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

by dhw, Thursday, July 02, 2015, 17:42 (3220 days ago) @ romansh

Dhw: I don't understand what you mean by the materialistic view being a “historical account”. 
DAVID: He is referring to the brief time delays in brain responses, required by the fact that the neurons care not as quick as transistors and have take the time to make ions for electrical impulses to act.
ROMANSH: Exactly ... and whether the timing is in pico seconds or less our consciousness is still historical. Now if our view is dualistic ... we can envisage some nebulous soul or some such that reads our brain activity. It is still at the end of the causal chain.-Thank you for the explanation. Alas, I still don't see the point. How does the fact that consciousness takes time to operate affect its reality or our control over its activities? On the other hand, I accept that our responses are on the end of a causal chain, whether consciousness is materialistic or dualistic. In relation to free will, I commented earlier that you can take this to mean “we” are not responsible, because “we” did not control the chain, or “we” are responsible, because “we” are still ourselves, no matter what caused us to be “us”. 
 
dhw: Do you believe that you are aware of phenomena both outside and inside yourself? Do you believe that there may be different degrees of such awareness in other organisms?
ROMANSH: I am not claiming everything has the same consciousness/awareness whatever. I presume mine is more textured and rich than that of a brick. But then a brick's experience can last centuries. I don't think my consciousness will.-At least now I know you believe you are conscious (thank you), though I still don't understand what you mean by “everything has consciousness and nothing is conscious are two sides of the same coin.” I share your presumption about having a richer consciousness than a brick (I myself don't think a brick has any consciousness at all). My interest in degrees of consciousness lies mainly in my attempt to find a reasonable alternative to the hypotheses of a single eternal mind or chance as the creators of the universe and life. Certain versions of panpsychism seem to offer an avenue worth exploring.
 
ROMANSH: I am tempted by the idea that consciousness is an illusion ... a very real illusion.-I am tempted by the idea that life itself is an illusion...a very real illusion. The present is real, and the reality of the past has helped to shape the present, but it increasingly takes on the quality of a dream. However, my present awareness of present and past (what I remember of it, anyway) does not seem to me to be in any way illusory. Unless I fall victim to dementia, I suspect that my consciousness will always remain real to me. I'm not sure where this leads us, but it's an interesting subject!