[Mr Walker]

Mattshark, on 03 November 2009 - 01:22 PM, said:

But it really just could be that simple. All life is just a complex chemical reaction.

At one level, this is absolutely true. However it is where, and how, those complex chemical reactions can lead us, when they become 'solidified' as human thought, which intrigues me.

The product of human sapience is much greater( in potential and actuality) than any of the wondrous parts which comprise it.

[tinieblas]

Mattshark, on 02 November 2009 - 09:52 PM, said:

But it really just could be that simple. All life is just a complex chemical reaction.

oh yes of course it could be; only perhaps much more complex than we are currently capable (or may ever be capable) of comprehending....but as a concept and an excercise in discussion it's a good one. I've read so many theories in...quantum wavefronts, universal memory, DNA encoding...there are so many yet we are so far away from being able to study the workings of the mind, let alone attempt to prove any of these theories.......it's kind of like studying an OLd Masters painting's meaning by studying the chemical composition of the paints and pigments used (again I owe Mssr. T. Pratchett Esq for this image)......you get such an imcomplete picture and an idea at what the painting is but not what viewing the painting engenders in the viewer or explaining the emotional reaction one has to a poem by analysing each word in turn.....you can see the nuts and bolts and understand what they do but not HOW they do it....

[Cybele]

From what I've read, it looks like there has been some promising scientific research in this area. There's a pertinent article called "How Does Consciousness Happen?" in the October 2007 edition of Scientific American. I'm not going to plagiarize. Buy the article here if you like:

http://www.scientifi...iousness-happen

This post has been edited by Cybele: 03 November 2009 - 04:45 AM

[PhenomInvestigator]

We can look at it from another perspective, namely that consciousness is fundamental and that our physical world, while a real perception is just that, our own personal perception. From an evoluationary standpoint, it makes far more sense that our sense perceptions should be focused on a useful representation of objective reality rather than being a correct copy of objective reality. As a species we need to be informed of our situation swiftly not with great precision. This view holds that everything we perceive, without exception, is a creation of consciousness. And yet a physical reality does exist, but it is unique to each of us, and it is symbolic and iconic in nature. This personal reality if you like is often likened to icons on a computer desktop. The hide the complexity underneath and yet provide useful features that give the impression of an objective reality which is, in fact, not there. We don't need to understand what's under the covers so long as the interface and its icons are useful to us. So it well may be with our preceptual reality. And there is no need for us to understand objective reality on this view either.

Our laws of physics are based on observation. They represent what is believed to be reliable observation. But if that observation is of a number of perceptual realities and not objective reality itself, how complete is our physics? We know from the history of science that it is ever-evolving as quantum mechanics aptly demonstrated throughout the 20th centruy. At one time quantum mechanics was a series of anomalies as well. So anomalous phenomena and observations are more indicators that the laws of science must be extended rather than something to hide and ignore. The business of science is to explain such phenomena, provided of course that the observations are indeed reliable.

For more information, including the mathematical proofs that lie behind these scientific theories of consciousness, please see Observer Mechanics" (Hoffmann, et al). You can also read this paper on "Conscious Realism" at http://www.cogsci.uc...ousRealism2.pdf

[S♥ ♥ ♥]

Mr Walker, on 02 November 2009 - 06:45 PM, said:

Im not going to argue with this, In fact your last paragraph is identical to what i said(or what i thought i said anyway.) but my point was to the neurological/physical/chemical nature and structure of memory and thought. Thought starts with memory, but human level thought requires many processes which have a physical basis based on memory. Eg the ability to contemplate future gain for present loss, requires many basic abilities and then compounded processing of these. So does logical comparison, eveluation , extrapolation etc.

The basic level of memory and knowledge goes down to individual identifiable neurons and then builds up in complexity from there. Like all human attributes, this complexity and ability has evolved from a simple level to a highly complex one, but, in looking at the basic building blocks, we can better understand the complex evolved product (which is continuing to evolve and grow. There is nothing supernatural or metaphysical about thinking. It is "merely" an evolved process.

It is what humans can do WITH human level sapience which most intrigues me. THe ability to "think" creates a real break with evolution whereby humans become, rather than the ongoing product of evolution, the forerunner of a species which is; self driven, self organised, and capable of almost limitless potential. Where we cant adapt our environment to us, we can adapt our selves to new environments.

Long term memory often includes largely memory of earlier thoughts. So that once we work out what 2x2 is we dont have to do it every time, because we have a memory of working it out, and having identified the answer. But it also includes singular memories, from the time we first connect our receptors to our brain. Ie we remember the first apple we see, even though later we learn the generic name for an apple, and transfer the memory to another form because it is now a memory of an object, WITH a symbolic attachment of classification.
And the process of calling up, and making use of, memory, is still a apart of the process of thinking.

So we perceive and "memorize" an apple well before we know what it is, or have put a label to it. If you think about all aspects of very early childhood learning and development you can see both how, and why, this is the way young children learn.

Ps im not a fair person to ask about memorising things, because say with those letters, i only have to look at them once to remember them all.

Mw, not quite, remember thinking is putting together things in new ways. ex: comparing the structure of the solar system with the structure of the atom and recognizing they have some similarities , this sort of manipulation of information takes place in the working memory, or the staging ground of thought....

The key is the information manipulated can come from the enviornment (from things we hear , see, ex: a scientist describing the atom perhaps) or long term memory ( from things we already know).....

So all thinking doesn't begin in long term memory ...

We use procedures (P), long term memory can store simple procedures as well as complex , multistage (P) to support tasks with lots of go between steps ..To think effectively one needs enough room in working memory, which of course is limited in space and the appropriate factual and procedural datum in long term memory and the environment ( the point of the letter chart was to illustrate the available space in the working memory..

In the frame the letters were presented at the most the working memory (staging ground for thought one can hold about 7 letters, or ( all of them long term ) if coupled with background datum or enviornment...A process known as chunking takes place( that is why it matters what background datum one has the more the better, because this enables chunking ( the phenomenon of linking together separate pieces of info from the enviornment an obvious advantage you can keep more stuff in working memory if it can be chunked....the key is chunking can only work if you have applicable datum in long term memory..chunking works for anything .... .... ... the ex: was intended to show how the long term memory, working memory and the environment work in tandem....

The last 10 years have shown great growth in the area of cognition..
So we perceive and "memorize" an apple well before we know what it is, or have put a label to it. If you think about all aspects of very early childhood learning and development you can see both how, and why, this is the way young children learn.

I think you are trying to say that long term memory is the storehouse in which one maintains factual datum (FD)about the world...e.g. ladybugs have spots, chocholate is your fave ice cream, or the delight of being wowed by something you child said , your husbands voice etc....(FD)can also be abstract e.g. the idea that triangles are closed figures w/3 sides ....what cats look like generally etc etc this info resides in long term memory (outside of awareness or working memory) until needed then it enters working memory ..

for ex: I may ask what color is the sun and you say yellow, instantly.. This info was in long term memory, but until I asked the question that made it relevant to ongoing thought ; your working memory was not aware of it .........

[SpiderCyde]

What are thoughts? Hmmm...

[G3N0M3]

Well that was a very detailed explanation, and I'm sure we all understood that already, but the detailed part of the question, which we have no clue about as scientists and human. How does a burst of chemicals, electricity, and other factors determine how you "see" an object in your head and how you "see" an abject physicaly.

To exemplify this I'll ask; How do you know that what you are physicaly seeing, is actualy physicaly being seen? Then how does that stimuli in your eye make your brain "take a picture" of that object? Meanwhile all of our senses are determined by electrical energy, and biochemical feedback... How does that energy or signature at least translate into a "mental thought" of a "physical thought"?

Why I'm determined to finding this out, and why I'm asking would be answered by another string of questions; Howcome you can feel feelings in your dreams you've never experienced while awake? For people who can determine very specific feelings, when you dream and you are flying, you have an entierly differerent feeling. Also what about never tasting a food before and tasting it in a dream, and it does not compare to anything you've tasted? So your perposing that since that there needs to be a physical reaction there could not be a mental reaction, howcome? Howcome we can do these things, see these things, and experience what they are in our dreams, while never actualy experiencing them, or having any knowledge about them??

I'll let you guys ponder on those question, I don't expect answers but if you have solid evidence of where these feelings, thoughts, emotions, come from I'd like to hear it.

G3N0M3

[Had to change it up]

This post has been edited by G3N0M3: 03 November 2009 - 06:45 PM

[Mattshark]

ShaunZero, on 03 November 2009 - 03:47 AM, said:

Well of course they're linked, I'm not trying to suggest some sort of spirit, but the mystery of thoughts and concsiousness intrigues me. Wouldn't two different things have different properties? If x causes y, how can they have identicle properties without being the same thing?

Well I would assume the neurology in the brain would not be identical. It would be rather surprising if it was.

[Mattshark]

Mr Walker, on 03 November 2009 - 04:17 AM, said:

At one level, this is absolutely true. However it is where, and how, those complex chemical reactions can lead us, when they become 'solidified' as human thought, which intrigues me.

The product of human sapience is much greater( in potential and actuality) than any of the wondrous parts which comprise it.

Very much so.

[SpiderCyde]

SpiderCyde, on 03 November 2009 - 11:28 AM, said:

What are thoughts? Hmmm...

Bah! They changed my image. Knuckleheads. >.<

[tinieblas]

And at last we hit upon the fly in the ointment as far as this topic goes....imagination we can imagine things we have never experienced and create images in our heads from things which are beyond our everyday experiences......we can see in our mind's eye events which have never taken place and, when we dream, live these events......with no imput or point of reference with which to provide stimuli and the necessary chemical reactions, rather our brain does these things itself....how can it do this?

[Mattshark]

tinieblas, on 03 November 2009 - 09:07 PM, said:

And at last we hit upon the fly in the ointment as far as this topic goes....imagination we can imagine things we have never experienced and create images in our heads from things which are beyond our everyday experiences......we can see in our mind's eye events which have never taken place and, when we dream, live these events......with no imput or point of reference with which to provide stimuli and the necessary chemical reactions, rather our brain does these things itself....how can it do this?

Your mind takes much of it from what you already know or have picked up, either consciously or subconsciously. That is what provides the stumuli, it is mixing and matching and how your own brain interprets descriptions also plays an important role.

[Mr Walker]

Quote

So all thinking doesn't begin in long term memory ...

Without organic memory storage, thought is impossible, thus all thought begins with the ability to recognise (through memory) everything, from a mothers face to an object like an apple.

Quote

I think you are trying to say that long term memory is the storehouse in which one maintains factual datum (FD)about the world...e.g. ladybugs have spots, chocholate is your fave ice cream, or the delight of being wowed by something you child said , your husbands voice etc....(FD)can also be abstract e.g. the idea that triangles are closed figures w/3 sides ....what cats look like generally etc etc this info resides in long term memory (outside of awareness or working memory) until needed then it enters working memory ..

What i was saying ,is that scientists have identified the physical process of memory and its evolution in a human mind. A child memorises an object in a single neuron. As other factors become attached to that object eg a name or a classification or an emotive value, the storage positioning changes. The memoryry is transferred to a different neuron, in a differnt part of the brain

So memor y evolves organically from very simple building blocks into more complex ones. At a certain level of complexity, things like self awareness analysis and extrapolation, become possible as the overal brain develops conections patterns and pathways to transfer and compare basic data.

Its a bit like an organically evolving computer, where are continually improving a nd evolving, in complexity and ability; the processing power the programming and the physical capacities.

[G3N0M3]

So, by what people are trying to say even if you don't experience it in real life in a dream your only making up feelings, tasts, sounds, and even sights? So the distinct feeling of flying is actualy a feeling you've felt from falling, reversed? Or is it an entirely new memory? If it is why can't you re-remember your dreams mental image, taste, sound, etc.?

Obviously what I'm thinking of can not be proven, but I'd like to hear peoples explenation to how something we've never seen before, tasted, etc. can be in your head while your unconcious but can not be reproduced while living...

I'd like to get so many tests done while I fall asleep to find out more about this, because from what I know they have only tested "normal" dreamers, and not lucid ones, where I can control every facit of my dream, except the experience itself...

Also gets into seeing something while Astral Projecting, then seeing it while your awake day-to-day... Is this because your brain already knows the information even though you've never physicaly been there? Or is Astral Projection more real than people think?

[Mr Walker]

Quote

name='G3N0M3' date='07 November 2009 - 07:12 AM' timestamp='1257540156' post='3157197']
So, by what people are trying to say even if you don't experience it in real life in a dream your only making up feelings, tasts, sounds, and even sights? So the distinct feeling of flying is actualy a feeling you've felt from falling, reversed? Or is it an entirely new memory? If it is why can't you re-remember your dreams mental image, taste, sound, etc.?

My understanding from reading scientific articles on this, is that memories of "real" experiences are identical to memories of dreamed or fantasised thoughts. At the time we can separate them by contextual knowledge but after the passage of time we may not be able to distinguish between real memories and dreamed or imagined ones.

In dreams, as in waking, our mind recalls memories. Dreams are formed by the subconscious remembering and then manipulating memories. A controlled lucid dreamer can create a dream world mentally indistinguishavble from the waking one. Ie it has taste smell etc. However, the dream world is not constrained by the external physics of the waking world, and the dreamer can manipulate reality as their will desires.

Quote

Obviously what I'm thinking of can not be proven, but I'd like to hear peoples explenation to how something we've never seen before, tasted, etc. can be in your head while your unconcious but can not be reproduced while living...

This is more interesting and challenging. I think we do it through the part of the mind which can imagine. Thus we can create, consciously, feelings /senses etc that we have not actually physically experienced. This is a common experience in young men who have never actually had sex but have very realistic sexual encounters in their dreams. However i found that the real thing also added accuracy and another dimension to my dreams in this regard .


I learned/taught myself to fly as a very young child. It was a long and complex process, and i had an internal rationalisation of how i could do it. Needless to say, i have never flown or been weightless in real life, although i did a lot of skin diving as a child. I suspect the feeling of weightlessness in the water transferred to the dream sensation of flying.

I also learned to meld my molecules with those of the dream world, so that i could pass through walls and even solid rock. This also took time and practice and it was scary being sightless. I had to develop a sort of internal gps /sense of direction to know where i was going, so i would not get lost in thick bodies of rock. I know this was consciously connected with the many books i read on particle transmission and also by the startrek matter transmiters.

Knowing the theoretical possibility of it, my mind was able to create a very realistic experience of what dematerialising and passing through solid objects would be like.

Except for one thing of course. If our mind is tied to our organic host then, in real lif,e i could not be conscious while my body was disembodied. In a dream this was possible; but in real life it also lead me(along with other experiences) to investigate the nature of consciousness.
There is a lot of"evidence" that in fact our consciousness can connect into a cosmic consciousness or network and exist (at least for short times) outside our host body. In the real world, our host body is still alive so this is not conclusive, but i suspect this ability is why so many people come to the conclusion that our consciousness can survive the death of its organic host.

Quote

I'd like to get so many tests done while I fall asleep to find out more about this, because from what I know they have only tested "normal" dreamers, and not lucid ones, where I can control every facit of my dream, except the experience itself...

I believe they have done some testing of lucid dreamers but it is only a comparatively recently recognised and accepted reality

Quote

Also gets into seeing something while Astral Projecting, then seeing it while your awake day-to-day... Is this because your brain already knows the information even though you've never physicaly been there? Or is Astral Projection more real than people think?

In obe 's one can go to places one has never been and accurately record what is seen there One can also record converstaions of people in real time to verify that ones was actually "there "

In the 1950's early 60's in one obe i travelled over easter island. I saw the stautes on the ground Much later i saw a documentary. The statues were somehow different. I then realised that they now wore hats and more had been raised upright. I was disappointed to think my obe was inacurate Then the commentator went on to explain.

When i obe'd over them, the hats had been on the ground and few if anyone realised what they were, but in the intervening years their role had been recognised and as the statues were restored many of the hats were replaced on top of them.
So i saw accurately, in real time, a view of easter island as it was, many years before i saw a documentary on it.
All aspects of dreaming, particularly controlled lucid dreaming and obe's, have fascinated me since early childhood. Each night i would fly around our neighbour hood , perch up on the tall TV antennas(50 feet high) and observe the goings on of the neighbourhood from above. I was conscious that i was dreaming, and yet also felt that i was realy there. I was aware that while i could see people on the lighted ground below, they would not be able to see me up in the dark sky. As i turned out, almost no one ever looked up into the sky .

This post has been edited by Mr Walker: 07 November 2009 - 06:15 AM