I wonder if that’s now another of the Biden-era policy decisions Trump plans on overturning…

Just the first of many, MANY more to come.

The Republican plan, rather obviously, is to take this election by whatever means necessary - fairly, or if that fails fraudulently, or if that fails by judicial fiat, or if that fails by force.

That’s the biggest reason I don’t even call this a revolution. It’s a coup.

Yeah - I hesitated to post that, since even with the clearly negative characterization of all of the clearly negative aspects of it, it still sort of sounds as if not defending democracy is the right thing to do, when it’s really only “right” in an extremely narrow, warped, relativistic and brazenly evil sense.

Still though…

That’s a fascinating concept.

And yes - though a yank, I know Doctor Who. ;)

(And this is the point at which I accidentally tapped “Reply” last time through, which is why there’s a deleted post before this one)

Anyway…

My first reaction was that it didn’t make sense that a consciousness could find itself attached to (hosted by?) a different mind and just blithely continue on.

But the more I think about it, the more I think that’s at least reasonable, and possibly even likely.

A consciousness might be comparable to a highly sophisticated and self-aware frontend. Any range of data or software can be stored and run through it, and when new data or even a new piece of software is introduced, the frontend/consciousness can and will (if it’s working correctly) integrate it with the system, and it can review the data and software it’s overseeing and find flaws and (unless the ego subsystem intervenes) amend or replace it, and so on.

And viewed that way, and taking into account the likely mechanics of the whole thing, it really is possible and arguably even likely that it would be essentially content-neutral. It would make sense that while the experience of “I the audience” is itself a distinct thing, the specific details - the beliefs and values and memories and such that make it up - are just data pulled from memory, and it could just as easily pull any other data from any other memory (if it had access to it).

Fascinating…

deleted by creator

The really disturbing part is that he’s technically correct.

At this point in history, supporting democracy really is a partisan position, since the Republicans uniformly and adamantly oppose it, and intend to impose christofascist autocracy in its place.

Fight the urge to immediately get off the train.

Even with as many episodes of Star Trek as I’ve seen, I’m sure I’d want to rush right out and start exploring.

Neither really. Sort of.

There are certainly inherently repugnant beliefs, but beliefs in and of themselves are harmless - they’re just a particular pattern of firing neurons in a brain. They literally cannot bring harm to others just in and of themselves.

The thing that makes some beliefs horrible is not the mere holding of them, but the things one who holds them is likely to do. It’s those acts that are the real evil - the beliefs are just a foundation, or a trigger.

Now, all that said, I would hazard that it’s exceedingly rare at best (and arguably impossible) for anyone to hold noxious beliefs without them in some way affecting their behavior, so the mere holding of noxious beliefs can certainly serve as a justification for the conclusion that the person in question is in fact horrible. Still though, to be (perhaps overly) precise, I’d say that it’s not the belief itself that makes them a horrible person, but merely that the belief makes it quite likely that they’ll act in ways that make them (or reveal them to be) horrible people.

I get where you’re going with that analogy. It’s a bit awkward, just because, as you did, you have to stipulate shelter as opposed to the sheltered area, but with that stipulation it does work, and quite well really.

And as analogies should be, it’s intriguing.

But…

My first reaction is that it’s sort of similar to the “consciousness is an illusion” concept in that it appears to just move the problem back one step rather than solve it.

It seems to me that what you’re describing is the “space” (or maybe "framework would be better) in which consciousness takes place, but not consciousness itself.

The problem then (as is the problem with the consciousness is an illusion idea) is that that space/framework/whatever is only of note if a consciousness is introduced.

At the risk of bringing in too many metaphors, it’s akin to the “tree falling in a forest” thought experiment. The tree falling in the forest certainly generates disturbances in the air that, were there ears to hear them, would register as sound. But without ears to hear them, they’re just disturbances in the air. Similarly, it seems to me that the “shelter” that’s apparently intrinsic to the brain is only rightly considered “shelter” if there’s a consciousness to experience it. Without a consciousness to experience it, it’s just a space/framework/whatever.

Anyway, do you believe there is any ingredient to consciousness other than the physically of the brain?

I believe that consciousness in and of itself is obviously that.

I probably should’ve clarified - when I say “consciouness,” I’m referring to the state/process that’s at least one step removed from immediate perception.

I see a round red thing and recognize it to be food. That’s just perception.

I also recognize it to be the thing called an “apple” (in English - other languages have other words). I know that they grow on trees and come in many varieties, and I remember the tree in the side yard of the house I grew up in and how the apples were small and yellow and very good, but I had to generally get a ladder to get any apples, since the deer ate the ones close to the ground (and the ones on the ground, which at least meant I didn’t have to worry about cleaning them up), oh yeah and mom had a recipe for raw apple cake and it was delicious, but she bought the apples for that because the ones from the tree were too firm and tangy to bake with… and so on.

That’s the part that, to me, corresponds with the “shelter” in your analogy.

But that’s still not consciousness.

Consciousness is the apparently entirely non-physical “audience” to all of that - the “I” that’s aware of the process as it’s happening.

For example, it’s not the part that recognizes an apple, or the part that categorizes it as food, or even the part that remembers the apple tree and the cake and feels nostalgia - it’s the part that’s one step removed from all of that - the internal “audience” (of one) that observes that “I” am experiencing all of that.

And it seems to me that your view accounts for all of those subsidiary things, but doesn’t account for the “audience” - consciousness. Consciousness is distinct from, and at least one step removed from, all of those things.

And finally (though this has already gone on quite long) -

I don’t believe that consciouness is a manifestation of some “spark” or “soul” or anything else external. I think it’s really a relatively mundane function of the brain that we simply haven’t come to understand yet (and for as long as “science” remains blinkered by reductive physicalism, likely won’t be able to come to understand). The key, and the thing (to go all the way back) that ties it in with free will, is that I believe that (as I mentioned before) the communication between brain and consciousness is bidirectional - that there’s some mechanism by which conscious thought alone can at least affect if not wholly direct the path along which neurons fire, and likely not only pioneer new paths, but in some way “flag” them, such that the new path is (nominally) properly fitted into the whole.

And again - thanks. This is some of the most rewarding mental exercise I’ve had in a long time.

No shit?

They didn’t buy Trump for no reason

It’s a hosting site for free ebooks.

The site admins don’t provide any of the ebooks themselves - they just host files that are uploaded by whoever wishes, and provide for downloads for whoever wishes. (Not that that alters its legal status - just by way of explanation).

It’s notably popular among college students, as a source to download free versions of obscenely overpriced textbooks.

That consciousness is (theoretically) an emergent property of the brain doesn’t make it indistinguishable from the brain. I would say that it’s self-evidently a thing unto itself - while consciousness appears to be (and logically is) a manifestation of brain activity, it is not that brain activity in and of itself. My experience of consciousness undoubtedly manifests via the firing of neurons and release of chemicals, but it is not merely the firing of neurons and release of chemicals - it’s an experience unto itself.

To use a potentially poor analogy, consciousness might be viewed as the fruit of the plant of the brain. While the fruit comes to be solely through the workings of the plant, it still, fully formed, has an existence outside of, and even to some degree independent of, the plant.

Or something like that…

And this neatly illustrates the grotesquely destructive delusion that lies at the heart of religious fundamentalism - it’s ultimately, and I’m tempted to say without exception, an attempt by overtly evil people to place the blame for their evil on others, or on society as a whole.

The underlying issue is not that other people feel lust, for instance, but that they themselves feel lust, and they consider that to be so shameful that their self-images cannot tolerate the idea that it’s a part of their own makeup. It must and can only be, to them, a thing that’s been imposed on them by “evil” people or an “evil” society, so the solution, to them, is to stamp out that “evil.” Solely in the belief, ultimately, that if that “evil” could somehow be made to not exist, it would no longer plague them.

Or, as you acknowledged before, it seems like you experience them.

Yes.

If I’m to be precise, it seems that I exist on what seems to be a planet in what seems to be a universe. On that seeming planet it seems as if I am surrounded by what seem to be things - some of which seem to be alive and others of which seem not to be. And among the ones that seem to be alive, there are some that seem to share the classification I seem to possess, as a human being.

In my seeming experience as what seems to be accurately desgnated a human being, I seem to experience some things, among them the process of seeming to make choices. And that process of seeming to make choices is a thing that I seemingly perceive the other seeming humans who seem to exist seemingly relate to be a part of their seeming lives as well.

And so on. Since I, as seems to be the case with all other beings that seem to exist, live behind the veil of perception, I cannot know for certain that any part of what I experience represents an objective reality. So every single aspect of my experience of life, most accurately, can only be said to seem to be as I perceive it to be.

And each of these inputs could be understood as the inevitable result of a causal chain.

I simply don’t believe that to be the case, if for no other reason than that that would appear to make creative reasoning impossible. If reason was merely the manifestation of a rigid causal chain, then all reason would follow the same paths to the same destinations. The fact that human history is, viewed one way, a record of new chains being followed to new destinations, means that there must be some mechanism by which consciousness can and does effectively “switch tracks.” Or even introduce entirely new ones.

It’s super complex and likely involves technology that we don’t yet possess, but if I could perfectly simulate a brain identical to yours, with the same neural states, and the same concentrations of relevant chemicals in its simulated blood at the moment of the decision, that simulated brain would have to produce the same output as as your meaty one.

Nor do I believe that to be true, since while consciousness appears to be a manifestation of the mechanical workings of the brain, it is not itself merely those mechanical workings - it is a “thing” unto itself. And I believe, quite simply, that the relationship between consciousness and the brain is not unidirectional, but bidirectional - that just as the physical state of a brain can be a proximate cause of a chain of thought, a chain of thought can be a proximate cause of a physical state of a brain.

And in fact, I would say that that’s easily demonstrated by the fact that one can trigger a response - fight or flight for instance - merely by imagining a threat. There’s no need for any physical manifestation of the threat - a wholly conscious, wholly non-physical imagining of it is sufficient. That says to me, rather clearly, that consciousness can serve as a cause - not merely as an effect.

And on a side note, thanks for the responses - this subject particularly fascinates me, but I find intellectually honest debate on it to be vanishingly rare.

I don’t understand where you found justification to state that there really are such points.

Because I experience them, and not just at times, but moment-to-moment, every waking day. And so do you. And so does essentially every single human in existence.

That indicates two possibilities - either it’s a universal illusion, and in both senses of the term - one experienced by everyone and one experienced without exception by each individual, or it’s a real experience.

And I just find the former to be so ridiculously unlikely that the latter can be safely said to be near certainly true.

How do you dismiss the idea that our conscious choice is not simply an application of the myriad parameters?

I don’t. I simply include consciousness, and all it entails - reason, value, self-interest, preference, mood, etc. - among those parameters.

deleted by creator

That’s unfortunate - you credited me with debating in good faith, yet won’t do the same.

You rather obviously knew that the way you attempted to frame my position was disparaging - if you hadn’t, you wouldn’t have felt the need to add that proviso to the end of your post. What you clearly attempted to do with that was to disparage the position, while asserting that you didn’t mean it personally.

Ah well.

god of the gaps

supernatural

Without those obvious pejoratives, that would’ve been a pretty good summation of at least that aspect of my position.

With those obvious pejoratives, it was reduced to an unfortunate expression of bias.

I believe that it’s not simply that science doesn’t yet fully understand how the brain works, but that it’s not even really equipped to deal with consciousness, which while clearly a manifestation of physical processes, is not itself physical.

That and we’re in an era in which “science” (scare quotes because part of the problem IMO is a misunderstanding of what science can do and does) has largely moved to the forefront of the pursuit of understanding, but humanity is still to some significant degree stuck in a quasi-religious mindset, so all too many have merely shifted from a devout faith that their religion provides every answer to everything ever to a devout faith that “science” provides every answer to everything ever.

The problem then comes when they run up against something for which science can’t provide an answer. And the common response then is to blithely insist that that thing must not and cannot exist at all, since the alternative is to face the fact that science potentially cannot provide every answer to everything ever. And that’s generally accompanied by an immediate assignment of whatever it is that’s in question to the other half of their wholly binaristic worldview - if it’s not amenable to science, it must and can only be religion/magic.

Reality, IMO, is vaster than that.

Because people who do not have the approval of party power brokers and wealthy donors are effectively locked out, leaving only people of which the power brokers and donors approve.

The primary requirements of the power brokers and donors are that the would-be candidate has no principles that might interfere with them getting whatever it is that they want but have enough skill and/or charisma to project the illusion of principles to the voters. They want someone they can count on to exclusively serve their interests while maintaining enough of an appearance that they serve the interests of the people to win an election, then maintain at least enough support to function in office.

And since they control, as the case might be, the nomination process and the funding of campaigns, they get what they want.

Because there are points at which, exactly as seems to be the case, we consciouly choose to follow one particular path in spite of the fact that we could just as easily have chosen another.