Differences and similarities between computer mind and human mind

[J. Stew]

The human mind works like a computer when there is some structure that it follows, like someone who works on an assembly line. The difference between human mind and computer mind is that a human consciousness can notice the mind working, which is to say the human experience is not limited by the mind where the computer mind is limited by the code or structure it was designed to follow. Every conscious human has the capacity to notice his own thoughts and feeling without attaching to them. Computers don't have that ability. The difference between being a slave and being able to create something new is the difference between burping out something standard and burping out something new and more fitting for whatever the situation is. Sometimes it is good to burp out the same things like in an assembly line, but in a deeper sense the evolution of the basic human makeup as well as the capacity to produce creative stuff like the music Bach made is a testament to this fundamental difference between the computer mind and the human mind with it's ability to have an overseeing capacity. This overseeing capacity is the human consciousness and the pure human consciousness is God because the pure consciousness is boundless which is to say it is the same as reality. To be more clear, the small mind gets in the way of the big mind which is just conciousness at its' purest.

So the difference between the computer mind and the human mind is the overseeing capacity which is consciousness which is God. Any arguments?

[evolvedForm]

I don't understand your sudden jump from 'small'consciousness (human) to 'pure' consciousness. Can you provide an argument for the existence of the latter?

[soon2bepro]

Here's mine: LOL

[Piers]

I disagree with most of what I think you said.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your sudden jump from 'small'consciousness (human) to 'pure' consciousness. Can you provide an argument for the existence of the latter?

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing that is reading this page is the pure consciousness. The consciousness is already pure in its own nothingness but to the degree that the small mind interferes with the naturally pure consciousness is the degree that the consciousness is tainted. Mental attachments taint the consciousness because then the mind believes it is something else besides the pure consciousness from which thoughts and feeling manifest. First there is the nothingness of consciousness, then there are thoughts and feelings that manifest from the nothingness that is aware of this page right now. So the jump from small mind to big mind is the realization that thoughts are delusions of the small mind and you awaken to the boundless nothingness which is the underlying pervading consciousness.

[J. Stew]

Fantastic, care to share?

[diebitter]

The difference is definitely not just (or not even) the capability to self perceive and self-modify (or not). They are different in many, many fundamental ways - structural, mechanisms of processing, parallelism in processing, mechanisms to filter external inputs, and so on.

[J. Stew]

Do you laugh because you're so happy I'm right or because you don't understand?

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is definitely not just (or not even) the capability to self perceive and self-modify (or not). They are different in many, many fundamental ways - structural, mechanisms of processing, parallelism in processing, mechanisms to filter external inputs, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes more differences, but I'm talking in a generalized way to reach a fundamental difference. You're being nit-picky no? Do you disagree with the conclusion? If so argue that please. Or if you think these differences you stated work into the conclusion in the original post then explain where you're coming from. You said 'definitely not just (or not even)', so where do you stand, if it's 'not just' then you concede that that is a fundamental difference. If you say 'not even' then you fully disagree with the premise to my argument. Where do you stand?

[diebitter]

No, I don't think I'll be standing anywhere near this one. Virtually every sentence towards the end is flowery musing, and if I pick each one apart, I'm 'Mr Picky', and if I don't, it's too insubstantial a thesis to attack. I got better things to do that mentally battle cotton wool.

It wins cos it snares, not cos it's true necessarily.

But I did have a good laugh at stuff like 'pure consciousness is boundless which is to say it is the same as reality' - so tnx for that.


And bye now.

[J. Stew]

You don't like the 'flowery' rhetoric I use so you discount my conclusion without knowing what it is I'm even talking about. Then you try to take the high road by putting yourself 'above' my argument. If you knew what I was talking about you could pick it apart and battle me but you really have no clue so you resort to disbelief to sustain your arrogant ego. Here's an easy one.

'pure consciousness is boundless which is to say it is the same as reality'

Pick apart this statement that gave you a laugh. If you can grow the balls to attempt to disprove it then we'll see whose above what. Until then I'll keep thinking you're a pooooosie who can't hack a philosophical debate. Bring it beeeotch.

[diebitter]

lol! I like you better now


Okay, can you define what you mean by consciousness. I would say it is the awareness of oneself and your surroundings to the limits of your senses. would you agree?

If you do, then when you use the term boundless, by what criteria do you mean boundless? Physical bounds? mental bounds? sensory bounds? I'd assert none of these are boundless as they have finite range. We may not be able to measure the limits of the range, but we can easily find a place somewhere in the world where your bounds are not reaching.

your turn.

[J. Stew]

Ok now we're talking, consciousness just being awarness, not necessarily of oneself. If consciousness is directed only at yourself, then that is where you draw the line. When no lines are drawn, where does awareness end? I argue boundless and I expand later, Go Broncos.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok now we're talking, consciousness just being awarness, not necessarily of oneself. If consciousness is directed only at yourself, then that is where you draw the line. When no lines are drawn, where does awareness end? I argue boundless and I expand later, Go Broncos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, this is ludicrous. I already mentioned the limits of the senses to the external, and this 'can't draw a line' stuff is hippy hogwash. Nice try though.

Ya got me for a coupla goes though, and it was fun.

thanks,
bye

[Lestat]

You are very wrong and philosophizing about something which you don't understand.

Suggested reading: "How the Mind Works", by Steven Pinker.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The thing that is reading this page is the pure consciousness. </font>

The thing that is reading this page is perhaps the most amazing evolutionary design of nature yet. That apparatus is called the eye. The eye takes in the light source of the page and through an incredibly complicated process it submits it to your brain. The brain then searches through a monumental assembly of information and transforms the squiggly and straight lines into signifiable letters, letters into words, and words into understandable syntax.

You can wax poetically like an acid soaked hippie about boundlessness and nothingness, but it's really all very straight forward once you understand what's going on. I'm not a neurologist nor a psychologist, so it's beyond my scope to fully explain everything to you. Buy the book I suggested. It's a great read and will help you see the foolishness in what you're trying to espouse here.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]

The thing that is reading this page is perhaps the most amazing evolutionary design of nature yet. That apparatus is called the eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

The eye is actually one of the most common and statisticaly likely of evolutionary designs. There are at least 9 independant optical mechanisms which have all evolved seperatly several times.
Transmiting light and images to the brain is really no big deal for any form of life. What we do with that information after we recieve it is I think unique and not understood at any type of deep or fundamental level.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The thing that is reading this page is perhaps the most amazing evolutionary design of nature yet. That apparatus is called the eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

The eye is actually one of the most common and statisticaly likely of evolutionary designs. There are at least 9 independant optical mechanisms which have all evolved seperatly several times.
Transmiting light and images to the brain is really no big deal for any form of life. What we do with that information after we recieve it is I think unique and not understood at any type of deep or fundamental level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you are mistaking something which is magnificantly engineered as being simple. I never said the eye wasn't common. And I'll concede that what the brain does with the visual information given by the eye is no less magnificant.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is definitely not just (or not even) the capability to self perceive and self-modify (or not). They are different in many, many fundamental ways - structural, mechanisms of processing, parallelism in processing, mechanisms to filter external inputs, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human brain as a computer is a useful analogy for thinking about some processes. However, there are huge differences between the two where the analogy breaks down as Diebitter said above.
I think I said this before but typically the nervous system is seen as an example of the current technology. Used to be though to run on fluid pressure, then the brain was a switchboard, nowadays it's a computer.

[KipBond]

If humans survive long enough, and technology continues at the same rate it has been, I have no doubt that one day, "computers" (they'll be different than what they are today), will be conscious in very similar ways that we are today. We are biological machines that have evolved slowly over billions of years. Computers will catch up since their evolution is not limited by biology.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
If humans survive long enough, and technology continues at the same rate it has been, I have no doubt that one day, "computers" (they'll be different than what they are today), will be conscious in very similar ways that we are today. We are biological machines that have evolved slowly over billions of years. Computers will catch up since their evolution is not limited by biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans limit themselves, computers are inherently limited. Computer are cool, I don't argue that, but humans are cooler.

[J. Stew]

I have 805,248,000 seconds of experience with my own mind. Why makes you think a book by a guy whose last name is Pinker could trump that. I'll battle you, just say something else than 'you're wrong'.

[LadyWrestler]

Re: "Suggested reading: 'How the Mind Works', by Steven Pinker."

I read it. It struck me as similar to someone trying to explain the planet Earth to an alien, as a spinning dirt ball with gravity, while barely mentioning (as unimportant details) that life exists there...and water...and an atmosphere...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Re: "Suggested reading: 'How the Mind Works', by Steven Pinker."

I read it. It struck me as similar to someone trying to explain the planet Earth to an alien, as a spinning dirt ball with gravity, while barely mentioning (as unimportant details) that life exists there...and water...and an atmosphere...

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he was addressing the book to those interested in how the mind works.

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If humans survive long enough, and technology continues at the same rate it has been, I have no doubt that one day, "computers" (they'll be different than what they are today), will be conscious in very similar ways that we are today. We are biological machines that have evolved slowly over billions of years. Computers will catch up since their evolution is not limited by biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans limit themselves, computers are inherently limited. Computer are cool, I don't argue that, but humans are cooler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans also are inherently limited. I should also add that when the day approaches where computers have human-like consciousness, it may be hard to distinguish between a "human" and a "computer" in that biotechnology will undoubted continue to evolve as well, so the lines may become quite blurred.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If humans survive long enough, and technology continues at the same rate it has been, I have no doubt that one day, "computers" (they'll be different than what they are today), will be conscious in very similar ways that we are today. We are biological machines that have evolved slowly over billions of years. Computers will catch up since their evolution is not limited by biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans limit themselves, computers are inherently limited. Computer are cool, I don't argue that, but humans are cooler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans also are inherently limited. I should also add that when the day approaches where computers have human-like consciousness, it may be hard to distinguish between a "human" and a "computer" in that biotechnology will undoubted continue to evolve as well, so the lines may become quite blurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see a bunch of computers with human-like consciousnesses everyday. They're called people who don't think for themselves. The line has been blurred since the conception of conceptions.

[J. Stew]

What is it that draws the line? What is it that sees what it is that draws the line? How is the thing that sees the thing that draws the line bound?

[J. Stew]

So what is the thing that notices the mind thinking, the eyes watching, the ears hearing. . . consciousness right. What is consciousness . . . no-thing because it is the thing that notices things. The thing that notices things cant be a thing. So there is no-thing and then things. There is emptiness, then there are thoughts that arise in that emptiness. Isn't it obvious?

[J. Stew]

You said 'engineered'. Who is the engineer, the man in the sky? No I don't believe you believe a man in the sky engineered the intricacies of the eye. It sounds like you are amazed at the makeup of the eye so you have respect for it and however it evolved or was created. So where did that idea of 'that's magnificent' come from? It arose spontaneously out of nothing right? What is the thing that notices that thought in your head? Now do you see or am I still crazy.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I [am] still crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I [am] still crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't know if you were grinning or smiling, you're crazy for sure.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is the thing that notices the mind thinking, the eyes watching, the ears hearing. . . consciousness right. What is consciousness . . . no-thing because it is the thing that notices things. The thing that notices things cant be a thing. So there is no-thing and then things. There is emptiness, then there are thoughts that arise in that emptiness. Isn't it obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely understand that you want to think of this "consciousness" as a soul, or some unique sense of you. But it can really all be explained by synapses and neurons firing, in your brain, etc.

Again, I'm certainly not qualified to explain this, but Steven Pinker (who is a professor of psychology), does an excellent job in his book of showing the layman what really goes on inside one's mind. I'm not saying you should become an atheist, but this book will help explain your misundertandings when it comes to the mind and your own consciousness.

[Lestat]

Look, I'm as in awe of the universe as any theist and possibly even more so. I think that's a common misconception theists have about atheists (i.e. atheists are too logical to be in awe).

It IS magnificant! Perhaps this all IS an extreme longshot! I don't deny that. I just don't think it has to be attributed to a god and specifically not the god you happen to believe in among all the other gods and religions people have come up with. Evolution is wonderous.

[BluffTHIS!]

Human brains have a neural net, while computers can only be programmed to act like a neural net, although that programming is improving. Technology doesn't have to increase to the point of our being able to basically give a computer consciousness (one of David's points against God if it is possible), since consciousness includes not only a certain way of processing information both consciously and subconsciously, but also an awareness of self.

However, this guy would disagree and say that computer is better:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/Data2.jpg/300px-Data2.jpg

[J. Stew]

That guy is the coolest.

[J. Stew]

I don't think of consciousness as something unique or think of it in a religious sense. Cool isht happens when you meditate. Meditating is letting your mind work however it's going to work and noticing how it works by not-trying to notice it. What does Pinker say about this?

[hmkpoker]

Consciousness is a very interesting subject. We don't really have any way of measuring it, and if we were to artificially create it (say, with AI), would we really know the subject was conscious? The only way for us to infer that something is conscious is to observe human-like qualities in something.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Consciousness is a very interesting subject. We don't really have any way of measuring it, and if we were to artificially create it (say, with AI), would we really know the subject was conscious? The only way for us to infer that something is conscious is to observe human-like qualities in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. How is consciousness bound unless the mind creates a mental line. And when the mind creates a line where is the line except in the mind where the consciousness can notice it, untouched.

[hmkpoker]

An interesting question about AI is not will we ever be able to create sentient machines, but rather, are the machines we have now already sentient? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MidGe]

Could I suggest a book by Marvin Minsky. It is a good introduction in how to simulate human behaviour using very simple programming techniques Society of Minds (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671657135/qid=1137491781/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7381014-0153621?n=507846&amp;s=books&amp;v=glance) .

It is easily readable by someone with just an appreciation of programming. It may be dated as far as AI is concerned, but it did influence me when it was first published. It is a classic, in the field of AI, in its own right.

Enjoy,

MidGe

[diebitter]

I used to work in AI, and never saw the reason for obsessing about sentience myself. It did always seem a holy grail of AI, but not one that interested me. I was much more interested in creating machines that could come to rational decisions quickly, with some level of uncertainty expressed in a way similar to the way humans use uncertainty in speech (eg: 'I'm pretty sure it's going to rain'), which could decompose its reasoning steps from first principles and so explain itself (and perhaps provide educational benefits by doing so).

You guys all realise you can have complex reasoning machines that do not require sentience, right?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys all realise you can have complex reasoning machines that do not require sentience, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Could I suggest a book by Marvin Minsky. It is a good introduction in how to simulate human behaviour using very simple programming techniques Society of Minds (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671657135/qid=1137491781/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7381014-0153621?n=507846&amp;s=books&amp;v=glance) .

It is easily readable by someone with just an appreciation of programming. It may be dated as far as AI is concerned, but it did influence me when it was first published. It is a classic, in the field of AI, in its own right.

Enjoy,

MidGe

[/ QUOTE ]

Spinning off, Marvin Minsky is awful.

[J. Stew]

"Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness—the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)" - Wikipedia

So sentience is like sense perception and sapience has to do with a higher consciousness knowing. What constitutes this higher knowing in humans. If higher consciousness constitutes a knowing, then this knowing is distinguishable from just conceptual data. I argue consciousness is the thing before conceptual data, or is the background for conceptual data and that consciousness can be expanded to reach a higher knowing/deeper truth by simply observing the mind's processes thereby resting in this basic awareness that is consciousness. As one rests more and more in the nothingness that is basic conscious awareness, the more subtle aspects of the mind's processes becomes obvious where before they were not noticed and the human becomes more aware of what actually constitutes reality. Senses are heightened simply because the human is more 'present' to the reality that has always been there and the human experience is fundamentally more inclusive of everything reality is.

[deleteduser]

basically your talking about our sences, which limit or get in the way or hibbit our thought process??

[Hererdebert]

Humans limit themselves, computers are inherently limited. Computer are cool, I don't argue that, but humans are cooler.

I have 805,248,000 seconds of experience with my own mind. Why makes you think a book by a guy whose last name is Pinker could trump that. I'll battle you, just say something else than 'you're wrong'.


1) In what sense are humans purely self limiting, humans are constrained by all sorts of physical factors which can be broken down into genetic, structural and physical constraints. In what way are computer's inherently limited, since they can be engineered aren't they inherently less limited than that which can only change through evolutionary processes (at least in part).

2) This is such a total and utter load of tripe. I'm so sick or this searlean I know my own senses and no one can tell me i'm wrong bull. your conscious experiences are utterly wrong, inaccurate in every possible sense, the processing that goes on in your system (at pre/sub/non conscious levels) result in a representation that is funtionally effecacious not accurate to base your opinions solely on introspection is ridiculous. While how you experience things is how you experience things (a banal and worthless truism) it does not mean that that is how things are particularly not with reference to understanding the functioning of your mind.

You have made a division which you are completely unwilling to back up, you say that feelings and emotions are part of this pure infinite consciousness. This is such foggy language that you can then claim no one understands you. What is this pure consciousness, is it material, if not how does it interact with the material. If it is material how can you justify your division, what neurological evidence do you have.
You have made so many unjustified and unsupported declarative statements that i have absolutely no idea what you mean.

[Hererdebert]

What is it that draws the line? What is it that sees what it is that draws the line? How is the thing that sees the thing that draws the line bound?

Why does it have to be a thing, it's a process (possibly) a functional capacity. As soon as you start into this a thing must have a no-thing to be percieved you are just playing around. This is a hazy platonic form arguement and it's sort of embarrasing your losing yourself in words I.M.O. who said a thing had to be percieved by something that was distinct, where are the corellates of this law in nature. What on earth (or otherwise) do you imagine this to be, where is the locus of it in the brain. You need to think about these questions and a whole ton of them otherwise.
You might be interested in reading people like daniel dennett, the churchhills, searle, anything about cognitive science. etc

[Hererdebert]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> but it's really all very straight forward once you understand what's going on. [ QUOTE ]


sorry but it's not simple. The eye processes, but how does that get 'transformed' (a lovely magical word) and how does it get understood (so as to result in physical and or conscious responses). I agree with most of what you said but it truely isn't simple.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it that draws the line? What is it that sees what it is that draws the line? How is the thing that sees the thing that draws the line bound?

Why does it have to be a thing, it's a process (possibly) a functional capacity. As soon as you start into this a thing must have a no-thing to be percieved you are just playing around. This is a hazy platonic form arguement and it's sort of embarrasing your losing yourself in words I.M.O. who said a thing had to be percieved by something that was distinct, where are the corellates of this law in nature. What on earth (or otherwise) do you imagine this to be, where is the locus of it in the brain. You need to think about these questions and a whole ton of them otherwise.
You might be interested in reading people like daniel dennett, the churchhills, searle, anything about cognitive science. etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Last response, and for your pleasure, in haiku:

Amorphous babble!
formless equals infinite?!?
doesn't a case make.

[BadBoyBenny]

I think you underestimate the capacity for machines to be flexible and overestimate the capacity for humans to be flexible in their thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
This overseeing capacity is the human consciousness and the pure human consciousness is God because the pure consciousness is boundless which is to say it is the same as reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just lazy think right here. There is no evidence I know of that humans have any sense of self perception that could not evetually be programmed.

We have the ability to write self referential algorithms, and can design data structures that act on a meta level (or a meta-meta level) and allow the computer to effectively "think about what it is thinking". The only diference I see is the complexiy and depth of the human meta level of thinking versus the machine's.

In reality, humans come up with something novel once in a blue moon. 99.9% of the things that most people would say are original thought are either somewhat formulaic or a synthesis of existing ideas.

The stuff I would consider novel is just an original way to interpret the sensory data we observe. Surely there is nothing here that could not be emulated given infinite hardware and more advanced software than we currently have.

[Lestat]

I didn't mean to imply that the process itself was simple, just that whether or not the process exists at all is very straightforward. Exactly how the network of neurons and synapses perform their funcions is of course, very complicated.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it that draws the line? What is it that sees what it is that draws the line? How is the thing that sees the thing that draws the line bound?

Why does it have to be a thing, it's a process (possibly) a functional capacity. As soon as you start into this a thing must have a no-thing to be percieved you are just playing around. This is a hazy platonic form arguement and it's sort of embarrasing your losing yourself in words I.M.O. who said a thing had to be percieved by something that was distinct, where are the corellates of this law in nature. What on earth (or otherwise) do you imagine this to be, where is the locus of it in the brain. You need to think about these questions and a whole ton of them otherwise.
You might be interested in reading people like daniel dennett, the churchhills, searle, anything about cognitive science. etc

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is no-thing, as you pointed out . . . and the process of the no-thing is just what naturally occurs in reality. The problem is that we fill our heads with things so that the process of the thing that is no-thing cannot work as efficiently, hence we are not living as fully as we could should we be attached to thoughts about what we are that are different than the no-thing. Yeah science is on the cusp of explaining a lot of things, I agree, but what happens when you figure out a lot of facts that lead to a realization about something? You think, think, think, and then you have a moment of clarity where there is no thought, right? When there is no thought and there is just clarity, where is the thing that you call yourself? It is no where because there is no thing to call yourself. If you sit still for a while and let your thoughts calm down naturally without trying to stop them, you'll notice that there is sound, but no hearer of the sound. What I'm saying is that when you see that you are essentially nothing, there is nothing that binds your mind, your consciousness is boundless, where is the line if you don't draw one? And when you see that you are essentially no-thing, you see that you still have thoughts like you did before, you still have a personality, but that personalilty is not as pissed off, envious, or as generally as ugly as it was before simply because your mind is not bound by the things that made you pissed off, envious, etc. . . thoughts. This isn't hippy [censored], this is living more presently in reality because your mind acts in a more 'root' way because it simply isn't stuck in the delusive thoughts that it was before. You're more precise, compassionate, able to feel things more, able to live a more full life. You say I'm losing myself in words, where am I lost, this is the most simple but difficult thing to realize. You say I'm wrong? Tell me where the thing that you call you is.

[J. Stew]

First off, the 805... seconds was somewhat in jest, and somewhat for real, but the Pinker punch was definitley a joke bro. Ha effin ha.

1. You said I said humans are purely self limiting, no I didn't and in fact am saying humans are purely unlimited, but that we limit ourselves with attachment to thought. Computers are limited because they do what they are programmed to, obviously.

2. I think it's funny that you number your points to act like you are disputing something I say but actually you just complain about something here. Let's look at sentence number three. . . "your conscious experiences are utterly wrong, inaccurate in every possible sense, the processing that goes on in your system (at pre/sub/non conscious levels) result in a representation that is funtionally effecacious not accurate to base your opinions solely on introspection is ridiculous.' Wow, besides the egregious grammar and spelling errors, I think you have some merit to your 'point', well, the point you so eloquently ended on at least. You calling my conscious experiences 'wrong' makes me second guess your ability to have a conversation. Oh you meant my interpretation of my conscious experience, okay. Anyways your point was that the knowledge of how a brain actually functions is important in order to understand the human experience which is basically what we are both after. I agree, the conceptual can aid the experiential piece or can even result in realizations as well. I DONT ARGUE THAT. But conceptual knowledge, thoughts, are only a piece of the pie. They are, sorry but I'm gonna use foggy language again, manifestations of the nothingness that pisses you off. As one realizes that their basic essentialness is no-thing doors open, the rabbit hole gets deeper, etc. and a fuller, more real life IMO ensues. Arguing over which concept is right is entirely missing the point, it's like religions arguing with eachother.

Your last paragraph: I say feeling and emotions come out of, manifest, from this pure infinite consciousness. This next sentence is interesting, you say, "This is such foggy language that you can then claim no one understands you." I have never claimed that no one understands me, the only reason I battle about this is because it's real and it's cool. You think I'm trying to be on this pedastol of higher knowledge or something and you are putting me in a box with religious folk who claim, 'you just gotta believe' to which you have this pre-thunk thought which you burp out at them when actually all I'm doing is sharing what's obvious. The problem with science is that the pursuit of it also leads you to believe that everything can be explained in concepts and that once you have all the right concepts in your head, that you will be king. You already are king though. You want to know what neurological evidence I have. My limited theory, from my experience, is that when you're constantly surfing from one thought to another, and believe those thoughts to be truth, or your true makeup, you attach to them and reinforce them in your brain. When you begin to question the nature of those thoughts, question if they really do constitute what it is that makes 'you' up, the imprisoning effect of those thoughts becomes less until you realize the attachments to those thoughts was just a dream. When you 'wake up' from your dream you see the reality of what thoughts are, clouds passing through the sky, waves on the ocean, whatever. Obviously there are no big scientific words in there but here's some nerdy stuff if you like.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking into David Hudson’s work it seems to suggest that the increased heart field and EMF of the nervous system during the peak kundalini, acts like a synchrotron to actually change certain elements in the central nervous system into their high spin monoatomic state. It may be that during heightened activation the body can transmute certain palladium group elements such as iridium and rhodium into their high spin state by applying energy to the atoms. Thus through the transmutation of these elements the body makes its own monoatomic atoms on which the causal and subtle fields of the organism are organized. Increased causal level hardware is laid down and consequently we are making or amplifying our own soul. The fine network of these high spin atoms throughout the central nervous system acts to superconduct energy-consciousness. The causal nervous system is such that the working parts (the high spin atoms) do not need to touch, but communicate immediately through sympathetic resonance with space being no obstacle—ie: they superconduct energy and consciousness. And it is through this high spin atomic system that we achieve cosmic consciousness, Christ-Buddha mind and all ESP and spiritual phenomena. NASA and the biophysicist Mae-Wan Ho suggest that life superconducts consciousness, and yet it’s not known yet exactly how this is done.
In the monoatomic state the atom oscillates in 2 dimensions not 3, weighs only 56% of its normal weight and does not ionicly bond with surrounding atoms—hence mono-atomic. Communication between atom and atom proceeds via state resonance. In a monoatomic state an atom is larger ie: it has more space between the particles. In a high spin state the atom interacts with the zero-point of vacuum energy differently and probably warps space-time less...hence the lower gravitation or weight. (Investigation of this monoatomic phenomena may be the key to The Grand Unified Theory.)
The monoatomic theory goes that these atoms in a high spin state are used by life to superconduct bio-electromagnetism. That is the morphogenic field and etheric communication—the soul if you will, that maintains the intelligence and integrity of everything that we are and ties us into the All. Monoatomic science could lead us into a new understanding of Enlightenment and our highest spiritual capacities.. Monoatomics must also be the key to precognition, and our spiritual capacities realize Timelessness—the Eternal Present. To transcend both time and space with consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, yeah.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
basically your talking about our sences, which limit or get in the way or hibbit our thought process??

[/ QUOTE ]

No the senses do whatever they do, it's the mind, when it gets stuck in an infinite loop of attachment to thought, that believes reality to be the thoughts one is thinking which leads to, or is, delusion.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
The only diference I see is the complexiy and depth of the human meta level of thinking versus the machine's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, where does meta level thinking come from? Where does genius come from. How did Mozart create music. What did Michael Jordan mean when he said the hoop felt like it was an ocean. What does in the zone mean. Was Mike on a different planet when he plays 'in the zone'. How is the 'zone' different from what is already around us. Are the 'zone' and the Matrix different. What is the rabbit hole they talked about. How can you program a computer to be 'in the zone'. What is it like to be 'in the zone'. Does time slow down? What does time have to do with reality, it's just a concept. Do you see there is another level of consciousness beyond number-crunching?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only diference I see is the complexiy and depth of the human meta level of thinking versus the machine's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, where does meta level thinking come from? Where does genius come from. How did Mozart create music. What did Michael Jordan mean when he said the hoop felt like it was an ocean. What does in the zone mean. Was Mike on a different planet when he plays 'in the zone'. How is the 'zone' different from what is already around us. Are the 'zone' and the Matrix different. What is the rabbit hole they talked about. How can you program a computer to be 'in the zone'. What is it like to be 'in the zone'. Does time slow down? What does time have to do with reality, it's just a concept. Do you see there is another level of consciousness beyond number-crunching?

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, have you been tripping for the entire week?
You're one of my new favorite posters.