to come back with?

If you knew anything at all about consciousness then you would know that there is no such thing as a black hole.You can’t define a hole by a colour.

It’s just a hole!!!!!

And any scientists who thinks an elephant is identical in every aspect to its trunk or leg ….well……

Just now, iNow said:

No

Ha Ha …are you sure of that or are you speculating?

1 minute ago, iNow said:

No

Obvious troll is obvious 

*peers

You never made mention to all the matter disappearing into many many of your mainstream sciences black holes, so how can it possibly all disappear into a single hole (point)?
 

You’ve missed the important bit of my post out.

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Discussion might not be right for you. You don't seem to read what other write, and prefer your own interpretations about everything, even when it's explained to you. Knowledge doesn't come easily to those who are overly stubborn about learning. 

Can I suggest you start a blog somewhere? If you aren't interested in studying mainstream science, you have to persuade others that you know better than those who've helped put together the total of accumulated human knowledge to date. You don't need us correcting you with facts you haven't studied, and with a blog you can block comments and just post whatever comes to you.

With all due respect the whole of the present scientific model is about to collapse, is it not? So what authority on science are you referring to?

Also as matter disappears into many many of your black holes, are you going to put your hand up to go and get it again so it can be put down your mainstream sciences single hole/point….lol….

Listen, if you want to be made to look a fool in front of your piers then carry on I’m up for it….or are you going to take the cowards way out again and block me because your ego gets the better of you again?

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Specifically, you made claims about magnets that you couldn't support, and despite several people trying to explain it to you, you just kept waiving your hands insistently until the thread was closed. Our policy on that is you can't bring it up again in other threads because you didn't support it the first time. 

If you think you can actually support your ideas, open a new thread in Speculations. But you better have more than what you demonstrated in those trashed threads. Nobody but you knew what you were talking about there.

Or you can pretend we told you your logic isn't allowed and we're blocking you.

Ok ….you also have your opinions and I respect that so let’s just say that I have been truly told off then.As I say,I am not allowed to comment again on that logic apparently or else I will get blocked.

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

As I said before, your version of logic isn't mainstream, so you need to explain it before anyone can accept it. Not sure why you think formal logic isn't allowed here.

If it's anything like the posts in the Trash, you'll need to explain it and persuade us that it has meaning, and for that type of discussion we have the Speculations section.

 

Well I am not allowed to comment on the other posts that were blocked.

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If you would like to start a thread in Speculations in order to get feedback on your version of formal logic, you can do so, and it will stay open as long as you can defend it with a decent amount of rigor. But when you introduced it before, you were using it as if it made sense to anyone but you, and it got thrown in the Trash. 

I have not mentioned anything about logic in my threads  as it is not allowed so it is not up for discussion.How do you know it is speculation if I have not presented it?

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Philosophical logic, mathematical logic, or "This makes more sense to me" logic?

Well as I am not allowed to share the philosophical and mathematical logic then on those 2 points its not up for discussion I would have thought.

So I can only give my own personal opinions in general concepts.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

This is a science discussion forum. Your opinions are only worth so much. Is there anything about your concept that you can support using science? Something that elevates this above your opinion?

I thought this was a general philosophy section of the forum? It is just my opinion and a conceptual idea based upon my personal experiences which may or may not be of use,hence why I commented in the general philosophy section.I could give more information to support my opinions but it’s to do with logic and I have been told not to, so I won’t.I don’t want to break the rules of the forum.

It is my opinion that autopilot consciousness cannot transition to manual consciousness and manual consciousness cannot transition to autopilot consciousness.

PRESENCE can though and does either in awareness or unawareness.

No,it is my opinion that,

Awareness sits above Consciousness.

Presence sits above awareness.

Experience sits in between Awareness and Consciousness.

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

Please forgive formatting issues; technical difficulties.
 

 I am a goose, standing on a melon rind, pecking at it and not sure why I can't pick it up.

Can we set a dichotomy? Consciousness vs. Mechanicalness, to have a definition?

 Was your attention split between your instrumentation (inward observation of functions), your outward observations; and where in space your left 4th toe is located and all associated impressions? 'Till your own field; you cannot know about the level of others, and glib statements about "Most people" should be avoided, IMO, although I'm sure it makes you feel special. 

Supra job! In places.
A = A. A /= not A.
A = A , A = not A.

Please write a book on Player vs. Spectator philosophy. You will match or exceed Rollo Tomassi.

 

  In a machine.

 We will assume there is a functional, enclosed vessel, emananating radiations outward, as I read your proposal to state. If the neural tissue ensconcement is actually open to the outside electromagnetic frame, do you suppose that the "radar" like ping out-ping back emerging by brain function is in interplay with the "radar" from other radio sources? What is a radiation vs. an emanation?

  ... Beep boop beep. lol. maybe. i'll argue that a rock is conscious too in a few.

  You must observe and remember, first. You can be playing in mud and imagine you're in the 9th heaven.

How to quantify or qualify awareness vs. consciousness? I would infer that linguistics must be necessary for this reflection process you mention. Unless it is non-verbal and the normal dialogue of thinking is otherwise directed.

 

Many biographers say Epictetus was once a slave. One can be either an unwitting slave, or a conscious servant. Some biographers claim neither slave nor servant.

I have a WooShoe idea for you, but I hold it back (or maybe it is the following). Applying direct physical methods can alter the other functions, and we can have more control over our physiology by training it; less automated.

So, maybe something was lost in translation? Or you're alluding to the blissful naval-gazing where one is trying to dissociate? I do not understand exactly...

@Jasper10: 2, 4, 0=0, 1=0, 0=1; Jasper10, How dare you bring mathematics into a consciousness discussion. I do think we need definitions, a different language, to have the discussion and understand each other at all.

Some quotes were left out of reply. Last two replies not read yet.
What if there could be a larger quantifiable gap in consciousness between two men than between a rock and a melon-stepping goose? I think linguistics, and the amount of information we can exchange thereby has set us on a different level. I don't know what consciousness is so I must study it, it would seem. I only have one willing study participant.
@geordief

I would say consciousness can be defined as a state of experience.It isn’t awareness that’s for sure.

It is also my opinion that for there to be awareness there needs to be something that is aware.It is my opinion that that something is PRESENCE or the “ i am”.

The “i am” is therefore aware that it experiences the 2 different consciousness states and can decide to move from autopilot to the manual consciousness state any time it likes thus taking more control of thought types of which there are two i.e. inward autopilot thoughts that come in from nowhere and  outward thoughts that are generated in the manual consciousness state by the i am.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Think about what you can control...

I am only referring to the control of consciousness.

It is my opinion that it is not just an automated process, it may appear so if the individual is unaware.

There is a non automated process as well.We experience different consciousness states depending upon which process we are interfacing with.

Awareness sits above consciousness because the individual is either aware or unaware of the automated & non automated “toggling” processes and can even experientially bring oneself out of the automated process into the non automated process at will and at any time.

If the individual lacks awareness then they do not exercise this control and even though they are forced to take control all the time they are not aware of this.

PRESENCE (i am) sits above awareness. 

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You don't, you can choose to hold your breath, but the autopilot will kick in before you crash.

 

Ok ..not sure what you mean by that?

5 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Spirituality is not needed for Consciousness to exist, so I'd like to leave that out of any argument or opinion I use. It's not really common to try and link spirituality, philosophy and Science as one. And in many ways are 3 different views of the world.

That may be your opinion hoŵver,It is my opinion that you or I would need to provide definitive proof of that.All we both can do is hope that what you say is correct.Other than that and we are both merely guessing.

47 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Lets say the rock magically became conscious. It would not know of any time that passed when it was not. Only an observer of the rock at two different states could tell that the rock was once not conscious. We know at one point we were not alive, and life is required for consciousness. But we only know this through knowledge gained, and understanding of things around us. That rock if wasn't told it was once conscious will never know it was not. Its only " Existing" But it would not know this either as its not self conscious, 

Well I am of the opinion that SELF needs to be untangled from consciousness otherwise SELF remains a prisoner of it.SELF therefore needs to embrace inward/outward meditation.

Disappearing into an “out of synch”, inward only meditative (consciousness) state,Buddhism meditative practices being a perfect example of this,then embracing duality,then coming to the conclusion that the one that decided to go inward in the first place doesn’t exist is self defeating in my opinion.

10 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Can I prove that we are conscious? Yes, actually.

Is a rock conscious?  The answer is no. Why? Because any form of consciousness requires life.

That fact we are alive is proof we are conscious.  The fact that we are having this discussion now proves that we are aware that we are conscious. And because of these are conscious that there is a presence of consciousness its this makes us Self-conscious.  

 

 

Well I am now fully aware of the 2 consciousness states of manual and autopilot that both sit on both sides of the fence I.e. 0/1 = 0/1 to use an analogy.

I used to be unaware that I was unaware 0=0 .I had no idea that I “toggled” between manual and autopilot all the time.

I then transitioned to being aware that I was unaware 1=0, I.e. that I disappeared into autopilot all the time and unaware that I was aware 0=1, I.e. that I was handed manual control all the time and then finally I transition to being aware  that I was aware 1=1,I.e. that I did toggle between 2 consciousness states all the time and was able to exercise control over the toggling I.e still it.

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Consider that the planes and pilots you see look fast asleep because the plane is flying just fine. They probably don't think your hand waiving will make it fly better.

It is my opinion that most of the other planes do fly just fine,you are right.

Most people do spend their whole lives in total unawareness “toggling” between the 2 consciousness states.

However, the problems start when autopilot starts playing up and individuals are forced to try and fly the plane themselves in manual without the instruction manual.

22 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

We have control over what we do, because we are conscious have Sub-Conscious, Self-Conscious and are Conscious of things around us, We can use this with awareness to prevent certain accidents. Or to make decisions that affect our future, for example I am aware the dangers of standing in the middle of the highway, I am conscious of the cars moving toward me, and if I don't move my Future looks dark, and about 6ft down, well i wouldn't be aware or conscious any more id be Dead. We are always conscious there is no switching from awareness to consciousness you have both or its just neurological stimulated receptors firing and responding to things.

I wouldn't disagree that ( ^{Intelligence + Consciousness} ) = Life ( ^{Life + Awareness of Being alive} ) = Self-Consciousness 

If something's is aware that it is alive and conscious it is conscious of being conscious.

Can you prove we are consciousness? no,you can’t.You don’t  even know what it is.

From my experience awareness sits above consciousness.

I am not manual or autopilot consciousness.I am separate from them both.I therefore put manual and autopilot on both sides of the fence,to use an analogy.

14 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

This doesn't make any since at all not from philosophical standpoint or practical scientific one. I'm not sure you quite understand the diffrence between Awareness/consciousness , Intelligence and Self-Consciousness . One just cant turn it on and off, not even on accident. The brain wouldn't function well with out our form of consciousness we as humans have today, and its only ascending higher over time. 

We as humans are the most conscious species on Earth.

We share similarities with animals however there are huge differences between the level of consciousness.

Take for example an Ant, and an Ant Eater, the ant doesn't understand its food for the ant eater, and its also highly unlikely the Ant Eater understands fully and is conscious that Ants are food for it. As Food is part of the human language we have given things we eat a broad name called Food.  Most things we safely consume are considered Food or Drinks. The Ant Eater just eats, but does it really know why its doing so? Has it any idea ants tasty nasty? Does it think they taste good? Perhaps it can know fruits taste much better than ants? As stated before Highly unlikely as this would require a high level of consciousness most ^{(NOT ALL)} animals don't have. 

1.) Intelligence

Animals are intelligent just like humans are intelligent.

It takes Intelligence to be aware/ conscious. But just because something is intelligent doesn't mean its conscious. For example Calculators and Computers are pretty intelligent right? But they are not conscious or aware of the space they occupy. And the environment around them.

 

2.) Awareness/ consciousness

Most living things ^{(NOT ALL)} with a small level of intelligent and a simple form of consciousness are aware of things like danger and food, and they can feel pain they are aware something hurts if they brake a bone.

We as humans are aware visually, physically, and emotionally. We are conscious, however our level of consciousness is far more complex then just awareness, almost every living organism is aware in some sense. Like cats are aware, of things like danger and some new studies show they are capable of emotion to a small degree. But does this mean they are as conscious as us? The answer is no.

3.) Self Awareness/Self Conscious 

Knowing that you are human and are different from other species around you is only a small portion of the pie. Knowing that we are on a giant sphere floating somewhere in space is also another small portion of the pie. What about Language, its a necessary element as consciousness increases to a higher level of Self-Consciousness. Language also requires thought even if you don't think long about what you say, you are consciously thinking before you speak. Animals communicate through neurological stimulation and basic instinct, so no " Cats hissing or Dogs barking/ growling are not forms of animals language" as these don't require thought. It's like you blinking if someone flinches at you. It was not you telling yourself to blink. It's a neurological stimulated response, in your brain that does this. Stimulated responses can also change based on adaptation, take for example a child that may have been abused, raising your hand up might trigger a response of them cowering. But I can raise my hand around my kids all day long and they don't even flinch. 

 

Almost Every living thing has a form of consciousness some of it is a simple as (ONLY) neurological triggers/stimulations something with a consciousness like this would likely be parasites maybe bacteria or an ant?

 

There are a lot of things I left out that has to do with consciousness, but humans don't just "TOGGLE" On and Off forms of consciousness. Something is either conscious or not. And Self-Conscious is completely different.

I know from experience that AWARENESS and CONSCIOUSNESS are completely different things.

You can be AWARE that you are “not in the moment” or “not in synch”  and bring yourself back “into the moment” or “back in synch” any time you like.You can exercise that control over consciousness.

It is my opinion that something needs to be aware or not aware and that something is the “I am” which is a PRESENCE.

So it is the “I am” that has awareness and exercises consciousness control.

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

i is dissociating and plane full of other passengers.

Well the plane I’m grappling to fly in manual has no passengers and I’ve just looked out of the window and can see many other similar planes whose pilots are fast asleep at the cockpit because their planes are flying  on autopilot.

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

control is... a far aim.

 

Interesting NTuft…are you flexible and open minded enough to accept that control is a vital ingredient then? 

It is my opinion that control is not as far an aim as you might think.

It is my opinion that we need to learn control by trail and error.It doesn’t come naturally or easy because we are so conditioned  to being controlled by the machine or autopilot part of our nature.

I have experiential awareness that I exercise control over binary consciousness but it is hard work.You do have to learn how to practically “fly the plane” so to speak.

It’s a bit like learning how to ride a bike.You try, you fail,you learn until you learn enough from from your failures to succeed.

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

It is my opinion that there are four.

4 you can control?

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The reason it only makes sense to you is because you made it up based on limited understanding of the science involved. You filled gaps in your knowledge with things that made sense to you, but now you're trying to persuade people who studied mainstream knowledge, and what you're proposing seems obviously flawed in the ways that have been pointed out.

Phi, I have not made it up.Control and Experience is a factor.

The below is just my opinion:

 “player” science and philosophy rather than “spectator” science and philosophy takes things to the next level.

Scientist don’t want to become part of their own experiments.

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The reason it only makes sense to you is because you made it up based on limited understanding of the science involved. You filled gaps in your knowledge with things that made sense to you, but now you're trying to persuade people who studied mainstream knowledge, and what you're proposing seems obviously flawed in the ways that have been pointed out.

Can I ask Phi, are you into meditation,particularly inward only meditation?

This is just my opinion:

“Inward” only meditation like Buddhism is a consciously biased meditative practice.

What do I mean by this?

As far as consciousness is concerned the individual deliberately goes into the “out of the moment” consciousness state which is one of the two consciousness states and then proceeds to divide (create dualism) within this state as part of their knowledge searchings.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

So no actual examples.

Most of physics involves taking data that can't be done with humans - detecting photons, paths of particles, measuring a magnetic field, to name just a few. So introducing humans into such endeavors would compromise the quality of the experiment. If humans do something less well than the devices we use to make measurements, that introduces bias, by definition.

You say otherwise but can't back that up. at. all. 

And again, I see no connection to what I am discussing, in rebuttal to your claim. I'm pretty sure the photodiode I use to detect a photon signal is not conscious, so there is one example to show the falseness of your claim. I have others, if need be. I can walk through many aspects of an apparatus I have running, and where no humans are involved.

The below is just a query and the views expressed are just my opinion.

So are you saying that you only practice “observer” science or what I would call “spectator” science then rather than “player” science and the “observer” is only consciousness or awareness and has no direct connection or engagement to the experiment/s?

It would be easier for me if you explained whether you have a view on self i.e. do you think that self exists or not?

I do understand that you may not want to commit on a statement either way and other contributors to these discussions may take the same stance because then you and they would then have to definitively prove it either way and we both know that would be impossible for you or them to do this.

However,it would be helpful if you expressed your hopeful belief system because at the end of the day it is also my opinion that that is all you, me or anyone else has on the big questions of do I exist or not?
 

Unless, that is, active experience provides definitive assurances that self “I am” does exist.

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you also simplifying "think" into a meaningless abstraction? All creatures that "are" can "think"?

In your quest for simplification, you've just made this incredibly more complex and confusing. You have an idea that only makes sense to you.

Perhaps you believe there are only two types of thoughts because you believe there are only five senses.

 

I am of the opinion that “I am” therefore I am separate from thoughts.

I appreciate that it only makes sense to me and the reason it does make sense to me is because I actively experience it.I am of the opinion that it would makes sense to you as well hopefully.

I experience 2 types of thoughts that make sense to me (inward and outward).I am also only aware of 5 senses.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What stage of understanding are you?

 

Well I am of the opinion that I am neither.

I prefer…….” I am, therefore I think”…..because from my experience “I am” and I have awareness of the 2 consciousness states which I introduce control over.

I am also aware that there are 2 different thought types.One thought type I generate in manual and these are in the  moment thoughts and the other thought types are created by my autopilot which I do engage with which take me out of the moment.I am not a thought…..I generate outward thoughts or I experience inward thoughts.

Both thought types cause an emotional response along with information coming in from the five senses.