[quote author=budaatum post=113777166][/quote]

What is this' YOUR' in the body that is aware ,separately from brains, the unique thoughts, feelings and memories that are generated.

Your ,is a possessive pronoun, so what is the ''your' that possess consciousness?

triplechoice:


What is this' YOUR' in the body that is aware ,separately from brains, the unique thoughts, feelings and memories that are generated.

Your ,is a possessive pronoun, so what is the ''your' that possess consciousness?

No one said "separately" but you. Working together is more like it. One becomes aware of phenomena because one has been informed by one's senses.

For instance, you are becoming aware of what I am about to say first by assimilating it through your eyes, then by interpreting it with your mind.

Lots of parts of your body are involved, like my dodgy S2-S3 is involved with my bowel.

budaatum:


No one said "separately" but you. Working together is more like it. One becomes aware of phenomena because one has been informed by one's senses.

For instance, you are becoming aware of what I am about to say first by assimilating it through your eyes, then by interpreting it with your mind.

Lots of parts of your body are involved, like my dodgy S2-S3 is involved with my bowel.

So in other words, my phone with its mechanism which makes it possible to interact with you, is part of me working together or should be part of me working together


If this is true, then I am not separate from my phone. I, that interpretes its signals as emerged from it.
This appears to be the same as your explanation.

Another question, what aspect of this 'working together parts' is aware of signals coming through the brains and interprets it?

Remember, you already admitted that brains and its central nervous system does this this interpretation. Why not stick with that?

triplechoice:


So in other words, my phone with its mechanism which makes it possible to interact with you, is part of me working together or should be part of me working together

Is that how you understand it triple? Well, in a sense, your phone is part of you but not in the same way your senses are part of you.

I understand it as you using your phone with its mechanism to fulfil your minds desire of interacting with me. Your phone is not one of your senses after all, but an extension that humans have designed to extend the use of your sense of seeing (hearing) what I have to say and responding over large distance which you otherwise would not have been able to do without the human scientifically designed and engineered extension.

triplechoice:

If this is true, then I am not separate from my phone. I, that interpretes its signals as emerged from it.
This appears to be the same as your explanation.

I met a friend yesterday. Our discussion evolved around the question, how is one certain that what one understands is what one heard, and how does one tell if there's a difference. I think it applies here as what has appeared to you.

I think you are very separate from your phone, triple. You can leave your phone in your bedroom or on a bus and go into your bathroom without it but you can not be in your bathroom without your senses.

triplechoice:
Another question, what aspect of this 'working together parts' is aware of signals coming through the brains and interprets it?

First, I need you to be conscious of the meaning and consequence of the following:

KnownUnknown:

Of course I don’t claim to fully understand consciousness because there is no way to have a subjective experience of other people’s consciousness talk less of other beings in nature; so I only speak of my consciousness (extrapolated to other humans) and how it could just be a type amongst many just like the human eye is a type amongst many. You can’t see a cat in the dark but it sees you clearly.

I'm going to make an amendment.

Of course I don’t claim to fully understand consciousness because there is no way to have [an objective experience of other people’s consciousness because we always have subjective to ourself experiences which cloud our objectivity] talk less .....

Unknown, what do you think of my subjective edit?

triplechoice:
Remember, you already admitted that brains and its central nervous system does this this interpretation. Why not stick with that?

Now, note how many times I have disagreed with your subjective interpretation of what I've said and then read the following in answer to your question please.

https://www.christopherreeve.org/living-with-paralysis/health/how-the-spinal-cord-works

triplechoice:


It doesn't mean then ,that within the body consciousness can operate without brains.

We can't operate our cars and use it to move around without its engine, but outside of it we can function ,since we know have the freedom to use our legs to walk .

Or is it possible to be driving a car and still be walking at the same time inside of it?

I don't really understand. Are you saying consciousness can survive outside the body but still needs the body?

triplechoice:


Maybe you're not familiar with the hard question of consciousness . Neuroscientiist have raised the question. Not me.

If our brains and the central nervous system can think, perceive and do everything perfectly well for us,why should consciousness still emerge? What for.

If in the future, LaMDA would be able to do everything that the normal human would, what does it need sentience for?

Or if a driverless car can do everything a self driving car can do, why does it need to emerge a mind or consciousness to make it conscious of it self as a driverless car that knows that it is driverless?
IIf a driverless car emerges a consciousness that makes it conscious, what then makes it different from a self driving one that can't move without a driver?

Has the driverless car not then emerged a "ghost" that now over sees itself? What would be the point of being conscious of its driverless state when it is not needed as it can do everything very well. without that awareness

I Why don't we consider the possibility that our brains and bodies are created to serve the needs of a consciousness that has emerged differently.
Because if our bodies can operate on its own like a driverless car, why the need for an emergent over seeing and sometimes controlling consciousness that would still try to control what can already control itself.


Yes, we don't need sentience or consciousness, since the brains and it's other parts can do everything; think, perceive feel etc

Dude, machine consciousness has nothing to do with the hard problem of consciousness because machine consciousness is not human consciousness. When is this realisation going to dawn on you?

budaatum:


Is that how you understand it triple? Well, in a sense, your phone is part of you but not in the same way your senses are part of you.

I understand it as you using your phone with its mechanism to fulfil your minds desire of interacting with me. Your phone is not one of your senses after all, but an extension that humans have designed to extend the use of your sense of seeing (hearing) what I have to say and responding over large distance which you otherwise would not have been able to do without the human scientifically designed and engineered extension.

There are no perfect analogies. You should looked at the sense of it and know that I was talking about the very occasion your phone is not separate from you and not any other time. Imagine your phone is never separate from you like a blind person who relies on external aids to move around.

I met a friend yesterday. Our discussion evolved around the question, how is one certain that what one understands is what one heard, and how does one tell if there's a difference. I think it applies here as what has appeared to you.

The limitations of language makes it difficult sometimes for the next person to understand what we are trying to explain.

A non science student reading an advanced physics material would struggle to make much sense of it and may misinterpret what is read . That's why I don't just rely on what I have read from google research or YouTube videos without seeking further explanation from friends who I know to be experts in such matters. It appears to me most here don't do the same. Hope I am wrong about this.

I think you are very separate from your phone, triple. You can leave your phone in your bedroom or on a bus and go into your bathroom without it but you can not be in your bathroom without your senses.

First, I need you to be conscious of the meaning and consequence of the following:


I'm going to make an amendment.

Of course I don’t claim to fully understand consciousness because there is no way to have [an objective experience of other people’s consciousness because we always have subjective to ourself experiences which cloud our objectivity] talk less .....

Unknown, what do you think of my subjective edit?


Now, note how many times I have disagreed with your subjective interpretation of what I've said and then read the following in answer to your question please.

https://www.christopherreeve.org/living-with-paralysis/health/how-the-spinal-cord-works

You too quick to Judge without knowing all of the reasons behind my comment.

What is contained in that link only tells us a part of the story. It contains description that are produced from observable phenomenon; brain activities and the central nervous system.

And since it doesn't accurately contain what goes on subjectively ,which are reflected as brain activities, why should I rely on that to understand whom am I inside ,; my consciousness.
A popular Nigerian writer once said, " A story that is not complete is essentially a lie, not the complete truth. That's a truth statement nobody can question.

I don't think we can rely the template of science alone, at this time, to interpret who we truly are as humans. Doing so, would be like trying to understand ourselves from the position of an outsider who only has limited information about our subjective states. It doesn't make much sense.

If we stubbornly insist on continuing with that, ,then it means what we currently think about who we are, may be not the complete truth.
Knowing who we truly are, enables us to function from the correct position of our true self. Anything else, in my opinion is confusion.

A lot of people these days are getting confused about their gender, identifying as fluid or neutral gender or any other thing that comes to their heads, without most of us asking the question, why

Sorry that I may have digressed. Just couldn't help it.

LordReed:


Dude, machine consciousness has nothing to do with the hard problem of consciousness because machine consciousness is not human consciousness. When is this realisation going to dawn on you?

Everything has consciousness. I know that. If you go back to my presentation you would see where I explained how consciousness has evolved from different forms that exist in nature; inanimate and animate

You brought in machine consciousness without clearly differentiating it from human consciousness. So don't blame me.

triplechoice:


Everything has consciousness. I know that. If you go back to my presentation you would see where I explained how consciousness has evolved from different forms that exist in nature; inanimate and animate

You brought in machine consciousness without clearly differentiating it from human consciousness. So don't blame me.

No, it was you brought up machine consciousness and kept linking it to human consciousness. From the onset I clearly told you machine consciousness is not going to be like human consciousness.

triplechoice:
There are no perfect analogies. You should looked at the sense of it and know that I was talking about the very occasion your phone is not separate from you and not any other time. Imagine your phone is never separate from you like a blind person who relies on external aids to move around.

No one is saying an analogy should be perfect! Fact remains that a phone is not a part of one as one's senses are. You can't go into your bathroom without your senses.

triplechoice:
The limitations of language makes it difficult sometimes for the next person to understand what we are trying to explain.

I wish you would not forget this. The limitations are not your's alone, both in expressing and in understanding. We must however do the best we can to express and understand.

triplechoice:
A non science student reading an advanced physics material would struggle to make much sense of it and may misinterpret what is read .

And probably misinterpret it worse than a science student might.

triplechoice:
That's why I don't just rely on what I have read from google research or YouTube videos without seeking further explanation from friends who I know to be experts in such matters. It appears to me most here don't do the same. Hope I am wrong about this.

So you are like me then. Do you think we deserve a pat on the back for doing research with our senses own or is that what is required of us?

triplechoice:
You too quick to Judge without knowing all of the reasons behind my comment.

triplechoice post=113800207:
The limitations of language makes it difficult sometimes for the next person to understand what we are trying to explain.

Are you perhaps too quick to judge that one is judging?

triplechoice:
And since it doesn't accurately contain what goes on subjectively ,which are reflected as brain activities, why should I rely on that to understand whom am I inside ,; my consciousness.

No one is asking you to rely on anything about your consciousness, triple. It is your consciousness, it is subjective to you alone. It is not objectively observable to us, and only ignorantly can we be telling you anything about your consciousness.

We are talking about consciousness in general, triple, and not the consciousness of triple, and there's no harm considering the opinion of those who may have spent a lot more time on consciousness than us such that they may seem like science students compared to us non-science students, as far as this topic goes.

triplechoice:
I don't think we can rely the template of science alone, at this time, to interpret who we truly are as humans.

I'm glad you say so. Thankfully, no scientist is telling me to rely on any template of what it is to be human, and if they were I'd likely not listen since I prefer to use my own senses to decide my own humaness.

triplechoice:
If we stubbornly insist on continuing with that, ,then it means what we currently think about who we are, may be not the complete truth.
Knowing who we truly are, enables us to function from the correct position of our true self. Anything else, in my opinion is confusion.

A lot of people these days are getting confused about their gender, identifying as fluid or neutral gender or any other thing that comes to their heads, without most of us asking the question, why

Sorry that I may have digressed. Just couldn't help it.

Sorry triple, but I am buda, and not a "lot of people these days are getting confused", and if I stubbornly insist on "relying on the template of science alone", which thankfully I'm far too able to not do, then I am a fool and I do not think I would live very long for it is far better for me to use my own senses to do my own science than to rely on the science done by another with their own senses.

Contradictions in this post are intended. Mind use is required.

triplechoice:
Everything has consciousness. I know that. If you go back to my presentation you would see where I explained how consciousness has evolved from different forms that exist in nature; inanimate and animate

You brought in machine consciousness without clearly differentiating it from human consciousness. So don't blame me.

I don't think so! Your phone is inanimate and has not got any consciousness whatsoever and neither has an inanimate stone!

My LordReed, please point out to me where you "brought in machine consciousness".

budaatum:

I don't think so! Your phone is inanimate and has not got any consciousness whatsoever and neither has an inanimate stone!

My LordReed, please point out to me where you "brought in machine consciousness".

You forgot I argued that consciousness is energy that has taken form.
Science let us know that matter contains
or has energy. I am wrong ?


I remember an individual who claims he can communicate with the consciousness of his car by telling it not to come "alive" whenever a mechanic attempts to use fake car parts on it.
I can't confirm his claim, but people who are very close to him confirms they have seen it happening.

Some herbalist also claim to communicate with the consciousness of the plants they use in treating people to know which can do the job or can't.
If these claims are true, then we are
a long way from understanding what consciousness is.

There's an experiment people use to demonstrate that plants have consciousness and can hear and obey commands . It involves using two potted plants to demonstrate this.

Do you know about this experiment?

triplechoice:
You forgot I argued that consciousness is energy that has taken form.

Taken form from what?

triplechoice:
Science let us know that matter contains

or has energy. I am wrong ?

Science does not let you know anything, triple. It is not some god or superbeing somewhere but simply a tool some use to ask and knock and seek to know what matter may contain.

If matter were a nail, science would like be a hammer. Though the analogy is imperfect since the science is used to analyse while the hammer is used to hammer.

triplechoice:


Do you know about this experiment?

No, I don't know about these experiments, and likely never will unless you mean hearing it reported somewhere where I have insufficient data to hammer.

I'd love to see what they presented for the review of their peers. Do you know about it?

triplechoice:


I remember an individual who claims

Some herbalist also claim

If these claims are true,

Would you like to argue that these unverified claims are true or are you asking me to just accept that they are true which I'm finding rather impossible to, because, if, triple, pigs will fly too.

budaatum:

Taken form from what?


Science does not let you know anything, triple. It is not some god or superbeing somewhere but simply a tool some use to ask and knock and seek to know what matter may contain.

If matter were a nail, science would like be a hammer. Though the analogy is imperfect since the science is used to analyse while the hammer is used to hammer.

I mean the consciousness that I am is the same as the energy that enlivens the material body I have possessed from birth to have the human experience.
Science or no science, matter gives off energy.

budaatum:


Would you like to argue that these unverified claims are true or are you asking me to just accept that they are true which I'm finding rather impossible to, because, if, triple, pigs will fly too.

I am not arguing that since I have not demonstrated it for myself to confirm the possibility.
But we can't just dismiss what anyone says because we think it's not possible.

The human mind is limited. It only knows what it's contain in it through learning and what it has experienced personally.

It is not possible for everyone in the world to know and experience the same thing, so there will always be doubters, sceptics, whose mind just can't process what we share with them if they don't know it or have experience it before

But beyond mind we may know more. II know you will come back asking what I mean by this.I won't give you any reply. It is a suggestion of something you should contemplate on to find on what I mean.
I wanted to explain this before ,but you won't let me. So, I don't want to try again.

LordReed:


No, it was you brought up machine consciousness and kept linking it to human consciousness. From the onset I clearly told you machine consciousness is not going to be like human consciousness.

Why? You forgot your conversation with deepsight where you brought in the posiblity of machines developing consciousness someday


If you wanted it to be taken differently, then what is the point of bringing in machine consciousness that's yet to happen to make us understand the human consciousness that has already happened?.
I think it was not relevant.

triplechoice:

I am not arguing that since I have not demonstrated it for myself to confirm the possibility.
But we can't just dismiss what anyone says because we think it's not possible.

It is not impossible that I may have some million pounds I may claim to have in my pocket but I am absolutely certain you will require demonstration of the million pounds in my pocket before you sell me anything for it, Triple. Most will, at least, and they'd count it too. Wouldn't you? And its's not because you "think it's not possible" that I might have the million pounds I may claim I have in my pocket but just that you are savvy, I'd think, and would rather confirm with your own senses. No?

I am not dismissing anything because "we think it is not possible", I am just not accepting it just because you say so. I need more evidence, than your say so. Basically show me the money and let me count it for myself instead of asking buda who does not believe almost anything to park her buda senses and just believe triple.

triplechoice:
The human mind is limited. It only knows what it's contain in it through learning and what it has experienced personally.

You don't say. I'm certain we agreed this already. Did I not mention the limit of the knowledge I have of my home town and my state not to talk of my country Nigeria? But note how you mention that one can extend the limits of ones human mind by learning and experiencing. One of those learnings is science, triple, the rigorous training to use one's own senses instead of believing what one has no evidence for.

triplechoice:
I wanted to explain this before ,but you won't let me. So, I don't want to try again.

I didn't let you triple, or the limitations of your mind didn't?

I'm calling bicycle! One gets up and rides again when one falls.

triplechoice:


I mean the consciousness that I am is the same as the energy that enlivens the material body I have possessed from birth to have the human experience.

The consciousness that you are.

Now, imagine me arguing that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that you are or that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that I buda is.

Would you not be correct in labelling that buda stupid? I would. And I will take that buda to the bottom of the river and bash its ignorant head against a rock and drown it too while I am at it. But that's just my consciousness talking I guess, or my unconsciousness, take your pick.

budaatum:


The consciousness that you are.

Now, imagine me arguing that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that you are or that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that I buda is.

Would you not be correct in labelling that buda stupid? I would. And I will take that buda to the bottom of the river and bash its ignorant head against a rock and drown it too while I am at it. But that's just my consciousness talking I guess, or my unconsciousness, take your pick.

So, you are a woman that is wasting her time talking to that thing.


You will never get anything useful from that bastard.

triplechoice:


Why? You forgot your conversation with deepsight where you brought in the posiblity of machines developing consciousness someday


If you wanted it to be taken differently, then what is the point of bringing in machine consciousness that's yet to happen to make us understand the human consciousness that has already happened?.
I think it was not relevant.

Again no, he was the one that brought it up. He was the one who asked me if I thought machines could develop consciousness.

budaatum:


The consciousness that you are.

Now, imagine me arguing that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that you are or that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that I buda is.

Would you not be correct in labelling that buda stupid? I would. And I will take that buda to the bottom of the river and bash its ignorant head against a rock and drown it too while I am at it. But that's just my consciousness talking I guess, or my unconsciousness, take your pick.

That's why I already issued a disclaimer at the beginning. You keep forgetting that
These are my thoughts and those of others who know the same thing. Their are methods we have used to prove them true

You're are free to reject and accept. I already said it would be irresponsible to force a sense of self of any kind on anyone that they may not agree with
Everyone has a reason for saying anything, and until you know all of those reasons, you can't just judge them.

From our conversation, you have not i shown to me that you know all of the reasons for most of my comments. It doesn't matter if what I know is nonsense, you need to know them first. .

You need to know it so you can make a comparison between what you know before you can criticize it.

It is said that a man who doesn't know the limitation of his knowledge lacks wisdom. I know what I know ,but can't know what others
know that I don't know.

I already claim I don't k know it all. What I know is what I share, and I have been doing this by not ignoring what others know too well ,hence some of the links I share about the position of science that is different from mine to show I am not just speaking from my position alone.

So remove this idea from your head that I am trying to force anything on you. Life gives you the choice to do something and not to do.it

You have free will, so exercise it by choosing to follow and not to follow.

LordReed:


Again no, he was the one that brought it up. He was the one who asked me if I thought machines could develop consciousness.

OK.

budaatum:


It is not impossible that I may have some million pounds I may claim to have in my pocket but I am absolutely certain you will require demonstration of the million pounds in my pocket before you sell me anything for it, Triple. Most will, at least, and they'd count it too. Wouldn't you? And its's not because you "think it's not possible" that I might have the million pounds I may claim I have in my pocket but just that you are savvy, I'd think, and would rather confirm with your own senses.

Everything doesn't exist in the form of a million pound that you can count to prove it true. You shouldn't demand for nails from everyone because the only tool you have is an hammer.

There are things you need to demonstrate for your self to confirm them true.

Sometimes people make statements like,' I used to think it was so ,until I experienced it myself'
You have heard that several times.?
So seek your own experience and don't wait for others to prove it to you all the time. before you know if true or not

You don't say. I'm certain we agreed this already. Did I not mention the limit of the knowledge I have of my home town and my state not to talk of my country Nigeria? But note how you mention that one can extend the limits of ones human mind by learning and experiencing. One of those learnings is science, triple, the rigorous training to use one's own senses instead of believing what one has no evidence.

And you think I don't know science is one of the ways we learn about our world?
It is one of the ways and not the only way. There are different ways to kill a rat

I didn't let you triple, or the limitations of your mind didn't?

I'm calling bicycle! One gets up and rides again when one falls.

You were acting god, so whom am I a mere mortal to challenge the almighty buda that is omniscient

Another one. I am not anti science and shouldn't be put in the category of people who opposes objective science.
Anything that can't be question in the sciences is no longer science but dogma.
There are two category of scientists or science student; the few ones who know its limitations and the others on the popular side who don't.

The former are the top scientist who know when to by pass rational science when it's no longer working for them in order to use alternative methods ,which they don't announce publicly , while the later are the blind followers of science who are stuck with already established truths and theories which they believe can't be questioned, and wouldn't know when and when not to use those to interpret the world around them

triplechoice:


Their are methods we have used to prove them true

Please, present a couple of methods.

budaatum:

No one is saying an analogy should be perfect! Fact remains that a phone is not a part of one as one's senses are. You can't go into your bathroom without your senses.

The phone represent something. The phone represent my body and the mechanism that keeps its system running.
While me, represent the being that has not emerged from the phone but is "inside" of it and using it.
I have used it to show the sort of relationship the exist between myself and the body I occupy.
Without the phone and its mechanism I can't function inside of it. There won't be any point to occupy it in the first.
When there is a call coming in , the phone detects the signal and alerts mechanically that I have a call. The phone , body, doesn't know the meaning of a call it is just reacting to its programming.
I , the owner the phone, (body )is the only entity that is conscious of what is going on.
If the phone becomes dead, I move out of it to occupy another body.

This is what I am trying to get across and not just a normal phone user and his device. Of course, I don't expect you to accept all of these explanation for obvious reason.

I wish you would not forget this. The limitations are not your's alone, both in expressing and in understanding. We must however do the best we can to express and understand.

I am usually conscious of this.

No one is asking you to rely on anything about your consciousness, triple. It is your consciousness, it is subjective to you alone. It is not objectively observable to us, and only ignorantly can we be telling you anything about your consciousness.

We are talking about consciousness in general, triple, and not the consciousness of triple, and there's no harm considering the opinion of those who may have spent a lot more time on consciousness than us such that they may seem like science students compared to us non-science students, as far as this topic goes.

Whatever we think of ourselves is what we express, but we must be sure that what we think of ourselves is the correct thing ,if not ,we would act on the wrong one
How can we know the correct thing to think of who we are? That's the question

I'm glad you say so. Thankfully, no scientist is telling me to rely on any template of what it is to be human, and if they were I'd likely not listen since I prefer to use my own senses to decide my own humaness.


.

Sorry triple, but I am buda, and not a "lot of people these days are getting confused", and if I stubbornly insist on "relying on the template of science alone", which thankfully I'm far too able to not do, then I am a fool and I do not think I would live very long for it is far better for me to use my own senses to do my own science than to rely on the science done by another with their own senses.

An exaggeration by me, but that doesn't mean some persons are not confused about who they are

KnownUnknown:


Please, present a couple of methods.

I already shared one. It is there in my presentation if you go back to it.

The reception to that has discouraged me not to share anything further.. There are not my own knowledge. I have no exclusive right to them.

Just follow the lead I have given to research the others for yourself

Nothing about them is magical

triplechoice:

The phone represent something. The phone represent my body and the mechanism that keeps its system running.

No triple, your phone does not represent anything. It is your phone and I was not representing your phone with anything but the phone it actually is.

Now, start again with my simple experiment. Leave your phone and your senses in the living room and tell me if one of them follows you into your bathroom and which one and why.

triplechoice:


I already shared one. It is there in my presentation if you go back to it.

The reception to that has discouraged me not to share anything further.. There are not my own knowledge. I have no exclusive right to them.

Just follow the lead I have given to research the others for yourself

Nothing about them is magical

“Those gifted with the special ability to "see" what others can't, are able to picture our true selves as a globe of brilliant white light within us.They are not hallucinating because what they see can be validated.”

This is a quote of yours. What method can be used to observe or validate my neighbor’s true self “globe of brilliant white light”?

triplechoice:

From our conversation, you have not i shown to me that you know all of the reasons for most of my comments. It doesn't matter if what I know is nonsense, you need to know them first. .

You need to know it so you can make a comparison between what you know before you can criticize it.

Are you going to suggest that you have not provided a reason for your comments? Please, what is the reason for your comments?

One thing I do know about triple from triple's comments is that triple is willing to believe hearsay and claims without bothering to certify their veracity and would like buda who would rather certify claims with her own senses to believe triple's comments.

I am critiquing your art of believing what you've been told without bothering to check for yourself with your own senses!