The Inter Mind

[exchemist]

Now you are just playing word games.

I have said for years that Conscious Experience is a whole new category of Phenomenon than any known Phenomenon of Science. That's the point of the website. Think outside the Physicalist Box. If you are a Physicalist then you are tied to your Belief system of the Oneness of Consciousness and Matter, where everything is somehow Physical. You are the same as the Spiritualists who Believe that there is only Consciousness and no actual Matter. They Believe in the Oneness of Consciousness and Matter, except they say it is all Consciousness.

If you think "proof" and "corroboration" are synonyms, you have a poor grasp of language. These are not word games. This distinction matters, if you are interesting in trying to think about things clearly.

But perhaps you are not.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just figured it out.

"When Theories make predictions and the prediction are shown to be true, that is the Proof."
False.
That is corroborating evidence. Many theories predict light bending - including Newtonian gravity.

"The famous prediction of bending of Light around the Sun by Einstein is a good example."
False.
It is a good example of corroborating evidence. Note that it is corroborating evidence of Newton's theory of gravity too.


"That was considered to be Proof."
False. You reveal yourself to know nothing about science.

You must be a Semantics Zombie.

"2+2=5"
False. 2+2 is pretty much considered to be 4.
"Oh that's just semantics."

 

[Steve Klinko]

If you think "proof" and "corroboration" are synonyms, you have a poor grasp of language. These are not word games. This distinction matters, if you are interesting in trying to think about things clearly.

But perhaps you are not.

Proof and Corroboration are of course not synonyms but they are closely related in normal English usage. You are handicapping the word Proof to only mean the concept of absolute Proof from Logic theory. So I think that is why you cannot use the word Proof when talking about Theories of Physics. But Theories about Consciousness or any other Theory do not need to conform to the strict Logic Theory definition. You should go post on a Logic Theory Forum to argue about the meaning of Proof.

 

[Steve Klinko]

"When Theories make predictions and the prediction are shown to be true, that is the Proof."
False.
That is corroborating evidence. Many theories predict light bending - including Newtonian gravity.

"The famous prediction of bending of Light around the Sun by Einstein is a good example."
False.
It is a good example of corroborating evidence. Note that it is corroborating evidence of Newton's theory of gravity too.


"That was considered to be Proof."
False. You reveal yourself to know nothing about science.



"2+2=5"
False. 2+2 is pretty much considered to be 4.
"Oh that's just semantics."

You are most certainly playing word games. We all know that Proof and Evidence have slightly different meanings. But in normal spoken English nobody is OC enough to care. This makes you a Semantics Zombie. You are just trying to Divert the conversation away from The Inter Mind. I get it that you don't get it when it comes to the Inter Mind. I started the thread to get people interested in the concept. Now that people are interested the next step is to read the whole concept and all the Arguments for the Conscious Mind and then for the Inter Mind. Please go to http://TheInterMind.com for the big picture. It's ok if you don't want to pursue this more. I tried. Thank You for at least Messing with me.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are most certainly playing word games. We all know that Proof and Evidence have slightly different meanings. But in normal spoken English nobody is OC enough to care.

You come to a science forum, post a ten thousand word excerpt from a dedicated website you wrote yourself, post it in the alt theories section, then claim 'no, I don't mean science - I really mean normal people ignorant of science'.

Then you're in way over your head. If you want to flog your non-science ideas for non-science people and not get eviscerated, try Parler.

Jesus, you could have finished school in the time it took you to write that site.

 

[exchemist]

Proof and Corroboration are of course not synonyms but they are closely related in normal English usage. You are handicapping the word Proof to only mean the concept of absolute Proof from Logic theory. So I think that is why you cannot use the word Proof when talking about Theories of Physics. But Theories about Consciousness or any other Theory do not need to conform to the strict Logic Theory definition. You should go post on a Logic Theory Forum to argue about the meaning of Proof.

Not a bit of it. Just glance at these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Or this:

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[14][15] Albert Einstein said:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe", and in the great majority of cases simply "No". If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe", and if it does not agree it means "No". Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.[16]

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_scientific_proof

So this is far from being just nitpicking on my part. It is basic to understanding what science is and does. I suggest you get up to speed on these basics before you try to go further with your ideas. If you want to be taken seriously in the science community, you need to be able to think clearly and express yourself with precision.

If not, then Deepak Chopra is your man.

 

[DaveC426913]

So this is far from being just nitpicking on my part. It is basic to understanding what science is and does. I suggest you get up to speed on these basics before you try to go further with your ideas. If you want to be taken seriously in the science community, you need to be able to think clearly and express yourself with precision.

Worth repeating.
And more eloquently communicated than I.

 

[Steve Klinko]

You come to a science forum, post a ten thousand word excerpt from a dedicated website you wrote yourself, post it in the alt theories section, then claim 'no, I don't mean science - I really mean normal people ignorant of science'.

Then you're in way over your head. If you want to flog your non-science ideas for non-science people and not get eviscerated, try Parler.

Jesus, you could have finished school in the time it took you to write that site.

I take it that you don't like the website. As the website points out, Science is getting nowhere using the old: "It's got to be in the Neurons Mantra". Seems reasonable that it is in the Neurons, but it is un Scientific to keep saying it for a Hundred years with no Explanations ever being developed. Give up on that. The Speculations on the website, if you take the time to read them in detail, are actually more Scientific and Logical than the Emergence Speculation. Think outside the Box. Think in new ways. Science will be better for it.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Not a bit of it. Just glance at these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Or this:

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[14][15] Albert Einstein said:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe", and in the great majority of cases simply "No". If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe", and if it does not agree it means "No". Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.[16]

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_scientific_proof

So this is far from being just nitpicking on my part. It is basic to understanding what science is and does. I suggest you get up to speed on these basics before you try to go further with your ideas. If you want to be taken seriously in the science community, you need to be able to think clearly and express yourself with precision.

If not, then Deepak Chopra is your man.

Ok I understand your point. But you will get nowhere solving the Hard Problem of Conscious Experience if you get mired down in the mud of Semantics. Now that you have made your point, you need to loosen up on the Esoteric meanings of words. You are probably just trying to Divert attention from the topic. Let's start talking about Conscious Experience. To me it is the missing component in the complete Scientific understanding of the Manifest Universe. I dismissed Chopra a long time ago, but I'm thinking maybe I should take another look after witnessing the Dogmatic approach that so called Science takes with regard to Conscious Experience.

 

[Michael 345]

I take it that you don't like the website. As the website points out, Science is getting nowhere using the old: "It's got to be in the Neurons Mantra". Seems reasonable that it is in the Neurons, but it is un Scientific to keep saying it for a Hundred years with no Explanations ever being developed. Give up on that. The Speculations on the website, if you take the time to read them in detail, are actually more Scientific and Logical than the Emergence Speculation. Think outside the Box. Think in new ways. Science will be better for it.

To think outside the box it helps to know what is in the box

 

[Steve Klinko]

To think outside the box it helps to know what is in the box

When it comes to Explaining Conscious Experience, I know the Box is most certainly Empty.

 

[DaveC426913]

I take it that you don't like the website.

This is a discussion board, not an ad space for personal websites.
If you have a point, make it here.

As the website points out, Science is getting nowhere using the old: "It's got to be in the Neurons Mantra". Seems reasonable that it is in the Neurons, but it is un Scientific to keep saying it for a Hundred years with no Explanations ever being developed. Give up on that.

OK, so if "it's not the neurons" then what object(s) is the seat of consciousness?
Is it a physical component of the brain or body?
Is it something beyond the physical? A soul?

Nice and simple. Just name the components. No plugs for your website.

 

[Steve Klinko]

This is a discussion board, not an ad space for personal websites.
If you have a point, make it here.


OK, so if "it's not the neurons" then what object(s) is the seat of consciousness?
Is it a physical component of the brain or body?
Is it something beyond the physical? A soul?

Nice and simple. Just name the components. No plugs for your website.

I have already said it in the OP, nobody knows where or what Conscious Experience is. The reason I started this thread is because there is a large group of, let's call them Physicalists, that claim the Problem of Conscious Experience is already solved. They arrogantly claim that to even question such a thing is un Scientific. I think questioning anything is completely Scientific. The website is just Information.

But the other thing that I am trying to do with the website is to direct people to think about Conscious Experience itself. Think about the Redness, the Standard A Tone and the Salty Taste. These are not Illusions, these are Conscious Experiences that exist inside our Conscious Minds. It goes to the very Nature of what we are at the Conscious Self level. We are nothing but our own Conscious Experiences. Not a new thought, but a very overlooked thought by Science. The most important unknown things in the Universe is the Conscious Mind and Conscious Self. You will probably just do a knee jerk objection to my terminology, but we have to start somewhere. Science cannot just arrogantly shove aside talk about Consciousness and Mind anymore. Click on "Emphasizing the Connection Perspective" at http://TheInterMind.com to see how a Connected Model can change old conclusions about Consciousness such as the effect of Anesthesia. All options should still be on the table. There is something very wrong going on with Science and Mind right now.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have already said it in the OP, nobody knows where or what Conscious Experience is.

OK, so you don't deny that it could be an emergent property of trillions of neurons.

The reason I started this thread is because there is a large group of, let's call them Physicalists, that claim the Problem of Conscious Experience is already solved. They arrogantly claim that to even question such a thing is un Scientific.

I question the veracity of this claim.

I think it is more likely that we should call them "windmills" and you are tilting at them.

But the other thing that I am trying to do with the website is to direct people to think about Conscious Experience itself. Think about the Redness, the Standard A Tone and the Salty Taste. These are not Illusions, these are Conscious Experiences that exist inside our Conscious Minds. It goes to the very Nature of what we are at the Conscious Self level. We are nothing but our own Conscious Experiences. Not a new thought, but a very overlooked thought by Science. The most important unknown things in the Universe is the Conscious Mind and Conscious Self. You will probably just do a knee jerk objection to my terminology, but we have to start somewhere. Science cannot just arrogantly shove aside talk about Consciousness and Mind anymore. Click on "Emphasizing the Connection Perspective" at http://TheInterMind.com to see how a Connected Model can change old conclusions about Consciousness such as the effect of Anesthesia. All options should still be on the table. There is something very wrong going on with Science and Mind right now.

OK, but all of that could still be an emergent property of trillions of neurons, right?

 

[Steve Klinko]

OK, so you don't deny that it could be an emergent property of trillions of neurons.


I question the veracity of this claim.

I think it is more likely that we should call them "windmills" and you are tilting at them.



OK, but all of that could still be an emergent property of trillions of neurons, right?

I say anything is possible. But it strains the Imagination to think about Redness then think about Neural Activity, and conclude that Redness comes from that Neural Activity. It makes more Logical and Scientific sense to separate the Redness Experience and, at least for the sake of argument, put it into a concept of Conscious Space of some sort. If Science can put that Conscious Space back into the Neurons then ok that's great.

Emergence is only a Speculation based on stubbornness of the Physicalist thinking process. My Speculation is more Logical and Scientific than the Emergence Speculation.

 

[exchemist]

Ok I understand your point. But you will get nowhere solving the Hard Problem of Conscious Experience if you get mired down in the mud of Semantics. Now that you have made your point, you need to loosen up on the Esoteric meanings of words. You are probably just trying to Divert attention from the topic. Let's start talking about Conscious Experience. To me it is the missing component in the complete Scientific understanding of the Manifest Universe. I dismissed Chopra a long time ago, but I'm thinking maybe I should take another look after witnessing the Dogmatic approach that so called Science takes with regard to Conscious Experience.

Hmm. I'm not convinced you have taken my point on board if you are dismissing what Einstein had to say about the nature of science as "semantics". And I have no intention of "loosening up", since that is what makes for muddled thinking and bad science.

But now I'm not sure what you are contending. Are you saying that science can, and ought to, address itself to the "hard problem of consciousness"? Or are you saying that it is not physical and therefore lies outside the remit of science?

 

[DaveC426913]

put it into a concept of Conscious Space of some sort.
...
My Speculation is more Logical and Scientific

What use does such a speculation accomplish if it does not predict?
I mean, if I were to develop a speculation based on pixie dust, but did not care whether it predict the mechanism of consciousness, how would that be less valid?

 

[Steve Klinko]

Hmm. I'm not convinced you have taken my point on board if you are dismissing what Einstein had to say about the nature of science as "semantics". And I have no intention of "loosening up", since that is what makes for muddled thinking and bad science.

But now I'm not sure what you are contending. Are you saying that science can, and ought to, address itself to the "hard problem of consciousness"? Or are you saying that it is not physical and therefore lies outside the remit of science?

I'll take what Einstein says under advisement. Come on, Loosen up. You will never solve the Hard Problem if you don't think in Different ways. I say that because thinking in the Same ways has gotten us nowhere. Science may need new concepts to solve the Hard Problem, but when it is figured out it will be Science that does it. I try to get Science to think in that new way, what ever it will be. I Speculate on things to try to drum up enthusiasm for Speculating on explanations Conscious Experience.

 

[Michael 345]

When it comes to Explaining Conscious Experience, I know the Box is most certainly Empty.

And outside the box is even less

 

[Steve Klinko]

What use does such a speculation accomplish if it does not predict?
I mean, if I were to develop a speculation based on pixie dust, but did not care whether it predict the mechanism of consciousness, how would that be less valid?

Ok go ahead Speculate on Pixie Dust. That's the Embarrassment of Science that it has come to this. Science might as well have a Pixie Dust Theory because right now there is nothing. But I will guarantee my Inter Mind Model will be way more Logical and Scientific than any Pixie Dust Theory you can come up with. Actually, even Emergence makes more sense than a Pixie Dust Theory. Now that I have fully researched Pixie Dust I have to ask, are you talking Golden or Blue?