Consciousness; a radically new theory. Romansh? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, June 24, 2015, 22:17 (3439 days ago) @ dhw
edited by dhw, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 07:55

DAVID: The implication is consciousness is something we use and direct. It does not control. To me this is obvious. I use my consciousness, it does not use me. 
> 
> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html
&#... 
> dhw: But what is not obvious is the composition of “I/me”. Where are “you” when your consciousness has gone?-This is where the research of NDE's comes into play. Consciousness is not gone with temporary death of the brain. So it must exist somehow apart from the brain.-
> dhw: Even if you believe in dualism, your consciousness must still be a part of the immaterial “you” if you are to be you: not something you use, and not something that uses you, but actually you.-I think I have to be a dualist based on NDE research.-> dhw: Perhaps that is why people whose consciousness is affected by illness, drugs or alcohol sometimes do things which are not only said to be out of character, but which they cannot even recall to consciousness, because they weren't conscious of them at the time. They have lost their identity by losing their awareness.-Amnesia is an interesting point. I think it is a loss of contact with consciousness for a period of time.