• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is the definition of “I”? -- “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-HW

One of “better setups to check if consciousness is divisible” is to do the homework tasks for the development of logical thinking, which are listed below.

Please raise your hands all readers who believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.
Question for Porpoise of Life: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”?


Homework task for the development of logical thinking #1: please explain very detailed – why do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? We will remind that religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness” has no experimental proof whatsoever, the dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness” is based on strong religious fanatic faith.





Homework task for the development of logical thinking #2: barehl claims that brain has no place to fit a second personality. Please explain very detailed – why the brain should be able to fit one(1) personality? If two personalities do not fit in, then the same principle is valid for one(1) personality as well – there is not a single reason why the brain should be able to fit one(1) personality. Please provide at least one proof that your brain/head is able to fit one(1) personality. Let’s suppose that we claim that your brain is too small to contain whole one(1) personality, one(1) personality is unable to fit into your brain/head, and we claim that your brain/head contains only tenth(1/10) of personality – flag into your hands, go ahead and try to disprove the claim that your brain contains only tenth(1/10) of personality. The reasoning behind that is very simple: if man’s brain is able to fit one(1) personality then such man is able to carry out scientific experiments to check whether experimental results confirm the predictions of model/theory or not, however if the man’s brain is too small to fit one(1) personality then such man says “I have not done the experiment, I will not do the experiment, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence, I will not look into the evidence, I am not interested in the evidence, I believe my religious dogma no matter what is the evidence”.

Tsk tsk!!! Lazy thinking yet again.

Poor experimental design, false premise, false dichotomy, poisoning the well fallacy, and reversing the burden of proof.

Back to the drawing board, short-story writer...
 
Last edited:
Lazy thinking yet again.

content in neuroclusterbrain's posts waste a lot of time in trying to locate is actual responses.


Your laziness and your other personal inabilities (like for example “inability to locate responses”) is not the scientific argument.
What matters here is that RussDill and Kid Eager are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model because they did not do the experiment.
 
Tsk tsk!!! Lazy thinking yet again.

Poor experimental design, false premise, false dichotomy, poisoning the well fallacy, and reversing the burden of proof.

Back to the drawing board, short-story writer...

Your laziness and your other personal inabilities (like for example “inability to locate responses”) is not the scientific argument.
What matters here is that RussDill and Kid Eager are not qualified to judge Neurocluster Brain Model because they did not do the experiment.

try again.
 
Ok, let's try again. Let’s do that in small little steps.

Step #1
Question for Kid Eager: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? what is your answer: “Yes” or “No”?
 
Last edited:
My opinion is: the mind is a gestalt of many autonomous parts. It is divisible, but not into smaller minds.

No experiments by me went into this opinion. Some reading, yes.

Swinging a string is not going to alter my opinion. Your sub minds idea needs a better litmus test.

But, hey, this is a random Internet forum; go do science in a lab and then come back some day to update us.
 
Ok, let's try again. Let’s do that in small little steps.

Step #1
Question for Kid Eager: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? what is your answer: “Yes” or “No”?

Your question is invalid. It does not matter what I believe.

The phrasing of the question is flawed in that it also attaches negative and non-scientific connotations to the question of belief.

This is your problem in a nutshell. You are confusing a scientific experiment with the asking of questions of opinion and belief.

The NCB religious hypothesis short story appears to remain stuck at chapter 1.
 
One of “better setups to check if consciousness is divisible” is to do the homework tasks for the development of logical thinking, which are listed below.

Please raise your hands all readers who believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.
Question for Porpoise of Life: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”?


Homework task for the development of logical thinking #1: please explain very detailed – why do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? We will remind that religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness” has no experimental proof whatsoever, the dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness” is based on strong religious fanatic faith.

<snip>
This has nothing to do with setting up an experiment, these are just attempts to cast people who do not take your assertions as gospel as religious fanatics. Quite ironic...
Our opinions are of no value here and have nothing to do with the validity of your 'model'.
You also declined to answer my second question: can you delineate what a neurocluster is? So not what it represents, but what it is. What neurons, in which parts of the brain, and how have you shown that they behave as autonomous 'personalities'? If you can't show this you do not have a model, at best you have a hypothesis, or to use your own terminology: religious dogma.
 
try again.

Ok, let's try again. Let’s do that in small little steps.
Step #1
Question for Kid Eager: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? what is your answer: “Yes” or “No”?

It does not matter what I believe.


Believing in religious dogmas does matter. Believing in religious dogmas disqualifies/nullifies the ability to judge scientific theories/models.
Let’s do it one more time – question for Kid Eager: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? what is your answer: “Yes” or “No”?
 
It's telling that you neglected to quote my entire post. Let me help you by quoting it again in full....

Your question is invalid. It does not matter what I believe.

The phrasing of the question is flawed in that it also attaches negative and non-scientific connotations to the question of belief.

This is your problem in a nutshell. You are confusing a scientific experiment with the asking of questions of opinion and belief.

The NCB religious hypothesis short story appears to remain stuck at chapter 1.

Now to the response. It's a bit of a failure in addressing the problem. Ironically, you're bringing dogma to a science fight, yet wondering why you're not getting anywhere.

When you're ready to stop short story writing and discuss science and scientific approaches, I'll be here.

Believing in religious dogmas does matter. Believing in religious dogmas disqualifies/nullifies the ability to judge scientific theories/models.
Let’s do it one more time – question for Kid Eager: do you believe in the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”? what is your answer: “Yes” or “No”?
 
Question for the cluster called neurobraincluster: What does "Do you believe in the religious dogma of 'indivisible-single-consciousness' " mean?
 
can you delineate what a neurocluster is? So not what it represents, but what it is. What neurons, in which parts of the brain, and how have you shown that they behave as autonomous 'personalities'?


Definition of the term “cluster”: A “cluster” is a group or bunch of several homogeneous elements, which can be considered as a separate unit, which has certain properties.
As for example, in physics “cluster” can be a small group of atoms or molecules, in astrophysics there are star clusters consisting of stars, and galaxy clusters consisting of galaxies, and so on.

=======================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster
Cluster may refer to:
In science
-- Cluster (physics), a small group of atoms or molecules.
-- Cluster chemistry, an array of bound atoms intermediate in character between a molecule and a solid
-- Cluster sampling, a sampling technique used when "natural" groupings are evident in a statistical population
-- Cluster analysis, a technique for statistical data analysis
-- Consonant cluster, in linguistics

=======================

The same physical element can be assigned to different unrelated logical clusters. As for example, in human population we can divide the people in clusters using different criteria – as for example, we can divide people by their religion and we will get cluster of Christians, cluster of Muslims, cluster of Buddhists and so on, however we can divide the same exact population by the favorite color which a man likes and we will get cluster of people who like red color, cluster of people who like blue color, cluster of people who like green color and so on. It is obvious that the same exact man will get into absolutely different clusters when filtered out by religion and when filtered out by his favorite color. There will be many Christians, Muslims and Buddhists who like red color, there will be many Christians, Muslims and Buddhists who like blue color, and so on.

In exactly the same fashion the neurons in the brain can be grouped into different logical clusters. The neurons can be grouped into the same cluster by the color to which these neurons respond, the neurons can be grouped into the same cluster by the same orientation visual bar stimulus to which these neurons respond, and so on.

Definition of the term “neurocluster” – a group of neurons which are connected with each other and jointly perform concrete computational task.
Important notice: when we use the term “neurocluster” (neural cluster) in the context of Neurocluster Brain Model – the default meaning is “egregoric neurocluster”, i.e. neurocluster which stores information about the egregor (object X model).

Below is the explanation about the term “egregor”.
Models of the objects can be copied from one human brain into another human brain in the similar way like computer files can be copied from one computer into another. The model of object X is copied from one human brain into another brain when man A tells to man B the features of object X, draws and shows the pictures of object X, makes statuette of object X and shows it, etc.
When two or more people have the same identical (or very similar) model of object X written in their brains – this phenomenon is called the “egregor X”.
Egregor is the same identical object X model which is multiplied and written into the brains of two or more individuals.
Egregor is the equivalent of the computer program and has many features of computer program (it can be copied, overwritten, deleted, etc), however there are some differences from computer program.
As for example egregor has a feature called “the strength of egregor”.
The strength of egregor increases when increases the number of people who have the same object X model written in their brains. The bigger the number of people who are the carriers of egregor – the stronger the egregor.
The working principle of the egregor strength is very simple.
Suppose we have a man A whose brain has no data about object X.
If man A meets man B whose brain contains object X model, then copying of model X from man’s B brain into man’s A brain meets great resistance because of high suspicion if the model X is reliable and if the model X can be trusted.
However if man A meets two(2) other men who are the carriers of object X model, then copying of model X into man’s A brain is done more easily because the fact that two other men trust the model X decreases the suspicion that the model X is unreliable.
If man A meets ten(10) other men who are the carriers of object X model, then copying of model X into man’s A brain is done more easily because the fact that ten other men trust the model X decreases the suspicion that the model X is unreliable.
And so on.
If man A sees that a million men are carriers of object X model, then copying of model X into man’s A brain is done almost without any checks of model X validity.
The strength of egregor X is directly proportional to the number of people who are the carriers of object X model.
The strength of egregor has no correlation with the truthfulness of facts which are contained inside the egregor.
The egregor can be very strong, however facts which are contained inside the egregor can be absolutely false.
And vice versa.The egregor can be weak, however facts which are contained inside the egregor can be true.
Strong egregor has a power to force a man into accepting ideas and claims which contradict real world data.


can you delineate what a neurocluster is? So not what it represents, but what it is. What neurons, in which parts of the brain, and how have you shown that they behave as autonomous 'personalities'?


When a man sees new unknown object for the first time then finite number of neurons in the brain (cluster of neurons) stores information about object's model (how the object looks, how the object moves, how the object behaves, etc). Information about that object is saved not in the whole brain, but only in the finite “piece of the brain” – the evidence for that are experimental data about brain damage – if the brain is damaged in some local area then brain loses information only about some classes of objects, but not about all objects. The model of the object(== egregor) is stored inside the “piece of the brain” (cluster of neurons) and this neurocluster acts not only as passive “data file” but also under special conditions this neurocluster can act as “executable file” which can simulate the behavior of stored object for the main personality.

As for example, if the model of the dog is written into the brain then under proper conditions (== elimination of signals coming from sensory organs, which happens during dream/ “spiritual journey”) that “dog” becomes “alive” and generates the image of alive dog for the main personality. That “dog” barks, jumps, runs, etc. Question: why this “dog” behaves like being alive? The answer is very simple. All neurons have small spontaneous activity, i.e. neurons generate impulses even when being in the resting state when there are no input signals. In other words, the “dog” is controlled by the spontaneous activity of neurons and that is the reason why the “dog” moves/runs/etc. Exactly the same as with the “dog”, the images of non-living objects (table, chair, walls of the house, etc) in the dream are also unstable and are “waving” – various objects appear and disappear from the field of view of the main personality.
The same identical neuron can belong to several different egregoric neuroclusters. As for example, the same identical neuron X can belong to dog-model-neurocluster and to cat-model-neurocluster.
Question: what is the difference between different egregoric neuroclusters?
Answer: different egregoric neuroclusters contain different groups of neurons, however some of these neurons may belong to several different egregoric neuroclusters. The sharing of the same identical neurons between different egregoric neuroclusters has an advantage of more compact storage of information in the brain.
Neurons which belong to one egregoric neurocluster do not need to be compactly packed near each other into some small 3D space. Neurons which belong to egregoric neurocluster can be spread widely through large volume of the brain like a thin “spider-web”. The only requirement for egregoric neurocluster is that neurons belonging to that egregoric neurocluster must form continuous/unbroken network, however this network might be spread widely through large volume of the brain and even more it can be tangled with other networks of other egregoric neuroclusters in the same physical space. In other words, multiple egregoric neuroclusters can coexist in the same “piece of the brain”, however each of this egregoric neurocluster is a thin “spider-web” which is tangled with other thin “spider-webs” (i.e. tangled with other egregoric neuroclusters).

which parts of the brain <…>?


The concrete location of concrete autonomous neurocluster can be diagnosed using data about consequences of the brain damage accidents – like for example, strokes, localized mechanical damage (like bullet wounds), etc.
If you have a man who previously had strong manifestation of autonomous neurocluster activity (man was hearing voices in his head, was seeing/hearing angels/demons/etc, had the ability of psychography, etc) and if after some local damage to his brain he has lost his “supernatural” ability (he no longer hears voices in the head, no longer sees/hears angels/demons/etc, has lost the ability of psychography, etc), then it is pretty obvious that this particular autonomous neurocluster was located in that damaged area of the brain.

how have you shown that they behave as autonomous 'personalities'?


There are many ways to show that they behave as autonomous “personalities”, several examples were described in previous posts – “invoking of the spirit” during spiritualistic séance, dream character analysis, etc.
 
barehl claims that brain has no place to fit a second personality. Please explain very detailed – why the brain should be able to fit one(1) personality? If two personalities do not fit in, then the same principle is valid for one(1) personality as well – there is not a single reason why the brain should be able to fit one(1) personality.

Interesting. Let's try that same logic on something mundane like a 1 cup measuring cup.

barehl claims that a 1 cup measuring cup has no place to fit a second quantity of 1 cup. Please explain very detailed – why the measuring cup should be able to fit one(1) cup? If two cups do not fit in, then the same principle is valid for one(1) cup as well – there is not a single reason why the measuring cup should be able to fit one(1) cup.

You A person with ordinary common sense can see that this logic falls apart when applied to anything real. The concept of neuroclusters is contingent upon divisibility of consciousness. It's a ridiculous claim because a divisible consciousness would not function unless you could come up with a mechanism for coordination. And, what mechanism of coordination would itself be completely divisible? You wind up having to claim that each neuron contains this coordination mechanism even though a neuron is not complex enough. Strictly speaking, multiple personalities wouldn't require a division of consciousness but only a division of memory. So, you would need to provide the mechanism for partitioning memories. These are requirements entirely aside from experimentation.
 
If you have a man who previously had strong manifestation of autonomous neurocluster activity (man was hearing voices in his head, was seeing/hearing angels/demons/etc, had the ability of psychography, etc) and if after some local damage to his brain he has lost his “supernatural” ability (he no longer hears voices in the head, no longer sees/hears angels/demons/etc, has lost the ability of psychography, etc), then it is pretty obvious that this particular autonomous neurocluster was located in that damaged area of the brain.

Actually brain damage is not so simple. It's very common to have access to some brain function cut off, but not damage the actual function. Additionally, it's also possible to damage the region of the brain that interprets or perceives some function.
 
I use medical/neurological definition of consciousness.
I believe that it is a rubric for separate events.
I meet most the medical/neurology criteria for at least part of teh day by exhibiting those behaviors.


Quite often, the same identical terms/words have different meanings in different fields/professions.
As for example, the same identical term/word “syncope” in various fields/professions has the following meanings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncope
Syncope may refer to one of the following:
● Syncope (medicine), also known as fainting
● Syncope (phonology), the loss of one or more sounds, particularly an unstressed vowel, from the interior of a word
● Syncopation, a musical effect caused by off-beat or otherwise unexpected rhythms
● Suspension, in music
● Syncope (genus), a genus of microhylidae frogs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncopation_(dance)
The terms syncopation and syncopated step in dancing are used in two senses:
1. The first definition matches the musical term: stepping on (or otherwise emphasizing) an unstressed beat. For example, ballroom Cha cha is a syncopated dance in this sense, because the basic step "breaks on two." When dancing to the disparate threads contained within the music, hands, torso, and head can independently move in relation to a thread, creating a fluidly syncopated performance of the music.
2. The word "syncopation" is often used by dance teachers to mean improvised or rehearsed execution of step patterns that have more rhythmical nuances than "standard" step patterns. It takes advanced dancing skill to dance syncopations in this sense. Advanced dancing of West Coast Swing and the Lindy Hop makes heavy use of "syncopation" in this sense (although swing music and swing dances feature the "usual" syncopation, i.e., emphasising the even beats).


The same situation is with the word “consciousness”.
In medicine, the term/word “consciousness” means the “neurological/physiological state/condition”.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/...ological_assessment_of_the_non-trauma_patient
The Glasgow Coma Score is widely used by Paramedics to assess the neurological state of all patients.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/arp/2010/241307/
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a standard means of assessment of the neurological state.
Preoperative Assessment of Adult Patients for Intracranial Surgery
(By Vanitha Sivanaser and Pirjo Manninen
Anesthesiology Research and Practice. Volume 2010 (2010), Article ID 241307, 11 pages)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale
The Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS is a neurological scale that aims to give a reliable, objective way of recording the conscious state of a person for initial as well as subsequent assessment. A patient is assessed against the criteria of the scale, and the resulting points give a patient score between 3 (indicating deep unconsciousness) and either 14 (original scale) or 15 (the more widely used modified or revised scale).
GCS was initially used to assess level of consciousness after head injury, and the scale is now used by first aid, EMS, nurses and doctors as being applicable to all acute medical and trauma patients. In hospitals it is also used in monitoring chronic patients in intensive care.
The scale was published in 1974 by Graham Teasdale and Bryan J. Jennett, professors of neurosurgery at the University of Glasgow's Institute of Neurological Sciences at the city's Southern General Hospital.
GCS is used as part of several ICU scoring systems, including APACHE II, SAPS II, and SOFA, to assess the status of the central nervous system, as it was designed for. The initial indication for use of the GCS was serial assessments of patients with traumatic brain injury and coma for at least 6 hours in the neurosurgical ICU setting, though it is commonly used throughout hospital departments. A similar scale, the Rancho Los Amigos Scale is used to assess the recovery of traumatic brain injury patients.


When medics talk about “consciousness”, they mean the “neurological/physiological state/condition” and such meaning of the term/word matches the scientific criteria.

When religious adepts, who mimic “scientists”, talk about “consciousness”, they mean the object called “consciousness” (“one that is looking at the screen”, “one that hears/sees/feels/etc”) – this meaning of the term/word does not match the scientific criteria, this is pure pseudoscience.
http://henry.olders.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/1982/03/Olders-1982-3445.pdf
no satisfactory explanation exists for how an individual is consciously aware of what he perceives.
F.H.C. Crick (1979) recounted his difficulty in attempting to convince an intelligent woman of this problem. She failed to understand why anyone thought there was a problem, feeling that she probably had somewhere inside her head something like a little television set, until he asked, "So who is looking at it?"
(Biology and psychiatry: some missing pieces in the puzzle. Academic Seminar
By Henry Olders, M.D. Jewish General Hospital. Institute of Community &Family Psychiatry. 26 March, 1982)
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/24/magazine/how-the-mind-works.html?pagewanted=all
Perhaps the most intractable of the old problems of the mind has been the question of the homunculus. Who or what is that? Let me quote Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix, who now is doing research in neurobiology. Writing in Scientific American, he tells of trying to explain to an intelligent woman why it was puzzling that we perceive anything at all: ''She could not see why there was a problem. Finally in despair I asked her how she herself thought she saw the world. She replied that she probably had somewhere in her head something like a little television set. 'So who,' I asked, 'is looking at it?' She now saw the problem immediately.''
(How the mind works
By Morton Hunt. The New York Times. January 24, 1982)


It is important to note that: 1) the “physiological state” called “consciousness” and 2) the object (“observer”) that has the name “consciousness” – are two different things.
Quite often, the same identical terms/words have different meanings in different fields/professions – the term/word “consciousness” is exactly such a case.
 
Last edited:
The concrete location of concrete autonomous neurocluster can be diagnosed using data about consequences of the brain damage accidents – like for example, strokes, localized mechanical damage (like bullet wounds), etc.
If you have a man who previously had strong manifestation of autonomous neurocluster activity (man was hearing voices in his head, was seeing/hearing angels/demons/etc, had the ability of psychography, etc) and if after some local damage to his brain he has lost his “supernatural” ability (he no longer hears voices in the head, no longer sees/hears angels/demons/etc, has lost the ability of psychography, etc), then it is pretty obvious that this particular autonomous neurocluster was located in that damaged area of the brain.

Actually brain damage is not so simple. It's very common to have access to some brain function cut off, but not damage the actual function. Additionally, it's also possible to damage the region of the brain that interprets or perceives some function.


That is correct. However such “brain damage” anyway reveals the parts of the brain which are in some or other way connected to “concrete autonomous neurocluster” – that is still a good starting point for more detailed research.
 

Back
Top Bottom