Is Consciousness Just the Result of Electrical Activity in Our Brains?

[Les Sleeth]

Hi,

It appears that what you are calling consciousness is just a progression of attractor states of neuronal (and glial) path self-organization,

Verbal thought itself can be seen as a self-organization arising from the speech and hearing areas of the brain. Likewise visual thought from the visual processing areas.

The true self of being is not physical. It may become aware through a medium of physical experience but it exists essentially beyond the physical medium.

I arrived at this conclusion from experience, not from anything else.

juju

I personally agree with the last part of your post. But I don't think most of us are defining consciousness as "a progression of attractor states of neuronal (and glial) path self-organization." You might want to reread the discussions about subjectivity.

 

[juju]

I personally agree with the last part of your post. But I don't think most of us are defining consciousness as "a progression of attractor states of neuronal (and glial) path self-organization." You might want to reread the discussions about subjectivity.

I didn't mean to imply that you were defining consciousness this way,

What I meant was that I see the physical aspects of what you are considering as being this way.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

juju

 

[pack_rat2]

"...When we are asleep and unconscious we are not aware of space or time."

I don't think we are EVER unconscious. In sleep labs, theyve awakened subjects during periods of the deepest sleep, to find that the people reported having had very nebulous dreams; but seconds later, those memories vanished. Also, I had an operation as a child, and had very vivid dreams while under the anesthesia. I think we're conscious at all times, but we often FORGET that we were conscious.

"So consciousness involves awareness of space and time, or perhaps
just the existence of space and time, relative to me."

One need not be aware of anything to be conscious.

"What do I mean by 'me' ? By 'me' I mean some entity,quantity,quality that is different from everything else in the world.A soul perhaps."

Or a "consciousness."...a sense of "I am," without necessarily an awareness of anything else.

 

[Bobby R]

Consciousness or being aware can be attributed to your brain’s central processing unit being on. As for having a soul, it’s like hitting your funny-bone! Once you do you know you have it.
Bob Rollins

 

[gptejms]

I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?

That is what one of the theories is -- that possibly consciousness is something that developed before the universe, or at least before biology. One so-called "panpsychic" theory, for instance, is that consciousness is an omnipresent quality that coexists with the universe, as a property that developed with the universe; in that model, the central nervous system of biology could be seen as something which helps evolve an individual being in the general consciousness pool.

Another theory which I like is that consciousness developed before the universe and assisted with its development.

But of course, it's all theory. Right now nobody's got a disembodied consciousness they can study.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Consciousness or being aware can be attributed to your brain’s central processing unit being on. As for having a soul, it’s like hitting your funny-bone! Once you do you know you have it.

Well, that's what we've been debating. At least one aspect of consciousness, subjectivity, doesn't seem explained by brain physiology. (I liked your soul and humor point. )

 

[pack_rat2]

I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?

I believe there is. But getting into the reasons would require a whole new, and very extensive, discussion topic.

 

[graffix]

This is strictly an idea, but thinking about consciousness forces you to be creative, since it's really really hard to prove much of anything. Here goes:

Since no two persons (two consciousnesses) share the same 3d space at the same time, why do we necessarily assume that our consciousnesses should all share the same 4th dimensional space (time). In philosophy class I remember learning that you really can't prove anything other than your own existence (I think therefore I am). I can't prove that inside the body of you (that's reading my post) lies the same type of consciousness that I am experiencing. Would it be possible that you, (that's reading my post) is actually more like an NPC (like in computer or roleplaying games), and that I am allowed to see your reactions to my post (if we're in the same room), but there is not the EXPERIENCING of reading my post WHILE I have a consciousness? Your reaction that I would be able to see, if we were in the same room, is either 1) one of the probable reactions you will have or 2) a reaction that you experienced previously/will experience in the future? If you can imagine that, can you imagine that maybe, sometime in the future or in the past, I will eventually get to be you, the reader?

 

[gptejms]

That is what one of the theories is -- that possibly consciousness is something that developed before the universe, or at least before biology. One so-called "panpsychic" theory, for instance, is that consciousness is an omnipresent quality that coexists with the universe, as a property that developed with the universe; in that model, the central nervous system of biology could be seen as something which helps evolve an individual being in the general consciousness pool.

Without the body, what would the consciousness be conscious of?With no sense organs,is there any role for consciousness?
I have not understood your last statement--'the C.N.S. of biology could be seen as...'.Please elaborate.

Another theory which I like is that consciousness developed before the universe and assisted with its development.

If we assume that consciousness is non-physical(no supporting matter),then how can it develop or help develop the physical universe?

 

[Canute]

That is what one of the theories is -- that possibly consciousness is something that developed before the universe, or at least before biology.

I think I agree with gpgejms here. The idea that something could develop outside of spacetime seems to embody a contradiction.

But of course, it's all theory. Right now nobody's got a disembodied consciousness they can study.

Ah, I was about to disagree - then I spotted the wink.

 

[Rader]

If we assume that consciousness is non-physical(no supporting matter),then how can it develop or help develop the physical universe?

A way out of your dilemma is to consider consciousness, information. No physical system can function or evolve without information and energy.

 

[allanpatrick]

Consciousness is awareness and comprehension of ideas and concepts that are readily at hand or within our circle of influence. Comprehension of ideas and concepts may include minute analysis of everyday mundane life processes like the simple awareness that one breathes. Consciousness is the mind absorbing the vast horizon of understanding that is reachable within the reality of a finite, physical nature. It is something physical because it is ultimately human; there is no other way of communicating consciousness but only through the bodies we have.

 

[allanpatrick]

I once asked a teacher in Philosophy this question: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it crash down, can anybody even say it made any noise? The answer is of course no. We would have no way of knowing; human consciousness is limited by the finite physical nature of our bodies. There is no such thing as being aware or conscious of the noise you have never heard. Consciousness moves within the realm of what human understanding permits.

 

[gptejms]

A way out of your dilemma is to consider consciousness, information.

What would this information be---information about what?

 

[allanpatrick]

Regarding the post of graffix on being sure only of one's own existence, Rene Descartes created that problem out of not regarding the body as the kernel of existence. Descartes' problem concerns finding a link between the cogito (literally, a cloud of thought) and the rest of the universe. Descartes deals with mind-body duality when in fact our we can only exist through our bodies and our bodies can only go about its normal function with the help of the mind. Yes graffix, you will always be another person (with emphasis on "another"). There is no means by which you can grasp my consciousness (we haven't developed the technology for that and even if we did, sharing the consciousness of another does not reduce us to that person---we cannot become completely like the other). To be completely like the other and to consider consciousness as something that can be shared is equating our body and consciousness to a list of genes that when combined properly to produce the exact same persons who think in the exact same way. A case in point would be identical twins; indentical twins can't even think perfectly alike! My consciousness which I enrich by what I experience with my body is ultimately something that will always be a mystery to another---to you. My awareness is something beyond what your body allows your mind to comprehend.

 

[treat2]

Just going to throw in what I do know, and leave it to those that wish to draw a distinction between humans and all other animals, to debate.

The driving force behind the continual redefinition of consciousness are the discoveries that we make, every few years, about the mental capabilities of apes and chimps.

From the point of view of Psychology, when looking back the past 40 or more years, consciousness is continually redefined by psychologists and behaviorists... which reminds me of what B.F. Skinner would have to say about the subject... I'll leave that for those that are interested to lookup.

We leave behind a trail of inadequate definitions of conciousness, beginning with tool making/planning, and ranging far and wide to self-awareness/self-consiousness (as in recognition of what one is seeing in a mirror), advancing to conceptualization & linguistic understanding, and even the ability to understand the concept of Zero (i.e. beyond the Greeks) and perform simple mathamatics.

All such definitions have fallen short of what chimps and apes are capable of. (Yes. It was shown (about 10 years ago) that chimps not only understand the concept of zero, they can also understand that a number can represent any object(s) they can manipulate, as well as, act as a conceptual representation of such objects).

Now, for some fool to jump in and define it as fear of one's own death! Hah! That's a joke!

I leave it to those that are interested to investigate the most recent definition of conciousness by psychologists and animal behaviorists, to research, if interested. I am not, anymore.

The definition of conciousness by such professionals has been advanced to an absurdity that is adequately unclear for most people to comprehend. That's an achievement, and should keep us safe from admitting to being as primative as an ape or a chimp.

I leave it to you all to debate such tactics. I lost the desire to do so, several decades ago.

Here's a site for starters on the subject:

assc.caltech.edu Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC) at:

http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

Without the body, what would the consciousness be conscious of?With no sense organs,is there any role for consciousness?
I have not understood your last statement--'the C.N.S. of biology could be seen as...'.Please elaborate.

This is a difficult problem if you've not thought about it before. If you believe consciousness is the result of neural processes, and basically that boils down to electro-chemical complexity, then what I said won't make sense.

But what if consciousness is not created by the brain, but is made of some kind of primordial substance which associates with the brain. In previous threads I've proposed this primordial substance as a sort of vibrant "illumination" since people who've become skilled at meditation report that consciousness seems composed of something like that. There is an idea coined "neutral monism" by Bertrand Russell, which explains the most fundamental existence as just some kind of absolute stuff. The idea is that this fundamental existence stuff is uncreated and indestructible, and it exists in a infinite "ocean" or continuum. Everything from matter and energy to consciousness would be a "form" of the fundamental existence stuff. Now, say there are dynamics in the fundamental existence continuum that can cause some of this "stuff" to become conscious. Since its indestructible, maybe it evolves for an unimaginable period and develops abilities, including the ability to give its own fundamental existence stuff, now conscious, shapes. One of those shapes is matter, and a few billion years of development down the road is biology, then a central nervous system that can sort of "draw" in the raw conscious energy from the originating pool to be become an individual.

Even after explaining everything is one substance, some people still see the rough model I gave you as dualistic. I will explain about that when I answer your next question since you seem to see physical and non-physical as meaning dualism.

If we assume that consciousness is non-physical(no supporting matter),then how can it develop or help develop the physical universe?

In another thread where I've been debating, I attempted to explain why if there is some one most fundamental existent stuff, then it solves the problem of dualism. Here's how I answered there using water vapor as an analogy for the fundamental existent stuff, water for energy, and ice for matter (i.e., they are analogous in that they all three are "forms" of the same H20 "stuff"):


I’ll rely on the analogy of gas, liquid, and solid forms of water to elucidate. Let’s say water vapor is the fundamental existent; that is, water vapor is extended infinitely in every direction, so we’ll call it the vapor continuum. It was never created, it can never be destroyed, it can only change form. How might it change form? Part of the dynamics of the vapor continuum are temperature fluctuations. Every great once in while a spot in the continuum cools enough for the vapor to turn to liquid water. Let’s say in even a greater once in a while, cooling and warming happens over and over again at one exact spot, so that that spot becomes conditioned, acquires traits, and actually “learns” to change itself back and forth between vapor and liquid; and then later it learns to cool itself even more and create solid ice.

The “knowledge” of this is most realized in the vapor condition, because that is what defines fundamental existence. Interestingly, because “knowing” is present in the vapor, when it uses itself to form water, that water has a bit of “knowing” built into it too, though dulled by density; the same is true of the solid condition, except the knowing is even more dulled (because it’s more dense). Now, if a being were made up of vapor (consciousness) water (energy) and ice (matter), they all share a existential relationship (i.e., they are all made up of the same substance), and all share the “knowledge” that is built into them, but at different levels of knowing.

Because in this case “physical” is defined as when the fundamental stuff acquires structure, we call ice (matter) physical, and we also call water (energy) physical because (viewing from our physical perspective) it appears to be derived from ice (matter) as it “melts”; and because the vapor (spirit?) has no structure, we call it non-physical. Now, as for how vapor (as conscious fundamental existent stuff) could trigger energy to move matter, since the vapor naturally and always exists at a higher temp, when it “touches” ice, that causes a release of water. The vapor itself doesn’t give up water (energy) because that’s not the condition vapor is in. But the natural “warm” way it is will cause energy to flow. Since (returning to the reality of biology) there are huge neural networks set up to channel the flow of energy, all the “warm” consciousness has to do is touch the stored energy spots in the right place to trigger release and action.

The bigger point is, there is really no essential difference in all the absolute essence and its forms, there are just different conditions determining how they are experienced from our perspective living here in the “frozen” universe. If that’s the case, then you cannot classify the fundamental existent as physical. All that’s physical are forms of the fundamental existent, the fundamental existent is not a form of the physical.


I hope that was helpful.

 

[juju]

Hi,

The real self is (or has) a body-like vehicle which contains its own capabilities for awareness and perception.

This is from my own experience.

juju

 

[gptejms]

This is a difficult problem if you've not thought about it before. If you believe consciousness is the result of neural processes, and basically that boils down to electro-chemical complexity, then what I said won't make sense.

But what if consciousness is not created by the brain, but is made of some kind of primordial substance which associates with the brain. In previous threads I've proposed this primordial substance as a sort of vibrant "illumination" since people who've become skilled at meditation report that consciousness seems composed of something like that. There is an idea coined "neutral monism" by Bertrand Russell, which explains the most fundamental existence as just some kind of absolute stuff. The idea is that this fundamental existence stuff is uncreated and indestructible, and it exists in a infinite "ocean" or continuum. Everything from matter and energy to consciousness would be a "form" of the fundamental existence stuff. Now, say there are dynamics in the fundamental existence continuum that can cause some of this "stuff" to become conscious. Since its indestructible, maybe it evolves for an unimaginable period and develops abilities, including the ability to give its own fundamental existence stuff, now conscious, shapes. One of those shapes is matter, and a few billion years of development down the road is biology, then a central nervous system that can sort of "draw" in the raw conscious energy from the originating pool to be become an individual.

Even after explaining everything is one substance, some people still see the rough model I gave you as dualistic. I will explain about that when I answer your next question since you seem to see physical and non-physical as meaning dualism.




In another thread where I've been debating, I attempted to explain why if there is some one most fundamental existent stuff, then it solves the problem of dualism. Here's how I answered there using water vapor as an analogy for the fundamental existent stuff, water for energy, and ice for matter (i.e., they are analogous in that they all three are "forms" of the same H20 "stuff"):


I’ll rely on the analogy of gas, liquid, and solid forms of water to elucidate. Let’s say water vapor is the fundamental existent; that is, water vapor is extended infinitely in every direction, so we’ll call it the vapor continuum. It was never created, it can never be destroyed, it can only change form. How might it change form? Part of the dynamics of the vapor continuum are temperature fluctuations. Every great once in while a spot in the continuum cools enough for the vapor to turn to liquid water. Let’s say in even a greater once in a while, cooling and warming happens over and over again at one exact spot, so that that spot becomes conditioned, acquires traits, and actually “learns” to change itself back and forth between vapor and liquid; and then later it learns to cool itself even more and create solid ice.

The “knowledge” of this is most realized in the vapor condition, because that is what defines fundamental existence. Interestingly, because “knowing” is present in the vapor, when it uses itself to form water, that water has a bit of “knowing” built into it too, though dulled by density; the same is true of the solid condition, except the knowing is even more dulled (because it’s more dense). Now, if a being were made up of vapor (consciousness) water (energy) and ice (matter), they all share a existential relationship (i.e., they are all made up of the same substance), and all share the “knowledge” that is built into them, but at different levels of knowing.

Because in this case “physical” is defined as when the fundamental stuff acquires structure, we call ice (matter) physical, and we also call water (energy) physical because (viewing from our physical perspective) it appears to be derived from ice (matter) as it “melts”; and because the vapor (spirit?) has no structure, we call it non-physical. Now, as for how vapor (as conscious fundamental existent stuff) could trigger energy to move matter, since the vapor naturally and always exists at a higher temp, when it “touches” ice, that causes a release of water. The vapor itself doesn’t give up water (energy) because that’s not the condition vapor is in. But the natural “warm” way it is will cause energy to flow. Since (returning to the reality of biology) there are huge neural networks set up to channel the flow of energy, all the “warm” consciousness has to do is touch the stored energy spots in the right place to trigger release and action.

The bigger point is, there is really no essential difference in all the absolute essence and its forms, there are just different conditions determining how they are experienced from our perspective living here in the “frozen” universe. If that’s the case, then you cannot classify the fundamental existent as physical. All that’s physical are forms of the fundamental existent, the fundamental existent is not a form of the physical.


I hope that was helpful.

My objection is to the use of word 'consciousness' for something that's without the body or outside the body--because then you have to answer
the awkward question:-'what's consciousness without a body conscious of?'.
May be you can use the word life force in place of 'warm consciousness' that as you propose touches some energy spots in your body to activate the neural networks.You seem to assume that it's some kind of a battery which when connected to the body produces currents in our neural pathways.I don't agree with this.It's perfectly physical processes that are responsible for currents and potential differences within our body.
Having said the above,I am not proposing that the human body is just an organic matter machine.The kind of things a human being or even protozoa can do is not achievable by present day machines.Plus it's hard to imagine a computer or any other machine with consciousness in the forseeable future.But what really distinguishes a living machine from a machine is difficult to point out---very very difficult.

 

[Les Sleeth]

My objection is to the use of word 'consciousness' for something that's without the body or outside the body--because then you have to answer the awkward question:-'what's consciousness without a body conscious of?'.

You might read up on those who've experienced sensory deprivation devices. Also, acomplished meditators withdraw from the senses and experience consciousness itself. If you have never experienced that, then you might assume consciousness requires the senses, and something "external" to be conscious of. It isn't so. The nature of consciousness itself can be experienced, and that might be all you'd have if consciousness were not in a body (i.e., self experience).

May be you can use the word life force in place of 'warm consciousness' that as you propose touches some energy spots in your body to activate the neural networks.You seem to assume that it's some kind of a battery which when connected to the body produces currents in our neural pathways.I don't agree with this.It's perfectly physical processes that are responsible for currents and potential differences within our body.

No, I am not saying that it's a kind of battery. I agree with you that the body produces its own neural, metabolic, etc. energy. I am saying that consciousness is something different, or in a different condition at least, than all the physical stuff. But I am saying too that the physical aspects of the brain are set up to be easily triggered by an act of will. It's like how easy it is to push a button on an elevator and be taken to the 100th floor. The elevator has all the poteniality for power built into it, all you are required to do is trigger the right circuit to get into work for you.

 

[gptejms]

You might read up on those who've experienced sensory deprivation devices. Also, acomplished meditators withdraw from the senses and experience consciousness itself. If you have never experienced that, then you might assume consciousness requires the senses, and something "external" to be conscious of. It isn't so. The nature of consciousness itself can be experienced, and that might be all you'd have if consciousness were not in a body (i.e., self experience).

How does the meditator know that it's consciousness itself that he's experiencing and not something else?

No, I am not saying that it's a kind of battery. I agree with you that the body produces its own neural, metabolic, etc. energy. I am saying that consciousness is something different, or in a different condition at least, than all the physical stuff. But I am saying too that the physical aspects of the brain are set up to be easily triggered by an act of will. It's like how easy it is to push a button on an elevator and be taken to the 100th floor. The elevator has all the poteniality for power built into it, all you are required to do is trigger the right circuit to get into work for you.

Is an act of will not a physical process of the brain?

Are you now equating consciousness with will?

 

[Les Sleeth]

How does the meditator know that it's consciousness itself that he's experiencing and not something else?

It's the way one knows anything: repeated experience. Some people argue that we can never know if we are brains in a vat, where everything merely appears to be real, or if we are experiencing what we believe we are. Personally I just accept that things are pretty much as they appear.

In your life if you repeatedly experience, say, the results of long-established cooking techniques, then you come to "know" using those techniques can be counted on to produce certain results. Someone who has never taken the time to learn cooking techniques (like my wife just kidding sweetie) might think good results are a matter of chance.

Similarly, if one practices meditation every day for a couple of decades, one comes to "know" (as best as anything can be known) certain things. One of them is that consciousness has innate characteristics which can be experienced. You, of course, as a skeptic can always say my experience is deluded or mistaken. But then, if you haven't practiced meditation and therefore have no personal experience with it, you don't really know if your evaluation is correct or not either.

Is an act of will not a physical process of the brain?

Are you now equating consciousness with will?

I believe an act of will is not first a physical process. There must be a physical counterpart to everything consciousness does that involves the body. The question is where does will originate. I think order is, consciousness wills, the brain responds, and then it depends on what's been willed if other parts of the body become involved. I wouldn't say I'm "equating" consciousness with will, but I am attributing will to consciousness.

 

[magus niche]

another rant on consciousness.

nothing can be absolutely known. i believe we as humans love to construct elaborate stories using our intellect combined with our imagination. i believe what i am saying right here is a perfect example. this does not downplay knowledge though. knowledge gives meaning and motivation and ultimately provides one with his/her own subjective reality. of course, it can be a subjective reality that includes objects (ie. common truths/assumptions).

experiential consciousness is still dependent on analysis of memory using signs/symbols to represent the experience. ie. language, imagery, feeling etc. represent the past, even if one doesn't know what they represent. experiencing the 'now' is a worthy achievement, but one impossible without the past.

a fairly pure conscious experience is being constantly aware of ones awareness (in some forms of meditation), but one could theoretically keep adding to that: ie. aware of being aware of ones awareness etc. etc... and this could be an entrance to one form of multidimensionality, or maybe simply a loop of infinite complexity inevitably prone to madness?
anyway absolute awareness becomes useless in the physical world (not that this is a bad thing...)

each living body/vessel/vehicle is initially a unique sensing machine with memes (instinct) to help guide it (plus family/society that molds and directs it). as we develop throughout our life and experience/understand, this consciousness or awareness of our self also seems to develop in varying degrees and directions (especially with the help of certain external devices); as does the amount of choices become greater (free will). but there are always a certain amount of unknown influences governing our actions through energy fields, subconscious drives, subliminal communication etc. and so it is advantageous to become aware of them via learning and self experiment/analysis...

logic is useful but limited
imagination is infinite but useless
together the synthesis is magic
and the potential both tragic and grand

>>>>transmute the chaos into respectful (de)constructivity.

 

[Les Sleeth]

a fairly pure conscious experience is being constantly aware of ones awareness (in some forms of meditation), but one could theoretically keep adding to that: ie. aware of being aware of ones awareness etc. etc... and this could be an entrance to one form of multidimensionality, or maybe simply a loop of infinite complexity inevitably prone to madness?

My experience has been that it isn't a "loop of infinite complexity." Instead, consciusness simplifies in the sense of unifying. This unity occurs at two levels.

The first is, the multifuctionality of consciousness blends to become singular in focus. In other words, without thinking, one is still aware of what one knows and understands. It is a steady and quiet consciousness that views reality, not one incessantly chattering and thinking and imagining and worrying, etc.

The second level of unity is that not only is consciousness internally unified, it also seems to have joined with an aspect of greater reality which exists in a state of unity everywhere external to an individual consciousness.

In my opinion, the reports of enlightenment have come from the first level of unity, and the reports of God have stemmed from this second unity experience. It is also my opinion that the first level must be fully realized to fully experience the second level.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So do you believe Les that it is an individuals responsibility to achieve union or the collective human races with the objective being to evolve to a higher state whether it be biological, physical, spiritual or whatever ?

I wouldn't say it's a responsibility. I'd classify it as an opportunity.

 

[graffix]

RingoKid:
>>...like in an omnipresent compactified Calabi-Yau dimension.

Ok, hitting spring theory... Could it be possible that our brains are sensitive to something (namely spring movements) in the higher dimensions (let's see.. we've got dimensions 5 to 10 open for the imagination). It could be possible that what seems like random triggering of neurons in the brain is actually its response to spring movements?

If so, does it listen to it or do springs listen to the brain? Maybe both. Maybe feeling the music with thousands of other fans at a rock concert could be what's like thousands of people influencing & experiencing springs (a feeback loop). A "vibe" in a room, etc.

Ok, back to describing what we know of consciousness, I would think my dog, my cat, even a rat, a bat, a lizard, even a spider probably have some type of consciousness that is closer to our own than we realize. They are able to process information, are never completely predictable, and all seem to have a place (we call consciousness) where neural events are Experienced. In this sense, psychological (our past, childhood, etc.) and biological (genetic makeup) angles to answering this question is irrelevant. Most of us can agree that things with Life probably have consciousness.

Ok, I need to repeat: all living things seem to have a place where neural events are Experienced. I say neural events because ultimately all our inputs from our senses get translated to neural activity. What is to Experience? To have a reaction. In another words, to Feel something. All living things seem to be able to feel pain, and to feel satisfied (when reproducing or eating). Is this ironic or nothing special? Now we are taught that this is an effect of evolution and that we needed a reward/punishment structure to survive, but what if these Feelings are actually higher dimensions that always existed, and because of these dimensions being part of our universe, we were allowed to have our evolution occur?
Perhaps each higher dimension is a fundamental type of Feeling that's experienced by all life forms, such as happy-sad (mentally content-noncontent), pleasure-pain (physcially content-noncontent), attentive-non attentive, etc. etc. etc.



allanpatrick: thanks for replying :)

 

[gptejms]

You, of course, as a skeptic can always say my experience is deluded or mistaken. But then, if you haven't practiced meditation and therefore have no personal experience with it, you don't really know if your evaluation is correct or not either.

I'm not a skeptic, it's just that I'm not satisfied with the kind of explanations that are provided here(or anywhere else for that matter).The simple rule that :- matter(body) + soul/conciousness/life-force = living being appears too naive to me.May be this formula is given to the common man to give a semblance of something that's too difficult to comprehend.

I believe an act of will is not first a physical process. There must be a physical counterpart to everything consciousness does that involves the body. The question is where does will originate. I think order is, consciousness wills, the brain responds, and then it depends on what's been willed if other parts of the body become involved. I wouldn't say I'm "equating" consciousness with will, but I am attributing will to consciousness.

This reminds me of a book I read:-'Quantum healing' by Deepak Chopra.If I remember right,he talks of similar things:-a thought or a feeling is at first not a physical process,but it gives rise to chemicals in our neurons which travel all around affecting each and every cell in the body and hence our state of health.This conversion of a non-physical process into a physical one(i.e. release of chemicals) can not be understood and he calls this regime 'quantum'.Looks impressive but I'm not sure.The gap from a non-physical process to a physical one is too large.Besides,it may be totally unnecessary to invoke a non-physical process here.

 

[Kerrie]

let's keep this topic clean of insults and back on track...i have had to delete several comments that are instigating arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

 

[gptejms]

Let me add the following:-
I find the idea matter(body) + soul = living being, wrong/inadequate because of the following reason.By its very definition, the soul is non-physical which when mixed with the body produces a living entity.Ok,so this soul has to be somewhere within the body:-so it has a size less than or equal to the body.Your soul is different from mine which is different from that of another person's soul:--so souls can be counted.If anything has a size and can be counted then how can it be non-physical.So there is a contradiction.
I won't say QED here.Soul could actually be infinite which powers each and every cell in the body---bodies of all living beings.I can't prove this wrong.
In any case,I find consciousness not the right word for what is being discussed here:-consciousness is just a property of the brain.

 

[RingoKid]

I'd noticed that Kerrie

Most all major religions and eastern philosophies have consciousness extant of the body but very few will venture to state exactly where that is or how we acquire it in either the physical or non physical universe whatever you define that to be

It seems preferred to couch this oversight in mystical/ambiguous jargon while often assigning properties of personhood to this realm and state that it is everywhere and nowhere.

Though on reading a few things it seems that science/philosophy would have the solution to the domain of consciousness within the realms of physics.

I too agree and would argue that the best candidate model to date is within the compactified dimensions of string theory.

Tom Mattson on the other hand disagrees with me and rather than address the points/issues I have raised would rather attempt to belittle and insult me. A most immature means of getting one's point across

I would therefore challenge Tom to put up his best candidate model with some reasoning as to why he thinks it is or at least pull me up on issues with my model that he would like some clarification on.

cheers

 

[quantumdude]

I too agree and would argue that the best candidate model to date is within the compactified dimensions of string theory.

You "would argue" it?

So then argue it already. All you've done is state it to be the case. And when people ask you to explain yourself, you simply declare that it's right because you know it subjectively, or something to that effect. That is not acceptable argumentation.

Tom Mattson on the other hand disagrees with me

Your reading comprehension skills need work. At no point have I ever denied your metaphysical propositions. I have explained this to you repeatedly, and no matter how many times I say it you just don't seem to get it. I can explain myself to you as clearly as I can, but I can't understand for you. That takes mental effort on your part.

Back to your claims: What I do deny is that you have any justification for holding forth your metaphysical claims. No one has ever extrapolated the most fundamental known physical entities and interactions to a model of consciousness. In fact, no one has ever given a satisfactory account of consciousness that is purely physical. And the connection between consciousness and quantum theory is something that exists only in pop science literature, and in the minds of those who only know science at the popular level.

and rather than address the points/issues I have raised

There's nothing to address. You haven't presented an argument.

would rather attempt to belittle and insult me.

A most immature means of getting one's point across

Look in the mirror.

I would therefore challenge Tom to put up his best candidate model with some reasoning as to why he thinks it is or at least pull me up on issues with my model that he would like some clarification on.

I hope you at least understand basic logic well enough to know that I do not need a competing argument to state what is wrong with your argument. In fact, to date you have not even presented an argument.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Consciousness as relates the mind/thought area, is just another element of the perceptive matrix. Just another object of another sense mechanism. It is an awareness of the thought process produced by the neurons in the brain.

It is awareness in general that is the non-physical component of all the objective senses including consciousness.

juju

 

[graffix]

Let's keep this topic clean of insults and back on track...i have had to delete several comments that are instigating arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

I think that needs repeating.

I don't think it's that hard to be humble in here

Thanks

Humble
- Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

i've been reading a lot in here about explaining consciousness with physics. certainly any sane physicist must admit that we have not discovered everything. there are forms of energy and particles that we have not observed or catalogued. i think it's possible that consciousness could be based upon some of these forms of energy or particles that we have not yet discovered. but i also agree that there is no observation or data to support such a theory. but i think that's half the point, we haven't observed the particles yet, so of course we can't observe how they interact to cause consciousness.

on another venue, consciousness seems to be one of the most enigmatic words we seek to define. and i don't think anyone has yet given a satisfactory definition of consciousness. before we can hope to discover what causes consciousness, we need to define what it is we're looking for. this is where i can express my opinion, because i believe that consciousness is by its very nature indefinable. but maybe that's just the philosopher in me :)

in any event, we can't hope to find the root of consciousness soley in physics, nor soley in physiology. yes we know about neurons and neurotransmitters, but we don't know how electromagnetic fields might affect their interaction. how might a supernova in a distant galaxy 4 million years ago affect our consciousness? it's too incomplete a picture to say that it's all in the chemical reactions. there's a relationship between chemistry and physics, especially in living organisms, that i think most chemists and most phsyicists ignore. we need to think in terms of more than one science if we hope to explain some of the most complex events in the universe, such as consciousness.

and that's my rant on that :)