Show #58: Information theory, or why your brain is not your mind

[Breton]

A sudden thought came to me today from the show, where the guys got talking about Descartes arguing for the idea that animals have no mind or consciousness and therefore he could justify his vivisection practices because in the end the animals do not "experience pain" - or something along those lines. Also there was once a commonly held belief that babies were similar, so people could then justify inflicting painful operations on them.

The thought that I had then was maybe one could propose to the hard core scientific materialists that it would not matter then if someone would torture them because after all, they themselves argue that we are merely the collection of a chance combination of atoms that have no awareness or mind, but only the illusion of awareness and mind. So would the scientific materialists agree that their pain and suffering is an illusion and not to be taken seriously? Should they argue that any harm another being does to another does not matter and so we should not get upset at murder and torture and any kind of inflicted suffering?

So this is what happens when you take such logic down to its inevitable absurd conclusions in the face of all common sense experience. (something like Reductio ad absurdum)

 

[Kasia]

I’ve just listened to the show. It’s very informative, indeed!

I really like the part when Harrison is answering the Pierre’s question, namely: “Who designed the designer?”.

It seems to be obvious for all non-materialistic thinkers that the nature of the Intelligence (Designer) on a various levels is in a sense paranormal (extra-sensory perception - getting infos not through physical senses and psycho kinesis - using mind to affect other minds and physical systems).

I like the idea of the mind getting information from external sources, then influencing either directly or indirectly via DNA - or both…) a physical brain, staying in many quantum possibility states, and in this way changing probabilities of physical events. For me it seems pretty probable. Therefore it would be fascinating to try to explore and reveal the nature of the process of transferring information between mind and physical brain and other cells equipped with mem-brains.

Another example questions to be answered are:

- what’s the nature of process of absorbing and emitting electromagnetic signals (being the carrier of information?) by cells (including neuron cells)?
- what’s the role of electrons and photons (biophotons)?
- what for do electrons emit and absorb photons all the time? Is our consciousness coded in electrons and photons on a quantum level?
- what for are infons and tachions? Do they help to get infos from the past and the future? How does this process work?

I hope that one day we will know answers for these questions  :)

I'm looking forward to Harrison's book.

 

[Kasia]

The thought that I had then was maybe one could propose to the hard core scientific materialists that it would not matter then if someone would torture them because after all, they themselves argue that we are merely the collection of a chance combination of atoms that have no awareness or mind, but only the illusion of awareness and mind. So would the scientific materialists agree that their pain and suffering is an illusion and not to be taken seriously? Should they argue that any harm another being does to another does not matter and so we should not get upset at murder and torture and any kind of inflicted suffering?

I suppose that many materialists support only in public Descartes’s stance on animals, being soulless and unconscious, feeling no pain creatures. Asked in private they probably would not be so sure that they, their relatives or even animals consist just of a set of atoms.

Descartes’s opinion about animals was strongly influenced by Christian doctrine (if animals had immortal soul, if they were thinking beings, they should be delivered! It could not be accepted by the Church). It also allowed to excuse conducting cruel scientific experiments on animals, to get rid of pangs of conscience. Cruelty got scientific justification and compassion became a sign of ignorance.

Interesting is that Descartes had his own pet dog named Monsieur Grat of which he was taking much care. In private Descartes was saying that he didn’t exclude his dog could think – maybe having observed it on a daily basis he noticed some behaviors that could indicate his dog is not just a machine.

 

[Kasia]

A sudden thought came to me today from the show, where the guys got talking about Descartes arguing for the idea that animals have no mind or consciousness and therefore he could justify his vivisection practices because in the end the animals do not "experience pain" - or something along those lines. Also there was once a commonly held belief that babies were similar, so people could then justify inflicting painful operations on them.

The thought that I had then was maybe one could propose to the hard core scientific materialists that it would not matter then if someone would torture them because after all, they themselves argue that we are merely the collection of a chance combination of atoms that have no awareness or mind, but only the illusion of awareness and mind. So would the scientific materialists agree that their pain and suffering is an illusion and not to be taken seriously? Should they argue that any harm another being does to another does not matter and so we should not get upset at murder and torture and any kind of inflicted suffering?

So this is what happens when you take such logic down to its inevitable absurd conclusions in the face of all common sense experience. (something like Reductio ad absurdum)

I suppose that many materialists support only in public Descartes’s stance on animals, being soulless and unconscious, feeling no pain creatures. Asked in private they probably would not be so sure that they, their relatives or even animals consist just of a set of atoms.

Descartes’s opinion about animals was strongly influenced by Christian doctrine (if animals had immortal soul, if they were thinking beings, they should be delivered! It could not be accepted by the Church). It also allowed to excuse conducting cruel scientific experiments on animals, to get rid of pangs of conscience. Cruelty got scientific justification and compassion became a sign of ignorance.

Interesting is that Descartes had his own pet dog named Monsieur Grat of which he was taking much care. In private Descartes was saying that he didn’t exclude his dog could think – maybe having observed it on a daily basis he noticed some behaviors that could indicate his dog is not just a machine.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I suppose that many materialists support only in public Descartes’s stance on animals, being soulless and unconscious, feeling no pain creatures. Asked in private they probably would not be so sure that they, their relatives or even animals consist just of a set of atoms.

I think that's probably the case. For example, Hume said he was a solipsist in theory, and a realist in practice. He couldn't justify to himself that the world was real, but he couldn't help act as if it was. That should be a sign that something's wrong with the theory. Problem is, such beliefs do end up having a wider effect on society in general. It promotes a simplistic, atrophied sense of conscience.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Still haven't listened to this show (been trying to catch up with too many other things because of all the extra reading with the Ukraine situation, new C's session, etc.) Hoping to do so soon. But just wanted to say that I've thought about this schizophrenic attitude of materialists and other untenable attitudes encapsulated by Hume's attitude - totally absurd to hang on to a theory that can't be put into practice. FWIW.

 

[Kasia]

Still haven't listened to this show (been trying to catch up with too many other things because of all the extra reading with the Ukraine situation, new C's session, etc.) Hoping to do so soon. But just wanted to say that I've thought about this schizophrenic attitude of materialists and other untenable attitudes encapsulated by Hume's attitude - totally absurd to hang on to a theory that can't be put into practice. FWIW.

Some are inclined to do a lot to please scientific PTB; in many cases it's just an attitude of authoritarian follower.

 

[Anthony]

Nietzsche made a good observation on the absurdity of of idealism
in Beyond Good and Evil.

And other people even say that the outer world might be the work of our organs?
But then our bodies, as a part of this outer world, would, in fact, be the work of our organs!
But then our organs themselves would, in fact, be - the work of our organs.
It seems to me that this is a fundamental reductio ad absurdum [absurd conclusion] provided that the idea of causa sui [something being its own cause] is fundamentally absurd.
Consequently, is the exterior world not the work of our organs -?

 

[gdpetti]

:/ Well...

And other people even say that the outer world might be the work of our organs?
But then our bodies, as a part of this outer world, would, in fact, be the work of our organs!
But then our organs themselves would, in fact, be - the work of our organs.
It seems to me that this is a fundamental reductio ad absurdum [absurd conclusion] provided that the idea of causa sui [something being its own cause] is fundamentally absurd.
Consequently, is the exterior world not the work of our organs -?

Causa sui? Sounds like Creator = Creation don't you think? Which is a good excuse for all kinds of behaviour, attitudes, beliefs, acts etc. Just blame it on God, the Creator... he/she/it made you do it... continues to make you do it... and in a way, they are correct aren't they? Isn't this the Law of One? Blame it on choice, but whose choice is it if one is 'asleep'? And even if 'the sleeper awakens', whose thoughts are running through its mind? And whose mind is it after all?

Isn't claiming your plant, pet or infant as undeveloped consciousness and therefore unable to feel pain as a human who is considered an 'adult' (whatever that means) ... isn't this just a means of remaining detached and keeping a healthy ego for those practicing genocide and the like? Thereby they cannot be held responsible for their actions, same as politicians and soldiers during war and other assorted engagements not considered peaceful in society. Seems the very definition of psychopaths and the effect they have on a ponerized society.

So perhaps 'causa sui' seems fundamentally absurd, but isn't it also fundamentally correct? So that all one is left with is Choice, especially at this level of the game. It's all a question of how you choose to see things, feel things and evaluate things in the abstract mind... which eventually leads one beyond the body and questions such as these.

But if you disagree, blame God, IT made me do it.... whatever it/IT is. Good way to avoid conscience and feelings of responsibility towards others, the Golden Rule etc... perhaps a prerequisite for empire-building? For if you build it (this state of mind), they (psychos and their kin) will come... and isn't that the Field of Dreams, err, Nightmares we are accustomed to? And the question is how many in society can be encouraged to follow along.

 

[davey72]

Just got to listen. Great show.

 

[Keit]

Here is a recent case of a man with a memory loss.
http://www.sott.net/article/277296-Total-recall-Slavic-style-Czech-officers-identify-Norway-mystery-man