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

by David Turell , Thursday, June 25, 2015, 18:57 (3218 days ago) @ dhw


> 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?-> DAVID: 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.
> 
> But your dualism still doesn't answer the question of what constitutes “I/me” in your sentence: “I use my consciousness, it does not use me.”-Do you have the answer? I don't think it is an illusion, and I think the brain acts as a receiver for consciousness, beyond which I cannot go.-
> dhw: That is my point. We do not use it and are not used by it. We ARE our memories, our emotions, our reason, our ideas and our consciousness of them.-But that is only a portion of our consciousness. Those make us an individual person, but don't account for the constant flow of thoughts and ideas that continuous appear under our control.
> 
> ROMANSH: If we think about it and if we believe in cause and effect then consciousness is simply a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings.
> 
> dhw:There are two approaches to this, as I see it: 1) the materialist view of consciousness, according to which your statement means the brain supplies a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings; 2) the dualist view, according to which an immaterial self supplies a (limited) window on its own inner workings, with the brain as the physical intermediary between thought and action. I wouldn't regard either of these as simple! And I would still argue that in terms of an individual's identity, consciousness - whatever its source and nature - cannot be separated from the attributes, perceptions and actions it is conscious of. -Agreed
> 
> dhw: As for control, if 1) the brain, and/or 2) the immaterial self are “us”, we can hardly argue that “we” (all our attributes including our consciousness) do not direct our thoughts and actions. The question then is why we direct them in the way we do. Hence the controversy over free will.-I see the controversy over free will is not the 'why' based on our experiences, and I do not believe there is a 'why' in how we control our free will, Libet and others now shown to be wrong.