Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Tank]

Good luck with the paper. I'm looking forward to reading it.

[humblesmurph]

I'm sorry, I would truly like to respond to the rest of you, but I just don't have any time today. I really want to write a paper outlining my theory, but I can't do that and argue it in here at the same time. So, I'm going to back off for a bit and get that paper written. Otherwise, there's nothing really for me to present to you.

I did write a paper on why I believe consciousness is external to central nervous systems, so perhaps I could argue that first. After all, if it doesn't exist external to the CNS, then there's nothing to my theory at all.

I read the paper again.  I just don't see it Edward.  You seem eager to move the next step, but the first one is huge.  In order to prove something to skeptics, your precognitions would have to be replicated in a controlled setting.  No one has done that, ever.  If you could, it would be quite a feat.

  The paramecium argument seems like a stretch.  It simply has a scaled down version of "consciousness", with scaled down structures creating it.  You seem to see a similarity between the actions of paramecia and people and a dissimilarity between the  respective internal structures causing those actions.  That doesn't mean anything supernatural is happening.  

With the person driving the car argument, you seem to be using the CNS's efficiency as a reason to believe that something external is controlling the brain.  Yes, our reaction times seem amazingly quick given all the information that has to be processed.  I don't see the jump to external consciousness.  Computers are  quick too.

Respectfully, proving that consciousness has a non physical cause would be enough to get you a Nobel Prize.  Not saying that it can't be done, just that you may be underestimating the height of the mountain you are trying to climb.

In any event, I hope you find what you are looking for.

[Sophus]

With the person driving the car argument, you seem to be using the CNS's efficiency as a reason to believe that something external is controlling the brain... Respectfully, proving that consciousness has a non physical cause would be enough to get you a Nobel Prize.

Yes, I don't think it's hotly debated amongst the scientific community that a brain stores information. For example:

The brain itself knows nothing.

From an Epistemological point of view, I agree with this. But it's clear that what you're suggesting is different: that no information is stored in the brain. Let's strictly talk memories. Memories are stored in the hippocampus - or (to Ed) would you disagree with this?


I would also like to point out some flawed logic:

We know what a neuron is. It’s a cell. It has no brain or central nervous system, so how can a group of cells
in the visual cortex know how to stimulate the brain, or in what direction to start the cascade of stimulation
required for all the rather instantaneous actions required for the driver to stop his car from hitting the car in
front of him?

You seem to concede here that a full brain or central nervous system would be necessary in order to "stimulate the brain" itself. Well, what would a brain be made of if not cells? With respect, I don't think this is news to anyone. When digging deeper into life's mysteries no one expects to find more complex entities making up simpler wholes. Simple things work together to do extraordinary things. It is also how they work which makes the outcome possible. After all neurons communicate with each other through synapses. This web of information sharing can be compared to how a computer works (only on a far more grand level) and although you haven't answered my previous post yet, I'm going to assume you would not say a computer has consciousness. I certainly don't think they do.

[SSY]

Yes, when I read the paper before, I came to basically the same critiques.

On the other hand, he started a thread that stretched to 5 pages, before he had even formed his ideas to a point where he could tell us what they are. Productive use of a forum right there.

[The Magic Pudding]

Edward the Theist wrote: I did write a paper on why I believe consciousness is external to central nervous systems

Could this mean my regular bouts of stupidity may be due to poor reception?
Would it help if I got an antenna?

[Edward the Theist]

Good luck with the paper. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Thank you, Tank. I got the intro and abstract done today.

[Edward the Theist]

I read the paper again.  I just don't see it Edward.  You seem eager to move the next step, but the first one is huge.  In order to prove something to skeptics, your precognitions would have to be replicated in a controlled setting.  No one has done that, ever.  If you could, it would be quite a feat.

Thank you, Humblesmurph, I appreciate you re-reading it. But the paper is in three parts. One is the images of paramecium feeding. I first saw that for myself under a microscope in a microbiology class in college, and it changed my whole life that very day. I remember, I tried to tell others. I remember walking around to my friends and saying, "Look, if these creatures are moving about like they're "trying" to do something, changing direction, swimming this way and then turning around to swim another, probing this, probing that--that's will! I remember I asked my professor like three times if protozoa had a brain or nervous system, but she said they don't. And they don't.

Eventually, I actually bought a medical microscope and watched them myself at home. After Hurricane Katrina, I ended up donating the scope to a vet student, because I wasn't using it and there were videos then on YouTube of the same thing. They display will. There's no question about it.

But I will admit, so far, I haven't been able to convince anyone with that evidence. Either they think something else is going on, or they just aren't educated enough about microbial life to decide for themselves, and no one else is screaming this at the top of their lungs the way I am.

So, I ask people to watch, but even when they see, they don't believe. It reminds me of the parable Jesus told about Lazarus in hell. He wanted to go back and warn his brothers about hell, but God said, no. They wouldn't believe, even if they saw someone raised from the dead.

Myself? I'm incapable of denying the miracle I have seen in college, at home, and on YouTube. That is reproduceable proof.

I'm serious. If you want to, you could do the same as me. A scope costs about three hundred bucks. Preparing the slides and finding paramecium is easily learned off the web. You could do it yourself, and it would change your mind. But I know you won't do that. And, quite honestly, I don't expect you to. It's my job, I believe to convince you with as many different approaches as I can.

So, there's the precognition. Do you know what's funny? No one accuses me of lying. They never have. Even you don't. So, if I'm not lying, how could I have had those dreams? It's not proof. It's anectdotal. It's only as strong as the trust you put in the reporter. I'll give you an example:

I think UFOs are bullshit. But there's a part of me that doesn't. And it has to do with reports that were made by the deputy commander of a base in England in 1980. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I was stationed in England in the 80's for eight years, and I know both of those bases well, but more it has to do with the credibility of those reporting the incident. I encourage you to read up on "UFOs at Rendlesham, England" if you're interested.

My point is, I'm not all about UFOs and maybe they were lying, but the strength of their anecdotal evidence is compelling. So, either I'm a liar, or you have do deal with the fact that I had those dreams.

But then there's the logical argument as well. How can the brain know how to react in new situations? How can one area of neurons, or a single neuron for that matter know how to trigger the brain to do everthing necessary to accomplish a task. Think about it: how can you type in these forums? What is using your brain as a tool?

 

The paramecium argument seems like a stretch.  It simply has a scaled down version of "consciousness", with scaled down structures creating it.  You seem to see a similarity between the actions of paramecia and people and a dissimilarity between the  respective internal structures causing those actions.  That doesn't mean anything supernatural is happening.  

Nothing supernatural is happening. There is nothing supernatural about consciousness. It would be supernatural if the brain could actually produce it, but it's not supernatural for life forms to channel it and use it for their own survival. We do it with gravity every day, and consciousness is no less apparent to us than gravity is.

With the person driving the car argument, you seem to be using the CNS's efficiency as a reason to believe that something external is controlling the brain.  Yes, our reaction times seem amazingly quick given all the information that has to be processed.  I don't see the jump to external consciousness.  Computers are  quick too.

Well, in fact, my theory (as I will detail it one day) predicts conscious computers. In fact, given three possibilites of evolution, I believe this will happen: We will either die out, we will colonize other planets (and then die out), or we will produce conscious machines that can survive environmental changes on this planet. I believe the third one will win out. I know, there's the Terminator movies and all that, but I think it will be to us far more like the end of the movie AI. And we will be a mystery to them.

Be that as it may, no matter how fast and efficient our nervous system is, it cannot logically do previously unlearned tasks like typing long opinions in a forum. That's what I think, anyway.

Respectfully, proving that consciousness has a non physical cause would be enough to get you a Nobel Prize.  Not saying that it can't be done, just that you may be underestimating the height of the mountain you are trying to climb.

I hear you, and no I'm not underestimating it. I will not be the one to prove my theories about consciousness, god (aka (g)) and cosmology. The best I hope for is to popularize my theories so that others will take notice and either try to prove them or disprove them. Either way, I expect I will be long dead by then.

Nonetheless, I have talked with my God a lot, and this is all I was born for, I know it. So what if I never succeed? That's really none of my business. I work with lots of old nurses in the psych hospital. They haven't done anything great in their life either other than get by from day to day and deal with the day to day shit life throws at them. I'm no better than they are, and I deserve nothing better than they get. I have these ideas, that's all. And I believe it would be a sin to not use my talents to bring them to the fore. You know?

In any event, I hope you find what you are looking for.

Thank you. I hope the same for you, too.

[Edward the Theist]

From an Epistemological point of view, I agree with this. But it's clear that what you're suggesting is different: that no information is stored in the brain. Let's strictly talk memories. Memories are stored in the hippocampus - or (to Ed) would you disagree with this?

Sorry, I have to ask this first: Is that Heath Ledger as your avatar? I'm sorry, but if you've ever been a male nurse and had a hard day, that part in Batman where he blows up the hospital and walks away in a nurses dress looking like a demented clown...well...it just kind of makes my eyes go all watery.

Anyway, to your point: destroy the hippocampus, yes? Have you destroyed memories or have you destroyed the organisms ability to access memories? destroy the electronics in your radio. Have you ended the FM electromagnetic signals passing through your room? Of course, that's just a model. And suggesting it doesn't prove my point, all it shows is that your point is not as solid as you might think it is.

I would also like to point out some flawed logic:

We know what a neuron is. It’s a cell. It has no brain or central nervous system, so how can a group of cells
in the visual cortex know how to stimulate the brain, or in what direction to start the cascade of stimulation
required for all the rather instantaneous actions required for the driver to stop his car from hitting the car in
front of him?

You seem to concede here that a full brain or central nervous system would be necessary in order to "stimulate the brain" itself. Well, what would a brain be made of if not cells? With respect, I don't think this is news to anyone. When digging deeper into life's mysteries no one expects to find more complex entities making up simpler wholes. Simple things work together to do extraordinary things. It is also how they work which makes the outcome possible. After all neurons communicate with each other through synapses. This web of information sharing can be compared to how a computer works (only on a far more grand level) and although you haven't answered my previous post yet, I'm going to assume you would not say a computer has consciousness. I certainly don't think they do.

Thank you, and I would have answered your post; I wanted to, but I just ran out of time earlier. But I would like to talk about computer consciousness here. Right now, a computer is not conscious, but it is controlled by a conscious entity. Nevertheless, as you said, if a protozoa has no brain and displays consciousness, why not a computer? My reply is that a computer is not constructed to do that. It's constructed to follow a program. The program is produced by a conscious entity. Animal life, on the other hand, seems to have the ability to use consciousness. I say "use" because there doesn't seem to be anyting in the cell of a protozoa that can make a decision, and yet the paramecium obviously does. What is that mechanism?

Well, if the brain produces consciousness, then the paramecium should act no different than a computer. In fact, plants act like a computer. They seem to follow a pre-programed set of instructions in their DNA. Bacteria that I have observed seem to act that way, too. But the paramecium does not. It demonstrates volition. In fact, certain types of white blood cells do, too, not to mention a host of other protozoa other than the paramecium. And yet much larger cells, like an egg, seems to have no volition at all. So, what is the mechanism. I don't know.

But it sure seems like animals are channeling consciousness, for lack of a better term, than producing it. I mean, even if they produced it, how the hell could a paramecium and a human both have volition?

So, my conclusion is that it requires more magical thinking to assume the consciousness is made by the creature and then controls the creature than it does to assume the consciousness is out there and is simply being used by a creature capable of using it by some mechanism.

Nevertheless, I honestly think if we want to create AI, we're going to have to get passed the idea of computer programming in order to acheive it. That paradigm will only allow us to imitate it.

And to wax on a bit more speculatively: perhaps if all there was were robots moving about in the universe, and all other life capable of consciousness were extinct, perhaps consciousness would evolve the robots into something that could channel it. Perhaps that's all we are.

[Edward the Theist]

On the other hand, he started a thread that stretched to 5 pages, before he had even formed his ideas to a point where he could tell us what they are. Productive use of a forum right there.

Yeah, imagine wasting a forum on mindless talk. What a unique sin that would be.

[Edward the Theist]

Could this mean my regular bouts of stupidity may be due to poor reception?
Would it help if I got an antenna?

Funny you should say.  

One thing my theory predicts is that those who can better channel consciousness are better able to survive. In other words the stupid will die first. And if not that, then the more consciousness one is able to utilize, the greater use they can make of their life. Let me relay a little story, and I don't offer it as any kind of precognition proof, it's just a story that happened to me and my wife.

We're in our RV at a park in Las Vegas. We're going to leave that night. I had a dream that afternoon that we were in a terrible accident and our RV was consumed in flames. I woke up, and it seemed like a precognitive dream. I've had dozens, and this seemed like one of them. I will never know if it was, because as I was shaving I asked God, "What the fuck am I supposed to do!" And instantly the word came to me in my mind, "Leave 15  minutes later than you were planning."

I told my wife about this and we agreed to wait 15 minutes. We were going to leave at 11pm. We sat at a picknick table until 11:15 and left then. When we got to the Hoover damn area, we were kind of lost, so I pulled over to check my atlas. As I was doing that a car came down the road from the direction of the damn and stopped. The driver came over to us and said, you can't go forward (over the damn), the road is under construction.

We turned around and made about a hundred mile detour. It wasn't a big deal.

Unless, that is, you consider that if we had left on time, we wouldn't have met that other car, we would have gone straight into whatever the road construction was going on over the damn.

I don't know what would have happened, maybe nothing. That's the problem with precognition. Precognition does not fit with predestination. You don't know it except in hindsight, because it's knowledge of a world where you didn't know what was going to happen. You knowing it changes things.

All I know is it was a dream similar to the Dunblane dream and a dozen others where I saw something on television that I had earlier seen in a dream.

It's not proof. It may be nothing. But I believe that the more consciousness one can get hold of, the greater power they will have in a physcial world that is--in my opinion--nothing more than a modality of consciousness anyway.

True story.

[_7654_]

you need to look at http://changingminds.org/explanations/t ... n_bias.htm
and http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html and http://changingminds.org/explanations/t ... n_bias.htm

The point is, confirmation bias will lead you to think these type of thoughts, but bar a solid statistical analysis of a reasonably sized data set you can not take this type of information seriously.

[Sophus]

Sorry, I have to ask this first: Is that Heath Ledger as your avatar? I'm sorry, but if you've ever been a male nurse and had a hard day, that part in Batman where he blows up the hospital and walks away in a nurses dress looking like a demented clown...well...it just kind of makes my eyes go all watery.

Haha, nope. Not Ledger. Heath has a broader jaw.

Anyway, to your point: destroy the hippocampus, yes? Have you destroyed memories or have you destroyed the organisms ability to access memories? destroy the electronics in your radio. Have you ended the FM electromagnetic signals passing through your room? Of course, that's just a model. And suggesting it doesn't prove my point, all it shows is that your point is not as solid as you might think it is.

Not destroy. Store.

Nevertheless, as you said, if a protozoa has no brain and displays consciousness, why not a computer?

Actually, no. What I said was that they do not have consciousness like a computer. Single cells do not operate on volition, rather they respond to their environment accordingly. If they possessed a consciousness the frog would have had no problems after having its back and belly skin swapped.

Animal life, on the other hand, seems to have the ability to use consciousness. I say "use" because there doesn't seem to be anyting in the cell of a protozoa that can make a decision, and yet the paramecium obviously does. What is that mechanism?

Not obviously, but seemingly. Just as it hundreds of years ago it would have seemed obvious that our bodies were designed. And why only animal life?

But it sure seems like animals are channeling consciousness, for lack of a better term, than producing it. I mean, even if they produced it, how the hell could a paramecium and a human both have volition?

Again, volition is assumed. If everything down to a single cell had its own will the structure and building blocks of our own bodies would be so chaotic we would not be able to sustain our own existence. I think you are confusing basic sensory abilities of the single cells with consciousness or awareness. If you can work that into your definition of 'consciousness' in this case I can understand that (since it is of course using means to interact and become aware of its environment), but that variant definition of 'consciousness' is so drastically different from the what a human has there's really no sense in comparing them.

So... for clarification purposes: you are implying the consciousness we share with single cells is the same?

[Recusant]

I think that it would have been good to have started a separate thread for discussing "Three Rationales for External Consciousness: Paramecium, Precognition, and the Absurdity of Intelligent Neuronal Triggers."  But it seems this thread is heading into that territory now, so...

I'm only going to address one aspect of the paper in this post; the idea that the paramecium is "conscious."

It's only by distorting the idea of consciousness that one could say that the paramecium qualifies as a conscious entity.  It reacts to it's environment, but is that reason to state that it's conscious?  Plants react to their environment as well, are they conscious?  I see Edward the Theist's ideas as approximating panentheism.  In that line of thinking, pretty much everything is conscious to some degree or another.  I'm actually fine with that, as far as religious thinking goes.  It's when religious thinkers attempt to bend facts to fit their ideas that I begin to have an issue with them.  The paramecium is not much more conscious than a plant, as we would normally understand consciousness.  Edward the Theist seems to put great store in the movement of the paramecium; the fact that it changes direction, and I think there's a good reason for that.  The paramecium obviously is affected by light and heat, and the presence of potential food.  But so is a plant, and unless we're willing to call a plant conscious, then it really comes down to movement as the distinguishing factor.

However, the movement of the paramecium is the result of the way that cilia work:

From http://oocities.com/quetl/paramecium.htm

Behavior - or How does the Paramecium change direction?

The motion of an individual cilium superficially resembles that of an oar, in that it sweeps through the medium with a power stroke that propels the cell in the opposite direction. Each power stroke and return stroke involves perhaps thousands of chemical reactions. There may be dozens of strokes per second, and perhaps thousands of cilia. Paramecia respond very quickly to obstacles or changes in their environment.

All of the cilia have a calcium-activated reverse gear; when a cell bumps into an obstacle, calcium channels open, the cell depolarizes. The voltage normally present across the outer membrane leaks away, as ions rush through open channels to even out the across membrane charges, and the ciliary machinery switch gears, causing the cilia to switch into the opposite motion and the cell backs up fast.

Normally not all the cilia are swimming forward during forward swimming; some are moving in reverse mode. When the number of cilia that are swimming forward exceeds the cilia that are in reverse mode, the cell moves forward. When the cell re-establishes cell polarization, the cilia return to their forward movement. This doesn't happen quite smoothly, and when the paramecium resumes its journey, it is usually in a slightly different direction than before - giving the appearance that it has made a detour around the obstacle.

What is the significance of this? Galvanotaxis provides a neat model of how our very own nerve cells communicate, via voltage gated channels. Cells are stimulated or not by the voltage gradient across their outer membrane; when they are stimulated, they depolarize, meaning ions like potassium and chloride rush through pores or channels that can open when the voltage exceeds a certain level, i.e. they are "voltage gated").

(Emphasis mine)

So, while it looks like the paramecium has made a choice, and is consciously changing direction, that is actually not what's going on.  

Though it's quite true that the paramecium doesn't have a nervous system such as is present in the majority of multi-cellular animal life, the roughly equivalent parts of the paramecium are fairly well understood.  (The linked article has some of the ideas about the paramecium's equivalent of a nervous system, but an online search of "paramecium nervous system" will provide several other articles about the subject.) In other words, there is no great mystery of a "consciousness" inhabiting the paramecium with no structure to support it.

Edward the Theist, I have a simple question for you: When you had your revelation about the paramecium, did you investigate the scientific explanation for what's going on at all?  Assuming that you did, what do you find unsatisfactory about it?

[Gawen]

There is nothing supernatural about consciousness. It would be supernatural if the brain could actually produce it,...

Last I heard....and I've been known to be behind the times....is that when one removes one's brain, there is no more consciousness.
You have to show how a invisible self living Consciousness is actually out there some where and how brains are able to tune into it, why brain dead people are not conscious, severely handicapped people are not aware of themselves. And if there is a 'god' consciousness...why we don't consciously know of it.

We still ain't seen the car...let alone tires or a steering wheel.

[Edward the Theist]

To Sophus,

You said: "Single cells do not operate on volition, rather they respond to their environment accordingly."

How do you know? The fact is, you don't. You are biased, and did you even watch the one minute and thirty second video of parmecium feeding? You say they respond to their environment accordingly, but with that kind of bias you would also have to say that every other living animal does as well. You would only be able to verify your own consciousness. You would never be able to verify anyone elses. That might be all you can do with strict proof, but if you see an animal behaving with apparent will, it's a pretty good guess that animal is conscious.

On the other hand, in the same microbiology class, I viewed bacteria, and they also had movement, but it was a kind of vibration that perhaps came from something as slight as breathing on the microscope. They didn't display any sign of volition. So, I know the difference. But do you know the difference?

As for the consciousness we share with protozoa like the paramecium. Yes, I believe it is the same. We simply have a greater mechanical capcity to use that consciousness owing to our muscles and skeleton and central nervous system.