[ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found

Sat Feb 22 17:52:34 UTC 2020

I don't know if your ideas are over my head, under my head or what.  I just
know that I don't understand them.  I read some of your and Stathis' stuff
and say to myself "What the hell are they talking about?"  bill w

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:47 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c468072e/attachment.htm>