How AI, Robotics, and Clean Energy Will End Labor and Money – A Future Where Everything Is Free

[Gary Childress]

Gary, are you actually suggesting that there is a “ghost in the machine”? As in, a non-physical entity — something with no mass, no charge, no spin, no interaction via any of the four fundamental forces — that somehow does interact with your physical neurons?

Because to affect the brain, this ghost would need to push ions across membranes, generate action potentials, trigger neurotransmitter release — all of which are thoroughly physical events. And that means this "ghost" must exert measurable force, energy, or influence. But for something to be measurable, it must interact with matter through at least one known physical interaction: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, or weak nuclear. Otherwise, it doesn’t just “elude detection” — it violates physics.

So you can’t have it both ways: you can't say it’s undetectable and say it moves atoms. If it moves atoms, it’s detectable. If it’s undetectable, it’s not moving atoms. And if it’s not moving atoms, it’s not causing your neurons to fire — which means it’s not feeling pain, joy, anger, or anything else. It’s irrelevant.

Emergence, on the other hand, doesn’t mean magic. It means structure-dependent properties — like wetness in water, or flight in a flock. Your pain exists because your nervous system is doing what it does, not because some ghost is perched on your cortex making sense of voltage spikes.

So unless you want to toss out physics wholesale, stop pretending that "we don't know" is the same as "maybe it's supernatural." It isn't. Not knowing everything yet doesn’t justify hand-waving causality.

I think it's a false dilemma to say that either I must throw out physics wholesale or else think that we mortals can know or can explain everything with physics. I could still study physics and at the same time say, "I don't know the full story". And it is a strawman to say that I am suggesting "supernatural" explanations. Perhaps "nature" has some aspects that can't be fully understood or studied directly through observation.

Gary, you’re backing off into a vague fog now, and it’s not helping your point. You asked a clear question about pain and experience — and I gave a clear answer grounded in physical causality. You said maybe experience is non-physical, maybe it’s mysterious, maybe there’s more to nature than what physics can observe. And now you’re saying that doesn’t mean you’re appealing to the supernatural?

Let’s be honest here: if you say there's something causing experiences that doesn't interact via the fundamental forces, and can’t be measured or observed in principle, then you’re not just talking about some hidden corner of physics. You’re hand-waving beyond physics. That’s what people have always meant by “supernatural” — forces that influence the world without being physically grounded in it.

If your fallback is: "Maybe nature includes aspects beyond what science can detect," then fine — but that’s no longer science. That’s metaphysical speculation. And it doesn’t advance the conversation, it just stalls it.

Pain, consciousness, qualia — these are phenomena produced by the arrangement and function of matter and energy. There’s no need to reach for a mystical remainder when what’s hard to explain is simply complex, not magical.

So again: do you have an actual alternative explanation grounded in causality? Or just poetic evasions?

Fair enough. I don't have all the answers. If you say there's no ghost in the machine, then I don't have any evidence to argue otherwise.

[seeds]

The "nervous system" doesn't "perceive" or "interpret" anything.

No more than a thermometer "perceives" and "interprets" temperature.

No, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "nervous system," can "perceive" and "interpret" the pain signals.


The "central nervous system" does not "make sense" of anything.

Again, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "central nervous system" can "make sense" of the signals being relayed to it by the non-conscious system.
_______

Machines don't have nervous systems.

Tell that to BigMike, for he's the one that implies that humans are nothing more than "meat machines."

Come on now, Belinda, haven't you been paying attention to the conversations that have been going on in BigMike's threads?

Nervous systems support qualia.

Nervous systems may support the "conveyance of information" that, once decoded, is experienced as qualia by the "ghost,"...

...however, only the "ghost" can do the decoding of said information, and thus see, feel, hear, smell, or taste that which the information represents.

The ghost that you claim exists is an unnecessary hypothesis that does no work.

Without the presence and participation of the "ghost" in the machine, the "machine" (meaning the "body and brain") would have absolutely no reason to exist.

It's like imagining a dream minus the "dreamer" of the dream.

Or a thought minus the "thinker" of the thought.
_______

[seeds]

Consciousness, like any particular sense, is deeply tied to the body.
Sight to eyes, taste to tongue etc.

I'm afraid you haven't thoroughly thought this through.

As our body lies numb and oblivious in a quiet and darkened (pitch-black) bedroom while we sleep, all five of the mind's senses are fully engaged in seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, and smelling the phenomenal features of our vivid dreams, which oftentimes seem almost as real as the reality we experience while awake.

like I said earlier, our material eyes, nervous system, ears, nose, and tongue are but mere "windows" that the "ghost" in the machine uses to peer outward into the universe.

And the point is that the multi-sensing attributes of our being originate on the inside of our mind and not the outside of our mind via body parts.

Even though our experience is subjective qualia, we can test how impacts to our body directly correlate to particular senses.
If eyes are damaged, sight is damaged. If ears are damaged, hearing is damaged.

What are we conscious of, if not the experiences of the body?

Damage to our eyes or ears has no effect on our ability to have a rich, multi-sensory experience of our dreams.

Again, our five senses originate on the inside of our minds, not the outside of our minds.

If someone is a proponent of hardcore determinism, so much so that they deny the existence of free will, then wouldn't the idea of a "block universe" be a perfect explanation for the type of determinism they are promoting?

It's called hard determinism, and that it denies free will is inherent to the position.
There is no degree of hard determinism that allows free will.
When you say 'perfect', what you mean is consistent.
Block universe, regardless of your emotional reactions to it, is consistent with the position of hard determinism.

It's not a convenient coincidence that hard determinists hold positions that are consistent with their other beliefs,
it's a product of them seeking to build a framework of beliefs that are non-contradictory -
it's called integrity, you should look into it.

In fact, brains don't "feel" anything.

The only thing that experiences and "feels" qualia such as "pain" is the "ghost" in the machine

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism according to which matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, without which they cannot exist.

According to materialism, there is no ghost in the machine.
If you have a problem with this concept,
it's not the people who you insult where the issue lies,
but your misgivings relating to materialism -
but that wont stop you from being disrespectful.

First of all, as I have stated many times throughout the years in this forum,...

...if according to hardcore materialism there is literally nothing else other than matter,...

...then that means that the stuff that forms our thoughts and dreams is simply an inward extension of the same stuff that forms the stars and planets. Which means that if humans (within the inner context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the same fundamental substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish (just by “thinking It” into existence),...

...then why is it so difficult to imagine that a higher consciousness may have done the same thing with this universe?

And secondly, mounting a strong, pugilistic opposition to that which I view as harmful nonsense being proposed by my interlocutors, isn't being disrespectful. No, it's just part of the standard PN debate protocols that I was introduced to when I first joined this forum.

And lastly, if I am indeed being truly disrespectful to anyone I am debating with, it's probably because they have earned my disrespect by either being dishonest, overly vulgar, or by some other means.

Perhaps "...you should look into it..." before you make a hasty and negative assessment of another person's motives, based on reading just a few of their current posts.
_______

[Ben JS]

'hardcore determinism' isn't a thing, and a veiled insult implying that hard determinists are fanatics.

Really transparent, and unbecoming.

'hardcore determinism' is not only a veiled insult, but vague too -
leaving the reader to correct this mistake,
by guessing who the phrase is referring to.

Why?

Soft determinism (compatabalism) & hard determinism.
But it's evident which one seeds refers to,
so asking the reader to identify with seeds' incorrect, uninformative term.

...then why is it so difficult to imagine that a higher consciousness may have done the same thing with this universe?

I was illustrating to the forum that you were being intentionally rude in your comments.
Upon illustration, you ignore the criticism and shift the topic to 'higher consciousness', likely 'God'.
Completely irrelevant.

Do you have any respect for the forum structure i.e. staying on topic?
Or is every thread free reign to insult people based on whatever your current misgivings are?
Not only are your words disrespectful, but so too your indifference to respecting the structure of the website.
Very entitled of you.

if I am indeed being truly disrespectful to anyone

It's your express intent.
Which as previously stated, is transparent.

In fact, brains don't "feel" anything.

Wrong, not an established fact.

Materialism, which is the primary explanation for consciousness,
states that brains are indeed doing the 'feeling'.
If neither your theory, nor materialism has been disproven -
then neither is an established fact.

Think about it.

[Now I'll stop contributing to your derailment / vendetta]

[seeds]

I was illustrating to the forum that you were being intentionally rude in your comments.

Are you kidding me?

Have you met some of the other members of this forum?

Do you have any respect for the forum structure i.e. staying on topic?

Trust me, I once felt the same way as you about the derailing of thread topics, as is witnessed in this post from 8 years ago...

It seems that we are all a party to "derailing this thread" but I find the derail just as interesting as the OP, and It seems that a few others do to as well.

Doc, this isn't rocket science.

At the expense of derailing this thread even further...

...if an exciting new topic like “fat and cholesterol” suddenly pops up in a thread that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fat and cholesterol, you create a new thread and discuss it there.

My gosh, what a revelation!

To put this in perspective, click on the following link to see and hear BradburyPound and vegetariantaxidermy (or you) discussing - “How God could fail to convey His message?” - here: https://youtu.be/crIJvcWkVcs
_______

And the point is that I had that attitude beaten out of me over the subsequent years.

Besides, as I pointed out in the following quote from me to the creator of this thread (BigMike) who has spent months promoting the philosophy of determinism...

"...this latest stuff is simply a "deterministic" (cause and effect) evolution resulting from our earlier exchanges in this thread..."

_______

[Belinda]

Consciousness, like any particular sense, is deeply tied to the body.
Sight to eyes, taste to tongue etc.

I'm afraid you haven't thoroughly thought this through.

As our body lies numb and oblivious in a quiet and darkened (pitch-black) bedroom while we sleep, all five of the mind's senses are fully engaged in seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, and smelling the phenomenal features of our vivid dreams, which oftentimes seem almost as real as the reality we experience while awake.

like I said earlier, our material eyes, nervous system, ears, nose, and tongue are but mere "windows" that the "ghost" in the machine uses to peer outward into the universe.

And the point is that the multi-sensing attributes of our being originate on the inside of our mind and not the outside of our mind via body parts.

Even though our experience is subjective qualia, we can test how impacts to our body directly correlate to particular senses.
If eyes are damaged, sight is damaged. If ears are damaged, hearing is damaged.

What are we conscious of, if not the experiences of the body?

Damage to our eyes or ears has no effect on our ability to have a rich, multi-sensory experience of our dreams.

Again, our five senses originate on the inside of our minds, not the outside of our minds.

If someone is a proponent of hardcore determinism, so much so that they deny the existence of free will, then wouldn't the idea of a "block universe" be a perfect explanation for the type of determinism they are promoting?

It's called hard determinism, and that it denies free will is inherent to the position.
There is no degree of hard determinism that allows free will.
When you say 'perfect', what you mean is consistent.
Block universe, regardless of your emotional reactions to it, is consistent with the position of hard determinism.

It's not a convenient coincidence that hard determinists hold positions that are consistent with their other beliefs,
it's a product of them seeking to build a framework of beliefs that are non-contradictory -
it's called integrity, you should look into it.

In fact, brains don't "feel" anything.

The only thing that experiences and "feels" qualia such as "pain" is the "ghost" in the machine

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism according to which matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, without which they cannot exist.

According to materialism, there is no ghost in the machine.
If you have a problem with this concept,
it's not the people who you insult where the issue lies,
but your misgivings relating to materialism -
but that wont stop you from being disrespectful.

First of all, as I have stated many times throughout the years in this forum,...

...if according to hardcore materialism there is literally nothing else other than matter,...

...then that means that the stuff that forms our thoughts and dreams is simply an inward extension of the same stuff that forms the stars and planets. Which means that if humans (within the inner context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the same fundamental substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish (just by “thinking It” into existence),...

...then why is it so difficult to imagine that a higher consciousness may have done the same thing with this universe?

And secondly, mounting a strong, pugilistic opposition to that which I view as harmful nonsense being proposed by my interlocutors, isn't being disrespectful. No, it's just part of the standard PN debate protocols that I was introduced to when I first joined this forum.

And lastly, if I am indeed being truly disrespectful to anyone I am debating with, it's probably because they have earned my disrespect by either being dishonest, overly vulgar, or by some other means.

Perhaps "...you should look into it..." before you make a hasty and negative assessment of another person's motives, based on reading just a few of their current posts.
_______

Do you think determinism implies or is the same as materialism?

The 'block universe' is inconsistent with determinism unless you are God which you are not.
Nobody including no determinist can predict the future, except God and none of us is God.

[seeds]

The "nervous system" doesn't "perceive" or "interpret" anything.

No more than a thermometer "perceives" and "interprets" temperature.

No, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "nervous system," can "perceive" and "interpret" the pain signals.

Organs of special sense (E.G. ears and eyes )don't make sense of their environment, it's the central nervous system that does that.

The "central nervous system" does not "make sense" of anything.

Again, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "central nervous system" can "make sense" of the signals being relayed to it by the non-conscious system.
_______

I think Seeds makes a valid point here...

...Maybe it would help my understanding to know what Mike means by a "ghost" in the machine when he says there is no such thing. If not an intangible entity, then what are our experiences? It seems to me that the answer is that "we don't know". And that seems like a different answer than, "it doesn't exist".

Gary, are you actually suggesting that there is a “ghost in the machine”? As in, a non-physical entity — something with no mass, no charge, no spin, no interaction via any of the four fundamental forces — that somehow does interact with your physical neurons?

Because to affect the brain, this ghost would need to push ions across membranes, generate action potentials, trigger neurotransmitter release — all of which are thoroughly physical events. And that means this "ghost" must exert measurable force, energy, or influence. But for something to be measurable, it must interact with matter through at least one known physical interaction: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, or weak nuclear. Otherwise, it doesn’t just “elude detection” — it violates physics.

So you can’t have it both ways: you can't say it’s undetectable and say it moves atoms. If it moves atoms, it’s detectable...

As always -- "just for funzies" -- I presented this issue to ChatGPT (bolding and emphasis mine)...

Me:
For the purpose of brevity, Is "dark energy" or "dark matter" directly measurable by any scientific method - yes, or no?

ChatGPT:
No.

Me:
Yet (and, again, please be brief) "dark energy" and "dark matter" allegedly comprise approximately 95% of the universe, right?

ChatGPT:
Yes.

Me:
And lastly (again, please be brief), these two "unmeasurable" aspects of reality which comprise approximately 95% of the universe, have a profound (and observable) effect on the approximate 5% of universal matter that can be measured, is that correct?

ChatGPT:
Yes.

Now, if the point of my little discussion with Chat isn't glaringly obvious, then allow me to clarify it.

According to BigMike...

...this "ghost" must exert measurable force, energy, or influence. But for something to be measurable, it must interact with matter through at least one known physical interaction: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, or weak nuclear. Otherwise, it doesn’t just “elude detection” — it violates physics...
...If it moves atoms, it’s detectable...

However, even though "dark energy" and "dark matter" do indeed seem to have some sort of gravitational influence over matter, the two forces together that, again, represent 95% of the universe,...

...are completely "unmeasurable"/"undetectable" by any direct means.

And the ultimate point is that it is completely erroneous of BigMike to assert that it is impossible for something undetectable (unmeasurable) to "...move atoms..." when, in fact, all of the atoms in the entire universe are constantly being moved by something that is thoroughly unmeasurable.

To which I will argue that if all of the atoms in the entire universe are constantly being moved by something that is unmeasurable,...

...then why is it so hard to imagine that every time we move the atoms that compose our arm and hand around to our backside to scratch an itch on our bum, that those atoms are also being moved by something that is as equally unmeasurable/undetectable as that of the aforementioned dark forces?

And that the existence of the "mover" of arms and the "feeler" of itches can also be inferred by reason of the observable influence* it has over matter?

*(And none of this, btw, takes into account the unlimited influence that this undetectable/unmeasurable "mover" of atoms has over the inner fabric of its own mind, such as in the case of a "lucid dreamer," for example.)

BigMike will, of course, invoke the materialist's version of the "God of the gaps" argument by insisting that science will someday discover the truth of these "dark" forces and it will be purely materialistic in nature.

And thus, the perennial battle between two opposing camps will continue.
_______

[BigMike]

The "nervous system" doesn't "perceive" or "interpret" anything.

No more than a thermometer "perceives" and "interprets" temperature.

No, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "nervous system," can "perceive" and "interpret" the pain signals.

Organs of special sense (E.G. ears and eyes )don't make sense of their environment, it's the central nervous system that does that.

The "central nervous system" does not "make sense" of anything.

Again, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "central nervous system" can "make sense" of the signals being relayed to it by the non-conscious system.
_______

I think Seeds makes a valid point here...

...Maybe it would help my understanding to know what Mike means by a "ghost" in the machine when he says there is no such thing. If not an intangible entity, then what are our experiences? It seems to me that the answer is that "we don't know". And that seems like a different answer than, "it doesn't exist".

Gary, are you actually suggesting that there is a “ghost in the machine”? As in, a non-physical entity — something with no mass, no charge, no spin, no interaction via any of the four fundamental forces — that somehow does interact with your physical neurons?

Because to affect the brain, this ghost would need to push ions across membranes, generate action potentials, trigger neurotransmitter release — all of which are thoroughly physical events. And that means this "ghost" must exert measurable force, energy, or influence. But for something to be measurable, it must interact with matter through at least one known physical interaction: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, or weak nuclear. Otherwise, it doesn’t just “elude detection” — it violates physics.

So you can’t have it both ways: you can't say it’s undetectable and say it moves atoms. If it moves atoms, it’s detectable...

As always -- "just for funzies" -- I presented this issue to ChatGPT (bolding and emphasis mine)...

Me:
For the purpose of brevity, Is "dark energy" or "dark matter" directly measurable by any scientific method - yes, or no?

ChatGPT:
No.

Me:
Yet (and, again, please be brief) "dark energy" and "dark matter" allegedly comprise approximately 95% of the universe, right?

ChatGPT:
Yes.

Me:
And lastly (again, please be brief), these two "unmeasurable" aspects of reality which comprise approximately 95% of the universe, have a profound (and observable) effect on the approximate 5% of universal matter that can be measured, is that correct?

ChatGPT:
Yes.

Now, if the point of my little discussion with Chat isn't glaringly obvious, then allow me to clarify it.

According to BigMike...

...this "ghost" must exert measurable force, energy, or influence. But for something to be measurable, it must interact with matter through at least one known physical interaction: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear, or weak nuclear. Otherwise, it doesn’t just “elude detection” — it violates physics...
...If it moves atoms, it’s detectable...

However, even though "dark energy" and "dark matter" do indeed seem to have some sort of gravitational influence over matter, the two forces together that, again, represent 95% of the universe,...

...are completely "unmeasurable"/"undetectable" by any direct means.

And the ultimate point is that it is completely erroneous of BigMike to assert that it is impossible for something undetectable (unmeasurable) to "...move atoms..." when, in fact, all of the atoms in the entire universe are constantly being moved by something that is thoroughly unmeasurable.

To which I will argue that if all of the atoms in the entire universe are constantly being moved by something that is unmeasurable,...

...then why is it so hard to imagine that every time we move the atoms that compose our arm and hand around to our backside to scratch an itch on our bum, that those atoms are also being moved by something that is as equally unmeasurable/undetectable as that of the aforementioned dark forces?

And that the existence of the "mover" of arms and the "feeler" of itches can also be inferred by reason of the observable influence* it has over matter?

*(And none of this, btw, takes into account the unlimited influence that this undetectable/unmeasurable "mover" of atoms has over the inner fabric of its own mind, such as in the case of a "lucid dreamer," for example.)

BigMike will, of course, invoke the materialist's version of the "God of the gaps" argument by insisting that science will someday discover the truth of these "dark" forces and it will be purely materialistic in nature.

And thus, the perennial battle between two opposing camps will continue.
_______

Alright, Seeds — let’s walk through this slowly, because you're trying to equate two very different kinds of “mystery” and treating them as if they carry the same implications. They don’t.

Dark matter and dark energy are called dark not because they are magical, ghostly, or beyond physics — but because we haven’t yet detected them directly. We still know they’re physical. Why? Because they influence matter through gravity, a fundamental physical force. We can observe their effects on galaxies, light bending around clusters, and the expansion rate of the universe.

That’s very different from what you’re doing.

You’re proposing something that does move atoms, that does interact with neurons, that allegedly feels, chooses, interprets, and wills — but does so without using any of the known physical interactions. Not gravity, not electromagnetism, not anything measurable.

That’s not a scientific mystery. That’s a violation of physics. That’s magic.

If you want to say, “There’s something we don’t fully understand yet about consciousness,” fine — that’s humble and fair. But when you go a step further and say, “That thing must be a ghostly agent that exists outside the physical world but still affects it,” now you’re not exploring unknowns — you’re making an extraordinary claim without any mechanism.

Dark matter isn’t “spiritual.” It’s in the equations. It obeys conservation laws. It influences mass through gravity. If your ghost can do that, great — then put it in the equations.

Until then, you’re not doing what physicists do when they study dark matter.
You’re doing what theologians do when they wave their hands and say “well, something is doing it.”

You’re not inferring a cause from data.
You’re inserting a cause because it feels necessary to you.

And the difference matters.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The OP is no less fanciful than religion.

[accelafine]

The OP is no less fanciful than religion.

True, but not for the reasons you think. Have you bothered to spend even a few minutes learning or thinking about the topic?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Lavenders green, diddle diddle
Lavenders blue, diddle diddle
You must love me, diddle diddle
Cause I love you

I heard one say, diddle diddle
Since I cam hither
That you and I, diddle diddle
Must lie together

My hosttess maid, diddle diddle
Her name was Nell
She was a lass, diddle diddle
That I loved well

But if she dye, diddle diddle
By some mishap
Then she shall lie, diddle diddle
Under the tap

That she may drink, diddle diddle
When she's a dry
Because she loved, diddle diddle
My dog and I

Coll up your maids, diddle diddle
Set them to work
Some to make hay, diddle diddle
Some to the Rock

Some to make hay, diddle diddle
Some to the Corn
Whilst you and I, diddle diddle
keep the bed warm

Let the birds sing, diddle diddle
And the lambs play
We shall be safe, diddle diddle
Out of harms way

[Belinda]

In a (hypothetical) future where everything is free, remaining incentives to get out of bed in the morning are:-

*curiosity as to what the weather, the season, the morning star, and other aspects of the larger environment are doing


* sensual satisfactions of keeping one's body happy and contented


* felt need to help another human or some animal, using one's kind hands and face


*felt need to luxuriate in bed for a moment longer to thank whoever it may concern that one no more needs to spend another day occupied by drudgery

*freedom from having to rely on fickle humans with ego problems

*freedom from consuming cruel animal products now those are all made by inanimate machines

*freedom to enjoy beautiful things that have not been mined by slave workers

[accelafine]

The actual words (porn of the 1600s):

Lavender’s blue, diddle diddle
Lavender’s green,
When I am king, diddle diddle
You shall be queen.

Lavender’s green, diddle diddle
Lavender’s blue,
You must love me, diddle diddle
‘Cause I love you.

Down in the vale, diddle diddle
Where flowers grow,
And the birds sing, diddle diddle
All in a row.

A brisk young man, diddle diddle
Met with a maid,
And laid her down, diddle diddle
Under the shade.

There they did play, diddle diddle
And kiss and court.
All the fine day, diddle diddle
Making good sport.

I’ve heard them say, diddle diddle
Since I came hither
That you and I, diddle diddle
Might lie together.

Therefore be kind, diddle diddle
While here we lie,
And you will love, diddle diddle
My dog and I.

For you and I, diddle diddle
Now all are one,
And we will lie, diddle diddle
No more alone.

Lavender’s blue, diddle diddle
Lavender’s green,
Let me be king, diddle diddle
You be the queen.

Lavender’s green, diddle diddle
Lavender’s blue,
You must love me, diddle diddle
‘Cause I love you.

[commonsense]

Machines don't have nervous systems.

Machines have circuits that transmit electrical impulses back and forth. Human nervous systems are the same.

[commonsense]

Right!

In fact, brains don't "feel" anything.

The only thing that experiences and "feels" qualia such as "pain" is the "ghost" in the machine that you and BigMike are insisting doesn't exist.

Indeed, the ability to "feel" pain is a "warning system" that lets the "ghost" know when harm is occurring to the body so that the "ghost" can take measures to mitigate the harm.

In truth, the ubiquitous nervous system of the human body is a complex, fibrous-like network of pathways that give the mind's "I Am-ness" (gives the "ghost") access to the body which literally resides outside of the "ghost's mind.

In other words, just as the eyes and the ears are nothing more than "windows" that allow the "ghost" to peer out into the universe (literally outward from its own mind and into the inner dimension of God's mind - as per Berkeleyanism),...

...likewise, so is the nervous system just another type of "window" that allows the "ghost" to access, feel, and control the body that, again, is a part of the universe (a part of God's* mind) and not a part of the "ghost's" mind.

*(With God simply being the greater "GHOST" of the universe, in whose "ghostly" image our "ghost" has been created.)

While asleep, the "ghost's" consciousness (like some kind of liquid-like essence) literally "withdraws" from the nervous system and from all of those other bodily "windows" and is now directed inward.

Indeed, while asleep, the "ghost" no longer sees, or feels, or hears, or tastes, or smells any of the phenomenal features of the universe that it normally experiences while awake.

While asleep, the five senses of the "ghost's" consciousness...



...are now directed inward, wherein the "ghost's" attention and information-decoding consciousness are now involved in the process of explicating vivid dreams into existence from the fields of information that reside within the "ghost's" mind.

That's why I keep insisting (suggesting) that whatever the natural mechanism is that allows us to explicate the vivid, three-dimensional features of our dreams into existence whenever we direct our consciousness inward while sleeping,...

...is no doubt the same natural mechanism that allows us to explicate the three-dimensional features of the universe into existence (from fields of quantum information) whenever we direct our consciousness outward while awake.

And ^^^that^^^ my dear Belinda, offers a possible resolution to the "Measurement Problem" and the mystery of what it is that instigates the collapse of the quantum wave function.






First of all, I didn't write that, no, ChatGPT wrote that. I merely copy and pasted Chat's words.

And secondly, you're darn right the Block Universe doesn't apply to us.

Why?

Because the Block Universe model of reality is pure horse crap, of which I discuss further in my next post to BigMike.

There is nothing ghostly about pain or any other quale.
The nervous system's ability to perceive pain involves both the peripheral and central nervous systems. The peripheral nervous system, specifically nociceptors (pain receptors), detects harmful stimuli and transmits signals to the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). The central nervous system then processes and interprets these signals, leading to the sensation of pain.

The "nervous system" doesn't "perceive" or "interpret" anything.

No more than a thermometer "perceives" and "interprets" temperature.

No, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "nervous system," can "perceive" and "interpret" the pain signals.

Organs of special sense (E.G. ears and eyes )don't make sense of their environment, it's the central nervous system that does that.

The "central nervous system" does not "make sense" of anything.

Again, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "central nervous system" can "make sense" of the signals being relayed to it by the non-conscious system.
_______

The ghost you reference performs the functionality of the brain. It is the brain, not a ghost.