LordReed:


Na dia agbada don hook for nail. LoLz.

Your agbada is also hooked too .

You want to jest, yet, you have not been able to scientifically explain how mind has emerged from the brain, or clearly show how this 'mind ' interacts with the observable physical brain to control human behaviour



You still depend on the speculatory theory of some scientist to argue this.

triplechoice:


I will take my time to respond to that. Don't want to rush it.

But in the meantime, I hope you are aware your explanations in that post doesnt have full scientific backing.

triplechoice:


Your agbada is also hooked too .

You want to jest, yet, you have not been able to scientifically explain how mind has emerged from the brain, or clearly show how this 'mind ' interacts with the observable physical brain to control human behaviour



You still depend on the speculatory theory of some scientist to argue this.

No doubt our knowledge of all the mechanisms of the mind is incomplete but all the evidence we currently have point in this direction. I await your specific objections, let's see what the knowledge base has to say about them.

A001:

I regard mind as an emergent property, too, but not from the workings of the brain and other parts of the body. Such a notion is superficial and will always be problematic; historically, it has done little to resolve the mind-body problem.

It's better to regard mind as an emergent property of fundamental consciousness as explained in the Four-Layer Architecture or FLA model proposed by the same scientist I mentioned earlier, which postulates four architectural layers of consciousness (see attached pictures).

Without incorporating consciousness into our models of Physics, Chalmers' hard problems of consciousness will never be solved, and we'll never be able to understand mind deeply and measure it.

Many scientists (myself inclusive) are working on incorporating consciousness into our models of Physics, especially the Standard Model. It's the way forward.

Check out some relevant papers and books on the current scientific progress on consciousness research:
1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karl-Sipfle/publication/364708467_Consciousness_the_Full_Stack_Four-Layer_ArchitectureLanguage_on_Mind_on_STFC_Part_1_of_4_An_SSRN_Top_Ten_download/links/6357dc5796e83c26eb527c05/Consciousness-the-Full-Stack-Four-Layer-ArchitectureLanguage-on-Mind-on-STFC-Part-1-of-4-An-SSRN-Top-Ten-download.pdf
2. https://osf.io/6b3qw/download
3. https://icmacyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Consciousness_and_the_Universe__Quantum_Ph_-_Roger_Penrose.pdf

I may share links to my own papers too later.

I just went through the 1st paper and at no point does it dissociate the mind from the physical elements that bring it forth. In fact it seeks to firmly establish the mind as an emergent property, albeit of more fundamental particles then we are used to.

BTW the 2nd link doesn't work.

triplechoice:

No need for this kind of talk. Nobody knows it all. We can learn from each other as we continue to discuss the topic.

Since you created the thread, I advise you accommodate anything anyone has to contribute in order to keep the conversation going peacefully without quarrell.

You jumped in to pass judgement without following what had transpired between us.

Thank you.

What led toe telling him to move on ?

TenQ:

It is not just about the word EMERGES but UNDERSTANDING how it is used and why it was used. This negates everything you've been saying. Anyone with a little understanding of surface tension sees how problematic your understanding is.


It's not a crime to misunderstand science. Even me have to keep quiet when experts in certain fields of science are speaking.

I am not happy because what would have been an interesting conversation has been digressed into what is not necessary.


The Question of pounder is:
1. Is the Mind Real or it's just chemicals acting on biological matter?
2. If the Mind is real can it be measured?
3. If the mind is just chemicals acting on matter, then it may not be real. It is just a symptom of chemicals acting on biological matter.

Check the highlighted in yellow and blue!
Don't be quick to judge others!

LordReed:


I just went through the 1st paper and at no point does it dissociate the mind from the physical elements that bring it forth. In fact it seeks to firmly establish the mind as an emergent property, albeit of more fundamental particles then we are used to.

BTW the 2nd link doesn't work.

There's no where in that paper where the author stated the mind is a product of physical elements.

Don't say what a source never stated.

As I stated before, the mind is an emergent property of fundamental consciousness, the same position of the paper. The diagrams attached to my previous post already explains this.

Your position is starkly different from the author's.

TenQ:

Speaking about Mind and Consciousness, do you think it would be possible to simulate consciousness and the mind without giving the computer the power of Irritability?

Example:
If I cannot have Experiences (feelings) of events near me, how can I choose what experiences I like and the one I don't like?

If I cannot choose logically between good and bad EXPERIENCES, how can I make choices for the preferred experience?


A human being many times chooses to eat Bitter Kola instead of Sweets which go against normal logic. This is what make us conscious mindful Beings! This choice is not random. A human being sometimes make sacrifices over no apparent personal gain.

I'll explain tomorrow.

TenQ:


It seems the Mind (ability to store and process information) depends on feeling such as hunger, thirst, heat, fear , lust etc

These are feelings that are not registered in our biological frame (our body).

This gives the impression that we have two bodies
1. The Physical Body:
Where we experience pain, tickle, brightness/sight, coldness, loudness etc
2. Non physical Body,:
Where we experience fear, joy, sadness, lust, despair, courage. etc

Of course, there can be overlap between the senses.

What is common to both is that they are not functions of thought, thinking or rationalising

They may have to do with our previous experiences sometimes: eg. Some certain PHOBIAS may be developed as a result of past experiences with snakes, dogs, darkness, water etc.


I think it is mundane to assume that the mind is just a function of chemicals reacting with cranial matters.

I will respond to this tomorrow

A001:

There's no where in that paper where the author stated the mind is a product of physical elements.

Don't say what a source never stated.

As I stated before, the mind is an emergent property of fundamental consciousness, the same position of the paper. The diagrams attached to my previous post already explains this.

Your position is starkly different from the author's.

If the mind is not a product of physical element, why does stuff like colos distabilize the mind temporarily or permanently?

kkins25:

If the mind is not a product of physical element, why does stuff like colos distabilize the mind temporarily or permanently?

Tomorrow please.

A001:

There's no where in that paper where the author stated the mind is a product of physical elements.

Don't say what a source never stated.

As I stated before, the mind is an emergent property of fundamental consciousness, the same position of the paper. The diagrams attached to my previous post already explains this.

Your position is starkly different from the author's.

Physical particles and fields underly all phenomena. Pg 3
Then goes on to propose the particle senton as the fundamental particles underlying consciousness.

I didn't say the author and I are saying the same thing, I said: at no point does it dissociate the mind from the physical elements that bring it forth. In fact it seeks to firmly establish the mind as an emergent property, albeit of more fundamental particles then we are used to.

The author proposes that a new type of boson called the senton (from sentience) is responsible for consciousness. I am sure you understand that a boson is a physical fundamental particle.

A001:

I'll explain tomorrow.

No problems!

triplechoice:


I will respond to this tomorrow

No problems bro!

LordReed:


Physical particles and fields underly all phenomena. Pg 3
Then goes on to propose the particle senton as the fundamental particles underlying consciousness.

I didn't say the author and I are saying the same thing, I said: at no point does it dissociate the mind from the physical elements that bring it forth. In fact it seeks to firmly establish the mind as an emergent property, albeit of more fundamental particles then we are used to.

The author proposes that a new type of boson called the senton (from sentience) is responsible for consciousness. I am sure you understand that a boson is a physical fundamental particle.

You said physical elements in your original post. You do know what we call elements in Physics, I suppose.

You know in science, we use exact terms, not ambiguous words which I believe an enlightened person like you understand. Fundamental particles aren't physical elements.

I made mention of the bosons called sentons here already and that the mind is an emergent property.

It's all laid out in the STFC and FLA models in the previous pages.

You're merely repeating what I've already stated here.

LordReed:


I just went through the 1st paper and at no point does it dissociate the mind from the physical elements that bring it forth. In fact it seeks to firmly establish the mind as an emergent property, albeit of more fundamental particles then we are used to.

BTW the 2nd link doesn't work.

The second link works on my laptop here. This one will surely work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karl-Sipfle/publication/331306527_The_Nature_of_Fundamental_Consciousness/links/5c94498945851506d722392e/The-Nature-of-Fundamental-Consciousness.pdf

I've over 50 studies and books I use for my studies on consciousness here, but I only cited those three because I like the approach of Dr. Sipfle which is in agreement with the things I proposed in my thesis.

Other good studies to stay abreast of the scientific progress on consciousness are listed below (the second one may not be easy to understand unless you're well-versed in Advanced Physics):
1. https://www.sciforschenonline.org/journals/neurology/article-data/JNNB173/JNNB173.pdf
2. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk-Meijer-5/publication/338147415_Consciousness_in_the_Universe_is_Tuned_by_a_Musical_Master_Code_A_Hydrodynamic_Superfluid_Quantum_Space_Guides_a_Conformal_Mental_Attribute_of_Reality_The_Hard_Problem_in_Consciousness_Studies_Revisit/links/5e0236064585159aa49839fd/Consciousness-in-the-Universe-is-Tuned-by-a-Musical-Master-Code-A-Hydrodynamic-Superfluid-Quantum-Space-Guides-a-Conformal-Mental-Attribute-of-Reality-The-Hard-Problem-in-Consciousness-Studies-Revisit.pdf
3. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk-Meijer-5/publication/328538224_Universal_Consciousness_Collective_Evidence_on_the_Basis_of_Current_Physics_and_Philosophy_of_Mind_Part_1/links/5bed60404585150b2bb89d3e/Universal-Consciousness-Collective-Evidence-on-the-Basis-of-Current-Physics-and-Philosophy-of-Mind-Part-1

A001:

You said physical elements in your original post. You do know what we call elements in Physics, I suppose.

You know in science, we use exact terms, not ambiguous words which I believe an enlightened person like you understand. Fundamental particles aren't physical elements.

I made mention of the bosons called sentons here already and that the mind is an emergent property.

It's all laid out in the STFC and FLA models in the previous pages.

You're merely repeating what I've already stated here.

Are you kidding? Fundamental particles are physical. You guys get so hung up on such trivialities its amazing. You getting hung up on my colloquial use of element as if you you don't understand what I am trying to say. The proposed sentons are PHYSICAL of course I know they are not elements in the precise meaning of the word scientifically. I called them fundamental particles didn't I. Oh Andromeda.

I was trying to point out that this paper is not supporting the position that mind and body are of a dual nature. If sentons exist and are bosons then consciousness is a PHYSICAL phenomenon.

LordReed:


Are you kidding? Fundamental particles are physical. You guys get so hung up on such trivialities its amazing. You getting hung up on my colloquial use of element as if you you don't understand what I am trying to say. The proposed sentons are PHYSICAL of course I know they are not elements in the precise meaning of the word scientifically. I called them fundamental particles didn't I. Oh Andromeda.

I was trying to point out that this paper is not supporting the position that mind and body are of a dual nature. If sentons exist and are bosons then consciousness is a PHYSICAL phenomenon.

Okay, that's clarified.

That author is not saying consciousness is just a PHYSICAL phenomenon. No, he calls consciousness a natural phenomenon as well in his papers. That's better and more reasonable because other dimensions or realms not physical may exist in nature and his proposition will also be applicable there if sentons are confirmed to exist experimentally.

By the way, he proposed that sentons are force particles or bosons that may have no mass and could be photons operating in other dimensions (check page 8 of the paper you said its link isn't working).

A001:

Okay, that's clarified.

That author is not saying consciousness is a PHYSICAL phenomenon. No, he calls consciousness a natural phenomenon in his papers. That's better and more reasonable because other dimensions or realms not physical may exist in nature and his proposition will also be applicable there if sentons are confirmed to exist experimentally.

By the way, he proposed that sentons are force particles or bosons that may have no mass and could be photons operating in other dimensions (check page 8 of the paper you said its link isn't working).

The author totally is and states it in the Pg 3 quote I gave. Furthermore when explaining what could be happen in on pg 4, lays out likely interactions between sentonically charged particles and the brain.

Point out on what page the author says sentons are not in the physical realm or dimension.

How can I check something that is not working?

LordReed:


The author totally is and states in in the Pg 3 quote I gave. Furthermore when explaining what could be happen in on pg 4 lays out likely interactions between sentonically charged particles and the brain.

Point out on what page the author says sentons are not in the physical realm or dimension.

I already said page 8 of the paper entitled "The Nature of Fundamental Consciousness". Just search for "dimension" in that paper.

I gave two links to that paper. Both of them are working at my end here.

kkins25:

If the mind is not a product of physical element, why does stuff like colos distabilize the mind temporarily or permanently?

The mind exists in the brain, which is the organ of consciousness in higher animals like humans. Thus, anything that affects the brain affects the mind as well.

Consciousness is a fundamental force and interacts with other fundamental forces, especially EM forces (via ions) in the brain. These interactions are mainly responsible for what we call the mind. Drugs affect the ions in the brain and therefore influence these interactions between the fundamental forces, including consciousness and EM, in the mind.

A001:

I already said page 8 of the paper entitled "The Nature of Fundamental Consciousness". Just search for "dimension" in that paper.

I gave two links to that paper. Both of them are working at my end here.

OK I found it and I checked it. The author was listing POSSIBLE reasons why the senton is indistinguishable from a proton!

A001:

The mind exists in the brain, which is the organ of consciousness in higher animals like humans. Thus, anything that affects the brain affects the mind as well.

Consciousness is a fundamental force and interacts with other fundamental forces, especially EM forces (via ions) in the brain. These interactions are mainly responsible for what we call the mind. Drugs affect the ions in the brain and therefore influence these interactions between the fundamental forces, including consciousness and EM, in the mind.

Are the fundamental forces physical or not?

TenQ:

Speaking about Mind and Consciousness, do you think it would be possible to simulate consciousness and the mind without giving the computer the power of Irritability?

Example:
If I cannot have Experiences (feelings) of events near me, how can I choose what experiences I like and the one I don't like?

If I cannot choose logically between good and bad EXPERIENCES, how can I make choices for the preferred experience?


A human being many times chooses to eat Bitter Kola instead of Sweets which go against normal logic. This is what make us conscious mindful Beings! This choice is not random. A human being sometimes make sacrifices over no apparent personal gain.

The key thing is if it's possible to simulate consciousness, once you can simulate consciousness, you can simulate mind.

But I don't think it's possible to simulate consciousness. However, scientists will be able to work with consciousness in the future.

They'll be able to study how matter like humans, animals, microbes are able to absorb consciousness from the Universe or nature, and scientists will try to replicate the same thing.

We're always embedded in a sea of consciousness fields. In the future, scientists will be able to detect and measure consciousness just like they detect and measure radio waves.

LordReed:


Are the fundamental forces physical or not?

They're natural and physical. Not only physical. Using the Big Bang model, a fundamental force like EM existed in the form of light during the inflationary stage before the physical world we know today came into being.

Fundamental consciousness is the same, too.

A001:

They're natural and physical. Not only physical. Using the Big Bang model, a fundamental force like EM existed in the form of light during the inflationary stage before the physical world we know today came into being.

Fundamental consciousness is the same, too.

So fundamental consciousness is natural and physical.

LordReed:


So fundamental consciousness is natural and physical.

Yes, both natural and physical. Natural because consciousness is embedded in the fabrics of the Universe even before the Big Bang, and physical because consciousness interacts with matter via sentons to produce physical processes.

A001:

Yes, both natural and physical. Natural because consciousness is embedded in the fabrics of the Universe even before the Big Bang, and physical because consciousness interacts with matter via sentons to produce physical processes.

Then why were you objecting before? Did I say consciousness was unnatural at any point?

LordReed:


Then why were you objecting before? Did I say consciousness was unnatural at any point?

You said consciousness arises from physical phenomena, which I don't agree with. It is fundamental to the universe.

A001:

The key thing is if it's possible to simulate consciousness, once you can simulate consciousness, you can simulate mind.

But I don't think it's possible to simulate consciousness. However, scientists will be able to work with consciousness in the future.

They'll be able to study how matter like humans, animals, microbes are able to absorb consciousness from the Universe or nature, and scientists will try to replicate the same thing.

We're always embedded in a sea of consciousness fields. In the future, scientists will be able to detect and measure consciousness just like they detect and measure radio waves.

I agree with you in the sense that Science has gone a long way in making sense of many observables and have been able to bend matter and energy to his will.

Unfortunately, I think it seems the Universe is built on fractal-like principles: the more we know the more the expanse we are yet to know.

Consciousness seem so deep and complex even for the smallest microbe. They seem to be able to choose amongst options what pleases them and go for it.

The fundamental of consciousness may be
1. sensory perception, then
2. a reward receptor mechanism of pain and pleasure
3. And a foresight that relishes future pleasures or pain resulting in Emotions like fear and anticipation.
4. Storage of history of experiences

These I believe are the bare knuckle fundermental to attaining Consciousness.

But then, there is another problem:
It's like the case of which came first; the Chicken or the Eggs.

Did Consciousness arise because of the sensory receptors and perception?
OR
Sensory receptors and perception are results of consciousness?
OR
Consciousness, Sensory receptors and perception occurred simultaneously?

TenQ:

I agree with you in the sense that Science has gone a long way in making sense of many observables and have been able to bend matter and energy to his will.

Unfortunately, I think it seems the Universe is built on fractal-like principles: the more we know the more the expanse we are yet to know.

Consciousness seem so deep and complex even for the smallest microbe. They seem to be able to choose amongst options what pleases them and go for it.

The fundamental of consciousness may be
1. sensory perception, then
2. a reward receptor mechanism of pain and pleasure
3. And a foresight that relishes future pleasures or pain resulting in Emotions like fear and anticipation.
4. Storage of history of experiences

These I believe are the bare knuckle fundermental to attaining Consciousness.

But then, there is another problem:
It's like the case of which came first; the Chicken or the Eggs.

Did Consciousness arise because of the sensory receptors and perception?
OR
Sensory receptors and perception are results of consciousness?
OR
Consciousness, Sensory receptors and perception occurred simultaneously?

Good response. About the chicken or egg issue, I don't like to dabble too much into philosophy.

From my own view using the scientific method, consciousness is a fundamental and primordial property of the Universe, meaning it was in existence first before everything else.

A001:

You said consciousness arises from physical phenomena, which I don't agree with. It is fundamental to the universe.

But you just admitted that the fundamental forces including consciousness are all physical!

LordReed:


But you just admitted that the fundamental forces including consciousness are all physical!

Natural and physical.

The love of God for us


John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.


When Adam sinned, he lost the direct access he initially had with God. (Genesis 3) God decided to send his only begotten son (Jesus) to pay the price for our sins on the cross of calvary because of his love for us. When Christ resurrected, he restored all privileges that we once had and brought redemption to us all. All we need is to believe that he died for our sin and has once again granted us direct access with God. No longer through an intermediary! (Mathew 27:50-53).

Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.

If our earthly parents care so much for us, how much more our father in heaven! (Luke 11:11-13). God’s love for us is infinite. He has promised to supply all our needs according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philipians 4:19).


Prayer of Salvation

Lord Jesus, I accept and acknowledge you as my personal lord and savior. I sincerely ask that you forgive my sins. Come into my life and pour out your spirit on me. By faith, I receive the promise of the father, which is the holy spirit. (John 14:16) I thank you for the price that you paid for me on the cross of calvary. Thank you for my redemption. I pray that your power, grace and favor will abide with me now and forever more. Amen.