Consciousness: another paradox?

The guy that developed the hydrino theory that I asked about in a previous post (Dr. Randall Mills) actually includes conciousness in his version of a grand unified theory. You can download his book at:

www.blacklightpower.com/

The chapter on conciousness is large, to say the least, and contains alot of higher-order math. Just look at it as another competing theory...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Does the MM have an opinion on this issue?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Interesting experiments in psychology have shown that "consciousness", including what we perceive as thought and decision-making, actually occur at a sub-conscious level, with the results of those processes together with coordinated sensory inputs shown on our "mind screens" about 0.2 seconds after they happened as a sort of instant replay. Even what we see and hear is not real time, but a slightly delayed rerun of what just happened.

We have yet to learn very much about how the subconscious works. But it is clear at this point that the meaning of "consciousness" is nothing at all like what has been assumed by thinkers over the centuries. -|Tom|-

Considering the arguments going on about infinity I hate to think what will be stirred up speculating on conciousness. I guess people tend to divide into the "mechanical" and "mystical" camps on the subject. I don't know how either position could be proven. I tend to be a little "mystical" myself in that I do not find the "brain as computer" model as convincing as most scientists do. There have been many well documented cases of people whose cranial cavity is over 95% fluid with only a couple of millimeters thickness of neuronal material remaining. Yet many of these people exhibit normal or even above-average intelligence. So is the brain a computer or a receiving unit for a signal? The fact that given regions of the brain are associated with specific mental characteristics may bear no more relation to conciousness than the fact that a certain dial on the TV reduces and raises volume.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Considering the arguments going on about infinity I hate to think what will be stirred up speculating on conciousness. I guess people tend to divide into the "mechanical" and "mystical" camps on the subject. I don't know how either position could be proven. I tend to be a little "mystical" myself in that I do not find the "brain as computer" model as convincing as most scientists do. There have been many well documented cases of people whose cranial cavity is over 95% fluid with only a couple of millimeters thickness of neuronal material remaining. Yet many of these people exhibit normal or even above-average intelligence. So is the brain a computer or a receiving unit for a signal? The fact that given regions of the brain are associated with specific mental characteristics may bear no more relation to conciousness than the fact that a certain dial on the TV reduces and raises volume.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If self awareness is not a result of the nervous system, where does it come from? There have been many studies on learning, like in studies of the mollusk, Aplysia, where a direct link between neurons and learning have been established. New synapses between neurons are made in response to repeated stimulus in a process called Long Term Potentiation.

I also think that the fact that most organisms have some type of nervous system, and some like the primates that are very similar to man's, is too much of a coincidence for consciousness not to have a biological basis.

For me the question of intelligence and consciousness is pretty much reduced to understanding the structure of the nervous system. It may be though that there are some additional properties of matter that we have not yet identified that give rise to matter's ability to control other matter and to be aware of itself.

Tom,

I like this answer:

We have yet to learn very much about how the subconscious works. But it is clear at this point that the meaning of "consciousness" is nothing at all like what has been assumed by thinkers over the centuries. -|Tom|- [unquote]

It is unfortunate that you don't apply it more universally to your understanding of the arguement over infinity and reality.


As far as self-awareness. The point about other thinking animals, etc.. It seems obvious to me that our awarness and concepts are affected by more than the basic process (which is generally the same process in all brains)and is strongly affected by our appendages.

A turtle for example has no knowledge of what it feels like to smack his foot with a hammer. A thinking brain can only assemilate concepts to which it is exposed, the thinking, logic and assumptions of such minds are therefore strongly affected by the material body and appendages that it controls.

Dogs I believe are color blind, hence I doubt they could ever understand light, etc, etc.,. What we once thought were instincts of some animals are now known to be hyper-sensative detection by their superior appendages over mans.

I wonder how our world view would change if we could smell like a dog, see like an eagle or like a bat, fly like a bird or live under water like sea creatures.

Reality is in the minds eye and mans is not the only view of reality. It seems ethnocentric to assume ours is the only correct view of the world but on earth is probably the only one that goes beyond earth.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If self awareness is not a result of the nervous system, where does it come from?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That IS the kicker. I would say that one would have to take the position that conciousness is a distinct property of the universe similar to regarding energy as axiomatic.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
There have been many studies on learning, like in studies of the mollusk, Aplysia, where a direct link between neurons and learning have been established. New synapses between neurons are made in response to repeated stimulus in a process called Long Term Potentiation.

I also think that the fact that most organisms have some type of nervous system, and some like the primates that are very similar to man's, is too much of a coincidence for consciousness not to have a biological basis.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I certainly don't dispute all that, but using the TV receiver analogy we can also view this as only showing that if one has a similar design of receiver that one will tend to pick up the same kind of signal.