Do you believe in God?

[TRLWNC7396]

This was a fascinating conversation to read.

Quite awesome to see how life is considered.

I'm just glad to know that I have more than just life to live.

After you die, come see me. We'll talk.

 

[Danoff]

I'm just glad to know that I have more than just life to live.

You don't. You have faith. Not knowledge, belief.

 

[TexRex]

This was a fascinating conversation to read.

Quite awesome to see how life is considered.

I'm just glad to know that I have more than just life to live.

After you die, come see me. We'll talk.

Repeat after me:

I will die. My body will decay. There will be nothing just as there was nothing prior to my birth. And that's okay.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

I must say that this is hilarious. I have actually experienced contact from someone who is not alive.

I have no way of describing the spiritual matter, as there are no physical explanations for it.

But, trust me, it is MORE than faith OR belief.

Call it what you will.

When you die.

Come and talk to me.

We WILL have a conversation.

And we WILL see that there is more than this life, and more than a body.

I KNOW this. Because I have more than seen this life.

 

[Liquid]

You're entitled to believe that you have but you can't say that you know it unless you can prove to us what it was and how.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I have no way of describing the spiritual matter, as there are no physical explanations for it.

Stage 4 brain tumor.

Killed my best friend, he thought he saw things too.

 

[TexRex]

I must say that this is hilarious. I have actually experienced contact from someone who is not alive.

I have no way of describing the spiritual matter, as there are no physical explanations for it.

But, trust me, it is MORE than faith OR belief.

Call it what you will.

When you die.

Come and talk to me.

We WILL have a conversation.

And we WILL see that there is more than this life, and more than a body.

I KNOW this. Because I have more than seen this life.

What you're describing is delusion. The alternative is you're perpetrating deceit, which is to say that you're lying to yourself and/or to others.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I KNOW this. Because I have more than seen this life.

I hope your god tests your faith with maximum prejudice.

 

[Danoff]

I must say that this is hilarious. I have actually experienced contact from someone who is not alive.

Tell us all about it. Who was it, what were the circumstances, what happened? The whole thing.

 

[TheCracker]

Stage 4 brain tumor.

Killed my best friend, he thought he saw things too.

Lewy body dementia will do that for you as well.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Ultimately from fusion within the sun. It is turned into chemical energy and stored within food. This is basic stuff.

But where exactly does all of this energy seem to originate from, what is it's true original source? If this is basic stuff then what I'm basically asking is where did physical matter/energy originate from, did physical matter/energy create itself?





"Your consciousness is that abstract processing layer that your brain creates with this energy to process information effectively. That part stops as soon as your brain can no longer do the work to produce it (because it does take work to produce). So when you stop eating and breathing, your consciousness stops. Your consciousness does not live on in the form of dissipated heat or fatty tissue.

You need a basic understanding of energy and how the body works to be able to not fall for this kind of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo about your consciousness living on in the form of energy."

So that's how you define conscioussness is it? "That abstract processing layer that your brain creates with this energy to process information effectively" You see you're basically claiming that consciousness is purely a result of the brains activity, but even with these bold claims you still can't even asnwer the question of what exactly is consciousness in it's essence.

The brain seems to process information, but what is it ultimately feeding it back to? It's feeding it back to consciousness, and what exactly is consciousness? Can you physically measure consciousness in a lab, can I hold a sample of it in my hand?

My point really is that to look at reality as being purely physical and nothing more is to see but merely one piece of the entire jigsaw puzzle that reality truly is.

 

[Liquid]

The big bang and abiogenesis. It's science.

Next!

 

[TheCracker]

But where exactly does all of this energy seem to originate from, what is it's true original source? If this is basic stuff then what I'm basically asking is where did physical matter/energy originate from, did physical matter/energy create itself?

As Danoff stated, the sun, nuclear fusion. Beyond that you're talking the big bang and general relativity etc.

 

[Danoff]

But where exactly does all of this energy seem to originate from, what is it's true original source? If this is basic stuff then what I'm basically asking is where did physical matter/energy originate from, did physical matter/energy create itself?

You should look up hawking radiation. Existence is not what you think. Our universe unequivocally demonstrates that its fundamental nature is possibility, not existence. This is called quantum mechanics.

So that's how you define conscioussness is it? "That abstract processing layer that your brain creates with this energy to process information effectively" You see you're basically claiming that consciousness is purely a result of the brains activity, but even with these bold claims

It's not a bold claim. It follows directly from the structure of the brain.

you still can't even asnwer the question of what exactly is consciousness in it's essence.

Yes I can. Its how you experience that processing layer. It's what it feels like to be in control of a body and respond to stimulus with a brain that is capable of simulation.

The brain seems to process information, but what is it ultimately feeding it back to?

Either the impulses that control your muscles or your memory (i.e. back to your brain).

It's feeding it back to consciousness,

That doesn't make much sense to me. It's like you said "toothpaste is the gravity of perception".

and what exactly is consciousness? Can you physically measure consciousness in a lab, can I hold a sample of it in my hand?

I already said what it is. Can you measure it? To an extent. You can measure brain activity in different region in response to certain stimulus. You can measure whether someone is awake or asleep, and if they are awake or asleep whether they're dreaming or thinking or feeling a certain emotion. There are a lot of things you can measure (like particle collisions and photons) which are hard to hold in your hand, so that question just comes off as undereducated.

My point really is that to look at reality as being purely physical and nothing more is to see but merely one piece of the entire jigsaw puzzle that reality truly is.

Uh huh. Instead of imagining things, look at what is actually there and see if the puzzle fits.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Tell us all about it. Who was it, what were the circumstances, what happened? The whole thing.

I would like to hear about this too.

Speaking for myself, it's coming from a place of non-judgment as I consider myself agnostic.

 

[TexRex]

Priests and cannibals.
Prehistoric animals.
Everybody happy as the dead come home.
Big black nemesis.

abiogenesis

No one move a muscle as the dead come home.

Spoiler

Edit: Yeeeaahhh...that's gonna be stuck in my head.

 

[Ghost Lap]

The big bang and abiogenesis. It's science.

Next!

God and the eternal afterlife.

 

[Famine]

God and the eternal afterlife.

And where did that come from?

 

[Ghost Lap]

And where did that come from?

Well if they're eternal they never came from anywhere, they always have been and always will be and that's the only way to really make sense of reality or existence in the first place.

 

[TexRex]

...that's the only way to really make sense of reality or existence in the first place.

lolno

 

[Famine]

Well if they're eternal

Your answer starts with a supposition. What if they are not?

they never came from anywhere, they always have been and always will be and that's the only way to really make sense of reality or existence in the first place.

Are you aware that your answer applies to both my deliberately identical question (I'd not have ended on a preposition) and yours?

That can never seems to get tired of the kicking does it?

 

[Imari]

Please then explain to me in full detail, what is consciousness and what does it look like?

You wanted to explain souls, so I'll let you go first.

 

[A_Higher_Place]

You should look up hawking radiation. Existence is not what you think. Our universe unequivocally demonstrates that its fundamental nature is possibility, not existence. This is called quantum mechanics.



It's not a bold claim. It follows directly from the structure of the brain.



Yes I can. Its how you experience that processing layer. It's what it feels like to be in control of a body and respond to stimulus with a brain that is capable of simulation.


Either the impulses that control your muscles or your memory (i.e. back to your brain).


I already said what it is. Can you measure it? To an extent. You can measure brain activity in different region in response to certain stimulus. You can measure whether someone is awake or asleep, and if they are awake or asleep whether they're dreaming or thinking or feeling a certain emotion. There are a lot of things you can measure (like particle collisions and photons) which are hard to hold in your hand, so that question just comes off as undereducated.



Uh huh. Instead of imagining things, look at what is actually there and see if the puzzle fits.

Chiming in to try and understand some of what you wrote. Are you referring to the thalamus? The area of the brain responsible for filtering stimuli for perception?

Action potential within neurons is consciousness? I have a very basic understanding of neuro, so are you saying that consciousness is these impulses (action potentials)? I'm a little reluctant to believe consciousness is simply potassium and sodium fluctuating back and forth but like I said, very basic understanding and looking for something to do with your idea here.

After spending a couple years working with a trauma-neuro psychologist, I have to say that the holistic view of the operating brain is an easy theory to default to. Meaning 'the brain is conscious as a whole' or the Gestalt view that consciousness is the greater sum of all the brain's working parts.

An EEG will only confirm energy or waves in certain areas. How do we know that it's consciousness that we're measuring? Or is that what you meant by 'to an extent'?

Lots of questions and hoping to get involved in the convo!

 

[Danoff]

Chiming in to try and understand some of what you wrote. Are you referring to the thalamus? The area of the brain responsible for filtering stimuli for perception?

I'm not referring to any specific region of the brain.

Action potential within neurons is consciousness? I have a very basic understanding of neuro, so are you saying that consciousness is these impulses (action potentials)?

That's definitely not what I'm saying.

I'm a little reluctant to believe consciousness is simply potassium and sodium fluctuating back and forth but like I said, very basic understanding and looking for something to do with your idea here.

This is a bit flippant I think. Are you reluctant to believe that all of biology is simply nucleic acids floating back and forth? The phrase you're looking for is "emergent property".

After spending a couple years working with a trauma-neuro psychologist, I have to say that the holistic view of the operating brain is an easy theory to default to. Meaning 'the brain is conscious as a whole' or the Gestalt view that consciousness is the greater sum of all the brain's working parts.

I'm not saying that either.

An EEG will only confirm energy or waves in certain areas. How do we know that it's consciousness that we're measuring? Or is that what you meant by 'to an extent'?

It is what I meant by "to an extent".

Lots of questions and hoping to get involved in the convo!

Your brain has been adapted to simulate reality. This is actually one of the key differences between the human brain and AI as it stands today. Your brain actually attempts to build a model of reality, and uses that model to forecast the future. This is easiest to see in an example of a falling tree, where the brain tries to figure out where the tree will land, so that it can send signals to your muscles to get out of the way. Lots of animals do this, of course, but the human brain does it more than most animals. Your model of reality includes other people, attempts to predict what they will do, what the environment will do (like observing worsening weather conditions), what a river might do, or where water might flow or hide. Your brain coordinates within itself to even motivate this simulation and to draw from memory and make inferences and projections for the future. The better your brain is at doing this, the more effective it is at survival. The sophistication of this simulation layer is what I'm referring to as consciousness. Your perception of yourself, others, your environment, time, emotion, the future, the past, all of it needs to meld together into a cohesive picture that you use to forecast the future and learn from the past. This simulation layer is where you carry out all analytical thought, and make decisions. The various parts of your brain build and mold it. Consciousness is the name we give to this simulation layer, the perception of having a mind that is controlling your body and projecting the future, when that simulation layer is sophisticated enough to understand the concept of self and others, and that others are their own selves as well.

 

[A_Higher_Place]

I'm not referring to any specific region of the brain.



That's definitely not what I'm saying.



This is a bit flippant I think. Are you reluctant to believe that all of biology is simply nucleic acids floating back and forth? The phrase you're looking for is "emergent property".



I'm not saying that either.



It is what I meant by "to an extent".



Your brain has been adapted to simulate reality. This is actually one of the key differences between the human brain and AI as it stands today. Your brain actually attempts to build a model of reality, and uses that model to forecast the future. This is easiest to see in an example of a falling tree, where the brain tries to figure out where the tree will land, so that it can send signals to your muscles to get out of the way. Lots of animals do this, of course, but the human brain does it more than most animals. Your model of reality includes other people, attempts to predict what they will do, what the environment will do (like observing worsening weather conditions), what a river might do, or where water might flow or hide. Your brain coordinates within itself to even motivate this simulation and to draw from memory and make inferences and projections for the future. The better your brain is at doing this, the more effective it is at survival. The sophistication of this simulation layer is what I'm referring to as consciousness. Your perception of yourself, others, your environment, time, emotion, the future, the past, all of it needs to meld together into a cohesive picture that you use to forecast the future and learn from the past. This simulation layer is where you carry out all analytical thought, and make decisions. The various parts of your brain build and mold it. Consciousness is the name we give to this simulation layer, the perception of having a mind that is controlling your body and projecting the future, when that simulation layer is sophisticated enough to understand the concept of self and others, and that others are their own selves as well.

Thanks for expanding on that. Your simulation layer sounds very much like the gestalt view from my perspective - not any specific region of the brain but how the brain functions as a whole. How is it different because you claim that it isn't what you're saying? To not be referring to any specific brain region and then talk about multiple functions working cohesively is very much gestalt.

Someone said it well in a few posts earlier that consciousness is potential. What I understand as your 'emergent property' is the result of infinite possibility, which is akin to potential.

These conversations are highly stimulating and are hard to put into text - especially without sounding too sure of myself. But thee question of 'Where does this energy(potential/possibility) come from is highly intriguing.

How do we know we're measuring consciousness through an EEG? How do we know we're even tapping the surface with one when our brains only have the capacity to make sense of a minute amount of the stimuli 'out there'?

 

[Danoff]

Thanks for expanding on that. Your simulation layer sounds very much like the gestalt view from my perspective - not any specific region of the brain but how the brain functions as a whole. How is it different because you claim that it isn't what you're saying? To not be referring to any specific brain region and then talk about multiple functions working cohesively is very much gestalt.

Well I am saying that that it corresponds not to a specific region but the effect of multiple parts of the brain functioning collaboratively. So if you think "gestalt" fits that I'm fine with it. "Gestalt" may have some baggage with it that I don't want to accept - which is why I didn't adopt the term. But I think you understand my meaning.

Someone said it well in a few posts earlier that consciousness is potential. What I understand as your 'emergent property' is the result of infinite possibility, which is akin to potential.

This I don't understand any part of.

But thee question of 'Where does this energy(potential/possibility) come from is highly intriguing.

I'm not following this either.

How do we know we're measuring consciousness through an EEG?

You're probably measuring more than consciousness with an EEG. You're reading brain activity which may not even be something that the person perceives. Consciousness as I have defined it is brain activity, but not all brain activity. So if you're measuring brain activity, you're measuring consciousness. You might be measuring more than that, and you might be missing some of it because you might be doing a bad job of measuring brain activity, but some of what you measure is consciousness. This is what I meant by "to an extent".

How do we know we're even tapping the surface with one when our brains only have the capacity to make sense of a minute amount of the stimuli 'out there'?

I'm not following this either. Tapping the surface of what?

 

[A_Higher_Place]

Well I am saying that that it corresponds not to a specific region but the effect of multiple parts of the brain functioning collaboratively. So if you think "gestalt" fits that I'm fine with it. "Gestalt" may have some baggage with it that I don't want to accept - which is why I didn't adopt the term. But I think you understand my meaning.



This I don't understand any part of.



I'm not following this either.



You're probably measuring more than consciousness with an EEG. You're reading brain activity which may not even be something that the person perceives. Consciousness as I have defined it is brain activity, but not all brain activity. So if you're measuring brain activity, you're measuring consciousness. You might be measuring more than that, and you might be missing some of it because you might be doing a bad job of measuring brain activity, but some of what you measure is consciousness. This is what I meant by "to an extent".



I'm not following this either. Tapping the surface of what?

Yeah, I apologize. You not following is mostly my attempt to make sense of my thoughts in text and convey them accurately - working on that!

Yes, I do understand your meaning.

What baggage does Gestalt have that doesn't apply well to consciousness?

My comments on potential being akin to consciousness stem from my surface-level understanding of quantum qualia and how that when we attempt to view the same qualia twice, we simply cannot. We see what (in essence) we expect to see, or we see something completely at random - never the same arrangement twice. To make sense of this, I guess a convenient label to describe it would be 'potential'. If seemingly random, maybe we don't have the brain to comprehend why it is random. We try and apply the same rules of prediction (you mentioned the tree example) to these qualia but they don't play ball.

I am attempting to tie this in but am struggling with it in the same sense that I grapple with what consciousness is in my own mind. Is it actually some thing or is it a construct we have created to cope with the idea of not having the capacity to fully understand it.

To say that we're measuring more than consciousness is probably correct but not fully encapsulating what it is. How are you sure that not all brain activity is consciousness if all brain activity is necessary to perceive what we believe consciousness to be?

I know this might all be scattered, but this exemplifies my lack of (attempt to make an) understanding of it all. What I am sure of is that we cannot be so sure of what consciousness is until all the pieces are described and explained.

 

[Danoff]

To make sense of this, I guess a convenient label to describe it would be 'potential'.

I'm still struggling to understand how you're using potential. I guess you mean the quantum wave function? Describing all things which are potentially possible?

I am attempting to tie this in but am struggling with it in the same sense that I grapple with what consciousness is in my own mind. Is it actually some thing or is it a construct we have created to cope with the idea of not having the capacity to fully understand it.

I would describe it as the experience of having a mind. What it feels like to possess a mind.

How are you sure that not all brain activity is consciousness if all brain activity is necessary to perceive what we believe consciousness to be?

I'm not. I'm leaving room for the possibility that some brain function (like the brain controlling heart beat) is not part of consciousness because it is not part of what it feels like to possess a mind.

What I am sure of is that we cannot be so sure of what consciousness is until all the pieces are described and explained.

I'm waiting for the "therefore the human soul" part of this. I agree that until every aspect of consciousness is known, we cannot be sure of every aspect of consciousness. This is tautological. I don't back of and say "I know nothing" in light of this.

 

[A_Higher_Place]

I'm still struggling to understand how you're using potential. I guess you mean the quantum wave function? Describing all things which are potentially possible?



I would describe it as the experience of having a mind. What it feels like to possess a mind.



I'm not. I'm leaving room for the possibility that some brain function (like the brain controlling heart beat) is not part of consciousness because it is not part of what it feels like to possess a mind.



I'm waiting for the "therefore the human soul" part of this. I agree that until every aspect of consciousness is known, we cannot be sure of every aspect of consciousness. This is tautological. I don't back of and say "I know nothing" in light of this.

Thanks for this. Yeah, no. You won't get a human soul out of me l.

Yes, the quantum wave function was what I was trying to weave in there.

The experience of having a mind is paradoxical to me. Perhaps these topics are well above my intelligence.

What is it that is known 'for a fact' about what consciousness is? Besides being a perception of potential?

 

[Danoff]

What is it that is known 'for a fact' about what consciousness is? Besides being a perception of potential?

I don't think we perceive the quantum wave function - if you're still using "potential" in that way. If you're using potential to describe possible futures, I'd say that is definitely an aspect of consciousness. We know for a fact that consciousness is a product of brain function and chemistry.