Deepak Chopra On CNN Panel

[markdohle]

[StarMountainKid]

Does the brain produce consciousness? If so, when the brain dies, consciousness dies also. If consciousness is a separate entity from the brain, not produced by the brain, but the brain is a localization of a larger independent consciousness, when the brain dies consciousness continues to exist.

In the second case, does one's unique personality continue, or is one's consciousness infolded into this generalized consciousness?

No one knows. It's all speculation. People like Deepak Chopra become famous purposely substituting speculation for knowledge.

[libstaK]

The idea that consciousness exists separately outside of space time and it utilises the brain, would explain alot of experiences IMO. For instance, pre-cognition and dreams that come true, also deja vu experiences.

It is interesting also in my observation the intuitive responses I sometimes experience. For instance, walking into a room and feeling like you could cut the air with a knife. Or thinking of someone you haven't thought of in a long while just before they call you.

These all open to interpretation, of course, but IMO the body of evidence in my life - especially with the dreams that come true, have always had me searching for the reason these things can and do occur. It would be nice to have a definitive answer some day, just saying ...

[Copasetic]

The idea that consciousness exists separately outside of space time and it utilises the brain, would explain alot of experiences IMO. For instance, pre-cognition and dreams that come true, also deja vu experiences.

It is interesting also in my observation the intuitive responses I sometimes experience. For instance, walking into a room and feeling like you could cut the air with a knife. Or thinking of someone you haven't thought of in a long while just before they call you.

These all open to interpretation, of course, but IMO the body of evidence in my life - especially with the dreams that come true, have always had me searching for the reason these things can and do occur. It would be nice to have a definitive answer some day, just saying ...

So how does consciousness existing separately "outside of space time" explain those things?

[libstaK]

So how does consciousness existing separately "outside of space time" explain those things?

Hey I'm just going with what Deepak Chopra possited in the interview. But for discussion sake, if the consciousness was for instance, in a 4th, 5th or 6th dimension state where it could

see the past,present and future simultaneously then it fed this information back into our 3rd dimensional brain then yes, it would explain where the information is coming from don't you think?

[eight bits]

Some of the hitch is what counts as an explanation.

The mind-body problem is complicated enough. To tell me that the working bits exist outside of time and space simplifies... what?

The core problem in dualistic accounts (the mind exists apart from its physical realization) is how the unphysical part is supposed to interact with the physical part. That is especially puzzling since when I want to post here, my mind does something with my brain to get my fingers moving, etc.

If my mind is so good at interacting with physical stuff, then why aren't I simply doing a Vulcan mind meld with my computer instead? And if further, my mind exists outside of time and space, then why do I even need an internet connection? I'll just meld with the site's servers.

As it happens, I have a dog in this fight, because I believe in the Church-Turing thesis, that minds could exist in other physical realizations besides living brains. The engineering point of that, of course, is to try to build machines with consciousness of their own.

If consciousness is something out there, then ought I not be figuring out how to build a radio, rather than how to build a computer? Maybe the answer is yes, I should. The bad news is that I have the sneaking suspicion that Dr Chopra has no idea how such a radio might work. I thank him for the tip that if I open up my television, I won't find little people inside, but that's not much help.

Worse, something that exists outside space and time and yet acts effectively within space and time sounds a lot like a god, or an angel at the very least. Maybe I should skip the radio, and just build an altar instead.

My intuition suggests that I would be moving in the wrong direction.

[Copasetic]

Hey I'm just going with what Deepak Chopra possited in the interview.

I know you are, but that is my point. I want you to think and not just "go with Deepak"

But for discussion sake, if the consciousness was for instance, in a 4th, 5th or 6th dimension state where it could

see the past,present and future simultaneously then it fed this information back into our 3rd dimensional brain then yes, it would explain where the information is coming from don't you think?

So how could it "see" the past, present and future if it was in a "higher dimension"?

This is the problem with this "new age" talk. Its easy to do what Deepak does and say things like; "well science is leading to the belief the consciousness isn't centered in the brain" or "biology and physics support my views". And sure, that sounds great to say that--But it is only a claim and a claim void of any substance at that.

How is science leading to this belief? How is science or biology or physics supporting his claims? That is the question people should ask, but they don't want too. Its far to easy to fall for his science-sounding phrases and claims because that is what we want to believe anyway.

Deepak, despite his claim of being a doctor, has little understanding of medicine, biology or physics. He is notoriously bad at understand the basics of science as a methodology. His claims, more often than not, just show people that he

has little idea what he is talking about.

[Copasetic]

Some of the hitch is what counts as an explanation.

The mind-body problem is complicated enough. To tell me that the working bits exist outside of time and space simplifies... what?

The core problem in dualistic accounts (the mind exists apart from its physical realization) is how the unphysical part is supposed to interact with the physical part. That is especially puzzling since when I want to post here, my mind does something with my brain to get my fingers moving, etc.

If my mind is so good at interacting with physical stuff, then why aren't I simply doing a Vulcan mind meld with my computer instead? And if further, my mind exists outside of time and space, then why do I even need an internet connection? I'll just meld with the site's servers.

As it happens, I have a dog in this fight, because I believe in the Church-Turing thesis, that minds could exist in other physical realizations besides living brains. The engineering point of that, of course, is to try to build machines with consciousness of their own.

If consciousness is something out there, then ought I not be figuring out how to build a radio, rather than how to build a computer? Maybe the answer is yes, I should. The bad news is that I have the sneaking suspicion that Dr Chopra has no idea how such a radio might work. I thank him for the tip that if I open up my television, I won't find little people inside, but that's not much help.

Worse, something that exists outside space and time and yet acts effectively within space and time sounds a lot like a god, or an angel at the very least. Maybe I should skip the radio, and just build an altar instead.

My intuition suggests that I would be moving in the wrong direction.

Wonderful post EB.

While a great majority will see Dee's "tip" for what it is, an unfortunately large percent will be wow'ed with such "insight". As evident in his book sales and the following of his wild claims over at HuffPo (like "we don't know how genes make hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen etc"--Really Dee, really? How genes make....uh...nevermind, you're a medical doctor you say Deepak? )

Its easy to throw around a bunch of words you have only a vague passing familiarity with, that you read in a book once or heard used on NPR's Science Friday. Much harder to actually know what you are talking about it appears.

[libstaK]

I know you are, but that is my point. I want you to think and not just "go with Deepak"

I am thinking.

What I am thinking is that as a plausible explanation for experiences that do not currently sit within accepted scientific theory, this one has a little merit, enough at least to give it some consideration and, um thought.

I am thinking it is by no means a certain fact or without the need for further questions or explorations but I am interested in the possibilities, if they lead nowhere than the mysteries I mentioned just stay as they are - continued mysteries, no problem.

So how could it "see" the past, present and future if it was in a "higher dimension"?

A higher dimensional perspective couldn't see the past, present and future? I have always been pretty certain, that science agrees it could allow that perspective.

The question that remains open is whether consciousness is separate from the human brain and being separate acts/interacts outside of space and time surely?

This is the problem with this "new age" talk. Its easy to do what Deepak does and say things like; "well science is leading to the belief the consciousness isn't centered in the brain" or "biology and physics support my views". And sure, that sounds great to say that--But it is only a claim and a claim void of any substance at that.

How is science leading to this belief? How is science or biology or physics supporting his claims? That is the question people should ask, but they don't want too. Its far to easy to fall for his science-sounding phrases and claims because that is what we want to believe anyway.

Deepak, despite his claim of being a doctor, has little understanding of medicine, biology or physics. He is notoriously bad at understand the basics of science as a methodology. His claims, more often than not, just show people that he

has little idea what he is talking about.

I can assure you, I do want to know the answers to those questions, I would also like to know how science is denying the possiblity of his claims with the same rigor.

It is the age old argument: just substitute Consciousness for God and we possit that we cannot prove with science that there is a God but neither can we prove that there is not a God. What both sides do, however, based on their understanding is possit theories that are framed within current accepted knowledge about whether God is or is not possible.

Most importantly to me at least is that within both sides of this argument there exists a realm of experience that neither science nor any "new age" bunkum can explain with any degree of acceptable finality or known accuracy, this does not prevent debunkers attacking those who suffer the effects of these experiences with the notion that because there is and can be no independent evidence of the experience itself outside of the person having the experience it can therefore only be false or based on what we want to believe, hmmm.

I assure you that is not an acceptable final position on the matter for a great many people and yes, we will step up and consider possibilities that allow something resembling common sense to be made of the mysteries we find ourselves tackling.

[Star of the Sea]

I've pondered on where our consciousness is seated - is the brain a sort of receiver? This is one hypothesis that I have mulled over: If God is present within us (the body is a temple) does God somehow interact with our brain and consciousness?

Edit: By consciousness I mean the spiritual aspect/the soul

Edited May 28, 2011 by Star of the Sea

[Copasetic]

I am thinking.

Good

What I am thinking is that as a plausible explanation for experiences that do not currently sit within accepted scientific theory, this one has a little merit, enough at least to give it some consideration and, um thought.

I am thinking it is by no means a certain fact or without the need for further questions or explorations but I am interested in the possibilities, if they lead nowhere than the mysteries I mentioned just stay as they are - continued mysteries, no problem.

Again how? Saying "those experiences can be explained by X" doesn't explain how those experiences are actually explained by X. Its just equating the two because it sounds nice.

Silly exaggerated example so you understand what I am saying.

A book falls off my book shelf. I say "gravity explains why it fell". Great Copasetic, but you didn't actually explain why gravity explains that. Sure, we've all heard it explains it and we say it explains it because our teachers told us so. But how does it actually explain it.

That is what science does. Science actually explains it, it doesn't just say "because I said it explains it". Which is what Deepak does. He doesn't know what science does and does not explain or what science alludes to being possible or not possible. He is just making claims that "something explains something" because it sounds good, it sounds right. Try as we might though, the universe doesn't care what we think sounds good. Its not beholden to us to work the way we think "sounds good". That is why we have to do science in the first place, because as hard as it is to admit--Just being human and have "sounds good" idea isn't a good way to actually figure out the world around us.

A higher dimensional perspective couldn't see the past, present and future? I have always been pretty certain, that science agrees it could allow that perspective.

How does science agree? Do you believe that science says the "past, present and future" exist in a higher dimension? What is a higher dimension?

The question that remains open is whether consciousness is separate from the human brain and being separate acts/interacts outside of space and time surely?

Good were getting somewhere, but we're thinking too small. Why assume that consciousness is only a human experience? Why assume human consciousness is independent of humans? EB brought up a great point (he does that, and often )--Can minds exist separate from a living brain? If they exist built upon the architecture of a computer, are they human minds--Because they are conscious? What makes "human consciousness" unique to humans?

I can assure you, I do want to know the answers to those questions, I would also like to know how science is denying the possiblity of his claims with the same rigor.

Science only "denies" things which it can falsify and has done so. Deepak makes a lot of claims about science, that really shows he doesn't understand it.

It is the age old argument: just substitute Consciousness for God and we possit that we cannot prove with science that there is a God but neither can we prove that there is not a God. What both sides do, however, based on their understanding is possit theories that are framed within current accepted knowledge about whether God is or is not possible.

Most importantly to me at least is that within both sides of this argument there exists a realm of experience that neither science nor any "new age" bunkum can explain with any degree of acceptable finality or known accuracy, this does not prevent debunkers attacking those who suffer the effects of these experiences with the notion that because there is and can be no independent evidence of the experience itself outside of the person having the experience it can therefore only be false or based on what we want to believe, hmmm.

Ahh, but as we just discussed above, the human experience isn't a good one for understanding the world. Certainly people have experiences, but what do those experiences mean? Do they, in and of themselves, tell us how the world is? Is the human condition and human experience enough to figure those things out?

I assure you that is not an acceptable final position on the matter for a great many people and yes, we will step up and consider possibilities that allow something resembling common sense to be made of the mysteries we find ourselves tackling.

Again though, the human condition and experience doesn't lend itself to "common sense" explanations of how the universe is, only how we wish it ought to be.

Let's use an example. Do you live in the Northern Hemisphere? If so, do you suppose the earth is closer to the sun in the summer, when its warmer? Wouldn't that be the common sense explanation?

Or how about a little more "sciency" one. When we look out at the stars and the universe, we see everything moving away from us. What is the common sense explanation of that?

Perception is not always reality.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Copasetic

[Rlyeh]

If consciousness is a separate entity from the brain, not produced by the brain, but the brain is a localization of a larger independent consciousness, when the brain dies consciousness continues to exist.

And people would be conscious under general anaesthetic.

[libstaK]

Good

Hello, you don't hold the market cornered on intelligence, that is a little condescending

Again how? Saying "those experiences can be explained by X" doesn't explain how those experiences are actually explained by X. Its just equating the two because it sounds nice.

Silly exaggerated example so you understand what I am saying.

A book falls off my book shelf. I say "gravity explains why it fell". Great Copasetic, but you didn't actually explain why gravity explains that. Sure, we've all heard it explains it and we say it explains it because our teachers told us so. But how does it actually explain it.

That is what science does. Science actually explains it, it doesn't just say "because I said it explains it". Which is what Deepak does. He doesn't know what science does and does not explain or what science alludes to being possible or not possible. He is just making claims that "something explains something" because it sounds good, it sounds right. Try as we might though, the universe doesn't care what we think sounds good. Its not beholden to us to work the way we think "sounds good". That is why we have to do science in the first place, because as hard as it is to admit--Just being human and have "sounds good" idea isn't a good way to actually figure out the world around us.

Given that I am not a scientist or involved in scientific research I would suggest that neither you know for sure whether it is or how it is, I only suggested it is a possibility - where is your scientific evidence denying it's possibility? You keep denigrating Deepak and suggesting by default that because I possited something based on his interview that he and I are the same beast without your own scientific theory for why it actually cannot be so. I am perfectly aware of the neutral stance of Universe and its properties in relation to the human condition, thank you.

I understand your issue with him, I personally have only ever attempted to read one of his books and was bored witless by page 10 and never picked it or any of his other titles up again.

Gravity is a poor example, if we are going to nitpick, science does not actually know what gravity is. Newton has a Law of Gravity, but it is a force that has been labelled gravity, there is no concensual scientific explanation about what this force actually is, we just know what it does and where it is apparent and in action.

How does science agree? Do you believe that science says the "past, present and future" exist in a higher dimension? What is a higher dimension?

The current theory on the fourth dimension is time ie: we have height and breadth and are placed in a point in time.

Good were getting somewhere, but we're thinking too small. Why assume that consciousness is only a human experience? Why assume human consciousness is independent of humans? EB brought up a great point (he does that, and often )--Can minds exist separate from a living brain? If they exist built upon the architecture of a computer, are they human minds--Because they are conscious? What makes "human consciousness" unique to humans?

No I do not think nor have I stipulated in any way shape or form that I do think consciousness is only a human experience, we just happen to be discourcing on an interview panel that was discussing Human consciousness - how messy do you wanna make this exactly?

Science only "denies" things which it can falsify and has done so. Deepak makes a lot of claims about science, that really shows he doesn't understand it.

Granted. Also within that statement is allowed the initial possit and therefore opportunity to discuss the possibility of consciousness and the 4th dimension - just because you believe someone does not understand science is not the same as saying science would take issue with hypothesising a possibility - unless it had credible evidence that prevented it from doing so - you are the scientific minded of the 2 of us - what is science's credible evidence against such a hypothesis?

Ahh, but as we just discussed above, the human experience isn't a good one for understanding the world. Certainly people have experiences, but what do those experiences mean? Do they, in and of themselves, tell us how the world is? Is the human condition and human experience enough to figure those things out?

That is a position of opinion right there. I believe it is close to the opinion I started with, in fact - being that I would very much like to know what these experiences mean and I would very much like to know how they fit into the world.

No, after 20 years of trying I am pretty sure the human condition alone cannot figure these things out, hence the interest in any theories within science that can figure them out - does the 4th dimension present the opportunity for such a theory? I believe that is what I would really like to know right there.

Again though, the human condition and experience doesn't lend itself to "common sense" explanations of how the universe is, only how we wish it ought to be.

Let's use an example. Do you live in the Northern Hemisphere? If so, do you suppose the earth is closer to the sun in the summer, when its warmer? Wouldn't that be the common sense explanation?

Or how about a little more "sciency" one. When we look out at the stars and the universe, we see everything moving away from us. What is the common sense explanation of that?

Perception is not always reality.

You really are quite arrogant about how demeaningly insignifant the human condition is in the face of almighty "science". Scientists exist within the human condition as well and kudos to those of them who are brave enough not to be hemmed in by the staid and accepted schools of scientific dogma that plague their world. It is the human condition together with scientific hypothesis that has given us the grand quantum and string theories which we all speculate with today layman and scientist alike.

Which is the granddaddy of all points - why do scientists have the market cornered on speculations? Because only they have a PHD on the much vaunted "scientific method"? So everyone else is a miniscule amoebic version of the masters of knowledge itself?

Give me a break on your "educational commentary", the earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, I am not 5 years old or living on an island in the pacific worshipping a volcano.

As for "perception" of everything moving away from us - I have not ever had that perception personally - that is a scientific theory based on red shifts et al or the experience of those blessed with superman type eye sight, take your pick.

[Copasetic]

Hello, you don't hold the market cornered on intelligence, that is a little condescending

Okay....Well if you don't like me complimenting you then I'll take that for what it's worth....

Given that I am not a scientist or involved in scientific research I would suggest that neither you know for sure whether it is or how it is, I only suggested it is a possibility - where is your scientific evidence denying it's possibility?

Denying what possibility? That "consciousness exists in a 'higher dimension'"? Can you disprove a teapot is orbiting Mars?

I can't disprove a negative or any wild claim that anyone can make, anymore than you can. As with the teapot though, we look to science, reason, logic etc to assess those claims. Like there being no reason to suspect that teapots are orbiting Mars there is no reason, scientifically, to suspect that human consciousness is independent of the human brain. In deed all the evidence from neurology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology etc point to consciousness being a product of the brain--human consciousness that is.

You keep denigrating Deepak and suggesting by default that because I possited something based on his interview that he and I are the same beast without your own scientific theory for why it actually cannot be so. I am perfectly aware of the neutral stance of Universe and its properties in relation to the human condition, thank you.

I will continue to "denigrate"(in your opinion) Deepak, so long as he continues to prey upon peoples ignorance.

I understand your issue with him, I personally have only ever attempted to read one of his books and was bored witless by page 10 and never picked it or any of his other titles up again.

You should ask him for your money back

Gravity is a poor example, if we are going to nitpick, science does not actually know what gravity is. Newton has a Law of Gravity, but it is a force that has been labelled gravity, there is no concensual scientific explanation about what this force actually is, we just know what it does and where it is apparent and in action.

It was an example (though if you are Einsteinish, you would say that gravity is the result of mass warping space-time and that would be your explanation for gravity, you know that whole fabricesq analogy--Of course maybe your not Einsteinish and more a QFTish and like this whole gravitron thingy and want to wait it out).

The current theory on the fourth dimension is time ie: we have height and breadth and are placed in a point in time.

Yes, time is the 4th dimension. That didn't answer my question though, do the "past, present and future" exist in some higher dimension?

No I do not think nor have I stipulated in any way shape or form that I do think consciousness is only a human experience, we just happen to be discourcing on an interview panel that was discussing Human consciousness - how messy do you wanna make this exactly?

Right so here's a coke, now have a smile. Relax, those were just brainstorming questions posed to the general you, not you specific. You know the open, rhetorical type? Don't take things so personally.

Granted. Also within that statement is allowed the initial possit and therefore opportunity to discuss the possibility of consciousness and the 4th dimension - just because you believe someone does not understand science is not the same as saying science would take issue with hypothesising a possibility - unless it had credible evidence that prevented it from doing so - you are the scientific minded of the 2 of us - what is science's credible evidence against such a hypothesis?

That consciousness exists in the 4th dimension?

That is a position of opinion right there. I believe it is close to the opinion I started with, in fact - being that I would very much like to know what these experiences mean and I would very much like to know how they fit into the world.

No, after 20 years of trying I am pretty sure the human condition alone cannot figure these things out, hence the interest in any theories within science that can figure them out - does the 4th dimension present the opportunity for such a theory? I believe that is what I would really like to know right there.

No, why would consciousness be rooted in the 4th dimension? In a point in the "time part" of space-time? The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain--All those juicy cross-connections of interlinking nuclei and fiber tracts. That evidence comes from studying things drugs which alter consciousness in specific ways by modulating or affecting specific cortical connections or nuclei (not just "drug" drugs, but like anesthetics etc), brains with pathology (pathology actually provides wonderful insights into how things work in biology), neuroimaging (like fMRI, PET, etc), etc

Its easy to attribute things like consciousness to the strange sounding words of physics. QM is especially abused in this respect with things like "the quantum mind". Contrary to the pop-fad lingo touted out by a few physicists, a few serious consciousness researchers and mostly a bunch of mystics though the brain doesn't readily lend itself to such things. Its hot, very hot and large, very large as far as QM is concerned. What the brain does lend itself too however, is cortical and subcortical neurons vastly networked with sometimes millions of connections on a single neuron, who's synapse all function in a way somewhat reminiscent of little binary gates.

You really are quite arrogant about how demeaningly insignifant the human condition is in the face of almighty "science".

You are quite mistaken, its not arrogance--In fact its quite the opposite. We have big egos, us people, and its hard for us conceive of a world that we simply aren't equipped to intuitively figure out. Our whole evolutionary history was a sequential advancement to a brain that intuits for survivals sake, so we have a tendency to take intuition at face value. In deed, that has served us and our ancestors well enough. The point is though, when faced with actual reality the human brain isn't really that great at understanding based upon our experience and intuition. That's what the below examples were trying to highlight to you, that is all.

And that, like I said, is why we have to do science to figure out that underlying world. Because our experience of it, isn't necessarily a trustworthy way to understand it. That has been shown time and again.

Scientists exist within the human condition as well and kudos to those of them who are brave enough not to be hemmed in by the staid and accepted schools of scientific dogma that plague their world. It is the human condition together with scientific hypothesis that has given us the grand quantum and string theories which we all speculate with today layman and scientist alike.

Right we do. Certainly we do. That is why in science we must go to such great lengths to rid ourselves of that human condition, which manifests in science as bias. Bias leads us draw incorrect conclusions about data because of the human condition. Its why we do things like doubled blinded studies.

As an example: A group of scientists researching bias gave different groups of people a survey to go give to other people. These people went door to door asking people if they would take the survey. They did this by reading from a card, "Hi my name is so and so, I am reading from this card so as not to influence the results of this study....etc". So everyone giving the survey delivers the exact same lines, read from the card. Now the twist: the scientists tell one group of survey-givers something like "the results of the survey will probably come back 70% affirmative and 30% negative". While the other group is told the exact opposite. What happens? The results come back, despite both groups reading from the card, in the way the scientists tell the groups that is what they expect. The same survey.

Which is the granddaddy of all points - why do scientists have the market cornered on speculations? Because only they have a PHD on the much vaunted "scientific method"? So everyone else is a miniscule amoebic version of the masters of knowledge itself?

Please, now your just being obtuse. Please quote where I claimed that "scientists have the market cornered". There's probably a telling reason why being question at all triggers a snarky defense mechanism....

Give me a break on your "educational commentary", the earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, I am not 5 years old or living on an island in the pacific worshipping a volcano.

If you don't like, don't read it.

But you exactly proved my point!!! Thank you. The seasons are not actually because of the elliptical orbit about the sun. I repeat, summer isn't when we are "closer to the sun". You see, common sense eh?

The average temperature of earth is actually hotter when we are farther from the sun. The reason has to do with how land heats and our axial tilt. Because the northern hemisphere is tilted more toward the sun in its summer and the northern hemisphere has more land than the southern hemisphere and that land warms more easily than water, the average temperature on earth is actually greater when we are farther out. Thanks universe, how very unintuitive of you.

As for "perception" of everything moving away from us - I have not ever had that perception personally - that is a scientific theory based on red shifts et al or the experience of those blessed with superman type eye sight, take your pick.

Okay so you personally haven't gone in and looked in telescopes and computed red shifts. We get it. But that wasn't the point, it was an example to illustrate a different point. That point being when look at other galaxies we see them moving away from us. Common sense would dictate that that is because we are the center of expansion. That makes "common sense". But that doesn't get us to the right answer. If we went to Mars, things would still be moving away from us. If we went to Alpha Centauri things still moving away. If we went half a billion light years and took a peek around, things still move away. Its not because the center is following you around, its because the "fabric" of space and time is expanding in all directions. It creates the illusion that we are at the center.

Those were both examples to illustrate that to our perception there are many illusion the universe creates and that if we just follow "what we think", we'll probably end up at the wrong conclusion. Perception isn't always reality.

[libstaK]

Denying what possibility? That "consciousness exists in a 'higher dimension'"? Can you disprove a teapot is orbiting Mars?

No that consciousness can exist separate from the human brain and can have access in its nature to the 4th dimension , this isn't really about proof it is about possibility ...

I will continue to "denigrate"(in your opinion) Deepak, so long as he continues to prey upon peoples ignorance.

Fair enough but I only thinking it is preying if he expects a form of devoteeship, I think he gets devotees of a sort, but it doesn't seem he is intentionally brainwashing people.

You should ask him for your money back

Wish I could.

Yes, time is the 4th dimension. That didn't answer my question though, do the "past, present and future" exist in some higher dimension?

Doesn't time encompass past, present and future?

Right so here's a coke, now have a smile. Relax, those were just brainstorming questions posed to the general you, not you specific. You know the open, rhetorical type? Don't take things so personally.

LOL thanks Pepsi Max preferred please.

That consciousness exists in the 4th dimension?

Not per se, but that it can be separate from the human brain and conceivable access the 4th dimension.

But you have expanded below:

No, why would consciousness be rooted in the 4th dimension? In a point in the "time part" of space-time? The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain--All those juicy cross-connections of interlinking nuclei and fiber tracts. That evidence comes from studying things drugs which alter consciousness in specific ways by modulating or affecting specific cortical connections or nuclei (not just "drug" drugs, but like anesthetics etc), brains with pathology (pathology actually provides wonderful insights into how things work in biology), neuroimaging (like fMRI, PET, etc), etc

These are all mechnical observations, the re-actions are all biological aka: mechanical also, behavioural sciences do understand that the theories espoused by this observation is not an explanation of the all the phenomena of the mind, scratch that, the phenomena of consciousness.

Its easy to attribute things like consciousness to the strange sounding words of physics. QM is especially abused in this respect with things like "the quantum mind". Contrary to the pop-fad lingo touted out by a few physicists, a few serious consciousness researchers and mostly a bunch of mystics though the brain doesn't readily lend itself to such things. Its hot, very hot and large, very large as far as QM is concerned. What the brain does lend itself too however, is cortical and subcortical neurons vastly networked with sometimes millions of connections on a single neuron, who's synapse all function in a way somewhat reminiscent of little binary gates.

Shame on you lumping physicists, serious researchers and mystics together. LOL. But it highlights the point that there is enough phenomena that even members of the science community will entertain the possibilities if for no other reason than that it is not readily discounted by current data either. What about the observer phenomena?

Right we do. Certainly we do. That is why in science we must go to such great lengths to rid ourselves of that human condition, which manifests in science as bias. Bias leads us draw incorrect conclusions about data because of the human condition. Its why we do things like doubled blinded studies.

Some of these double blind studies have had some very intriguing results: refer the particle v wave double split experiment for instance?

As an example: A group of scientists researching bias gave different groups of people a survey to go give to other people. These people went door to door asking people if they would take the survey. They did this by reading from a card, "Hi my name is so and so, I am reading from this card so as not to influence the results of this study....etc". So everyone giving the survey delivers the exact same lines, read from the card. Now the twist: the scientists tell one group of survey-givers something like "the results of the survey will probably come back 70% affirmative and 30% negative". While the other group is told the exact opposite. What happens? The results come back, despite both groups reading from the card, in the way the scientists tell the groups that is what they expect. The same survey.

Accepted humans have an ingrained wish for community and are therefore easily influenced toward what they think the communities or individuals inside it may want from them - they/we like to please, it is a failing in the circumstances you described, hence the undisputed scientific method. Said method does not however necessary, however, allow for all phenomena to be adequately comprehended only material based phenomena.

Surely science recognises this limitation? Otherwise why would the standard objection to results be of the order of "immaterial" aka: not to be regarded.

But you exactly proved my point!!! Thank you. The seasons are not actually because of the elliptical orbit about the sun. I repeat, summer isn't when we are "closer to the sun". You see, common sense eh?

The average temperature of earth is actually hotter when we are farther from the sun. The reason has to do with how land heats and our axial tilt. Because the northern hemisphere is tilted more toward the sun in its summer and the northern hemisphere has more land than the southern hemisphere and that land warms more easily than water, the average temperature on earth is actually greater when we are farther out. Thanks universe, how very unintuitive of you.

Ok so I knew about axial tilts but didn't think to go there . The rest is news to me and thank you.

Those were both examples to illustrate that to our perception there are many illusion the universe creates and that if we just follow "what we think", we'll probably end up at the wrong conclusion. Perception isn't always reality.

I never actually thought we were the centre of the universe I thought that was some place 4 billion light years away (or some figure like that)

But I was pretty sure the red shift was a prominent feature in astronomy nonetheless never get sick of hearing it, it is fascinating.

I agree perception isn't reality but then how much about reality are we actually Conscious of? and therefore capable of even possiting scientific theorem against. Give me a figure?

[Copasetic]

No that consciousness can exist separate from the human brain and can have access in its nature to the 4th dimension , this isn't really about proof it is about possibility ...

Ahh, I see I think. Well the "4th dimension" is just an aspect of space and time. Space and time aren't separate from one another, anymore than you'd say "the 2nd dimension is separate from the 1st". In that regard then, our consciousness exists at a specific point in space and time (all 4 dimensions).

Fair enough but I only thinking it is preying if he expects a form of devoteeship, I think he gets devotees of a sort, but it doesn't seem he is intentionally brainwashing people.

Its not devotees that bother me so much as the fact that he knows what he is selling is bankrupt, but knows he can make money off of it anyway. For instance, I used an example from him earlier where he was trying to sound all "guruish" discussing genes (well his version of genes anyway). He claimed that "we (science) doesn't know how genes make hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc". He claims to be a doctor of some sort and I find it highly troubling that anyone could be a doctor (especially a medical one) and know so little of genes and atoms that they could make a statement like that.

It leaves me wondering 2 reasons;

1. He isn't a doctor and doesn't know how science, or genes in this example work, and people need to know that before they accept the science "spiels" he delivers.

2. He is a doctor and knows better than that, but is just "playing to his audience" because he knows it will sell with the population he writes too.

The first case, while still intellectually harmful, is at least an honest mistake. The second case, well I'd like to believe that isn't possible, but the world is full of cons and cheaters.

Wish I could.

Doesn't time encompass past, present and future?

No. Time just is. It isn't flowing from a past, through the present to the future. We perceive time "passing" because we pass, we age, we are subjected to thermodynamics. Time is simply invariant and unconcerned during this. The "past" and "future" aren't places or destinations on a linear time axis. That is one of those perception isn't always reality things again.

LOL thanks Pepsi Max preferred please.

Noted.

Not per se, but that it can be separate from the human brain and conceivable access the 4th dimension.

But you have expanded below:

These are all mechnical observations, the re-actions are all biological aka: mechanical also, behavioural sciences do understand that the theories espoused by this observation is not an explanation of the all the phenomena of the mind, scratch that, the phenomena of consciousness.

Right, and that is what people typically think. "Just mechanical", but those "mechanical" things can actually explain a great deal of our experience. The problem is, not many people realize just how much we actually know. Certainly though there is a lot to be learned. I think it is wrong to "mystify" something, simply because we don't understand it.

But let me explain with an example, I promise it will be simplified and I'll gloss over the gory details. So right now I'm taking a break from studying neurophysiology and behavior. Specifically the neurophysiology of memory. People don't realize, but memory is an integral part of our consciousness. Declarative memory is memory that you can "choose" to recall. So for instance, if I wanted to describe my bedroom to you--That is using declarative memory. But how do things get in declarative memory to be a part of our conscious experience? Is it stored in some crazy mystic sounding place?

No. The meat of it is, sensory input is taken in by receptors--Things like rods and cones in the eyes, inner hair cells in the auditory system, etc. These inputs are delivered to the cortex of the brain (all through action potentials, AP, I can elaborate if need be) which passes them off (APs again) to the hippocampus.

Neurons (pyramidal neurons) in the hippocampus have inputs from thousands of pre-synaptic neurons in the cortex (nerd speak for "neurons before the connection, or synapse"). A little AP triggers a excitatory post-synaptic potential or in brain nerd speak; EPSP. These are little action potentials that are "after the connection". These little action potentials really can't do all that much by themselves. However, when we get rapid firing from stimuli we have whats called tetanus. This train of APs is enough to do something.

What this comes down too is specific ion channels in the post-synaptic cell's membrane. You have two flavors important here (I'm just gonna use the acronym to keep it easy ); NMDA channels and Non-NMDA channels, aka AMPA channels. When you have those little action potentials you get the AMPA channels opening on the post-synaptic cell. These channels let in sodium (Na) which depolarizes the cells membrane. The little APs also open NMDA channels, which let in calcium (Ca), but there is a problem. In the NMDA channel there is magnesium (Mg) ions bound in the channels pore. So even though the NMDA channels open, Ca can't come through.

It takes tetanic stimulation (a "train" of APs) to get the job done. When you have a "train", you get many AMPA channels opening which leads to greater depolarization. This larger depolarization of the membrane is enough to induce a confirmation change in the structure of the NMDA channel, such that its binding "pocket" for Mg changes shape and "squirts" the Mg out. Now Ca, a great second messenger, flows into the cell (by the way all these movements of ions are because of electrochemical gradients the neurons use energy in the form of ATP to setup). Ca starts binding to all kinds of proteins that in turn, activate more proteins. Some of these proteins, like Cam Kinase and PkC (nerd speak for protein kinase C) in response to a large enough tide of Ca autophosphorylate and become switched to "on" and work now independently of Ca. When these guys turn on, they start gene transcription events which leads to more proteins and cell growth and ultimately new synapses being formed. These new synapse allow long-term potentation (LPT) of memory.

Something I left out earlier to simplify, but is important, is when you have those tetanic action potentials going off from a neuron, other neurons firing pre-synaptic inputs to that same cell still generate a tetanic like response even if they themselves aren't tetanic. This is important because it allows association during memory to occur.

For example you see a rose for the first time, the visual neuron (right, its not really like you have single visual neuron, I'm simplifying again) fires like crazy because of this new novel thing. You get tetanus. At the same time you smell a rose, lets say not enough though for the "smell neuron" to actually cause tetanus. But since it fires at the same time your visual neuron did, you get it(smell) "associated" with the sight of the rose. There is all kinds of fun experiments you can do with this. You can teach people, by showing them a rose but letting them smell onion for instance, to associate the incorrect things together. So later, they smell onion and visually "think" of a rose.

Anyway, back to the point. So now you have generated these new protein based synaptic connections in the cortical association areas of the brain. You and I are having a conversation and you want to tell me about a rose, the color, sight, texture, smell etc.

Your verbal and language association areas (which integrate what your saying with things like long term memory, experience etc) send a single (AP again) to those areas of your associative cortex, like the parietal lobe (location), temporoccipital lobe (color), inferotemoporal lobe (shape) etc for information. These pathways through APs active those synaptic connections of the "stored" memory. This brings back all your experience of a rose into your working memory buffer. The sight of a rose, the smell of a rose, the emotions you associate with a rose (like maybe a great lover showered you in roses, so you've made an emotional connection to roses and "feel" love when you recall them). From your working memory buffer, these descriptors get passed back to your language areas and allow you to express in language to me, a rose.

That's only one small, simplified example. We have a pretty good knowledge of many of the these pathways in the brain and what functions they're serving. Again, a great example is from patients that lack certain things (like HM the famous patient who had his hippocampus removed because uncontrollable epileptic seizures before we knew what hippocampi did!).

All the evidence, like that above, points to our experience and our "consciousness" being the product of our biochemistry. Certainly its extremely, extremely complicated--Which I think is probably off putting for most people--even some physicists included, so an easier answer would be that consciousness "exists" in some other dimension, etc. Really though, I think you'll find from people that actually study the brain and not just speculate on it, that there is a general consensus that consciousness is a product of, emergent product, the brain itself. Certainly that is where all the current evidence leads.

Shame on you lumping physicists, serious researchers and mystics together. LOL. But it highlights the point that there is enough phenomena that even members of the science community will entertain the possibilities if for no other reason than that it is not readily discounted by current data either. What about the observer phenomena?

Well, I think part of the problem is certain scientists speaking outside their field of knowledge. Scientists themselves are some of the worst at pseudoscience when they get outside their field of expertise, because they really know how to say a bunch of very sciency sounding things that have a tendency to wow people. The problem is, when you are discoursing outside your field as scientists you ought to be more careful that you have the whole picture, and an up to date one of the field at that.

For example; Penrose and his "quantum mind". It sounds great on paper--I expect it would because he is a physicist. As a physicist he knows how to throw around physics words, enough said.

What he isn't though, is a neurologist, or neuroanatomist or neurophysiologist, or neurobiologist etc. And when you look at his "publications" (books to layfolk) on the subject of how the mind works its filled with mistakes, with out of date ideas, with plain old factual errors, with misunderstandings of the brain or neuroanatomy etc. To the public at large those ideas may sound wonderful, they maybe great for how we want the world to work, or sound they will explain things we want explained. But wanting isn't enough, and more often than not those people who actually do study such things maybe thinking that scientist working outside their field is a few feathers short of a whole duck.

Physicists and biochemists are especially it seems to me, prone to going outside their field. Not discussing an over view of a subject they may know fairly well, but they jump right in elbows deep and start dictating mechanics to people who know better and they ought to know better themselves. Michio Kaku is another who does it a lot too! When you hear that dude going in depth in biology you should hum yourself a tune

Some of these double blind studies have had some very intriguing results: refer the particle v wave double split experiment for instance?

Yes some of them certainly. That is a good one because it again, illustrates how "spooky" and non-intuitive the world behaves. Waves and particles you say? Sounds like madness!

The problem right now with QM though is we have a great way of describing something--But we don't know what it is really telling us about our world. QM, along with probably evolution and couple others, is one of best scientifically supported theorems there is. Unlike the others though, QM is just a description mathematically of how the universe behaves. Its tested over and over, it works. Your computer, scanners at the grocery, etc all testing QM all the time. Great it works. But, what is it saying? Good question. That's what all the 'interpretations' are for. To put it in a context that tells us something about the way our universe is. That isn't going till change till we reconcile some things in modern physics or open new avenues of knowledge.

Accepted humans have an ingrained wish for community and are therefore easily influenced toward what they think the communities or individuals inside it may want from them - they/we like to please, it is a failing in the circumstances you described, hence the undisputed scientific method. Said method does not however necessary, however, allow for all phenomena to be adequately comprehended only material based phenomena.

Surely science recognises this limitation? Otherwise why would the standard objection to results be of the order of "immaterial" aka: not to be regarded.

Sure, science is limited to studying things that are a part of the Universe, big "u" there. It cannot leave that Universe to study things without, only the Universe from within. It is confined so to speak. The catch to that though is, if those things "outside" interact with things within then they open themselves up to science to study. At least, the results of those interactions.

A better question would be though, why are there things we believe to be "outside" the Universe?

Ok so I knew about axial tilts but didn't think to go there . The rest is news to me and thank you.

Just use it on someone else sometime to illustrate the point when they claim they remembered something exactly or knew something for sure, about how unreliable our "common sense" is

I never actually thought we were the centre of the universe I thought that was some place 4 billion light years away (or some figure like that)

But I was pretty sure the red shift was a prominent feature in astronomy nonetheless never get sick of hearing it, it is fascinating.

Right, so there is no center of the universe. There appears to be centers from your local, because everything else is expanding away from you. Think about it like this. Where is the center of the surface of a sphere?

I agree perception isn't reality but then how much about reality are we actually Conscious of? and therefore capable of even possiting scientific theorem against. Give me a figure?

If I knew the answer to that, I'd have a feeling you'd want to give some grandiose title like "god" or something . In deed that is the million dollar question. We might just never know. Since we don't know the "finite" aspect of reality, then we can't say how much of it we know or don't know. It would be like if you didn't know how much money was in your wallet and someone robbed you. Or did they? How do you know if you didn't know how much money you have to being with?

Edit sorry in advance for any grammatical errors. Brain is fried and I need to finish reading this lecture on motivation and memory systems before I am allowed to sleep, so no fixing them tonight

Edited May 29, 2011 by Copasetic

[Leonardo]

As it happens, I have a dog in this fight, because I believe in the Church-Turing thesis, that minds could exist in other physical realizations besides living brains. The engineering point of that, of course, is to try to build machines with consciousness of their own.

To run off on a bit of a tangent, I'd like to point out that our concept of 'mind' (and the concept of 'mind' posited in the C-T thesis) is entirely humano-centric. We have no idea what a mechanical (non-biological/non-human) mind might be and therefore no means of testing for such a mind.

The C-T thesis suggests a test for a human (or human-equivalent) mind in a non-human construct. This is fine if the mind turns out to be human-equivalent, but useless otherwise.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Leonardo

[eight bits]

Leo

Since we are off on the tangent (and I am not so sure it is a tangent; the topic is Dr Chopra's appearance on a CNN panel, and everything he said about personal survival after death hangs on what he said about consciousness), let me address two points.

Church-Turing is not human-centric.

It is actually the rigorous form of what motivated Turing to do the research that led to his "Turing Machine" theorems in the first place. Briefly, that is: Godel's theorem created a need for a mathematical model of "doing mathematics." Turing obliged.

The point of that work was to get beyond human stories about human performance. This was especially clear in Church's contribution, which doesn't even have a machine metaphor.

Legend has it that Church was screwing around with the abstract idea of "what is a function?" He put together a set of results, which he didn't think much of. Everybody already knew what functions are, and Church's abstract functions didn't do "anything new." Supposedly, a grad student pointed out their significance to the professor.

Church's model and Turing's model are strictly "doing the same thing," and yet are very different in form (neither of their forms being "human"). It was natural to consider whether there was any form whatsoever of computation that could be done that they could not do. The thesis is that there is not.

Of course, a human reader is especially interested in the implication that no human can do any cognitive feat that a Turing machine cannot do in principle. But the thesis is more general. Nothing else can either. If God set out to do mathematics, and if the Church-Turing thesis is true, then God could at most perfectly realize a Universal Turing Machine, not transcend it.

The Turing Test is not a test of the Church-Turing thesis

The 1950 article in Mind is Turing's sole work. Church is not on the hook for its contents. Also, it would at most test one implication of Church-Turing, that humans and computers were cognitively equivalent.

The actual problem addressed in the paper is the circumstances under which human beings would acknowledge machines as having "intelligence." "When people can't easily tell computers apart from other people in conversation" is a common-sense answer, I think.

Success for computers in that test would still leave the Church-Turing thesis unproved. Conversely, we presumably would be able easily to tell a cooperative God apart from a human being in a Turing Test. Nevertheless, the Church-Turing thesis would not be disproved.

Conclude: Turing tests for something other than the truth of the thesis.

[Leonardo]

Church-Turing is not human-centric.

It is actually the rigorous form of what motivated Turing to do the research that led to his "Turing Machine" theorems in the first place. Briefly, that is: Godel's theorem created a need for a mathematical model of "doing mathematics." Turing obliged.

The point of that work was to get beyond human stories about human performance. This was especially clear in Church's contribution, which doesn't even have a machine metaphor.

Legend has it that Church was screwing around with the abstract idea of "what is a function?" He put together a set of results, which he didn't think much of. Everybody already knew what functions are, and Church's abstract functions didn't do "anything new." Supposedly, a grad student pointed out their significance to the professor.

Church's model and Turing's model are strictly "doing the same thing," and yet are very different in form (neither of their forms being "human"). It was natural to consider whether there was any form whatsoever of computation that could be done that they could not do. The thesis is that there is not.

Of course, a human reader is especially interested in the implication that no human can do any cognitive feat that a Turing machine cannot do in principle. But the thesis is more general. Nothing else can either. If God set out to do mathematics, and if the Church-Turing thesis is true, then God could at most perfectly realize a Universal Turing Machine, not transcend it.

Absolutely no argument with anything you said here, eb, except the first sentence...

The mathematical function, which the operator mind is based on, is a purely human concept. The C-T thesis cannot model anything other than a human concept of mind/function, because the human concepts of those are all we know.

The Turing Machine is a human-mind equivalent.

The Turing Test is not a test of the Church-Turing thesis

The 1950 article in Mind is Turing's sole work. Church is not on the hook for its contents. Also, it would at most test one implication of Church-Turing, that humans and computers were cognitively equivalent.

The actual problem addressed in the paper is the circumstances under which human beings would acknowledge machines as having "intelligence." "When people can't easily tell computers apart from other people in conversation" is a common-sense answer, I think.

Success for computers in that test would still leave the Church-Turing thesis unproved. Conversely, we presumably would be able easily to tell a cooperative God apart from a human being in a Turing Test. Nevertheless, the Church-Turing thesis would not be disproved.

Conclude: Turing tests for something other than the truth of the thesis.

I had read about the misunderstanding of what the C-T thesis meant on Stanford's Encylopedia of Philosophy website. However, that does not mitigate that the functions and machines of the C-T thesis can only be modelled on human concepts.

Testing for human-computer cognitive equivalence is pointless - because we can only model for cognisance based on the human concept of that (functions or no.) Any cognisance 'tested' for in the Turing Test has to be human or human equivalent anyway and so the test is not a test for cognisance, it is a test for human cognisance.

We would not be able to tell a co-operative God apart from a human, because any cognisance the test discovers/reveals has to be human, or human-equivalent.

[eight bits]

The mathematical function, which the operator mind is based on, is a purely human concept. The C-T thesis cannot model anything other than a human concept of mind/function, because the human concepts of those are all we know.

That certainly is a position, and if that is your view, then so be it.

The point of the work, however, is to claim that while human beings are an example of mindedness, they are not the standard of it.

However, that does not mitigate that the functions and machines of the C-T thesis can only be modelled on human concepts.

Which is just what the Church Turing thesis denies. That somewhat limits the possibility of debating the point. Who believes the thesis disbelieves that there can be such thing as a peculiarly human concept, since what one mind can conceive, so must other minds be able to conceive it. Who believes that there can be a uniquely human concept, must disbelieve the thesis.

There is really nothing else that can be said about the matter.

Testing for human-computer cognitive equivalence is pointless

And that is why Turing in 1950 proposes his test only as a predictor of human acceptance of a mechanical claimant's boast of the quality of intelligence.

I can say that as an engineering matter, people could easily distinguish between any perfect realization of a UTM and any finite, thermodynamics-bound realization. I made no claim that you or anybody else would identify the true UTM it as God. I only claimed that it wouldn't be confused with a human being (unless it wanted to, thus I said "cooperative").

That's all the test ever says, can (or cannot) one contestant be distinguished from another. The identities of the contestants are the givens of problem instances, not the objects of inference.

[Paracelse]

How does science agree? Do you believe that science says the "past, present and future" exist in a higher dimension? What is a higher dimension?

Perhaps if you use change the terminology could you get a better understanding. New Agers are talking of higher dimensions very ofter when in fact Quantum physicists are talking about different dimensions.

Perception is not always reality.

A quantum physicist will tell you "reality is not always real"

Do you read French? I have a very good "medical suggestion" for a read: "L'Or du Millieme Matin" Armand Barbault

Edited May 29, 2011 by Paracelse

[Paracelse]

Hello, you don't hold the market cornered on intelligence, that is a little condescending

Skeptics often use condescending tone when they can't explain the unexplainable.

[Copasetic]

Perhaps if you use change the terminology could you get a better understanding. New Agers are talking of higher dimensions very ofter when in fact Quantum physicists are talking about different dimensions.

Okay, a different dimension then. Do the past, present and future exist in a different dimension?

A quantum physicist will tell you "reality is not always real"

Do you read French? I have a very good "medical suggestion" for a read: "L'Or du Millieme Matin" Armand Barbault

No, I don't read French, sorry. Any translated version?

Skeptics often use condescending tone when they can't explain the unexplainable.

Yet we weren't talking about the unexplained, we were talking about her thinking. Which I complimented by saying "good". If one believes that is condescending that says more about them, than it does my comment....

[StarMountainKid]

I'm wondering if consciousness can be reproduced algorithmically? Is there an algorithm that can produce human consciousness in a computer?

This may not be off-topic since UTM's and the Church-Turing thesis has been mentioned here.

If human consciousness can be expressed as an algorithm, would that encompass all of the human mind, or would there be some aspects of consciousness that could not be included in the algorithm? Is the human mind/consciousness non-algorithmic?

Would a actual human's consciousness be any different than the algorithmic consciousness? How would the possible differences be known?

[Paracelse]

Okay, a different dimension then. Do the past, present and future exist in a different dimension?

No, I don't read French, sorry. Any translated version?

Yet we weren't talking about the unexplained, we were talking about her thinking. Which I complimented by saying "good". If one believes that is condescending that says more about them, than it does my comment....

There is apparently an English version but it's rather expensive

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Thousand-Mornings-Armand-Barbault/dp/0854350527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306734448&sr=8-1

The written language is often open to multiple interpretations depending on the mood of the person reading it. My perception told me I was reading a condescending message just as well as LipstaK (not sure if the spelling is correct).