Dualism (Identity)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 12, 2015, 04:00 (3543 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: But a receiver receives; it doesn't produce. The production comes from elsewhere. What you are saying makes the brain passive, and a passive “consciousness” would put humans in precisely the situation you want to impose on bacteria: namely, that they receive instructions and do not initiate them.-But what if what the brain receives is the ability to develop a consciousness as pattern of quantum energy in the brain to produce consciousness, which is certainly more than the sum of neurons firing. You look at this too simplistically. Bacteria do not receive information. It is onboard in their DNA. I've made that quote clear.
> 
> dhw; So what is the universal consciousness transmitting to your receiver brain? Clearly not thought, if you are thinking your own thoughts. If you mean the universal consciousness has given you the means to think your own thoughts, but that means is not the brain (which is only a receiver), what is it? A blank blob of God's consciousness for you to shape as you will (because you think your own thoughts)? What then is “you”, if your God has given “you” a blob to shape?.... in the hope that eventually something might make sense.-Read my 'possible' explanation above. Something gives us consciousness, and I believe the receiver idea may have validity. Receiving it gives us the ability to develop our own individual consciousness.
> 
> dhw: As for using part of the UC until you pass on, this sounds as if you lose your particular blob when you die - which is the exact opposite of the NDE. Could you perhaps be a little more explicit? -I've been explicit above. When we dies our consciousness joins the UI as in NDE's.
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> TONY: These conversations kind of make my head hurt because we start swinging all over the map, partly because no one really sets up any definitions and sticks with them throughout the conversation.
> 
> The problem of consciousness makes most heads hurt! The framework you've given us is very stimulating, although as a non-technical ignoramus, I'm never at ease with computer analogies. I need to give it some more thought, but perhaps you could start me on my way by explaining what your “external user” and “third party independent interpreter” are analogous to in the two sentences below:
> 
> TONY: To use my old computer analogy, the hardware is one requirement, but without some form of external power and external user, the hardware is useless. [...] Yet, without any of these components, along with a third party independent interpreter, all of the energy, hardware, and information are useless.-What Tony is saying is that your computer is your servant, at your command and can produce nothing until you input a request for action. It requires you to act.