AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Please can we take this discussion off the epistemology thread.-TONY (B_M): We are not even able to pin down the nature of consciousness itself, so we are in essence unable to locate the 'receiver', should there in fact be one.-This part of the discussion was sparked off by my TV analogy in response to Matt's claim that consciousness ended with the destruction of the brain. The point of my analogy was that the destruction of a TV set (the receiver) did not mean there was no transmitter. I was therefore equating the brain with the receiver, but the subsequent discussion now appears to be equating the "soul" (if there is such a thing) with the receiver. In NDE's and OBEs, the soul appears to perceive physical events, and some patients have said they did not wish to return to earthly life, which indicates emotion and a will ... even if they don't get their own way! Clearly, then, the "dead" patient retains his/her identity (and in this context I would bracket identity and consciousness together). What is the role of the brain if a person's identity is entirely "spiritual"? My suggestion was that the soul is encased in the body, which is why people often talk of death releasing the soul. An OBE/NDE would be just such a release. The brain receives the signals emitted by the soul and sends instructions to the body to react accordingly, although the body also sends signals through the brain to the soul, which actively processes them in order to take the relevant decisions and, again, send out its instructions. If, however, the soul is the receiver and not the transmitter, doesn't this mean that our identity is imposed on us from outside? What exactly is being signalled, and from where?

5601 views

My suggestion was that the soul is encased in the body, which is why people often talk of death releasing the soul. An OBE/NDE would be just such a release. The brain receives the signals emitted by the soul and sends instructions to the body to react accordingly, although the body also sends signals through the brain to the soul, which actively processes them in order to take the relevant decisions and, again, send out its instructions. If, however, the soul is the receiver and not the transmitter, doesn't this mean that our identity is imposed on us from outside? What exactly is being signalled, and from where?-I think the closest we can come to an answer is that the 'soul' is simply another word for our consciousness, whatever method it uses to arise from the brain. The evidence of precognition, the psychic abilities my wife exhibits (as I proof for me), etc. demonstrate that the brain can be a receiver. That is not the same as consciousness itself, defined as Matt did as 'being aware that you are aware'. It is possible that the brain receives information while in a flat line state, and changes our perception of NDE's, but referring to the hospice experiences again, some of the information the dying receive would have to be 'long-distance', if, as it often does, regards a friend or relative dying in another city. Obviously, in this discussion, we have few answers, if any. However, receiving information one cannot have been directly given at the bedside, is a startling observation seen over the last 40 years of more direct observation of the dying.

5477 views

DAVID: I think the closest we can come to an answer is that the 'soul' is simply another word for our consciousness, whatever method it uses to arise from the brain. The evidence of precognition, the psychic abilities my wife exhibits (as I proof for me), etc. demonstrate that the brain can be a receiver. That is not the same as consciousness itself, defined as Matt did as 'being aware that you are aware'. -I'd like to take the argument a little further. In this context I don't think we can separate consciousness from identity. The NDE patients still knew who they were when they observed phenomena they should not have been able to perceive, when they went down the tunnel of light, when they received information that could not have been available to them. (Your wife is presumably also still your wife when she perceives things beyond the reach of the physical brain.) And so if there really is such a thing as a soul that is independent of the brain, it can only be a form of energy that perceives, absorbs, processes, feels, decides, imagines, remembers etc. ... otherwise, the "dead" patients would no longer have been themselves. -DAVID: [...] referring to the hospice experiences again, some of the information the dying receive would have to be 'long-distance', if, as it often does, it regards a friend or relative dying in another city. -Once the soul is freed from its physical bonds, physical restrictions such as distance would presumably play no further part. We would no longer be confined to our three-dimensional world. You are, of course, right when you say "we have few answers". I would go further and say we have no answers ... just as we have no answers when we speculate on the nature of God. But from my agnostic standpoint, it's reasonable enough to consider the possibility of a God and the possibility of a soul, in which case it's reasonable enough to speculate on their possible nature. -Under the epistemological thread Matt says: "I know my inner self well. I know when my brain is trying to get me to do something versus what I intend on doing." Who or what is this "I"? Matt's statement separates it from his brain. But either it IS the brain (materialist view) or there is a separate identity, i.e. a form of energy that performs all the activities listed above. If it IS the brain, we would have to rewrite Matt's statement as follows:-"The brain knows the brain well. The brain knows when the brain is trying to get the brain to do something versus what the brain intends on doing." -Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice would say.

5487 views

I would go further and say we have no answers ... just as we have no answers when we speculate on the nature of God. But from my agnostic standpoint, it's reasonable enough to consider the possibility of a God and the possibility of a soul, in which case it's reasonable enough to speculate on their possible nature. -Paul Davies has produced a new book, a collection of essays, which seems to lead to the conclusion that the underlying force in the universe is information, which leads me to my own conclusion. Information in a computer is put there by intellect. The universe may be a form of a giant computer, which requires a universal intelligence and a universal consciousness to create the information in the computer. A review of the book:-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/44680

5486 views

I would go further and say we have no answers ... just as we have no answers when we speculate on the nature of God. But from my agnostic standpoint, it's reasonable enough to consider the possibility of a God and the possibility of a soul, in which case it's reasonable enough to speculate on their possible nature. 
> 
> Paul Davies has produced a new book, a collection of essays, which seems to lead to the conclusion that the underlying force in the universe is information, which leads me to my own conclusion. Information in a computer is put there by intellect. The universe may be a form of a giant computer, which requires a universal intelligence and a universal consciousness to create the information in the computer. A review of the book:
> 
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/44680-I had no idea that Davies had this open of a mind. -I will fire out the obligatory Seth Lloyd plug where he demonstrated that mathematically, information most certainly can come from literally nothing... It's actually a cornerstone of Quantum Physics.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5479 views

Please can we take this discussion off the epistemology thread.
> 
> TONY (B_M): We are not even able to pin down the nature of consciousness itself, so we are in essence unable to locate the 'receiver', should there in fact be one.
> 
> This part of the discussion was sparked off by my TV analogy in response to Matt's claim that consciousness ended with the destruction of the brain. The point of my analogy was that the destruction of a TV set (the receiver) did not mean there was no transmitter. I was therefore equating the brain with the receiver, but the subsequent discussion now appears to be equating the "soul" (if there is such a thing) with the receiver. In NDE's and OBEs, the soul appears to perceive physical events, and some patients have said they did not wish to return to earthly life, which indicates emotion and a will ... even if they don't get their own way! Clearly, then, the "dead" patient retains his/her identity (and in this context I would bracket identity and consciousness together). What is the role of the brain if a person's identity is entirely "spiritual"? My suggestion was that the soul is encased in the body, which is why people often talk of death releasing the soul. An OBE/NDE would be just such a release. The brain receives the signals emitted by the soul and sends instructions to the body to react accordingly, although the body also sends signals through the brain to the soul, which actively processes them in order to take the relevant decisions and, again, send out its instructions. If, however, the soul is the receiver and not the transmitter, doesn't this mean that our identity is imposed on us from outside? What exactly is being signalled, and from where?-I don't have much room to discuss these events. A buddy at work suggested a book for me to read written by an M.D. that discusses his own experiences with patients. I know only what I have seen on T.V. in regards to this subject. Not a good place to be in...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5466 views


> I don't have much room to discuss these events. A buddy at work suggested a book for me to read written by an M.D. that discusses his own experiences with patients. I know only what I have seen on T.V. in regards to this subject. Not a good place to be in...-StArt with Michael Sabom's (M.D.) "Light and Death". Read about Pam Reynold's. Mentioned in my book, because it is so startling, but he has a complete description. It will bend your thinking.

5453 views

First, I never said that 'mind' was immaterial, which is one of the major differences between my point of view and standard Dualism. I think we covered this topic in some depth in our discussion of God as organized energy, which is no different than what I view 'mind' or soul to be. Energy is very physical, and thus there is no interaction problem between an energy form and the brain, which is by design quite adept at manipulating and responding to energetic influences.-Your explanation is still caught; in order for us to do computations using entanglement, we need supercold. (Right now superhot could only have happened during the big bang.) Computations are the minimum set of operations that our minds can perform. So any explanation of entanglement as a linkage between energy and physicality needs to overcome this barrier. The amount of energy in our bodies is nearly 600 degrees too warm and at least 2400 degrees too cool for entanglement to be of any use. -We know that we don't have a cloud of energy following us around outside of what we radiate as heat. -So where is this energy located?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5536 views

First, I never said that 'mind' was immaterial, which is one of the major differences between my point of view and standard Dualism. I think we covered this topic in some depth in our discussion of God as organized energy, which is no different than what I view 'mind' or soul to be. Energy is very physical, and thus there is no interaction problem between an energy form and the brain, which is by design quite adept at manipulating and responding to energetic influences.
> 
> Your explanation is still caught; in order for us to do computations using entanglement, we need supercold. (Right now superhot could only have happened during the big bang.) Computations are the minimum set of operations that our minds can perform. So any explanation of entanglement as a linkage between energy and physicality needs to overcome this barrier. The amount of energy in our bodies is nearly 600 degrees too warm and at least 2400 degrees too cool for entanglement to be of any use. 
> 
> We know that we don't have a cloud of energy following us around outside of what we radiate as heat. 
> 
> So where is this energy located?-
a) Who said anything about computations?
b) Why would linkage via quantum entanglement require computation?
C) We are at all times surrounded by a resource of energy so vast as to completely stagger the mind. As discussed in another thread sometime back, every single physical thing in this universe is connected via energy. 
D) My main point in all of this was to point out the arrogance of making a statement that a 'soul' or metaphysical connection to the physical form as impossible is based solely on a complete and utter ignorance of the nature of reality and consciousness. It was never intended to be an actual proposal of an explanation. 
E) I posited quantum entanglement as one example of information transference not requiring a signal to counter an argument that some study said they detected no signals. As quantum entanglement does not transmit information in anyway that we can currently detect, it automatically disqualifies the study saying that there is no signal by the simple of of demonstrating that information can be transmitted over vast distances almost instantaneously without a signal.

5480 views

Balance, 
> a) Who said anything about computations?
The closest thing we have to what you describe is quantum computing. Before it can be demonstrated in humans, it needs to be demonstrated in computers. Humans can do what computers do and more. I'll add to this shortly.-
> b) Why would linkage via quantum entanglement require computation?
> C) We are at all times surrounded by a resource of energy so vast as to completely stagger the mind. As discussed in another thread sometime back, every single physical thing in this universe is connected via energy. -What, the sun? We are definitely connected via energy, but in a very observable, traceable way.-> D) My main point in all of this was to point out the arrogance of making a statement that a 'soul' or metaphysical connection to the physical form as impossible is based solely on a complete and utter ignorance of the nature of reality and consciousness. It was never intended to be an actual proposal of an explanation. -Everything is allowed in metaphysics. There are no rules there.-In the rules of empiricism, however... so far your connections are raw conjecture with tenuous links. Even though you don't necessarily use them.-> E) I posited quantum entanglement as one example of information transference not requiring a signal to counter an argument that some study said they detected no signals. As quantum entanglement does not transmit information in anyway that we can currently detect, it automatically disqualifies the study saying that there is no signal by the simple of of demonstrating that information can be transmitted over vast distances almost instantaneously without a signal.-How? The existence of a property that can only be created at extremes of temperature negates its use in describing consciousness which operates at alightly above room temperature. We can safely rule it out. Show me entanglement at room temperature and then you have a case for entanglement as information transference to define consciousness.-The existence of entanglement itself does not negate these studies.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5430 views

Balance, 
> > a) Who said anything about computations?
> The closest thing we have to what you describe is quantum computing. Before it can be demonstrated in humans, it needs to be demonstrated in computers. Humans can do what computers do and more. I'll add to this shortly.
> 
I still don't see the connection here. Sorry. I have been a little distracted with school work recently. Please elaborate.-> 
> > b) Why would linkage via quantum entanglement require computation?
> > C) We are at all times surrounded by a resource of energy so vast as to completely stagger the mind. As discussed in another thread sometime back, every single physical thing in this universe is connected via energy. 
> 
> What, the sun? We are definitely connected via energy, but in a very observable, traceable way.-All matter is connected by bonds of energy at an atomic level. The very substance that comprises our physical existence is a source of energy that boggles the mind. (My mind at least) -> 
> > D) My main point in all of this was to point out the arrogance of making a statement that a 'soul' or metaphysical connection to the physical form as impossible is based solely on a complete and utter ignorance of the nature of reality and consciousness. It was never intended to be an actual proposal of an explanation. 
> 
> Everything is allowed in metaphysics. There are no rules there.
> 
> In the rules of empiricism, however... so far your connections are raw conjecture with tenuous links. Even though you don't necessarily use them.
> 
> > E) I posited quantum entanglement as one example of information transference not requiring a signal to counter an argument that some study said they detected no signals. As quantum entanglement does not transmit information in anyway that we can currently detect, it automatically disqualifies the study saying that there is no signal by the simple of of demonstrating that information can be transmitted over vast distances almost instantaneously without a signal.
> 
> How? The existence of a property that can only be created at extremes of temperature negates its use in describing consciousness which operates at alightly above room temperature. We can safely rule it out. Show me entanglement at room temperature and then you have a case for entanglement as information transference to define consciousness.
> -All matter was created at extreme temperatures, and while the matter has changed forms, made new connections, and broken old connections, we are all still comprised of the mass formed at the beginning of the universe in what we assume to be a 'big bang' of enormous temperature. What we don't know, is how long this entanglement lasts, if it is destructible, or if it continues to exist once the entangled particles cool.-> The existence of entanglement itself does not negate these studies. -It negates the studies in the sense that the studies themselves are incomplete, and thus can not be said to be entirely conclusive. At the very least, it could be said that of the forms of signals that they tested for, none existed, but that this finding does not preclude the discovery of a form of transmission not tested for.

5448 views

Balance, 
> > > a) Who said anything about computations?
> > The closest thing we have to what you describe is quantum computing. Before it can be demonstrated in humans, it needs to be demonstrated in computers. Humans can do what computers do and more. I'll add to this shortly.
> > 
> I still don't see the connection here. Sorry. I have been a little distracted with school work recently. Please elaborate.
> -In our goal to understand consciousness, one of the challenges that will teach us the most is in creating a consciousness. This is difficult with modern computing because the model of computing we use today (Von Neumann). HP recently made a memresistor that mimics the design of neurons, in collaboration with the Dept. of Defense. -The most progress in learning about cognition has been in the field of Artificial Intelligence. If you want to know about cognition these days, you look for an AI expert. I told you all that to tell you this:-The human brain's best analogy is that of a computer. We know that there are definite criteria for when the human brain can function. Before we can use entanglement in discussion about the theory of the mind, it needs to be demonstrated that entanglement can be controlled first. That's where quantum computing comes in. -> All matter is connected by bonds of energy at an atomic level. The very substance that comprises our physical existence is a source of energy that boggles the mind. (My mind at least) -> 
> All matter was created at extreme temperatures, and while the matter has changed forms, made new connections, and broken old connections, we are all still comprised of the mass formed at the beginning of the universe in what we assume to be a 'big bang' of enormous temperature. What we don't know, is how long this entanglement lasts, if it is destructible, or if it continues to exist once the entangled particles cool.
> -So far our experience with entanglement has been that the phenomenon self-destructs rapidly without precise electromagnetics, and a very, very low temperature. Any interaction with an entangled object destroys the entangled state. For example, the Chinese performed a feat last year where they entangled two particles and "teleported" information from one to the other. This state maintains itself until you perform a "read" operation in order to extract your qubit of information. As soon as you interact with the particle, its entangled state decays and the particles are no longer connected. -In the early universe--entangled states would have been impossible to maintain; and when matter cooled and coalesced, interactions with other particles (formed by clumping matter) would have further destroyed entangled states. Entanglement right now, only exists in labs as far as we're aware. -When you have time, for the first time they were able to entangle 10Bn bits of silicon. But read at what they had to do in order to make it happen; it is process intensive. -http://www.hpcwire.com/industry/academia/Silicon-Entanglement-Revives-Promise-of-Quantum-Computing-114394799.html

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5554 views


> In our goal to understand consciousness, one of the challenges that will teach us the most is in creating a consciousness. > 
> The most progress in learning about cognition has been in the field of Artificial Intelligence. If you want to know about cognition these days, you look for an AI expert. I told you all that to tell you this:
> 
> The human brain's best analogy is that of a computer. -I think the following paper is an excellent discussion of consciousness and I think is a refutation of AI research creating consciousness and believing that the brain is only a super-computer.:-http://www.newstatesman.com/print/201102240028

5460 views


> > In our goal to understand consciousness, one of the challenges that will teach us the most is in creating a consciousness. > 
> > The most progress in learning about cognition has been in the field of Artificial Intelligence. If you want to know about cognition these days, you look for an AI expert. I told you all that to tell you this:
> > 
> > The human brain's best analogy is that of a computer. 
> 
> I think the following paper is an excellent discussion of consciousness and I think is a refutation of AI research creating consciousness and believing that the brain is only a super-computer.:
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/print/201102240028-While the high profile guys (like Kurzweil) look at consciousness in that way, you should spend some time reading AI journals. You'd find that the average AI practitioner is much more humble in his opinions concerning human consciousness.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5594 views


> While the high profile guys (like Kurzweil) look at consciousness in that way, you should spend some time reading AI journals. You'd find that the average AI practitioner is much more humble in his opinions concerning human consciousness.-Based on the following review article on epigenetics, brain development and memory it will be extremely difficult to mimic the brain, which may be in constant development by epigenetic mechanisms from birth until death:-http://www.the-scientist.com/2011/3/1/40/1/

5392 views


> > While the high profile guys (like Kurzweil) look at consciousness in that way, you should spend some time reading AI journals. You'd find that the average AI practitioner is much more humble in his opinions concerning human consciousness.
> 
> Based on the following review article on epigenetics, brain development and memory it will be extremely difficult to mimic the brain, which may be in constant development by epigenetic mechanisms from birth until death:
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/2011/3/1/40/1/-Ironically David, your statement will be true if and only if structure itself gives rise to the mind.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5603 views


> > Based on the following review article on epigenetics, brain development and memory it will be extremely difficult to mimic the brain, which may be in constant development by epigenetic mechanisms from birth until death:
> > 
> > http://www.the-scientist.com/2011/3/1/40/1/
> 
> Ironically David, your statement will be true if and only if structure itself gives rise to the mind.-My point is a little more to the issue of continuing development. The brain evolves and experiences memory which it can recreate later on. Can computers evolve themselves and add more transistors? And isn't memory a part of mind? I understand that memory may be holographic across the whole brain, but we are still dealing with underlying structure.

5421 views


> > > Based on the following review article on epigenetics, brain development and memory it will be extremely difficult to mimic the brain, which may be in constant development by epigenetic mechanisms from birth until death:
> > > 
> > > http://www.the-scientist.com/2011/3/1/40/1/
> > 
> > Ironically David, your statement will be true if and only if structure itself gives rise to the mind.
> 
> My point is a little more to the issue of continuing development. The brain evolves and experiences memory which it can recreate later on. Can computers evolve themselves and add more transistors? And isn't memory a part of mind? I understand that memory may be holographic across the whole brain, but we are still dealing with underlying structure.-If hardware is your issue, we already have self-assembling machines that are more complex than the basic design of a memristor. But my point was more geared around software. Once we get a machine with the right basic architecture, further connections can be made purely through software (at some kind of performance hit.) -The thinking of AI researchers though, is that if structure really gives rise to function, basic consciousness (as what is observed in all animals) shouldn't require nearly as many connections as what we want in the human brain. Self-aware? No idea. But there would be no real way to verify self-awareness, if you think about that idea long enough...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5677 views


> If hardware is your issue, we already have self-assembling machines that are more complex than the basic design of a memristor. But my point was more geared around software. Once we get a machine with the right basic architecture, further connections can be made purely through software (at some kind of performance hit.) -I didn't know that machines could do that. Fascinating. 
> 
> The thinking of AI researchers though, is that if structure really gives rise to function, basic consciousness (as what is observed in all animals) shouldn't require nearly as many connections as what we want in the human brain. Self-aware? No idea. But there would be no real way to verify self-awareness, if you think about that idea long enough...-No question about self-awareness. We have it, my dog recognizes himself in the mirror, so he has a little. Can computers ever achieve it? No.

5563 views


> > If hardware is your issue, we already have self-assembling machines that are more complex than the basic design of a memristor. But my point was more geared around software. Once we get a machine with the right basic architecture, further connections can be made purely through software (at some kind of performance hit.) 
> 
> I didn't know that machines could do that. Fascinating. -This is a simple machine.-More interesting are the ones NASA has been building that will allow satellites and space stations to self-repair from small impacts.-> > 
> > The thinking of AI researchers though, is that if structure really gives rise to function, basic consciousness (as what is observed in all animals) shouldn't require nearly as many connections as what we want in the human brain. Self-aware? No idea. But there would be no real way to verify self-awareness, if you think about that idea long enough...
> 
> No question about self-awareness. We have it, my dog recognizes himself in the mirror, so he has a little. Can computers ever achieve it? No.-I really think your dogmatic attitude on this point is forever annoying, lol. However, even if we get a machine that acts like us, walks like us, introspects like us--because we don't know how to 'test' consciousness--you can keep making that claim. -Of course, that same fact also allows me equally infinite skepticism to ID, so I suppose it shouldn't annoy me too much.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5448 views

I really think your dogmatic attitude on this point is forever annoying, lol. However, even if we get a machine that acts like us, walks like us, introspects like us--because we don't know how to 'test' consciousness--you can keep making that claim. 
> 
> Of course, that same fact also allows me equally infinite skepticism to ID, so I suppose it shouldn't annoy me too much.-No point in annoyance. As for testing consciousness, we know it when we feel it, to revert to supreme court reasoning. We both can be dogmatic. I know neither of us will give in.;-()

5532 views

David - No question about self-awareness. We have it, my dog recognizes himself in the mirror, so he has a little. Can computers ever achieve it? No.
> 
> I really think your dogmatic attitude on this point is forever annoying, lol. However, even if we get a machine that acts like us, walks like us, introspects like us--because we don't know how to 'test' consciousness--you can keep making that claim.
My laptop seems to have a degree of self awareness. It knows when its batteries are low, it even tells me. It will shut itself down if I ignore it, all on its own. My laptop definitely is aware of its virtual memory - or at least it keeps telling me its virtual memory is low. Give a laptop a GPS, and it will be able to distinguish itself from other laptops with similar GPSs. -Of course I'm not claiming my laptop is aware to the same degree I am, but to claim machinery cannot have any form of self awareness is, for me, worrying.

5400 views

David - No question about self-awareness. We have it, my dog recognizes himself in the mirror, so he has a little. Can computers ever achieve it? No.
> > 
> > I really think your dogmatic attitude on this point is forever annoying, lol. However, even if we get a machine that acts like us, walks like us, introspects like us--because we don't know how to 'test' consciousness--you can keep making that claim.
> My laptop seems to have a degree of self awareness. It knows when its batteries are low, it even tells me. It will shut itself down if I ignore it, all on its own. My laptop definitely is aware of its virtual memory - or at least it keeps telling me its virtual memory is low. Give a laptop a GPS, and it will be able to distinguish itself from other laptops with similar GPSs. 
> -This isn't quite the same thing. Understanding how a computer works gives me a huge advantage here, but the processor does nothing but continuously process instructions. Instructions tell it that there is a number that it needs to grab from the I/O bus--your battery level, and it sends it up to the Operating System. The OS has a set of predefined rules it follows, and if certain other numbers are reached--time away from the machine--it executes a set of instructions to shut itself down. The machine doesn't know why it's doing these things, it just does them. Mindlessly.-In the GPS example, the computer would only ever know that two numbers aren't equal. It won't know the meaning of the number, it won't know why it was even checking it. A program (that a human wrote) will test the two numbers and then execute some logic. But the machine only ever "knows" a stream of numbers and instructions, and other numbers that reference memory. It isn't the same thing at all. -> Of course I'm not claiming my laptop is aware to the same degree I am, but to claim machinery cannot have any form of self awareness is, for me, worrying.-The kind of awareness you're discussing here is like very rudimentary reflex-type actions, like when you touch your hand to a hot burner--no thought is required, you just respond.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

5449 views


> > Of course I'm not claiming my laptop is aware to the same degree I am, but to claim machinery cannot have any form of self awareness is, for me, worrying.
> 
> The kind of awareness you're discussing here is like very rudimentary reflex-type actions, like when you touch your hand to a hot burner--no thought is required, you just respond.-I thinks Romansh likes to challenge us just to keep us on our toes.

5407 views


> Of course I'm not claiming my laptop is aware to the same degree I am, but to claim machinery cannot have any form of self awareness is, for me, worrying.-Your laptop as feedback circuits. It is not 'aware that it is aware', because the underlying current of the discussion is true consciousness. As I've just stated in a recent post, my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.

5431 views

my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.-Is it a leap to say, because I am aware that I am aware, there must be a dual aspect to human consciousness that, as far as we know, isn't found in other beings? -bb

5416 views

my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.
> 
> Is it a leap to say, because I am aware that I am aware, there must be a dual aspect to human consciousness that, as far as we know, isn't found in other beings? -
bBella: Above I am using what I think is the best brief example of consciousness. My dog can never have this disccusion with me (I know he doesn't talk.) My favorite example for animals: the chimps are all sitting on a bench in their habitat at the zoo. The sun is setting and there are glorious shades of red on extraordinary cloud formations. We would comment to each other how marvelous the sunset was. The chimps would say, time for supper.

5379 views

my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.
> > 
> > Is it a leap to say, because I am aware that I am aware, there must be a dual aspect to human consciousness that, as far as we know, isn't found in other beings? 
> 
> 
> bBella: Above I am using what I think is the best brief example of consciousness. My dog can never have this disccusion with me (I know he doesn't talk.) My favorite example for animals: the chimps are all sitting on a bench in their habitat at the zoo. The sun is setting and there are glorious shades of red on extraordinary cloud formations. We would comment to each other how marvelous the sunset was. The chimps would say, time for supper.-The following is a book review of, "The Moral Lives of Animals", in the WSJ. Still 'red in tooth and claw': Real consciousness, no way.-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180823900101578.html?KEYWORDS=Stephen+Budiansky

5385 views

DAVID: My dog can never have this discussion with me (I know he doesn't talk).-He just goes round telling his mates he can never have a proper discussion with you because you don't speak his language!-Thank you for the book review of "The Moral Lives of Animals" (and also for the extremely interesting Horgan article with follow-ups). Despite the reviewer's - and your own - general scepticism, he is forced to make a significant concession:-"Despite having begged the question of human exceptionalism at the startâby dismissing the sense that we are different as mere "Darwinian narcissism"âMr. Peterson does develop a provocative case for the existence of a broadly shared evolutionary imperative that under pins human moral instincts. Among his better-chosen anecdotes are vivid illustrations of the social mechanisms by which primates and other group-dwellers mediate access to mates, food and other resources. Vampire bats, strikingly, remember which members of the group have shared a regurgitated blood meal in the past and know who to return the favor to. It is hard to argue with his proposition that the powerful emotional saliency moral issues have for us, and their connection to serious matters of social organization and conflictâsex, territory, possessions, reciprocity, kinshipâpoint to a hard-wired evolutionary adaptation of group-dwelling animals."-We tend to forget that animal societies preceded our own and laid down the principles that govern our own. We also forget that most animal societies have a leader, generally recognized because of his/her outstanding qualities (unlike some human leaders I could mention). The matriarch of the elephant herd, for instance, often has to take difficult decisions. She is not on automatic pilot.-I certainly wouldn't argue with the reviewer's subsequent qualification concerning our human ability "to weigh abstract notions and hold ourselves accountable to moral ideals" and "to have thoughts about thoughts and to perceive that other minds exist and that they can hold ideas and beliefs different from one's own", but it bothers me that he and you take this to mean a lack of "real" consciousness in animals. It suggests that the elephant matriarch is not aware of her choices, and that animals generally are not aware that they are hungry, in pain, frightened, grieving, in danger. The next logical step is to say that since they are not aware that they are suffering, they are not suffering....(If this were true, of course, they would not seek food, try to escape, or hide). BBella suggests there must be a "dual aspect to human consciousness that, as far as we know, isn't found in other beings". I think animals have just such a dual aspect, but we have a third layer, and maybe even more: we are conscious of what we feel and do, we are conscious of that consciousness, and we can even consciously analyse our consciousness of our consciousness. I don't think there is any disagreement between us here, but I baulk at the suggestion that the consciousness of animals is not 'real'.

5439 views

my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.
> > > 
> > > Is it a leap to say, because I am aware that I am aware, there must be a dual aspect to human consciousness that, as far as we know, isn't found in other beings? 
> 
> The following is a book review of, "The Moral Lives of Animals", in the WSJ. Still 'red in tooth and claw': Real consciousness, no way.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180823900101578.html?KEYWORDS... is another article that seems to show chimp awareness, but true self-awareness, in an intellectual way, no way!:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-chimps-self-aware.html

5374 views

DAVID: Here is another article that seems to show chimp awareness, but true self-awareness, in an intellectual way, no way!:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-chimps-self-aware.html-Yet again, my thanks to David for this constant stream of fascinating articles.-I wonder to what extent even this subject is distorted by our use of language. What is the borderline between self-awareness and "true" self-awareness? In what way is self-awareness different from "intellectual" self-awareness? An experiment which shows that chimps recognize themselves in the mirror and perform actions based on that self-recognition is surely enough to prove that they are aware of their own identity as being separate from that of others. We know that animals very different from ourselves reason, communicate, and are sentient. The question is therefore not whether but to what degree they are self-aware, and to what degree they can communicate, reason, feel. You can just as easily ask that question about children: to what degree is a baby, a toddler, an infant, a child "truly" self-aware etc.? -Underlying David's scepticism (please correct me if I'm wrong) is the belief that the human mind is different in kind from that of other animals, and this in turn ties in with his belief that the history of life from the beginning was geared to God's intention to produce humans. We've already argued the toss over this directionality of evolution, but another approach is to say that humans are descended from other forms of life, and it is only natural that we should therefore have inherited certain attributes. The fact that we have developed them to such a vast degree ... to the extent of investigating and questioning all aspects of existence, creating technologies even beyond the wildest dreams of our predecessors, refining our aesthetic sense through art, music and literature ... should not make us lose sight of the common ground we have with other animals. Just as we respect our babies, not knowing the exact degree of their self-awareness, sentience etc., so too should we respect other forms of life, and not assume that lesser awareness is not "true" awareness.-I'm sure David does have just such respect. These are general comments which are in no way to be taken personally!

5341 views

DAVID: Here is another article that seems to show chimp awareness, but true self-awareness, in an intellectual way, no way!:
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-chimps-self-aware.html-
> We know that animals very different from ourselves reason, communicate, and are sentient. The question is therefore not whether but to what degree they are self-aware, and to what degree they can communicate, reason, feel. You can just as easily ask that question about children: to what degree is a baby, a toddler, an infant, a child "truly" self-aware etc.? -I think the differentiation is a simple one: animals can self-identify. If I call Jack, my poodle, he responds to me. He is aware of himself in the mirror. But he doesn't think more deeply and study the fact that he is aware. He is not aware that he is aware, which is a much deeper level. Chimps are not philosolphical is another way of putting it.
> 
> Underlying David's scepticism (please correct me if I'm wrong) is the belief that the human mind is different in kind from that of other animals, and this in turn ties in with his belief that the history of life from the beginning was geared to God's intention to produce humans.-Simply, yes. 
> I'm sure David does have just such respect. These are general comments which are in no way to be taken personally!-I am very aware of our animalistic evolutionary background. I've been on safari in Africa twice, to shoot animals, by camera. I do not kill animals for pleasure. But yes, if a ferel hog is tearing up my ranch, and then he goes to the BBQ pit. I respect all animals who respect me. For our pleasure and to help them we have bird feeders, ten bluebird houses, a butterfly garden, and feed plots for the deer.

5349 views

Your laptop as feedback circuits. It is not 'aware that it is aware', because the underlying current of the discussion is true consciousness. As I've just stated in a recent post, my dog is very bright as a dog, he is conscoius and aware of things he wants to do and things he must do, but he is not aware that he is aware.-David are you suggesting the human mind does not have feedback circuits?-I agree whole heartedly that the circuitry of the human brain is far more complex than a laptop and that the human brain is far more capable of data recognition and manipulation than my laptop or even you dog. So are you suggesting that for consciousness there is a critical complexity below which consciousness cannot exist. -some food for thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wACltn9QpCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g

5479 views

Your laptop has feedback circuits. It is not 'aware that it is aware', because the underlying current of the discussion is true consciousness.
 
> David are you suggesting the human mind does not have feedback circuits?-Thank you for providing some brain food for me. Those robets will learn more than our automatic vacuum, the roomba, which does have some pattern learning when it is doing a room. That is very interesting research, but from my medical perspective, they will not learn a whole lot about the human brain and its problems. They will need to get to much bigger brains, where more than just some neurons are used as memristors. As for feedback loops, of course the human brain has them. Matt and I were suggesting that what you are describing in your laptop are reflex reactions based on very simple circuitry. 
> 
> I agree whole heartedly that the circuitry of the human brain is far more complex than a laptop and that the human brain is far more capable of data recognition and manipulation than my laptop or even you dog. So are you suggesting that for consciousness there is a critical complexity below which consciousness cannot exist. -That is point of Mortimer Adler's book, "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes", 1967, Fordham Press. He makes it quite clear that he considers humans different in kind, not degree from the lower primates, because of consciousness.-Jeremy Taylor adds to this point in, "Not A Chimp", 2009, Oxford Press. Our DNA make it look like a 98% match. But that is only counting bases (Nucleotides). Looking at gene structure and phenotypical changes: for example, 6.4% of human genes do not have a copy match in chimps. Genes having to do with immunity are 13% different. There is research to show that we have added a new 7% of our genes in the last 50,000 years.

5370 views

That is very interesting research, but from my medical perspective, they will not learn a whole lot about the human brain and its problems. They will need to get to much bigger brains, where more than just some neurons are used as memristors. As for feedback loops, of course the human brain has them. -I tend to agree, but I suspect they will learn 'stuff' that will turn out to be unexpected. Learning about the brain is no doubt just for benefit of the grant applications.-> Matt and I were suggesting that what you are describing in your laptop are reflex reactions based on very simple circuitry. -I think I have a good sense of what you and Matt are suggesting from the free will thread a way back. But my queston is: are any of our conscious thoughts not a result of an incredibly complex cascade of 'reflex' chemical reactions, difusion of ions, discharges of electrons etc?->>So are you suggesting that for consciousness there is a critical complexity below which consciousness cannot exist. -You did not answer my question David.

5395 views


> I think I have a good sense of what you and Matt are suggesting from the free will thread a way back. But my queston is: are any of our conscious thoughts not a result of an incredibly complex cascade of 'reflex' chemical reactions, difusion of ions, discharges of electrons etc?
> 
> >>So are you suggesting that for consciousness there is a critical complexity below which consciousness cannot exist. 
> 
> You did not answer my question David.-Sorry. Yes the brain does exactly that, but how that brain cascade translates into conscious thinking as some type of emergent event, which is really a bunch of words saying nothing, really means we don't know. And it does seem to require a critical level of complexity to make consciousness, and just not being conscious.-It is because of that jump, that we are different in kind, not degree from other primates.

5334 views

> Please can we take this discussion off the epistemology thread.
> 
> TONY (B_M): We are not even able to pin down the nature of consciousness itself, so we are in essence unable to locate the 'receiver', should there in fact be one.
> 
> This part of the discussion was sparked off by my TV analogy in response to Matt's claim that consciousness ended with the destruction of the brain. The point of my analogy was that the destruction of a TV set (the receiver) did not mean there was no transmitter. I was therefore equating the brain with the receiver, but the subsequent discussion now appears to be equating the "soul" (if there is such a thing) with the receiver. In NDE's and OBEs, the soul appears to perceive physical events, and some patients have said they did not wish to return to earthly life, which indicates emotion and a will ... even if they don't get their own way! Clearly, then, the "dead" patient retains his/her identity (and in this context I would bracket identity and consciousness together). What is the role of the brain if a person's identity is entirely "spiritual"? My suggestion was that the soul is encased in the body, which is why people often talk of death releasing the soul. An OBE/NDE would be just such a release. The brain receives the signals emitted by the soul and sends instructions to the body to react accordingly, although the body also sends signals through the brain to the soul, which actively processes them in order to take the relevant decisions and, again, send out its instructions. If, however, the soul is the receiver and not the transmitter, doesn't this mean that our identity is imposed on us from outside? What exactly is being signalled, and from where?--For the joy of sparking an old conversation, I would like to present the following for your reading enjoyment. They are each short articles, each related, but together present the possibility of a pivotal breakthrough in consciousness. -http://machineslikeus.com/news/brains-em-field-source-human-consciousness
http://machineslikeus.com/news/rewrite-textbooks
http://machineslikeus.com/news/ephaptic-consciousness
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13401-Also, please recall our previous discussions where I posited that because of the Electric Universe Model, the cosmological model proving that EM/Plasma was the driving force of the entire universe, we would find that all things great and small are connected by a common thread of energy. EM is looking more and more looking to be 'tie that binds'.

5306 views

TONY: For the joy of sparking an old conversation, I would like to present the following for your reading enjoyment. They are each short articles, each related, but together present the possibility of a pivotal breakthrough in consciousness.
 
http://machineslikeus.com/news/brains-em-field-source-human-consciousness
http://machineslikeus.com/news/rewrite-textbooks
http://machineslikeus.com/news/ephaptic-consciousness
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13401-This is a subject in which I am extremely interested, but not for the first time I find myself in need of help. The question raised by many religions is whether a person's identity - which I would regard as being inseparable from his/her consciousness - can exist independently of the physical brain. If consciousness resides within a person's electromagnetic field, will this shed any light on such phenomena as OBEs, NDEs, and other apparently extrasensory phenomena? I would be most grateful for a plain explanation of the significance of this new approach.

5343 views


> http://machineslikeus.com/news/brains-em-field-source-human-consciousness&... http://machineslikeus.com/news/rewrite-textbooks
> http://machineslikeus.com/news/ephaptic-consciousness
> http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13401
> If consciousness resides within a person's electromagnetic field, will this shed any light on such phenomena as OBEs, NDEs, and other apparently extrasensory phenomena? I would be most grateful for a plain explanation of the significance of this new approach.-I don't think you can extrapolate from these early findings to an understanding of consciousness or the near to death phenomena. All electric wires or axons will generate an em field. Logically in evolution the neurons and axons have been affected by the fields and learned to use them. Another proof of life's prodigious complexity.

5285 views

The general consensus is that it would not shed any light on OBE/NDE's because the skin and cranium act as a fairly good insulator against EM. However, I do recall reading a article on Ancient Egypt in which they would remove a section of a person's skull, or attempt to keep the skull from closing during childhood, in order to maintain or heighten their spiritual senses.

5293 views

The general consensus is that it would not shed any light on OBE/NDE's because the skin and cranium act as a fairly good insulator against EM. However, I do recall reading a article on Ancient Egypt in which they would remove a section of a person's skull, or attempt to keep the skull from closing during childhood, in order to maintain or heighten their spiritual senses.-But the brain has its own self-created EM fields, within the skin and skull.

5353 views

Sorry if I was unclear there. The idea is that there is no interaction with external EM fields because of the shielding of the cranium and skin. Therefore, the brains internal EM field, which is a supposedly weak field, can not go outside the skull, and weak external fields can not come in. At least that seems to be the professional consensus.

5327 views

Sorry if I was unclear there. The idea is that there is no interaction with external EM fields because of the shielding of the cranium and skin. Therefore, the brains internal EM field, which is a supposedly weak field, can not go outside the skull, and weak external fields can not come in. At least that seems to be the professional consensus.-Fair enough, but the EM levels under electric transmission wires can be quite high and I would gather can have an effect.

5283 views

Agreed. There are also known cases of signals in the brain reinforcing and amplifying the signal strength of each other, which leads me to suspect that highly focused thought, such as one might experience in a NDE/OBE or during meditation might also be enough to penetrate the skull/skin barrier, making one receptive to outside influence. I think this field is only just beginning to really open up, and if it is true, it opens a lot of possibilities about the way that we interact with each other and the world. It may also lead to more understanding about if and how this broad saturation of artificially created EM fields from power lines and other electronics effect Humans on more than a purely physiological level.

5370 views

Tony drew our attention to various articles about new discoveries relating to consciousness and electromagnetic fields. I asked if these shed any light on such phenomena as OBEs and NDEs, but apparently they do not. My thanks to both David and Tony for this clarification. -The new discoveries therefore still indicate that consciousness is dependent on the electrical impulses that take place within the confines of our physical brain. If we accept the authenticity of experiences in which people receive information that would be inaccessible to them under normal circumstances, we can only infer either 1) that the brain has unknown physical means of transmitting and receiving electrical impulses beyond its own confines, or 2) that consciousness does NOT depend on the physical brain. Clearly this has a huge bearing on the concepts of "soul" and "afterlife", and is not exactly irrelevant to the concept of "God" (a universal consciousness). -Both of you, David and Tony, are theists, and I will be so bold as to suggest that your God must have some form of consciousness. Bearing this in mind, may I then ask you (and anyone else who is interested) which of the above alternatives you consider more likely?-******-I drafted this before reading your latest post, Tony, which seems to indicate a preference for 1). Nevertheless, I will leave my post as it is, since it raises questions which might be worth pursuing.

5298 views

either 1) that the brain has unknown physical means of transmitting and receiving electrical impulses beyond its own confines, or 2) that consciousness does NOT depend on the physical brain. Clearly this has a huge bearing on the concepts of "soul" and "afterlife", and is not exactly irrelevant to the concept of "God" (a universal consciousness). -
One could also ask why you seem to imply that 1 & 2 are mutually exclusive? To me it seems that there are some fundamental assumptions being made about the nature of the 'soul', 'afterlife', and consciousness. I would posit the following:-The brain DOES have an unknown, or perhaps known but not understood, method of transmitting and receiving external information, and that consciousness, in the terms of a conscious awareness of the material world as we know it, does in fact rely on the brain to interpret data into the reality that we experience. However, material experience and consciousness as we understand it do not exclusively hold the sole keys of existence, but rather only on the range and form of sensory perception unique to 'living' organisms.-Just a thought that has been tumbling around my gray matter since reading these articles.

5305 views

Dhw: If we accept the authenticity of experiences in which people receive information that would be inaccessible to them under normal circumstances, we can only infer either 1) that the brain has unknown physical means of transmitting and receiving electrical impulses beyond its own confines, or 2) that consciousness does NOT depend on the physical brain. Clearly this has a huge bearing on the concepts of "soul" and "afterlife", and is not exactly irrelevant to the concept of "God" (a universal consciousness). -TONY: One could also ask why you seem to imply that 1 & 2 are mutually exclusive? To me it seems that there are some fundamental assumptions being made about the nature of the 'soul', 'afterlife', and consciousness.-Forgive me, but I think you may be suffering from a brand new syndrome which I shall call "assumptive paranoia". I have no idea whether there are such things as soul, afterlife and God, and if there are, I have no idea what they consist of. But I would love to know. In what I'm fully aware is a vain quest to find out, I join together the various dots of information I have, and try to form a pattern with them. This is how we all endeavour to make sense of things. In quoting me, you omitted the introductory "if clause", which makes it clear that I am building on a hypothesis. That, I'm afraid, is all I can do in my speculations.-Are 1 & 2 mutually exclusive? In the OBE/NDE context that I was referring to, I'd say yes. As far as the concepts of soul and afterlife are concerned, the survivors of NDEs have reported events in which they clearly retained their consciousness and their identity. IF the brain is dead, I'd say only 2) is possible. For me, a soul and afterlife without personal consciousness and identity sound pretty pointless, but I'm not assuming anything. As far as a UI is concerned, if it is not conscious, it seems to me that you might just as well believe in an impersonal universe. If it is conscious, I see no reason why we should not look for clues concerning the nature of its consciousness in the only form of consciousness we know, which is ours.-TONY: I would posit the following:
The brain DOES have an unknown, or perhaps known but not understood, method of transmitting and receiving external information, and that consciousness, in the terms of a conscious awareness of the material world as we know it, does in fact rely on the brain to interpret data into the reality that we experience. However, material experience and consciousness as we understand it do not exclusively hold the sole keys of existence, but rather only on the range and form of sensory perception unique to 'living' organisms.-This whole debate, in which consciousness is one of the key focal points, revolves around whether or not there are forms of being/existence/consciousness beyond those of the material world as we know it. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot for the life of me find a convincing answer either way. By contrast, your last sentence (presumably you omitted the word "rely") is phrased as a definite answer. One might even call it an assumption.

5264 views

Dhw: If we accept the authenticity of experiences in which people receive information that would be inaccessible to them under normal circumstances, we can only infer either 1) that the brain has unknown physical means of transmitting and receiving electrical impulses beyond its own confines, or 2) that consciousness does NOT depend on the physical brain. Clearly this has a huge bearing on the concepts of "soul" and "afterlife", and is not exactly irrelevant to the concept of "God" (a universal consciousness). 
> 
> TONY: One could also ask why you seem to imply that 1 & 2 are mutually exclusive? To me it seems that there are some fundamental assumptions being made about the nature of the 'soul', 'afterlife', and consciousness.
> 
> Forgive me, but I think you may be suffering from a brand new syndrome which I shall call "assumptive paranoia". I have no idea whether there are such things as soul, afterlife and God, and if there are, I have no idea what they consist of. But I would love to know. In what I'm fully aware is a vain quest to find out, I join together the various dots of information I have, and try to form a pattern with them. This is how we all endeavour to make sense of things. In quoting me, you omitted the introductory "if clause", which makes it clear that I am building on a hypothesis. That, I'm afraid, is all I can do in my speculations.
> -No, not paranoia, just calling it like I see it. The two items you listed are not fundamentally linked, so not mutually exclusive. IF the EM theory is true, yes, the brain could have unknown properties that allow our consciousness to connect with our bodies allowing us to experience a physical existence, and no, the conscious is NOT necessarily dependent on the brain for existence, but possibly only for sensory translation and as an interface with a physical body. -Just a thought. One that also does not imply an impersonal universe.-> 
> TONY: I would posit the following:
> The brain DOES have an unknown, or perhaps known but not understood, method of transmitting and receiving external information, and that consciousness, in the terms of a conscious awareness of the material world as we know it, does in fact rely on the brain to interpret data into the reality that we experience. However, material experience and consciousness as we understand it do not exclusively hold the sole keys of existence, but rather only on the range and form of sensory perception unique to 'living' organisms.
> 
> This whole debate, in which consciousness is one of the key focal points, revolves around whether or not there are forms of being/existence/consciousness beyond those of the material world as we know it. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot for the life of me find a convincing answer either way. By contrast, your last sentence (presumably you omitted the word "rely") is phrased as a definite answer. One might even call it an assumption.-
I am not making an assumption here, but simply positing a possible scenario. My apologies. I should have been more clear.

5268 views

In OBEs/NDEs, the patients are respectively deemed to be unconscious/clinically dead. These patients, when revived, report on observations which theoretically they could not have made, and provide information to which they could not have had access. I suggested that if these experiences were authentic, (we might also take them in conjunction with other types of paranormal experience such as those of BBella and her family), they indicated that either 1) the brain has unknown physical means of transmitting and receiving electrical impulses beyond its own confines, or 2) that consciousness does not depend on the physical brain.-TONY: The two items you listed are not fundamentally linked, so not mutually exclusive. IF the EM theory is true, yes, the brain could have unknown properties that allow our consciousness to connect with our bodies allowing us to experience a physical existence, and no, the conscious is NOT necessarily dependent on the brain for existence, but possibly only for sensory translation and as an interface with a physical body.-I don't think there's any disagreement between us here, but I take your point. I probably haven't made my focus sharp enough. The interplay between the senses and the brain is clear, but CONSCIOUSNESS of that interplay and all the phenomena associated with consciousness (ideas, emotions, memory etc.) and with identity ... all of which apparently remain in place during OBEs and NDEs ... are the mystery. My focus, then, is on those phenomena that can't be explained in terms of "sensory translation and as an interface with a physical body". Either the non-sensory and hitherto unexplained phenomena listed above are the product of unknown areas of the brain or they are not. In other words, I'm asking if it's the brain that pulls all the strings, or if we have another form of consciousness that directs the brain.-NDEs at least seem to suggest the latter, but as I've commented before, in that case one might expect ALL patients to have similar experiences, since presumably all would be a mixture of the "physical" and "non-physical". On the contrary, however, only 62 out of 344 of Pim van Lommel's patients had an NDE. If one considered the remaining 282 cases, one might perhaps infer that the clinical death of the brain = the end of consciousness ... i.e. that the brain is the source of consciousness, and one should seek physical explanations for the other 62 cases.-TONY: Just a thought. One that also does not imply an impersonal universe.-Agreed. If consciousness and all its associated phenomena are NOT produced by the brain, there may be other forms and levels of existence we do not know about. That is why this subject is so fundamental to our discussions.

5316 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum