Jasper10

1 hour ago, swansont said:

To learn how nature behaves. Most of nature falls under the "not human" category.

What bias do I introduce?

Not all science is psychology. You say you can measure stuff by experience - what of someone with a different amount of experience? Do they come to the same conclusion? If no, isn't that a problem?

Item 1. Noted.

Item 2.It is my opinion that because you have chosen or the scientific process has chosen to disregard the human factor then this is a bias.As I have said previously, it is my opinion that consciousness is embroiled within nature.There is nowhere where it isn’t embroiled.

Item 3.From my experience, you can measure stuff by experience ,yes.It is my opinion that different individuals are at various stages of experience but in a lot of cases have no experience at all because they do not apply themselves, simply because that are totally unaware that they even need to apply themselves.In that respect I believe it is a problem, yes.

It is my opinion that if any individual does apply themselves then they will reach the same conclusions as every other individual albeit at varying stages of understanding and experience.

So it is my opinion that consciousness can be defined as binary outputs and we can have awareness of and thus experience these binary output changes if we have awareness of and can control the “toggling” effect of the 2 consciousness states.

It is my opinion that if I ask this lifeless piece of meat of a body, do I exist? it hasn’t got a clue.

All it can do is respond in a way that any lifeless machine can by giving an output of:

-you exist,you exist

-you exist,you don’t exist

-you don’t exist,you exist

-you don’t exist,you don’t exist.

In other words, I am fully aware of the duality nature of how this machine responds.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

If I am trying to e.g. measure time (which is nominally my day job) the last thing I want to do is inject the human factor into it. I want to measure the signal from the cloud of atoms, and do that very precisely and repeatedly. Humans being involved generally mucks that up in various ways.

You can substitute in most physics experiments for this. Measure the properties of an electron or other particles, or materials, etc.

I have no idea what "how can human factors be separate from matter" is supposed to mean, or what its connection is to what I previously posted.

What ultimately is the goal of science if the human factor isn’t involved? You introduce bias by choosing to exclude the human factor from your experiments.Personally,I don’t exclude the personal factor from my trail and error psychological experiments.I refuse to be dictated to by the autopilot (machine like) part of my make up that claims that if I can’t define myself and prove that I actually exist by calculation then I don’t exist and don’t matter.Stuff that.I can measure stuff by experience as well as calculation.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I know it's far more sophisticated and nuanced than "manual and autopilot". 

I don't think a standard definition for every circumstance is possible, but I also don't feel that science ignores the human factor, the way you do. I'm not sure the distinctions you're making are all that important to science. Philosophy, sure. But science can view human awareness as an extension of our hyper-intelligent cognition. I don't have to pick a point on a spectrum of intelligence and claim "This is where consciousness starts!" Your level of awareness can be based on how your perceptions interact with your intelligence. 

So if you really want to talk about consciousness, it's up to you to define it, and then persuade others that your definition is better.

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I know it's far more sophisticated and nuanced than "manual and autopilot". 

I don't think a standard definition for every circumstance is possible, but I also don't feel that science ignores the human factor, the way you do. I'm not sure the distinctions you're making are all that important to science. Philosophy, sure. But science can view human awareness as an extension of our hyper-intelligent cognition. I don't have to pick a point on a spectrum of intelligence and claim "This is where consciousness starts!" Your level of awareness can be based on how your perceptions interact with your intelligence. 

So if you really want to talk about consciousness, it's up to you to define it, and then persuade others that your definition is better.

What do you mean by me ignoring the human factor.I am the human factor interacting with two different consciousness states..I am a “player” in awareness who controls the consciousness types rather than being an unaware “spectator” who has no control of the consciousness types.This stuff is experimental.You don’t need to define consciousness to be able to take control of it.

2 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

 

What do you mean by me ignoring the human factor.I am the human factor interacting with two different consciousness states..I am a “player” in awareness who controls the consciousness types rather than being an unaware “spectator” who has no control of the consciousness types.This stuff is experimental.You don’t need to define consciousness to be able to take control of it.

2 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

 

What do you mean by me ignoring the human factor.I am the human factor interacting with two different consciousness states..I am a “player” in awareness who controls the consciousness types rather than being an unaware “spectator” who has no control of the consciousness types.This stuff is experimental.You don’t need to define consciousness to be able to take control of it.

Experiential** sorry not experimental.

40 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That is nothing like “ we are no more than consciousness”, which is what you claimed science says.

Ok so let’s throw awareness in as well.So what is your view.Do you have one?

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I can measure various things about your physical matter without your awareness or you being conscious of it. It's actually best that way, if I'm measuring your heartbeat for instance. Some people's vitals change when they know they're being tested. Doctors know about "white-coat syndrome", where blood pressure can read higher simply because the patient is nervous about the doctor's exam. I can run various experiments on you without your knowledge, and then tell you about them. If I run the same experiments again now that you know, the results of some may be different, demonstrating that your consciousness and your physical matter can be addressed separately.

I don't think your definition is quite right yet. Lots of animals are aware of their surroundings, but I would not ascribe consciousness to them. Human consciousness goes beyond functional awareness and response, since we're able to reflect on how our experiences affect us, behavior no other animal seems to exhibit.  

Do you know what consciousness is then? You talk as if you do ….so why aren’t you informing the scientific establishment….it’s their hard problem.

Please explain it so we can all be enlightened.

In my experience,

There are two distinct consciousness states.One state is when we take control and the other state is when we relinquish control.

We can constantly “toggle” backwards and forwards between these  2 consciousness states in total unawareness and because we are totally unaware we exercise zero control in relation to this process.

Everything changes when we become aware however, because rather than exercising  zero control over the above  “toggling” process we can step in any time we like and exercise control over the  consciousness states.

In my experience, we are neither consciousness  or awareness and we exercise control because we are aware or we don’t exercise control because we are unaware.

Please don’t ask me to prove it and you can claim all you like that it is all a load of nonsense but when you are living the experience and exercising the control over consciousness then quite frankly you couldn’t care less what anyone else thinks.

So I am not here trying win any debates.It’s about sharing my experience.

53 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No, you answer my question first, before posing another of your own. 

Ok here you are….Wikipedia …consciousness is awareness and awareness is consciousness.

I don’t agree with that by the way.From my experience consciousness and awareness are different….but not wanting to upset you in any way …that is just my opinion based upon my experience.

See original post write up.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If I am trying to e.g. measure time (which is nominally my day job) the last thing I want to do is inject the human factor into it. I want to measure the signal from the cloud of atoms, and do that very precisely and repeatedly. Humans being involved generally mucks that up in various ways.

You can substitute in most physics experiments for this. Measure the properties of an electron or other particles, or materials, etc.

I have no idea what "how can human factors be separate from matter" is supposed to mean, or what its connection is to what I previously posted.

You live in a physical body which is aware of consciousness is my opinion based upon my experience………..so I fail to see how you can separate awareness and consciousness from physical matter.They are totally embroiled together, once again this is my opinion based upon my experiences.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

So, No? Source (like so many other claims you've been making here) is your butt?

What is your view what self is then? Do you have a view?

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are sciences that study the human factors, as iNow points out, but in other fields, one strives to remove the human factor, since that tends to introduce bias.

How can human factors be separate from matter? We are matter ? Please explain?

54 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Spending time with Chalmers, Dennett, Tononi, Koch, et al might help the OP to gain some tools for grappling with the HPOC.  Sometimes works better to take a specific concept from the field, and then craft a thread that responds to one particular position in a published paper.  

Ok fair enough thanks.I will review these persons views.
 

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

My understanding is that science says no such thing. Can you link to any source for this claim?

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

My understanding is that science says no such thing. Can you link to any source for this claim?

What is your opinion on what science says concerning self then? 

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Like it already is within psychology, sociology, anthropology, neurology, physiology, gastroenterology, and so many countless others?

Ok I am more acquainted with psychology……(and philosophy).

I would say that the consciousness connection with science is nowhere near understood experientially.

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's likely correct; there is overlap in many disciplines. But philosophy is not science.

I accept that philosophy is not science however the human experience needs to be factored into science in my opinion for an  overall united theory.

If this doesn’t happen then science remains separated from the human experience and the “hard problem” of understanding consciousness becomes impossible….in my opinion.

I acknowledge that presently “science”,shall we say,states we are no more  than consciousness,however,it also admits that it doesn’t  know much about consciousness either in the same breath.How those two statements make sense is anyones guess.

It is my opinion that all sciences are interconnected.

From my experience of philosophy and psychology there is a fundamental disconnect between accepted science and the other disciplines of philosophy and psychology.A gap that needs to be bridged if an overall united theory is to be established.

As no definite proof is given on certain fundamental issues then we need an agreed united logic that can be applied across all the disciplines.

The present logic that some scientific disciplines adopt is not flexible enough.

It is my opinion that there are only 2 consciousness states,Manual and Autopilot.We “toggle” all the time between these 2 consciousness states either in awareness or unawareness.If we “toggle” in unawareness  then clearly we are a “prisoner of consciousness” to coin a phrase.

However, if we have awareness then we can exercise control over which consciousness state we wish to reside within in any given moment.We can bring ourselves out of Autopilot and into Manual.

Initially, we are unable to stay in manual for long, we  just “toggle” back to Autopilot until we bring ourselves  back into Manual again and so it continues.

It is my opinion, that awareness is different to consciousness.Awareness sits above the consciousness “toggling” mentioned above.

For there to be awareness, then something needs to be aware.It is my opinion that that something is PRESENCE.

Therefore, it is my opinion that PRESENCE either has or doesn’t have awareness to be able to control consciousness “toggling”.

It is my opinion there are 2 types of thought (inward and outward).Outward thoughts are created by PRESENCE in manual.PRESENCE doesn’t  need to ENGAGE with outward thoughts.PRESENCE does need to ENGAGE with inward thoughts however.Inward thoughts are created by autopilot.

So in my opinion, PRESENCE is either aware or unaware of the 2 consciousness states which it constantly “toggles” between and either does or doesn’t exercise control over which of the 2 consciousness state it wishes to reside within in any given moment thus being able to distinguish between the 2 thought types (inward and outward) which causes PRESENCE’s  emotions along with information coming in from the 5 senses

It is my opinion that as we are not awareness or consciousness, we need some sort of equation to try and understand things better.

It is my opinion that a reasonable equation is as below:

- Manual/Autopilot = Manual/Autopilot 

To explain the equation.

In my opinion,PRESENCE just “toggles from left to right and right to left between consciousness states constantly and either does or doesn’t have the ability to exercise control over this process.

As PRESENCE is unable to establish which side of the equation it resides within in any given moment, Manual and Autopilot need to be on both sides of the equation.

It would appear that there is a pendulum type swing associated with the consciousness states therefore which PRESENCE is either aware or unaware of which in turn directly affects PRESENCE’s ability to be able to take control over that consciousness swing (toggling).

Electromagnetic fields flow in one direction therefore the forces at each end of a magnet are different depending upon which direction the electromagnetic field flows.

what does it matter?…..if one of the moderators disagrees with anything you say you get blocked…what sort of a forum is this?…..how can you take it seriously when you have moderators with such big egos and don’t want to learn?

When 2 magnets interact they confirm natures full logic of 0,0…0,1….1,0….1,1 which isn’t 0,1..1,0 logic.

Electromagnetic fields flow in one direction therefore the forces at each end of a magnet are different depending upon which direction the electromagnetic field flows.

When 2 magnets interact they confirm natures full logic of 0,0…0,1….1,0….1,1 which isn’t 0,1..1,0 logic.

Just now, Arete said:

Observation without data is worthless. 

Says who?  you….don’t we have enough data proving what isn’t happening in the universe?

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is the part people want you to explain, otherwise you're Begging the Question, a fallacy where you assume your premise is correct. It could be you're misunderstanding something fairly fundamental, or you're insisting on a rigid definition of certain criteria.

You might also define which "present scientific model" you're talking about. There are many and they each represent a particular set of phenomena. 

Hi…there are two different forces associated with magnets.One common magnetic field,yes, but two different forces.Both these forces can attract or repel.

Please explain, if a magnet interacts with another magnet in the 4 possible ways NN…NS…SN…SS , why 2 of the interactions are different to the other 2 interactions if these forces are identical.

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yep. You’re a troll. 

Do you want me to talk you through again slowly iNow?

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

You keep repeating, but utterly failing to validate (or even attempt to confirm) that. 

The most probable description here is that you’re just another pathetic little troll.

I hope you can prove me wrong, but doubt you will. You have no credibility. 

I have given a clear explanation……how would you know whether I have credibility or not? who are you?

33 minutes ago, Arete said:

While magnetic forces are not my "field" (see what I did there) of expertise, as a friendly suggestion, it might benefit discussion to frame your question like:

"Scientists assume that force A and force B are equal [citation]. This data demonstrates that they are not [citation]. What does that mean for the assumptions that they made? 

Also couldn't one just use a magnetic force meter to measure the strength of the magnetic field at each end of a magnet for a quick and convenient answer? 

You only need a couple of magnets to completely disprove the present scientific model.Observations are enough.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

You misspelled fictional. 

It’s not fictional at all.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yeah, that’s nonsense. They attract or repel. The interaction only differs in that one aspect, just as physics says.

 

Of course both forces attract or repel depending upon which force each is interacting with.

These 2 foundational forces of nature are not the same because if they were then all the 4 interactions would be IDENTICAL and they ain’t.

Its  amazing how something so simple completely undoes  the present scientific model.

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Saying something is easy. What you need to provide is the evidence (i.e. point to the experiment) that others can examine. 

And you need to do this with your next post.

Simple …get yourself a couple of magnets and check out the 4 interactions.

As all the interactions are not IDENTICAL then this proves that the  2 magnetic forces in nature are not the same.

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

You need to go and learn some science. This post tells me everything I need to know what you know, and it's very little.

Ha Ha…Hi String Junky…..you can’t say that without providing  definitive proof of your claim…….guesses aren’t enough anymore.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Forgive me if I don’t take your word for this. Do you have any credible evidence of this? Mere assertion is not even close to being sufficient 

What do you mean evidence? I have already said that nature has provided definitive proof!! Mere evidence is no good at the end of the day.