The Inter Mind

Steve Klinko said:
Yes, if there is such a thing as Conscious Space, then that is where all Conscious Minds have their existence. Then it could be said that a Ghost or a Spirit is just a Conscious Mind, in Conscious Space, that has been detached from its' Physical Space body.
Click to expand...
Now you are swimming in the deep end without your arm floaties

:)
 
Steve Klinko said:
Yes, if there is such a thing as Conscious Space, then that is where all Conscious Minds have their existence. Then it could be said that a Ghost or a Spirit is just a Conscious Mind, in Conscious Space, that has been detached from its' Physical Space body.
Click to expand...
Phew! Bailed just in time!
I checked my clothes and I didn't get any woo on me...
 
Steve Klinko said:
What's not Scientific about proposing something and then testing it. See http://www.theintermind.com/MachConExperiment/MachConExperiment.asp
Click to expand...
So your "Bye" becomes "Hello again", apparently. Fair enough.

There is no "proof" of any scientific theory. To talk of such a thing betrays a misunderstanding about the nature of science. Ditto the notion that lack of knowledge is somehow an "embarrassment" for science. That's what Dave meant in post 77, I would guess.

As for river, well, you can talk to him as long as you like and I'm sure he'll be happy to respond.
 
Steve Klinko said:
The CL cannot be found in the Brain, and maybe someday it will be found there.
Click to expand...
You just contradicted yourself. You claim the CL ("conscious light?") can't be found in the the brain, but maybe it can be found there. Which is it?

Steve Klinko said:
Sorry, but people have been reciting your Mantra for a Hundred years and these Sensory Experiences refuse to be pushed into the Brain. I don't Know that they are not in the Brain, but you need to do a better job Explaining how they are in the Brain.
Click to expand...
Where else could they be?
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Where else could they be?
Click to expand...
Maybe I am dead wrong, OK so be it, but I get the feeling these Sensory Experiences will be found in the Universal all Encompassing Cosmic Conscessness which Flows through all of Us

Or something like that

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Maybe I am dead wrong, OK so be it, but I get the feeling these Sensory Experiences will be found in the Universal all Encompassing Cosmic Conscessness which Flows through all of Us
Click to expand...
You've pinpointed the problem here. Too much about feelings; not enough about evidence.
 
exchemist said:
So your "Bye" becomes "Hello again", apparently. Fair enough.

There is no "proof" of any scientific theory. To talk of such a thing betrays a misunderstanding about the nature of science. Ditto the notion that lack of knowledge is somehow an "embarrassment" for science. That's what Dave meant in post 77, I would guess.

As for river, well, you can talk to him as long as you like and I'm sure he'll be happy to respond.
Click to expand...
You were the one that said you were not going to read the website, so I thought that was your Bye. So I said Bye to you. Hello again to you too.

Weird to make a statement that there is no Proof of any Scientific theory. There are many proofs of all Scientific theories or they would not be solid Scientific Theories. Science has much to say about something like Gravity and almost any other Phenomenon of nature. Science recognizes the existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, but Science has only minimal Clues as to what these things could be. Science has Zero Clues as to what Conscious Experience could be. I repeat, Zero Clues. The fact that Science has Zero Clues should be an Embarrassment to Science. If you don't think it is, then you don't understand the Question or the Problem of Conscious Experience.
 
James R said:
You just contradicted yourself. You claim the CL ("conscious light?") can't be found in the the brain, but maybe it can be found there. Which is it?


Where else could they be?
Click to expand...
Don't see the contradiction. It can't be found in the Brain by Science at this point in time, but with new methods maybe Science will find it there someday.
 
Steve Klinko said:
You were the one that said you were not going to read the website, so I thought that was your Bye. So I said Bye to you. Hello again to you too.

Weird to make a statement that there is no Proof of any Scientific theory. There are many proofs of all Scientific theories or they would not be solid Scientific Theories. Science has much to say about something like Gravity and almost any other Phenomenon of nature. Science recognizes the existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, but Science has only minimal Clues as to what these things could be. Science has Zero Clues as to what Conscious Experience could be. I repeat, Zero Clues. The fact that Science has Zero Clues should be an Embarrassment to Science. If you don't think it is, then you don't understand the Question or the Problem of Conscious Experience.
Click to expand...
This confirms you have some fundamental misunderstandings about what science is.

I repeat, the theories of science cannot be proved. This is basic philosophy of science 101. See Karl Popper.

The reason is simple. With any theory, science has to be open to the possibility that new observations may be found that show it to be wrong or incomplete. This has happened many times in the history of science. Consider Newtonian mechanics. This was successfully used for several hundred years - and still is today, for most purposes. But was it ever proved true? No. In fact it was later found that it doesn't work with relative speeds close to the speed of light, and it doesn't work with very small entities at the atomic scale. Enter relativity and quantum theory. So Newton's system was shown - by observation of nature - to be, if not exactly false, then at any rate inadequate. So much for proof.

In science, theories are models of physical reality that we construct in order to explain the data and predict what new observations we can expect. So theories are always justified, or corroborated, by reference to observational evidence. But they are not proved.

Proof is impossible, as we can never know what future observations may turn up to confound the theory. In science, all "truth" is provisional only - which is why scientists avoid the term "truth", generally speaking.

There are plenty of things about nature that science does not yet know. If science knew everything, nobody would be doing any research and it would be a dead subject. So science is not embarrassed by lack of knowledge. On the contrary, it finds it exciting and motivating.

But only regarding natural phenomena. The problem with the whole "consciousness" subject area is that there is no agreement about whether "consciousness" has any physical meaning. If it doesn't, then there is nothing to research, as far as science is concerned.
 
Last edited:
Steve Klinko said:
I prefer to call it Conscious Space.
Click to expand...
Please describe

Is, your words, Conscious Space, contained within the cranium ie the place of the brain's residence? Or

is Conscious Space some region above the atmosphere ie in the vacuum of space where men traveled to the moon space? Or

Perhaps some other option my 3 neurone brain, Hewey Dewey and Louie, has not thought of?

I await your response with breath, baited

:)
 
exchemist said:
This confirms you have some fundamental misunderstandings about what science is.

I repeat, the theories of science cannot be proved. This is basic philosophy of science 101. See Karl Popper.

The reason is simple. With any theory, science has to be open to the possibility that new observations may be found that show it to be wrong or incomplete. This has happened many times in the history of science. Consider Newtonian mechanics. This was successfully used for several hundred years - and still is today, for most purposes. But was it ever proved true? No. In fact it was later found that it doesn't work with relative speeds close to the speed of light, and it doesn't work with very small entities at the atomic scale. Enter relativity and quantum theory. So Newton's system was shown - by observation of nature - to be, if not exactly false, then at any rate inadequate. So much for proof.

In science, theories are models of physical reality that we construct in order to explain the data and predict what new observations we can expect. So theories are always justified, or corroborated, by reference to observational evidence. But they are not proved.

Proof is impossible, as we can never know what future observations may turn up to confound the theory. In science, all "truth" is provisional only - which is why scientists avoid the term "truth", generally speaking.

There are plenty of things about nature that science does not yet know. If science knew everything, nobody would be doing any research and it would be a dead subject. So science is not embarrassed by lack of knowledge. On the contrary, it finds it exciting and motivating.

But only regarding natural phenomena. The problem with the whole "consciousness" area is that there is no agreement about whether "consciousness" has any physical meaning. If it doesn't, then there is nothing to research, as far as science is concerned.
Click to expand...
When Theories make predictions and the prediction are shown to be true, that is the Proof. The famous prediction of bending of Light around the Sun by Einstein is a good example. That was considered to be Proof. If the Proof and the Theory withstands the test of time is another issue. The Problem is that Conscious Experience does not even have any Theories. There is no first Theory. There is no Clue.
 
exchemist said:
There are plenty of things about nature that science does not yet know
Click to expand...
One of them being why some posters invent their own descriptive language to label some idea they have and become circumspect about what THEIR label translates and describes into, using established meanings by most other posters

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Please describe

Is, your words, Conscious Space, contained within the cranium ie the place of the brain's residence? Or

is Conscious Space some region above the atmosphere ie in the vacuum of space where men traveled to the moon space? Or

Perhaps some other option my 3 neurone brain, Hewey Dewey and Louie, has not thought of?

I await your response with breath, baited

:)
Click to expand...
Of course you are messing around but just in case there is a molecule of interest please read, http://TheInterMind.com to get a proper understanding of the concept.
 
Steve Klinko said:
When Theories make predictions and the prediction are shown to be true, that is the Proof. The famous prediction of bending of Light around the Sun by Einstein is a good example. That was considered to be Proof. If the Proof and the Theory withstands the test of time is another issue. The Problem is that Conscious Experience does not even have any Theories. There is no first Theory. There is no Clue.
Click to expand...
No, it's not proof, because, as I've explained, new classes of observation can come along that the theory fails to account for.

You are quote wrong about the light bending . It proved nothing. What it did was test Einstein's theory, and it was of course a test it passed. So the light bending experiment corroborated the theory. Einstein's theory has yet to fail any test set for it. But that does not mean it is proved true. After all, Newtonian mechanics passed every test for 300 years - and then failed, once we started probing things like the speed of light and atoms, which were things way outside the experience of Newton. Something may one day come along that shows General Relativity does not always work. We cannot know in advance that that is impossible. Ergo, General Relativity cannot be said to be proved.

Regarding "conscious experience", the problem is nobody can agree whether it is physically, objectively, real or not. If it is not physically, objectively, real, it cannot be studied by science. So it is hardly surprising there is no theory for it. There is no theory for pink unicorns or happiness either.
 
exchemist said:
No, it's not proof, because, as I've explained, new classes of observation can come along that the theory fails to account for.

You are quote wrong about the light bending . It proved nothing. What it did was test Einstein's theory, and it was of course a test it passed. So the light bending experiment corroborated the theory. Einstein's theory has yet to fail any test set for it. But that does not mean it is proved true. After all, Newtonian mechanics passed every test for 300 years - and then failed, once we started probing things like the speed of light and atoms, which were things way outside the experience of Newton. Something may one day come along that shows General Relativity does not always work. We cannot know in advance that that is impossible. Ergo, General Relativity cannot be said to be proved.

Regarding "conscious experience", the problem is nobody can agree whether it is physically, objectively, real or not. If it is not physically, objectively, real, it cannot be studied by science. So it is hardly surprising there is no theory for it. There is no theory for pink unicorns or happiness either.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael 345 said:
I don't think so

I prefer to hear YOUR(?) concept from you with a rider "If you require more information please read this link"

One more chance

Please explain

:)
Click to expand...
If you have read the OP then you will see that I have already done that. The Link at the end of the OP was added recently, but it is the same one I gave you above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top