text stringlengths 1 330k |
|---|
I have nothing to say about consciousness, except that only the one experiencing it is sure it exists for him/her. Everyone else (and very advanced machines made 1000 years from now) could only be p-zombies as consciousness in others is not observable. |
There are dozens of self contradictions in the accepted theory of perception, a few given in long post you think too long. Here is the most serious and obvious: |
All the sensory input information is deconstructed into a dozen or more "characteristic" (like speed and direction of motion, color, etc.) and separately processed by widely separated neurons. (Motion in V5 & color in V4, etc.) All agree (me included) that this is the case and that no-where does this processed info... |
I.e. for the large parietal stroke victims, half the world, including half their body, is not perceived - no longer exists. Exactly in agreement with my RTS and unexplainable in accepted theory as are nearly half the neural interconnections. - For example more axons come to the "visual cortex," V1, from the parieta... |
Perception does "pertain." Perception is the foundation of awareness and consciousness is a more complex structure that includes awareness, self, memories, beliefs, etc. but I only have a theory of perception. I suspect I will be dead more than 100 years before consciousness can even be well defined, much less expl... |
I´m sorry you find rational arguments based on known and documented with references facts (my “ancillary justifications”) too much “argumentum verbosium” but that is my style. I detest unsupported claims many make, so will continue to give references supporting my assertions. I admit that does make my posts more th... |
Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2013 |
14. hansda Valued Senior Member |
I think you misunderstood my statement within its context. I requested for specific "physical cause" or "physical process" [ie specific physical difference between a living cell and a dead cell] which causes "entropy decrease" in a living cell. |
Do you mean entropy increases in a living cell? |
So, entropy decreases in a living cell. |
Entropy decrease means "more order" or "less disorder". Entropy increase means "more disorder" or "less order". It does not matter whether it is "human action" or "physical action". It only matters with the order of the actions/system, whether it is "more order" or "less order" to identify "entropy decrease" or "en... |
No. It is you who fail, even when told, to understand that there are many tens of thousands of processes that contribute to the entropy being lower in a living cell than later when it is dead and none of these many processes still continue so cell decays. |
Your request is exactly of the same stupid nature as a request for me to tell the specific "physical cause" or "physical process" that makes male life expectancy in the US 78 years. That too is the net result of many thousands of processes a male has. |
In post 498 I did tell half a dozen or so processes that keep entropy from increasing when minor cut has happened. There are more than 100 different processes in the immune system, and most of the other system of the body have at least 100 other different processes too. Your asking for description of the specific p... |
I´ll try to answer more fully after you tell the specific "physical cause" or "physical process" that makes US male |
ave 78 years of life expectancy. Perhaps if you try to answer that, you will begin to understand how stupid your ignorance based question is. |
16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member |
If you "have nothing to say about consciousness" then your posts to this thread appear to be off-topic, and apparently just flogging your pet theory. We can test for belief and relate that to changes in behavior, as well as relate imagined activity to neuroplasticity, so unless you dismiss all this with solipsism, ... |
Still argumentum verbosium. |
You keep making claims of what "accepted theory" entails, but this ( seems to cover much of what you argue, so no "great mystery" after all. I have even seen estimates that up to 50% of our visual experience is generated by the mind. This is very old and accepted information, even with examples that illustrate the ... |
And what is surprising about brain damage causing problems with perception? How does this differ from things like synesthesia? |
So off-topic posting, flogging a pet theory, needlessly verbose (especially considering it off-topic), and unapologetic about any of it. Well, at least you are smart enough to keep this in the philosophy forum, where such things seem tolerated. |
No. I refuted your statement that "Perception does not pertain." (to consciousness) by noting that perception is the foundation of awareness which is essential to consciousness and I do have many things to say about perception, but only one thing to say about the much more complex consciousness. I.e. that it is not... |
True. I noted only that holding of beliefs is one aspect of consciousness, but not required for awareness. |
Solipsism dismisses the existence of every non-self aspect of the universe so of course it rejects p-zombies. ( a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.) Thus your logic is wrong / inverted. My adoption of Solipsism would REJECT p-zombie... |
Many readers here do not know what is the accepted theory of perception, so I do occasionally state it in a commonly used summary as: "Perception emerges after many stages of neural computational transformations of sensory inputs." which is in full agreement with all your link states, but does not include Helmholtz... |
What is new in my POV, is that perception does NOT emerge with a fraction of a second delay following the long chain of sequential neural transformations but is "real time" perception, achieved by compensatory forward projection of the available input signals in what I call the Real Time Simulation and strongly bel... |
I know you don´t like me posting evidence (you call it "argumentum verbosium") but sudden unforeseeable events do occur that make the forward projection in the RTS wrong. Then the RTS must be revised. When this occurs, there is a distinct and large positive going spike in the EEG about 300ms after the sudden event.... |
I have spent many hours testing the perception of an old lady who had large parietal stroke some years earlier. Despite protesting that it was silly to guess, when a tone sounded, the color of a briefly flashed dot of light on half of a computer screen which she could not perceive (in her neglected half of the worl... |
She lived in an "old folk’s home" and was bored so very pleased to have a young graduate student spend three days testing her. After first half day she no long protested it was silly to say red or green promptly at the tone beep and I pushed the corresponding button to tell the computer her choice. First half day´s... |
SUMMARY: Her normal sequential automatic neural computational transforms were NOT damaged by the parietal stroke! They functioned normally, all the way to and including lexicon stimulation of the correct color word. This chain of many stages of neural data transformation was NOT adversely affected by her parietal s... |
Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2013 |
18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member |
You have refuted nothing. Where have you conclusively demonstrated that "perception is the foundation of awareness"? You know, other than your bare assertion which seems to be your only justification for flogging your otherwise off-topic pet theory. I have already given you examples of how belief/imagination (subje... |
So you are talking about awareness, which is off-topic. Awareness is necessary for consciousness but does not necessitate it. |
No, solipsism places all existence, other than the individual's own mind on an equal footing, whether illusory, self-generated, or otherwise. It would not automatically "REJECT p-zombies" any more than it rejects humans, trees, etc.. The point, that you missed, is that it would require this sort of view to allow fo... |
Get you argument straightened out, as you are contradicting yourself. |
"holding of beliefs is one aspect of consciousness" |
"beliefs... is NOT a test for consciousness" |
IOW, you consistently misrepresent the "accepted theory" with the seeming intent to make your pet theory seem more novel than it is. |
What I do not like is slogging through your largely off-topic posts. You make the most tenuous of connections between perception and consciousness only to completely abandon any discussion of consciousness in favor of flogging your pet theory (and I italicize "theory" because of all the "I strongly believe" and "I ... |
And? Why is it surprising to you that perception could be cut off from the analytical part of the mind, like a hemispherectomy, while still be perceived? |
True, but showing they exist is NOT evidence of consciousness. For example, as "evidenced" by their behavior, computers "believe" that 1+1=2 and they have shown imagination when finding on their own new proofs of mathematical facts but that does not prove the computer with these characteristic is "conscious." |
By the very definition of "subjective" it is something that can not be observed or measured.Thus, you are self contradictory to say subjective consciousness has been demonstrated / observed . |
Read the Merrian-Webster definition of solipsism I quoted again. Solipsism is the belief or theory "that the self is the only existent thing." Thus solipsism does reject the existenc of trees, other humans, dirt, stars, etc. and P-zombies. Perhaps you have made up some definition of solipsism that contradicts Merri... |
No contradictions at all. A creature that seems to be holding beliefs as inferred from its behavior is NOT evidence that it actually is conscious and has wiki´s requirements for consciousness. |
Again from the behavior of my computer when running Excel, I can infer it "believes" 1+1 =2 but not that it holds any of the wiki requirements for being conscious. In truth its behavior does not really evidence any belief as that term is applied to conscious beings. No matter how well programed a set of transistors... |
Please give an example of this "misrepresentation." When I describe it at all, I tend to use the brief description first given by the Churchlands, pioneers of the "computational transforms" POV which is widely accepted now by most of the cognitive science community. Again the main difference from that present in my... |
It is self evident that with zero perception there can be no awareness. Awareness is to be aware of something perceived, usually something of the external environment but one can perceive a headache pain and then be aware that you have a pain, but not be aware of having a headache pain when you perceive none. |
20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member |
Computers do not "believe" (to accept something as true, genuine, or real), as they have no volition for accepting and no judgment other than what rules we provide them to operate on. But such is just further off-topic, especially whatever uncommon usage you may be implying with those scare quotes. |
Straw man, as I said "indirectly observable". If you can observe a change in behavior that can only be accounted for by a change in belief then it is only reasonable to assume that you have indirectly observed what you, yourself, said "is one aspect of consciousness". Otherwise the burden is yours to show an altern... |
Even the strongest variety of idealistic solipsism does not claim "nonexistence" but rather "no independent existence" outside of the mind of the solipsist. Perhaps you should look further than the first simple dictionary definition that superficially seems to confirm your bias, especially when dealing with a philo... |
Studies have shown that beliefs, as subjectively self-reported, can be altered and that this accounts for specific changes in behavior. Where is your evidence that such beliefs are not real? They are self-evident, and as such require evidence to discount. |
Then why are you arguing about computers in the first place? Just a non sequitur? |
No, you have repeatedly misrepresented the "accept theory" and have already admitted to omitting the fact that the mind generates much of what we perceive. And now you are throwing a red herring to obscure that fact. If you really do have a degree in physics then you have long since forgotten the methodology of sci... |
You said: "For example more axons come to the "visual cortex," V1, from the parietal lobes than from the eyes! - A great mystery for the accepted theory of visual perception..." This is obviously no mystery to accepted theory, and now you are trying to backpedal into some completely different representation of acce... |
You can be aware of subjective mental events (self-awareness) without any physiological perception whatsoever. |
21. hansda Valued Senior Member |
From your above statements[ref your post #467], this can very well be concluded that; "there is no physical difference between a living cell and a dead cell". |
22. pluto2 Registered Senior Member |
We can't know for sure if the brain really produces conscious experience. Maybe the brain is just a vessel or a filter for consciousness but the materials that the brain is made of were always there in the universe. Maybe we are even swimming in a sea of consciousness. |
It is also possible that consciousness and sentient experience will never be understood by science and that consciousness will remain an mystery forever. |
Thanks for the interesting link. It would be better if it did not think this statement was self evident or well established: |
I was pleased to see Sir John Eccles included as much as he was. That Noble prize winning neurophysiologist really had no neurophysiologist more than his equals in his era. We respectivly named the largest Rhesis monkey in our experimental colony of about 40 "Sir John." The human Sir John was well versed in physics... |
I have read several of Sir John´s papers and his book (titled something like The self and its brain). He believed that the very fine "hairs" (I forget their correct name. Cilla perhaps?) on the surface of cells is how the soul/spirit interacted (via QM) with the material brain without making an obvious violation of... |
Share This Page |
Book Review: Wheat Belly Total Health by William Davis, MD |
family photo June 1997 wheat field in the backgroundFor almost 20 years, I fed my family the best of the healthy whole grain foods: Fresh whole wheat bread. Baked from freshly ground, organic whole wheat flour. The aroma was delightful. |
In fact, this family photo (from 1997) was snapped in front of a picturesque field of ripe wheat. |
Last fall, my husband and I listened to the audio book, Wheat Belly, while driving on a long trip. Our lives haven’t been the same since. |
Recently, when my niece, Elizabeth, asked why our family preferred to eat gluten-free, I didn’t have a good answer ready. I mentioned a few benefits we had observed such as better sleep, better blood sugar control, and clearer thinking. But I forgot to list others such as relief from joint pain and the elimination of m... |
Elizabeth’s question is crucial for any significant life change. Without a big enough ‘why’, a person is less likely to achieve their goal. Any goal. |
A search on YouTube for ‘the power of why’ returned over 84 million results. We appear to know intuitively that change won’t happen without a really good reason why we need to make that change. |
I knew that I needed to have a better answer. A bigger WHY. Not just for Elizabeth, but for myself and my family. |
This resource will help me formulate a bigger WHY.wheat belly total health image |
In his newest book, Wheat Belly Total Health, Dr. William Davis provides a well-documented explanation of why eating grains may have a negative effect on everyone, not just those with digestive complaints. He discusses the role of grains throughout human history and makes a very strong case for eliminating grains compl... |
The book has three parts: |
• Part 1: No grain is a good grain. Here is a very thorough explanation of the science of why grains are not good for any human. |
• Part 2: Living grainlessly. Grains are addicting and here Dr. Davis shares how to break that addiction and change our eating patterns. |
• Part 3: Be a grainless overachiever. This is roughly half of the book. This is where general nutrition, fitness, sleep, etc. are discussed. |
Here are my top 7 takeaways from Wheat Belly Total Health, part 1: |
1. All grains raise blood sugar and provoke glycation, an irreversible process which leads to conditions such as cataracts, hypertension, arthritis, kidney disease, heart disease, and dementia. |
For many years, nutritionists told my son with type 1 diabetes to eat healthy whole grains. Yet 2 slices of whole wheat bread raise blood sugar more than 6 teaspoons of table sugar. And a 1-cup serving of organic cooked oatmeal contains 50 net carbs, the same as 11 teaspoons of sugar. Clearly those nutritionists were n... |
2. Grain consumption destroys gut health. The impact of grains on gut health is very complex. Dr. Davis devotes an entire chapter to this topic. |
Grain consumption contributes to nutritional deficiencies and changes in bowel flora. But a very insidious effect is abnormal intestinal permeability, known more commonly as leaky gut syndrome. |
According to Dr. Davis, “No genetic susceptibility is required for this effect; all testing for celiac disease or “gluten sensitivity” may be negative in those with intestinal permeability.” (p. 67) |
3. There is a direct link between grains and autoimmune diseases. wheat belly autoimmune list |
This topic is also very complex. In fact, an entire online Autoimmune Summit will be taking place in a few days. Some of the speakers will be addressing the connections between grains and autoimmune diseases. |
Dr. Davis highlights a recent study by Dr. Alessio Fasano confirming this link.”We now have a direct path linking gliadin and related grain prolamin proteins with autoimmune conditions. |
This sequence of events is not limited to people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity; this applies to everyone. |
Susceptibility will vary based on genetic factors, but it is separate and distinct from the gastrointestinal disruption caused by celiac disease. |
It means that a person with no abdominal symptoms from wheat consumption – no heartburn, bowel urgency, colitis, etc. – and who tests negative for celiac disease or gluten sensitivity can still develop the joint deformity of rheumatoid arthritis years later or the neurological impairment of multiple sclerosis at age 45... |
The list of autoimmune conditions attributable to wheat is staggering. |
Here is a partial list: (pp. 71-72) |
Addison’s disease, |
Celiac disease, |
Chronic fatigue syndrome, |
Crohn’s disease, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.