"DRS" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> It is a state of consciousness that has been reached by these
> >>> people; one that has been called: God Consciousness, Christ
> >>> Consciosness, enlightenment, Nirvana/Paranirvana, Consciousness
> >>> Without and Object/Subject etc. etc.
> >>>
> >>> It is emminently reachable although most always ineffable to normal
> >>> waking consciousness.
> >>
> >> Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the mind loses
> >> contact with reality.
> >
> > You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality so for you to use all
> > three words in a sentence is evidence your reality is not in your
> > mind but in a psychotic state (like New York).
>
> Stop right there. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Stop right there. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Please establish how qualia are linked to neuronal events (neurochemical,
electrical or other eventings). You may use an extra sheet of virtual paper.
Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of consciousness
(SOC).
Mind and brain (perhaps identical, perhaps mere overlap in some aspects,
perhaps disjoint (although the latter is doubtful)) have been defined in
several thousand ways; so in that respect they have been defined away. As
mechanism interacting with mechanism but with nary a thought to emergence
(from complex systems theory - remember - the waterfall in Java is not wet!)
Do you know how the subject is related to the object in consciousness? (No
peeking at Damasio, Dennett, Searle or Chalmers now).
What is intelligence (this will be fun folks)? Is it (in all its aspects)
the mind, or does mind have other qualities. Ditto brain.
What you do not know about reductionism will kill you intellectually (as it
already has in your case, apparently) as it has been shown to be deficient
in a number of realms (graph theory, cross-sub-discipline scientific
explanations, especially those involving hierarchies and connections betwixt
them, etc.)
AFA psychoses are concerned, please show that St. Thomas Aquinas, Alan
Watts, Arthur Koestler, Franklin Merrill-Wolff, Jidu Krishnamurti, David
Bohm (you know the world-famous physicist), Sri Vivekananda, and all the
others who claimed a SOC that was supernal and real (as real as NWC) are all
psychotic - please reference their psychiatrists case numbers and reports
delineating their psychosis and how they were treated (Otherwise you are
blowing smoke outta your substantial ass - an ass that composes perhaps
98.343% of your body mass).
BTW, how do you tell if something in your mind is real or not? Is it the
concept, the precept or percept or recept from which the concept arose, or
something else? Or are objects before consciousness relatively real? How
does context and time affect what is perceived as real - temporal aspects of
neuronal group theory for example. What of the fast and slow chemical
synapses and their relationship with perception of temporality?
Will a machine become conscious? Is being conscious the same as having
consciousness? Self-consciousness?
When you have satisfactorily answered all the above, I will get back to you.
Until then, please gain thee a deeper understanding of the Universe before
displaying your ignorance and lack of breadth and depth in such matters.
Your child-like display of pseudo-intellectualism based on such a narrow
understanding of all the sciences is disgraceful.
Thanks!
