[ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found

[Brent Allsop]

Dang,

Why is it always this?  Almost never does anyone say: "Wow, given your
arguments and videos, I now really understand how factual it is that we
don't know what color anything is.  There is no "hard mind body problem"
after all, it's just a color problem.  What can I do to help push this
theoretical field forward?  How about I join a camp or sign a petition, now
that I understand, so we can further amplify the wisdom of the crowd?

Instead, it's always: "I don't belong in this conversation."

I guess this is evidence supporting Max Planck's adage "Science progresses
one funeral at a time" ?

Don't get me wrong.  I very much appreciate all you have provided to the
conversation.  That helped me better understand faults in my communication
methods, and to better understand how others think.


On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 7:57 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> I said that I will bow out of this conversation and I will.  I don't
> belong in it.
>
> bill w
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi William,
>> Yes of course, all this is absolutely true.  Nobody is disaputing any of
>> this.
>> But you are completely missing the point.
>> That point is the initial cause of perception is what we are eating, or
>> looking at.
>> The final result is our conscious knowledge of that.
>> Our eyes, and everything else need to do lots of tricks (such as the 60
>> HZ saccades your are describing) so that we can have accurate and
>> consistent knowledge.
>> If our conscious knowledge of such, fades, because we are overriding the
>> tricks our eyes are attempting to do, this change or fading in our
>> awareness of what we are seeing is what we are talking about, which you
>> seem to be completely ignoring.
>> You just continue to map everything I say into  a world where this
>> changing conscious awareness isn't real or something.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:01 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Our eyes vibrate at 60 Hz.  If you overcome this with a special camera,
>>> you can focus light on the same cells continuously.  What the person
>>> reports is that the light fades and comes back, fades again and comes
>>> back.  The explanation is that with continuous stimulation the neurons
>>> cannot make enough transmitter substance fast enough to send a continuous
>>> signal to the brain.  So it rests for a brief time to make more transmitter
>>> substance.
>>>
>>> Similarly, continuously stimulating nose and tongue receptors makes the
>>> underlying neurons run out of transmitters, and so the signals to the brain
>>> get weaker and weaker, and thus so do the sensations.  These neurons do not
>>> recover as fast as the eye neurons do (I don't remember the down time data
>>> - absolute refractory period followed by relative refractory period (during
>>> which a stronger than usual stimulus can elicit a response), followed by
>>> normal sensation)..
>>>
>>> So we have real, measurable changes in neurons causing lessening
>>> reported sensations until the transmitters can be made in sufficient
>>> quantity again.
>>>
>>> Of course you can keep on eating even though the sensations diminish, or
>>> other reasons.
>>>
>>> These changes are temporary, so of course they do not qualify as
>>> learning.
>>>
>>> This is from quite a while back.  I have not kept up with research on
>>> neurons.
>>>
>>> bill w
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:42 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi William,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK - just wanted to correct something I knew was false.  I don't know
>>>>> what kind of reality you are dealing with where those statements are true,
>>>>> but I'll stay out of it.  bill w
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, so let me see if I clearly understand your reality.
>>>> So, you say we continue to eat something that is not change, but our
>>>> perception of it 'fades'.
>>>>
>>>> In your reality, is the fact that something is 'fading" a change that
>>>> is not real, or this change doesn't exist?
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200222/f3665f42/attachment.htm>