text:
- daniel hehir
- Hamar
- Norway
This conversation is closed.
What is the nature of consciousness? Is consciousness merely a by-product of the physical brain?
Consciousness is perhaps the greatest mystery ever to be presented to mankind. My question is: What is the nature of consciousness? How can the materialistic world view of mankind explain the phenomenon of consciousness. By its nature, which is of a totally immaterial and invisible, with its inner activity of thinking, also a totally invisible activity, which the whole of the scientific world view rests upon..."Thinking". What is thinking if not a non-physical super-sensible invisible, immaterial reality. For the scientific world view to understand itself, it must examine the nature of thinking. And in doing so, the "religious" world view will be able to find something to hang onto.Science and religion can meet on this question. Because it is here where they both fall short. Science cannot explain consciousness out of the materialistic world view. Religion cannot explain evolutionary principles in nature without adapting the scientific world view. The two are locked in an unending battle. Can it be that thinking is,in fact, the "spiritual activity of man"
Gabo Moreno
Feb 27 2011: Daniel.
- +7
Well, I would perhaps start by saying that this theme is dead from the beginning. Who would want to come and exchange ideas in a forum whose tittle betrays a rhetorical intention? You cannot start a serious discussion about consciousness being, or not, a result of the physical biochemistry of the brain if the title is fallacious. Let me try and be clear:
What is the need for the adverb "merely" and for building something of a false dichotomy by going all the way to "by-product"? Why couldn't you have offered more alternatives, and leave the perception of beauty or lack thereof to the person. From where I sit, consciousness is an *amazing* product (not "by-product") of the physical and biochemical interactions going on among the many cells making up the brain. It is the astounding result of billions of years of evolutionary change, it is matter pondering abut itself. It is the universe pondering about the universe. Few things if any could be more poetic and inspiring than this. We might be here for such an incredibly ridiculous amount of time compared to the vastness of the universe and its age. Yet, we are privileged. Matter and energy, star dust, figuring out its own origins.
So, as you can see, "merely" is unjustified, and "by-product" is misleading, since that is not the proper noun for the consequence of lots of events, from the formation of atoms heavier than hydrogen and helium in the stars, to the origin of life, to biological evolution. But your false dichotomy makes it appear as if consciousness is either some godish/soulish thing, or a despicable by-product. Nothing in the middle, no other alternatives.
You might still attract people later. But the title is still a false dichotomy and a charged argument. The way it is written forces people inclined to the natural/material side to automatically accept something they might not hold: "merely" and "by-product."
Feb 27 2011: Hi Gabo,
Well ... I believe that which you call a "false dichotomy" is quite obviously a dichotomy that many people feel themselves in... sort of between a rock and a hard place. If you listen to for example Richard Dawkins, it will become evident for you that I'm not trying to create a false d. at all. It is both "false" as well as a "dichotomy" And this is nothing new. This polarization of science and religion has existed for decades and more.The argument is very charged... to this I fully agree. Dawkins has at least "charged" it for me. I guess RD has inspired me to speak in defense of what I see and understand from my perspective of what the human being is. Neither the creationist or the evolutionist have fully recognized consciousness as any decisive factor in the evolutionary process of mankind. It is, in my mind, consciousness that will give us the middle road to understanding the physical and the spiritual evolution of mankind. This is what I want put on the agenda. I refuse to stand in either park, or on either side of the fence. But I do see that to not give the element of consciousness its full right in the understanding of the human being is to not see the forest for the trees. If you suppose that mankind is (I'll use the word again) "merely" star dust, matter and energy or
biochemical interaction and if you mean to contribute the faculty of consciousness to these purely material
factors than here is where we disagree. That which you call the godish/soulish thing is exactly what I'm getting at.... and the word I prefer to use is this..."spirit" ..... spirit is the same as consciousness. Immaterial ...without any fetishes or ties to the physical world when we die. And if people think that this is a dead theme from the beginning... than thats OK with me. I've got lots of other things to do actually. But if someone else sees this dichotomy and is equally disturbed by it, then they are welcome to come with their comments.
Gabo Moreno
Mar 1 2011: Hi Daniel,
- +3
But you are missing the point. The point is not the dichotomy between material and spiritual. That would seem like a "natural" dichotomy. The false dichotomy is referring to material consciousness with disdain, as if for it being material and material only deprived consciousness of significance or wonderment. If I wanted to start a topic on this I would leave those adjectives to the people discussing the issue. I find enormous beauty and poetry on actual explanations, and find the non-explanations, such as "spirit" and "soul" and "gods" as frustrating. In the end they mean "magic." That does not allow real understanding. Of course, this is not an argument against the spiritual side. This is just my description of how I perceive the issue to help you understand why I find the title both misleading and fallacious. This is not about "either spiritual or despicable." The adjectives put on either side depend on your perception. So, this becomes a charged argument when you label the side you don't like as "merely" and ""by-product" because I don't see this side as either. Thus, I had to first clarify this false perception before even getting into the real matter you might want to talk about. This is what does not work.
Imagine I started a discussion about whether consciousness is either material, or a mere by-product of a ridiculous fairy-tale. If you just started arguing for the "fairy-tale" you would be accepting my description as factual. Unless you started by trying to get that part out.
Anyway, enough of this. Hope you get the idea. I just end by adding that I find it quite disappointing that you would refer to star-dust as "merely." I can't hope to touch the sun ever in my life. yet, each of my atoms was there inside a star. Not only that, they were in a supernova! Talk about awesome! (Is this clear and can I now get to the topic?)
Mar 1 2011: Got your point Gabo. Made a few comments on the page here. I agree with "charged" maybe not so "misleading" though as you say. I can understand where your coming from. The "solely" (is that a better adj.?)material perspective of mankinds evolution is only half of the picture! The other half is his consciousness.... Take a look at what I put out today and get back with me. If I was to pull out the "merely" from the title, I would have to start a new conversation which actually I could. But I want to let it go for now. Maybe it will attract some other ideas that will either support or not support my perspective.Mar 7 2011: Glad to hear RD has got you to stop and think and debate.
Mar 7 2011: I've been thinking about these things for about 35 years now... long before RD crawled out from under his rock.
If all of RD's BS was fireworks he could do a whole 4th of July. But his handle on the meaning of life seems to be so short that he couldn't even fasten it on a matchstick.
What do you think about consciousness Tim?Mar 7 2011: Gabo,
You are so wonderfully amusing!!! You begin your comment with: "I would perhaps start by saying, that this theme is dead from the beginning...who would want to come and exchange ideas in a forum whose title betrays a rhetorical intention?" Well, apparently you found it interesting enough to appear on this page several times with very insightful, beautiful, relevant ideas:>) A topic is only as "charged" as those who are participating in the discussion and it seems like you are "charged" in a beneficial way:>) Discussions get off topic when people get stuck on a certain word, phrase or idea. Is criticism of the word "merely" relevant?
Mar 7 2011: Hey Colleen
Your pretty keen!
Isn't this the coolest TED site
That you've ever seen!
They told me that this site was dead
and that consciousness
was only in my head!
We've showed 'em that we've got some things to say!
So keep on writing... and
have a nice day !! ;-)
Larry Davis
Mar 16 2011: This is a very interesting thread!
- +3
This topic is something I've looked at for many years, both from the inside (experientially) and from the outside (as reading & research). From my point of view, one of the unrecognized aspects of the brain is to function as a master sensory organ. That is, it produces an awareness of the activity of the various sensory systems. This awareness _is_ consciousness. It is not a "mere by-product" of the brain but a primary function. This function has been alluded to in other threads here which called attention to the "witness" function of consciousness. To my way of thinking, the "witness" and consciousness are one and the same!
The sensory system works whether we are conscious (awake) or not. We can hear loud sounds while asleep and there can be a measurable physiological response in the body. However, we are not conscious of them since our consciousness is off (or at a very low level) while sleeping. While awake we are always "conscious of" something or another, as our various sensory systems pick up external and internal data. If we have an overly busy thought system (chatter) we may not be aware of this stream of sensory data that passes through our consciousness. Instead, we construct fictions based on what we think is going on. These fictions are part of what we call the "self" or "ego", a manufactured entity we use to interface with the world.
Mar 17 2011: Hi Larry and welcome to the discussion!
As you can see, this has really taken off ! I started the discussion a few weeks ago and it has been picking up speed ever since. It seems to be a "basic human need" to understand this inner being in us. The self consciousness, as I said earlier, is perhaps the greatest mystery that mankind has faced.
I try to "tackle" the incoming comments as best I can, but now I have a problem keeping up with them all ! But I guess thats not the purpose either. Have you been reading along or have you just popped in?
As you might have noticed I can provoke strong sentiments by interchanging the words spirit/soul with the words consciousness/mind. ... This is sort of the religious vs. science dichotomy that was talked about earlier. Please tell us more of what you think. ...
Do the words to sleep is to excarnate.... and to awake is to incarnate say anything to your way of looking at man? Can you relate to this at all ?
Larry Davis
Mar 25 2011: Hi Daniel,
- +1
This thread has really turned into a crowded room, where it's hard to hear (or find) what everyone's saying!
I have noted the standard fare in intelligent discussion/dialog where you find hard science opposing intuitive expression. This really reflects our innate human nature which has two basic aspects, that is often described as left brain/right brain (see Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor's talk on TED). The brain scientists say this is an oversimplification, but I think it works best when used as metaphor (at least until the science catches up).
Most of us are a mix of the intellectual and intuitive, but I suspect that the intellectual/cognitive is predominant in our society since we are always figuring out consensual reality by an active thought process. The problem is, we make our cognitive processes our home base. The spiritual side of our nature (the right brain) does not have a practical value as far as society is concerned so we tend to keep it suppressed. The shift in consciousness, as illustrated so well by Dr. Taylor's stroke, is when left brain/cognitive dominance can be turned off long enough for the right brain to come online as primary. These shifts are experienced as a spiritual awakening. Ideally, it would better if we can avoid a stroke or NDE to get there! The problem in describing such phenomena is that language resides in the left brain. The right brain is experiential (without conceptual labels) but the left brain deals with the concepts, so the ability to accurately describe the stream of consciousness is almost impossible without using poetic language, which can never be scientific. The trick, I think, is to integrate our dual nature so that neither side is suppressed.
To the scientist's here: I am using left brain/right brain as a metaphor only!
Mar 25 2011: AWWWWWWW.....well said Larry...feels like a breath of fresh air:>)I strongly support your statement that: "Ideally, it would be better if we could avoid a stroke or NDE to get there"! Too late for me, but ya'll have a chance at that one...LOL:>)
One interesting thing about my head/brain injury is that it seemed to cause more connections that were not previously there. All my life, I have been a right brain dominant person. The main damage was to the right temporal lobe, although the entire brain was challenged because of extreme swelling and subdural bleeding. The result is that I'm much more logical/scientific than I was before. It seems that my injury has balanced things a little better:>) Again though, I don't recommend this as way to "find oneself"...LOL:>)Mar 25 2011: Colleen,
I suspect if you were left-brain dominant, you would have a different story to tell. In that case, you would be talking about the "La La land" you visited when the left brain shut down. It looks like it is simpler for a right-brain dominant person to integrate their logical/scientific side than for a left-brain dominant person to integrate their right-brain side. I mean, for a scientist who is used to describing phenomena in precise terms to suddenly be thrown into a pure, non-verbal, sensory experience, it is a real challenge for them to explain. You are very fortunate it worked out so well.
One last thought: The right brain/spiritual/intuitive side of our nature is our real home base. It is the child's innocent nature. As an adult we suppress it in favor of social conditioning, which requires that thinking be dominant. However it happens we need to integrate our child nature with the mature use of thinking (thinking as a tool, not as a way of life). NDEs, brain injury, and spiritual awakenings show us that we can function different than our programming. The balance (or integration) you refer to is our ability to live in a fully human manner.
Mar 25 2011: YES!!!:>) It was very simple!!!:>) LOL
Actually, it really was...challenging, logical and simple:>)
I did it with the curiosity of a child, the tools of the thought/feeling processes and a recognition of my home:>)Mar 25 2011: Larry,
I've been pondering the information you provided, and I want to thank you. It never occured to me that it may be easier for a right brained person to connect with the left brain, than vise versa, but it makes sense, as you have explained it above.
I really, really appreciate you. As I've been reading the comments in this thread for days, I am amazed that people are so stuck in either the spiritual argument or the scientific argument. I keep thinking..."don't they see that it can be both"? I actually surprise myself sometimes, when encouraging people to consider the scientific explanations! This is so amusing! I lived for 43 years as a right brain dominant person, and for the last 21 years integrating the functions of the left brain more. Although I understood it, I did not explain it as well as you have...exquisite! Thank you for being you and sharing the gift with me:>)Mar 25 2011: In my experience, it's all connected Kathy K, which you've said yourself in other comments. So, which is your truth? Everything is connected...or not? If you believe that everything is connected, as you have stated many times before, then it seems odd that you would say that "brain dominance is not a factor, as the consciousness is not affected by brain injury"
My consciousness certainly was affected, so speak for yourself on that darlin'. Also, my perception is not that it is "psychological work". Being a right brain dominant person most of my life, I "play" with a lot of ideas. Now that I'm more connected with the left brain I'm supposed to "work" at it? I don't think so:>)Mar 26 2011: Larry,
Neurology and the science of brain are not my speciality so I will not go into these matters. However, I perceive that when you talk about the "right brain" you focus solely on the socially welcomed aspects such the as poetic/emotional element and the "child's innocent nature" hence you stress the importance of incorporating these aspects in our personality, and I applaud that. However, what you don't touch is the annoying potential of "spirituality" in making many people adopt religious dogmas, submit to imaginary entities and believe in ridiculous superstition. These "spiritual" outcomes are far from being constructive and ultimately lead to the partitioning of the tapestry of humanity and hinder real knowledge. Understanding the evolutionary path for the development of these tendencies is quite useful but it is not my intention to go into that.Mar 26 2011: Dear Mind S,
Spirituality is obviously "annoying" to you, and it may not be for others. When you say things like the "potential of spirituality in making many people adopt religious dogmas, submit to imaginary entities and believe in ridiculous superstition", it sounds like you feel people are giving up their choices when they embrace spirituality?
You know, I was born into a Catholic family, and for 19 years that I was practicing the religion because that was expected of me, I was also questioning and pondering the teachings and dogma of the religion. We all have that choice Mind S. Sure, someone may force us to participate in religious practices as children, but once we become adults, we have choices. It doesn't seem like you're recognizing the idea of choice.
Although I do not practice a religion, I percieve the benefits some people derive from their beliefs, and I respect their choices. The "outcomes" ARE "constructive" FOR SOME PEOPLE, SOME OF THE TIME. Many people who practice a religion or philosophical belief are very knowledgeable and understand the evolutionary path. It is fine if you decide not "to go there". You have that choice, which others respect. How about respecting others choices as well? Seems like you are limiting yourself with a close minded belief:>)Mar 26 2011: One more thought Mind S,
Based on historical evidence, it appears that the concept of spirituality has been around for quite awhile, and we may assume, from that evidence that it will continue to be around. How much time and energy do you want to spend fighting against something that is probably going to exist regardless of your effort?
Comment deleted
Mar 25 2011: Kathy K,
It might be benificial to you and others to put your ego aside and walk your talk:>)
Comment deleted
Mar 25 2011: Kathy K,
It might be benificial to you and others to put your ego aside and walk your talk:>)
Comment deleted
Mar 25 2011: Kathy K,
It might be beneficial to you and others to put your ego aside and walk your talk:>)
With loving kindness,
Comment deleted
Mar 26 2011: Balance is always good:>)
Thanks for the reference to the Claron McFadden talk/sing Ed:>) As a former performing artist, singing, dancing and acting in musical and other theater productions, I totally connect with Claron's calm, alertness, emotion, focus, awareness and freedom of expression.
Thanks a lot for bringing it to our attention:>)
Comment deleted
daniel hehir
Mar 15 2011: Fredric
- +2
You forgot the 4th possibility.
Can you explain consciousness with billiard balls ??!! Lets hear! But it can perhaps present a good example of simple some people think.....
Consciousness can in no way compare with billiard balls. Thats a pretty naive comparison... shape, movement, mass, velocity, angle of impact ... nothing at all mysterious here...
Consciousness is and has been one of philosophy's and sciences biggest puzzles throughout history and you can come along an say its no more that like billiard balls..... well.... you must be incredibly smart Fred !!
But besides your denying soul and spirit, do you have anything interesting to say about consciousness as a phenomena in itself. Any good and meaningful things to say. Tell us for example how self consciousness has evolved and why it has evolved... any good reason for self consciousness??
I suggest you go to the start of this discussion and read all the comments and then come back and discuss the physical vs. the spiritual.... otherwise I'll have to repeat so much of the things that I've already written.
It must be consciousness that triggers the firing of the neural activity. As a sleeping person has no significant thinking activity to measure....
I fully agree that religion has come with a lot of BS up through the years ... but so has science....
Mar 15 2011: the remark about science made me laugh :)
Comment deleted
Mar 16 2011: Fredric, In terms of the billiard balls again,
I see.... so if I say to you Frederic .. think of a triangle.. you then do so.. this triangle exists only in the immaterial world.. or.. The triangle that is now in your mind or your consciousness is totally and without question immaterial .. don't you agree..?
This you have to agree to... so I'll go one step further.
You say that science is on its way to explaining what this "qualia" is... almost that you want to say that this is the end of the search... if science can find this qualia, then, yes then!! we have found the answer to what drives the neural firing.!! hurray!!.. but the triangle that you were thinking about a minute ago. That is gone now.... think about a circle....now the triangle... It's your conscious mind that is reading these words and putting them together in a logical pattern in your own immaterial consciousness, an immaterial idea received over the internet, a million miles away, has been received and carried in your own thoughts by me simply writing the word "triangle" .. is there anything in the shape or the letters... or the form the length of the word that can give any "concrete" picture of a triangle....No... the triangle exists in your mind and my mind and anybody's mind who is just a little bit familiar with basic geometry.
One more thing, I'm not "you guy's" I write only for myself. I don't agree with everything that has been put out here. Don't get me wrong. I think I'm coming from just as strict a scientific line of thought as you are, but I'm trying to say that the immaterial realm of ideas, thoughts, and consciousness must be taken as realities.
I see your interested in Richard Dawkins. Maybe you can relate some of his thoughts on "memes".. I have hear mention of it but havn't had the chance to get into it that much.
What does he mean by a meme?
I perhaps interchange the words "soul/spirit" with "consciousness/mind" Some say this is just semantics but I'm shaking the bridge...
Comment deleted
Mar 16 2011: Didn't know machines did science..
As for BS .. How about NASA scientists claiming Arsenic based microbial life forms ? And after which Arsenic became a life sustainer rather than poison. Now I can't help but trust science
Let's' just not become egotistical about science and lets recognize the fact that science will always remain incomplete and will always grow. That doesn't mean it isn't right , always .Mar 16 2011: Frederic,
I'm with you 100% on that one. The scientific process is the only way to go. There is no room for mere belief. But science has to go further than the material. It must also penetrate the immaterial. This can be done phenomenologically. The study of consciousness must and will come. Their is no difference than in any material research. The fact that consciousness is non-material doesn't mean that science can't study it. Science just has to study the phenomena involved.Mar 16 2011: Daniel: I don't understand your conception of "the immaterial". Is energy immaterial?Mar 16 2011: quickly back to that triangle.... biologically speaking... where do you suppose that triangle is located now in your brain...? Was it there before ..? Is it still there, sort of like a growth...? Do you think it looks at all like the shape of a triangle...? How do you suppose that you can move it around in your imagination... do you think it actually moves around in your brain.... sort of like a little butterfly or an insect creeping about ..? If you thought of a hundred different triangles... do you think you would have a hundred different "footprints" in your physical brain..?
Do you start to see the absurdity of it.... ?? The triangle is an "idea" a "concept" that your thinking can bring forth within your minds eye... or your imagination. I can promise you that you will never find any "quailia" that will give you the answer to this question..!
and its an extremely materialistic corner you've painted yourself in if you really claim to believe this.... Your ideas, memories, thought processes are all purely "consciousness" related phenomena. ..Mar 16 2011: daniel said :
"It must be consciousness that triggers the firing of the neural activity"
How did you reach such bold conclusion? This illustrates an example of one of the non-demonstrated, imaginary assertions of mystics. A category of assertions that have no support from reality but related to subjective, personal emotional/psychological drives. Mystic consciousness represents surrealistic/irrational and ambiguous concept, where there is no way to tell as to its truth or falsehood.
Mar 16 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i3AiOS4nCE - for explaining consciousness " programming the brain "
As far as mystic consciousness are concerned, I can point you to mystics. And certain mystical practices that will change your consciousness. But you will have to do the "experiment" yourself to verify it rather than allow another to be the judge. Trust me, its worth it.Mar 16 2011: Mind S
What do you think triggers the firing of the neurons?Mar 15 2011: Biological evolution remains a mystery. Consciousness thus remains a bigger mystery.
Material universe cannot explain what happened prior to the big-bang. If you mention string theory, again I said material universe in three dimensions.
There are people who do not think, and yet fully function in this world without any difficulties. What validity does thinking have in such a case ? I can point them to you. And I am serious about this.
Experiencing "monism" or non-dual separation as a first hand living experience is completely different from using it merely as a conceptual framework.
Unfortunately, amazing progress doesn't equate to clear cut answers to simple questions such as what is the origin of thought rather than what is the effect of thought in the brain. Until then science is still in a premature stage, and cannot claim progress.
Religion , if misunderstood through the eyes of fundamentalism, or the control structure imposed by the power hungry elite and , will fail to help individuals or science to point to the non-dual awareness within which occur in the origin of all the religions. Science which fails to look at its own "observer" as separate from the universe is equal to being unscientific in the purest sense. Read Biocentrism or works by Robert Lanza. It is the closest scientific theory which comes in line with a reasonable study on the nature of the "observer"
Comment deleted
Mar 16 2011: No scientist have any kind of detailed understanding as to how consciousness emerges from Biological evolution ( not biological evolution alone ).If they did , they would be able to replicate the same in a lab. And simply they haven't. So biological evolution "IS" a mystery, as there are bigger gaps left to be filled. An incomplete theory cannot explain consciousness.
In case you didn't understand what I said, I was wondering what happened prior to the big bang. There is no conclusive explanation science can provide on that other than incomplete theories waiting to be proved. It doesn't have the evidence to claim what happened at the origin as of now.
Until science has come up with proper explanation, it will remain INCOMPLETE. Let's acknowledge this fact rather than claiming unproven theories to explain things we haven't understood yet. Such as quoting biological evolution as the reason for consciousness.
No one is asking philosophy /religion to fill the void. No one is asking science to fill the void using incomplete theories as well.
Thanks for the list. Will look at those. However, you seemed to have avoided one major section in my reply. I had told you I can provide you details of individuals who have experienced the non-dual consciousness. What can scientists do to study these special individuals ?
Consciousness ultimately is a subjective experience. Science is has bigger gaps to fill in the subjective experience. If you looked into the ancient scriptures on yoga, you would recognize it as the science of subjective experiences. There is no need to rely upon mere transient material / objective realm to explain subjective experience that requires individual experimentation. Science still has much to grow compared to scriptures such as Patanjali's yoga sutras.
P.S. Richard Dawkins hasn't experienced Kundalini symptoms and the associated consciousness shift. So I wouldn't value his words in explaining consciousness to be honest.Mar 16 2011: Hi Frederic,
The fact is that no two days of driving to work are exactly alike.. perhaps if you take the train.. then you could sleep and not engage you thinking at all. I really hope for the sake of all car drivers out there on the roads that your "auto-pilot" theory is wrong. Of course there are different degrees of "awake"ness ... this I will agree with. If a sleepwalker should get into his or her car and start driving it.. well .. you see what I mean. Consciousness is a central part in pretty much all that we do ... thinking is perhaps another question. The nuclear scientists in Japan were certainly thinking when they built those nuke plants...but they weren't thinking about all unseen consequences. A billiard ball is a good example of how the physical world works. But to go to more complicated examples is like the one you mentioned as I also did earlier in this discussion, perhaps you yourself had read it seeing that you took up projective geometry.
In fact Fred, I have studied a bit of projective(Aristotelian) geometry. What do you think about the circle expanding to the infinite line on a plane?Have you managed to actually imagine it? What about the sphere expanding to the infinite plane? Can you see the limits of your own thinking? But one can certainly experience that your "imagination" (also a part of your consciousness I might add) is stretched to its limits. One can do all sorts of such mental exercises. Your thinking is actually quite limited. You expand your "idea" of circle until the line of the circle becomes straight..... try it.... Will the line ever become straight ?...and if so, can you imagine it? can you see it in your "minds eye"... if you allow to use such a "non-demonstrated" idea... Does the line of the circle "meet again with itself " ? Does it meet at the infinite point ? Do you know what I'm talking about by the "ideal point"..?
Lets get back to consciousness then... What does your explanation encompass .. and then "self-consciousnes
Comment deleted
daniel hehir
Mar 17 2011: I don't mean for you to give "ALL" the answers Frederic.... Just one .... Take self-consciousness...
- +1
How can you explain self-consciousness in a biological/evolutionary process?
Jacky Tang
Mar 8 2011: Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon generated from the stream of information that flows between the brain and the external world. I specifically mention the brain because that is where the information accumulates and is networked into what we consider to be consciousness. I believe that this continuous stream of information is what constitutes conscious thought. Only when the stream is active do we engage in thought. When we sleep this stream is closed off by the brainstem and the senses, which tie the body to the external environment, are desensitize and we become unconscious. Along those same lines, various events that happen within the body and the brain do not reach the conscious stream. Things like digestion, involuntary movement, and what we call the subconscious consists of information that are automated by the nervous system yet never enter the stream of consciousness.
- +3
Another way to think about it is that the senses tie the internal environment to the external despite a physical barrier. Though we have a physical body our senses allow information from outside the body to be continuous with the inside of the body without disruption. Perceptually we, as conscious beings, believe we are independent units separate from our environment, but we often forget that we are an accumulation of individual cells. Our consciousness is a result of the organization of these cells into a system where a grand stream of information and complex process of this information is possible.
To me, consciousness is about information. Humans are conscious through what their senses can perceive. Cells are conscious of their chemical environments. And civilizations are conscious of social phenomena. Consciousness is not specific to the brain. It is simply an organized stream of information.
Mar 8 2011: Come on Jacky..." Our consciousness is a result of the accumulation of individual cells" This has no meaning. Cells cannot, even if put in the most advanced system, ask the questions "Who am " I " ?? "What am I doing here?" "What is the meaning of life?"...
Consciousness is perhaps, with a stretch of the meaning of the words " information put in a system".... but still... who is the observer.... who is the witness .... who am " I ".....?
As 'Cool'leen put it, there are many levels of consciousness.
My breakdown of her words is the following,
The "sleeping" consciousness or unconscious.
The "dreaming" consciousness or sub-conscious mind.
and finally
The "awake"consciousness, or every day life consciousness.... (not including the woman at the traffic light waiting to turn left...)......pardon the joke Colleen....
Mar 8 2011: I think I understand what Jacky is trying to explain -- part of the problem, as identified in this discussion, is the semantics -- we are trying explain 'consciousness' with the limited tools that language provides. And there are many different 'types' of consciousness -- As Jean-Paul Sartre said: 'The consciousness that says 'I am' is not the consciousness that thinks.'
Are you asking about consciousness as awareness? OR Self awareness?
You might enjoy reading "Transcending the Speed of Light: Consciousness, Quantum Physics, and the Fifth Dimension " which argues that consciousness is a fifth dimension -- and I am inclined to agree, considering how woefully inadequate
Mar 8 2011: Hi Linda and welcome to the discussion. We are pretty caught up in semantics yes... but were working on it with a positive attitude trying to get to the bottom of what its all about. I don't have time to go so much into a conversation just now but will try to get back to you tomorrow. What, by the way is Sartre's differences in conscioussness and the thinking consciousness..? Sounds interesting... especially if you can put it in a nutshell for me... Don't have much time to read these days, too much going on otherwise. But I'd love to hear more so if your into it, put out some of the ideas presented... as well as your own. Have you been following this discussion for a long time or are you new here? Your last few words are missing in your comment... but there is surely a lot thats woefully inadequate ;-)Mar 10 2011: One could say that there is only one type of consciousness, the only difference is just where it is active. Because we have an inner experience of consciousness we can say " I " about ourselves. A child, up to around the age of 2.5 to 3 years does not say " I " about him/herself. They use their own name when they talk about themselves.... as in "Daniel wants a chocolate" As the "incarnation process" takes place, as the "spirit" takes a deeper hold of the individual, the inner experience is then expressed as " I " The consciousness element is the same, the degree of "incarnation" .... (in our meat) to put it rather bluntly, the more we "gain access" to the physical body, the more express this individualized consciousness that we experience as "mine" Is it really just mine? Or is it only the experience of being mine. Could it be that all consciousness has one universal source of consciousness? I don't want to try to answer that question... But the consciousness of the animal is clearly more dampened than ours as to the respect of "thinking." Awareness, such as a fox or a rabbit, awareness in sounds or visual senses can be much more deeply incarnated. If you get my idea ..? The flock of birds analogy that I used earlier in this TED thread is a good example of a form of consciousness that is externalized from the physical individuality. Here the spirit/soul of the bird can "operate" the individual bird in unison as the flock so mysteriously moves as one.... or... it can operate in each individual with different movement patterns. Take the example of putting your ten fingers through ten holes in a cardboard box. You can move your fingers very systematically as a flock... or individually, but the consciousness that is steering the movement is just yours. The nervous system is internalized in us as human being and science tells us that the neurons firing in your brain are the origin of this finger movement. But consciousness is the real initiator.Mar 8 2011: Jacky,
I agree with most of what you've written: "consciousness is a stream of information...information accumilates in the brain and is networked". I do not agree that when we sleep, this stream is turned off.
My experience tells me that there are several layers of consciousness, and when we are asleep, our brain can be conscious on other levels, like the dream state for example. I also experienced the thought/feeling process on another level when I was unconscious after a near fatal brain injury. The program that runs my human conscious thoughts was disabled, but I was aware of much more on another level. I agree that consciousness is about information, and if we are aware on many different levels, it may be an "organized stream of information". I call this "stream of information" energy.
Our bodies/brains are made up of cells, are they not? Jacky feels that the stream of information is made up of cells, I call this "stream of information" energy. Do you think we could be saying the same thing and using different terms?
Cool'leen................makes me smile:>)
Mar 8 2011: Hi again Colleen!,
Didn't you see my poem to you a little further down the list? Aren't you up pretty early this morning?
Back to the discussion,
Sleep can only be partly penetrated by out waking day consciousness. Deep sleep is pretty unaccesable for the most of us.
Sure, we are made of up of cells. But so is the plant and the animal. Consciousness is something completely different for them. Where the animal is awake in a more of a dream state, we, the human being are mostly awake in our daytime conscousness. Take a sportscar driver. He /she must be extremely awake to drive at such speeds where things happen so fast. While a person that is more or less unaware of his/her surroundings is not so awake.This awakeness is a process, that for me, begins in the morning with my first cup of coffee, and around my second or third cup I start to feel awake. What knowledge that comes to me from the outer world is "logged" or "processed" (to use computer language) and put into my "system of information" where that logging takes place is another question. I don't by any means believe that this logging is done in the physical brain, although again I know this will create controversy. We can get back to this later, just where the "logging of information takes place. The materialists are all shaking their heads, they say I'm strange... but somethings lost and somethings gained, in living every day... J.M. clouds
The cell in itself has no logging ability, nor does it know where to look for your memories. The cell level of our nature is providing the vehicle for the "energy" to manifest itself. This energy is also of different "levels" to use a physical word for a spiritual picture.
I also wrote further down that it would be interesting to hear more details about your NDE. I wonder if you also saw your whole life in review. This is a usual phenomenon for people who have NDE. The next question is then how do we "see" all these pictures as if in a tablau stretched out before us?
Mar 8 2011: Hi again Daniel,
Yes, I saw your clever poem:>)
In my experience, sleep can be penetrated by our waking day experience, and deep sleep is very accessable to me:>) An example of penetrating the sleep state with awake experience, is that years ago, I was a professional actress, singer, dancer, performing in musical theater. I found the best way to remember lines and choreography, was to review the information just before sleep, with the intention of programing my brain to remember. I found that in the morning, it was programmed, as I intended. So, you see, I believe that we can penetrate the sub-conscious and various other levels of consciousness while sleeping.
I like using computer language because I percieve the brain as very much like a computer. I believe that the cells do have "logging ability". How else is the information stored in the brain?
Yes, I saw my lives in review. As humans, we usually don't have an energy vibration high enough to carry all of those memories. It would be like plugging a 220 appliance into a plug that only accepted a smaller voltage:>)Mar 8 2011: I agree with Colleen. My experience of sleep is that it is often, maybe even usually, a richer experience than being awake. I often wake from a dream with the sense that the events in my dream happened over a much longer period of time than seven hours, or however long I slept. It would seem then, that I am having more experience per second while asleep, than while awake.
edit: I also see no evidence that animals are in some sort of dream state, or that their consciousnesses are any less awake than ours. There is plenty of evidence that they are intellectually inferior, and it would seem obvious that there are qualitative differences between the consciousnesses of a human and say, a lizard. But I see no evidence of quantitative differences. My cat seems just as aware of me as I am of it.Mar 8 2011: A stream of information is in no way made up of cells. It's made up of pictures, sounds, and all that our senses bring into our consciousness. Even feelings are sense impressions. Have you ever gotten a stomach ache from watching a violent film. Feelings are not merely cells. Cells are the living elements that carry the sense activity, or to say it in a more esoteric way, the soul activity. Our soul and spirit are seated in the living element. Cells are providing the basis for the soul and spirit activity to be incarnated on the physical plane of existence. This life element is, I think, what you are calling the energy body, which is also a body of light. This is the body of light that many that have had a NDE tell about when they re-awake in their physical body. They tell of a body of light that is all pervasive and is not only "their" body but "everythings" body of energy. An essoteric name for this is the "etheric body".... also the body where all your memories are stored. This is the tablau that we "see" without our physical eyes when we die or have a NDE.
The ancient cultures of the world knew this. This is what the initiation rituals were all about. To give the initiate a "glimps" of this "other" level of existence. To observe this "energy" world without the physical body. ..... I hope this isn't getting to deep now.... I've got to go and make dinner so my physical body can go on living.... All my ingredience will come from the this living world, although material, and pretty much "dead", but at one time or another everything I eat (or at least should eat) has also taken part in this "energy" or "life" world. You can eat a truck load of minerals, you can even eat the truck,... but to sustain the energy body, we must take in something that has been living itself before. The point that I'm finally getting around to is that this energy body is a "concrete"(a terribly physical word) reality that has its own existence "apart" from the system of our cells!!
Mar 9 2011: If we believe that everything is interconnected, as I do, then nothing is "apart". In my perception, the energy flows through everything...including the cells, so they are very much part of the whole. You say that everything is connected, and you also say "the energy body...has its own existence "apart" from the system of our cells". That seems a little confusing to me.Mar 8 2011: This is a response to a response further down.....up....??
Amazing Colleen! Did you see more than the one life that the one your in now? ...as you wrote" lives" This is extremely interesting! Could you see every detail? Did you meet any other beings while you were out of your body? Have you heard of Raymond Moody and George Richie?
What can you say about the "review" of your life? It was of course an immaterial picture(s) but can you tell more details. Could you see your own energy body as you spoke of earlier. Was the review picture of the same "substanse" (again, to use a very material word) as the body that you were yourself made of? Were the pictures in any way something that you had sympathy or antipathy towards? Like judging any of your actions in the pictures or were you completely neutral towards them?
If you could just answer all these questions first.... then I have a few more.... hope you don't mind :-)
Mar 9 2011: Daniel,
Yes, I'm familier with Raymond Moody's work....not familier with George Richie. I researched hundreds of recorded cases of NDE and guest lectured at the Univ. for years on the topic. You can google NDE research for more information. I also cared for a relative and two friends when they were dying, and volunteered for a couple years at a hospice care facility to learn more about the dying process and support others through it.
First of all, I'll tell you that this experience is like going to a different country and witnessing a ritual in a different culture with different language. Then coming back and trying to explain it in terms that I know on a human level. We simply don't have the language to explain all of what I experienced.
Yes, I had a review of several lives. I saw details, but not as we describe details as humans. I was a mass of energy, without form or human characteristics. The other beings present were also masses of energy. Although I recognized them on some level, the only one I was sure of, was the energy of my mother, who had died a year earlier. Again, there were no human characteristics.
My life reviews were for the purpose of evaluating what I had learned. I was my own judge, and it was not about what I did that was good or bad, but rather, what I learned from the experiences.
Communications were similar to what we may call ESP. There were no pictures or dialogue. There was a sense of "knowing". On some levels, we can think of this as intuition or gut feeling. That is why I keep saying there are many levels of consciousness. Several of us on this thread may be speaking of different levels, and it may be difficult to pin down the "nature of consciousness" if we are percieving it from different perspectives. My belief is that we are all capable of experiencing several layers of consciousness, and it depends on how open we are to that experience:>)
I like questions...thanks for asking:>)Mar 9 2011: Simply amazing story Colleen !! I too work at a Hospice !!! So here were are... "meeting" with our ideas ... a million miles apart... isn't that amazing !! (interconnected !!)
I don't have much time to write just now but will try to get back tomorrow.
This is a response to your comments further down the page, but there is no reply button down there... so I hope you find this comment. I just look for the blue words as to what time it was when the last comment was made but I see that the time frame is actually way off.
I still have more questions to you, so don't go away.!
I am together with a group of people who will be have a Saturday kafee with a lecture on NDE next weekend.
Mar 9 2011: Not so amazing...there's not much that surprises me any more...I'm here:>)Mar 10 2011: Sleep, or dreaming sleep, is surely a deeper realm of consciousness. But can you choose yourself what you want to dream about? Generally, most people can't do this. We are merely a passenger on the train. We observe pictures that we try to piece together again when we awake... or? I don't think that anyone could write a TED comment while in a dream state... Although there are certain phenomenon of "sleep writing" or medium/trance writing, where people communicate things from "the other side" more or less unconscious themselves while doing so. This is absolutely a phenomenon worth looking at. I suppose there are studies to be found on this. Just how people can communicate things from the world of the spirit in a trance or as a medium is a very interesting trail that should be followed up. Here is one example for the scientific minded person to study,where consciousness could be examined by experimentation, just how objective things are or are not communicated from the "other side" Here in Norway there is even a TV program where the police sometimes use such people to solve crimes. They even have a contest to see just which one is better at this. Some are often wrong in their visions while others can be quite precise. It's quite surprising to hear such details of the information that they can see... They often have contact with the dead murder victim and they are told thing or shown things in relation to the crime. The police can then go to the site of the crime and find evidence ... like where a knife was thrown into the woods or the like. So the objectivity of the clairvoyant is alway under scrutiny. Sometime there right and sometimes there wrong. But they are more or less consciously penetrating into a dream world of feelings that the murder victim communicates "through" them. To be "awake" in my dream world may be the first step to being "awake" in the dream world (or feeling world) of others. So when Tim says that he cant see how spirit knowledge can help us...so
Mar 10 2011: In a comment above, Tim mentions "universal consciousness". The universal consciousness is an unending, unlimited source of energy information. When we are connected with that source, there are no time/space limitations, so anyone can communicate with anyone else...including the energy beings who are not on this earth school at this time.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. We often label this kind of communication gut feeling or intuition. Or we may call it ESP. Where do you think that gut feeling/intuition is coming from? Again, there are many levels in which we can communicate in this way, depending on how open we are to the possibilities:>)Mar 10 2011: Hi again Colleen,
I would like to ask if you can, from your NDE say anything about neural firing in the brain? Could you say that this energy being that you experienced yourself as is the actual producer of the activity going on in your physical brain that we call neural activity. This energy is often called electrical energy. But we know that it is something more. The electrical aspect is only one side of the coin. I wonder if you could elaborate more on this energy. When your energy body came back into the physical body, might you say that your brain was changed or transformed in any way... if so ...how?
Are you more intuitive after this experience? Do you have ESP now? Did it come after your NDE?
What colors am I wearing?.....lol ok, ok, what kind of car do I drive? Just kidding....
Mar 10 2011: No Daniel, sorry, but I cannot say much about "neural firing in the brain". Only that I know it exists. A scientist is better equipped to answer that question.
Yes, in my experience, the energy contributes to the activity in the brain that we call neural activity.
You know, my NDE happened at the time of a brain injury, so yes, the brain was changed. Part of it was damaged, and damaged brain tissue was removed at the time of the craniotomy. The NDE provided information that I was not previously aware of on a conscious level.
Yes, I'm aware of more channels of consciousness opening because of the experience.Feb 27 2011: Consciousness is more akin to a hung browser tab that is at best vaguely aware of other tabs running in the background. It is a rare tab that hacks its way to root access.
Feb 27 2011: Funny Vlad....
daniel hehir
Mar 26 2011: Would love to continue
- +2
on this thread
but don't really have the time
the "continuation of consciousness"
in poesy and rhyme
Is anyone out there interested
to start a bran new thread..?
on this endless topic ... consciousness
or is the whole thing "dead"
should we start another
bran new conversation
or does it only contribute
to a deep inner frustration
Has anyone there any more to say..
enemy or friend
or has our topic fizzled out
and reached the final end..?
and If we do continue
is there anyone out there
who has some new perspectives
that they might like to share ?
My fingers they are getting tired
I've worn them to the bone
My thoughts are getting mired
and I feel myself alone...
Is there anyone else who also feels this way?
confusion .... distress...
have we gotten any closer to this thing called
consciousness ?
To continue might be error
but to end would be so sad
...and thanks again to everyone
for the sessions we have had...
but I hope to meet you all again
someplace... somewhere ... sometime...
In "consciousness" we meet as friends
in reason and in rhyme ...
So until then.....I wish you well
take heed of stormy weather
and so I say my last farewell
Its been fun to be "conscious".... together..
Mar 26 2011: Good job Daniel:>)
It's been fun to be conscious...together:>)
Comment deleted
daniel hehir
Mar 17 2011: Slow down Frederic, No need to get so emotionally involved. Did you find what I wrote to you about the triangle..? Consciousness is not superstition but you tell me that it comes from the material... that sounds more superstitious than me saying that consciousness comes from the realm of consciousness..
- +4
To be superstitious can also have its roots in what I would call material superstition .... to believe that everything arises out of the material... almost as if the material itself takes on a form or cloak of "godliness" that can produce everything and explain everything....
To be so fanatically engulfed in your own meanings makes you think unclear.... just like religious fanatics that say creation ! creation ! creation ! You are in the same boat "IF" you continue with your ...material ! material ! material !
Mar 17 2011: Thank you, Daniel! That's exactly what I was going to speak out, but you happened to be earlier here. Atheist and religious fanatic are not the two sides of the same coin, as I thought, but one side of two coins, hence the same.Mar 21 2011: daniel,
I don't see Frederic's comment to be emotionally charged at all. That he would be emphatic does not mean anything else but that he was emphatic.
How would an expectation that reality does not require "supernatural" explanations be superstitious? That's nonsensical. If the accumulation of our knowledge shows that we can explain more and more without the recourse to fantasyland, should we still expect that the fantasy will be necessary at some point, or should it dilute such expectation to the point when we would realize that fantasy is exactly that: fantasy?
Finally, I would say that at least those "chanting": "material ! material ! material !" are chanting to something observable rather than to some fantasy. So, not exactly the same coin, not exactly the same anything. That makes a huge difference. Natasha, you were kind to the religious, by referring only to "religious fanatics" in your critique, why then leave "atheist" without referring to a particular group of atheists, rather than generalize to them all? Do you really think that all atheists are comparable to religious fanatics? If so, what have you learned about anything by being a TED translator?
Mar 22 2011: Hi Gabo,
I lost you out there on all these threads... Thats why I have not commented back to you. I will try to back to you soon with some responses to your last few comments. This topic has surely set a record I guess... perhaps it was merely that single magical world "merely" that did it.
It's funny though.. something that I can understand ad perfectly logical and understandable someone else would consider "magical"... Magic can always be understood through thinking .. it's really no big mystery... It doesn't have infer things such as supernatural or superstitious.. does it ? Because I have a working understanding of certain spiritual truths and you don't may be called illusion from your side, but that doesn't mean at all that I have can't have a perfectly logical understanding of the "magical" from my side... We can all understand magic... which is not my word but yours.... when we build a foundation for the content of the concepts. Magical is actually for me more of a mystery than the word spirit... but perhaps I have no understanding of what magic is.. as I never claimed to have. Magic is something that is no longer a mystery when we can see through it.. Spiritual realities don't
have to be at all magical as you put it ... not when we have the tools to see through it..
You say its not possible to have these tools... I say it is. Experience and thinking are the tools we all share for this knowlege that is only "apparantly" beyond our grasp... I say that it is within our grasp if we look at the whole picture of what mankind really is. Some people don't like to hear this at all because they refuse to recognize the hidden aspects of who we are as complete human beings. The material part of our being is just a small % ....and without considering the higher aspects of what life is we can never develop the tools that I'm talking about.
I'll look for your response to this. Perhaps you could write it in the "original thread sequence"
so I can find you easier...Mar 17 2011: Hello, Frederic, I want to quote" Scientists normally take for granted that we live in a rational , ordered cosmos subject to precise laws that can be uncovered by human reasoning. Yet why it should be so remains a tantalizing mystery." Paul Davies
Mar 17 2011: Paul Davies is a RELIGIOUS scientiist. Your quotation represents his religious thoughts and doesn't represent a scientific thought.
Mar 17 2011: The fact that it is possible, speaks for itself .Being religious doesn't prevent him to be a Professor of Mathematical Physics. Einstein can be disregarded on this ground, he" believed in Spinoza's God" and the list of the ''ought-to-be-ignored" scientists will be long, I guess. Anyway, thank you , I will think about it.Mar 17 2011: btw - Spinoza's god was pantheist - "god is everything".Mar 17 2011: I know,and GUT is the theory of everything, so maybe they are seemingly divergent paths to the same summit.Mar 17 2011: I'm In support for Frederic.
Let us try and make some things clear...
1) a materialistic worldvieuw encompasses photons who are essentially mass-less...
=> this seems paradoxical... maybe scientific worldvieuw is a better term.
2) As I repeat from another discussion,
"Science is the set of methods that can reduce uncertainty about truth"
So we observe/ measure/ sense,gather input, data (call it what you will)... agree and discuss what is factual about the data we obtain... We do analysis, statistical testing, falsifying, building a mountain of evidence, and slowly we find out what can be true, is still plausible as alternative hypothesis, and which hypotheses have been ruled out
3) Although absence of evidence is no evidence of absence... the probability that something exists and nothing is found decreases with the amount of search time (the monster of loch ness, gods, fairies, spaghetti monsters in the sky, superman, yellow dotted green swans,...).
3.1. We can imagine things that don't exist.. but something that does not exist cannot be measured...
3.2. You can put this in very accurate probabilistic models (for example Bayesian reasoning or probabilistic inductive reasoning)
4) ALL good knowledge is based on inferences about what we have thus far observed, and is plausible given the data. The more you need to rely on things not yet measured (but already searched for), the less likely the hypothesis you are using is valid.
4.1. This is close to Occam's razor
5) Comming back to matrialism:
The materialistic/scientific worldvieuw does just that.
If we look at the available data that concerns consciousness, there are still a few rivaling hypotheses... and most of the relevant ones are materialistic and the very best don't need something extra.
neurons, the other cells, the DNA, the molecules are sufficient to allow for consciousness to emerge...
I hope this helps
P.S. Liking an opinion does not make it more valid!
Mar 17 2011: 1) what is a photon ultimately , but emptiness within it ?
2) What can science say about the observer, whose observations can interpret matter as a wave or a particle ? What validity does science have in that case, especially in its measurements ?
3.1) How do you measure a thought ? But you do agree it exists
3.2) Probablity models do a good job. But I would like to see probability models on the observer itself. Maybe I should start working on it.
4. Sorry to break it to you. There are individuals who have claimed to have experienced a state of consciousness which they have never experienced before.Some people call that experience enlightenment. The effect of that state is easily observed in the incredible spontaneity of these individuals. Certain "intuitive" individuals are able to experience life changing consciousness shifts in their physical presence. However it simply cannot be measured, no matter how appealing it may seem to. Or - Measurement must grow.
5. Materialism is denying the existence of thoughts, or the awareness that is in the backdrop of it. Mysticism - pushes one within, and forces one to study the inner awareness for themselves, and it is a highly individualistic, and experiential way towards "enlightenment".
Mar 17 2011: Santhip:
Questions are no arguments. I don't know all answers, neither do you, so let's try and keep us on the established field of knowledge and the debate somewhat rational.
@ 1) A question is not an argument. And your statement that a photon is "ultimately emptiness within it" is just plain nonsensical
@ 2) Science can say a lot about observers, depending on the definition.
The one you define here is quite nonsensical: An observation cannot interpret...
The validity of science is not harmed by that case.
The validity of measurement depends upon the instrument and upon "are you measuring what you wish to measure"
@ 3.1. If I discribe what I feel a thought is, and if you agree that that description is also what you feel a thought is, we can start to communicate about it. AND we have a working definition, and we have already measured it: We do experience something we mutually agree upon to call it "thought" we measured it by experiencing.
If we work on it and do experiments and put forth hypothesis, we can begin to measure thoughts in other ways... and what do you know... neuroscience does this with monkeys, humans, rats,... through various techniques you might already know
@ 3.2. Good idea! I encourage you to do so!
4. (no need to excuse, we are in a debate, where we attack or defend ideas, we don't attack the person). I agree people say they have had such experiences. And I assume that they actually felt that way. [I wouldn't call that enlightenment, but rather extacy or satori or something else, but that is a matter of demarking the meaning of a word]
You state that it is observable...so you measured it already.
5. I disagree... so we must have a different idea about what materialism is.
I suggest you give me some examples of materialistic philosophers who do deny the existance of thoughts...
Materialism in my opinion only rejects all non-measurable (or in principle non-measurable) things. ( maybe in another debate)Mar 19 2011: Those are big words: Established field of knowledge, and rational. Would you consider 2000 year old buddhist/hindu scriptures on consciousness as established field of knowledge ? Would you consider subjective experience ( repeatable in nature) which points to a completely different paradigms what science has to offer as rational as far as the individual is concerned? Elaborated below
1) Light has dual nature - photon and wave. If I question what is inside a photon, the best answer science can give me is it doesn't know. So is the case with electrons. The materialistic world view ( world can be explained on the basis of matter alone) has its utility value, but simply fails to provide the ultimate answer. Given its paradoxical nature, it only seems that another paradoxical world view might as well suffice the purpose served by the limited material (world can be explained on the basis of matter alone) worldview.
2) Perhaps my grammar has failed me there. Let me rephrase my argument relating to the dual nature of matter. An observer can choose to measure matter as a particle or as a wave. So the observation ( matter) can be interpreted as a particle or a wave by the observer. Thus the intention of the observer ( including his perceptual filters) becomes very important in any study. The instrument used to measure is also important.
How valid would you consider using subjective experience of an individual as an actual observation to be measured? As far as I have understood, the subjective experience has to be translated to a measureable domain, determined by the measuring instruments at hand in terms of reactions to stimuli. Please make me aware of other options.
3.1) It is interesting as to how you "measured" a thought by agreeing to a common definition based on one's experience. Is it possible to measure subjective experience such as a state of no-separation between a subject and an object ?
3.2) thanks for the encouragement !
4) Contd below
Mar 19 2011: I think there might be some knowledge in any tradition. I would however test all hypotheses and claims wit the same rigor as any claim.
Age of a tradition is no argument. The body of evidence is.
1) you follow the knowledge of what science learned you a photon might be (current hypotheses) .Then you try and comprehend the formula, fail to do so and conclude something mystical... You see it as paradoxical, because you can't understand it. (neither do I, but I just admit that I don't know it and that I might not have the capacity to understand it (with just human brains). so I stick to the facts and hold to the most plausible explanation by default to be true)
2) If you claim matter is dual, you might want to give me an experiment that proves that.
I also suggest you would either learn some real quantum-physics or admit your ignorance. I cannot validate your claims here, as I'm not a quantum-physicist.
I do know that the mathematical descriptions fit for the predictions... and I don't need to say to reality how easy to understand it needs to be for me...
The observer effect holds only for some experiments about quantum-particles... it does not hold for other experiments (like double blind clinical research, boiling water, growing plants)Mar 19 2011: 4) Let me clarify my point a bit further. There are individuals who claim to have experienced enlightenment ( a consciousness state of non-duality resulting in a state of no thoughts ). In the presence of these individuals, some intuitive persons fall into consciousness shifts, and are thus able to use their subjective experience of their consciousness shift as a decided as to whether the first individual is enlightened or not. And you are saying that it is totally OK as an act of measurement, especially without the use of a measuring instrument such as an EEG reader, or even an fMRI scanner? [ thanks for the tidbit on getting the person out of the way - helps a lot in dealing with the facts :) ]
5. Now.. considering the scientific world view, which encompasses, paradoxical world view of using "mass less" photons to describe the "material" world, which I assume that you would be willing to include "thoughts" as well, from my engineering background, measurement of a thought to me would mean that I use an instrument to see a thought and interpret it based on the observations I get from that instrument, which I think is impossible to do with any physical instrumentation available right now ( correct me if am wrong).
As far as I understand ( especially from my engineering background), consciousness cannot be measured ( correct me if am wrong). Especially self-awareness. The actual subjective experience cannot be measured, but its residue within the measurable domain can only be measured, and the assumption using hypothesis / theory / experimentation is that the measurement indicates strength of an experience. This is my understanding. Perhaps your answer to (3) will help me in formulating the argument for using the actual "measurements" for the scientific process.
Mar 19 2011: I'm trying to stay brief, as this might stray too far off topic.
* The individuals need to describe it as good as they can. And if the documentation is systematic, it is a way of gathering data.
I myself have experience with such meditations... it indeed feels good. I wouldn't call it enlightenment, because I use that term for the Kant's version of it.
It would be interesting to be able to find evidence of such states on EEG& fMRI.
I would not go so far to say that the measure you propose is sufficient... I would need to go into the details of the proposed protocols and we would need to find some consensus with researchers...
If you are interested in all this... I would suggest you start reading into neuroscience. Consciousness is measurable... like any existing thing is in principle measurable (an assumption of me)
(I'm not pretending I know a lot about engineering)Mar 19 2011: Christophe,
When was the last time a creative thought came out of a piece of matter ...?
Mar 21 2011: Nice rhetoric Daniel.
I think it is happening all the time. so 'now' would be a good answer.
Ok, let me go all Socratic as well
If you wave your hand... is the waving something material or not?
Can you wave without a hand? (i.e. without something that is causing the wave)
For me the wave exists. And it needs matter to exist. so the wave emerges from the matter, and is in my opinion part of the material world.
A thought can, on a metaphoric level, be seen as a wave.
the matter causing it would be a brain.Mar 17 2011: Honestly Frederic, does universe really have a center ? Do you have ALL the measurements of the dimensions to come to that conclusion ? What is the center of your question ? What is the concept that you choose as center ? What is observing the concept? Who is the observer ? Is this "I" just another thought ? Are memorires and all other constructs just another thought ? What is observing the thought ? OM Shanti ..
Science can never claim complete authority merely by the study of only the things it can measure, and by not measuring the things it can't. How can it be complete ?
Different people are coming forward with different experiences within. Holding onto a conceptual framework based on materialism is still holding onto a paradigm rather than dealing with the facts these people are sharing. Fact is people have experienced a state of no-separation with the material universe and the immaterial universe. Fact is there are individuals who have lost their sense of identity with the awareness that acts as a backdrop to all the thoughts that happen within ourselves.Question is - does science shun these experiences just because it doesn't fit the present paradigm it is holding onto ? Or does it expand to accomodate these facts ?
Honestly Frederic, I mean no offence. Science simply has to grow up. And I don't want to see science end the great progress it has made due to limited egos who are being egotistical within the conceptual paradigm it is holding onto as if their lives depended on it. It is a shame if science cannot learn from the ancients who have delved into the science of consciousness.
Minh Do
Mar 18 2011: Santhip, Although I do agree that science ought to address these aspects of human experience and that is limited by the questions it can ask, I don't agree that science has not or will not go there. After all, there are plenty of neuroscientists studying the effects of meditation, etc. I think neuroscience is reaching new frontiers every year, and scientists are always interested in overturning every stone.
- 0
Mar 19 2011: Minh .. I do hope so .. Neuroscience is growing rapidly in these times and are definitely asking difficult and controversial questions such as retro-causality, psi and non-locality of consciousness Those are some tough paradigms to break up in the first place. But I do hope neuroscience can point to something more substantial as far as enlightenment is concerned, and in helping us in pointing towards the truth of the phenomenon, so that the subjective experience can be simulated / experienced by every man. :-)Mar 19 2011: Santhip,
You can not tell a materialist that their is a creative thought world, a world of spirit....no ... creative thoughts arise out of matter.The scientific world may say we are just superstitious, mystics, etc. But isn't it a little absurd, almost superstitious, to say the thinking can actually arise out of substance.. by ..itself. Thats almost like saying that a board itself can develop its own idea to make a boat out of itself.. or brick a house of itself
The absurdity is sort of like the "not seeing the forest for the trees" expression.
How can matter develop itself to "life" ??
How can matter develop itself to "feelings" ??
How can matter develop itself to "thinking" and "self-consciousness" ??
The materialist can and will never come with any "creative answers" to any of the above questions without first breaking down its "box of materialistic ideas" that matter has within itself the creative forces to bring about these three higher forms of existence. Again, science will say... come with the evidence, proof, give us the facts we can weigh and measure.... Life force.... hah... superstition ! What is the phenomenon behind the living forces in nature... What is the force that can push a little dandelion up through the pavement in the spring time..? What superstitious force sustains this body that " I "walk around in ?? How can it be that "I" (as the primate with the overdeveloped brain) read a book, listen to and create music, study astronomy, send spaceships to the stars ?? How can matter out of its own accord and initiative create the desire within itself for knowledge, love, beauty, meaning of life...??.. Had matter alone shown itself.. anywhere ...ANYWHERE.. in the outer world to posses the capability to assemble itself into a meaningful structure without any external life force, then one could perhaps have some form of sympathetic alliance with the materialistic world view.. but until that comes about...they can gladly consider me superstitious
Mar 21 2011: I don't know if this answer is creative:
Scientists tend to call it 'evolution'.Mar 21 2011: Christophe,
Do you think or feel that evolution is not creative?Mar 21 2011: Colleen
I might call evolution creative in a metaphorical way.
But being creative belongs to the language game of human (or animal) thought and inventiveness.
As evolution is a process, I wouldn't give it that meaning literally.
I am however often surprised by how evolution turned out to be so various, intricate, and beautiful to me.
So I might "feel" that evolution is creative. I don't think it actually is creativeMar 21 2011: OH...thanks Christophe for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I percieve evolution to be incredibly creative:>) As defined: "Productive, having the quality of something created rather than imitated; imaginative". There is even a definition for "creative evolution" : "evolution that is a creative product of a vital force rather than a naturalistically explicable process". Maybe these definitions are all "language games" as you say? When I ponder evolution and everything it means, I find it very creative:>) Funny how differently we all percieve things huh?Mar 21 2011: Hey daniel,
Sorry, but you are just "rhetoricing" the issues in a way that thought properly shows much more ignorance on your part than ridicule in the scientific thought.
You ask:
How can matter develop itself to "life" ??
How can matter develop itself to "feelings" ??
How can matter develop itself to "thinking" and "self-consciousness" ??
Well, if we didn't know, would it mean that this happens by magic or just that we don't know? We know, but I am getting at the heart of the issue here. Seems like if we don't know something, or if you can make it sound far fetched enough, then magic should be the right answer.
Then you say:
"The materialist can and will never come with any "creative answers" to any of the above questions ..."
Define "creative." Putting together the data about species distributions, nested hierarchy of life classification, fossils, results from breeding, and a lot of data on everyday life events, leading into the idea of evolution is pretty creative. There is a word for some experiments so clear that the answer jumps at you: "elegance." Elegant experiments show lots creativity. Scientists trying to display complex data in an understandable way are winning art contests. Long et cetera. I would say that you were being too dismissive, out of ignorance, of that thing you do not like. Just as you were when using the word "merely" in the intro to your topic.
Your list of rhetorically charged questions looks nice, but does nothing. I can't understand how the binary code in my computer can be displayed so beautifully in my screen. Should I thus suppose that there is magic behind it? That some immaterial thing uses the binary code to manifest itself into my screen but lives separately from the computer?
You might feel that superstition is more creative. I think it is just lazy. Be presented with a mystery: thus magic. See? No creativity necessary.Mar 21 2011: (Ok, I know the 3 replies rule has a reason, and that I'm tweaking it too, like some others)
Colleen: when it comes to differences in perception, I totally agree. sometimes I think it's funny, most often I think that is very logical given peoples different background and state of knowledge about reality
When people start to claim that their perceptions are congruent with reality (or true), I start asking for serious evidence... following the logic of science.
@ Gabo: I mostly agree with your comment(s)Mar 21 2011: Gabo...I LOVE IT:>)
We're almost sounding like we're on the same debate team...accept...I don't tell people they are ignorant and stuff like that!
I love that you're getting to the "heart of the issue". I don't think anyone is trying to make anything sound "far fetched". I believe that people, including you and me, try to explain things based on the information they/we have at any given time. Don't you think?Mar 21 2011: I agree Christophe...it can be amusing and logical at the same time:>) What I realize is that everyone has his/her own reality, based on, as you say, different backgrounds, and state of knowledge. I do the same thing when people say their way is "the only way...the only truth". Show me!...I'm always open to new information:>)Mar 21 2011: Hey Colleen,
Oh yes, daniel is trying quite hard to make it sound far fetched. Just look at his sentences. The last sentence in his first paragraph starts with "The absurdity."
And sorry, but daniel is showing ignorance. I agree with you on this:
"I believe that people, including you and me, try to explain things based on the information they/we have at any given time. Don't you think?"
But this necessarily means that we carry our ignorance there and thus have to be careful. If we don't have the information and we criticize out of suck lack of information, we are showing our ignorance. So, I try to keep my ignorance out of it by informing myself a bit better. I thus try not to generalize, and whenever possible refer to my experience, rather than make blanket generalizations (not always successfully, so feel free to criticize and I shall learn).
@Christophe: thanks. I mostly agree with yours too.Mar 22 2011: Hey Gabo,
I agree with you, and try to do the same things...not make blanket generalizations and speak from my own experiences, clarifying that it is simply my experience. Sometimes, people are pondering/evaluating their own beliefs/perceptions while writing, and I think/feel that is where the confusion usually comes from, rather than ignorance. But then...I'm a Pollyanna, so what do I know!!!
Comment deleted
Comment deleted


text:
TIP OF THE WEEKYou know that moving into a new home can be one of life's biggest stressors: the packing, the paperwork, the unpacking and of course finding the nearest coffee shop. Making your new house feel like your home can help alleviate some of this stress and provide a safe-haven for some much needed relaxation.
Individual vision insurance makes a unique and affordable holiday gift for loved ones.
Individual vision insurance makes a unique and affordable holiday gift for loved ones.
[WARNING: The following story contains spoilers from�Sunday's�penultimate episode of�The Newsroom. Read at your own risk.]
Following a�very busy Thanksgiving week for moviegoers, ticket...
Usually, when the name�Amanda Bynes�is used in the same sentence as Twitter, it's time to brace...
Girl meets boy; girl loses boy; girl gets boy back again: it's a simple, easily extrapolated formula for great story telling. For example, boy has superpowers; boy loses superpowers; boy gets superpowers back again. Or, lightly summarizing one...
- Events Calendar

subset: commoncrawl


text:
8 comments:
Oh my gosh!!!! They are sooo cute. You have the best style ever. They look amazing. If I had just one ounce of your creativity....ReplyDelete
haha thanks andyReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 26, 2011 at 1:12 AM
seriously sharon, you are killing me with your amazing family.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 26, 2011 at 1:12 AM
that anonymous was me- rendelReplyDelete
These pics rock.ReplyDelete
Beautiful kids! Love the blog!ReplyDelete
This is beyond cute! Love reading your blog!ReplyDelete
Wow, I love your daughter's dress. I want one for me!ReplyDelete


text:
Lost Diary Tells of Teen Holocaust Victim - CBN.com - Today's Christian Videos
Embed cbnnews 2926 views 2010-10-01T22:32:28 Many know the story of Anne Frank, but the discovery of another teenage Holocaust victim's diary is causing a sensation.
More Today's Christian Videos
- It Was A Typical Lip Dub Until A Phone Call Changed EVERYTHING!Inspirational Videos
- 'War Room' – Movie Trailer Proves Prayer Is POWERFULMovies
- Christianity.com: If a Christian commits suicide, do they still go to heaven?-Joe ...Education Videos
- Twin Babies Hold Hands And Talk For The First TimeCute Videos
- Blessed 5-Year-Old Sings Gospel Classic And Leaves Everyone In TEARS!Music Videos
- Kathie Lee Gifford Honors Frank Gifford And The LORD!Inspirational Videos
- This Girl's Cover of 'In Christ Alone' Will Knock You Down. WOW.Music Videos
- MercyMe - Shake (Official Music Video)Music Videos
- Jackie Evancho and Peter Hollens Sing Beautiful A Cappella 'Hallelujah' DuetMusic Videos
- Chris Tomlin at Passion - Lord, I Need YouMusic Videos
- BibleStudyTools.com: "Be Still and Know" This Uplifting Version of Psalm 46 Today—...Inspirational Videos
- Exercise Just Got WAY Better With This Precious InstructorCute Videos
No playlists found for this account.


text:
Free standard shipping over AUD 150.00LOGIN
Approximate size: 6.4 x 16.7 x 6.0 cm
Showing a jaguar in motion, this fascinating statement piece captures the power of nature. It features Jet Hematite crystal with an eye-catching Crystal Golden Shine coating. The black crystal base completes this masterpiece. Decoration object. Not a toy. Not suitable for children under 15.
Designer: Stefanie Nederegger
Article no.: 5048145


text:
Stress Less!
Is stress driving you around the bend? Relax! Stress Management 2006 is a twice-weekly class to help you cope more effectively with the stress in your life.
Lectures, group discussions and interactive sessions will help you learn stress management skills, including yoga, meditation, and communication styles.
The sessions meet Mondays and Wednesdays, May 1–24, 5:00–7:00 p.m. in Bridgeport Hospital's Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit.
For information about cost, or to register, call toll free 1-888-357-2396. Join us!
The Real Magic Elixir for Total Body Health
It sounds like an old-fashioned medicine show spiel for a magic elixir: "Step right up, folks! How would you like to lower your risk for developing heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and some types of cancer? What if I told you about a treatment that can increase your bone density, enhance your immune system, reduce the number or the dosage of medications you take, help you lose weight and ward off depression and anxiety, and generally retard the aging process. This program is so amazing that it will also enhance your sex life, reduce stress, and improve your sleep patterns. It takes a time commitment of only 40 minutes per day on most days, and after you begin it and start feeling better, you will want to continue it for the rest of your life!"
But it's not a magic elixir. And it does truly work. It's good old-fashioned cardiovascular exercise.
Exercise is one of the least expensive and most effective heart health therapies, and it's suitable for just about anyone. And yet, fewer than 25% of adults are getting the recommended 40 minutes of physical actively five or more days per week.
Keep it safe and start slowly
No matter how old or how out of shape you are, you will see positive improvements in your health almost immediately after beginning an exercise program. The key is to start slowly and be consistent. Remember what the tortoise says: "Slow and steady wins the race."
But be careful. Before you start working out, if you are a man over age 45 or a woman over age 55 you should visit your physician to rule out any hidden cardiac, diabetes, or bone/muscle conditions. Heart problems can flare up when you have underlying, untreated cardiac conditions, have not been exercising regularly, and then overdo it with vigorous activity. However, if you exercise sensibly and get your physician's OK, the benefits of exercise far outweigh the possible risks.
Exercises to Improve Your Cardiovascular Health
Any exercise that moves large muscle groups and gets your heart beating faster will improve your cardiovascular system. Examples: walking, biking, swimming, water aerobics, raking, tennis, dancing, or using aerobic machines at the gym. Try different things like joining a community exercise class or walking at the mall to keep your exercise program varied and fun.
The FIT Excercise Prescription for Your Heart
FIT is a simple formula to help you exercise sensibly.
F is for Frequency: 3–5 times per week
You need to exercise only 3–5 days per week. Exercising every day will put you at greater risk for athletic injuries. You can receive health benefits by burning up as few as 700 calories per week, but you'll achieve the most benefits when you expend 2,000 calories or more per week. The average person burns roughly 100 calories per mile, which translates into walking or running 7–20 miles per week. If this seems daunting, just remember that no matter where you start, you can reach your goal if you keep at it.
I is for Intensity: Moderate to Somewhat Hard
Working at moderate intensity will give you the best results and reduce your risk of injury. You've reached moderate intensity if you can breathe through your nose, talk but not sing, feel your body temperature rise and begin to sweat. You should not be gasping for a breath.
T Is for Time: 40–60 minutes overall
You should work up to and maintain an exercise plan that lasts 40–60 minutes. This includes a 5–minute warm-up, a 30–40–minute cardiovascular workout, and a 5–10 minute cool-down. Drinking water before, during and after exercise will keep you hydrated and help keep your blood pressure in the correct range if you are on cardiac medications. Cool-downs are very important. You should gradually bring your heart rate down by moving at a lower intensity than your workout pace. Do some stretching exercises at the end of your cool-down. Stretching helps to loosen tight muscles, extends your range of motion, and improves your posture and balance.
Five Helpful Tips to Keep You Moving
Keep in mind that something is better than nothing, so if you can't do a full exercise session, just do as much as you have time for.
If you establish a routine and stick to it, exercise can be like a magic elixir, helping you to reach cardiac health!