Recent Comments

@Eugene, the argument you and I are having comes down to two simple assumptions about consciousness.

My assumption of the evolution of conscious is like this:

Universe -> Organisms -> Nervous System -> Perception -> Concsiousness (as a subset of physical perception)

Yours is like this:

Consciousness -> Universe -> Organisms (as radios for consciousness)

Basically, all current scientific and testable evidence supports my view, only Gurus and mystics support your view. Your view cannot be proven or even tested, and does not really explain where consciousness came from, or how it works, or anything about it, so it is essentially worthless as "theory", it is more like fanciful supposition. You can choose what to believe, but there is such a thing as evidence.

Asking "why is there something instead of nothing?" is a perfect example of how philosophers waste their lives debating poorly conceived questions with obvious answers.

@Eugene, we did not want to confuse the topic with DMT. Also, is it hard for you to believe that the "novel universes of reality" you create while you are dreaming are just neural spikes in the cortex, or are you haunted by the notion that they are real places? The brain uses the same mechanisms to create the DMT space, so they are both of the same origin, you!

BTW - I have seen those pesky elves that claim to be God and the creators. They are also known liars and deceivers.

@Eugene, you are forcing me to "do philosophy" with this one. Why is there something instead of nothing? This is a distracting question which answers or proves nothing, used by philosophers to change the topic when they are losing arguments. The answer to this question is simple, there is something because nothing is an abstract mathematical idea that does not exist. I will say that again, nothing is a concept that was "made up" by philosophers. There is no such thing as "the absence of everything", it is an impossibility, which is why it does not exist. Think about it, you cannot have a "nothing" because then it would be a "something". So, there is only "things" there is no "nothing".

@Eugene, you cannot prove consciousness is non-physical, yet I can prove it is physical. Your definition of non-physical consciousness, eg, qualia that cannot be measured, does not exist. It is a myth. As I have said, I can model physical consciousness and test it in the brain, turn it on and off, ramp it up and down, etc. You cannot demonstrate anything about your definition of non-physical consciousness, so quit assuming it is a real thing.

bunch of smack heads ha

I love you kaleidoscope, I thought you might be interested in these:

I found this one recently by Michael Siber

[link]

and I have just waisted? hours of my time making this one:

[link]

Hope you like them.

My alcohol anckle monitor device,the small black square thing that pretty much holds the device from coming off,the screws got loose n it pop open,now I can pull on the rubber n take it out. I put it on my friend,but I forgot that he drank 22 hrs ago when I realized that I put it back on me. From my understanding it dete ts sweat not blood,is that right? Well if anything does come up I will say I was sick n took Medicine, cause it makes no sense having a positive for alcohol n when it vibrates again am not positive anymore. Hopefully. ��

You can do anything you want other than alcohol. It only tests for alcohol in sweat and changes in body temperature.

you can do any other substance with no alcohol in it..weed, coke, ex, meth, LSD, mushrooms,...but if they give you a UA after scram, you are f*cked.

I have been waiting since October 19, 2012 for an appointment if you can believe..

Far out! Very interesting ...I'm surprised DMT was not at least mentioned. I once had a DMT experience where after the entities showered me with love saying something like "we are your friends," I asked them directly, "so what is God." After they laughed at me and ridiculed me for what they made me feel to be a totally ridiculous question, they eventually answer, "we are ofcourse, you silly human!" I still have a hard time reducing the totally higher dimensional self-transforming synesthetic apparently sentient information of the DMTverse to a mere "serotonin disinhibition and cross-excitability between feedback-coupled assemblies in the brain." But I guess that's another conversation all together. I would be fascinated to hear what you REALLy think about the content of this interview James. As always, great thought producing show boys!

Consciousness is not a physical process; it has an external physical correlate, but the sentience of inner being is not physical; it is a qualia outside the measurements of science. We can understand the full workings of the circuitry, but the leap into the conscious experiencer is still way beyond the reaches of materialistic science. The question will always be, who's the observer, the witness, the inherent I Am. We can casually dismiss this fundamental question as just more complex PFC neural iterations, but this does not touch the very basic question: who are we anyways. Why is the cosmos even aware of itsel? Just for fun? aesthetics? A more interesting view, I think, is that consciousness exists because the cosmos is inherently Sentient, always moving and striving for greater expression, deeper sentience, and therefore more free will. The universe wants to express itself, therefor there is consciousness. We are the product of universal evolution, therefore embedded in its potentiality is Awareness.

Another point I'd like to throw out there is the notion that through science we have eliminated the mystery and the magic of the cosmos through understanding, a point James put forth a number of times, is fundamentally skewed in my view, as it fails to acknowledge the Ultimate Mystery; why is there something when Zero is the most efficient way to be. In other words, Being itself is fundamentally mysterious, and sorry James, a totally magical event. Not only is There Being, but we are Concious of Being..that to me is more magical then anyone of us can conceive. In fact, creating a universe from an infinitely condensed Void is utter magic to me, along with the magic of us knowing the Laws and mathematics behind this creative spark. We may someday understand the mechanics of it all, as with physics and neuroscience, but when we sit there in deep meditation and those ideas and models are allowed to rest and disolve in pure ever- present Awareness, the silence Jake talks about, the Mystery will stand naked, without need for explanation; just Being.

This discussion seriously goes bonkers at the 14 minute mark. Enjoy.

Hey James and Jake.. This show was one of my favorites. I've actually been waiting on James to discuss some of his views on the show, entrainment, control interrupt theory, etc. . I listened multiple times. I don't quite understand why so many people are against the - consciousness is a physical phenomenon concept. How does consciousness being a physical phenomenon take away from any wonder? It just adds to it I believe. We can now look upon other believe systems in new ways. I hope to hear more shows like this! I haven't finished all of the latest podcast yet either. I knew this show would generate a bunch of comments too. Beyer, Nichols, Tannous, and R.U.Sirius were the other standouts to me. It would be cool to get Beyer back on. I'm reading Singing to the Plants right now and I find it to be an amazing read. Lots of great discussions in the book including the section on The Single Active Molecule, and The Telepathy meme. Great job guys, my favorite podcast. I've told a lot of friends. I'll try to comment on the board more often.

Hey All,
great discussion! James and Jake, thanks for addressing the points. I guess what it boils down to is that there are two main paradigms for consciousness. The first, which James subscribes to, is the materialist perspective that describes consciousness as a mere product of the brain. The second, which is rooted in mysticism, is that Consciousness is not only embedded in space-time (as physicist Roger Penrose theorizes), but is the foundation of all existence that we can individually tap into (a unanimous claim of mystics). The question for the materialist is; at what point does consciousness arise from dead matter? Does it all of a sudden ignite in the cell? the organism? the brain stem? or the pre-frontal cortex? Its a jump that material science cant explain. Seems much more plausible that Consciousness is embedded in matter, and that it unfolds and expands in sentience and awareness as matter increases in complexity. This models sees consciousness as an essential element in the universe; it is only in the human neo-cortex that it becomes self-reflective.

My point is that all the elements of a mammal are contained
in the primordial soup (gas, dust rocks etc) that evolve over
billions of years into that mammalian organism. If you define
consciousness have having a centralized brain "that can make
abstractions and predictions" now, then unless you are an evolution
denier you need to to be able to say how far back in evolution
this capacity arose, at least approximately, or this is not a "full
definition". But it seems what you are saying is that this is the
only aspect of it that you have elucidated or are concerned with.

@Niles, a rock does not have consciousness. An organism must have a perceptual system and the ability to perform behaviors to be fully conscious. Consciousness can be rudimentary, like plant consciousness, which is mostly reactive and distributed in the cells. Mammalian consciousness is more complex because it is centralized in a brain that can make abstractions and predictions. That is the full definition of consciousness that a rock or a plant will never have.

she kept changing directions on me.

Does a rock have consciousness? Given our current understanding of dust and gas congealing to form stars and planets on which
life arises it must have at least the potential for consciousness.
If it doesn't at what point in evolution does it transition from non-conscious to conscious? Clearly there is more to it than describing the neurochemical pathways in our bodies.