1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening? — SteveKlinko> I think my explanation would still be basically the same, The neural activity for Red, causes a conscious experience, because of the combination of neural activity, which accesses memories relative to Red. This fills the Explanatory Gap, and would be the function causing the illusion of consciousness.
I'm trying to figure out, what doesn't work with this simple explanation? — Tyler

A Memory is just more Neural Activity. You're just saying that Neural Activity causes the Red Experience, but the question is how does Neural Activity cause the Red Experience.

>I mean it is the coordinated combination, that creates the experience.
If the neural activity of a memory is on its own, the memory doesn't do much for experience.
Or if the combination of neural activity is uncoordinated, and random or irrelevant, then the experience would be nonsense.
But when it's a coordinated combination of parts, the sum of those parts is a coordinated assembly.
The coordinated assembly, is the experience of Red.

>I mean it is the coordinated combination, that creates the experience.
If the neural activity of a memory is on its own, the memory doesn't do much for experience.
Or if the combination of neural activity is uncoordinated, and random or irrelevant, then the experience would be nonsense.
But when it's a coordinated combination of parts, the sum of those parts is a coordinated assembly.
The coordinated assembly, is the experience of Red. — Tyler

But when I say Neural Activity I mean any and all Neural Activity, coordinated and or not coordinated. How does the coordinated combination of any kind of Neural Activity produce the Conscious experience of Red?

I don't know how the neural activity functions mechanically, if that's what you're asking. All I know is somehow neurons store memories as information, and when that neuron is accessed, the info of that memory is recalled.
But as far as I can theorize, based on these concepts, this process of accessing the recorded information, is all it takes to produce a conscious experience of anything (including Red), as long as it's the appropriate info and neurons which are being accessed simultaneously.
I don't see why there should be anything more to it.

I don't know how the neural activity functions mechanically, if that's what you're asking. All I know is somehow neurons store memories as information, and when that neuron is accessed, the info of that memory is recalled.
But as far as I can theorize, based on these concepts, this process of accessing the recorded information, is all it takes to produce a conscious experience of anything (including Red), as long as it's the appropriate info and neurons which are being accessed simultaneously.
I don't see why there should be anything more to it. — Tyler

Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that? The Redness of the Red is not explainable in words. It exists only in the Conscious Mind. It's purely a Conscious Phenomenon. Nobody even knows what the Red experience is. It's so familiar to us but it is a complete Mystery. How can you possibly think you know the answer when you don't even know what the Red experience is? Concentrate on the Redness itself and you will eventually see the Mystery of it and that it is quite a different thing than anything Science can Explain right now.

I think I understand what the question is asking. But my answer is still the same; it's just memory. Even when I concentrate on it, and it seems indescribable, I still comprehend the scientific reasoning behind that.

The brain is accessing the neurons which have saved the information about the wavelengths of light which reached the eyeball, when Red was recorded. It probably "feels" like something special and unique when you focus on it, because you are accessing memories of concepts relative to red, simultaneously to memories of the visual of red (wavelength information). This would also explain why Red does not seem significant, when it is seen or remembered, but not consciously thought about (no memory concepts accessed).

I think that is basically the only mystery about it. Same as all sensory data saved as memories.

How could you know that it exists only in the conscious mind though? It could potentially exist in a computer program (unless you would consider that a conscious mind). I dont believe it would with current day technology, but I suspect future general AI with perceive similar conscious states, including the experience of red

I think I understand what the question is asking. But my answer is still the same; it's just memory. Even when I concentrate on it, and it seems indescribable, I still comprehend the scientific reasoning behind that.

The brain is accessing the neurons which have saved the information about the wavelengths of light which reached the eyeball, when Red was recorded. It probably "feels" like something special and unique when you focus on it, because you are accessing memories of concepts relative to red, simultaneously to memories of the visual of red (wavelength information). This would also explain why Red does not seem significant, when it is seen or remembered, but not consciously thought about (no memory concepts accessed).

I think that is basically the only mystery about it. Same as all sensory data saved as memories.

How could you know that it exists only in the conscious mind though? It could potentially exist in a computer program (unless you would consider that a conscious mind). I dont believe it would with current day technology, but I suspect future general AI with perceive similar conscious states, including the experience of red — Tyler

Physical Red Light has Wavelength as a Property, but Physical Red does not have Redness as a Property. Conscious Red Light (the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property. Physical Red Light is a Physical Phenomenon, and Conscious Red Light is a Conscious Phenomenon. Redness has nothing to do with how Physical Red Light looks. Physical Red Light doesn't look like anything. Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. The question is where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it? How does Neural Activity, including Memory Activations, ever produce the Conscious Red Light experience? There's no question that Conscious experiences are Correlated with Neural Activity. The Huge question is how does this Correlation happen?

the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property. — SteveKlinko

So, if by definition, the property of "Redness" is only in the conscious experience, doesn't that mean, the property of Redness is just the neurological process? (assuming conscious experience is a neurological process).

The difference between Wavelength and Redness, is Redness is in the brain as an interpretation of the wavelength.
So, basically I would think Redness is just the coded version of the measurement of the Wavelength.

where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it?

>Assuming the eyeball measures the wavelength and translates that measurement into information (as you mentioned, it's a surrogate), then the brain would send and store that information as neurological activity.
So Redness would be the coded information of the measurements of wavelengths.

Computers code information, save it, and access it later. I'm guessing the brain does a similar concept, but with a more efficient coding and saving process (and the additional function of accessing many bits of information simultaneously).

It is a little bizarre to think that everything we ever experience, is probably only information of measurements, which is coded and saved with neurons...

the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property. — SteveKlinkoSo, if by definition, the property of "Redness" is only in the conscious experience, doesn't that mean, the property of Redness is just the neurological process? (assuming conscious experience is a neurological process).

The difference between Wavelength and Redness, is Redness is in the brain as an interpretation of the wavelength.
So, basically I would think Redness is just the coded version of the measurement of the Wavelength.



where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it?
>Assuming the eyeball measures the wavelength and translates that measurement into information (as you mentioned, it's a surrogate), then the brain would send and store that information as neurological activity.
So Redness would be the coded information of the measurements of wavelengths.

Computers code information, save it, and access it later. I'm guessing the brain does a similar concept, but with a more efficient coding and saving process (and the additional function of accessing many bits of information simultaneously).

It is a little bizarre to think that everything we ever experience, is probably only information of measurements, which is coded and saved with neurons.. — Tyler

The Conscious Red Light can be interpreted as a type of input Data that the Conscious Mind can process. The Conscious Red Light is input Data for the Conscious Mind in a similar way to how the hex number 00FF0000 is input Data for a Computer. A Conscious Mind Detects Physical Red Light when it receives a Conscious Red experience. A Computer Detects Physical Red Light when it receives the 00FF0000 hex number. The Conscious Red Light and the hex number 00FF0000 are Surrogates for the Physical Red Light.

The Brain is like the Computer in that it generates certain Neural Patterns when Red Light is being detected. The Neural Pattern for Red would be equivalent to the Hex number 00FF0000 in the Computer. The Human Mind produces an extra stage of processing beyond the Neural Patterns and presents us with the Conscious experience of Red. You can't say that the Conscious experience of Red is just the Neural Patterns. The Conscious experience is something extra that the Computer does not do. If the Conscious experience is just the Neural Patterns then you have a lot of explaining to do. How do Neural Patterns, or Neural Activity of any kind get turned into the Conscious Red experience?

That sounds like it all makes sense, and is a good comparison from computer to brain
.
My estimate of how the conscious Red experience is created by the neural patterns, is the relevant combination of neural patterns. This goes back to what I was trying to explain before I think; that it requires the neural function combination of accessing memories relative to Red.

For eg. When focusing on the Redness, you are likely mentally trying to comprehend the Redness. While attempting to comprehend it, you are accessing memories of concepts related to Red. You access memories or concepts such as: existence, significance, reason, cause and effect. These are all generalized conceptual terminology, saved as a memory. The concepts are based on memories of the meaning and function of them, which is based on memories of how the concepts can be applied to alternate variables.
When memories of these concepts, plus similar scenarios are accessed simultaneously, as a combination, this creates the conscious experience of Red.

You are also likely accessing memories of seeing the color and similar shades in past instances. These neural patterns of memories of red, match current incoming neural patterns of visual input (when you are actively looking at red).

If someone programmed a computer to access its memories in a similar combination, I would suspect it would be just as conscious of the Red Experience. (it would require quite a bit of relative memory data though)

When memories of these concepts, plus similar scenarios are accessed simultaneously, as a combination, this creates the conscious experience of Red.

You are also likely accessing memories of seeing the color and similar shades in past instances. These neural patterns of memories of red, match current incoming neural patterns of visual input (when you are actively looking at red). — Tyler

But these are all Neural Correlates of the Conscious experience of Red. Just because all these Neural things are happening does not even begin to explain the actual Experience of Red. There is also an implied Experiencer when the Red Experience happens. Your explanation has to address the Experiencer as well as the Experience.

Think about the Redness of the Red. It is a purely Conscious experience. How does Neural Activity of any kind ever make the Conscious Red experience?

Just because all these Neural things are happening does not even begin to explain the actual Experience of Red. — SteveKlinko

Why do you say that? Why shouldnt a complex combination of simultaneous memory access explain the experience?
I don't really see any reason to assume that the experience must be more than that.

The "experiencer" is the additional quantity of neural activity. The inter-workings of a complex combination of many smaller elements, creates something greater and more significant than the sum of the parts.

I think that concept is observed to occur in other situations in this universe, as combinations of smaller parts (potentially the way that virtually everything is constructed by smaller parts),
so why can't consciousness be the same?

Just because all these Neural things are happening does not even begin to explain the actual Experience of Red. — SteveKlinko
Why do you say that? Why shouldnt a complex combination of simultaneous memory access explain the experience?
I don't really see any reason to assume that the experience must be more than that.

The "experiencer" is the additional quantity of neural activity. The inter-workings of a complex combination of many smaller elements, creates something greater and more significant than the sum of the parts.

I think that concept is observed to occur in other situations in this universe, as combinations of smaller parts (potentially the way that virtually everything is constructed by smaller parts),
so why can't consciousness be the same? — Tyler

The first thing to think about is the profound difference between Neural Activity and the Red experience. These are two entirely different categories of things. Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that? Where is it? It's painted on some sort of Visual screen that's embedded in the front of your face. How does that happen? How does any additional quantity of one category of Thing result in a different category of Thing?

Both the Red Experience and Neural Activity could be considered the same category of Memory Access. I suppose you could argue the red experience isn't necessarily memory access, but considering it's an "experience", it could also be argued that any experience is memory.

If my explanation is true, then the difference between the 2 categories, is that 1 is the cause, and 1 is the effect. Neural activity is the cause, and the Red Experience is the effect.

The visual screen embodied in front of your face, that you mention, is memory. Similar to taking a photo, then later accessing that photo. Its a coded recording of the image. Human memory just isn't nearly as precise as a computer, at accessing a particular memory.

An additional quantity of one category of thing, results in a different category, by cause and effect, since the extra quantity surpasses a point, which causes a new effect.

eg 1. a small quantity of water on the ground is moisture, but an additional quantity surpasses the point where the category becomes a puddle.
eg 2. a small quantity of various molecules in an egg + additional quantity = baby

Both the Red Experience and Neural Activity could be considered the same category of Memory Access. I suppose you could argue the red experience isn't necessarily memory access, but considering it's an "experience", it could also be argued that any experience is memory.

If my explanation is true, then the difference between the 2 categories, is that 1 is the cause, and 1 is the effect. Neural activity is the cause, and the Red Experience is the effect.

The visual screen embodied in front of your face, that you mention, is memory. Similar to taking a photo, then later accessing that photo. Its a coded recording of the image. Human memory just isn't nearly as precise as a computer, at accessing a particular memory.

An additional quantity of one category of thing, results in a different category, by cause and effect, since the extra quantity surpasses a point, which causes a new effect.

eg 1. a small quantity of water on the ground is moisture, but an additional quantity surpasses the point where the category becomes a puddle.
eg 2. a small quantity of various molecules in an egg + additional quantity = baby — Tyler

We have two categories of things happening. You say that if they really are both the same category in the first place then the problem is solved. Ok, but you offer no reason to think that they are the same category. You only just say they are. What's the reasoning? I still recognize two separate categories..

Science can explain the steps about how molecules in an egg become a baby. But you have not explained how more Neural Activity becomes a Conscious experience. You only say that it could. You offer no explanation of how it does. It seems more like a wish or a hope.

You say that if they really are both the same category in the first place then the problem is solved. Ok, but you offer no reason to think that they are the same category. You only just say they are. What's the reasoning? I still recognize two separate categories.. — SteveKlinko

>I said that they could be considered the same category. I don't mean that this statement proves the problem is solved. Actually, I would argue that category is not that relevant. The concept of a Category is vague, and I dont think really proves much. Lots of things can be considered in the same category, it just depends on the degree of specificity of the category label you use.

Science can explain the steps about how molecules in an egg become a baby. But you have not explained how more Neural Activity becomes a Conscious experience. You only say that it could. You offer no explanation of how it does. It seems more like a wish or a hope. — SteveKlinko

>I cant explain the precise molecular function of how neural activity creates a conscious experience, as I'm not a scientist. But can explain the more generalized logical logical process.
I believe I offered plenty of explanation of how neural activity creates conscious expeirence (and could link or paste more that I have tried to explain the overall concept).
Evidence supporting it, is common knowledge concepts, and the theory explains how the cause and effects of those concepts interacting with each other.

I dont claim it scientifically proven. I claim it's a theory, which should be considered, and tested for flaws and to see if it can be disproven, and potentially become scientifically proven. After a while now with this theory, I have yet to receive much of any reasoning at all suggesting it is incorrect.

>I cant explain the precise molecular function of how neural activity creates a conscious experience, as I'm not a scientist. But can explain the more generalized logical logical process.
I believe I offered plenty of explanation of how neural activity creates conscious expeirence (and could link or paste more that I have tried to explain the overall concept).
Evidence supporting it, is common knowledge concepts, and the theory explains how the cause and effects of those concepts interacting with each other.

I dont claim it scientifically proven. I claim it's a theory, which should be considered, and tested for flaws and to see if it can be disproven, and potentially become scientifically proven. After a while now with this theory, I have yet to receive much of any reasoning at all suggesting it is incorrect — Tyler

I think you are giving too much credit to the existing knowledge about Consciousness. Nobody has any idea how Neural Activity leads to the Conscious experience. Forget about knowing any kind of precise molecular functioning of the process. There is no such knowledge. All we know is that when particular Neural Activity happens there will be particular correlated Conscious experience happening. There is no explanation of how this happens. This is the classic Explanatory Gap of Consciousness.

I dont mean; common or existing knowledge, which is regarding the overall function of consciousness. The theory is regarding overall consciousness yes, but the common knowledge I was referring to was more like basic concepts. The theory takes those basic concepts like puzzle pieces, and explains how they fit together.

I attempt to arrange the puzzle pieces of neural activity (+ common experience effects) to fill the explanatory gap. With the finished puzzle, the correlation & cause/ effect between neural activity and consciousness, is portrayed.

I dont mean; common or existing knowledge, which is regarding the overall function of consciousness. The theory is regarding overall consciousness yes, but the common knowledge I was referring to was more like basic concepts. The theory takes those basic concepts like puzzle pieces, and explains how they fit together.

I attempt to arrange the puzzle pieces of neural activity (+ common experience effects) to fill the explanatory gap. With the finished puzzle, the correlation & cause/ effect between neural activity and consciousness, is portrayed. — Tyler

What exactly are these Common Experience Effects that you would add to the Neural Activity to explain the Explanatory Gap?

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that common experience effects are additional "puzzle pieces", not really added to neural activity. Common experiences that involve neural activity, but the function of which, aren't necessarily completely understood or proven by neural activity.

Experiences such as memories triggering other memories, or compounds of memories creating memories of concepts, or categories of memories, or analyzing cause and effect, etc.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that common experience effects are additional "puzzle pieces", not really added to neural activity. Common experiences that involve neural activity, but the function of which, aren't necessarily completely understood or proven by neural activity.

Experiences such as memories triggering other memories, or compounds of memories creating memories of concepts, or categories of memories, or analyzing cause and effect, etc. — Tyler

You are specifying a particular type of Neural Activity when you talk about Memory access but this is all still Neural Activity. This is all still the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Specifying more types of Neural Activity does not bring us closer to the Explanation of how all this Neural Activity becomes a Conscious experience. But what you are saying is what the Physicalists always say. Just find more Neural Activity and the Conscious experience will magically emerge.

I hope you are not the type of Physicalist that thinks the Conscious experience doesn't really exist and is just an Illusion without any real purpose. Take the Visual Conscious experience of the scene you are looking at. You would be blind without the Visual Conscious experience. Neural Activity is not enough to let you move around in the World without bumping into things. The Conscious Visual experience of the scene you are looking at is the final stage of the Visual Process. The Primacy of this final stage must be understood. It must be explained. Including more and more types of Neural Activity does not get you any closer to understanding the Conscious experience. You must show How this Neural Activity produces the Conscious experience. You can't just say that it does.

I realize those are all types of neural activity. I'm not saying those, in themselves, explain consciousness. I'm saying those are some of the "puzzle pieces", and when fit together in the right combination, it is a decent potential explanation for consciousness.
Those common experiences are more like supporting evidence of the overall explanation of consciousness.

My overall explanation is not that finding more neural activity will magically explain consciousness. My explanation of consciousness, is that all the known neural activity can create consciousness, when in the correct combination. Which is why I refer to it as a puzzle. All the pieces are there, and known (at least sufficiently), they just have to be arranged correctly.

As for explaining how, a 1 line summary of my explanation (similar to what I think I've mentioned a few times), would be; memory access of a factor, simultaneously to memory access of the interaction (including relevant concepts) of that factor causes a conscious experience of that factor.

But that is a very basic, minimum requirement description. Here is a link (if this site allows links...) to a 1 page description, for more detail (which is still just a summary of much more detail)
http://livedlogic.blogspot.ca/2018/03/conscious-summarization.html

My overall explanation is not that finding more neural activity will magically explain consciousness. My explanation of consciousness, is that all the known neural activity can create consciousness, when in the correct combination. Which is why I refer to it as a puzzle. All the pieces are there, and known (at least sufficiently), they just have to be arranged correctly. — Tyler

But even when you get to the point of having all the pieces and you know these pieces cause the Conscious experience, the question still screams out as to how the Conscious experience happens from these pieces.

I like to stick with one simple thing, the experience of the color Red. Lets say you do know all the Neurons that have to fire and the Memory accesses that have to happen to experience Red. You are merely stipulating the Neural Correlates of the Red experience. You are not explaining how we have the Red experience. There is a Categorical difference between any kind of Neural Activity that you can talk about and the Experience of something like Red. How on Earth do you ever get a Red experience from Neural Activity and Memory Access?

"The problem is that the Brain is an electro-chemical machine and nowhere during all the processing that goes on can you find the actual Conscious perception of Light. I like to say that when you have a Conscious perception of Light that you are seeing Conscious Light. "

Why do we continue to seek for consciousness within the Brain. Descartes localized it to the pineal gland and Science laughed, and continues to do so. Why all this ridiculous peripatetic philosophical meandering. It has not been found in the brain, or in the neurons or the synaptic clefts or the neurotransmitters, or neural activity..... etc etc ad infinitum.

It clearly, is NOT there. Lets get over it!

If it is not there it must be somewhere else...? Oh no..... I hear the thud of the homocentric giant approaching. He is about to club me over 'my conscious' head, and insist that Man is still the center of the Universe that he is the measure of all things, and that he manufactures this 'consciousness' somewhere inside his head and we will find it, if we just keep looking. As long as he can continue to do so he can maintain the delusion that 'God' is within him or the more contemporary delusion that he is a 'God' unto himself.

Why does philosophy insist that Galileo must continually recant, and that "God" or consciousness is inside our heads. Why not follow established precedent and point the telescope/microscope towards the stars?

M

"The problem is that the Brain is an electro-chemical machine and nowhere during all the processing that goes on can you find the actual Conscious perception of Light. I like to say that when you have a Conscious perception of Light that you are seeing Conscious Light. "

Why do we continue to seek for consciousness within the Brain. Descartes localized it to the pineal gland and Science laughed, and continues to do so. Why all this ridiculous peripatetic philosophical meandering. It has not been found in the brain, or in the neurons or the synaptic clefts or the neurotransmitters, or neural activity..... etc etc ad infinitum.

It clearly, is NOT there. Lets get over it!

If it is not there it must be somewhere else...? Oh no..... I hear the thud of the homocentric giant approaching. He is about to club me over 'my conscious' head, and insist that Man is still the center of the Universe that he is the measure of all things, and that he manufactures this 'consciousness' somewhere inside his head and we will find it, if we just keep looking. As long as he can continue to do so he can maintain the delusion that 'God' is within him or the more contemporary delusion that he is a 'God' unto himself.

Why does philosophy insist that Galileo must continually recant, and that "God" or consciousness is inside our heads. Why not follow established precedent and point the telescope/microscope towards the stars? — Marcus de Brun

Excellent post. Made me laugh because I've been dodging that Giant Club for a while now.

But even when you get to the point of having all the pieces and you know these pieces cause the Conscious experience, the question still screams out as to how the Conscious experience happens from these pieces. — SteveKlinko

> I don't think I see the difference.
If we have a causal explanation of the mechanical function of something, that is the answer of how. If we explain it with neural activity, then it seems to me that the question is answered, of how the Conscious Experience happens from the pieces. What is left to be answered?

As with your eg of the Red Experience, hypothetically with the understood neural function, it does explain how.
What more is there to explain? Asking how, asks what function causes a result. Hypothetically, that would explain just that: the function which causes the result.

There is a Categorical difference between any kind of Neural Activity that you can talk about and the Experience of something like Red. — SteveKlinko

> The only categorical difference that I see, is degree of specificity. Neural activity is a more specific category involving details, where as experience is more general, involving less detail of the scientific process. This doesn't mean that the details of neural activity cannot explain the more general overall experiences.

It clearly, is NOT there. Lets get over it! — Marcus de Brun

Evidence suggests that consciousness involves brain activity. We have not thoroughly tested and understood all aspects of brain activity.
So it seems more likely that we have not discovered the aspects of brain activity to cause consciousness, than that it comes from somewhere else which has no evidence.

Evidence suggests that consciousness involves brain activity. We have not thoroughly tested and understood all aspects of brain activity. — Tyler

What is the evidence that suggests that consciousness involves brain activity? Might it not be even MORE easily asserted that:

Evidence suggests that brain activity involves consciousness, we have not thoroughly tested and understood all aspects of consciousness?

I would suggest that consciousness has been more thoroughly investigated by Philosophy than brain activity has been explained by Science, (however Science is presently in the ascendancy) Consciousness in Philosophical parlance would appear to cause and or contain brain activity, in the same manner that it may contain our perception of 'objective' reality.

Your assertion seems to contain within it a contemporary bias towards the supremacy of this 'brain activity', which seems to point to a currently fashionable refutation of dualism.

Please expand.

M

But even when you get to the point of having all the pieces and you know these pieces cause the Conscious experience, the question still screams out as to how the Conscious experience happens from these pieces. — SteveKlinko> I don't think I see the difference.
If we have a causal explanation of the mechanical function of something, that is the answer of how. If we explain it with neural activity, then it seems to me that the question is answered, of how the Conscious Experience happens from the pieces. What is left to be answered?

As with your eg of the Red Experience, hypothetically with the understood neural function, it does explain how.
What more is there to explain? Asking how, asks what function causes a result. Hypothetically, that would explain just that: the function which causes the result.

There is a Categorical difference between any kind of Neural Activity that you can talk about and the Experience of something like Red. — SteveKlinko> The only categorical difference that I see, is degree of specificity. Neural activity is a more specific category involving details, where as experience is more general, involving less detail of the scientific process. This doesn't mean that the details of neural activity cannot explain the more general overall experiences. — Tyler

I'll just ask my usual question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity For Red Happens
2) A Red Conscious Experience Happens

How does 1 produce 2?

Think about the Redness of a Red experience. Think about Neurons firing. How on Earth do think that these are not two different categories of Phenomenon?

The Mind is a computer. The Body is a Machine. The Self is what I'll call "Self". For my purposes Self is the energy that experiences the data that it receives from the computer. Life is the every changing environment in which we live. Self evaluates that information and inputs the requisite commands reflective of Self's decisions. The Mind and Machine work together to process the commands all while gathering data. Self faces choices that will impact the very fabric of how they experience Life.

Life is often referred to as a game which is in some ways accurate but in truth is more an open world MMO (an open explorer formatted world online game in which anyone around the world can play and interact with each other).

Much like the game we start at birth with nothing. Now modern life might toss a few basics your way. A home of some kind, clothes, perhaps some food. Granted as humans we are giving very little in the way of instinctive memories. So we learn from the world around us.

You see in this game the player is your self. It arrives with no instructions, no training and little else. We are 100% reliant on the machine we assigned and those who birthed out machine.

I will leave the example at this point and ask that you consider your position on this topic with a certainty that the self remains regardless of the condition of the machine. Once the Machine is damaged beyond repair and function the self moves on but that topic has enough threads no doubt. I will add that the self also is with certainty separate from the machine. The self experiences all the physical and emotional feelings and sensations provided by the machine and the computer but the self is definitely separate.

This all being said does it chance what you think and how?