No it obviously means you are presenting ideas with zero evidence, placing you below the basic threshhold obtained by other fake sciences such as astrology.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 8:06 amNow that explains why you don't understand.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 11:21 amIndeed. I might was well read an astrology book - at least it has evidence.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 8:15 amThe website contains my thoughts. Take it or leave it, and I guess I know what your choice will be. Bye to you.
Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective
There is no Evidence that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity. All the conclusions about the Correlations, work the same way with the Connection Perspective as they do with the Physicalist/Materialist Perspective. The Physicalist/Materialist proposition is also below the Threshold of Fake Science. I'm simply offering a Perspective change for thinking about Conscious Experience. My perspective is no worse than the Physicalist/Materialist Perspective of "it has to be in the Neurons".Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 2:49 pmNo it obviously means you are presenting ideas with zero evidence, placing you below the basic threshhold obtained by other fake sciences such as astrology.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 8:06 amNow that explains why you don't understand.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 11:21 amIndeed. I might was well read an astrology book - at least it has evidence.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 8:15 am
The website contains my thoughts. Take it or leave it, and I guess I know what your choice will be. Bye to you.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective
Yes there is. There is evidence in buckets. You can see changes in consciousness mapped directly to neural maps thought medical scanning technology.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 4:29 pmThere is no Evidence that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 2:49 pmNo it obviously means you are presenting ideas with zero evidence, placing you below the basic threshhold obtained by other fake sciences such as astrology.
You might as well say that there is no evidence that electricity causes light bulbs to give off light
I think you are in denialAll the conclusions about the Correlations, work the same way with the Connection Perspective as they do with the Physicalist/Materialist Perspective. The Physicalist/Materialist proposition is also below the Threshold of Fake Science. I'm simply offering a Perspective change for thinking about Conscious Experience. My perspective is no worse than the Physicalist/Materialist Perspective of "it has to be in the Neurons".
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective
That's evidence of Correlation. Those Correlations work equally well for the Connection Perspective of Connectism. It has been known for a hundred years that Neural Activity is Correlated with Conscious Experience. It does not matter that after a hundred years there are Buckets of these Correlations. All they are, are Correlations. There are Zero Explanations of how this Neural Activity can lead to a Conscious Experience. The Physicalist Perspective has Zero advantage over the Connectist Perspective. It is unknown if the Connectist or the Physicalist Perspective will ultimately prove to be correct. Time and research will vindicate one.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:36 pmYes there is. There is evidence in buckets. You can see changes in consciousness mapped directly to neural maps thought medical scanning technology.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 4:29 pmThere is no Evidence that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity.
You might as well say that there is no evidence that electricity causes light bulbs to give off lightI think you are in denialAll the conclusions about the Correlations, work the same way with the Connection Perspective as they do with the Physicalist/Materialist Perspective. The Physicalist/Materialist proposition is also below the Threshold of Fake Science. I'm simply offering a Perspective change for thinking about Conscious Experience. My perspective is no worse than the Physicalist/Materialist Perspective of "it has to be in the Neurons".
From the Inter Mind:
The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.
The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp. This is Connectism.
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective
There are much faster things and slower things than our Consciousness. The CM Experience of the world is as fast as the PM will allow. We can't perceive a speeding bullet because it is faster than the PM can operate. Some people will argue that this means Consciousness is a PM limited phenomenon and proves that Consciousness IS the PM and nothing more. But this Physicalist assumption is Naive. This does not mean the CM itself is limited, but just that when the CM is correlating with a PM, it is limited to what the PM can do. Remember that the Connectist view considers the PM as just a Tool that the CM uses. The CM might be capable of much more and since I am suggesting that the CM is not even in PSp but in CSp we don’t know what the limits really are. We may be very surprised by our limitations someday after we shed our Sluggish Human Brains and transfer our CMs to artificial versions of a Brain.
If a person is blind from birth and they never Experience CL then what does this tell us!? I bring this up because the Physicalists will insist that this congenital lack of Sight is somehow proof that the Visual Experience is purely some kind of PM process. But the Connectist explanation of all this is that it is basically a developmental problem where if particular Neurons are not being stimulated or can not be stimulated then the IM connection from the PM to the CM might never develop for these Neurons. So no CL will ever be Experienced. However, it is known that sighted people can Experience Physical Sound (PS) as CL and PL as Conscious Sound (CS). This can happen with certain drugs and some people just naturally have these sensory cross connections. Maybe congenitally Blind people incorporate CL into their CS perceptions. They would never know that they are experiencing CL because it would be correlated with PS events. The upshot of all this is that it is Naive to jump to Physicalist conclusions when the Connectist point of view is equally Plausible and Explanatory.
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: Connectism Emphasizes the Connection Perspective
We know that the world, including our PMs, is made out of chemicals. We also think that chemicals are not conscious. There is no reason to believe that when chemicals are arranged in a particular way that some kind of magic occurs to enable consciousness in those chemicals. A Neuron is a chemical electrical thing that in and of itself is not Conscious, or Alive. It is no more Alive than a transistor is Alive. A Neuron is part of the Human machine. Can an LCD display be used by some IM or CM to produce a CL Scene of what is on the screen? What substance or material besides Neurons can be used to connect with an IM? If the PM creates Consciousness through some PSp process then we should be able to intercept the CL Scene that the CM is experiencing and display it on a computer monitor using known concepts from Science. If Consciousness is not a PSp process then we will need Science to develop new concepts before it can be intercepted and displayed. It might only exist in CSp. These are the kind of speculations that the Connection Perspective enables. You would never be able to imagine anything like this using the Physicalist Perspective.
While Dreaming our whole sense of Reality comes from our PMs, and not from the outside world. The CM seems very susceptible to believing alternate Realities without questions when certain Reality Check Points in the PM are turned off. Weird scenes and situations don't seem unusual. Without External Inputs, the PM and CM seem pretty dumb when it comes to logical thinking. Maybe the purpose of sleep is to let the CM detach for a while. Sleep is to let the IM and CM rest (as well as the PM). Maybe the CM needs to get away from the PM every now and then. That’s what Dreams are for. That's why we don't remember most of our Dreams. Dreams are for the CM not the PM. This is a whole new angle on Sleep that could not be realized with the Physicalist Perspective.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023