Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, January 16, 2011, 18:11 (5059 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw,
> > > I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is outside of my head, and at least two reasons (one empirical) to believe that my consciousness is within my head. I think I'm within reason here.
> > 
> > 
> > You are so very linear here, and (in my humble opinion) mistaken from word go. First off, we do NOT know that consciousness is our inner anything. We do not know what consciousness is, how it is achieved, or how it is maintained, or how our consciousness is different from animals. We know the effects of those differences, but not the ultimate root cause or of them.
> > 
> 
> The last sentence is a little tricky here, but I think I get the gist. 
> 
> I don't tend to question my consciousness in this way. Perhaps its the years spent in Zen training, but I know my inner self well. I know when my brain is trying to get me to do something versus what I intend on doing. (If you've ever overrode your intuition, this is what I'm talking about.) 
> 
> It would be better to describe to me what a nonlinear version of this discussion would be? You haven't been here nearly as long, but one statement I had made several times in the past is that I don't care too much for things I can't study. In this context it means, I see no reason to invoke explanations that we have no means with which to evaluate. We can evaluate the brain; we can evaluate our inner self. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. 
> 
> > Without knowing the precise nature of consciousness, its origins, and its M.O., we can not make any conclusive statements about whether anything is or is not being transmitted or received from an external source. 
> > 
> 
> But as I've said previously, what reasons do I have to look at an external hypothesis? I see no reasons or evidence to suggest it's a valid approach. 
> 
> > I find it hard to believe that scientist can sit around and reasonably and rationally debate quantum entanglement yet not understand that there doesn't have to BE a signal(that we can detect with our current technology) in order for something to be affected by an outside source. Nor can I understand, particularly in light of the aforementioned phenomena, that anyone can truly believe that we are not connected to the rest of the universe in a very real and physical sense, and that said connection would have an impact on us.
> 
> Quantum Entanglement is something that at present, can only exist under very special laboratory conditions--conditions that don't seem to exist in the natural world. Entanglement is studied usually at superhot or supercooled conditions. So maybe our interface with our souls exists in our Sun, or deep in subspace?-The linear version of the discussion is, "I think therefore I am." My brain exists, my brain calculates, which translates into thought, therefore my inner self is the product of the calculations and sensory evaluation of my brain. The non-linear version would be: I am. My brain is. Me('I') and my brain function together. 'I' is aware of my brain. My brain is aware of 'I'. This does not dictate that 'I' and 'brain' are one. We do not understand 'I'. We do not fully understand the brain. We do not understand the linkage between between 'I' and the brain. Therefore it is possible to speculate that they are in fact distinctly separate entities. The fact that you are aware of when reason tries to override intuition actually serves to highlight the fact that they are separate.-
Quantum entanglement is something that we have only been able to study under the conditions you listed. That does not mean that they only exist under those conditions, but we do not, as of yet, have a way to study them in other conditions.