Where does consciousness come from?

[DreamEnd]

It certainly makes it possible. It would also account for free will whereas on determinism everything is under the control of the laws of nature. Non reductive and eliminative forms of physicalism don't account for our mental lives and I think this discovery is very important. I'd recommend getting the full book if you're interested in this more. This is my favorite area of philosophy (philosophy of Mind).

Interesting. I'm currently reading grofs books (human encounter with death)

 

[Andro_USYD]

What are some of your findings? Id be interested to hear, even if I don't reply immediately. I've never really looked into NDE's before but I have heard of some that are quite interesting.

 

[DreamEnd]

What are some of your findings? Id be interested to hear, even if I don't reply immediately. I've never really looked into NDE's before but I have heard of some that are quite interesting.

I read ndes and past live type of stuff. Some of the grofs work is based on 4500 cases of lsd. He even has a book dedicated to lsd specifically. Basically they have studied people on lsd and some who have strange experience start to recall their past life. Not only did they recall it but they were able to get a confirmation of those people and how they died

I had lsd experiences myself and while I did not encounter past life stuff I did get an ego death

 

[Andro_USYD]

Interesting! I also have some LSD at hand however I found when I used it I didn't get any visual effects most likely because i'm on an antidepressant and they apparently block the visual effects.

It's been sitting in my cupboard for about a year. And I tried some a few days ago.

DMT I've heard is supposed to be incredible and before death I'm pretty sure a lot of that is released into you but I wonder why, maybe to make it a smooth transition into your next life.

Do U get good benefits from psychedelics? If I quit antidepressants I want to try them or shrooms but in the meantime I'm just using ADHD meds and the antidepressant. The study combo BC I don't have time to experiment much. Every day is memorising as much stuff as I can and ADHD is hard.

 

[DreamEnd]

Interesting! I also have some LSD at hand however I found when I used it I didn't get any visual effects most likely because i'm on an antidepressant and they apparently block the visual effects.

It's been sitting in my cupboard for about a year. And I tried some a few days ago.

DMT I've heard is supposed to be incredible and before death I'm pretty sure a lot of that is released into you but I wonder why, maybe to make it a smooth transition into your next life.

Do U get good benefits from psychedelics? If I quit antidepressants I want to try them or shrooms but in the meantime I'm just using ADHD meds and the antidepressant. The study combo BC I don't have time to experiment much. Every day is memorising as much stuff as I can and ADHD is hard.

Yeah for psychedelics like ayahuasca it is recommended to be off them for 6 weeks. For lsd 2-3 is good. No wonder you didn't feel anything. They don't mix well. LSD can help with depression. So do mushrooms. Just make sure you don't have a history of schizo or psychosis and don't dose too much. Also in rare cases lsd can make everything you feel now worse, so be careful and weigh all the risks

 

[Andro_USYD]

Yea it was a bummer I just felt really confused I remember and even asked my dad to take me to the hospital BC I was concerned about my heart rate.

So U reckon 2-3 weeks after I quit them I could maybe feel it? I'm also on an antipsychotic which has worked to keep me in check for years but it does make me a bit disinterested and emotionless these days.

 

[DreamEnd]

Yea it was a bummer I just felt really confused I remember and even asked my dad to take me to the hospital BC I was concerned about my heart rate.

So U reckon 2-3 weeks after I quit them I could maybe feel it? I'm also on an antipsychotic which has worked to keep me in check for years but it does make me a bit disinterested and emotionless these days.

Well if you are also on anti psychotic then yeah 3-4 weeks is better also since I don't know your diagnosis and anti psychotics are usually prescribed in schizo, psychosis or bipolar then using psychedelics isn't a good idea. I don't even think you would be able to because if anti psychotics were prescribed to you for a reason it's likely those symptoms would come back before you are clean to do psychs

 

[pilotviolin]

hell :p

 

[Andro_USYD]

It was prescribed for autism mainly to reduce irritabily however I did have psychosis when I was about 18-19. Though even since then I've taken it every single night for the past 4-5 years mainly to sleep every night. I think the time I took it I was feeling like I had seretonin syndrome and yea it didn't have good effects on me at all. Although shrooms made me a bit more creative.
.
Yeah I'll stay away from them until I've gotten off the antidepressants and antipsychotics. I've had a rough year, house got raided by the cops and my dad is going to trial for having his own weed plants. All because this backward country doesn't allow it in the state I'm in. Been dealing with a lot of stress including psychiatrist falling sick when I need his support, so that's probably why I've come back to SS. What is an LSD experience like? Do you use it often? What was your experience?

 

[DreamEnd]

It was prescribed for autism mainly to reduce irritabily however I did have psychosis when I was about 18-19. Though even since then I've taken it every single night for the past 4-5 years mainly to sleep every night. I think the time I took it I was feeling like I had seretonin syndrome and yea it didn't have good effects on me at all.

Probably not a good idea if you had psychosis. This is just asking for another episode

Although shrooms made me a bit more creative.

You didn't get psychosis again?

.
Yeah I'll stay away from them until I've gotten off the antidepressants and antipsychotics. I've had a rough year, house got raided by the cops and my dad is going to trial for having his own weed plants. All because this backward country doesn't allow it in the state I'm in. Been dealing with a lot of stress including psychiatrist falling sick when I need his support, so that's probably why I've come back to SS. What is an LSD experience like? Do you use it often? What was your experience?

I used to use it often. You can pm me or I'll reply tmrw I'm going to bed

 

[Andro_USYD]

Nah It didn't give me any psychosis, after years of antipsychotics you find it clears your brain up just more and more. I think I'm the opposite of psychotic now but the biggest problem I have is boredom these days. It doesn't seem bad but It is totally insufferable and I just have to keep studying and studying to fill the void. Most days I don't even allow time on any social media but today I'm not sure what's happened. I'm struggling to step down stairs my muscles have felt weird, I hav blurry vision and I'm all over the place. I had a few wines but I'm starting to think it's something bad.

 

[DarkRange55]

It's probably not reducible to neuro-anatomy. It is a computational feature. It's a problem for neuroscience, not philosophy. A lot of modern philosophy consists of posturing. The greatest contribution so far from the philosophers was the hard problem.

Information is not something tangible. I agree that the brain is like a receiver, but not in the sense that it's able to pick up hidden frequencies in the world. Information is a property of neural networks in the brain. Information is immaterial; it is a feature of basic cognition. It is a receiver, but not of tangible frequencies, but unordered chaos.

Take the calculation of entropy in the possible states of a random variable. Calculating this allows us to determine the 'surprise' of these occurrences. Essentially, if the occurrence of an event has a lower probability, it's surprisal will be higher. Well, doesn't that seem like common sense? And yet, such a thing could not have been known to the Greeks. Entropy in information theory arises from computational theory, of which arises from the paradigm of that time.
It would seem that surprisal is an inherent property of the random variable, but not necessarily an innate concept. It required formal articulation, which rests on mathematical, logical, and philosophical assumptions. We must ask ourselves: can such a thing exist independently of mind? This seems to be a problem for the philosophy of science, though I feel mentioning it is relevant.

The brain is limited in its capacity to make valid inferences. The information available is determined by the inputs. The brain cannot function outside of this capacity.

For the sake of clarity, it's likely better to model our own minds on a condition similar to Occam's Razor. I believe that any epistemic representation of the mind is cyclical to a degree. If I believe my mind to be equivalent to a radio transmitter, that model will certainly factor into how I rationalize my own thought processes, and in doing so solidify my adopted model. This is the same with viewing the mind as a computer, or anything in particular.
For instance, if you were trying to explain gastrointenstinal movement, you may develop a model to help visualize it. This is what psychologists call heuristic thinking. I take sense data, information, stimuli (the nomenclature is unimportant), and make it articulate. But if I am trying to model cognitive processes, won't this mechanism skew my thought? And even if I am aware of this, is there not danger in viewing this as an independent property of the mind? How can I develop a model of mind when my own preconceptions limit this ability?

Hence, from a philosophical perspective I don't think much can be achieved. The most philosophy can do is answer inquiry with disproof. Neuroscience will likely prevail in this respect.

It's probably not reducible to neuro-anatomy.

Not?

It is a computational feature. It's a problem for neuroscience, not philosophy.

The mechanisms will be neuroscience; the meaning may be philosophy

A lot of modern philosophy consists of posturing. The greatest contribution so far from the philosophers was the hard problem.

I don't disagree.

Information is not something tangible.

Mathematically it is tangible.

I agree that the brain is like a receiver, but not in the sense that it's able to pick up hidden frequencies in the world. Information is a property of neural networks in the brain. Information is immaterial; it is a feature of basic cognition. It is a receiver, but not of tangible frequencies, but unordered chaos.

Chaos is on the edge of order.

Take the calculation of entropy in the possible states of a random variable. Calculating this allows us to determine the 'surprise' of these occurrences. Essentially, if the occurrence of an event has a lower probability, it's surprisal will be higher. Well, doesn't that seem like common sense? And yet, such a thing could not have been known to the Greeks.

Sure - they just didn't have the physics underpinning the probabilities.

Entropy in information theory arises from computational theory, of which arises from the paradigm of that time.
It would seem that surprisal is an inherent property of the random variable,

And non-random variables, too.

but not necessarily an innate concept. It required

It benefited from

formal articulation, which rests on mathematical, logical, and philosophical assumptions. We must ask ourselves: can such a thing exist independently of mind? This seems to be a problem for the philosophy of science, though I feel mentioning it is relevant.

Surprise is tied to awareness, so it comes down to what is meant by a mind. Bacteria can be surprised...

The brain is limited in its capacity to make valid inferences. The information available is determined by the inputs. The brain cannot function outside of this capacity.

For the sake of clarity, it's likely better to model our own minds on a condition similar to Occam's Razor. I believe that any epistemic representation of the mind is cyclical to a degree. If I believe my mind to be equivalent to a radio transmitter, that model will certainly factor into how I rationalize my own thought processes, and in doing so solidify my adopted model. This is the same with viewing the mind as a computer, or anything in particular.
For instance, if you were trying to explain gastrointenstinal movement, you may develop a model to help visualize it. This is what psychologists call heuristic thinking. I take sense data, information, stimuli (the nomenclature is unimportant), and make it articulate. But if I am trying to model cognitive processes, won't this mechanism skew my thought? And even if I am aware of this, is there not danger in viewing this as an independent property of the mind? How can I develop a model of mind when my own preconceptions limit this ability?

Hence, from a philosophical perspective I don't think much can be achieved. The most philosophy can do is answer inquiry with disproof. Neuroscience will likely prevail in this respect.

Basically correct.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's an interesting idea. Define fully conscious though. Are animals conscious in the way humans are? Some appear to be more than others. Do you need to be aware of being conscious, (self aware) and maybe aware of death to be fully conscious? In which case- are newborn babies conscious? If not (I'd say they weren't,) why not? I imagine because their brains haven't developed enough to either produce it or, receive it. If we 'receive' consciousness from some other source- and we're not fully conscious as babies, then it still relies on the brain to be developed to a certain level to work. So- in sone way or another, it does seem dependent on the brain.

Are all people fully conscious? What about those in a comma, those with brain damage, those alseep? What's going on with consciousness there- if it's a signal? Is it because we become less receptive to it or, we can't express it anymore?