Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Consciousness


LNC

Recommended Posts

Antlerman, science is the study of natural systems. It is the study of things "out there" in our ambience. I am wrapped within my own subjective bubble, and I know the interior of this bubble like no one else does or can. I think there is great value in introspection and meditation and all that. We can establish a school of thought devoted to the systematic study of Self from within, but it won't be science. And that's okay. Art is not science, but still has tremendous value.

 

Again though, I am interested in obtaining a natural explanation of the mind. This is precisely what the thread is about. If I am observing you, I have no access to your subjective self. You too are wrapped within your own subjective bubble. And as much as I might desire to have direct access to it, I don't. Just as you don't have direct access to mine.

 

I don't know. But I'm thinking about this. How can I understand someone else's mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. But I'm thinking about this. How can I understand someone else's mind?

That's a damned good question.

 

I honestly believe that the answer is that we are similar enough that we can infer that others experience the same basic emotions, memories, and ideas as we do. That is the basis for communication and empathy.

 

So to understand someone else's mind, 1) look into your own mind and try to put yourself into their position, 2) observe their behavior and language to glean their thoughts and see if they fit with yours and 3) ask questions of the other and try to fit their answers into your own "worldview."

 

That's how we get agreement and consensus. But what about when we can't agree on something? What's wrong here?

 

If we have a logical and coherent view of the world, and someone else does not agree with our thoughts or plans, what does that tell us about the other's mind?

 

They must be Christians.

 

Ok, that's a joke, and it's also not true.

 

It is incumbent upon all of us who want to understand someone else's views to try and fit their worldview onto our own framework as best we can, if only temporarily and for the purpose of understanding.

 

Language, communication and whever possible - objective verification of the reality of our beliefs.

 

Do the beliefs allow for predictions? Have those predictions been tested and either verified or refuted?

 

When reality conflicts with our beliefs or the beliefs of others, it is reasonable to reject those beliefs in favor of beliefs that conform to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. But I'm thinking about this. How can I understand someone else's mind?

That's a damned good question.

 

I honestly believe that the answer is that we are similar enough that we can infer that others experience the same basic emotions, memories, and ideas as we do. That is the basis for communication and empathy.

I think this is about right Shyone. In fact, I almost wrote something like this down in response to Antlerman. We have an edge on understanding other people, because we are people. We can therefore empathize with them. "If that was me then I would be thinking/feeling X and I would probably do Y."

 

Do the beliefs allow for predictions? Have those predictions been tested and either verified or refuted?

I almost addressed this too Shyone. I think prediction is giving me some clue. (I'm not sure what clue.) We want to understand so that we can explain and predict, but mostly to predict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to have be our sticking point throughout this scab-picking of a thread, that I see your mindset as equating human-like cognitive processes as synonymous with consciousness. I hear that again, and again, and yet again in what you just said. I don't. Again, there are levels and degrees of consciousness. It is present in the worm, the plant, and well perhaps on the atomic level to one degree or another.

 

<snip>

 

And we now understand the full scope of the "natural" explanation? To assume so would seem a more religious faith, wouldn't it? I think the odds are in favor of reality being, well, vastly far beyond the scope of our imaginings, perhaps to the point of infinity.

I agree that there are different "degrees of consciousness." That is exactly correct. And ours is more advanced, but not substantially different from the consciousness of "lower animals." They also have "cognitive processes" of their own proportional to their abilities which are in turn limited by their anatomy.

 

The full scope of the natural explanation is just the variety of life and consciousness. Form determines function.

I'm with you here so far. Doesn't sound different than what I'm saying.

 

Do you accept that a tape worm has consciousness, being a lower animal? I would assume so based on this. But to point out again, there is no brain in that animal. So consciousness either does not exist in that animal because someone is arbitrarily saying it is connected to the brain, or it does have consciousness and therefore consciousness is not a function of the brain, but the brain is the organ through which higher consciousness evolves and manifests itself.

 

What about the blessed Sponge, Holy Mother of all Animal life, our Eve in the Garden of Eden at the bottom of the sea?

 

I also view the "development" of conscious processes, from the ancient to the modern, or from the zygote to the adult, as evidence that consciousness is a purely natural process dependent upon the structures upon which it depends. A mature human brain has greater capacity for thoughts, memories and even emotions than an immature brain of either an undeveloped human or another species or even an ancient extinct species of hominid.

So we can establish that thoughts, memories, emotions, etc are not what define consciousness, but are manifestations of it? That is what you are saying here, but I just want to be clear.

 

I too believe that consciousness is a natural process, rather that the manifestations of consciousness are through natural processes, ie. the development of the brain, or a simple nervous system. But as our bodies are manifestations, higher, and deeper levels of complexity of matter, so too is the brain a higher, and deeper level of complexity of consciousness. Interior/Exterior.

 

The are built on a fundamental foundation of all existence. Matter does not begin with the animal, nor does consciousness does not begin with the brain.

 

So what happened between the cell and the human to allow for consciousness? And what can turn a conscious person or animal into a vegetable?

We can turn them into a conscious vegetable. I know this first hand. His personality may be destroyed, but that body is a living thing, filled with a world of the interior, and an exterior. Personality, thought, emotions, etc are not what define consciousness. Being does.

 

The brain giveth and the brain taketh away.

Take away the brain, take away matter?

 

Rule number 9: Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.

 

Destroy humans, you do not destroy all animals. Destroy all animals, you do not destroy all matter. Destroy all matter, and you destroy all animals and humans with it. Destroy the brain, you do not destroy consciousness. Consciousness exists below it, and above up. It is the interior space of all being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you accept that a tape worm has consciousness, being a lower animal? I would assume so based on this. But to point out again, there is no brain in that animal. So consciousness either does not exist in that animal because someone is arbitrarily saying it is connected to the brain, or it does have consciousness and therefore consciousness is not a function of the brain, but the brain is the organ through which higher consciousness evolves and manifests itself.

 

What about the blessed Sponge, Holy Mother of all Animal life, our Eve in the Garden of Eden at the bottom of the sea?

To be honest, I really was thinking of a different kind of worm than tapeworm.

 

The tapeworm, even without a brain, still has some awareness and takes active measures to survive. That implies consciousness of one form or another.

 

In most higher animals, the nervous system provides the "mechanism" for what we consider consciousness. The tapeworm may have another means of "sensing", and that is the context for consciousness.

 

Maybe even the sponge.

 

I have a tough time considering nonliving things as conscious because we just don't think that way usually. I wonder though if two mollecules that have mutual attraction and bond together are "conscious" of one another. Is electrical and physical attraction a manifestation of consciousness?

 

Nah, I don't think so. We've got to draw the line somewhere, and I draw it with life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Destroy the brain, you do not destroy consciousness.

I believe that not all consciousness is destroyed when a brain is destroyed, but a single consciousness is destroyed. Other minds still exist. I tend to give credence to the analogy that life is to organism as mind is to brain. And I believe that if an organism is destroyed a life is destroyed. But other lives still exist.

 

Consciousness exists below it, and above up. It is the interior space of all being.

I suspect the fabric of reality is a pattern of relations. And key among these in my opinion is entailment (or implication). I think we can ask "why?" about any set of phenomena and can reasonably expect the answer to be another set of phenomena. If A implies B and we ask "why B?" then we can answer because A. This is what I think comprises causality. And I think science is a creative act of bringing subjective implications into congruence with objective entailments.

 

(I had some side thoughts while writing this. What if phenotype and genotype and the relations between them and the environment are important things to note about organisms? And what if mind is phenotype?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tapeworm, even without a brain, still has some awareness and takes active measures to survive. That implies consciousness of one form or another.

Shyone what do you think about the idea that plants anticipate their environment but do not have minds? How about the idea that mind is associated with nervous systems and thus mostly with animals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tapeworm, even without a brain, still has some awareness and takes active measures to survive. That implies consciousness of one form or another.

Shyone what do you think about the idea that plants anticipate their environment but do not have minds? How about the idea that mind is associated with nervous systems and thus mostly with animals?

Yep, same thing there. It's hard to quantify in most plants. Some plants physically react to environment, others seem to just benefit from where they are planted and grow according to whatever the conditions allow. The fact that plants tend to aggregate where there is water does not necessarily imply consciousness for example, but plants turning towards the sun, or gobbling up flies by reacting to their presence would demonstrate something of awareness.

 

There is at least the potential for awareness in plants, but I'm not sure that is true necessarily of all plants.

 

Evolution is basically dumb. It just allows for the survival of some plants more than others and the mutations being random do not indicate intent. The result of evolution, however, may be remarkable and that could include non-nervous sytem based awareness if that were beneficial to survival.

 

That's kind of how we got here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a broader definition than what LNC is considering (i.e.,humans), I would definitely say yes to your first question. Humans aren't the only beings that are conscious. They may be at a "lower level" or not as developed as humans. Since all beings are related, they will share some form of awareness like ours. I wish I had the time to search and post about animal consciousness research. You bring up a good point that I agree should have been included in the discussion. But I don't think LNC would agree.

 

I don't hold that humans are the only conscious beings. I believe that animals have varying levels of consciousness.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a broader definition than what LNC is considering (i.e.,humans), I would definitely say yes to your first question. Humans aren't the only beings that are conscious. They may be at a "lower level" or not as developed as humans. Since all beings are related, they will share some form of awareness like ours. I wish I had the time to search and post about animal consciousness research. You bring up a good point that I agree should have been included in the discussion. But I don't think LNC would agree.

 

I don't hold that humans are the only conscious beings. I believe that animals have varying levels of consciousness.

 

LNC

Very good! It is so rare that your beliefs coincide with reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just a thought, what's wrong with just not knowing what consciousness is, as we don't really have enough information to say one way or the other. We can theorize and philosophy all we want, but I really don't think it's wise in any way, shape, or form to obsess over unprovable questions. How can we try and e plain consciousness when we don't even have a clear understanding on what it is.

 

If you really want the answer to what consciousness is, then start asking questions about consciousness that are answerable. Until then, "consciousness" is a word with a broad and widely interpretable meaning, and is useless in discovering the existence or nonexistence of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a broader definition than what LNC is considering (i.e.,humans), I would definitely say yes to your first question. Humans aren't the only beings that are conscious. They may be at a "lower level" or not as developed as humans. Since all beings are related, they will share some form of awareness like ours. I wish I had the time to search and post about animal consciousness research. You bring up a good point that I agree should have been included in the discussion. But I don't think LNC would agree.

 

I don't hold that humans are the only conscious beings. I believe that animals have varying levels of consciousness.

 

LNC

Then let's extend that to souls. Do they have souls? If there are conscious, can they be morally responsible and face judgment before God? No? Why? Would it be because their level of consciousness is not as high as ours? But then is our level of consciousness itself high enough to be held to the standards of a God, when an animal is not? Why? Who set's this arbitrary distinction?

 

I would suggest that if man assumes has enough level of consciousness to be able to discern the level of consciousness of God enough to be directly responsible for living consistently with that level of consciousness, enough so that he will be cast out of heaven, then God is really not that higher in his consciousness than we are. Or God sends animals to hell as well as us for not being as aware as Him.

 

Honestly, you don't see how this is all an ancient anthropomorphic system? You're a smart guy. Take the next step, since you've already admitted animals posses consciousness like humans, just not the same level. I agree with this. Yet would you hold an animal to our standards? Yet God would hold us to his?

 

I was hoping you'd come and discuss outside your level of apologist stick. I haven't seen you venture away for that safety zone into that world where black and white are irrelevant. Is God so clear cut for you? And you don't see the fallacy in that? I would suggest that you tie the meaning to the argument, and to step outside that leaves you naked. Which says the truth. I don't hear truth in logic arguments. And that's not where it lives, if it does at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just a thought, what's wrong with just not knowing what consciousness is, as we don't really have enough information to say one way or the other. We can theorize and philosophy all we want, but I really don't think it's wise in any way, shape, or form to obsess over unprovable questions. How can we try and e plain consciousness when we don't even have a clear understanding on what it is.

 

If you really want the answer to what consciousness is, then start asking questions about consciousness that are answerable. Until then, "consciousness" is a word with a broad and widely interpretable meaning, and is useless in discovering the existence or nonexistence of anything.

I have to agree with you in principle, but the thought experiments in the attempt to discuss consciousness are just too enticing ;-)

 

I'm late to this discussion but would like to throw out something that I'm not sure has been mentioned yet. It's clear that the brain is essential in the expression of the particular individuated bit of consciousness with which it's associated. Some have suggested that the brain, rather than being a computing machine, is more like a transceiver, perhaps associated with local storage. If something like this is true then it would explain "what happens when a bullet meets philosophy" but would also allow for a less than strictly materialistic / reductionist view of consciousness.

 

I've got the (unverifiable) hunch that I will not, per se, cease to exist when I die, but that in practice this isn't a meaningful statement. I buy the idea that I will continue to exist only in the sense that a drop of water continues to exist when it plops into the ocean -- it's still there, but no longer recognizable as what it once was.

 

This is, after all, what happens to our bodies. They're "eternal" in the sense that the component atoms don't cease to exist. But they are recycled / reincorporated into other forms. It's not unreasonable to suppose that the same thing happens to whatever my consciousness consists of. Just as the surface tension of water held a water droplet together, some tenuous force holds my "me-ness" together, and when it bursts, that which defines me scatters to the four winds, so to speak.

 

It's possible that I'm part of some universal consciousness and that whatever I've done to raise or lower the entropy of my consciousness influences some larger, even universal force for good or ill. But if so, the effect is so minuscule as to be no effect at all, and not worth discussing as a motivation for how I live or think.

 

In other words, I guess I'm admitting to the possibility that consciousness arises outside the physical world or even that everything is consciousness but I don't think it has any practical bearing, it's simply an interesting possibility. Just as Newtonian physics serves plenty well for day to day practical purposes, despite it now being known to be incomplete and less than perfectly accurate and not even applicable to extremely large or small scale settings -- so the fact that gravity "seems" real, that I "seem" real, and that my interactions with gravity "seem" real -- this sort of thing still is what I am compelled to deal with on a moment to moment basis, in what appears to be the "real" world. All else is sheer speculation at this point, and I don't see how it will ever become more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

What is your definition of consciousness?

Whatever it is, I want it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xtech

There is a lot of interesting work in recent years in neuroscience on consciousness. Check out the following authors: Antonio Damasio, Andy Newberg and Gene D"Aquili, Gerald Edelman, David Eagleman.

 

I'll write more when I have time. You're not going to like what I have to say. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xtech

Oh wow! This is a long thread and dates way back. I did not realize that. Must. slow. down. Some great replies on it, too. Anyway, here is mine:

 

Our consciousness is embodied in our brains and our bodies: the network of the nervous system is more than the 3 pound blob inside our skulls: indeed our gut is rich with neurons. Read the work of Antonio Damasio for more on this.

 

But what exactly *is* that consciousness? A soup of chemical and electrical impulses? Fascinating work has been done on this in recent years. See the work of Rebecca Saxe, who influenced people's thoughts using a magnet to change the electrical impulses in their brains; indeed, notice how drugs or health conditions or dementia or brain damage change a person's consciousness. Understand exactly the mechanisms involved (ion channels, electrical pathways)

nimh link

 

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" from The Astonishing Hypothesis The Scientific Search For The Soul by Francis Crick

 

 

Our egos do not like this line of thinking. Surely our thoughts must be more than an electrical vibration of a certain megaherz bewteen neurons? And so, our wish, our desire, our need is that we will somehow be eternal, we have always been eternal, whatever exactly that 'we' is.

 

Sadly, this consciousness will cease to exist when our physical embodiment does. There is no reason to think otherwise. No proof, no evidence. That doesn't mean we don't WANT things to be otherwise. And so we construct beliefs which may or may not comport with reality. Our beliefs are not without a function in our lives. One could well argue that a belief in a persistent consciousness (soul) or an afterlife makes us happy; indeed a small dose of self-delusion makes us perform better (see placebo effect).

 

And as our perceptions of the real are largely in our own minds (that's a whole 'nuther discussion) our perception of ourselves as something more than merely a materialist assortment of elements and compounds and stuff supports us. The same brain that perceives and interprets the cold sensation on our skin when we leave the window open, or the bus coming at us as we scurry across the street, tells us that we are special, we are eternal, we are in unity with all beings in the universe. This is real to us. Almost as real as the cold as real as the bus. It's the way our brains are. It's the way we are made. It is being human.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The same brain that perceives and interprets the cold sensation on our skin when we leave the window open, or the bus coming at us as we scurry across the street, tells us that we are special, we are eternal, we are in unity with all beings in the universe. This is real to us. Almost as real as the cold as real as the bus. It's the way our brains are. It's the way we are made. It is being human.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

We should not assume that because our brain tells us a lot that is empirically verifiable, we should believe it when it tells us stuff that is not empirically verifiable. There is no evidence that we are "special", "eternal", or united with All That Is, subjective personal sensations or experiences notwithstanding. But as you point out, maybe sometimes, allowing ourselves to run with those subjective impressions helps us to cope. Certainly if someone has a peak experience that feels good to them and is a positive memory to them, I would not criticize them for accepting it as their truth. To each their own.

 

The maddening thing is that one possible explanation for, say, the common experience of a sense of non-duality in meditators, is that it reflects something like a higher reality or truth of existence, and is not simply a subjective experience or a manifestation of wishful thinking that we happen to be biochemically vulnerable to. I can no more disprove that contention, than others could prove it, although I would contend that circumstantial evidence is firmly on my side.

 

I think there are some things we will never definitively (dis)prove as it's outside the realm of objective examination. I'm just taking the approach that I'm open to personal experience as well as objective evidence but in the meantime I will assume nothing. Based on that, at this point, I believe that consciousness most likely resides in physical phenomena in the brain, that it is just barely possible that the brain is a transceiver of some kind for some sort of discarnate "consciousness field" but that it is very unlikely that it houses a spirit that can remain independently organized apart from the body -- so much so that it's not worth considering. In other words my personal belief is that there's maybe a two percent chance that some part of my consciousness exists apart from my body but that I will not be recognizably "me" when I die in any event, any more than I'd be recognizably "me" if you brew my brains out but kept my body alive. The brain somehow organizes me and when that organizational force goes away, so do I. Just as my body will disintegrate and none of the molecules that I consist of will cease to exist, yet my body is not in any meaningful way eternal, so it will most likely be with my consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I think this issue is also related to whether or not this reality is designed or whether it occurred accidentally and without purpose or intent. I think without consciousness as a transcendent entity, this reality is rather meaningless. If it is an accident ,then it is meaningless and that is consistent. Thus if an accident its meaningless and if there is no surviving consciousness So if an accident, then when its over it is over totally. Thus if A = C and B = C then A = B.

 

The chances of this reality being an accident which has been replicated on millions of other worlds is simply too unlikely to be reasonable.(It would something like 10 to the millionth power (if a likelihood could even be estimated).

 


If it was designed, it may not be over (consciousness survives death). Note I said MAY. God may have designed it so we have finite consciousness. I do not think it did however. The existence of NDE's (Dr. Eben Alexander has a good book out on his NDE) and the quantum mechanics material suggests there is more to reality than just chemicals and neurons firing. Reality is truly rather spooky and consciousness may even be "all there is" ultimately.

 


My view is that God is not the Biblical God so I am not afraid of there being a designer. If it is the Biblical God, then almost all of us are screwed because that God is a twisted, demented, bigoted, hater of the first order. Read the OT if you doubt me. I don't now why it allows all the wickedness humans do however. If I survive death, I will ask it. cool.png  I realize I have not gotten into the materialism debate here. But I wanted to focus on the designer issue instead. In terms of materialism, I really don't think "stuff" exists so everything is ultimately energy or consciousness or something but in any case, not matter as we call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that this thread reappeared is proof of resurrection. Ha, take that.

 

On another note, during my depression, my dear sister sent me some CD's ...damn it, who is that guys name...Eckert tolle.  Alas, I have found the fountain of bs that springs eternal here.....and I'm only on disc one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.