Personality Cafe banner

Rather interesting read (new theory of consciousness and the mind)

[INTJ] 
913 views 15 replies 9 participants last post by  jtour 
#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

 
#3 ·
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
#6 ·
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
#8 ·
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.
 
#9 ·
@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?

 
#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 "**** 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
#16 ·
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!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top