The Most Fertile Path of Human Evolution: Intellect or Feeling?

[Royce]

I think you need a new word for what you call "consciousness not created by the brain". It is confusing to call the non-brain created entity "consciousness" that then helps another entity that you also call consciousness develop. Clearly, your second-consciousness is the well known brain faculty, which is a realistic entity possessed by living organisms, that acts to process the material provided external to it (whether from the senses, or other parts of the brain not part of second-consciousness). But now you include in the equation a helper to second-consciousness, perhaps what can be called first-consciousness (unless you know another name already applied), and these two entangle to form a union.

Not to disagree with Les but to attempt to add to his reply. Freud termed our identity as ego and our self awareness as our conscious mind. He also named a super ego which over looked and supervised things and subconscious mind which was our mental activities and emotions below our level of awareness. I think all of these are related to this discussion but none of it directly only as alternate ways of thinking of it.

There is one consciousness whether it be God, a god head, the Universe or whatever. We are individual consciousnesses of our own identity but ultimately part of and one with the one universal consciousness. Normally we dwell within our bodies and are attached via our brain to our body. Under certain circumstances we, our consciousness can become detached and independent from our bodies, retain our identity, awareness and consciousness even though the body may be unconscious.

At other times such as during meditation our consciousness can become disassociated with our body and become consciously one with the universal consciousness and become aware of all the other individual interconnected consciousnesses. There are other occurrences such as going to and becoming one with the void, ultimate awareness of being with no physical body or universe. There are others of which I have heard but never experienced nor personally know of.

I am completely aware that there is no scientific basis or evidence for any of this and there are always alternate, logical, scientific explanations. All of this is disputed and denied, even scoffed at by some scientist; however, none of this changes the reality of these events or experiences nor the historical records of thousands of such events over thousands of years. It ain't science but it is. I guess this mean science isn't all that there is.

 

[loseyourname]

Yes I'm sure of it. Grammar and word choice are normally mechanical and logical. It can't be any other way or we couldn't communicate with each other. Grammar and word choice can be artistic but that is not normal. The fact that it is different gives it special meaning and emphasis. Writing and speaking is an art and is also mundane everyday boring stuff. A good speaker or story teller is a delight to listen to just as a good book is a delight to read while a textbook or a financial report can be torture to endure.

It, they can be both and probably often are which is one reason that activity can be seen in both hemispheres at the same time. We have to be able to understand what is being said as well as appreciate the beauty of the art.

I think you missed my point, Royce. It is that the aural quality of the spoken word often has an affect on the word's meaning, not just its artistry. The fact that one part of the brain is used to process the aural quality of spoken words doesn't mean that that section is being used to appreciate artistry. Take the words "route" and "wound," for instance. Better yet, consider the statement "Thanks for showing me that, it sure was a good route." Am I referring to a highway shortcut my friend showed me, or a basketball game that ended with my favorite team winning by over thirty points? There is no way to know unless you here me say it.

 

[Rade]

I am completely aware that there is no scientific basis or evidence for any of this and there are always alternate, logical, scientific explanations. All of this is disputed and denied, even scoffed at by some scientist; however, none of this changes the reality of these events or experiences nor the historical records of thousands of such events over thousands of years. It ain't science but it is. I guess this mean science isn't all that there is.

I do not wish to argue about personal matters and experiences, so this will be my last post on this thread. But all of these experiences you talk about are well known to science--so I see no reason to seek unscientific explanations. I dusted off a book I have not looked at in years, "Altered States of Awareness", 1972, Scientific American. What you and Les Sleeth have experienced is VERY REAL and well studied even 50 years ago. The "all is one" experience you talk about is directly related (but different in cause) to the mental state known as paranoia. Paranoia is the most vivid example of a breakdown in the ability of the brain to distinguish the borders of the "self" and the "other", a basic human psycological constancy that allows one to discriminate between the subject and the object. Here is what was published on this topic by Barron, Jarvik, and Bunnell in 1964: "Mystical and transcendental experiences are marked by the loss of this same basic constancy...In the mystical state the distinction between the subject and the object disappears; the subject is seen to be one with the object. The experience is usually one of rapture or ecstacy...when the subject thus achieves complete identification with the object, the experience seems beyond words". This state can be entered using hallucinogenic drugs, or not. Finally, I can now understand your anger with Rand, clearly she was not talking about this type of mysticism experience where there is a neural breakdown of basic human mental function.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Tonight I watched the Eagle’s farewell concert for the 4th time in the last month. I did so over the objections of my wife, although after the first 30 minutes she stopped resisting and got into it once again.

Hey, does anybody else long for more 3,4,5 part harmony music? When they did “Hole in the World” and “Love will Keep us Alive,” I blissed out. Geez I miss it. Okay, sorry, my brain went off there.

Anyway, I thought between songs, what would this music be like if a computer composed and performed it? Eagle band members often sing with eyes closed, bodies swaying with feeling . . . If we took out the feeling part, would the music suffer, would listeners enjoy it as much? Would any human lover of music consent to removing the feeling aspect from all the songs in their music collection?

Would a computer consen t? Sure, why not, it wouldn’t notice anyway. In case it isn’t obvious, I am still trying to suggest that feeling is more basic to being human than the brain’s thinking/computing power.

 

[Royce]

But all of these experiences you talk about are well known to science--so I see no reason to seek unscientific explanations. I dusted off a book I have not looked at in years, "Altered States of Awareness", 1972, Scientific American. What you and Les Sleeth have experienced is VERY REAL and well studied even 50 years ago. The "all is one" experience you talk about is directly related (but different in cause) to the mental state known as paranoia. Paranoia is the most vivid example of a breakdown in the ability of the brain to distinguish the borders of the "self" and the "other", a basic human psychological constancy that allows one to discriminate between the subject and the object. Here is what was published on this topic by Barron, Jarvik, and Bunnell in 1964: "Mystical and transcendental experiences are marked by the loss of this same basic constancy...In the mystical state the distinction between the subject and the object disappears; the subject is seen to be one with the object. The experience is usually one of rapture or ecstacy...when the subject thus achieves complete identification with the object, the experience seems beyond words". This state can be entered using hallucinogenic drugs, or not. Finally, I can now understand your anger with Rand, clearly she was not talking about this type of mysticism experience where there is a neural breakdown of basic human mental function.

I have not, of course, read the articles that you site; but, from the quotes and remarks that you posted, it does not seem like science to me but more like dismissal as insanity and/or delusion. Isn't that what I said in my previous post? It may well be, as I have said here in the past. However, I cannot accept anyone's opinion, whether passed off as scientific or not, who has not experienced true, deep meditation and experienced the events that not just Les and I have have had but a number of others including some members and past members of PF.

The personal insight, understanding and verifiable personal revelations that I have experienced over the years while meditating gives credence to these episodes whether paranoid schizophrenic delusions or not.

Of course it isn't science and I'm crazy so belay, delete and ignore everything after "Duh?"

 

[Royce]

I think you missed my point, Royce. It is that the aural quality of the spoken word often has an affect on the word's meaning, not just its artistry. The fact that one part of the brain is used to process the aural quality of spoken words doesn't mean that that section is being used to appreciate artistry. Take the words "route" and "wound," for instance. Better yet, consider the statement "Thanks for showing me that, it sure was a good route." Am I referring to a highway shortcut my friend showed me, or a basketball game that ended with my favorite team winning by over thirty points? There is no way to know unless you here me say it.

I don't think that I missed your point but concurred with it as a given. The meaning of words are understood by their usage in a given sentence whether spoken or written. It is often used as license or devise to lend humor or emphasis. It is often in the form of a pun, intentional or not. It is part of the artistry of writing and speaking. I concede to your point; but wonder how it pertains to the discussion at hand.

 

[alias25]

If you felt happy all the time you would eventually become sad.