Time: 20 18. 12.22
Bone of the desert:
You said consciousness always existed. Then where did the electrical signal after your death go?
Daily line:
I have told you that the brain is not equal to consciousness. The electrical signal of the brain is produced by the entanglement of consciousness and material brain. And consciousness can get rid of the entanglement of the material brain. Entanglement with other quantum states of matter.
Besides, the electric signal you said is very classic. That's only produced by measurement. According to quantum physics, there is no such thing as an electrical signal. Without measurement, the electrical signal is just an abstract probability wave, which is not in the classical three-dimensional space.
Bone of the desert:
Ok, how do you prove that your consciousness is intertwined with other substances?
Daily line:
As long as wave consciousness exists, there must be different entanglements. Because the wave nature itself contains superposition, it is bound to form entanglement.
Daily line:
As long as the wave-particle duality of consciousness is established, it is certain that consciousness can exist after death. I don't say samsara must exist, because samsara is too easy to be understood as samsara of Buddhism.
Bone of the desert:
I believe what you said for the time being. I take brain science as an example. Take reincarnation as an example. It is said that there are really experiments in the world to record reincarnation.
Daily line:
Samsara is the inevitable existence of wave consciousness, which can be inferred by electronic double-slit experiment and the wave-particle image of consciousness deduced on this basis, and then the inevitable existence of samsara can be inferred logically.
But if you really understand the wave-particle duality of mind and matter, the diffusion and collapse mechanism of wave-particle duality of consciousness, the identity and subjectivity of consciousness and the characteristics of concretization, you will also know that most people do not have reincarnation. . .
Most people won't, because most people's self-subjectivity is very weak, and their understanding of themselves is limited to their own bodies. Death will disintegrate most people's understanding of identity, subjectivity and memory experience.
Most people's identity recognition is based on memory experience and self-body. Although we don't know what the real identity is, we will judge that I was the same myself when I was a child, when I was a child and when I was old according to our own memory experience.
Daily line:
Brain science can't explain the empirical sensitivity of consciousness at all.
Bone of the desert:
What is the sensitivity of consciousness?
Daily line:
All your feelings, whether it's pain, sadness, happiness or seeing a red flower, are hard to explain with brain science. This is a recognized problem of consciousness difficulty, and neuroscience can do nothing about it.
Daily line:
However, neither behaviorism nor functionalism has achieved the goal of completely reducing the mind and its consciousness to human behavior or the function of the brain, as Colin McGinn pointed out: There is no doubt that the brain is the physiological basis of consciousness, but what we know nothing about is, "How does the water in the brain become the wine of consciousness?" In Joseph Levin's words, there seems to be an insurmountable "explanation gap" between the physiological process of the human brain and the conscious experience of the soul [5] 69. This "gap" is reflected in the following aspects: even after the physiological mechanism of an organism's cognitive function and behavior near the conscious experience is reasonably explained, there is still an unresolved question-why are those functions and behaviors always accompanied by some kind of "conscious experience"? Why can't its information processing process be carried out in the "darkness" without any inner feelings? David Chalmers believes that only this problem related to "conscious experience" is the real "difficult problem" in the relationship between mind and body.
Daily line:
So, what is "conscious experience"? On this issue, nagel's bat is also of groundbreaking significance. Nagel believes that saying that "a creature is conscious" means that "this creature knows what it feels like to be alive"; We think that bats are conscious creatures, because we believe that bats "know" (meaning that they can directly experience) the feeling of being alive. Similarly, saying that "a creature is in a conscious state" means that "that creature knows what it feels like to be in that state". We say that bats consciously catch moths by echolocation sonar system, because we believe that bats can experience the feeling at that time [2]. The same is true of people: someone consciously feels pain on his scalded finger because he knows what that unpleasant feeling is.
Daily line:
Conscious experiences are varied, and people usually call those characteristics that distinguish one kind of conscious experience from another as the "phenomenon attribute" or "quality" of experience. Generally speaking, every specific conscious behavior or state has a certain "quality". Take feeling as an example, each sensory experience has its own characteristics different from other sensory experiences, such as watching a ripe red tomato, smelling pungent gasoline and enduring the pain of sprained foot ... Every sensory experience becomes a certain type of sensory experience because of its "quality", which is different from other types of sensory experiences.
Furthermore, watching red tomatoes and green lettuce bring us two different sensory experiences. The difference between them is that the former is red and the latter is green. In other words, the differences between them can be attributed to their differences in "quality". In this respect, "quality" is the core component of conscious experience. In order to distinguish it from the nature of objective things, domestic scholars usually translate "qualia" (the nature of conscious experience) into "sensory quality" (or "sensory nature", "sensory quality" and so on. ).
Daily line:
As the core component of conscious experience, "perceptual quality" is characterized by its inability to restore human behavior or the physiological mechanism and function of human brain, which constitutes a serious challenge to functionalism in philosophy of mind, so it is called "Achilles heel" of functionalism.
Daily line:
Stay with the breath of life. What you said earlier is a kind of functionalism, or the neuroreductionism of consciousness. Because of the sensitivity of this consciousness, it has been recognized as difficult to establish in the field of philosophy of mind. So far, functionalism cannot give an explanation.
Daily line:
Subjectivity and self-awareness of perceptual quality and conscious experience
/s/mPbRyuIyHll99wWlgBXe_A
Daily line:
The above text is taken from the above paper.
Daily line:
The unsolved problems about nervous system and brain are very different from those in physics, chemistry and even biology. Not only readers of this book can point out the major defects in our knowledge and understanding, but even people outside the scientific circle know that we don't know the mechanism of advanced functions (such as consciousness, learning and sleep), how to produce coordinated actions, and even how to bend our fingers at will. It is probably much more difficult for the same person, even a wise and well-educated person, to point out the problems that need to be explored in the fields of relativity, particle physics, chemical reactions or genetics. There are many unresolved issues that are obviously of great significance to human beings, which is why neuroscience has become so attractive today.
-[English] Nickalls. Neurobiology: From Neuron to Brain (5th Edition) [M]. Science press. 20 14.
Daily line:
For the sensory system, we still can't explain the neural mechanism of integration (such as a complete image of a bullfrog or an Jerusalem artichoke), let alone the integration with the outside world.
-Nickalls. Neurobiology: From Neuron to Brain (5th Edition) [M]. Science press. 20 14.
Daily line:
If someone asked me to condense this book into one sentence, I would say that all people, including neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, psychologists, philosophers and ordinary readers, should be aware of the essential contradictions that drive all mental research. The mind exists in two different dimensions, one is the experience that people feel and the other is the abstract concept. The inevitable conclusion is that the intersection of unconscious psychological feelings plays an important role in our understanding of what the mind is and what psychological intelligence does. At present, the situation facing mankind is that the involuntary mind strongly feels that it can explain itself rationally. This contradiction is inevitable, and no matter how good science or new technology can affect it. Although we can and should strive to improve our thinking, it is always limited. Ironically, even if there is an ultimate absolute conclusion about the nature of the mind, we can't know it unless we all think in the same way-which is physically impossible.
-[America] Robert Burton. How to say neuroscience [M]. Zhejiang People's Publishing House.2017
Daily line:
None of us, whether the smartest or most knowledgeable neuroscientist, philosopher or human observer, can come to the final conclusion. Each of us is weaving stories instead of revealing absolute truth. The mind is always a mystery. For neuroscientists, humbly admitting limitations is the first step in studying the brain. If this means that neuroscientists have to get out of their education and personal beliefs in order to think about how the ego subconsciously influences their conclusions, so be it. Insisting on the untenable claim that understanding the brain only needs undeniable data is tantamount to ignoring our understanding of how the brain works.
-[America] Robert Burton. How to say neuroscience [M]. Zhejiang People's Publishing House.2017
Daily line:
Neuroscientists admit that their research on mind and consciousness is only at a very early stage, and consciousness is too versatile to explain.
Daily line:
When reading any neuroscience claims about the brain, please remember:
All thoughts and research on the mind are guided by unconscious brain mechanisms, which together form an illusion that the unique self can make an intentional and unbiased inquiry into how the brain produces the mind.
Although this kind of understanding is always biased, the first necessary step to truly understand what the mind may be is to consider how these unconscious psychological States produce our feelings about the mind.
Failure to recognize the biological limitations of the mind in understanding itself will only lead to further exaggeration of neuroscience.
-[America] Robert Burton. How to say neuroscience [M]. Zhejiang People's Publishing House.2017
Daily line:
In fact, neuroscience doesn't study consciousness at all, and it can't explain it. As an advanced function, consciousness has been ruled out by neuroscience. Neuroscience mainly studies how nerve cells generate electrical signals, how to communicate with each other, how to work together and so on. These are objective phenomena that can be observed and studied, while consciousness is purely subjective.
There is a huge gap between the electrochemical reaction of objective neurons and the subjective macroscopic image perception experience based on the same self-subject, which neuroscience is unable to do at present. As neuroscientist Nichols said, "For the sensory system, we still can't clarify the neural mechanism of integration (such as a complete image of a bullfrog or an Jerusalem artichoke), let alone the integration with the outside world".
-Tianxing2018.11.27
====
The integration of complete images mentioned above is actually the apperception function of transcendental self, and empirical neuroscientists can never really find this mechanism. Unless there is a paradigm shift.
Bone of the desert:
I was thinking, didn't what you posted above prove the power of FMRI? Can capture all the consciousness in the brain. And the consciousness of "transcending time and space", what do you take to prove that you really have a sense of eternal life?
Daily line:
Why can't you see the problems about consciousness, experience and feeling?
Daily line:
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a new neuroimaging method, and its principle is to measure the hemodynamic changes caused by neuronal activity through magnetic resonance imaging. Because of its non-invasive, non-radiation exposure and wide application, fMRI has occupied a place in the field of brain function localization since 1990' s. At present, it is mainly used to study the brain or spinal cord of human and animals.
Daily line:
FMRI can't capture all conscious behaviors, it can only find different electrical signals. But these electrical signals are inexperienced!
Daily line:
David Chalmers pointed out: "In recent years, all psychological phenomena have been scientifically studied, and only stubborn consciousness is resisting them." Therefore, in order to promote the study of consciousness, he divided consciousness into "easy questions" and "difficult questions". The so-called "easy problems" refer to problems that can be directly dealt with by the standard methods of cognitive science. Specifically, "the easy problem of consciousness includes various problems that explain the following phenomena: the ability to distinguish, classify and respond to environmental stimuli; Integrating information through cognitive system; Reportability of mental state: the ability to systematically understand one's inner state; Concentrate; Deliberate control of behavior; The difference between waking and sleeping. " For example, a mental state is conscious when it can be understood in an internal way without language expression; When a system has the ability to respond to the information source, it is considered that the system knows the information.
All these phenomena can be reasonably explained according to the mechanism of cranial nerves. For example, to explain the reportability of mental state, we only need to use the standard methods of cognitive science to explain how the information about mental state is extracted by brain nerves and reported by language. To explain the "difference between waking and sleeping", we only need to make an appropriate neurophysiological explanation of the comparative behavior process of organisms in those States. In short, in the case of each "simple problem", the corresponding cognitive or neurophysiological model can explain those tasks well.
The "difficult problem" is "a question about experience". For example, when we look at grapes, we have this experience: the perceived purple quality, the depth of vision, the experience of light and shade, the feeling of joy or sadness when we see them, and so on. These experiences are different from the "easy problems" of consciousness, and "something may exist in them", which is the "feeling nature". Chalmers believes that these "questions about experience" cannot be explained by cognitive science and neuroscience, so they are "problems" of consciousness. The "problem" of consciousness lies in the nature of feeling.
In chalmers's view, "easy questions" are not the focus of research, because "there is every reason to believe that cognitive science and neuroscience methods will succeed". The "real spiritual mystery" is the difficult problem of how the physical process of the brain causes subjective consciousness, because no scientific consciousness theory can explain how you feel when you hear Mozart's piano music or unfortunate news.
Daily line:
FMRI can only solve the simple problems of consciousness, but it cannot explain the difficult problems of consciousness: experience sensitivity, subjectivity and subjectivity. . . .
Daily line:
The "real spiritual mystery" is the difficult problem of how the physical process of the brain causes subjective consciousness, because no scientific consciousness theory can explain how you feel when you hear Mozart's piano music or unfortunate news.
Daily line:
FMRI observes and studies the physical processes of the brain! There is a huge gap between the physical process of the brain and the empirical sensitivity of consciousness!
Bone of the desert:
The experience sensitivity of consciousness is only the memory of perception.
Daily line:
This is not a memory. You are mistaken.
Daily line:
Pain is a subjective feeling. Seeing red is also subjective.
Bone of the desert:
That is perception-experience, the memory of experience-the arousal of experience.
Daily line:
The "difficult problem" is "a question about experience". For example, when we look at grapes, we have this experience: the perceived purple quality, the depth of vision, the experience of light and shade, the feeling of joy or sadness when we see them, and so on. These experiences are different from the "easy problems" of consciousness, and "something may exist in them", which is the "feeling nature". Chalmers believes that these "questions about experience" cannot be explained by cognitive science and neuroscience, so they are "problems" of consciousness. The "problem" of consciousness lies in the nature of feeling.
Daily line:
In chalmers's view, the real problem of consciousness lies in experience. Why are all these treatments accompanied by experiencing the inner life? The problem can be specifically expressed as: What is consciousness? Why does conscious experience exist? If it originated from the body system, how did it come into being? This leads to some more specific questions, such as whether consciousness itself is physical or just an accessory of physical system? How did consciousness evolve? Secondly, it also includes explaining the characteristics of conscious experience: assuming that conscious experience exists, why does individual experience have its unique nature? This is the core question that consciousness theory must answer.
Bone of the desert:
Can people born blind have the concept of red?
Daily line:
This is not an idea, but a red experience when you see red. Pain, sadness and happiness all have a subjective experience, which cannot be reduced to the electrochemical reaction of any neuron.
Bone of the desert:
I only believe in the experimental evidence of brain science, and it is difficult for me to understand the "philosophy of life" that is derived.
Daily line:
Your so-called brain science can't explain the empirical sensitivity of consciousness so far. This is already recognized!
Bone of the desert:
Perceptual consciousness experience is just sensory perception+perceptual memory.
Daily line:
Memorizing information and experiencing feelings are two different things! At that time, there was an experience and feeling. Don't remember, don't remember! People can recall this experience afterwards, but when they feel real pain, there is no need for a meeting.
Bone of the desert:
That's how the idea came about.
Can people born blind have red thoughts?
I can't. So, what's the use of "sensitivity of experience consciousness"
Daily line:
David Chalmers talks about consciousness-TED talk
/noteshare？ id = d30c 17a 70 D4 a 86 1b0c 4 1b 378 a3 e 4083 a
Daily line:
This kind of research in neuroscience is answering the questions we want to answer about consciousness, about what certain brain regions do and what to respond to. But in a sense, these are simple questions. Not what neuroscientists want to study. There is no really simple question about consciousness. It fails to solve the real mystery about the core of this subject: why do all physical processes in the brain have to be accompanied by consciousness? Why is there such a subjective film? So far, we know nothing about it.
Maybe you will say, give neuroscience a few more years. It will prove to be another emerging phenomenon, like traffic jams, like hurricanes, like life, and we will understand it. All the classic cases of emergency phenomena are manifestations of emergency behavior, how traffic jams are caused, how hurricanes work, how organisms reproduce, adapt to the environment and metabolism. All these problems are related to the objective function. You can apply it to the human brain to explain why some behaviors and functions of the human brain are similar to emergent phenomena: how do we walk, how do we talk and how do we play chess? All these questions are about behavior. But when it comes to consciousness, the question about behavior is just a simple question. When encountering a difficult problem, the question becomes why all these behaviors are accompanied by subjective experience. In this regard, the standard paradigm of emerging phenomena, even the standard paradigm of neuroscience, has not much to say so far.
Daily line:
You've always had all kinds of experiences, don't you know?
Bone of the desert:
Your FMRI map will fluctuate at any time.
Daily line:
The problem is that the FMRI map does not reflect this experience! It doesn't know what pain is! It doesn't hurt! This question is not difficult to understand.
Bone of the desert:
It will be displayed on the image. Show all your feelings on the image. This is called evidence.
Daily line:
The experience of pain and the physical and behavioral reactions caused by pain, including the changes of brain waves, cannot be equated! There is a corresponding relationship between the two, but it doesn't mean they are the same thing!
Bone of the desert:
Where is your "brain-independent sense of eternal life"?
Daily line:
Consciousness can never be displayed or observed.
Bone of the desert:
This is not the same thing, but FMRI can capture them and display them on the image. When there is any electrical signal activity in your brain, the FMRI image will fluctuate.
Daily line:
You're confused again. You're only capturing the electrochemical reaction of the brain, not consciousness! ! !
Bone of the desert:
Explain consciousness = electrical signal fluctuation, and the evidence is that the deceased's brain is not active.
When a person dies, the image of FMRI still exists. So, where is the consciousness of eternal life?
Daily line:
This can only prove that the electrochemical reaction of the brain has stopped, but it cannot prove that consciousness has stopped!
Unless you can prove that consciousness = electrical signal activity. If you want to prove that consciousness = electrical signal activity, then you must explain the empirical sensitivity of consciousness, including its subjectivity, how to recognize its identity and how to restore it to electrical signals of neurons.
Bone of the desert:
Consciousness = electrical signal activity. Every moment when people are alive, FMRI fluctuates. As long as they are alive, brain science shows black in the image. When a person dies, all the images turn white.
Daily line:
It can only be said that there is a corresponding relationship between consciousness and EEG activity, but it does not mean that they are equal!
Daily line:
This is similar to the correspondence between the electrical signal activity between the mobile phone cpu and the motherboard and the running of App, but it cannot be said that the electrical signal in the mobile phone cpu is APP. We can only say that there is a corresponding relationship between consciousness and EEG activity, but we can't say that they are equal!
Bone of the desert:
Consciousness = brain activity = those black images of FMRI fluctuations = all human brain activities, fmri has captured. Show it in images.
Just like the relationship between computers and electricity. When the power is cut off, the FMRI image is all white. Prove that all conscious activities depend on the brain.
So, here's the problem. Is there consciousness outside the brain? If so, where is it? "
Daily line:
Stay while the breath of life is still there: prove that all conscious activities depend on the brain.
This can't be proved either. It can only prove that when a person is alive, his conscious activities are dependent on his brain, that's all! And it doesn't prove that brain activity equals consciousness.
Bone of the desert:
Absolute correlation, the correlation number is 100%, which can't be proved? Unless you are dead, the FMRI image has a black part at any time, and when you are dead, it is all white.
Daily line:
Not 100%! The experience sensitivity, subject identity and content of consciousness, including the information integration function of consciousness (in fact, the transcendental apperception of wave consciousness), can't be found out in EEG activities!
Bone of the desert:
FMRI still has images
Daily line:
If you say 100%, then you must find out where the experience sensitivity of consciousness is, where the subject identity is, and those electrical signals are reflected in brain activities.
Daily line:
Your so-called FMRI image can explain too much, and you seriously exaggerate it. Can FMRI show the subjective cognition of consciousness?
Bone of the desert:
It's that you don't want to admit that all consciousness is the electrical signal of the brain. The correlation coefficient is close to 100%.
Bone of the desert:
Of course, the atlas will still fluctuate during deep sleep.
Daily line:
I don't think it is close to 100% at all. I think it's less than 50%. Because one of the most important contents, that is, the experience and feelings of consciousness all the time, can not be displayed. Can it show conscious dreams?
Bone of the desert:
It is said that FMRI fluctuates all the time, unless you are dead. Here comes the problem. When it does not fluctuate, when it dies, "where is consciousness?"
Daily line:
It doesn't show any subjective content of consciousness! A process of thinking and judgment that does not show consciousness.
Bone of the desert:
It can show which area of the brain is active when dreaming.
Daily line:
But I can't show the content of the dream! ! !
Daily line:
Death is essentially a process in which wave consciousness and material brain get rid of entanglement.
Bone of the desert:
Where's consciousness? Do brain-dead people still have free will?
Daily line:
Wave consciousness is all-time, just like the material wave function of electrons.
Three seasons:
Do brain-dead people still have free will?
Bone of the desert:
No, there is no free will.
Daily line:
This is the wrong question. Of course, the dead have no free will, but the wave consciousness that has been pestering the brain still has its own free will.
Wave consciousness, similar to the soul, is the abstract consciousness of all time and space. The consciousness you perceive is just the collapse of this unprecedented abstract consciousness.
Next: Is consciousness the electrical signal of neurons (2)
Complete proof of wave-particle duality of consciousness ※
A brief introduction to the core concept of Star Learning. ※
Transcendental Self-argument: A Rational Investigation of Cognition ※
The pioneering work of new learning: preface to Everything is a Principle. ※
Leading the new cosmic thought of mankind. ※