consciousness

[Molly Brogan]

How do you explain consciousness?

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/102

[Chris Jenkins]

It's wot Lee, Fran, Ian and I lost after 2 for 1 pint night at the pub. Good thing Neal was there to get us all home while berating us for being lightweight sodden wankers who couldn't hold their piss the way real rugby players did back in his day.

[Molly Brogan]

consciousness lost...

On Sep 4, 9:58 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's wot Lee, Fran, Ian and I lost after 2 for 1 pint night at the pub. Good
> thing Neal was there to get us all home while berating us for being
> lightweight sodden wankers who couldn't hold their piss the way real rugby
> players did back in his day.
>

[sjewins]

The product of the bio-electric, electro-chemical energy in the brain.

Like a burning candle produces heat, the brain produces consciousness.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

That was an interesting clip Molly thanks for shareing.

I would say though that questions about conciousness would need to be
fully, I think there are marked differancs between asking what
conciosness is, and asking how it works.

Dan Dennett in this clip apeared to me to be talking more about
concious desicions, or acting conciously and the differances between
this and the automatic process that our brains take without our
concious say so, or perhaps unconcious process of the brain.

Which really does not answer the question you posed.

So I would say that I explain conciouness as a property of the phycial
brain, and I would say that to be concioues means merely to know that
you exist as an independant enterty, and can tell that there are
others around who like wise exists as individual entities.

> >http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/102- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[retiredjim34]

That's an interesting video. But it doesn't attempt to explain
consciousness. So let me try.
First, have you ever had an out of body experience? I have. For a
brief interval when I was about 12 my consciousness was out of my
body; I could even look at my body. Since then I've come across
other's out of body experience descriptions, and their experience was
much like mine. So from all this I conclude that consciousness is not
of the body but in the body. It is something separate from the body
though. Much like energy is separate from the body. So to explain it
is much like explaining where the energy that began this universe came
from - it is one of those "just is" things.
Put differently, if you believe that your consciousness is a
quality produced by the 100 trillion cells of your body, then very
likely you also believe that your TV programs originate within your TV
set. Jim

[frantheman]

On 4 Sep., 16:10, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> consciousness lost...
>
Better to spew in hell, than stew in heav'n ...

Francis

[Chris Jenkins]

Unless of course, you take a purely scientific approach, realize that you're mixing metaphors to the extreme, and have imbued consciousness with properties it does not have because of your experiences, which are all based on a human perception. You receive data through those 100 Trillion cells, which is how you interact with the world, how you see, smell, touch, taste, hear, and yes, even think. To assume that "consciousness" is NOT a quality produced by the sum total of that perception is to assume that the car goes because God's invisible hand is behind it pushing it along while you put your foot on the gas pedal.

[sjewins]

>      First, have you ever had an out of body experience? I have. For a
> brief interval when I was about 12 my consciousness was out of my
> body; I could even look at my body.

No. However I have had dreams that I did. Perhaps that is what
happened to you (and the others) they dreamed that they had an
experience of out-of-body?

The mind is a tricky playground.

[ornamentalmind]

Of course, Dan was playing the role of the magician here. Oh, and a
bit of the con man. Note how he led the audience down the path from
the start of the talk to have them arrive at his conclusions.


Also, it is worthy to note that his examples were about the visual
sense and how we interpret it. Yes, this sense is one that is used a
lot. And, he has clearly ignored the other senses as well as that
aspect of consciousness that is not based upon the senses.


So, all in all, he was a good entertainer.


Also, as current as views like Simon’s are, “The product of the bio-

electric, electro-chemical energy in the brain. Like a burning candle

produces heat, the brain produces consciousness.” - Simon

…saying that consciousness is bio-electrical and electro-chemical
energy, using an analogy as he did about a candle, is like saying that
consciousness is the product of those trillions of cells that Dennett
suggests is a ‘bag of tricks’! Of course he does no more than wave his
hands and produce a light show for the rubes.

Too many limit the notion of consciousness to either what is thought
and/or a result of a few of our senses. While this adapts to our
culture’s current mythology, it too is but a technological light show.


On Sep 4, 7:34 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

> > >http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/102-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[sjewins]

> Also, as current as views like Simon’s are, “The product of the bio-
> electric, electro-chemical energy in the brain. Like a burning candle
> produces heat, the brain produces consciousness.”  - Simon
>
> …saying that consciousness is bio-electrical and electro-chemical
> energy, using an analogy as he did about a candle, is like saying that
> consciousness is the product of those trillions of cells that Dennett
> suggests is a ‘bag of tricks’!

Well, it is by those methods that the brain functions. How else could
consciousness arise if not from the functioning of the brain in the
way that it functions?

Do you think that consciousness arises from something disconnected
from the brain? How would that work?

[ornamentalmind]

“The product of the bio- electric, electro-chemical energy in the
brain. Like a burning candle produces heat, the brain produces
consciousness.” - Simon

“Well, it is by those methods that the brain functions. How else could

consciousness arise if not from the functioning of the brain in the

way that it functions?” – SE

For the anti-metaphysics crowd that mostly eats and regurgitates
current theories and notions about consciousness, even of what the
very nature of consciousness is, it can arise in no other way. At
least, no other way that they can either apprehend nor accept while in
their state of mechanistic belief. And, yes, the brain does involve
what we call bio-electric and electro-chemical energy. Of course, very
few claim to fully understand even what these two mechanisms are. And,
there are many interpretations/beliefs/dogmas of how and/or even IF
they are directly associated with consciousness.
From a philosophical stance as well as an observational stance, it is
clear to me that consciousness is no more what humans measure in bio-
electric and electro-chemical activity than a television program is
the waves the flyback transformer can produce on an oscilloscope. A
simple example: Decades ago, when the very first chips hit the market,
I was with a group of friends in an electronics store venture. We made
alpha wave ‘machines’ along with sales and repairs. And, it was
obvious that given this sort of external feedback, one could learn to
turn on specific brain ‘waves’, and their attenuation into ear pieces
led to almost immediate results. I stopped using the machine. And,
with further observation and experimentation began to come to the
conclusion that while the ‘waves’ could be transferred to a sound,
neither were consciousness itself. And, I know that many here do not
hold this view.

More to your specific question, how consciousness arises, I still am
not positive, at least not in any mechanical way as you appear to
present and, I assume, are asking for a response within similar
parameters. I continue to experiment.


“Do you think that consciousness arises from something disconnected
from the brain? How would that work? ” – SE

No, nor do I think that it arises as a direct result of only chemicals
and ‘energy’ in the sense most think about these things today. Without
getting into a semantical argument, consciousness as I experience it,
is far more than anything that can be pointed to in the material world
alone. (book peddlers aside) I have nothing against those who explore
the mind. In fact, during my lifetime, western thinking has begun to
mature a little about the topic and more experimentation most likely
will do no harm and may even help some. In fact, what little I can, I
check out what current science is finding. One example follows:

"Mind-Reading Not as Simple
as Previously Thought

"A group of scientists at Rutgers University and UCLA, in a report
published in the October 2009 issue of Psychological Science that
suggests possible methods for predicting brain activity (and hence
“reading” minds) — are finding the current brain model is much more
complex than previously thought.

Participants were given a functional MRI (fMRI) while performing
reading, memorization, and risk-assessment tasks, and it turns out
that while the same area is not consistently used (according to
prevailing theory), a predictable pattern of activity occurs in the
brain..."

for the rest of the story, go to:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158760.php

[archytas]

I wonder where consciousness goes when we are unconscious? Is there a
conservation law?

[ornamentalmind]

Yes Neil…and many ask the same question about death too. Here, of
course, I have conflated mind and consciousness. Shall we just agree
that there a few different levels of consciousness? Perhaps the most
commonly understood one is unconscious and conscious…which you
address.

As to conservation, perhaps the simplest answer is the best…’it’ is
eternal.

> > > from the brain? How would that work?- Hide quoted text -

[sjewins]

Are you aware of Dr. Michael Persinger's experiments wherein he
subjects the brain to focused electro-magnetic force and creates
"spiritual" sensations in the subject?

He also has done experiments with focused applications of psychotropic
drugs and generated "neuro-realities" in the consciousness of the
subject. These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to
consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical.

[Justintruth]

These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to
> consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical.

Actually they do not.

They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness being
manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation of ones
brain.

But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer (or two),
or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will know. But
even without the mind altering chemicals you need only understand the
laws of perspective and observe the fact that the point of view of
your consciousness is from your body. A little anatomy and you have
the role of the brain. This was known for a long time. Look at the
anatomy of the senses all of them tied by little wire-like structures
called nerves with signals on them the interruption of which
terminates the conscious experience of the connected transducing
sensor. Otherwise why wouldn't we believe that destroying ones eye
would cause deafness instead of blindness.

None of that is even one shred of evidence for your mind being your
body... or, if you prefer to use that language... and say that your
mind is your body ... then you must be willing to reform the current
meaning of the phrase "your body" and therefore the meaning in physics
of matter ultimately needs to be reformed to include consciousness
unless you agree that "your body" is not material. Something has to
give somewhere. Either your mind is not your body, or your mind is
your body. If your mind is your body then either your body is physical
(made of matter) or it is not. If it is made of matter and your mind
is your body then matter is conscious and the laws of physics need to
incorporate that into their descriptions. Otherwise, if your body is
not solely material but your mind is still your body then there is
something non-material in your body that is your mind. Or else you can
say your mind is not your body and your body is material which is the
current method I think.

Consciousness cannot properly be described as a "property" of matter
as it is not something essential but has an existential role for the
one who is conscious. It appears to be associated with specific
structural arrangements of matter and not the individual components
and dependent on the movement of the mechanism as well as its shape.
However, neurology has not yet nailed down the specifics completely
but is making fast progress. It will be very interesting when
neurology leads to technology and will be a major ethical challenge.

What we know is that the arrangement of matter in the form of a
neurology results in reports of consciousness from others and an
experience of our own consciousness. This can be deduced from very
simple evidence independent of modern neurology which is currently
engaged in flushing out the details of the relationship.

No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and
what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning
what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed
phenomenological descriptions of experience. This was what Husserl
wanted to do about hundred years ago. It will take a little more time
for the likes of Dennet to catch up.

Perhaps then, we can even get a read on some of the problems like
Synchronicity and get a serious look at it scientifically. Perhaps
not. I suspect that our current world view will be very nearly
completely eliminated by the progress and the surety with which the
simple assumptions of our current thought are held will one day be
seen as, if not an unexplainable superstition or ignorance, like we
consider those who killed in Greece over arguments about whether the
number 0 existed, or else as a kind of arrogance that was prevalent in
history.

Hell, the truth is Dennet is a provacateur not a philosopher. When you
look in detail at his position it evaporates and he is not at all
saying what he causes his audiences to believe that he is saying.
Check out Searle. Again, like Dennet he is not a heavy hitter
historically but he has Dennet in checkmate.

[archytas]

The ultimate sum of the universe is often held to be zero. One also
has the statistical zero of the vacuum hinting at massive energies
'elsewhere'. I share Justin's reservations about Dennet. In the
detail of phenomenology (something most of us could get into) there is
attention to 'the things themselves' (and in marxism too -
methodologically). Science is phenomenological in my view, yet very
few scientists are aware of the detailed explanations of what they
do. One can do a lot of poking about as a technician without ever
understanding what any of it means beyond the monthly pay cheque
continuing to arrive. The old arguments are whether what we call
consciousness is an emergent property of enough complexity in the
organisation we call life, or sneaks in from another world (however we
want to put this). Physics has lots of stuff being borrowed and lent
to 'other worlds' these days.

[sjewins]

I'm not addressing Dennett. I am talking about experiments that can
change consciousness. If a chemical can change consciousness then
obviously chemicals are a great part of consciousness. Likewise for
the application of electro-magnetic forces.

Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious
activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external
sensory input.

Neuro-transmitters are essentially, also simply chemical transfers
launch by electrical energy.

For example, LSD exclusively affects the temporal lobe. If you remove
the temporal lobe the subject can consume buckets of LSD and it will
have no effect on him/her at all..

Absolutely all psychotropic drugs alter consciousness via physical
chemical influences, from god experiences to colour perception.
Serotonin, as an example, is manipulated by large numbers of
hallucinogenics as well as ant-depressants.

I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry.

This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would
strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in
neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by
Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed.

>No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and
>what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning
>what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed
>phenomenological descriptions of experience.

We already know the general area of the right side of the brain where
our feelings of 'self' reside. In fact, if we stimulate that same area
we create a feeling in the subject of 'another' self. A duality that
is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like.

[sjewins]

> The ultimate sum of the universe is often held to be zero.

It is more accurate to say that the combination of all the gravity and
all the mass results in E=0. Energy is equal to zero, not the
'ultimate sum of the universe' (whatever that means) just the total
energy equals zero.

However, there is massive energy stored in a curved quantum space
(usually called 'nothing', but nothing doesn't really exist). This
curvature or 'quantum vacuum' contains an excess of energy which is
currently thought to be released in proton-sized 'bubbles' that
contain all the energy and mass necessary to create an entire
universe, which they probably do with regularity.

[archytas]

That most of our knowledge is in memory at any particular time is a
given. What is perhaps surprising, however, is the degree to which
even our current conscious knowledge typically depends on memory.
Look at the sky and come to believe that the sunset is beautiful. This
is a newly formed belief about an event currently taking place (not I
can assure you round here - we haven't seen the sky for some time).
The justification of a current event is no doubt dependent on other
beliefs that you hold. For example, if you didn't at least tacitly
believe that you were looking west or that it is evening and not
morning, the belief wouldn't be justified (I assume that the
phenomenology of sunsets and sunrises is indistinguishable). Now I am
not, however, supposing that all knowledge of the external world is
inferential. Your belief that the sky is red might well be
epistemically basic. Nor am I insisting that your sunset belief is
psychologically inferential. My only claim here is that many
relatively simple beliefs we form about the external world typically
depend for their justification on background beliefs; and background
beliefs are memory beliefs. Virtually all of what we know (or are
justified in believing) at any given time resides in memory.

Theories of consciousness are generally:
Metaphysical theories of consciousness - either -
Dualist theories or
Physicalist theories.
There are many variants of these.

There are a number of specific theories of consciousness I am aware
of, generally -
Higher-order theories
Representational theories
Cognitive theories
Neural theories
Quantum theories
Nonphysical theories.

I am yet to spot any practical work in this field that might help us
move on as a society. Davies, M. and Humphreys, G. 1993.
Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays. Oxford:
Blackwell might help if you want the punishment!

What currently interests me is memory and why we have so little
justified knowing consciously involved in the current consciousness of
a decision (or at least its rationalisation). You could get the drift
from this:

Me: Why are we at war in Afghanistan Prime Minister?
PM: To keep the streets of London safe my boy.
Me: I'm older than you, you patronising dirt bag, but leaving that
aside, it makes no sense to me to go an kill Afghans to keep the
streets of London safe.
PM: This is my profound judgement on the matter.
Me: When I am profound I can usually demonstrate my evidence to
others, why can't you?
PM: You have to trust me. Matters of national security are involved.
Me: As when we and the French got the Israelis to invade Egypt so we
could take over the whole middle east in a policing action in 1956 you
mean? Or as in the secret war we fought in Indonesia for 20 years?
Or as in pretending Iraq was full of WMDs? Or as in bumping off one
of our own scientists? Or as in the way you have set up all kinds of
bodies to find the positive and shut out real criticism across the
board? If we are winning this war why are we now blowing up our
precious helicopters so regularly?
PM: You should be proud to be British. Afghanistan was responsible
for 9/11.
Me: They were mostly Saudi.

It would go on and on. What is this consciousness they can control?

[ornamentalmind]

"Are you aware of Dr. Michael Persinger's experiments wherein he
subjects the brain to focused electro-magnetic force and creates

"spiritual" sensations in the subject? " - SE

Yes.

[archytas]

I'll just wander on a bit. Those who reject a physicalist ontology of
consciousness must find ways of modeling it as a nonphysical aspect of
reality. Thus those who adopt a dualist or anti-physicalist
metaphysical view must in the end provide specific models of
consciousness different from the emergent models. Both substance
dualists and property dualists must develop the details of their
theories in ways that articulate the specific natures of the relevant
non-physicals features of reality with which they equate consciousness
or to which they appeal in order to explain it. There are many such
models - no doubt Orn and Vam could explain some of the traditional
ones.

I have lost interest, but was once concerned that an informational
world might help in concepts in biology. Amongst philosophers, David
Chalmers (1996) has offered an admittedly speculative version of
panpsychism which appeals to the notion of information not only to
explain psycho-physical invariances between phenomenal and physically
realized information spaces but also to possibly explain the ontology
of the physical as itself derived from the informational (a version of
“it from bit” theory). Gregg Rosenberg has recently (2004) proposed an
account of consciousness that simultaneously addresses the ultimate
categorical basis of causal relations. In both the causal case and the
conscious case, Rosenberg argues the relational-functional facts must
ultimately depend upon a categorical non-relational base, and he
offers a model according to which causal relations and qualitative
phenomenal facts both depend upon the same base (this, as you can
probably judge from the awkwardness of the language, is difficult
stuff) . Some quantum theories treat consciousness as a fundamental
feature of reality (Stapp 1993), and insofar as they do so, they might
be plausibly classified as non-physical theories. The general
response to Dennett has been to ask what he has developed a theory of
(Block 1994).

I take a fairly stolid view that evidence is what counts, but say this
knowing a good theory will change what evidence is for real rather
than through lies.

Block, N. 1994. “What is Dennett's theory a theory of?” Philosophical
Topics, 22/1-2: 23-40.
Chalmers, D. 1996. The Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stapp, H. 1993. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer
Verlag.
Rosenberg, G. 2004. A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep
Structure of the Natural World. New York: Oxford University Press.

[ornamentalmind]

“…I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry….” – SE

“…The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….” – SE

First, you have been taken off of moderation. Welcome to Mind’s Eye!

Next, I applaud what appears to be a conflation of a scientific
attitude with faith…in this case, faith in the coming of a world
without ‘mystery’. While it is a common view, seldom is it presented
so succinctly!

[Chris Jenkins]

Ah, the old "Science is Faith" argument...nope, even here, this is not the case, despite one of his two statements semantically suggesting such:

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

“…I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry….” – SE

No faith here whatsoever. In fact, this is the opposite of faith...this is a purely scientific perspective. Allow me to assist with a semantical translation that makes it clear. 

"I have not been presented with any evidence upon which to base an assumption/hypothesis/theory that consciousness rises from anything other than that which we have been able to measure in the brain."

This is science. Period. A negative or passive statement does not indicate faith, and I'm surprised to see you, of all people, Orn, trying to hang that canard on his statement.

 

“…The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….” – SE

This is a reasonable guess based on the progress made currently, and while the semantics of the statement might seem to indicate "faith" to those looking for it, it's a poor example to try and use in the SvF argument. We have achieved a scientific understanding of the vast majority of human physiology which nears "mystery-less-ness". SE's broad and open ended statement, despite using an authoritative tone, leaves enough room for error that it stands as a hypothesis, ready to be tested. 

Faith, as has been repeated ad nauseum, is a belief which remains in the face of either a lack of evidence, or countering evidence..."the essence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." It is most certainly not the same as logical deduction, and rational projections based on axiomatic progression, and this endless attempt to paint it as such just seems kind of desperate. 

Penn Gillette explores the topic very well in this episode of "Penn Says". He most clearly articulates the what most atheists like myself believe, although with a little extra of his special flair:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU

[ornamentalmind]

Of course it is clear that what you attempt to justify as being
scientific while using terms like “..a reasonable guess…” associated
with SE’s projection into the future (“The brain is being mapped and

it won't be very many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….”

– SE ) is neither science nor observation. Merely using weasel wording
(a fallacy itself) alone is beneath my experience of your previously
demonstrated intelligence and normal standards Chris. However, I won't
use the appeal to the people (a fallacy) of calling your post
‘desperate’.

Doing the analysis, since clearly the assumption that the future will
bring “all the ‘mystery’ removed” is NOT based on evidence and, in
this case, unless your time machine is better than mine, countering
evidence of such unseen things is difficult, we are left with what to
me is clearly SEs hope for (faith in) a result. (Yes, I am aware that
you often associate the notion of having faith in the sun coming up
tomorrow with this type of argumentation. In this case, it is not the
same. The former has happened, the latter has not.) So, unless you can
show evidence today that at some point in the future not only the
brain will be entirely mapped AND there is no ‘mystery’ at all left
surrounding consciousness…(which doesn’t even equate to the brain!),
we are all just left with hope…which is fine too.

Oh, it is also telling and within the context of the discussion to
appeal to the (false) authority of a magician. However, when you say
that “Penn Gillette explores the topic very well …”, you have not only
infused your argument with non sequitur, you have shifted the argument
(changing the subject), a fallacy. They did not explore our topic.
Perhaps they did say something you like and embrace. That is fine.
Just please do not attempt to use it as an argument. Further, as
entertaining as Penn & Teller are, they are no more philosophers nor
authorities on our topic than Dennett is either. Dennett even used the
fallacy of division.

So, an argument ad nauseam with a dash of half truth is still not
valid. Never has been and (I would guess…perhaps even have faith in)
never will.

Lastly, I know I could have shortened this rebuttal to your argument
by simply saying that argument to the future is a fallacy. I see
little else that can be used in this case to support the argument that
one knows what will occur sometime in the future.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future

On Sep 5, 10:23 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, the old "Science is Faith" argument...nope, even here, this is not the
> case, despite one of his two statements semantically suggesting such:
>

> > > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like.- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

I note that you focused on the second statement in your rebuttal. Good call, given that it was the only one with some "wiggle room", which I duely commented on. And regarding the length of your rebuttal, no please, I do prefer it...it provides more grist for the mill, so to speak. The rest of my comments are interspersed below.

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Of course it is clear that what you attempt to justify as being
scientific while using terms like “..a reasonable guess…” associated
with SE’s projection into the future (“The brain is being mapped and

it won't be very many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….”

– SE ) is neither science nor observation. Merely using weasel wording
(a fallacy itself) alone is beneath my experience of your previously
demonstrated intelligence and normal standards Chris. However, I won't
use the appeal to the people (a fallacy) of calling your post
‘desperate’.

 

*laughing* This is a genius paragraph, Orn. First, it disallows the entire concept of hypothesis within the scientific process. As noted in my initial response, the only flaw in his statement was a position of strong authority...which I interpret to be merely semantical. Opinions may vary.

 

Second, by disclaiming it as a fallacy, you sidestep the actual positional point of why I noted that this line of argumentation seems desperate, namely, that it continues to equate 'Faith', the same word/concept used to describe belief in something for which there is no scientific evidence, with the process by which science builds empirical foundations, and then creates extrapolations from those foundations in order to progress. They are two different things, and no matter how many times one can say "but you BELIEVE in Gravity!", it does not make them the same. Until I am held down by the hand of god, there is no empirical evidence to support the presence of such.  

 

Doing the analysis, since clearly the assumption that the future will
bring “all the ‘mystery’ removed” is NOT based on evidence and, in
this case, unless your time machine is better than mine, countering
evidence of such unseen things is difficult, we are left with what to
me is clearly SEs hope for (faith in) a result. (Yes, I am aware that
you often associate the notion of having faith in the sun coming up
tomorrow with this type of argumentation. In this case, it is not the
same. The former has happened, the latter has not.) So, unless you can
show evidence today that at some point in the future not only the
brain will be entirely mapped AND there is no ‘mystery’ at all left
surrounding consciousness…(which doesn’t even equate to the brain!),
we are all just left with hope…which is fine too.

 

Here, you disregard correlative thinking. Yes, his statement made liberal use of rhetoric, a form of speech you are also intimately familiar with, and a dash of hyperbole. However, we DO fully understand the heart, the lungs, the kidneys, the mechanical workings of of our skeletal structure, and have made HUGE strides in fully understanding the functionality of the brain. We understand how each sensory organ contributes data to the brain, how that data presents the world and "reality" to us, how the various interplay of chemicals and neuro-electric processes change that perception, and have even created machines which can "read your mind" in a rudimentary fashion. Therefore, it is not in any way wild speculation to say that all the mystery surrounding the function of the brain will be removed at some point, and by extension consciousness. Aha! You say, I've got him! Consciousness is not understood fully, and therefore, it would be wildly presumptive to assume that a full knowledge of the brain equals full understanding of consciousness. This is true...for those who feel the need to have faith that our consciousness is something other than what it appears to be...the sum totality of our perceptions received as data, organized in our brain, and analyzed by the same. Interesting thoughts indeed, to connect in some invisible, unprovable, unmeasurable, unsensable way our individuality to some greater "thing". I rather enjoy those thought experiments. This does not affect science in any way, does not disclaim scientific process or procedure, and does not disallow hypothesis. Oh, and just because we DO have a full understanding of something doesn't mean that some people will perpetuate the mystery...so you have that point as well. There are people who still argue that accupuncture works by affecting Chi flow.

 

Oh, it is also telling and within the context of the discussion to
appeal to the (false) authority of a magician. However, when you say
that “Penn Gillette explores the topic very well …”, you have not only
infused your argument with non sequitur, you have shifted the argument
(changing the subject), a fallacy. They did not explore our topic.
Perhaps they did say something you like and embrace. That is fine.
Just please do not attempt to use it as an argument. Further, as
entertaining as Penn & Teller are, they are no more philosophers nor
authorities on our topic than Dennett is either. Dennett even used the
fallacy of division.

 

Penn explored the topic of faith, what faith really is, in a way that was clear and articulate. He even clarified rational thought does not seek to disprove the disprovable. These are both directly apropos to the conversation at hand. It was not an appeal to authority, however, as I made no statement of his authority, don't consider him such, and didn't attempt to bring out his credentials (which go beyond stage magician, but nice subtle ad hom to downplay his message) in order to bolster my arguments. I simply quoted him with attribution in the simplest way possible, by directly linking to his quotes. You are quite wrong to say that Penn is no philosopher, however. He's a well renowned skeptic philosopher, and his talks on the topic are articulate and well formed, if a bit edgey.

 

So, an argument ad nauseam with a dash of half truth is still not
valid. Never has been and (I would guess…perhaps even have faith in)
never will.

 

I must say, I do enjoy your more formal approaches to these arguments now. While I respectfully disagree with your conclusions regarding any fallacies present in my position, you're certainly speaking my language. :^D

 

Lastly, I know I could have shortened this rebuttal to your argument
by simply saying that argument to the future is a fallacy. I see
little else that can be used in this case to support the argument that
one knows what will occur sometime in the future.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future

 

 

Yes, and SE's position of authority made his statement poorly formed...but that doesn't at all make it a statement of faith, and most certainly doesn't add any substantive weight to the supposition that science is based on faith...a TRUE ad nauseum argument which has been well disclaimed at this point for everyone except those with faith.

[sjewins]

On Sep 5, 11:52 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Are you aware of Dr. Michael Persinger's experiments wherein he
> subjects the brain to focused electro-magnetic force and creates

> "spiritual" sensations in the subject? " - SE
>
> Yes.

And yet you still feel there is a non-material aspect to
consciousness? Why is that?

[archytas]

Biology has long discussed whether there is just the material code in
DNA or a further set in an information world. My own view has long
been, 'sod off, this doesn't help'. There is much I can never
disprove and also consider as very likely irrelevant. Valiant
squabbling is often irrelevant.

On 5 Sep, 22:08, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I note that you focused on the second statement in your rebuttal. Good call,
> given that it was the only one with some "wiggle room", which I duely
> commented on. And regarding the length of your rebuttal, no please, I do
> prefer it...it provides more grist for the mill, so to speak. The rest of my
> comments are interspersed below.
>

[sjewins]

Do you accept, given all of that, below, that without a brain there is
no self? Or do you think that self is somehow external to the brain?

> ...
>
> read more »

[sjewins]

Thank-you. This is an area of particular interest to me.

I have no problem with bits of faith, I think that without faith,
doing anything in the course of the day would be next to impossible.
However, before I takes any leaps of faith I try to first measure the
distance. That said, I am interested in ideas concerning awareness of
self, consciousness, that try to do away with the physical brain as
the source. From what I can tell no brain is no self therefore self
must come, somehow, from the brain. Where to you see self coming from,
awareness and consciousness, if not the lump of matter, the brain?

On Sep 5, 12:09 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
> consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry….” – SE
>
> “…The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
> many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….” – SE
>
> First, you have been taken off of moderation. Welcome to Mind’s Eye!
>
> Next, I applaud what appears to be a conflation of a scientific
> attitude with faith…in this case, faith in the coming of a world
> without ‘mystery’. While it is a common view, seldom is it presented
> so succinctly!

I. actually, didn't say a 'world' without mystery, since I was
referencing the mapping of the brain> So I was indicating the mystery
of brain function, self, awareness, consciousness et. al. will soon be
removed.

[archytas]

These are areas where what we say can often not be what we mean.
Bullet through brain does seem sensible as leading to no person here
(i.e. presence of corpse) but there could be a soul and so on - or
consciousness might take the 'self' and re-deliver it somewhere.
There are plenty of examples of 'mirror-world' science about. I think
we may be approaching a time at which we can use memory in something
like real-time and this will speed up our knowing and probably stop
much of the political drivel we suffer from wasting so much time (and
all the rest). At most, I believe this would open up new mysteries or
paths to take.

[Simon Ewins]

The word 'soul' means nothing to me. I have no idea what that is. How do we measure it to see if it exists or not? And, even if it does, where does it come from, the brain? Where does it stay once it has come from wherever, the brain?

Sorry, it still seems to me like the brain is the source of self and consciousness.

Souls are all well and good but if I am to be questioned on the evidence supporting the brain's electro-chemical functioning as the source of consciousness then surely there is an equal or even greater need for some shred of evidence to support a 'soul' as the origin of the same.

Can you give me as detailed a description of the soul as possible, please? How does it give rise to consciousness? How does it communicate with the brain, when and how does it develop. Lots of questions so please be as detailed as you can. I have heard people talking about souls for decades but nobody ever seems to be able to describe them or support their idea with more than simple assertion, which experience has taught me to reject out-of-hand initially.

Look forward to some details.

Cheers.

2009/9/5 archytas <nwt...@googlemail.com>

[ornamentalmind]

“And yet you still feel there is a non-material aspect to
consciousness? Why is that?” – SM

Because I am not talking about ‘spiritual’ sensations nor basing my
comments on feelings alone (“And yet you still FEEL…[caps mine]”).
Nowhere in my comments did I mention spirit, did I? If so, I don’t
remember doing so. My guess is that many just assume that one is
talking about theology/spirituality when one does not drink the
current Scientific meme Kool-Aid and suggests that science, as it is
mostly used today, will not be able to fully understand consciousness.
Many other atheist friends of mine go bananas over such heresy! I find
that those who appear to deify thinking hold beliefs along the nature
of “Some day (and pretty soon for sure!) we will know all there is to
know.”. Yes, this is a bit of hyperbole. No, it is not too far off
track from the thoughts of many of such ilk. I find such thinking to
be common. I, many decades ago, held similar beliefs too. So, as I see
it, no harm, no foul. This does not preclude me from pointing out
closed box thinking. The most common analogy I use is that of the old
book “Flatland…”.

Back to your question, which I do appreciate. . . greatly…it being all
open ended and all. While I am sure it would be much better to wait
until I had more time to spend more time and patience on a response, I
will have to only present some rambling stream of consciousness stuff
for now. So, please do not expect it to be cogent nor all ‘cleaned up’
in a cohesive way, OK? Thanks.

The ‘why?’ question is enormous! To do it full justice, I would have
to share many years of my life with you which is clearly impractical.
So…in lieu of doing so…here goes. While in no way being an expert, I
have studied many of the ancient philosophers, both east and west. I
have studied ‘mind’ as it is apprehended in Tibetan Buddhism. I have
read and studied to some extent many who, for lack of a better word,
can be called theosophists. While some of the latter still appears to
be woo to me, much does not. As a kid, I explored a few theologies,
differing forms of Christianity…some Judaism, psychology, a bit of
philosophy and, not finding good ‘answers’ to my own questions
readily, I continued to pursue such topics well into middle and late
life. I have spent countless hours in university medical libraries
studying. I have been treated by some of the worlds best
acupuncturists and homeopaths…as well as Tibetan physicians. I have
studied with HHDL, other leaders of the yellow hat school. As stated
elsewhere, I have dabbled with feedback mechanisms, also, you
mentioned some entheogens, which I have studied in detail. I have
studied Acupuncture, Tibetan Medicine, Chinese Medicine, a little
homeopathy, read about emanationism, read Christian Science, studied
the maths of the ancients and of today including non-Euclidian
geometry. Read some of the Vedas. I have met many Yogis, attended
Ananda events, …I have meditated for about 40 years now, sometimes
over 3-4 hours per day. I like Plotinus. I have access to the ancient
Academy as well as some of the mystery schools. I have dabbled with
string theory, read at least one of Albert Einstein’s books from cover
to cover around 1960, used to read Scientific American all the time,
on occasion read Science online. Scan what scientific articles I come
by…etc.

No, my intent is not to overwhelm you with information, more to
attempt to present a bit of a holographic view of some of the
influences upon how my thinking has progressed. After taking
Gautama’s adage of not accepting anything on faith because someone
said so, but exploring on one’s own until fully satisfied of the truth
of anything…. deeply to heart, I use all three of William James’
suggested methods to study mind rather than just two.

Also, when you talk about materiality, using science itself to examine
material the results one finds are mostly space and energy…nothing
physical at all…just things that to us appear to be stable, real and
stuff we can feel (this even though, due to the nature of atomic
structures and associated electromagnetism, we never do touch
anything). So, epistemologically, even using analysis and empiricism
as well as contemplation, I find that we are living in a world of
appearances. Here I go with some of the greatest philosophers of all
time…mostly Hindu and Buddhist. I do not find that what I see and
believe I see/feel/touch/taste/hear etc. are as they commonly appear.
Yes, I do know the more cynical comebacks to such a view. Forging
ahead, I do adapt to the world around me as well as possible, treating
appearances as being as real as need be to get by in life. Truth be
told, I still forget the above now and then, even though it is at the
core of my ontological views too.

Normally I wouldn’t go into such a self-disclosing mode nor be so
unorganized. Sorry…but, perhaps it will give you a small flavor of the
type of consciousness you are dealing with…hope so anyway.

[ornamentalmind]

“Where to you see self coming from,
awareness and consciousness, if not the lump of matter, the brain?” –
SM

First, the notion of ‘self’ too is a big question. As to the ego self,
that which is a cathected bunch of emotions and beliefs, when
examined, I find it not to exist at all. It only appears to be like a
clown…playing a pre-established character and one that will not last.
When one talks about the essential ‘self’, I find this innate and,
similar to using negative theology, is easier to say what it is not.
More directly, I find that mind is a singular apprehension which, at
the very least, in a sense can be seen as a unity and at the most can
be seen as a universal. And, even though physical and electrochemical
functioning might cease, any such essential ‘self’ I find does not.
….
“I. actually, didn't say a 'world' without mystery, since I was

referencing the mapping of the brain> So I was indicating the mystery
of brain function, self, awareness, consciousness et. al. will soon
be

removed .” – SM

Yes, I understood that.

> > > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like.- Hide quoted text -

[Vam]

" From what I can tell no brain is no self therefore self must come,
somehow, from the brain."

There is no tree ( in view ) untill the window is closed. There is a
tree, with the window open. Therefore, the tree " must come, somehow,
from the " window ! ?

> > > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like.- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

>There is no tree ( in view ) untill the window is closed. There is a
 >tree, with the window open. Therefore, the tree " must come, somehow,
 >from the " window ! ?

I don't see that as at all analogous.

Given that a particular brain is associated with a particular self. When the brain ceases to exist (window closed?) the associated self likewise. That same brain cannot come back into existence (window open?) that I know of.

(I should think that the tree is there regardless of window state.)

You seem to be saying that right now at this moment a brain that will not exist until 200 years from now... currently has its associated self extant now waiting for the brain to come into existence?

Sorry, I don't get the analogy, or the possibility.

 

[Simon Ewins]

> “And yet you still feel there is a non-material aspect to
> consciousness? Why is that?” – SM
>
> Because I am not talking about ‘spiritual’ sensations nor basing my
> comments on feelings alone (“And yet you still FEEL…[caps mine]”).
> Nowhere in my comments did I mention spirit, did I? If so, I don’t
> remember doing so.

Sorry for the confusion, I used 'feel' as synonymous with believe or accept.

Thanks for the background on your journeys, I find it immensely
interesting to discover how others arrive at their conclusions.

The only thought of relevance that I have at the moment is to ask you
if you do not think that all the ancient philosophers and religious
thinkers and scientists would have held vastly different opinions
(about self, the nature of things) if they had the knowledge that we
now have of the quantum world and its many implications.

I honestly think that the majority of great thinkers from ancient
times and cultures would not have said what they said if they kne what
we know.

[Vam]

On Sep 6, 4:46 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There is no tree ( in view ) untill the window is closed. There is a
>
>  >tree, with the window open. Therefore, the tree " must come, somehow,
>  >from the " window ! ?
> I don't see that as at all analogous.
>
> Given that a particular brain is associated with a particular self. When the
> brain ceases to exist (window closed?) the associated self likewise. That
> same brain cannot come back into existence (window open?) that I know of.

Think of deep sleep, when the consciousness ( and the self ) as you
know are absent despite, may I point out, the brain being very there
and alive. But it ( the mind and the self ) reappears. Is its
temporary absence ( in deep sleep ) real ?

> (I should think that the tree is there regardless of window state.)

Indeed.

> You seem to be saying that right now at this moment a brain that will not
> exist until 200 years from now... currently has its associated self extant
> now waiting for the brain to come into existence?

Indeed.

> Sorry, I don't get the analogy, or the possibility.

There is no need to apologise. We all have our times when it is
impossible to even see or think, much less accept, that which lies
just beyond the linear knowledge possessing our ' self.'

[Simon Ewins]

> Think of deep sleep, when the consciousness ( and the self ) as you
> know are absent despite, may I point out, the brain being very there
> and alive. But it ( the mind and the self ) reappears. Is its
> temporary absence ( in deep sleep ) real ?

They aren't absent, however.

Measuring brain waves during deep sleep (and even unconsciousness and
some comas) indicates responses to stimuli as diverse as calling the
name of the individual to sticking them with a needle.

>> You seem to be saying that right now at this moment a brain that will not
>> exist until 200 years from now... currently has its associated self extant
>> now waiting for the brain to come into existence?
>
> Indeed.

Well, that is interesting. So where is this 'self' waiting for the
brain? Why is there no memory of self before conception? How do you
measure its longevity? How long has it been waiting? How does this
self without a brain begin to exist? What does it do while it is
waiting?

[Vam]

" Well, that is interesting. So where is this 'self' waiting for the
brain? Why is there no memory of self before conception? How do you
measure its longevity? How long has it been waiting? How does this
self without a brain begin to exist? What does it do while it is
waiting ?"

These questions are best ( and perhaps more immediately ) answered
through one's own effort because they pertain to you, your self, your
mind. Why should you require another person to pry open or reveal what
is yours, what you are ?

[Simon Ewins]

2009/9/6 Vam <atewa...@gmail.com>:

>
> " Well, that is interesting. So where is this 'self' waiting for the
> brain? Why is there no memory of self before conception? How do you
> measure its longevity? How long has it been waiting? How does this
> self without a brain begin to exist? What does it do while it is
> waiting ?"
>
> These questions are best ( and perhaps more immediately ) answered
> through one's own effort because they pertain to you, your self, your
> mind. Why should you require another person to pry open or reveal what
> is yours, what you are ?

Well, I have zero experience of anything for which I would want to use
the word 'soul' (compounded by the fact that I don't know exactly what
people mean when they use the word). I have no concept of soul or self
that isn't simply the result of brain function. I exist, I make
assumptions that others exist as I do.

However, the questions I asked are because I have no idea what people
are talking about when they make statements that seem to indicate that
self precedes conception. It sounds, frankly, fanciful and without any
basis at all. So, if you and others can answer those questions perhaps
the use of the words will make sense to me. Care to answer them for
yourself?

Thanks.

[archytas]

There is reluctance, in biology, to postulate an information world to
help with problems about genetic and other determination. Generally,
we are not keen on admissions of anything non-material (though then
hack off down the multiverse routes or ideas that the ultimate reality
is holographic, expanding at us from the edge of the universe). Words
like soul and god have been around for a long time - the questions for
me are whether something like them can help with more modern
adjudication on evidence. Yes, genetics provides information about
the range of possibilities. But clearly, regulation of the genetic
expression involves interpretation. And this is epigenetic. It seems
that those were right who called for a middle ground, with some
predetermination that interacts with some form of epigenetic
development. Perhaps it is as Thomas Hunt Morgan suggested, “a process
of pure epigenetic development, as generally understood nowadays, may
also be predetermined in the egg” . The nowadays of the 21st century
may take us back to some of the understanding and insights of the
early 20th, a time when a balance of epigenesis and preformation
seemed likely, a time for a bit of predeterminism and a bit of
cellular free will. I am agnostic about the non-physical as I can't
disprove it, but it does seem worth some pondering and we don't have
theories that fully explain the evidence - we rarely do, if at all.

On 6 Sep, 16:36, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/6 Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>:

[archytas]

Biological definitions of life tend to have changed rather a lot since
I was an undergraduate. Our increased understanding of the physical-
chemical basis of living systems has increased enormously over the
past century and it is possible to give a plausible definition of life
in these terms. “Living organisms are autopoietic systems: self-
constructing, self-maintaining, energy-transducing autocatalytic
entities” in which information needed to construct the next generation
of organisms is stabilized in nucleic acids that replicate within the
context of whole cells and work with other developmental resources
during the life-cycles of organisms, but they are also “systems
capable of evolving by variation and natural selection: self-
reproducing entities, whose forms and functions are adapted to their
environment and reflect the composition and history of an ecosystem” .
Such a perspective represents a fulfillment of the basic dual insights
of Schrödinger near mid-century (his famous 'what is life lecture').
Much remains to be elucidated about the relationships among the
complex molecular systems of living entities, how they are constrained
by the system as a whole as well as by physical laws. Indeed, it is
still an open question for some as to whether we have yet a
sufficiently rich understanding of the laws of nature or whether we
need to seek deep laws that lead to order and organization. At the
start of the new century there is a sense of the importance of putting
Schrödinger's program into a ‘systems’ context. Significant challenges
remain, such as fully integrating our new view of organisms and their
action with evolutionary theory, and to understand plausible routes
for the emergence of life. The fulfillment of such a program will give
us a good sense of what life is on earth. Work in artificial-Life and
empirical work seeking evidence of extra-terrestrial life may help the
formulation of a more universal concept of life. Yet it still may be
a mistake to ascribe consciousness to 'life', even in new definitions
of that.

On 6 Sep, 16:36, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/6 Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>

[Vam]

Ah ... I see a cow and become aware from memory that what I am seeing
is something in my mind, which incidently seems congruent with what I
may touch and hear. I do not however really ' know ' what the cow is
seeing in its mind, as it looks at me, or what it aware of in its
memory.

I turn my gaze and see a tree. It strikes me that both the cow and
tree are formations in my mind, from a vanilla ground of I do not know
what. And that, there are forms of knowledge of, say, cow and tree,
which I become aware of from memory, that again indicates a vanilla
ground of I do not know what.

Finally, I know I am the observer, apart from these ' forms ' of
perception and knowledge, that is the both the self - experiencer
( affected ) and the self - witness ( the unaffected vanilla ground of
I do not know what ).

Each vanilla ground is as imperceptible as Space. I know nothing, can
know nothing, of Space without lumps or particles of matter to mark
it. And like Time, which is likewise as imperceptible without change
or motion in it !

In these considerations, of the vanilla grounds, the material is not
even relevant. Concepts springing from the material ... physics,
biology, genetics, religion, advaita, nirvana ... they all bring me
back to the same. The Ground(s).

With my familiarity with the entire process(es), I believe all forms
of ' experience or perception ' and ' knowledge ' are as pre-existing
in the Ground(s) as this entire manifest material universe was in that
that was at or before the big bang.

In other words, the forms of ' experience ' and ' knowledge ' of all
things extinct yet pre-exists. Even, all possibilities not, or not
yet, manifest.

Thank you for the patience. I am afraid I would not be able to answer
your further questions.


On Sep 6, 8:36 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/6 Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>:

[Slip Disc]

I don't see how can Dennett can dissect consciousness via
demonstrations of visual perceptions. It's a long stretch. As I see
it the visual perception itself is an example of consciousness of
suggested visual material. There is nothing new about the mind
filling in the blanks in many aspects of consciousness aside from the
art world. These visual tricks don't necessarily indicate that our
consciousness in fooling us into believing we are living in a
conscious world. He seems to totally bypass the mental processes.
Consciousness is essentially "awareness" of our being and of course we
have different levels of consciousness. Consciousness,
subconsciousness and super-consciousness may be the most recognized
forms. If I am fooled by a magician's illusion then basically I am
conscious of the illusion whether I'm aware of how the illusion comes
about or not. I just don't see the equating of optical illusion with
illusory consciousness. I expected more from the video and felt
Dennett really left it as open at the end as it was in the beginning.
At the end I felt "that's it?"


On Sep 4, 8:48 am, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you explain consciousness?
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/102

[ornamentalmind]

“…all the ancient philosophers and religious

thinkers and scientists would have held vastly different opinions
(about self, the nature of things) if they had the knowledge that we

now have of the quantum world and its many implications….” – se

Well Simon, of course I do not know. I would guess that a few might
modify their words and/or views. Since there has been an enormous
wealth of varying views, my guess is that many would hold to their
underlying epistemology too.

Here, I will add for clarity of my inner sense about these things that
the majority of today’s ‘science’ results mainly in data and/or belief
systems. In fact, some of ancient (and modern) Vedanta at its core is
remarkably similar if not the same as much of current day cosmology
and/or ‘quantum world’. With enough research, this can be confirmed.
So, apparently ‘they’ (just people like us…with different social
dogmas and cultural views) were able to ascertain the nature of the
cosmos without using all of our external technological instruments…or
any, in fact. Perhaps their inner technology was more advanced? Again,
the differing theories about the microcosms is also quite similar. A
most obvious example would be to look at the origin of the word
‘atom’.

If you are addressing things like ‘charm’, this too has some, although
as best as I can tell, not quite direct analogies as much of the rest.

If you are talking string or M-Brane theory, again, these are but
mental gymnastics and have little or nothing to do with either the
world of appearances or the world of science…at least for now.
Overall, the later is based on 19th century math.

So, when you mention ‘implications’, I can only guess at what you
mean. For me, there is almost nothing that would change core
apprehensions about the nature of reality. I guess I could reverse the
question and ask how you would act and/or how your opinions would
differ IF you studied for years the cosmology and philosophy of the
past and applied it to your life and reality as it is today? My guess
is that the innate ‘you’ wouldn’t change at all and the ego/relative
‘you’ would focus more on these more ancient notions of what self and
consciousness are than on scientific studies and/or experiments and/or
today’s physics. As interesting as scientific inquiry is today, it
does little when it comes to answering ultimate questions. Western
philosophy overall is at a dead end, having taken some 'wrong' turns
over the centuries.

[Justintruth]

If you are interested in memory I would suggest trying to gain access
to someone who has amnesia. I recently had that experience. A friend
of mine had temporary amnesia.

It was AMAZING!

She went into a kind of loop that lasted only a few minutes if that.
She asked the same thing and I gave the same answers. We went over and
over it for over an hour. I adjusted the "litany" to minimize her
anxiety but it was incredible. She did at times seem like a machine!
But then she was a dear friend and the only thing that kept me ok and
kept me trying to convince her that she would be ok was the doctor's
assurance that it was almost certainly temporary and she would be ok
in a few days.

Anyway it truly is amazing the role memory plays. I talked to and OT
and it turns out that if the amnesia is permanent it is one of the
most debilitating problems.

> > > neurology leads to technology and will be a major ethical challenge.
>
> > > What we know is that the arrangement of matter in the form of a
> > > neurology results in reports of consciousness from others and an
> > > experience of our own consciousness. This can be deduced from very
> > > simple evidence independent of modern neurology which is currently
> > > engaged in flushing out the details of the relationship.
>

> > > No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and
> > > what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning
> > > what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed

> > > phenomenological descriptions of experience. This was what Husserl
> > > wanted to do about hundred years ago. It will take a little more time
> > > for the likes of Dennet to catch up.
>
> > > Perhaps then, we can even get a read on some of the problems like
> > > Synchronicity and get a serious look at it scientifically. Perhaps
> > > not. I suspect that our current world view will be very nearly
> > > completely eliminated by the progress and the surety with which the
> > > simple assumptions of our current thought are held will one day be
> > > seen as, if not an unexplainable superstition or ignorance, like we
> > > consider those who killed in Greece over arguments about whether the
> > > number 0 existed, or else as a kind of arrogance that was prevalent in
> > > history.
>
> > > Hell, the truth is Dennet is a provacateur not a philosopher. When you
> > > look in detail at his position it evaporates and he is not at all
> > > saying what he causes his audiences to believe that he is saying.
> > > Check out Searle. Again, like Dennet he is not a heavy hitter
> > > historically but he has Dennet in checkmate.
>

> > > On Sep 5, 8:01 am, sjewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Are you aware of Dr. Michael Persinger's experiments wherein he
> > > > subjects the brain to focused electro-magnetic force and creates
> > > > "spiritual" sensations in the subject?
>

> > > > He also has done experiments with focused applications of psychotropic
> > > > drugs and generated "neuro-realities" in the consciousness of the

> > > > subject. These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to

[ornamentalmind]

“Well, that is interesting. So where is this 'self' waiting for the

brain? Why is there no memory of self before conception? How do you
measure its longevity? How long has it been waiting? How does this
self without a brain begin to exist? What does it do while it is

waiting? …I have no concept of soul or self that isn't simply the

result of brain function. I exist, I make assumptions that others

exist as I do….So, if you and others can answer those questions

perhaps the use of the words will make sense to me. Care to answer

them for yourself?” – SE

Simon, I have comingled a couple posts of yours for simplicity.

I have learned over the years that to interject my views in the middle
of a discussion between two other people in an email group often leads
to confusion so seldom do so these days. Do note that anything I say
here in no way is meant to reflect what any of the other posters you
are chatting with have to say…those like Vam and Archy.

I greatly appreciate your transparency and honest inquiry, first of
all. And, I will guess that you have had some experience and/or study
during your lifetime about these subjects, even though you haven’t
mentioned much about that yet…

First, to your words “I have no concept of soul or self that …..”. I
know that often we use terms that are not precisely what we mean and
accepting this fact will assume that you are being literal here. When
it comes to the things we are discussing, as Vam has suggested, since
they are not linear in concept and/or thought, what we *think* about
them, not *being* them…does nothing but could the issue. Knowing this,
again, I will forge ahead. Apparently you embrace a fairly
fundamentalist scientific stance, yes? With this assumption, I will
suggest that reading and thinking about things alone, especially when
it comes to consciousness, are but phantoms of direct knowledge. Many
scientists would agree, however, when one suggests that that which
their technological machines produce is NOT that which is being
studied, many will reject the notion out of hand. So, when it comes to
consciousness, self or yes, even soul, what others say and/or write
about it is of little use to us even if we memorize it. I’m guessing
that you would agree with this? Using a poor analogy here of a brain
surgeon compared to a student who has read all books about brain
surgery shows an extreme difference in actual knowledge and
understanding, no? The same is true for ancient practices like self
observation, sometimes called introspection etc. One can read about
it. One can create theories about it. One can quote others about it.
One can even make ‘logical’ determinations about the ‘value’ of such
practices. However, without actually doing personal experimentation,
one will never be wise or knowledgeable. So, as a true scientist, I
invite you to begin your personal research. Repeating myself, this was
the advice of Gautama…when he said to accept nothing he said without
first finding it out for oneself. Note that one seldom finds terms
like gnosis bandied about in science. So, without learning a ‘new’
science, one will remain ignorant. This ‘new’ science though is one
that has been known ‘forever’.

So, bottom line, whether our words make ‘sense’ to you or not, you
will never know without an actual and coherent praxis.

Yes, I can hear the ruminations of the skeptics already…but a few
simple exercises may suffice at demonstrating that actual changes in
apprehension are possible. One of the oldest is to watch ones breath.
Have you done that? …on a long term basis? It is no accident that this
practice has stayed with humanity for so long. Another is some of the
self observation martial arts like Tai Chi. When practiced for many
years, changes in consciousness do occur. In the school of psychology,
catharsis can produce major change…and, this technique is in fact
quite ancient. There are some from the Zen schools having to do with
how one watches their thoughts.

Being a little more detailed, I will guess that you would agree that
IF one placed their attention in their balance and how they walked ALL
the time, their psyche would change. Further, IF one was aware ALL the
time of the ruminations and spurious thoughts rambling around in their
head, over time, one would learn much and in fact would change
greatly, no? How about right now? What are you thinking? Is it only
the words on the screen? I doubt it. My guess is that there are other
conversations that come and go within ‘you’. What is the function of
this chitta? So, are you still watching your thoughts?

My point is that there are countless valid techniques that will in
fact change how one apprehends self, the apparent external world and
even the divine. What if one watched their emotions 24/7? Would, over
time, hatreds, skepticism, irritation, doubt etc. change in quality
and/or intensity?

What if a person was able to watch not only their thoughts but their
emotions and all physical activity including much of what we currently
call ‘unconscious’ activity…all at once??!! What if you listened to
your heart beat for even one day…ALL DAY?? (are you still watching
your thoughts?)







On Sep 6, 8:36 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/6 Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>:

[ornamentalmind]

Yes Justin, amnesia is an interesting and integral aspect of our
'being'. I think it was about a year and a half ago that we watched
the following TED video here on Mind's Eye. It is quite enlightening!

"Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists
would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain
functions -- motion, speech, self-awareness -- shut down one by one.
An astonishing story."

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Justintruth]

....Those who reject a physicalist ontology of

> consciousness must find ways of modeling it as a nonphysical aspect of
> reality. Thus those who adopt a dualist or anti-physicalist
> metaphysical view must in the end provide specific models of
> consciousness different from the emergent models.

Actually this can be false if one realizes that consciousness need not
be modeled - indeed must not be modeled - as entitative - if it is to
be correctly understood. Consciousness is not an example of something.
It isn't something. It is existential not essential.

So it comes down to what the word "model" means. If by that you mean
an entitative description of something that exists "in the world" then
I think that no specific model will ever be found for consciousness
and that having one, or attempting to find one, would be distortive.
Of course you have said modeled "as an aspect of reality" which is not
limited to presence in nature, so maybe your use of the word is
actually correct. I tend to think of "modeling" as "objectification"
and subsequent determination of the rules of objective interaction
instead of phenomenological or metaphysical description. But maybe
that is wrong. I am not sure why I think the word "model" need be used
that way. Perhaps because it implies the separation of what is meant
from the meaning itself?

I am not saying that "consciousness" does not have a meaning that it
cannot be understood and that the word does not have a meaning.
However this meaning ultimately is existential. And that means it is
at that nexus where meaning and what is meant are not distinct. Your
post is fascinating that is for sure.

It also does not mean that the content of consciousness and the
sequence of experiences that one has, or potentially can have, cannot
be mapped onto a physical structure and then, by predicting the
physical future via physical theory and doing the inverse map we can
then even determine what the content of the future consciousness will
be. Nor does it mean that "killing" does not "cause" "death" and sex
does not "cause" "life" - and both sex and killing are ultimately
physical acts. (Interesting that one is considered "ethical" and the
other not)

But this is no great insight and is not in the least dependent on
neurology. One can already do this based on simple object models. For
example just look down at the current computer screen and you can
predict to a large extent what you will experience if you shut the
computer off. You can also predict, - not advocating it however ;) -
that if you were to remove your eyeballs that you would be what is
called "blind". There are a host of other conclusions that we have
made for years. Way before neurology ever entered the picture people
who were called "crazy" were called "sick in the head". Now they are
just more detailed. For example I don't think it has been long that
people have know that the back of the head is particularly relevant
for vision and I am sure currently they have a lot of the processing
mapped out.

Both substance
> dualists and property dualists must develop the details of their
> theories in ways that articulate the specific natures of the relevant
> non-physicals features of reality with which they equate consciousness
> or to which they appeal in order to explain it.  

You have to be careful. You are assuming that consciousness has a
nature. That can mean that conscious is natural. It actually is not
natural. It is existential. To put it another way, consciousness is
never positionally conscious of itself. To paraphrase Sartre
consciousness is always a non posititional (or non - thetic)
consiousness (of) itself else it would be an unconsciousness. But this
does not imply that consciousness can ever be thetically conscious of
itself (or of anothers consciousness). It is sort of like
consciousness will be as a mirror reflecting into a mirror if it ever
were to attempt to become conscious of itself and there would be no
content.

Now this all presupposes that consciousness experiences itself as an
it-self. There are experiences in which the notion of separation of
self from the experienced goes away and there is then an experience in
which consciousness is what it experiences, or better experiences
being what it experiences, or even better experiences being
experience, or even better experiences being, or to put it as best I
can experiences Being, or realizes Being Being, or Is the realization
of Being Being (obviously struggling for the phrase here maybe becomes
Experiencing Experiencing Experiencing? - where the first
"Experiencing" is nominative, the second, verbal, and the last
directly objective but in which the meaning of these categories have
completely broken down and one sees their essential unity in the true
meaning of Being - sorry - best I can do - maybe Vam can help or maybe
Molly can help). These experiences are foundational for a true
understanding of the meaning of consciousness itself, its existential
nature, and at the same instant foundational for the meaning of all
Being to include objective being and in particular material objective
being or matter as described by physics.

Rosenberg argues the relational-functional facts must
> ultimately depend upon a categorical non-relational base, and he
> offers a model according to which causal relations and qualitative
> phenomenal facts both depend upon the same base (this, as you can
> probably judge from the awkwardness of the language, is difficult
> stuff)

Wow. Definitely will be checking this out. Thanks!

. Some quantum theories treat consciousness as a fundamental
> feature of reality (Stapp 1993), and insofar as they do so, they might
> be plausibly classified as non-physical theories.  The general
> response to Dennett has been to ask what he has developed a theory of
> (Block 1994).

Thanks again! Block?! Wow... Thanks.

Do you know of any contemporary living philosopher who is - making
progress is probably the wrong word but - lets say doing original
work?

[Justintruth]

> Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious
> activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external
> sensory input.

Well, that is interesting. Wasn't sure that any "arised" form the
sensory input *outside* of the brain?! Great trick that term-
"arised"! - kind of like a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat,
or like Jesus pulling Lazerus out of the grave. We'll have to watch
that left hand when the right is trying to distract us!

Physically, sight originates with a kind of ballistic interaction with
the eye. Energy is transferred from the environment and into the
brain, the impulse or signal presumably being somewhat lost in thermal
noise eventually but not before affecting persistent structure
(storage at least till I am senile ;) ), where it can be stored as
potential energy in chemical bonds and where its information content
can be preserved as a message.

But you are saying that a percentage of conscious activity arises
directly from from within the brain. So I guess I have two questions:
1) Are you implying that there is a physical model of the brain that
is sufficiently detailed to track the energy that presumably arrives
in the brain ultimately from food and distinguish its amount from that
which arrives through the sensory apparatus? And is the ratio you
described 80/20 is based on that? Meaning is it a ratio of the
energies from these two sources? I would have thought that it was much
lower for the signal. I am not talking about the nuclear energy in the
food which is obviously much higher but just the chemical energy of
the valence relationships. I think the signals coming in provide very
little of the energy. Much less than 20%

I have not done the math (but based on your post I will) of the ratio
of energy of the chemical bonds that are destroyed by the respiration
oxidation reduction reactions in my brain compared to the energy of
the light incident on my eyes and the sound energy deposited on my
ears and the energy associated with tactical impulses etc. but I will
bet dollars to donuts that food provides much much more than 80% and
most of the "conscious activity" if you mean the electro chemical
activity of my brain and not consciousness directly, is received from
food and not from the senses. Now I will grant that that small part
that comes in from the senses is critical.

You can see it in a typical transponder design. Once the signal to
noise ratio is established at the low noise amplifier at the antenna
the signal can be manipulated and processed all over the place using
amplifiers the energy of which has nothing to do with the signal. Or
are you saying 2) that 80% of the information content comes from
somewhere other than the senses? Well, then we get into a detailed
discussion of Claude Shannon's work and again I don't see where you
get the ratio. You would need to define all possible messages and then
track the equations he came up with to show how the various signals
result in the discrimination between the possibilities and here I
think that you might find that the signals coming in are providing
most of the information - much more than 20%- and that the food is
providing only the amplifying energy.

I note that there are others sources also. One can stick an electrode
into a brain and transfer energy directly. Also one can - well -
really shake a head! Make it "see stars"! lol. :)

> I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
> consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry.

Now you have used a term "gives rise" and you have used the term
"arise" so you have done it twice! ;) and you have said that you see
"no reason at all to assume that anything" other that "chemistry and
electricity" does this. Lets look in detail at what that means.

First of all, lets look at what "chemistry and electricity" means. I
will take this ultimately to be reducible to meaning "all of current
physical theory" so I assume that you mean that if I take all of the
current physical theory and set up the interaction of particles, the
structure, etc of a brain that that will "cause" consciousness. Now I
have no problem with the belief that in fact that will happen - that
consciousness will occur if you arrange the matter that way - and will
cease if you de-arrange it- but here is the problem I have when you
say "no reason at all to assume that anything....beyond...electricity
and chemistry...." etc

The problem is that the sum total of all electrical and chemical law -
even if extended to all physical law - does not in fact predict
consciousness. In fact there is no physical property of the assembled
and functional brain that in physics or chemistry would cause one to
say "and then it becomes conscious" or "and then it sees". Physically,
it remains a natural objective structure and there is no existential
implication. There is no "seeing" that results from the physical
theory, there is just dynamic interaction of the particles, correctly
as you have pointed out I think due to electrical forces between atoms
and in particular their valence electrons, which is what non-nuclear
chemistry is. So what the physical theory predicts is just a slightly
different arrangement of the particles - not consciousness - on
principle. Physics does not predict consciousness. Therefore I
conclude that there is some other principle "beyond the electricity
and chemistry" that is surely required. Else we can, if you want,
redefine what "electricity and chemistry" are (take it beyond Guass'
laws or beyond QED).

But we must do something as there is nothing in those theories that
predicts consciousness at all!

I have studied the laws of Electricity and Magnetism and the
associated laws of dynamics in classical and modern theory as closely
as I can and really must object that they would allow one to predict
that any structure would become conscious. That is simply not a result
of the theory. The theory does not predict that and it is a scientific
misrepresentation to say it does. Can you show some idea or hypothesis
on how these laws actually predict what you are claiming that they
predict? Not a specific structural hypothesis but how any law that
ultimately just deals with the change in "location" or in the modern
sense in "the probability of appearing of a particle" because there
the "appearing" can be inside of an instrument and does not refer to
consciousness but rather to energy exchange, can ON PRINCIPLE ever
hope to realize such a fantastic claim as to predict that
consciousness will occur?

Physical laws just show how things move! They are only intelligible
existentially when experiences for which they predict the object
content are in fact experienced. So, for example, if I take an
electromagnetic wave at Ku band frequency and shine it in your eye the
physics and chemistry will predict that as I slowly raise its
frequency that it will eventually pass through the various frequency
bands till it comes to the optical range and begins to hit the
resonant frequency of the forced harmonic oscillation of the atoms in
your eye (speaking classically) and that oscillation will be
physically translated into electric current and electro-chemical
signals that will travel out into the brain is some pattern and then
describe the resulting chemical and electrical "endgram" in the brain.
That's it. Nothing more. No matter what happens they predict only that
these particles will have a certain motion and result in a certain
structure and result in a certain motion of that structure. Only when
I append the additional phrase: "And then you will see red light" does
the prediction contain a reference to consciousness and that statement
"And then you will see red light" is not a physics statement. It is
not chemical and it is not electrical statement and it is no-where to
be found in any of the physical laws (Guass's, Newton's, QED) that I
know of.

If fact the problem is even deeper. Science itself cannot be conducted
based on physical theory alone. Let me explain what I mean. Science in
the post Aristetilian sense is dependent on observation and comparison
of that observation with prediction. The physical theory can describe
for example that an electric current will occur in a wire and that the
arm on a current meter will move and that, if illuminated by an source
of electromagnetic radiation of the right frequency will reflect that
light and that the light will move into your eye if you point it at it
and etc into the neurology etc but it will never form the phrase that
goes "and then you will see the needle move". So the very predictions
of science on which experiment can be made are inherently non-
physical. Science is a study only of nature and nature itself is only
part of experience.

To put it simply as I can all of physical principle can only predict
the "location" (using the term loosely in a quantum theoretical sense)
of matter. But there is not a shred of evidence in electricity and
magnetism, not a hint, in all of physics, that conscious would ever
result from any physical structure. Consciousness is not a consequence
of the current physical theories, irregardless of what initial
conditions are set up or what version one uses (classical, modern
etc) . In fact, with respect to neurology, it just results in a
prediction about the structures that will occur if for example light
is shined into the eye. It can tell you in detail what will happen to
the arrangement of molecules but makes no prediction that then, in
fact, consciousness will occur.

If fact physical theory alone is not capable of even predicting the
results of its experiments! if I think very carefully about it. Some
other principle like "What you see is the light" or something not in
physical law must be used!

I challenge you to show me wrong on that and show me where or how it
does. I just do not see it.

Now you may say I am making a mockery of science and the scientists do
daily predict the results of their experience. In a sense you would be
right but it doesn't help. Let's look at that.

Even if you include predictions about the fact that "the various
meters and LEDs that scientists see will in fact be seen" in the term
"physics" or "science" by connecting it to nature - which is
reasonable because it is in fact the experimental aspect of physics,
and it is correct to claim that it is a "natural science" then there
is still a problem. Basically, the theory would then consist of two
parts - one is the part that contains the laws of motion of the
particles, the electricity, the chemistry, the neurology etc That is
that part that we call "chemistry or electricity" etc and it would
then need another part that associates this with some experience. That
latter part would not be chemical nor electrical. So while you could
get away with calling it science by expanding the term beyond the so-
call laws of physics to something that is a reference to consciousness
(like "and then you will see red") you could not reduce that part of
the science to electricity or chemistry. So the claim you are making
would still be false. Science would now allow you to predict that if I
attach a Van deGraft accelerator to a particle detector, that *you
will see* this LED start counting upward but you will then not be able
to reduce science to electricity and chemistry!

Or if you prefer, a scientist could predict that if he stimulated the
right part of your brain that "you would then see red" but that last
phrase is devoid of any physcial read - electro-chemical - content. It
goes beyond it and is in fact a phenomenological description. So you
would have restored physics from my making a mockery of it only be
extending it to phenomenology and the reduction you attempted would
again fail.

Either consciousness is not physical or another physical theory is
needed, one that is not physical or in the end even natural. But the
very terms physical and natural have been deliberately set up as
distinguish from the terms metaphysical and supernatural in western
thought at least, and therefore one can go further and claim that no
physical or natural explanation for consciousness will ever be - nor
can ever be -proposed, and the reason is because consciousness itself
is not natural or physical. It is metaphysical. It is supernatural.
This does not mean anything other than consciousness is not what it
experiences or better consciousness is not its thetic content.

This has nothing to do with the latest advances in neurology. This has
been known for centuries. The problem is only that the neurologists
are ignorant of the meaning of their own philosophical, artistic, and
religious traditions and consequently ignorant of the meaning of their
own work. It is not surprising. It is not their field. They are, after
all, scientists and not philosophers, or artists, or priests and have
not studied the right texts.

> n

> This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would
> strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in
> neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by
> Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
> many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed.

The term mystery has a very long history. There is no chance that
neurology can remove the mystery. All of material existence is
contingent! The following statement is just ridiculous: "This is not
as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think." It is perhaps
exactly the opposite and the fact is that the reason this group even
exists is because people are trying to grasp and articulate the extent
to which it is a mystery. You see in a strange way to realize its
mystery is what it takes to understand it - or is a direct result of
understanding it. It is in fact what mystery itself is. It is the
source of all mystery. So, unlike in science, when mystery is
seemingly removed through understanding, when it comes to real, non-
scientific, or non-natural experience, mystery is not removed but
heightened - or rather ones appreciation or realization of it is
improved and one realizes the extent to which all experience is -
inherently- - in essence- mysterious.

A failure of this reasoning caused the so called "shipwreck" of
philosophy around the time of Kierkegard and Nieztche and is the cause
of the existential boredom and crisis underlying the works of Samuel
Becket like the play "End Game" or "Waiting for Godot" or other
absurdist drama. It is the source of the crisis in No Exit by Sartre.
It was mapped out before WW2 and in fact as early as the writing of
Genesis. The issue has been, I think, decided. (Or maybe not as so few
seem to have realized the meaning of the work done)

It (purely scientific reasoning) was rejected by the Beatific Poets
who "re-discovered" Hinduism and Bhudism - (I know - whenever a
European "discovers" anything we eventually find out that an Indian -
of some kind ! ;) - had been living there for a long time before -
Ha! ;) )

Haven't you seen 2001 a Space Odessy by Kubrick? That was done in the
60s long before the current surge in neurology got its start.

The non-mysterious thinking has also been rejected in all of the
mystical traditions of the religions (see Sufi-ism, Kabala, Zen, or
the mystical aspects vice the fundamental aspects of St Teresa, or St
John of the Cross) - Unfortunately and tragically not in their
fundamentalist counterparts.

Or you can just ask Molly about synchonicity. She got it from Jung and
that term was defined long before neurology got much of a start. I am
sure she will tell you that it holds a little mystery and wait till
they understand that!

Where we will go from here we do not know. But one thing for sure
anyone who tries to interpret neurology as having any central bearing
on the Mystery of Life and I capitalize deliberately, is just plain
wrong. They will only show a more detailed knowledge of the physical
structures associated with the experiences. But we already knew it was
in the brain! The only issue that neurology will decide is exactly
where in the brain and what the chemical and physical correlates are.
That is all. That is all on principle. Only when combined with
phenomenology as Husserl wanted to do for psychology, over a hundred
years ago now - its not a modern discovery - it has nothing to do with
"recent advances" I think, can it be of use. We need to understand
what has already be understood before we can advance!

> We already know the general area of the right side of the brain where
> our feelings of 'self' reside. In fact, if we stimulate that same area
> we create a feeling in the subject of 'another' self.

Fine. So now we know which side its on. Before we knew it was "in the
brain" now we know its on the "right side". Let's assume we know it
all - that means we can predict the exact position (speaking
classically in a physical sense) of every particle! Then what! We are
still no closer to eliminating the mystery. It will not mean that it
is.

A duality that
> is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like.

Ah but there is the difference you see. God-like is not God. Just as
you can stimulate the brain so that the person sees red even though
there is no optical stimulation of the eye so you can create all kind
of experience by manipulating the brain. But don't you see that this
does not do much more than saying that if you create a baby that it
will see or that if make a man blind or kill him he will not? And we
have known that for centuries! How will modern neurology teach us more
than that?

(Don't get me wrong - I love science and eagerly await reading about
these things when I have time but I just don't see what is happening
now can change much of what we already know. Flesh out the details
maybe.)

Neurology will actually help in the future (near future I hope because
my goose is cooked soon but I am afraid it will be before I get to see
it) but has not much yet. It will help with clarify the morphology of
the experiences. Something like what systematic philosophy tried to do
can be aided by neurology. By understanding the structure in detail we
can help characterize and discriminate subtly between different
aspects of the phenomenology. An example is long term and short term
memory. That kind of distinction can be had by the combination of
psychological experiment with neurology. When that progresses to an
examination of religious experience then it can be very useful I
think. The "varieties of religious experience" can be mapped
neurologically I presume or hypothesize. I obviously do not claim to
know now but I think it reasonable.

In the end it might even help by allowing us to manipulate the brain
so that it is better able to experience the Mystery. Unfortunately,
that same capability will probably allow us to eliminate that ability
and reduce us to a kind of high functioning insect cleansed of any
aesthetic or ethical sense - devoid of any awareness of the Mystery.
That will be a sad day. To do this it need only retain the
interpretation of existence in the will to power. This will retain the
survival instinct which must be retain in order to continue the
species itself, (one wrong move and you get suicide - but based on the
phenomenology I think just a small technical obstacle). But it will
never do away, intellectually, with the meaning of the Mystery. Even
if you blind everyone the light is still there and the fact is that
everyone will still *be* blind.

What will happen is that they will see that the religious foundation
has no correlate outside of the body. They will then conclude that it
is "not real" or "not about reality" but "purely a mental phenomena"
and therefore de-legitamize what others claim to be its meaning. This
has already been tried of course but that will not prevent them from
trying again based on this "new evidence" that shows that the
information is not tied to sensory information.

But hell, that level of destructive capability is not new either. We
can do even better with self annihilation. We can destroy not just one
idea but all of them. We can blow the world up or release some kind of
super virus that destroys the race. So the new neurological kind of
intellectual castration is only a more limited and subtle form of
murder. The old ones have been around a long time and we have been
struggling as a species not to use them so hopefully cooler heads will
prevail and consciousness will not be so low as to reduce us to
intellectually "pure electrical and chemical" entities and then,
based on that false understanding, attempt to eliminate through
neurological manipulation all awareness of the alternative.

So I'll go further then and extrapolate on the data a little. There
will be a struggle. Those who believe that we are "merely chemical and
electrical signals" will at one point realize that while the
endochrine system has been useful in preserving the species by
instilling a desire for life in certain situations it is not itself
indespensable and by carefully engineering the will to power and
identity the species as a whole can be made to function without
Mystery or any of the understanding of metaphysics that is, in a real
sense since I am extrapolating ;), based on our sexuality. They will
realize that the insects had it right and especially the ants and the
bees and the urge to procreate need not be instilled in all
individuals and can be made autonomous even and not dependent on any
conscious correlate. (Hell, truth be known they may even conclude that
consciousness itself is not needed and they just need a kind of
perpetural motion machine!) They will in fact want to eliminate the
consciousness of mystery for the same reason you want to be convinced
and convince us that we are electrical and chemical and for the same
reason that you cannot see that that is false right now without
recourse to neurology. Not for the reason that you are convinced. I
didn't say that. But for the reason that you want to be convinced. For
the reason that you want that position of the "detached observer" that
can manipulate perfectly because of its predictive theories.

See, you did not even know that your "objective theorizing" was based
on a desire. Perhaps there is something to Dennet after all! ;) His
brain is fooling him!

That struggle will be formed when those people come up against those
whom we will try to ready. They will be trained to recognize the
Mystery as the source of what we call good and see that the castration
of the human race by elimination of the cognitive aspects of its
endochrinology would be - well - a crime? - a disaster? - chose a
word. They will be trained to embrace humility and recognize, like
Arjuna in the Bahagavada Gita that the outcome of the battle is not
relevant but that they must still fight out of duty. They will watch
you carefully, form associations that preserve the future of what we
now call "rights" and be willing to sacrifice their own lives for that
meme which is what we now refer to as "the Good".

An important part of that struggle is ongoing now and it is the
necessity of clearly rebutting the "mechanical" interpretations of our
Being-there, not because we want them to be wrong, but because they
are wrong and the consequences of the culture loosing sight of that
and simultaneously gaining manipulative control over neurology will be
parallel to the development of large scale nuclear weaponry and must
be fought through the limitation of power of those at the apex of
primate hierarchy.

We only just missed blowing a large part of our civilization away
during the Cold War. Maybe we can do it again.

Just read God Emperor of Dune by Herbert. Its not my idea. Its been
around for a while. Read Frankenstein for crying out loud. But
whatever you do make sure its not recent work and make sure its not
scientific!

On Sep 5, 11:10 am, sjewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not addressing Dennett. I am talking about experiments that can
> change consciousness. If a chemical can change consciousness then
> obviously chemicals are a great part of consciousness. Likewise for
> the application of electro-magnetic forces.
>
> Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious
> activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external
> sensory input.
>
> Neuro-transmitters are essentially, also simply chemical transfers
> launch by electrical energy.
>
> For example, LSD exclusively affects the temporal lobe. If you remove
> the temporal lobe the subject can consume buckets of LSD and it will
> have no effect on him/her at all..
>
> Absolutely all psychotropic drugs alter consciousness via physical
> chemical influences, from god experiences to colour perception.
> Serotonin, as an example, is manipulated by large numbers of
> hallucinogenics as well as ant-depressants.
>
> I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
> consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry.
>
> This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would
> strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in
> neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by
> Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
> many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed.
>

> >No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and
> >what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning
> >what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed
> >phenomenological descriptions of experience.
>

[archytas]

A delight to read you Justin. I am out of my depth in philosophy as a
professional subject, much as I would be in maths outside business
teaching these days. Originality might not be where we need to go -
if they'll forgive me I tend to see Orn and Vam as 'original enough'
when they insist on trying to make sense of our own experience, or you
and Francis in 'clarifying mode' - in another way Molly in 'embracing'
something positive when perhaps I have collapsed a bit - there is
something original in being reminded there may be something worthwhile
at what we might call 'points of exhaustion'.
We may well be living in a shadow world of four dimensions of space
and two of time (whatever) and on the point of developing new sensing.

I rather like the idea that our existing history of 'legitimation' has
collapsed (Lyotard's postmodernism) - but I also feel that we have
developed chronic forms of legitimation in our practical dialogues -
wealth creation is surely now the sacred cow, more securely embedded
in our general-social rationalisations than ever. Lyotard said 'over-
simplifying to the extreme postmodernism is incredulity towards
metanarratives' - the 'over-simplifying to the extreme' was instantly
forgotten. I'll have to miss out the argument here, but I tend to
conclude that the problem in originality for philosophy relates to the
ease with which we can be critical and show problems remain to be
resolved against a desire for certainty and a lust for easy
legitimation more generally. This is all wrapped up in much of the
evidence we would need for fair dialogue being hidden (reasons of
national security and all that jazz). Machiavellian lying 'beats' a
technology of truth that relies on openness. We have not developed
the conditions for truth that do not give an 'enemy' advantages to
beat us down rather than improve the general lot because we live in
conditions in which knowledge is not power. This leads me to the sad
conclusion that the problem is politics and not philosophy (or
sociology, psychology or science).

The issue is presumably about how to develop arguments that do not
leave people behind to return to what is easy enough for them to
'chew'. The answer for most philosophers is just to write for those
who are not easily left behind, and leave the real questions alone
(how we don't just form another professional interest group being a
big one). I can point to where I think the professional advances are
being made - but I conclude these are not advances but new esoteric
fashions that neglect the legitimation technology we need to move to
an original state.

[archytas]

These would be examples of people doing philosophy in a modern way.
The subject is alive and well - my guess is we have to put in some
hard work to change our personal positions and be able to think more
originally. Many arguments put forward as contrasting positions can
be seen to have similar roots (a technical feature of Wittgenstein).

Stotz, K. and Griffiths, P. E. (2008). “Biohumanities: Rethinking the
relationship between biosciences, philosophy and history of science,
and society”. Quarterly Review of Biology, 83(1): 37–45.

C. Hitchcock (2004 ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of
Science, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/ - is a good site on thought
experiment.

Bourbaki, N., 1986, Theory of Sets, Elements of Mathematics, Paris:
Hermann
Scheibe, E., Between Rationalism and Empiricism, Selected Papers in
the Philosophy of Physics, ed. by B. Falkenburg, Berlin: Springer
Ludwig, G. and Thurler, G., 2006, A new foundation of physical
theories, Berlin: Springer

Ludwig died fairly recently. Most of these other guys are
contemporary. I don't know of anyone who is writing about these
advances for the layman. I always recommend the Stanford
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy online (free), but even this is hard
work. What's on view for those who can take it are good reviews of
old and new philosophy well beyond any text you can buy - and the
great advantage of experts who generally summarise a range of argument
and help a lot with not re-inventing the wheel. Alain de Connes has a
great website with all his work free - sadly well beyond me, though I
have made some feeble efforts (this is not a bad place to realise most
of us don't know what maths is!). Searching the SEP (Stanford) with
terms like 'biology', 'structuralism in physics', 'relativism' or old
chestnuts like Descartes and so on is generally rewarding.
If you know about Thomas Kuhn (and his specious use in social
science), the line through Bourbaki, Scheibe, Snell and Ludwig is
interesting in limiting the notion of generic frames of reference or
paradigms and those who claim the 'new physics' is a paradigm leap
from Newton and so on. Checking out Kuhn and 'structuralism in
physics' at the SEP would probably save the need to read the books!
Check out consciousness there and my 'erudition' will collapse
somewhat too (though I would rather my cutting and pasting was known
in here)! I do read journals fairly often - but it's rare to find
much worthwhile.
I'm currently working on evidential underdetermination in science (of
theory) - SEP great here too - the danger lies in forgetting to try to
bring one's own internalisation of the work out in some fresh manner
and apply what should be well known arguments in new areas (a highly
neglected form of originality).

On 6 Sep, 21:54, Justintruth <truth.jus...@gmail.com> wrote:

[retiredjim34]

Thank you all, Archy, Vam, Justin Om etc. for your contributions to
this thread, For me, it is the most interesting thread I've come
across in Minds Eye. Very challenging, especially the bounces from
science to non-science, the physical to the non-physical. And thanks
to Molly too for starting it. I hope the thread continues. Jim

[retiredjim34]

You say that what currently interests you is memory. If by that you
mean the human memory,it interests me too.
I assume you have some background in computer memories and data
storage. If you do, or even if you do not, consider this - our brain
is far too small to store our memories. As I calculate it, even
assuming reasonable data compression techniques, we can at most store
in our physical brain a day or two of our experiences and thoughts.
So
where is the rest?
Could it be stored elsewhere in the body? If it were, then
loosing that part of the body would degrade our memory. But such a
loss has never been reported as far as I know. So our memory must be
stored out of body - and judging from my OOB experience and all those
I've read about, when OOB our consciousness has our memories. From
this I conclude that consciousness and memory are on some plane other
than the physical.
You say in another post that evidence is what counts. I'd very
much appreciate your looking into the memory capacity of the human
brain, and reading your conclusions. Is the human memory another
example (or evidence) of a non-physical attribute of our self? Jim

> > > No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and
> > > what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning
> > > what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed

> > > phenomenological descriptions of experience. This was what Husserl
> > > wanted to do about hundred years ago. It will take a little more time
> > > for the likes of Dennet to catch up.
>
> > > Perhaps then, we can even get a read on some of the problems like
> > > Synchronicity and get a serious look at it scientifically. Perhaps
> > > not. I suspect that our current world view will be very nearly
> > > completely eliminated by the progress and the surety with which the
> > > simple assumptions of our current thought are held will one day be
> > > seen as, if not an unexplainable superstition or ignorance, like we
> > > consider those who killed in Greece over arguments about whether the
> > > number 0 existed, or else as a kind of arrogance that was prevalent in
> > > history.
>
> > > Hell, the truth is Dennet is a provacateur not a philosopher. When you
> > > look in detail at his position it evaporates and he is not at all
> > > saying what he causes his audiences to believe that he is saying.

> > > Check out Searle. Again, like Dennet he is not a heavy hitter
> > > historically but he has Dennet in checkmate.
>
> > > On Sep 5, 8:01 am, sjewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Are you aware of Dr. Michael Persinger's experiments wherein he
> > > > subjects the brain to focused electro-magnetic force and creates
> > > > "spiritual" sensations in the subject?
>
> > > > He also has done experiments with focused applications of psychotropic
> > > > drugs and generated "neuro-realities" in the consciousness of the

> > > > subject. These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to
> > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical.- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

“…Machiavellian lying 'beats' a

technology of truth that relies on openness. We have not developed
the conditions for truth that do not give an 'enemy' advantages to
beat us down rather than improve the general lot because we live in
conditions in which knowledge is not power. This leads me to the sad
conclusion that the problem is politics and not philosophy (or

sociology, psychology or science).” – Archy

Yes, sadness is one aspect of disillusionment. And, at that point many
of the illusions are lifted. Yes too to the fact that one must adapt
to an environment…knowing who they are with. However, in the ultimate
sense, knowledge IS power. Perhaps not in the Machiavellian way,
unless one includes the art of propaganda and other methods of
manufacturing consent, which itself includes philosophy, sociology,
psychology and science.

Justin has it right when it is said that we will fight if only for the
duty of it. At a specific level, ones ethos just changes and becomes
adamantine. In ritual, the specific time of the war between light and
dark has been passed on for millennia. This is a science all of its
own.

> > work?- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

There is much there that suggests having a soul, one that proceeds
post mortem. There have been some toss abouts in here concerning it's
existence. However when considering consciousness I seem to believe
we all have a soul, some very old with accumulated memory/knowledge
and some very new, people without a clue. Einsteins seems to have
denied the existence of a soul but it was certainly a Socratic view
and that of many others that followed, maybe Jung's shadow concept
could reveal something in line.
Memory, regardless of storage location, isn't worth anything without
the ability to recall. I've often wondered similarly if when I'm
struggling to recall something that comes to mind later on, if the
lapse had something to do with the transmission of memory from
elsewhere, hence the phrase "It will come to me in a minute". Is it
like making a phone call when all the lines are busy? This would of
course pertain to long term memory, not sensory or short term. I
think memory and a non physical attribute view might trigger some
debate.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

On 4 Sep, 22:02, sjewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, as current as views like Simon’s are, “The product of the bio-
> > electric, electro-chemical energy in the brain. Like a burning candle
> > produces heat, the brain produces consciousness.”  - Simon
>
> > …saying that consciousness is bio-electrical and electro-chemical
> > energy, using an analogy as he did about a candle, is like saying that
> > consciousness is the product of those trillions of cells that Dennett
> > suggests is a ‘bag of tricks’!
>
> Well, it is by those methods that the brain functions. How else could
> consciousness arise if not from the functioning of the brain in the
> way that it functions?
>
> Do you think that consciousness arises from something disconnected
> from the brain? How would that work?


The nervous system contains a substance, tubulin, which creates a
quantum-scale interface to consciousness, which is actually contained
in the Calabi-Yau space. The brain forms the interface between that
consciousness-space and our space-time through our bodies. This, of
course, is given a string-theory paradigm, which is not proven
experimentally but is the only theory on paper that fills in (or has
the capability of filling in) all the blank areas in quantum mechanics
and the Standard theory.

[archytas]

Tubulins are targets for anticancer drugs like Taxol and the "Vinca
alkaloid" drugs such as vinblastine and vincristine. The anti-gout
agent colchicine binds to tubulin and inhibits microtubule formation,
arresting neutrophil motility and decreasing inflammation. The anti-
fungal drug Griseofulvin targets mictotubule formation and has
applications in cancer treatment. Visions of myself and Pat in
bathchairs at the convalescent home for mad techno-speculants needing
to finalise string theory to cure our gout! I should think I would
concede my Kaliber Yawn theory that string theories are an illusion
created by a lack of alcohol in such circumstances.

Arguments on life and consciousness seem to imply 'why' questions to
me - perhaps necessitate them. Memory sort of links to a world of
logical necessity (a view from Leibniz). I don't think this big - I'm
more concerned we get on with better decision-making that is a
contribution to an open society - without this we are cast into some
kind of 'killing competition' even if we just leave it to evolution to
wipe us out.

[Pat]

On 7 Sep, 15:12, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Tubulins are targets for anticancer drugs like Taxol and the "Vinca
> alkaloid" drugs such as vinblastine and vincristine. The anti-gout
> agent colchicine binds to tubulin and inhibits microtubule formation,
> arresting neutrophil motility and decreasing inflammation. The anti-
> fungal drug Griseofulvin targets mictotubule formation and has
> applications in cancer treatment.  Visions of myself and Pat in
> bathchairs at the convalescent home for mad techno-speculants needing
> to finalise string theory to cure our gout!  I should think I would
> concede my Kaliber Yawn theory that string theories are an illusion
> created by a lack of alcohol in such circumstances.
>

LOL!! Could well be. The last time I had a pint of ale, I was
sick as a dog. I just can't seem to tolerate alcohol anymore. I
suppose God is preparing me for a long dry spell. ;-)

> Arguments on life and consciousness seem to imply 'why' questions to
> me - perhaps necessitate them.  Memory sort of links to a world of
> logical necessity (a view from Leibniz).  I don't think this big - I'm
> more concerned we get on with better decision-making that is a
> contribution to an open society - without this we are cast into some
> kind of 'killing competition' even if we just leave it to evolution to
> wipe us out.
>

As I said, the fact that we exist in a continuum implies that the
system is teleological. Thus the need for our 'whys' to be answered.
I fear, though, that most of the answers will elude us while we're
incarnate.

> On 7 Sep, 11:01, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 Sep, 22:02, sjewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Also, as current as views like Simon’s are, “The product of the bio-
> > > > electric, electro-chemical energy in the brain. Like a burning candle
> > > > produces heat, the brain produces consciousness.”  - Simon
>
> > > > …saying that consciousness is bio-electrical and electro-chemical
> > > > energy, using an analogy as he did about a candle, is like saying that
> > > > consciousness is the product of those trillions of cells that Dennett
> > > > suggests is a ‘bag of tricks’!
>
> > > Well, it is by those methods that the brain functions. How else could
> > > consciousness arise if not from the functioning of the brain in the
> > > way that it functions?
>
> > > Do you think that consciousness arises from something disconnected
> > > from the brain? How would that work?
>
> >     The nervous system contains a substance, tubulin, which creates a
> > quantum-scale interface to consciousness, which is actually contained
> > in the Calabi-Yau space.  The brain forms the interface between that
> > consciousness-space and our space-time through our bodies.  This, of
> > course, is given a string-theory paradigm, which is not proven
> > experimentally but is the only theory on paper that fills in (or has
> > the capability of filling in) all the blank areas in quantum mechanics

> > and the Standard theory.- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

I suppose most of our experience of the why continuum has been
disappointment - largely because it's been about manufacturing consent
along Orn's lines - the human sciences have certainly played their
part in this. There has been some focus on what gets 'hard-wired' in
the brain, leading to the notion that religion is and that this
togetherness is an evolutionary advantage. I tend to like notions of
extra-human consciousness because I would prefer something better to
tune into. I much prefer a world in which, told at the door of a New
York restaurant in the 1960s that there was no admittance to women
wearing trousers, Gillian Anscombe (a catholic philosopher with a
clutch of kids) promptly removed hers, to a world of worthies who
prosecute women for wearing them.
'Hard-wiring' is clearly something for biology to be looking at, but
how has it come to Dawkin's black box to be ignored as irrational -
itself an irrational, unexplored base for 'rational science'?
Introspection has led me to know there is lots of hard-wiring in me I
would rather do without, except in time-constrained moments of fight-
flight and maybe some forms of enjoyment. I am still hard-wired
against being attracted to black women (no doubt a great relief to
them) and inclined to be attracted to white and Asian women and not
men of any shade. I seem, these days, to have become hard-wired
against advertising, cosmetics and commodity-fetishism - which are
linked to disgust in me (such a link is proposed as a learning
mechanism for hard-wiring). There is much 'false-consciousness' I
would like to sweep away in order to have better environmental effects
on what I can be (though we don't want a bunch of PC Nazis in charge
of this). We could have a more virtuous circle of 'consciousness'. I
was brought up in a false consciousness of hating Germans and Japanese
and considerable other racism. I suspect it's Muslims these days. If
we end up not being able to define consciousness I guess we get this
about right - there are possibilities and probabilities. So how can I
be so sure about false consciousness?

[Slip Disc]

Perhaps it's not false consciousness at all but simply irrational
reasoning, discretion gone wild or living an indoctrinated lie.

[Molly Brogan]

I am not sure there is "false" consciousness, but that we deem is so,
and this may be relative. The Dennett video struck me because I
thought it illustrated nicely the idea of viewpoint. I could feel
myself change, or had a change in feeling once I "saw" what he was
leading me to see. At first, I could not see it, then I could. And
once I could, my viewpoint changed. This doesn't mean that my
previous viewpoint was false and my new viewpoint true. It only means
that my viewpoint has changed. Unless it means something to me to
give it this value. And then I do.

It struck me that we go through life like this, missing the complete
picture (which to Pat, might be God's Will, or, the big picture of
possibility) and only seeing, feeling, thinking, believing what our
current viewpoint allows. It is a change in view that allows us to
see more, and not more coming into being, Nothing changes but our
viewpoint, in the Dennett example, it only included a visual
perception, but in life may include conceptual, perceptual, emotional,
rational and many more changes. But consciousness is consciousness,
there is only brahman.

Someone in another group suggested there is pure consciousness
(knowing of everything and everywhen or cosmic consciousness) or
consciousness in context - consciousness that is filtered through our
experience (which is shaped by your viewpoint) I suppose, the
integration of these might be the non dual perspective.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html Here is
another interesting Dennett video, where he leads us through his
thinking on the concept of memes. How does our environment or our
experience effect our consciousness. The answer is, of course, that
it influences us in many subtle and profound ways - until it doesn't.
And it doesn't when we gain the understanding that it doesn't need to,
that our viewpoint need not depend on the content of our experience,
in fact, it is the other way around, our experience is the
manifestation of our consciousness through viewpoint. When we can
operate from this realization, our viewpoint and experience become one
creative dynamic, with awakened imagination providing all the
necessary energy.

[Pat]

On 7 Sep, 16:56, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I suppose most of our experience of the why continuum has been
> disappointment - largely because it's been about manufacturing consent
> along Orn's lines - the human sciences have certainly played their
> part in this.  There has been some focus on what gets 'hard-wired' in
> the brain, leading to the notion that religion is and that this
> togetherness is an evolutionary advantage.  I tend to like notions of
> extra-human consciousness because I would prefer something better to
> tune into.  I much prefer a world in which, told at the door of a New
> York restaurant in the 1960s that there was no admittance to women
> wearing trousers, Gillian Anscombe (a catholic philosopher with a
> clutch of kids) promptly removed hers, to a world of worthies who
> prosecute women for wearing them.
> 'Hard-wiring' is clearly something for biology to be looking at, but
> how has it come to Dawkin's black box to be ignored as irrational -
> itself an irrational, unexplored base for 'rational science'?

Dawkins is just a money-grubber. He has not offerred anything really
new to the argument and his faith is just as strong as those he
condemns. He may be bright but he still has a big propblem with
internal consistency, which, to me, makes most of his work yesterday's
rubbish dressed as haute-cuisine.

> Introspection has led me to know there is lots of hard-wiring in me I
> would rather do without, except in time-constrained moments of fight-
> flight and maybe some forms of enjoyment.  I am still hard-wired
> against being attracted to black women (no doubt a great relief to
> them) and inclined to be attracted to white and Asian women and not
> men of any shade.  I seem, these days, to have become hard-wired
> against advertising, cosmetics and commodity-fetishism - which are
> linked to disgust in me (such a link is proposed as a learning
> mechanism for hard-wiring).  There is much 'false-consciousness' I
> would like to sweep away in order to have better environmental effects
> on what I can be (though we don't want a bunch of PC Nazis in charge
> of this).  We could have a more virtuous circle of 'consciousness'.  I
> was brought up in a false consciousness of hating Germans and Japanese
> and considerable other racism.  I suspect it's Muslims these days.  If
> we end up not being able to define consciousness I guess we get this
> about right - there are possibilities and probabilities.  So how can I
> be so sure about false consciousness?
>

The ancient art of competition requires an opponent. This, in
itself, is self-destructive to a society once they've reached a
certain level of population. So, those with an 'ancient mindset'
would have us have enemies, so that we can beat them and feel better
for it. It is NOT a 'civilised' act or mode of thinking. It
encourages hatred and violence for no other reason thatn some parts of
society expect it of us (in order to prove our worth TO society). So,
we leave the homeless person to rot on the street, walk past them and
turn our heads to see what the 'Leader of the Free World' has said
lately. To God, both of those individuals (the homeless and the
leader) are equal participants in creation. It would behoove us all
if we would treat one another as true equals (with respect to right to
life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.).

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 8 Sep, 12:28, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure there is "false" consciousness, but that we deem is so,
> and this may be relative.  The Dennett video struck me because I
> thought it illustrated nicely the idea of viewpoint.  I could feel
> myself change, or had a change in feeling once I "saw" what he was
> leading me to see.  At first, I could not see it, then I could.  And
> once I could, my viewpoint changed.  This doesn't mean that my
> previous viewpoint was false and my new viewpoint true.  It only means
> that my viewpoint has changed.  Unless it means something to me to
> give it this value.  And then I do.
>
> It struck me that we go through life like this, missing the complete
> picture (which to Pat, might be God's Will, or, the big picture of
> possibility) and only seeing, feeling, thinking, believing what our
> current viewpoint allows.  

Yup, I'll confirm that. Although there ARE techniques for glimpsing
ahead. Edward De Bono's 'Water Logic' being one. The concept is to
follow the flow of actions. I.e., one action will lead to another,
which leads to another and so on. If we take the time to see where
our actions will lead us, we catch a wider view of the future.
However, this doesn't (and can't) take into consideration unknown,
outside influences, which end up dictating A LOT of what happens.

>It is a change in view that allows us to
> see more, and not more coming into being,  Nothing changes but our
> viewpoint, in the Dennett example, it only included a visual
> perception, but in life may include conceptual, perceptual, emotional,
> rational and many more changes.  But consciousness is consciousness,
> there is only brahman.
>
> Someone in another group suggested there is pure consciousness
> (knowing of everything and everywhen or cosmic consciousness) or
> consciousness in context  - consciousness that is filtered through our
> experience (which is shaped by your viewpoint)  I suppose, the
> integration of these might be the non dual perspective.
>

Sounds reasonable. Thre trick there is tapping into the big
picture. For example, right now, there are children in Darfur that
are starving or worse. Most people think this has no direct effect on
them. They may well be right, but the indirect effects could be
enormous. For example, malaria isn't the mosquito's fault, after all,
IT'S been infected by a parasite and is only acting (unknowingly) as a
vector. Most effects are a combination of indirect effects and
knowing all the causes is a task beyond the capabilities of all the
supercomputers we will EVER have.

> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html Here is
> another interesting Dennett video, where he leads us through his
> thinking on the concept of memes.  How does our environment or our
> experience effect our consciousness.  The answer is, of course, that
> it influences us in many subtle and profound ways - until it doesn't.
> And it doesn't when we gain the understanding that it doesn't need to,
> that our viewpoint need not depend on the content of our experience,
> in fact, it is the other way around, our experience is the
> manifestation of our consciousness through viewpoint.  When we can
> operate from this realization, our viewpoint and experience become one
> creative dynamic, with awakened imagination providing all the
> necessary energy.
>

The proof of that can be found walking down the street. Give a
tight-lipped smile to someone and they will, most likely, return in
kind; give an open smile and they will, most likely, return in kind.
And one can smile even when in pain that the 'other' couldn't possibly
know about.

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

There used to be a laboratory joke that the stuff you were swilling
down the sink was what you were really looking for. There are a lot
of moments in science that I'm inclined to think 'bugger, that
explains a lot' of - viewpoints that are somehow 'better'. Sometimes,
such moments have left me wondering how I had managed to be so
inadequate before. When it comes to consciousness, it's pretty clear
our definitions wander and it must, presumably, be as hard to work out
a satisfactory notion of 'false consciousness'. Slip's comments are
entirely pertinent. I wouldn't challenge the others either, though
I'm sure we could get into further elaboration.

My experience of public debate as we witness it in newspapers and
current affairs is always that it is too limited to obvious interests
that need challenge that never seems to come. Expert professors are
wheeled on and tell us we might find happiness in being happy! Others
that the war in Afghanistan is to keep our streets safe - some bland
assumption is made that 'we' are somehow happy to exchange blowing the
crap out of Iraq (etc.) to maintain our security. Bwankers come on
and tell us we 'will starve to death' without their wheeler-dealing.
Entertainment TV is full of jingles that make me sick. 'The Wire' is
more accurate than political punditry. I'm sure many will recognise
this tale and could add to it. I'd just take one more step - the grim
spectacle of business teaching by people who have done no more than
attended university and read some bits of textbook-level dross and
don't know why it is mostly wrong.

I don't believe the above is false consciousness, but rather that it
is designed to tune us into something I would give the label to,
something not necessarily an essence. It's a bit like seeing crowds
persuaded by demagogues - only this is more obsequious - a sort of
banal totalisation. Without pursuing this, I'd jump back top ideas
that the Nazis' evil was banal and bureaucratic. I can cry out that
their 'doings' were false - but how do we find a way for sufficient
fact and information, reasoned through, to be present in 'public
consciousness' to feel that what we get is not false and manipulated -
remembering that there are some who can never be satisfied on this.
It's the feeling that arguments that can be clearly made are routinely
excluded in favour of the false balance of air time for a few
viewpoints (usually hymns we have heard over and over) that can all be
exploded by critical reasoning that sickens me enough to believe
something as broad as consciousness is false. Part of this may be the
creation of 'govern-mentality' in which we accept only privileged
'representatives' get the full facts, and thus all we can do is accept
or challenge their integrity rather than make our own decisions.
Currently, throwing debate 'open' to emails and so on, merely seems to
throw up goons. I'd say public consciousness is now being falsely
represented because of an unwillingness to take on new technology and
research methods in real time dialogue - the very 'viewpoint' that can
be shown to work over and over in reprersenting public consciousness -
presumably allowing it to be worked on through fair argumentation.

I have wondered whether this latter stuff could be a viable commercial
model given many of us reject newspapers and television.

> ...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

Most of us Pat, aren't even aware of the effects of 'gravity', let
alone kids dying in Darfur or the living conditions of the people who
made their tin of tuna. At the heart of a lot of our argument is
whether we can say things are right and wrong without becoming idiots
leading another regime of truth.

On 8 Sep, 12:59, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[retiredjim34]

Archy - You say -

I'd say public consciousness is now being falsely
> represented because of an unwillingness to take on new technology and
> research methods in real time dialogue - the very 'viewpoint' that can
> be shown to work over and over in reprersenting public consciousness -
> presumably allowing it to be worked on through fair argumentation.

Is not Minds Eye taking on new technology to engage a real time dialog
and achieve a public consciousness through fair argumentation? No.At
least I don't think so. Minds Eye may be using a new technology. But
what we seem to achieve here, to me, is a bunch of different, but
still individual, viewpoints. There seems to be no attempt to
integrate these private viewpoints into a public viewpoint. And I
sense no inclination to work toward such an integration. Does anyone
else? So public consciousness is not shown, not even here and not even
once, to result from a real time dialog. I wish it were different. But
then, it may well be the reason that so many topics generate at least
two extremes and a dialog about where along the continuum the better
view, or a right answer, lies - that is the way things here are
designed: to foster dialog not answers. Jim

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

I agree Jim. I'm not sure I'd want to turn Mind's Eye into anything
different, but share your feelings on something 'more public'. I've
learned quite a lot in here, maybe because of the ethos Ian harkens
to. The moderation, much as I wish it wasn't necessary (ideally), is
a very real achievement, much as I regret the loss of Chaz (no intent
to open up the wound here). On consciousness, I wouldn't pretend to
know what it is, but remain interested as to what it may be and how
different viewpoints towards it might help us move the owl of Minerva
flies at dusk sort of stuff.
I am almost totally disillusioned about education and research, but
this is because I'm a believer rather than a sceptic - there are
acceptable methods, but we aren't using them.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

On 8 Sep, 15:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Most of us Pat, aren't even aware of the effects of 'gravity', let
> alone kids dying in Darfur or the living conditions of the people who
> made their tin of tuna.  At the heart of a lot of our argument is
> whether we can say things are right and wrong without becoming idiots
> leading another regime of truth.
>

Especially when we know that 'right and wrong' are in the eyes of
the beholder and have nothing to do with real events--outside our
usually horrible perception OF them. ;-)

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

There seems to be no attempt to
integrate these private viewpoints into a public viewpoint. And I
sense no inclination to work toward such an integration. Does anyone

else? RJ

Not an intentional attempt but views of posts run into the thousands,
weekly, on a global scale and indirectly influence public view
somewhere, in a ramifying process where discussions outside the forum
take place. Like Dennett's video going out to millions, ME threads
might reach and effect millions of minds. Much of what transpires
here, in the past took place in smokey rooms full of opinionated power
plays secluded from the general populous. Often elite social clubs
held segregated mind melting parlays which now are open to public view
and scrutiny. The collective consciousness is now more than likely
reaching greater proportions then ever before in history, mostly the
awareness that there is a collective consciousness. This is the
opportunists dream that allows for pants wearing condemnation to
become part of the collective consciousness. Everyone is watching and
waiting as those in the shadow come to the realization that they are
part of the whole, no longer hidden in the dark consciousness.

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

"Most effects are a combination of indirect effects and
knowing all the causes is a task beyond the capabilities of all the

supercomputers we will EVER have" - Pat

RE: Computers


If there had been a computer in 1872, it would have predicted that by
now there would be so many horse-drawn vehicles that the entire
surface of the Earth would be 10 feet deep in horse manure. (Karl
Kapp)

Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tonnes. (Popular
Mechanics - 1949)

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

All again true. In Orn's retrospective futurology there would at
least be lots of work for we shovellers!

> ...
>
> read more »

[retiredjim34]

Slip - excellent. Thanks for the post. You are quite right - a
collective consciousness is surely happening outside of ME. That's an
encouraging thing to ponder. Jim

[archytas]

In a sense Slip, collective consciousness could alter needs for
leadership. Cockroaches are apparently rather good at it in
collective decision making. Apparently, the collapse of bee
populations is linked to failures in their information hygiene systems
- the rooting out of misinformants - spammers beware!

> ...
>
> read more »

[Justintruth]

The trick will be to avoid the dangers of mob psychology where
everyone starts to act as if they were anonymous or hidden and they
loose their "ethical" footing.

Some may say we need to make the internet completely non-anonymous. I
hate that idea. I think we need to make it completely anonymous except
for anyone who acts at the head of any form of pyramidical
organization. Then, if they accept that authority, the ability to
decide the fate of GE or Toyota, or the ability to decide the fate of
the USA or Germany, or the ability to decide the fate of the catholic
church, or the ability to decide the fate of the teachers union, when
they get there they must loose all of their rights to privacy - or at
least most of them and everyone should be able to monitor their
conversations. Especially conversations between any two of them.

Secrecy should be eliminated from all hierarchy and maintained as an
exclusive right for individuals.

The penalties for violating this should be criminal and severe.
Enforcement agencies should be via a strictly term limited and
democratically elected police force that is independent from the
government and has its own tax base. Also there should be a second
police force, again term limited and elected, that should have the
sole task to monitor the first. The forces should be 1-1. For every
regular police officer there should be a police enforcement officer
whose sole authority would be to arrest the first police officer if he
violated the law. This second police force should run with some kind
of journalistic-police credentials meaning they have the
responsibility to publish what is going on and also arrest authority -
with their own jails etc.

But I have trouble with mob behavior, you know? The lynch mob. Don't
know where to go with that. Got any ideas?

There is also a big transition problem. I do not think the government,
nor the credit card agencies, will give up their invasion of our right
to privacy. The NSA should be illegal. Luxembourg has it right. It
should be illegal for government to collect anything but the most
cursory of statistics on its citizens. How is Africa reformed? Their
leaders there are terrible mostly (except for Tutu and the ANC God
bless them!). How do you stop organized crime?

How do we get there? The real problem is not the system! It is the
ethical awareness that underpins it. Look at a place like Russia. You
can see that no matter what the system is they will have problems and
eventually resort to tyranny. What is needed is a kind of discrediting
or de-legititemization or "shunning" process where everyone would be
very ashamed should they kill someone and if not then no problem
because if they are ever found out they even their mother won't speak
to them until she sees genuine contrition (OK make an exception for
mothers ;) ).

So what we need is a building of ethical consciousness which means
building awareness of the meaning of life. Something like Sakarov
called for. We need new modern refuseniks, Like those that put the
statue up in Tieneman square. The program right now should also be
education. As much as possible. For everyone. And not just shallow
technical education. Probably the biggest problem is that objectivity
and the hard sciences have had this false imprimatur placed upon them
and the rigors of metaphysics and ontology have been completely lost.
The first step will be when the students start flooding back from hard
science into studying history and arts and philosophy and the other
humanities and science is seen as "merely technical" which is what it
is.

Right now a government leader can kill thousands of innocent people
and still have a coquetish entourage following them around opening the
doors and fawning in admiration. In my opinion we basically need to
wake up to their malevolence.

Even Obama. He should be held accountable for innocent life lost by US
strikes in Afganistan. Is he?

I think Focault's work on prisons is key for the future of political
science.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Slip Disc]

I think we can see in small segments how consciousness changes
collectively but the actual measurement of such seems out of reach as
global boundaries still define our means of communication and even
that would have to pass the Archy level of truth scrutiny. The
facades of the great Republic and Socialist nations leave behind a
huge bewilderment when the communication convolutes behind the scenes
reality. Arch is spot on in identifying the foremost fear of any
leadership as being the collective consciousness come to full
fruition. It seems a common trait of leaders is to keep malfunction
at a consistent level for job security purpose. An interesting point
is that even though ME can effect change in collective consciousness
the very fact that ME is not a collective consciousness, in and of
itself, makes the overall changes ineffective in that the extended
collectives are disparate as much as we are here.

> ...
>
> read more »

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Umm there seems some flaw here, now what is it?

Ahhh yes!

If I was to suggest that to manipulate where a car goes you need to
use the stearing wheel, that sounds about right yes?


I was to further say that a stearing wheel does not in fact stear the
car, it only manipulates where the car can be steared, then maybe
you'll begin to see what is wrong with your statement above?

If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and
chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both
electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no?

Or put in another way. If I drink a glass of water and notice no
change in the way my conciousness is working then it is safe to
suggest that water is not a mechinism that conciousness uses in order
to work.(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course)

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Welcome Simon.

I'm with you, well sorta, it seems like a 'fact' to me that
conciousness is a propertiy of the brain and usless to argue any other
way. Yet the soul, ahhh now the question arises what has the soul got
to do with conciousness, which I guess helps to explain why some want
to see conciousness outside of the brain.

Myself well I'malmost agnostic on questions of the soul, I kow such a
thing exists, I know it does not equal conciousness and so no need for
conciousness to reside outside of the brain. What the soul is? Well
I'm gonna have to say I don't know, how does it work, umm I don't
know.

I have some ideas, but none of them live up to logical scrutiny, but
shit that's okay see Chris's defintion of faith elsewhere this thread,
I can live with this faith bassed belife.

On 6 Sep, 02:10, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The word 'soul' means nothing to me. I have no idea what that is. How do we
> measure it to see if it exists or not? And, even if it does, where does it
> come from, the brain? Where does it stay once it has come from wherever, the
> brain?
>
> Sorry, it still seems to me like the brain is the source of self and
> consciousness.
>
> Souls are all well and good but if I am to be questioned on the evidence
> supporting the brain's electro-chemical functioning as the source of
> consciousness then surely there is an equal or even greater need for some
> shred of evidence to support a 'soul' as the origin of the same.
>
> Can you give me as detailed a description of the soul as possible, please?
> How does it give rise to consciousness? How does it communicate with the
> brain, when and how does it develop. Lots of questions so please be as
> detailed as you can. I have heard people talking about souls for decades but
> nobody ever seems to be able to describe them or support their idea with
> more than simple assertion, which experience has taught me to reject
> out-of-hand initially.
>
> Look forward to some details.
>
> Cheers.
>
> 2009/9/5 archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> > These are areas where what we say can often not be what we mean.
> > Bullet through brain does seem sensible as leading to no person here
> > (i.e. presence of corpse) but there could be a soul and so on - or
> > consciousness might take the 'self' and re-deliver it somewhere.
> > There are plenty of examples of 'mirror-world' science about.  I think
> > we may be approaching a time at which we can use memory in something
> > like real-time and this will speed up our knowing and probably stop
> > much of the political drivel we suffer from wasting so much time (and
> > all the rest).  At most, I believe this would open up new mysteries or
> > paths to take.
>
> > On 6 Sep, 00:20, sjewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thank-you. This is an area of particular interest to me.
>
> > > I have no problem with bits of faith, I think that without faith,
> > > doing anything in the course of the day would be next to impossible.
> > > However, before I takes any leaps of faith I try to first measure the
> > > distance. That said, I am interested in ideas concerning awareness of
> > > self, consciousness, that try to do away with the physical brain as
> > > the source. From what I can tell no brain is no self therefore self
> > > must come, somehow, from the brain. Where to you see self coming from,
> > > awareness and consciousness, if not the lump of matter, the brain?
>
> > > On Sep 5, 12:09 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > “…I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
> > > > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry….” – SE
>
> > > > “…The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
> > > > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….” – SE
>
> > > > First, you have been taken off of moderation. Welcome to Mind’s Eye!
>
> > > > Next, I applaud what appears to be a conflation of a scientific
> > > > attitude with faith…in this case, faith in the coming of a world
> > > > without ‘mystery’. While it is a common view, seldom is it presented
> > > > so succinctly!
>
> > > I. actually, didn't say a 'world' without mystery, since I was
> > > referencing the mapping of the brain> So I was indicating the mystery
> > > of brain function, self, awareness, consciousness et. al. will soon be
> > > removed.
>
> > > > On Sep 5, 8:10 am, sjewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm not addressing Dennett. I am talking about experiments that can
> > > > > change consciousness. If a chemical can change consciousness then
> > > > > obviously chemicals are a great part of consciousness. Likewise for
> > > > > the application of electro-magnetic forces.
>
> > > > > Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious
> > > > > activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external
> > > > > sensory input.
>
> > > > > Neuro-transmitters are essentially, also simply chemical transfers
> > > > > launch by electrical energy.
>
> > > > > For example, LSD exclusively affects the temporal lobe. If you remove
> > > > > the temporal lobe the subject can consume buckets of LSD and it will
> > > > > have no effect on him/her at all..
>
> > > > > Absolutely all psychotropic drugs alter consciousness via physical
> > > > > chemical influences, from god experiences to colour perception.
> > > > > Serotonin, as an example, is manipulated by large numbers of
> > > > > hallucinogenics as well as ant-depressants.
>
> > > > > I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to
> > > > > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry.
>
> > > > > This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would
> > > > > strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in
> > > > > neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by
> > > > > Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very
> > > > > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed.

>
> > > > > >No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and
> > > > > >what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious
> > meaning
> > > > > >what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed
> > > > > >phenomenological descriptions of experience.
>

> > > > > We already know the general area of the right side of the brain where
> > > > > our feelings of 'self' reside. In fact, if we stimulate that same
> > area
> > > > > we create a feeling in the subject of 'another' self. A duality that
> > > > > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like.- Hide quoted text -

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Umm or try this one.

I can see no tree when the window(shutters/curtians) is closed, yet I
can see the tree when the window is open.
Therefore, when I close the window it blocks my view of the tree.

On 6 Sep, 10:03, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> " From what I can tell no brain is no self therefore self must come,
> somehow, from the brain."
>

> There is no tree ( in view ) untill the window is closed. There is a
> tree, with the window open. Therefore, the tree " must come, somehow,
> from the " window ! ?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

> Think of deep sleep, when the consciousness ( and the self ) as you
> know are absent despite, may I point out, the brain being very there
> and alive. But it ( the mind and the self ) reappears. Is its
> temporary absence ( in deep sleep ) real ?

False I'm afraid Vam, even in deep sleep measurements of the brains
activity are not null, perhaps with the eyes closed and the body not
responding to external stimulus, then conciousness taking no clues
from outside loks inward? That would explain why we tend to dream of
things that are relevant to the day we have just had huh.

[Vam]

Try using your mind after 30 days of going without water, Lee !
You'll understand how important water is to cognitive access to forms
of consciousness. The last part was deliberately expressed, as I do
not believe that nothing has anything to with consciousness ( pure,
like space ) per se but only with forms perceived in consciousness.

On Sep 9, 6:20 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

> > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will know.- Hide quoted text -

[Vam]

Good. Indeed. Not the conclusion that " therefore self must come,
somehow, from the brain."


On Sep 9, 6:38 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[Vam]

Lee, you dont dream while DEEP asleep.

And, indeed, the brain is not absolutely inactive ( or deed ) in deep
sleep state. That's why we should have some consciousness, since it is
an outcome of the brain, even in deep sleep state !

On Sep 9, 6:41 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[Chris Jenkins]

...and we do. Make a loud noise, and the sleeper awakes. The brain is still sensing, recording, and responding to data, even when asleep. This all fits neatly with the scientific perspective of consciousness as the summation of of sensory data as it is stored, analyzed, and accessed in the brain. Asleep is not "without consciousness", unless one is comatic. 

[Simon Ewins]

2009/9/9 Chris Jenkins <digitalp...@gmail.com>:

> ...and we do. Make a loud noise, and the sleeper awakes. The brain is still
> sensing, recording, and responding to data, even when asleep. This all fits
> neatly with the scientific perspective of consciousness as the summation of
> of sensory data as it is stored, analyzed, and accessed in the brain. Asleep
> is not "without consciousness", unless one is comatic.

Even in a coma there is often awareness of voices and movement. I have
mentioned before that I have memories of events that took place in an
O.R. while I was unconscious from anesthesia. I was unconscious but I
still have some knowledge of what went on in the room during the
surgery.

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Hey Vam did you not notcie this bit:

'(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course)'

Now taking this and what you have said here then it shows that
conciousness must be part of the brain, must be part of our biology
otherwise how would a lack of water for 30 days affect it?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Vam]

" conciousness must be part of the brain, must be part of our biology
otherwise how would a lack of water for 30 days affect it? "

Children are affected by lightening, even traumatised by earthquakes.
That does not mean children are born of lightening or earthquakes,
Lee !

On Sep 10, 2:35 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

That really has no bearing on the matter Vam. You admit that going
without water affects concioussness, yes?

We all know how important water is in keeping the body working
properly, yes?

We can certianly then infer that if conciousness is effected by a lack
of water, as are all biological functions, then conciousness is a
function of biology, yes or no?

[Vam]

Consciousness, No. The forms perceived in consciousness, Yes. The
functioning of instruments of perception, Yes.

On Sep 10, 3:07 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

So you do not think it possible that if a person goes without water
for long enough that they will fall unconcious?

[Vam]

Yes. The phenomenon pertains to forms perceived and the instruments of
perception ... senses and the mind.

On Sep 10, 3:49 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Okay let me get this right Vam, you say that if you go without water
for long enough that you will NOT fall unconcious as conciouness does
not reside in the brain?

[Vam]

It seems you are lost, Lee ! Give yourself time, and perhaps some
more. You are attempting in a rush to nail down ' something,' as if
your life depends on it, without catching hold of that which is to be
nailed and without the hammer with which to nail it.

I advise you re - read my responses. I am implying distinctions
between consciousness, forms of perceptions arising from consciousness
that we perceive, and the instruments of perception.

Then perhaps you may specify what you are talking about, without us
being on different pages / books ?

On Sep 10, 4:09 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Sorry Vam, I think you are stalling here.

My questions to you have not been hard to figure out, I know I am
dyslexic, but I am not stupid, I can't spell and my hand writing is, I
can garentee you the worst you will see, but I do comprehend the
English language, I do know how to write, I have phrased my questions
in a way that there can be no misunderstandings between us.

You sir know exactly what page I am on, I aksed you a direct question,
you answered, and I wanted double check that answer. Now when I
attempt to do that, you give me rubbish about nails and hammers and
advise me to go away and think a bit more.

I smell evasion Vam, however because I am a nice chap, I'll ask for
that clarifcation again.

Do you belive that if you go without water for long enough you will
NOT fall into unconciousness?

Now that is a very straight forward question, please do answer it.

[Vam]

I will answer the question.

Q : " Do you belive that if you go without water for long enough you

will NOT fall into unconciousness ?"

A : Yes, YOU ( the idea of individuated ' I ' in consciousness ) may
disappear, which is what I understand of your expression " fall(ing)
into unconsciousness." To a yogi, who is trained into dealing with
such experiential phenomena, it ( the ' I ' ) may not so disappear.

I cannot be more clear than this. So, if you want more, you 'll have
to find it in your own understanding and realisation. That is what I
'd suggested in my previous post.

And yes, Lee, you are a nice chap !


On Sep 10, 4:43 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Ahh many thanks Vam.

So you seem to be saying two things here seemingly contradicting each
other.

Yes you agree that without water then unconciouness can occour, but no
it is not real 'conciousness' that you loose. which prompts the
question, what do you define conciouness as?

I have offered my own definition right at the top there in what is
currently post #6, I have asid:

'So I would say that I explain conciouness as a property of the
phycial brain, and I would say that to be concioues means merely to
know that you exist as an independant enterty, and can tell that there
are others around who like wise exists as individual entities.'

Which shows a clear distinction between conciouness, and what it means
to be concious. Would you agree or disagree with either of these?

To me if we use the definition above then lossing conciousness means
to loose ones sense of oneself. Not as in dreaming, when we dream we
are most often in our own dreams. I remember once the very first time
I went to donate plasma.

I was on the machine and had been ther for abot 10 mins, I was reading
a book and eating a chicken sandwhich, the nurse approached me, and I
must have been looking a little white as I clearly remember her
saying:


'Are you alr...'

And then I lost conciousness, I fainted, I was only out for a few
seconds(according to the nurse) but I remember nowt about being out.
This is what I mean by lossing or falling into unconciousness. You
mean something other than this?

[Vam]

It's now about perspective, Lee ... our individual take.

What you mean by consciousness is, to me, the " idea of individuated '
I ' in consciousness."

What you consider as ( full and final ) consciousness, the ' I,' is
in my perspective just a form in memory - ground - of - consciousness,
which again is in ... I have no terms to express ... pure,
undifferentiated consciousness.

On Sep 10, 5:43 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Well Vam you must have the words to express the idea you have or how
have you come to this knowledge.

I would ask you try as hard as you can to put your idea across to me,
look at it as doing Seva!

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Vam]

Did you miss this, Lee ... " pure, undifferentiated
consciousness."

That is, one without forms ... without all forms ... all I and all
matter and beings and creatures and knowledge and thoughts and
emotions and desires and events and effort or action.

At this point, you may disagree with the perspective or find it
without meaning for yourself. But there's nothing I could add to what
I 've already stated in this regard.

And, Lee, there are things one can know and not have the ability to
express it or express it beyond a point.


On Sep 10, 6:38 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote: