Dimensions of consciousness

[Rey T Fox]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1201004

"It is our conjecture that consciousness is better described in its relationship to hyperspace than to an anatomical place."

[ElOne]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1201004

"It is our conjecture that consciousness is better described in its relationship to hyperspace than to an anatomical place."

The problem is, I believe, that man is a linear thinker. We are just learning to be circular thinkers. In order to understand the concept of the mind/brain connection and how it relates to our reality we need to become spherical thinkers.

[Nucular]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1201004

"It is our conjecture that consciousness is better described in its relationship to hyperspace than to an anatomical place."

Interesting, if speculative, article, thanks for the link.

What do you think of the article, Rey T Fox? You didn't say. Do you think there are methodological problems in, for instance, how animals were selected according to their place on 'the evolutionary scale'? What do you think the importance of the article is?

[Nucular]

The problem is, I believe, that man is a linear thinker. We are just learning to be circular thinkers. In order to understand the concept of the mind/brain connection and how it relates to our reality we need to become spherical thinkers.

What does this mean, ElOne? Can you quantify those concepts at all, or expland on them? How is 'spherical thinking' different to 'thinking balls'?

[ElOne]

What does this mean, ElOne? Can you quantify those concepts at all, or expland on them? How is 'spherical thinking' different to 'thinking balls'?

Linear thinking is a step-by-step process of picking the best probability out of the gamut of possibilities and applying all resources to that single option. It is based on the idea that there is only one best answer to any given question or problem.

Circular thinking is the inclusion of all known potential possibilities in the same linear thinking process and applying resources to them according to their potential promise of a solution or answer, either now or in the future.

Spherical thinking takes the thought process even further and includes such things as limitations both present and future, adverse complications both present and future, etc, etc.

The best example of all three I can think of right now is man’s relationship with crude oil. When it was first discovered it was refined for lighting and lubricating oil and gasoline was poured on the ground. Then the internal combustion engine was developed for additional revenue of this petroleum byproduct. No one gave thought to conserving it as an non-renewable resource because the supply seemed endless. The linear thought process was for money, as much and as quick as possible.

Circular thinking would have included the idea that the earth is limited in size therefore the supply must also be limited. Circular thinking would have put some of the revenue made from this resource into the development of other energy resources like solar and wind. These ideas came up but because of man’s linear thinking, they were considered a waste of money. Another circular thought process would have been the immediate development of more fuel-efficient automobiles, through more efficient carburetors, lighter materials and aerodynamics. (I have heard stories of fuel efficient carburetors being developed in the late 1960-70’s giving 25 mpg to an 8 cylinder engine; supposedly the patent rights were bought up an shelved by the auto makers).

Spherical thinking would encompass the concepts of circular thinking and include among other things: the negative impact on the local environment in the near and distant future, including water and air quality, probable health issues from this pollution like asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and the impact it will have on future economics and productivity. Global weather issues like acid rain, global warming and potential changes to the weather patterns would be considered a higher priority than immediate monetary gains.

Spherical thinking would give very high priority to energy sources like hydro electric, hydro mechanical, geothermal, large solar arrays and obtaining energy from tidal wave movement and wind farms because they are renewable and need minimal maintenance. The location of cities and infrastructure would be built around the needs of these technologies.

If man was innately capable of spherical thinking back when oil was discovered, where would we be now with our energy needs, social security and our understanding and use of brain function?

[Nucular]

Linear thinking is a step-by-step process of picking the best probability out of the gamut of possibilities and applying all resources to that single option. It is based on the idea that there is only one best answer to any given question or problem.

Circular thinking is the inclusion of all known potential possibilities in the same linear thinking process and applying resources to them according to their potential promise of a solution or answer, either now or in the future.

Spherical thinking takes the thought process even further and includes such things as limitations both present and future, adverse complications both present and future, etc, etc.

Ah, okay - thanks for the reply. I don't wish to bug you with questions, cos that's not a discussion, but given that your post was interesting I wonder if you have any specific ideas as to how spherical thinking could apply to the problem of brains and consciousness?

If man was innately capable of spherical thinking back when oil was discovered, where would we be now with our energy needs, social security and our understanding and use of brain function?

Well... I'd have thought man was innately capable of spherical thinking then if he is now... for me the question would be why it was not employed, and why in so many areas such wider and clearer thinking skills are not used. Much has to do, I'd speculate, with the assumption that spherical thinking would inevitably arrive at a 'perfect' goal which benefits all stakeholders equally: the ones who have realised crude oil is actually potentially lucrative, whatever the dimensionality of their cognitive phase space (to mangle the terminology), will still work towards the greatest payoffs for themselves, which - global warming or not - would involve pretty much what we've seen. Different groups will have different priorities, and the priorities of an individual or small group will not necessarily be identical to (and will often be at odds with) the needs of the larger group, in this case humanity/the world.

Hopefully that doesn't wholly apply to the actual topic of this thread though, unless the answer to the question of brain and consciousness is exploitable. Which it probably is, but not obviously so yet.

[Rosewin]

Spherical thinking can also be compared to a person in a family thinking about every individual of that family and their needs and in ways we relate to them and depending on which member of the family you are then proceeding to do and create the best optimal conditions as it concerns all.

This is the same as a teacher considering all the needs of her pupils, their situations, and then applying that knowledge in the best way to teach them or change the system.

It is leaving the 'me' out of the equations of what we want and thinking about the 'we'.

[ElOne]

It is leaving the 'me' out of the equations of what we want and thinking about the 'we'.

Linear thinking would be "me and my needs"

Circular thinking would be "family, community, state and country needs"

Shperical thinking would be " Global and planetary needs with active conscious consideration for the long term future"

[AllP0werToSlaves]

The problem is, I believe, that man is a linear thinker. We are just learning to be circular thinkers. In order to understand the concept of the mind/brain connection and how it relates to our reality we need to become spherical thinkers.

This is probably one of the best things I've ever heard.

[Nik Xues]

ha ha ha

linear circle and sphere

me, you , us

try it more simple

what i see , what i know, and what happens to be, oh and 4d as what chouldve and may be

we shimmer into what seems relevant to us.

right now circular thinking is regressing into linear

it takes the whole mind to see the the Truth [3d thinkin]

[ElOne]

Ah, okay - thanks for the reply. I don't wish to bug you with questions, cos that's not a discussion, but given that your post was interesting I wonder if you have any specific ideas as to how spherical thinking could apply to the problem of brains and consciousness?

I believe that linear thinking presupposes a particular manner or dimension in which to seek solutions. It inherently dismisses possibilities on assumptions like complexity or expense. It is a more superficial form of thinking that skips across the top of the realm of possibilities like a stone skipping across the water. This severely limits the area of rational investigation, limiting the field of probabilities.

It would be similar to doing some complex yet doable task with one hand tied behind your back. So much effort is put in with a minimum of return. Spherical thinking is like being ambidextrous; when one avenue seems exhausted another is readily available for exploration. It permits a more thorough examination of the situation pondered and may even reveal the solution for the first dilemma.

[Mr Walker]

I think the debate has taken an interesting tack. I dispute that there are three forms of thinking, or that spherical thinking would have helped us identify , define and solve the use of oil for fuel, say.

Logical linear thinking allows for exactly the same conclusions. The real problem is the availability and recognition of data. When oil was first used, the world was a different place. No matter how much, or what type of thought, was put into looking at it, a lot of the eventual problems would not have been apparent . They depended on a chain of events leading from the growing use of o,il and taking time to develop.

For example, look at how society was structured, socially and economically, when oil became used in the slow combustion engine. The first cars for decades were built individually by coach makers. It was never even considered that more than a few thousand cars for the very rich and famous might be needed in a country like Britain for example. In fact not til henry ford began his production line did cars become mass produced, and even those were for the comparatively rich.

So the introduction of the motor car evolved slowl,y and society evolved around it , partly responding to the freedom the motor car gave to families and partly directing the purpose of the motor car, and the need for it. (as society became more industrialised, industries were centralised for good reasons. Workers slowly found themselves remote from their work places. At first trains and buses provided adequate transportation, but these had social and economic limitations as well. Thus more than two generations after it was introduced, in the fifties and 60's, the car became first the boon, and slowly the menace, it is today. I challenge that anyone, no matter what thought procees they used, could have predicted this from the late 1800s or early 1900s.

And the same thing will come true with solar and wind power etc We will find social, econonic and environmental costs, even disasters which we cannot predict now. Already the development of many of these industries is being stongly opposed by locals and environmentalists who see harm coming from them. And this is only isolated units. To solar power australia you would require the entire surface area of the continent to be covered with panels (anecdotal evidence only)

Apart from the environmental effects of that, it makes no allowance for the fact that the worlds demands for power will increase tens if not hundreds of times in the next century. History shows us we cannot go back, or even just stay in place without inertia and decay setting in. We must continue to go forward, evolving the best sustainable practices as we go.

The same with looking at a family. A purely linear thinker, with the correct knowledge and motivations, can achieve the same outcomes for their family as a circular or spherical thinker. Kids today have computer programs that allow them to plot logical outcomes using a variety of models, and weigh positive and negative outcomes. A mind map is a simple example of one of these, used by kids in primamy school. It still relies on the application of a linear thinking process to map the whole design, but the end result does not appear linear.

I also found the article a bit out of date and written by perhaps the wrong type of scientist. (not sure how an anaestheologist got interested in thinking patterns)

Today scientists are actually mapping every thought process and pattern within a human brain neuron by neuron and synapse by synapse( hope i got the terms right) They can see, or eventually will be able to) how every thought translates into action. They can see how memories are created and stored.

Immediate practical applications, include the control of mechanical parts by thought alone( already achieved) and ultimately the capture, storage retrieval and transplantation of human consciousness through capturing and reproducing the physical process which constitutes consciousness.

In between they will be able to selectively remove particularly traumatic memeories and if there is good reason, implant completely artificial memories as real as any generated through actual experience.

Back to some of the other posts. It is not that linear thought is limiting (given that we live in a linear timeline it is a naturally evolved means of processing information) The main problem is that most people are never taught the self discipline, or the many skills, required to fully utilise the tremendous processing power of the human brain.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Mr Walker

[ElOne]

Hopefully that doesn't wholly apply to the actual topic of this thread though, unless the answer to the question of brain and consciousness is exploitable. Which it probably is, but not obviously so yet.

It is exploitable and has been in use for some time through the use of subliminal messages. Marketing [again the money issue (linear thought)] uses it for the introduction of new products.

It was used for a short time on radito and television in the 1970's and an experiment was done to see if, when certain images were flashed on a screen intermittently, it would motivate people to perform a desired act. It worked on some people and not on others. It was so successful that law makers felt it gave an unfair advantage to some advertisers using the technology and they enacted laws criminalizing it. However, it is still being used today:

"Used in advertising to create familiarity with new products, subliminal messages make familiarity into a preference for the new products. Dr. Johan Karremans suggests that subliminal messages have an effect when the messages are goal-relevant (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2006). Karremans did a study assessing, whether subliminal priming of a brand name of a drink would affect a person’s choice of drink, and whether this effect is caused by the individual’s feelings of being thirsty. By subliminally priming or preparing the participant with text or an image without being aware of it, gave the partaker familiarity with the product. Half of his participants were subliminally primed with Lipton Ice (“Lipton Ice” was repeatedly flashed on a computer screen for 24 milliseconds), while the other half was primed with a control that didn’t consist of a brand. In his study he found that subliminally priming a brand name of a drink (Lipton Ice) made those who were thirsty want the Lipton Ice. Those who were not thirsty however, were not influenced by the subliminal message since their goal was not to quench their thirst. [11]" The above guote was taken from this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message

Here is an article how it is still being used today.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Success-with-Sub...s&id=423267

[ElOne]

Logical linear thinking allows for exactly the same conclusions. The real problem is the availability and recognition of data.

The first statement I disagree with and will address in a moment. The second statement, “The real problem is the availability and recognition of data.“ I agree with 100%. That is the real problem, man has a one-track mind and because of it, peripheral data is not recognized as potentially valid. Linear thinking severely limits the availability of “suitable” data and therefore it limits the number of acceptable options.

Now to address the first statement.

Lets look at the oil model in today’s context. Everyone seems to agree that crude oil is a limited and quickly diminishing resource. Our economy relies on gas & diesel and a new (preferably renewable) source needs to be found. Here in the United States the linear thinkers are touting corn ethanol as the best solution because some experimentation has been done and it produces ethanol. Pick up the newspaper and you will see the raging debate about it. There are major problems with corn. First, it is a heavy feeder, meaning it requires a large amount of fertilizer($$$) to grow. Second it is a food commodity, using corn automatically makes its retail value skyrocket. Do we use corn to feed people and livestock or do we use it for ethanol production? Who do you think will benefit from that position? Commodity traders of course! Linear thinking at its best, as I stated earlier, it is about money, as much and as quickly as possible. Here is an article from “thedailygreen.com” an environmental news letter that tells of the inherent problems with corn ethanol, besides the fact it is very inefficient in producing ethanol.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/4032

Circular thinking would at the very least, leave food out of consideration in producing ethanol because of the economic problems it will create. Linear thinking will include it as the best consideration because it eliminates complexity (thinking outside of the box, also known as research and development) and it minimizes expense ($$ spent developing already known better alternatives); the bottom line is less expense and more profit.