Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Yes, dreaming is a common example of "awareness of self" in the animal kingdom

I disagree but then this could constitute a means to communicate about it.

I suspect you are referring to the muscle movements observed in animals that suggest they are acting out dreams. I see no reason this can't be interpreted as instinct or mere memory. It suggests only mental processes are occurring. I believe dreams are merely stray firings of neurons that are processed by the brain. These processes simply lead along established pathways as determined by genetics and affected by learning and habits. They are derived from consciousness but are not consciousness. Even though the dreamer is conscious higher brain functions are at the mercy of random activity.

Shades of Freud! 19th century scientists were nuts.

 

[shunyadragon]

ANY understanding of consciousness would lead to models such that individuals could see the specific differences in the consciousness of individuals in some species or individuals. We have no such understanding. No such models. And no such definitions.

Again, your relying on your vague philosophical view and selective layman references that do not reflect the contemporary to reinforce your the intentional ignorance of science.

 

[cladking]

Reality is infinite orders of magnitude more complex than our science can imagine. Life is orders of magnitude more complex yet.

Darwin and 19th century science is never going to make a meaningful dent in our ignorance. Reductionistic science has brought us a long way and we still need it and specialists now but in the future we'll depend on different means to learn about reality. We'll need a science that puts things together rather than takes them apart. We need to start building this science now.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree but then this could constitute a means to communicate about it.

I suspect you are referring to the muscle movements observed in animals that suggest they are acting out dreams. I see no reason this can't be interpreted as instinct or mere memory. It suggests only mental processes are occurring. I believe dreams are merely stray firings of neurons that are processed by the brain. These processes simply lead along established pathways as determined by genetics and affected by learning and habits. They are derived from consciousness but are not consciousness. Even though the dreamer is conscious higher brain functions are at the mercy of random activity.

Simply no, your bias is overwhelming. Dreaming reflects "self-awareness in the animal kingdom. Neurological research demonstrates dreaming reflects self awareness.

Research on dreaming in animals and self-awareness - Google Search

Research suggests that animals do indeed dream, exhibiting brain activity similar to humans during REM sleep, which indicates they may be replaying experiences from their waking life, potentially signifying a level of self-awareness; however, definitively proving the content of an animal's dream or the extent of their self-awareness remains challenging due to the limitations of studying animal consciousness.



Key findings about animal dreaming:

• Brain activity patterns:
  Studies using EEG recordings have shown that animals, particularly mammals, exhibit similar brainwave patterns during REM sleep as humans, suggesting they are experiencing a dream-like state.
  
  
  
  
• Behavioral observations:
  Animals often show physical movements during sleep that seem to correlate with potential dream scenarios, like dogs chasing objects or cats twitching their paws as if batting at prey.
  
  
  
  
• Species specific dreams:
  Research suggests that different species may dream about things related to their natural behaviors and environments, like birds practicing their songs during sleep.
  

Shades of Freud! 19th century scientists were nuts.

No, Freud and 19th century scientists simply reflects his limited view of the time.

 

[cladking]

Again, your relying on your vague philosophical view and selective layman references that do not reflect the contemporary to reinforce your the intentional ignorance of science.

You're making excuses for our knowing nothing about consciousness. I'm trying to chart a passage through our ignorance. Proper definitions that reflect reality and experiment is only a beginning.

We'll never be able to train butterflies in China to provide good weather because their effects are not the result of intent but there's no reason we can't figure out what they're thinking. One year I watched a butterfly get into the updraft of my campfire to use as an elevator to the treetops so as to resume his migration. How did Darwin explain such things?

 

[cladking]

Simply no, your bias id overwhelming.

So, no conversation. You won't even tell me what you think it means.

I'm surprised you're willing to be seen with heretics at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, no conversation. You won't even tell me what you think it means.

Over the years I have offered references and conversation, but unfortunately you persist o relying on a vague duck and weave denial philosophy and reject real scientific references.

Research on dreaming in animals and self-awareness - Google Search

Research suggests that animals do indeed dream, exhibiting brain activity similar to humans during REM sleep, which indicates they may be replaying experiences from their waking life, potentially signifying a level of self-awareness; however, definitively proving the content of an animal's dream or the extent of their self-awareness remains challenging due to the limitations of studying animal consciousness.



Key findings about animal dreaming:

• Brain activity patterns:
  Studies using EEG recordings have shown that animals, particularly mammals, exhibit similar brainwave patterns during REM sleep as humans, suggesting they are experiencing a dream-like state.
  
  
  
  
• Behavioral observations:
  Animals often show physical movements during sleep that seem to correlate with potential dream scenarios, like dogs chasing objects or cats twitching their paws as if batting at prey.
  
  
  
  
• Species specific dreams:
  Research suggests that different species may dream about things related to their natural behaviors and environments, like birds practicing their songs during sleep.

I'm surprised you're willing to be seen with heretics at all.

With you philosophy you may burn them at the atake,

 

[cladking]

Research on dreaming in animals and self-awareness - Google Search

Research suggests that animals do indeed dream, exhibiting brain activity similar to humans during REM sleep, which indicates they may be replaying experiences from their waking life, potentially signifying a level of self-awareness; however, definitively proving the content of an animal's dream or the extent of their self-awareness remains challenging due to the limitations of studying animal consciousness.



Key findings about animal dreaming:

• Brain activity patterns:
  Studies using EEG recordings have shown that animals, particularly mammals, exhibit similar brainwave patterns during REM sleep as humans, suggesting they are experiencing a dream-like state.
  
  
  
  
• Behavioral observations:
  Animals often show physical movements during sleep that seem to correlate with potential dream scenarios, like dogs chasing objects or cats twitching their paws as if batting at prey.
  
  
  
  
• Species specific dreams:
  Research suggests that different species may dream about things related to their natural behaviors and environments, like birds practicing their songs during sleep.

You pretty much just repeated what I said was your beliefs and then I stated my beliefs. It was your turn to respond to my beliefs. What evidence do you have that dreams aren't simply derived from consciousness and random firings of nerves?

 

[shunyadragon]

You're making excuses for our knowing nothing about consciousness. I'm trying to chart a passage through our ignorance. Proper definitions that reflect reality and experiment is only a beginning.

No excuses, just real scientific references over the past years, Your stoic denial of science is obvious.

We'll never be able to train butterflies in China to provide good weather because their effects are not the result of intent but there's no reason we can't figure out what they're thinking. One year I watched a butterfly get into the updraft of my campfire to use as an elevator to the treetops so as to resume his migration. How did Darwin explain such things?

Huh?!?!?! The above is not remotely related to the science of consciousness.

I guess watching butterflies flutter by is your view of scientific methods. Flights of fancy?

 

[cladking]

What evidence do you have that dreams aren't simply derived from consciousness and random firings of nerves?

It's almost laughable that scientists see memory in these observations but can't see consciousness.

They don't want to see consciousness because then someone might ask how this affects Evolution. It's better to just pretend only those individuals are conscious who perform experiment on evolution. So dreams become nothing more than a memory of some instinct.

 

[wellwisher]

Human consciousness has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. Real science should know this. We; the ego, are conscious of being conscience; inner self. The two centers are like two eyes, that give us stereo consciousness; 3-D, which is different from animals, which only have one center; inner self and more 2-D; cause and effect.

If you see a beautiful sunset or sunrise, the feeling of awe is not generated by the ego. It is natural feeling from the inner self that we; ego, can sensed, as happening to us; ego feels this feeling as we look. We are conscious of his spontaneous feeling coming from within; inner self. The ego can remember and linger there, in their imagination, while the inner self may move on, with the two paths entwined.

An animal with only an inner self, will feel the same thing and then move on. They have no ego to linger and try to explain. They depend on the inner self to lead them, based on their instincts and its various time projections. The ego is not content to just flow, but it also tries to micromanage; will and choice.

When I say the inner self, that is the center of the unconscious mind. Between the ego center and the inner self center is sort of a range of archetypes or personality firmware, that processes the inner self content, in a way that can reach the ego consciousness. Being conscious of the inner self center, proper, requires working through the layers, as well as learning to translate dense and raw signals, that are normally processed by the firmware, to be more available to ego consciousness; symbolism.

Typically, our stereo consciousness is more the ego and (anima or animus) or the middle level firmware in men and women. The inner self proper is deeper and unconscious, but is sensed through these middle level firmware. These are archetypes of relationship. This is more than human relationships; family to culture, but also includes empirical relationships or how the various part; fossils, relate to each other. Or the proper dress for Santa Claus is a red suit. Like culture, we do not have to explain the how's and why's, but rather show how the data relates to itself; traditions. This can satisfy the firmware and the ego feels self assured. Even language and how sounds relate to reality is not cause and effect, but an accepted set of arbitrary audio-visual relationships; words. Words mean more to the Left; middle level.

The next level of firmware has a different set of criteria; archetypes of meaning. What does that order mean? We accept that it that way, but why? How can this be simplified, to made more predictive or eternal? Answer to these question can self assure the ego, if the inner self is happy, via the firmware's goal. The inner self proper has a different set of sweet spots.

 

[cladking]

No excuses, just real scientific references over the past years, Your stoic denial of science is obvious.

If you think that calling dreams "a memory of some instinct" scientific then we may have nothing to discuss. I'm perfectly happy to go back and prove there's more to consciousness than instinct but you can't see it any more than you can see a butterfly in an elevator.

 

[cladking]

Human consciousness has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. Real science should know this. We; the ego, are conscious of being conscience; inner self. The two centers are like two eyes, that give us stereo consciousness; 3-D, which is different from animals, which only have one center; inner self and more 2-D; cause and effect.

Yes. I don't know if you figured it out yourself, you got it directly from ancient sources, or indirectly through religion but this is the rational way to describe it. I would use different words and say that we are observers of our own consciousness because when we acquire language we lose the ability to observe it directly. We experience what we believe rather than what is real. A butterfly is no less conscious but it's experiences it directly and relies on it to keep him out of harms way so that he can thrive. Most scientists can't imagine the complexity of consciousness or what it means to be a butterfly. Many have convinced themselves there's nothing outside of what they know and we all have a handy explanation for everything.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's almost laughable that scientists see memory in these observations but can't see consciousness.

It is laughable that you need or can possibly "see" consciousness or frog hairs with flights of fancy of butterflies in China.

 

[Pogo]

There are an infinite number of ways to define something like "mile". There are an infinite number of ways to define or express "momentum" or "atom". Defining "neuron". "amygdala", or "grey matter" is easy. Every single scientific word has a definition that can be understood in scientific terms. "Bottleneck" is "a large reduction to near zero in population". There is no definition for "consciousness" which I provide over and over as "an endowment by nature to every living thing that facilitates survival through pattern recognition and free will". Many scientists exercise their free will by believing it doesn't even exist.

Where is your definition? The last time it was equivalent to "not sleeping".

Consciousness is more universal than any definition will ever cover. Consciousness includes everything from alertness to preferences in foods and mates. It includes abilities, proclivities, habits, instincts, logic, observation, and accumulated knowledge as well as memory and social preferences. It will forever be impossible to reduce to experiment in aggregate so we'll someday after we define it need to study some of its parts.

Our species wants to reduce all of reality to taxonomies and types and then pretend there's nothing but. The reality is all of these are mere mnemonics. Don't tell a spiny anteater it must not lay eggs. Don't tell Pluto it isn't a planet. Pluto doesn't even care if you can't find it in a telescope. The anteater would prefer you not come looking for it. It is what it is and there are no two identical things in existence so there is no such thing as species or whether or not dogs are conscious. Reality doesn't care what Darwin thought or what anyone today thinks. It does what it does until intent circumvents it.

Species don't evolve by survival of the fittest because Darwin believed in it. And if it did evolve it wouldn't be because anyone believes that consciousness doesn't matter.

Mile mile mile, mile mile, mile mile? Mile, mile mile mile.
Using just some of the infinite ways of defining mile, fortunately most humans have progressed beyond your metaphysical philosophies though according to you these collections of symbols are equivalent.

I think while you may find your philosophy useful to you somehow, we just find it entertaining and or sad depending on ingestion of EtOH.

Mile mile mile

 

[Pogo]

Reality is infinite orders of magnitude more complex than our science can imagine. Life is orders of magnitude more complex yet.

Darwin and 19th century science is never going to make a meaningful dent in our ignorance. Reductionistic science has brought us a long way and we still need it and specialists now but in the future we'll depend on different means to learn about reality. We'll need a science that puts things together rather than takes them apart. We need to start building this science now.

Well then instead of telling us all the things that are wrong with what we do now, how about giving us an example that we can understand of how we might build your new science now. Note this will not be just a reiteration of assertions that there was some golden age that we should aspire too, but how we can regain this state.

 

[Pogo]

You're making excuses for our knowing nothing about consciousness. I'm trying to chart a passage through our ignorance. Proper definitions that reflect reality and experiment is only a beginning.

We'll never be able to train butterflies in China to provide good weather because their effects are not the result of intent but there's no reason we can't figure out what they're thinking. One year I watched a butterfly get into the updraft of my campfire to use as an elevator to the treetops so as to resume his migration. How did Darwin explain such things?

There is variation in butterflies and this one was a true weirdo in that they don't generally fly at night, that said it has yet to become a common enough trait to become general maybe due to the scarcity of campfires in butterflies history.

 

[Pogo]

With you philosophy you may burn them at the atake,

Depends on your definition of atake, mile

 

[Pogo]

Human consciousness has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. Real science should know this. We; the ego, are conscious of being conscience; inner self. The two centers are like two eyes, that give us stereo consciousness; 3-D, which is different from animals, which only have one center; inner self and more 2-D; cause and effect.

If you see a beautiful sunset or sunrise, the feeling of awe is not generated by the ego. It is natural feeling from the inner self that we; ego, can sensed, as happening to us; ego feels this feeling as we look. We are conscious of his spontaneous feeling coming from within; inner self. The ego can remember and linger there, in their imagination, while the inner self may move on, with the two paths entwined.

An animal with only an inner self, will feel the same thing and then move on. They have no ego to linger and try to explain. They depend on the inner self to lead them, based on their instincts and its various time projections. The ego is not content to just flow, but it also tries to micromanage; will and choice.

When I say the inner self, that is the center of the unconscious mind. Between the ego center and the inner self center is sort of a range of archetypes or personality firmware, that processes the inner self content, in a way that can reach the ego consciousness. Being conscious of the inner self center, proper, requires working through the layers, as well as learning to translate dense and raw signals, that are normally processed by the firmware, to be more available to ego consciousness; symbolism.

Typically, our stereo consciousness is more the ego and (anima or animus) or the middle level firmware in men and women. The inner self proper is deeper and unconscious, but is sensed through these middle level firmware. These are archetypes of relationship. This is more than human relationships; family to culture, but also includes empirical relationships or how the various part; fossils, relate to each other. Or the proper dress for Santa Claus is a red suit. Like culture, we do not have to explain the how's and why's, but rather show how the data relates to itself; traditions. This can satisfy the firmware and the ego feels self assured. Even language and how sounds relate to reality is not cause and effect, but an accepted set of arbitrary audio-visual relationships; words. Words mean more to the Left; middle level.

The next level of firmware has a different set of criteria; archetypes of meaning. What does that order mean? We accept that it that way, but why? How can this be simplified, to made more predictive or eternal? Answer to these question can self assure the ego, if the inner self is happy, via the firmware's goal. The inner self proper has a different set of sweet spots.

OK, @cladking, you liked this, would you please explain why for us mental midgits.

 

[cladking]

Well then instead of telling us all the things that are wrong with what we do now, how about giving us an example that we can understand of how we might build your new science now

We need a scientific language for science with strictly defined terms and a simplified grammar.

We need to think about how to configure computers to think like a bee.

We need to teach "nexialism" to millions of students after first developing a curriculum. This is a very immediate need becaus4e our economy is spinning out of control because specialists can't see the incongruities.

We need to teach metaphysics even before kindergarten and focus on it right up through graduate school.

We all need to learn humility and realize we're not really smarter than a honey bee.

I could go on and on but you quit listening long ago.