loads of assumptions resulting in no real answer. did the idea I was somehow emotionally attached to the scenario change the parameters? Not sure I follow. I kinda feel like just as the discussion was flowing my dad walked and changed the conversation.

pick a medical condition that interferes with communication there are so many. assume that the norm is deterioration to a point where communicating seems impossible. Seems to me there are so many things they do and say that might be intentional communication. the trick is with some, such as, dementia, one can't be sure of the legend by which their otherwise incoherent communication is rooted.

I listened once as parents were talking and tending to kids of all ages. you can't help but see this short hand formed through closeness and understanding one another. it got me to thinking even if a guy is say 70 with dementia his wife of 50 years may not be all the familiar with his childhood. at least not enough to know he said X when he wanted B because C taught him to or he couldn't pronounce A. Yet those around him have deemed his flirting X out as in coherent.

Given what we already know about communication and language it seems misleading or maybe just convenient to determine they have nothing to say that merits real attention. What exactly would be a standard for coherent and incoherent? I imagined at this point its up to the person making that distinction.

So in this scenario, though I'm sure there are so many variations given the amount of conditions impacting communication, what would be enough to prove we've been looking at this all wrong?

Also, one of the main factors that leads so many to believe such things as mind-brain identity is the tight correlation between the structure of experience and brain events. If you could show strong evidence of a non-correlation here, you might be onto something. — petrichor

ok so what if one could show intentional communication when the biology suggests no one is home. nothing earth breaking but something that told anyone who actually knew the person that they were witnessing and intentional expression of some message. would that suffice in proving anything?

As for differences in woman I think it’s short sided to try and separate the genders. A car is a car albeit different designs, engines and parts. They all require mechanics and tools with a knowledge of their differences but no one suggests they different based on the gender of the drivers. We all have different makes and models but that doesn’t impact the reality of self vs machine

It all sounds good but even the man giving in to his member is what I’d term one step amongst many overlooked. What is the actual number of thought processing steps between the option to use the member and actually using it. You might be guided by your choices but that is only after it’s been processed. By your machine then you make a choice and the next steps begin. What to say what to do. How in control are you over all those steps? Call it what you like but it’s not one mind/body. It’s a mind making choices based on the processes of the brain. A brain mind you that processes this opportunity through a series of filters for which you don’t directly control. Attraction, mood, desires, maybe yo u have hang ups or preferences. Few people can adequately explain something like preferences to convince anyone that they are in control of those. I mean a guy likes blondes for reasons of history and association which even landed in in their internal preferences slot. Am I wrong and this is all controlled by the conscious mind?

the point of the question I suppose it what would convince you outside of simply faith.

or....

what if the soul was a being that belonged to a larger group like say, a changing (for the visuals). We are not born but rather find ourselves in these bodies, vehicles if you will. It's all we get for the duration. We are hear for a task. that task is simply to learn about life in this form and experience it. Additionally we are to safeguard all we see and help each other become better versions of ourselves. We have all said it and maybe even taught our children they need only do better than there parents and teach their kids the same. Its something I've heard parents say. And what if, as with energy which can neither created nor destroyed entirely. Life as we said it, heard it and read about for the history of mankind . Perhaps we all simply have an innate understanding of all these things but the unique trait of mankind to be born in need of education is nothing more than a mechanism to ensure we don't repeat our mistakes. Unfortunately it takes use much longer than likely hoped to learn some lessons. Now before you brand me a crackpot I'm simply arguing the what if. Consider why it couldn't be true. While you are doing that consider what we know about blackholes and dark energy. Such opposites it almost seems like a blackhole is nothing more than the garbage disposal of the cosmos. When things get sucked in they are stripped of any form of light thus being born into the area of space filled with dark matter that we can't yet see into. I'm wrong I'm sure but think about it. What can't it be true. What one fact makes it impossible? Myself I enjoy the possibilities but in the end we will all get the answers though I have to wonder, if this whole akashic field isn't as real as any fable based in some truth how is it any crazier than harvard engaging in construction on the premise of an unseen ether. Take leaps folks and disporve things before you simply disagree. so again...ultimately religion came to explain this pull to something we couldn't put our fingers on yet knew it was part of something bigger and as you'll notice most faiths are somehow tied to a creation story. We humans do love having our past and ansestors accounted for. They are wonderful stories that never seem to include the atrocities committed in their name. all of them. ironically they are or most I guess propose a core of common beliefs. It does make one question if there was a tower of babell and something did happen there resulting in the creation of languages then basically every one believes the same things as they wonder off to their respective corners of the globe. After which the names and stories changed somewhat and the dictates of each faith changed with the generations and know they fight with each other all descendants of friends and neighbors who could no longer communicate properly. are you a driver or the vehicle I wonder?

More clear indication that its all in ones TARDIS yet we continue to view existence as though everyone else shares our TARDIS. Never forget that even the person standing next to you will never see what you see.

without directly commenting on your post I do wonder as to your application of the rules you mention. For example if you are thinking of imaginary time and its interact with our universe/dimension isn't it also just as plausible and requiring its place in your theory, that with multiverses comes the option that each verse operates per its laws, which in my opinion are likely to all vary to some degree.

Everyone makes a good point about a 2nd universe. Even if you presumed the universe was contained in a sort of bubble (like a more durable but equally pliable bubble of sorts) you could expand that to include multiple bubbles to account for the multiverse theory as well as the debate over expanding vs shrinking universe. In any event the bubbles would still require of bowl of some kind to hold them all thus the need for at least one other reality besides the simulation.

He is determined to suffer. He believes he deserves to suffer - cause and effect. Karma. It would be great to find a way to crack the code but decades of ingrained negative thinking - of anything - creates a deeply ingrained habit of thinking. — Greta

This assume your position in the conversation is all around correct and he is the wrong. Yet where the topic of whether or not he is wrong is considered the context provided seems to be a broad view without considering the individual variables as is often the case when your goal is merely to cheer someone up. Unfortunately many people who are the target of this cheering up are actually thinking in the micro of the issues where are you the cheer-er up-er :/ are thinking in broad strokes.

I agree with this. But where does this leave us? If you agree that there is a separate Mind World where Conscious experience exists then you must agree that there is a Hard Problem of Consciousness. I can illustrate the Problem by asking the question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens in the Brain (Physical World)
2) A Conscious Red experience happens in the Mind World

There is definitely Correlation between 1 and 2, but how does 2 happen when 1 happens? If the language is wrong with this question then I don't understand what's wrong. — SteveKlinko

There can be no doubt that accuracy of words is both approaching “Lost Art” status and the key to effective communication. I would offer that this premise if part of what draws us to people from our childhood. Everyone has friends that they went to high school with and later in life they run into with an openness and even excitement at seeing someone with whom they share geographical memories with. In truth many times they really where even friends when they shared that proximity. In some case they may have even not liked each other or one was unkind to the other. Time and distance give humans some measure of unspoken agreement to ignore the truth in favor of enjoyment of spending time with people who speak your ‘language’. Language refers all facets of language that we take for granted. The subtle references to places or people of the shared memories. The colloquialisms that are native to that region and maybe even the anecdotal stories of people within your shared - we’ll call it “separation degrees”. Consider the premise of 6 degrees of separation. Without debating that point lets just assume 6 is a good number. If you live in a small town and the range we are going with is 6 then by the time you reach adulthood you will likely be part of a social circle that is more like 3. Bear with me here as I stray a little but it seems worth noting that for those who stay home (their hometown). Everyone will age obviously and take jobs, go to college, pursue hobbies and careers - whatever it is. In my day people would start watching the news and read papers etc but I suppose in this day and age the process starts much soon. In any event you’ll reach a point where you will begin working and socializing with other people your age so essentially the collection of neighborhoods that make up your town become smaller and smaller as you being working, dating, and all around journey through adulthood.. As for those who move away while the number may be 6, they will likely find the same reactions to connections as spread out as 10. They may have no one in common directly but the feeling like you’ve walked the same streets or been to the same places brings about its own level of connection. In both cases its rooted in the same linguistic need to clearly understand the other person and be understood. This is something is best achieved through shared references and perspectives of those references. If you are a nerdy type consider the episode responsible for ‘Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel’. The Children of Tama spoke only through reference. The references came from the stories of their people. Thus figuring out the story was the only means be which to even fathom the proper reference to communicate your own message. We think we have difficulty communicating. Yet it illustrates that even trying to understand their stories humans require some point of comparison. In our own language its interesting that Gilgamesh presents nearly every base of story plot that it predates. Moving away from the originality of stories, or lack thereof, one can’t help but notice that even a concept non story related such as math is taught using stories and comparisons. 3 apples, 4 oranges - it only highlights further the importance of your question. I teach my children daily on the importance of accuracy of words yet as for their references all I can do is strive to open their minds to all the perspectives of the world with a guide for how to make decisions along the way.

Where this intersects with the Red problem is that there really is no problem but rather something important to future generations that can only be taught. Then as with most applications of knowledge we hope for the future. I believe that knowledge might have its moments where it makes immediate impact but most impact is long term although as the knowledge base increases the duration between change becomes shorter. Consider the current day and the impact of social media. Granted its not the kind of knowledge I’d like to see the world sharing but it is establishing the beginnings of what I think will become an age of knowledge (discussion for another time).

So the Red problem for me is simple. You put an apple in front of my eyes then tell me to open them. The mind will scan its visual range to collect data. So I’m driving a starship and scanning everything . I might even slam on the brakes if I pick up something right in front of me much like I might even pull my head back if you had it up to close and upon opening my eyes they detected the nearby object and focused in then pulled back. I’d like to point out that this is all done before you are even asking yourself “wtf?”. Think about it. Then when the ship has cleared the obstacle, your self begins to question what was it? why’d you do that? Etc.

You might call this instinct or maybe good reflexes. I call this the bios acting as intended before the software can process the data. Or if you’re 12 flinching. Now some people are more in tune and can override the instinct to flinch better than some whether through conscious effort or maybe a subprocess like pride or maybe even fear. Still its the ships bios acting apart from the software (ship OS) being used by the pilot (self).

So once your software kicks in and it begin presenting the data to the pilot he/she can then engage more in after action analysis and processing. This is where self decides on a course of action. The data is presented and sometimes simply filed without action because while factors might be too numerous to list, key factors might supersede the need for action. A common example is a child or pet. We don’t normally find a need for action to be taken instead shifting mental gears and resources to what is likely a request for help or maybe a simple need for attention. The same cannot be true about a random hobo doing it in a corner market.

So while I agree with number one I would have worded it differently but we talked about the language enough.

As for number 2, I think they words give way to problems for understanding it because the experience happens regardless of what the color is called. Maybe its not even red but rojo. Does that change the experience? So your quote becomes the mind taking all the information given to it by the machine, the mind processing it and explaining it to the self using all available references, labels, categories and even stereotypes (consider how hard these are to change). So red is irrelevant at the self stage of the process as it only matters when communicating and can therefore be changed via learning. The experience however can’t be altered through language (in this context) however language can narrow or widen the experience.

As the Oracle might say - “What’s really going to bake your noodle…” is when you move past the issue of red and take a bite of the apple. How do you communicate that without use of references in language.


EDIT: I also wanted to mention that something I didn't factor into this was the idea of embodied cognition because I felt it was more macro to this discussion but in considering these things you might find it worthwhile to examine the overlaps.

The Redness of the Red — SteveKlinko

Maybe I'm not understand what you mean by this ^. What is this to you?

But is Red even Red? How would your Redness of the Red experience change if no one taught you the word red? Does you theory account for the variety of ways one might learn to interpret all the photons and wave length considerations?

Yes, we get it, humans have qualia, but if "red neurones" cause qualia in humans, then why don't they in animals, or robots. — tom

I've mentioned this in part before but I'll try this a little different. Machine = Body, Brain = Mind, Self = Self. Ok so the Self operates the machine by way of the mind. Frequently the comparison between human and animals questions why/how us and not them. This is easily explained if you consider that the non human inhabitants of this planet are in so many ways anthropomophized because of those examples of emotion that challenges our conceptions that of their intellect and senscience. I mean if they were anything like us really why would they still live in the condition they do. Obviously not smart enough right? Ok I'll give you that but macro it out for a second.

Bear with me here.

If you were designing this planet and the life on it. Seems perfectly reason that you would have all your creations serving a particular purpose all in the greater purpose of your greater creation. Following this logic everyone but us has a purpose. The dung beetles, the lions, blah, blah....you get where I'm going. Humans however doing have anything specific that ties us to terrain or the planet (in general terms) for that matter. At least until the lack of gravity issue brings further word. In the meantime we remain significantly different and capable but what makes us different.

For this we look at a simple PC. Why? The Machine operated by the self via the mind is built with bios and an OS. In animals the OS is preloaded in humans it is not. Our children are helpless at birth because they have only the bios installed. Sleep, eat, cry...fear, happy...all the basics preload but human are the original AI. Our desire and efforts are nothing more than an extension of our collective need for answers about our creation less our creators. We are trying to recreate ourselves.

The human operating system is build almost entirely on experience. It is a model of the adaptive AI programming being dreamed about. As many of you know the BIOS and OS maybe work in concert but they are entirely separate and as humans the variations is evident in the people around us. Now animals while prone to surprise us and certainly must have mechanisms to adapt their OS where it comes to interacting and understanding their surroundings, they are bound to the limitations of their preloaded OS. Kind of reminds me of a Tandy from years ago.

Which is interesting since what I'm really talking about is design and since you are the creator and you've created a slew of different types of animals, insects, birds, etc and wanted to build something without the limitations of that which you've created so far. You've started countless projects a watched as they evolved. This time you wanted to do something different, better. So. you create something that can learn from everything else you created. Can survive in all the places you've made and endure all the conditions of life you've put in place.

Then it hits you. You have to create something not specifically attached as with fins, wings and the symbiotic relationships designed between creatures. This time you'd have to ensure they didn't have any of the predefined attachments like the others. This time the focus would be on the adaptive learning but it would have to start empty and collect data as it goes. It would have that preload bios to ensure it at least have a basic idea about danger and things that threaten its survival much in the way a child knows its hungry and must eat but has to learn to meet the need. In this way it can learn from the area in which it is. It's why frogs aren't born in the desert looking for flies near a lake (crude example I know but its late and you still get what I mean). The end result is a creature who can do well everything we've done leading us to this point and while the risk is certainly huge for such a creator because no one wants their creation to destroy itself but that adaptive learning is what allows us to become what we have and will while animals remain animals.

I would suggest everyone consider there position on the separate nature of self and the body and see if it still applies to all people in all situations. Think of Prof Hawkins or the kid down the street with autism. They physical does not dictate the self but merely our ability to communicate and/or interact directly. Look around you and see the human tendency to feel be satisfy with someone's inability to contribute in some way as it relates to something you see in front of you. Missing legs or arms, wheelchairs, etc. yet a person can be far worse off and without these things the mind can't as easily label and categorize what it sees with the actual functionality. No one sees a person talking in the street and thinks oh poor guy maybe he has dementia. Most times its drugs, alcohol or some other mental condition that associates someone with being out of their mind. Yet someone like Prof Nash is applauded and people readily accept that there was the normal person plagued by tricks of the mind. Point is humans rely so deeply on the memories and related associations of their own experiences to process information. You're brain doesn't know its a donut without the memory that taught you what it was. remove that and the problems can cascade but the self who learned it and now can't recall it..well. Think bigger. Your reality is your own but when looking for answers they have to be a bit more applicable to everyone.

because my brain is dying yet my self remains far more intact than most people assume

Think of a Buddhist soul as Odo. An individual on their own path living according to those moral guidelines you mentioned all the while searching for a way to be reunited with the great link....So to speak :)

I'm a bit confused on the assumption that people make the choices they do out of some need to suffer. I get that working with those in need can often lead to developing a negative sense of the people one is helping. that is a perfectly natural course of events which involve emotions and the subconscious but some of it can be attributed to a human phenomena I like to call the agree vs understand hurdle. So where do you think this notion comes from?

thoughts precede the method of communicating the thought. In fact I propose that many thoughts are far less unique and individual than most believe..there are no doubt infinite combinations of how they were inspired, processed, considered and ultimately acted on, or not, but in the end the ideas will keep coming around until they find the right steward.

I have one in mind but since I'm not an academic I'm not sure I would be heard seriously. We shall see.

I could prove it with help of a professor and perhaps a few phd candidates. I know how to accomplish it. Just requires the proper management, data collection, etc.

Consider the self as a ball of energy that inhabits the physical like..well like a vehicle of sorts. Made to explore our existence. The thoughts would begin in that energy and be processed, sorted, etc via the computer on the vehicle..taking in the data and makes decisions as you go along. so long as the machinery is working properly. Remember the intentions of your self are limited by the functionality of. your equipment.

Just looking for the right partners.

You can be certain the conscious self does exist separate from the body and while I'm certain there is a point of departure I am not so certain humanity has a solid understand of the when but certainly it is tied to a total physical death of the machine. I am actually working on a way to prove it.

Chronicles of Tao...don't recall the author

The simple answer is you can't. All attempts to prove otherwise are merely attempts to extrapolate and arrive at conclusions based on observation and experimentation. Knowing. Truly knowing can only be down va communication with the subject of your interest. Even in human behavior the best profilers know its all just a guess in the end.

I'd submit that thought precedes language. We get our language from those who raises us. For example if you speak language A from birth and learn B later in life you will always think in Language A. Not because you require the language to speak but because its the language the self chose to use. As with artists to see a vision of something that their self chose not to communicate with words. In many cases when you start with one language and learn another during the formative years your self may let go of the first language especially if it is more replaced with the new language, perhaps because of relocation or even something like marriage. If you are young enough you will replace it and think in your 2nd language, if for nothing else it becomes more practical and beneficial. I don't imagine a non hearing/speaking person thinks in words the way a speaking/hearing person does but thoughts are still there and mostly asking the same questions.

The Mind is a computer. The Body is a Machine. The Self is what I'll call "Self". For my purposes Self is the energy that experiences the data that it receives from the computer. Life is the every changing environment in which we live. Self evaluates that information and inputs the requisite commands reflective of Self's decisions. The Mind and Machine work together to process the commands all while gathering data. Self faces choices that will impact the very fabric of how they experience Life.

Life is often referred to as a game which is in some ways accurate but in truth is more an open world MMO (an open explorer formatted world online game in which anyone around the world can play and interact with each other).

Much like the game we start at birth with nothing. Now modern life might toss a few basics your way. A home of some kind, clothes, perhaps some food. Granted as humans we are giving very little in the way of instinctive memories. So we learn from the world around us.

You see in this game the player is your self. It arrives with no instructions, no training and little else. We are 100% reliant on the machine we assigned and those who birthed out machine.

I will leave the example at this point and ask that you consider your position on this topic with a certainty that the self remains regardless of the condition of the machine. Once the Machine is damaged beyond repair and function the self moves on but that topic has enough threads no doubt. I will add that the self also is with certainty separate from the machine. The self experiences all the physical and emotional feelings and sensations provided by the machine and the computer but the self is definitely separate.

This all being said does it chance what you think and how?

Far too often those of above average intelligence succumb to the same instinctive emotions as everyone else because they are smarter. Anyone who is truly considers themselves more intelligent knows in some corner of themselves that once you see past the emotions of aggravation, impatience and so forth, including those trigger by the targeted experiences of some who stood out early for their intelligence, you realize that it is part of the burden and responsibility of your intellect. Nature didn't single you out to be smarter because you are awesome. With it comes the responsibility to consider, create and contribute. With that comes doing what necessary to communicate what you know to those who have a harder time grasping it. You are meant to enhance and expand the knowledge of the species. I read somewhere that a 30 point gap in IQ's can significantly impact communication. Seems to me if I'm at the higher side of that range its really up to me to get the information across. I hear people like visuals :)