Personality Cafe banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
In my web-surfing "sprees", I have stumbled onto a webpage, that details a revolutionary way of looking at the mind and consciousness as separate entities.

Personally, the originality of the perspective imposed by the below article, forces me to wonder: "How (or if) the theory (below-mentioned) could be applied to Myers-Briggs and what implications it may have?".

However, at the very least, if the theory does not hold to subjective perceptions it offers an original perspective on how the mind receives information. I am rather curious to hear your thoughts. The link can be found in spoiler.

Tagging: @Asmodaeus, @brightflashes

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Very interesting read @Agent X

That link is pretty much around the theory I personally believe in. I have a thread in the philosophy and critical thinking section you are welcome to join us any time over there :)
I will keep your recommendation at the forefront of my thoughts. Time permitting, an investment in the aforementioned forum section is extremely likely - it does coincide with my interests in philosophy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stockholmaren

·
Plague Doctor
INTJ, 5w4, Ni-T type
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
Thanks for tagging me on this. I'll be thinking about it and I'll let you know what I think about it once I've digested the information. : )
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agent X

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,427 Posts
i don't know enough about neuroscience to have any idea how seriously to take this. that's not a dis on either you or the ideas, just that i thought instantly of what the woo-people would make of it. i loved this though:

Quantum tunneling is a phenomenon in which a particle tunnels through a barrier it shouldn’t be able to according to classical physics.
ni leaps ftw! :winetime:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agent X

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
I want it to be true because it is a totally cool idea. What an excellent plot for a sci fi novel.

Sadly, I suspect Occam's Razor needs to be applied to this one.
 

·
Plague Doctor
INTJ, 5w4, Ni-T type
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
This is sort of the way I think of the "Collective Unconscious" as a series of archetypes - subjective and objective on a plane. At least, this was the way I visualized it when I first read about the Collective Unconscious. I hadn't revisited that concept until now. It's certainly compelling and an interesting way of understanding consciousness.

One thing which is an interesting criticism of psychoanalytical theory is that the unconscious / subconscious cannot be proven. Well, likewise, neither can consciousness. I would be interested in what an anesthesiologist would have to say about consciousness.

I do believe that consciousness and mind are two separate things which interact with one another and I also don't believe that consciousness and mind are contained solely in the brain. However, that's more of a personal, subjective "belief" which I have come to based on the information I've been exposed to.

I think that anyone interested in exploring the dimensions of mind and consciousness are essentially investigating the paranormal. However, I don't mean that as a criticism; just that science has yet to present a definite answer yet, and anything that is outside of what is normal or anything that is outside of what we understand to be nature (supernatural) is going to look a bit off until it's developed and proven or disproven. As someone who wants to know "all the things", I tend to be very attracted to these sorts of explanations as well as anomaly in science.
 

·
Delphic Seer
Joined
·
18,076 Posts
@Agent X

Hello again! :proud:

I’m not an expert in that particular field but what you’ve shared sounds interesting.

Not unlike @brightflashes, I’ll need to digest it.

In the meantime, I get the feeling you might like this book:



Amongst other things, the author contends that humans (along with all other living beings) can be regarded as information-processing units (based on bio-chemical algorithms) and since the flow of information of all kinds is basically becoming both universal and constant, our minds can theoretically become connected to the entirety of existence (seen as a vast information-processing system) and with one another through technological means.

Apotheosis, anyone?



A dimension of mind?

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
@Agent X

Hello again! :proud:

I’m not an expert in that particular field but what you’ve shared sounds interesting.

Not unlike @brightflashes, I’ll need to digest it.

In the meantime, I get the feeling you might like this book:



Amongst other things, the author contends that humans (along with all other living beings) can be regarded as information-processing units (based on bio-chemical algorithms) and since the flow of information of all kinds is basically becoming both universal and constant, our minds can theoretically become connected to the entirety of existence (seen as a vast information-processing system) and with one another through technological means.

Apotheosis, anyone?



A dimension of mind?


It would appear that the "homo deus" book, would have to investigated further. Your recommendation is duly noted and I suspect you regard it highly due to numerous recommendations found in our previous posts. Concerning the book from Asimov, it would appear that I may have read the book previously, but I cannot be certain. Does it refer to the Akashic records, per chance?

Likewise, I await your thoughts, as well as others about the article found above. It should prove enlightening at the very least. Many perspectives are always welcome!

@Green Girl, at the risk of being seen as incompetent, may I request by what you are implying in the form of "Ocaam's Razor"? I suspect it may be in reference to skeptism or theories that cannot be proven with facts.

@brightflashes, I will endeavor to "concoct" a response in the morning, some areas of your post strike me as interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Asmodaeus

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
@Green Girl, at the risk of being seen as incompetent, may I request by what you are implying in the form of "Ocaam's Razor"? I suspect it may be in reference to skeptism or theories that cannot be proven with facts.
Occam's Razor is a concept used in logic, mathematics, philosophy, and science. It states that the simplest explanation of a phenomenon is the one that is most likely to be true.

For example, I come into the kitchen to find that the meat that I left on the counter to thaw is half eaten, chunks are on the floor. I also notice that my dog is smeared with grease, and has little appetite.

To explain it, I come up with two theories:

1. Ravenous burglars broke into the house. They started to eat the raw meat, but were bravely fought off by my dog, who got smeared with grease in the process. The burglars fled. My dog coincidentally came up with some virus that took away his appetite. That's also why he did not bark and alert me when the burglars entered - the virus has given him laryngitis.

2. My dog ate the meat.

Which is more likely to be true? Occam's Razor says number 2. If you have to make an elaborate theory to explain something, the probability increases that the theory is incorrect. Simpler is usually better.

In the mind/brain article, two explanations of the mind are presented:

1. "Some say the mind is strictly a function of the brain — consciousness is the product of firing neurons."

2. Consciousness, ie the mind, is a field surrounding the brain but exists in another dimension, and has attributes of a black hole.

Maybe there is a very good argument for number 2, but the article does not give it to us. Therefore, I am left with no other tool than Occam's Razor. And Occam's Razor says number 1 is simpler and therefore more likely.


Of course, there is also The Rule of Cool, which is "The limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief for a given element is directly proportional to its awesomeness." Basically, we'll believe something because it is just so cool. For example, it MAKES NO SENSE that Superman can fly. What is holding him up? But we accept it because it is awesome.

The Rule of Cool is for fiction, movies, comics, stuff like that. And according to it, explanation number 2 is much better because it is so cool.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Occam's Razor is a concept used in logic, mathematics, philosophy, and science. It states that the simplest explanation of a phenomenon is the one that is most likely to be true.

For example, I come into the kitchen to find that the meat that I left on the counter to thaw is half eaten, chunks are on the floor. I also notice that my dog is smeared with grease, and has little appetite.

To explain it, I come up with two theories:

1. Ravenous burglars broke into the house. They started to eat the raw meat, but were bravely fought off by my dog, who got smeared with grease in the process. The burglars fled. My dog coincidentally came up with some virus that took away his appetite. That's also why he did not bark and alert me when the burglars entered - the virus has given him laryngitis.

2. My dog ate the meat.

Which is more likely to be true? Occam's Razor says number 2. If you have to make an elaborate theory to explain something, the probability increases that the theory is incorrect. Simpler is usually better.

In the mind/brain article, two explanations of the mind are presented:

1. "Some say the mind is strictly a function of the brain — consciousness is the product of firing neurons."

2. Consciousness, ie the mind, is a field surrounding the brain but exists in another dimension, and has attributes of a black hole.

Maybe there is a very good argument for number 2, but the article does not give it to us. Therefore, I am left with no other tool than Occam's Razor. And Occam's Razor says number 1 is simpler and therefore more likely.


Of course, there is also The Rule of Cool, which is "The limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief for a given element is directly proportional to its awesomeness." Basically, we'll believe something because it is just so cool. For example, it MAKES NO SENSE that Superman can fly. What is holding him up? But we accept it because it is awesome.

The Rule of Cool is for fiction, movies, comics, stuff like that. And according to it, explanation number 2 is much better because it is so cool.
Thank you for the above analogy and the following explanation - it has been committed to memory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Green Girl

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
So our memories are like a temporary time travel curving the space and time .
XD man I wish I had been born in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,427 Posts
Maybe there is a very good argument for number 2, but the article does not give it to us. Therefore, I am left with no other tool than Occam's Razor. And Occam's Razor says number 1 is simpler and therefore more likely.
you know, now that i think about it, 'mind' seems just as hard to pin down or quantify as 'soul' used to be in medieval and renaissance times. in fact i'm not sure if i see a difference.

and in fact the search for it seems (to me) to be exactly the same search.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
you know, now that i think about it, 'mind' seems just as hard to pin down or quantify as 'soul' used to be in medieval and renaissance times. in fact i'm not sure if i see a difference.

and in fact the search for it seems (to me) to be exactly the same search.
Yes. Because otherwise, we are purely physical creatures, and we resist that. We want to be something more. Because if we are just this body, we have to face our mortality. We also dislike the reality that our body, with all of its frailties, breakdowns, and hormonal weirdnesses, is the totality of who we are.

Maybe it is a function of consciousness, that separation we make between mind/soul/spirit/chi/chakra/ and body. It seems to be universal. Maybe, with consciousness, we know that we are not forever, and this separation is how we face down death.

Or maybe I'm just talking. I have a cold, so I am very aware of my mortality right now!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
That is interesting. I don't know when I can examine this more deeply -- the holiday craziness is kind of scattering my attention.

But, as a general materialist when it comes to theories of mind (yes, I don't have a complete theory, but that's the general tendency I share with probably most cognitive scientists and philosophers), it would seem that taking full advantage of what we know of the physical world would not only be appropriate, it could be kind of irresponsible to ignore it.

Unfortunately, I only have a crude understanding of most "modern physics," I suppose is the general term. But, this might be a good way to fill in some gaps, and, you know, it's always good to keep using the mathematics, just to "stay current," like I think airplane pilots call it, or at least not forget too much.

Well, not a great response to a neat idea, but still, +1. Thanks!
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top