The fact that it is a standard symptom of schizophrenia ought give pause for thought. — apokrisis

That is perhaps the worst poisoning of the well i've seen in a long time. Well done. It's also a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of two separate concepts:

Schizophrenics are under the impression their thoughts and feelings are imported from an external consciousness.

The brain-as-receiver model says nothing about any of that, and instead, posits that thearising of consciousness at all is akin to a television receiving signals for any image whatever. Its reasonable, albeit totally fringe and unsupported.

But your response was childish and dumb.

It's also a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of two separate concepts: — AmadeusD

Nope. I was making the point that a hallmark of “consciousness” is that it is embodied and agential. And we know how that is so from having studied the neurobiology - the architecture of brains.

Schizophrenia appears to arise from a fundamental breakdown in the timing and integration of neural activity. The sense of authorship for intents and actions, and also the ability to filter sensation in normal attentional fashion, goes awry as there is not the proper traffic in “efference copy” information. In simple terms, the frontal motor areas may initiate actions, and the sensory half of the cortex doesn’t get its copy of the commands in time to cancel them out of the state of sensory experience it then produces.

This is why symptoms like thought insertion and thought broadcasting arise. The precise compensation of an “implicit timing” connection breaks down. Normally we can tell whether we are moving the world or the world is moving us as in the first case, our sensory areas knows in advance to subtract the predictable action from its interpretive response. In the second case, the self-generated action catches the sensory areas by surprise. It feels like an alien hand is now in control. Sensations are thrusting at us. Thoughts and ideas are being imposed.

So we know how the brain generates consciousness by solving all these timing issues. How it has an architecture that deals with the fact it takes time just to pass along the message of what motor action we have planned so our sensory processing can already take that into account. An integrated sense of a self in its world can then arise out of a tricky neurobiological interaction. And schizophrenia is the kind of disorder that really brings this fact home.

And then we have this other nonsense about the brain being an antenna tuned into a cosmic psychic frequency. A sloppy and lazy analogy that we are meant to allow for the sake of argument. A hypothesis that completely wastes our time when we should instead be marvelling at the biological intricacy of the neural engineering that so easily seems to sustain the “normal” mind.

Being embodied and agential seems so effortless that yes, maybe it could be just a broadcast picked up off the airwaves.

But then nope. The neurobiology to get the job done is what we should reserve our amazement for.

The brain-as-receiver model says nothing about any of that, and instead, posits that the arising of consciousness at all is akin to a television receiving signals for any image whatever. Its reasonable, albeit totally fringe and unsupported. — AmadeusD

Another interpretation of the "Cosmos Created Mind" is Kastrup's Analytical Idealism*1. discussed this alternative in his thread*2. I'm not sure I fully understand K's "reasonable" and diligently documented update of ancient Idealism. Also, in order to maintain a philosophical line of reasoning, and to avoid getting into Religion vs Scientism diatribes, I prefer to use less dogmatic & divisive terms than "God". But Kastrup is bolder, and more self-assured than I am.

I wouldn't expect empirical support for a theoretical philosophical conjecture, that postulates a Cosmic Mind of which our little limited logic-parsers are fragments. But what do you think of his Mind as "foundation of Reality" and Idealism as "ultimate Realism" theory? I must admit that it bears some general similarity to my own Holism/Information/Causation hypothesis*3, which follows the chain of evidence to the precipice of space-time, and merely points a philosophical finger toward the abyss of ignorance beyond. :chin:


*1. Bernardo Kastrup's Cosmic Mind :
he posits that the brain is not a receiver or filter of consciousness, but rather an image or representation of a universal consciousness that has undergone a dissociative process. In this model, physical reality, including the brain, is an external manifestation or "outside image" of internal mental processes
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=In+Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+view%2C+the+brain+is+not+a+receiver+of+consciousness%2C+but+rather+an+image+of+a+mind%27s+dissociative+process.+

*2. In Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism, the "mind of God" refers to a single, undivided, and all-encompassing consciousness that is the foundation of reality. He uses the concept of dissociation, a mental process where a larger mind fragments into smaller, individual minds, to explain how individual consciousnesses like ours arise from this single cosmic mind. This "God's mind" is not impersonal but is, in this view, the ultimate reality, and the world we experience is an externalization of this mind.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012470

*3. Creative Mind and Cosmic Order :
The traditional opposing philosophical positions on the Mind vs Matter controversy are Idealism & Realism. But Pinter offers a sort of middle position that is similar in some ways to my own worldview of Enformationism.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

The "mind of God" refers to a single, undivided, and all-encompassing consciousness that is the foundation of reality. — Gnomon

- "undivided" but fragments.

- consciousness is a process and is thus not simple; it has system parts of thinking, planning, implementations, memory… Higher being may evolve in the future; the past is the wrong direction to look for it.

- Brahman myth again.

- Look up quantum field q-number table descriptions to approach the ultimate reality.

- Woo.