Consciousness/Life after death (split from Atheism shows signs of religion)

[s1eep]

Perhaps you would like to explain this

"Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word. "

Are you medically qualified to make such a diagnosis?

 

Also this seems odd

"Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. "

Do you mean that, if I were to be clever enough to understand the universe then life after death would suddenly become less likely?

Because that's what you have written.

 

Perhaps you should stop,

No. I'm saying that it's so complex you'll never be clever enough, and that somewhere out in its complexity may be heaven, or the capabilities for after-life or reincarnation.

You are, egotistical, "how do you know?"

I am "I know I don't know and will probably never know... Something might be out there, seeing as it is that complex." I possess belief. Yours is clouded with words. You have a word-virus.

Edited October 20, 2013 by s1eep

[John Cuthber]

No. I'm saying that it's so complex you'll never be clever enough, and that somewhere out in its complexity may be heaven, or the capabilities for after-life or reincarnation.

You are, egotistical, "how do you know?"

I am "I know I don't know and will probably never know... Something might be out there, seeing as it is that complex." I possess belief. Yours is clouded with words. You have a word-virus.

For a start, look at the sentence construction.

You did say that life after death is probable because I 'm not clever enough to understand the universe.

Well there was or wasn't life after death before I was born. So there's no possible way that it can depend on how clever I am.

So your assertion is illogical.

 

 

 

"You are, egotistical, "how do you know?""

Like most scientists, I freely admit that I don't know, and that's why I seek evidence.

Would you like to explain why you came to the idea that there is such a thing as a word virus and what you mean my that?

 

Come to think of it, would you like to provide any evidence at all (incidentally old books and hearsay don't count) of any of the assertions you have made.

[s1eep]

I don't find your idea of evidence discussion worthy, you are the ones who don't believe in discussion. As said, you nullify imagination. If you can tell me why it doesn't exist, with proper evidence, I may change my mind (I take back what I said), but I think you'll just post with the old "Water is two oxygen one hydrogen", when water is much more than that when treated as relative (which it can be). Your nullifying life is not effective to me, but, please feel free to explain to me why dreamstates can't possibly exist and after-life can't possibly exist when you know next to nothing about the universe,

[John Cuthber]

I don't find your idea of evidence discussion worthy,

then you are were on the wrong site.

[Moontanman]

It's not baseless because we have dreams and experience whole dream states. It's asserting that dream states may exist in the universe, and just because science hasn't got the range to find it, doesn't mean it's non-existent. You can hardly pass the borders of our solar system. Just like you phase into existence as a baby, why can't we fade into a new existence. I believe, all we need is time. Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word. Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. You can nullify fluctuating life, but you can't explain life's true meaning. Because of the stupidity of the word-virus, these questions aren't even considered scientific even though the importance of them for natural morality. You are as abnormal as homosexuals, but like them, you believe your ineptitude to perceive the true universe is normal. Go ahead and ignore what I said again, and use science-based rules to defeat religious-based rules, because, as you will say egotistically, "it's better". Do I believe there are things science can't discover? Yes. I don't think you'll ever visit an entity outside of our solar system, let alone travel to the far reaches of the universe, or outer-limits, to discover a living dream state. What you promote is to not have this belief, and follow the very simple in comparison, stream like a dead fish. I possess belief, and this belief is based on things I have experienced.

s1eep you are beginning to sound shrill as if reality is threatening your world view. That is not a problem if your world view is reality.

 

I honestly would like to help you with understanding why belief does not equal knowledge but you will have to explain the terms you keep using.

 

"and just because science hasn't got the range to find it, doesn't mean it's non-existent."

 

Agreed, this is true but we can't prove the sugar plum fairy doesn't exist either does that mean they are real?

 

" You can hardly pass the borders of our solar system."

 

This is a mistake on your part, I suggest you study a little astronomy, you would be amazed at what we do know about the universe..

 

"dream states in the universe" I really do not understand what you mean by this, of course dream states exist, I awoke last night from a very realistic dream, but I doubt the flying motorcycle I was riding had any basis in reality. By definition dream states only exist in our minds and are usually very short snippets of memory our brains are trying to make sense of.

 

"you phase into existence as a baby, why can't we fade into a new existence." If you phase into existence from non existence when you are born why would you expect not to phase out of existence when you die?

 

"Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word." I honestly have no idea what you mean by this, please explain...

 

"Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. " I disagree, in fact I would say the universe is well on it's way to being understood. I would also add your inability to understand does not mean others do not.

 

"You can nullify fluctuating life, but you can't explain life's true meaning. " Please elaborate on what you are asking, this makes little sense...

 

"natural morality" what is natural morality and where does it come from?

 

"you believe your ineptitude to perceive the true universe is normal." Please show us how you perceive the "true" universe and how you arrive at your conclusions about the "true" universe.

 

"Go ahead and ignore what I said again, and use science-based rules to defeat religious-based rules, because, as you will say egotistically, "it's better". Please show which religion's rules are correct and then show how you know that religion is correct.

 

"Do I believe there are things science can't discover? " This is quite an assertion but I would ask exactly what would you do if science and all it's fruits were to stop tomorrow? What would you do with all the billions of dead bodies as they piled up as people died from lack of the first world civilization science has built for you to live comfortably in? Science knows it doesn't everything, if it knew every thing science would stop...

 

"Yes. I don't think you'll ever visit an entity outside of our solar system, let alone travel to the far reaches of the universe, or outer-limits, " Well if we are taking belief as evidence as you seem to be saying then you are wrong, these things have already happened...

 

"What you promote is to not have this belief, and follow the very simple in comparison, stream like a dead fish." No, what we propose is to separate belief from reality, you are welcome to believe what ever you want but you cannot have your own facts

 

 

"I possess belief, and this belief is based on things I have experienced." No, belief posses you, and personal experiences you cannot demonstrate are not evidence.. It is very important to understand that belief does not equal knowledge...

Also there is this s1eep, I guess I'll have to wait a week to get your reply...

 

anything you can assert with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence..

Edited October 20, 2013 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

Moontanman,

May I suggest you delete the bit asking about his views on homosexuality.

He clearly hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

There's no way he can justify his post so there's not much point asking him to. The only plausible outcome is that he will offend people and he's already suspended for that.

[Gees]

Hi Unorthodo_x;

 

Welcome to the forum. . . (chuckle chuckle)

 

Science has ignored this field of study for so long. There are always going to be phenomena beyond our comprehension but that doesn't mean you should stop pursuing scientific exploration of the phenomena. For some reason science shuns people studying alternative takes on consciousness. I would just like to see the scientific community stop shunning people for trying to conduct respectable research.

 

This is all true and I agree with you. Ophiolite's rebuttal is, of course, nonsense. I expected that it would be, but checked just in case I was wrong. All of the links are about the brain, and the brain's relationship with consciousness--not about consciousness.

 

I am not sure that science actually has a position on consciousness as there is no valid theory of consciousness that fully explains it, but scientists seem to think that it emits from the brain. It is my thought that they are confusing the medical neurological explanation of the conscious, unconscious, and preconscious aspects of mind, with actual conscious life. There are some huge problems with this position, the least of which is the ignoring of emotion, feeling, and awareness. Then there is the problem that all life is sentient, therefore; all life is conscious, but all life does not have a brain.

 

So if we decide that consciousness comes from the brain, then the brain came first, caused consciousness, and life followed. The really sad part of this thinking is that if you exchange the word "brain" with the word "God", this is a mirror explanation of the account in Genesis. It is nonsense. Consciousness does NOT come from the brain. The brain processes consciousness, and develops it, and expands it, but the brain is not the source of consciousness. It can't be, because our brains are a latter development in evolution, so they can not be the source.

 

Another problem is that equating consciousness with thought, memory, thinking, and knowledge, while avoiding the aspects of feeling, emotion, and awareness, make a human brain and a computer essentially the same thing. They are both processors. But a computer is not alive, it does not possess feeling, emotion, or awareness, and can only mimic these things--it is not conscious.

 

Science is making progress in it's search for consciousness in many different fields. Neurology is finally learning something because it has teemed up with endocrinology, and so it is finally studying emotion. Biology is learning a great deal about pheromones, which is another aspect of consciousness. Physics seems to be knocking on the door, and psychology knows a great deal more than people realize about consciousness. So work is being done, but most of these other fields do not state that their work is relative to consciousness--but it is.

 

As far as alternate ideas being shunned, consider that religion offers an alternate idea, and most science forums have a religion forum where the members spend time ridiculing religion. Also consider that philosophy has a very different view of consciousness, which includes all conscious life and has theories about consciousness in the universe, but in this forum the words "idiot philosopher" are used without any fear of reproach. Also consider that this thread was split off of a thread in the Philosophy forum, and deposited in Speculations in the Science forum, so that the definition of consciousness would be accepted as emerging from the brain. Hell yes, alternate ideas are shunned, ridiculed, and strategically avoided.

 

If you are going to spend time in science forums and have "different" ideas, then you need to know what you are dealing with. There are some very bright people in these forums, but most of them are already well ensconsed in their beliefs, so you have to work and have back-up to get them to listen to a new idea. The large majority of the membership is made up of "wannabe" scientists, and for some reason that I do not understand, these wannabe scientists think that philosophers "wannabe" scientists. (chuckle) So there is not a lot of respect for philosophers. What we have is a few good leaders and a lot of followers, which creates a kind of "pack" mentality.

 

If you were out in the woods and came upon a pack of wolves, what would you want to have? First, don't be carrying too much--just present one idea at a time. Second, you would want a weapon--make sure that the idea you present has some back-up that is acceptable. Third, you would want to do as much damage as possible to the first wolf that approached to discourage the others--so hit the first one hard and fast. Be intelligent, civil, informed, and have references at the ready, but nice and polite gets you nowhere.

 

I managed to get 15 pages on the topic of the "supernatural" in this forum, which is no small feat, so I believe these tactics can work. It was difficult, but I learned some things, so it was worth it. This strategy won't make you popular, but you might be able to discuss your topic.

 

Good luck, and I hope to be able to see more of your ideas.

 

G

[Moontanman]

Hi Unorthodo_x;

 

Welcome to the forum. . . (chuckle chuckle)

 

 

This is all true and I agree with you. Ophiolite's rebuttal is, of course, nonsense. I expected that it would be, but checked just in case I was wrong. All of the links are about the brain, and the brain's relationship with consciousness--not about consciousness.

 

I am not sure that science actually has a position on consciousness as there is no valid theory of consciousness that fully explains it, but scientists seem to think that it emits from the brain. It is my thought that they are confusing the medical neurological explanation of the conscious, unconscious, and preconscious aspects of mind, with actual conscious life. There are some huge problems with this position, the least of which is the ignoring of emotion, feeling, and awareness. Then there is the problem that all life is sentient, therefore; all life is conscious, but all life does not have a brain.

 

So if we decide that consciousness comes from the brain, then the brain came first, caused consciousness, and life followed. The really sad part of this thinking is that if you exchange the word "brain" with the word "God", this is a mirror explanation of the account in Genesis. It is nonsense. Consciousness does NOT come from the brain. The brain processes consciousness, and develops it, and expands it, but the brain is not the source of consciousness. It can't be, because our brains are a latter development in evolution, so they can not be the source.

 

Another problem is that equating consciousness with thought, memory, thinking, and knowledge, while avoiding the aspects of feeling, emotion, and awareness, make a human brain and a computer essentially the same thing. They are both processors. But a computer is not alive, it does not possess feeling, emotion, or awareness, and can only mimic these things--it is not conscious.

 

Science is making progress in it's search for consciousness in many different fields. Neurology is finally learning something because it has teemed up with endocrinology, and so it is finally studying emotion. Biology is learning a great deal about pheromones, which is another aspect of consciousness. Physics seems to be knocking on the door, and psychology knows a great deal more than people realize about consciousness. So work is being done, but most of these other fields do not state that their work is relative to consciousness--but it is.

 

As far as alternate ideas being shunned, consider that religion offers an alternate idea, and most science forums have a religion forum where the members spend time ridiculing religion. Also consider that philosophy has a very different view of consciousness, which includes all conscious life and has theories about consciousness in the universe, but in this forum the words "idiot philosopher" are used without any fear of reproach. Also consider that this thread was split off of a thread in the Philosophy forum, and deposited in Speculations in the Science forum, so that the definition of consciousness would be accepted as emerging from the brain. Hell yes, alternate ideas are shunned, ridiculed, and strategically avoided.

 

If you are going to spend time in science forums and have "different" ideas, then you need to know what you are dealing with. There are some very bright people in these forums, but most of them are already well ensconsed in their beliefs, so you have to work and have back-up to get them to listen to a new idea. The large majority of the membership is made up of "wannabe" scientists, and for some reason that I do not understand, these wannabe scientists think that philosophers "wannabe" scientists. (chuckle) So there is not a lot of respect for philosophers. What we have is a few good leaders and a lot of followers, which creates a kind of "pack" mentality.

 

If you were out in the woods and came upon a pack of wolves, what would you want to have? First, don't be carrying too much--just present one idea at a time. Second, you would want a weapon--make sure that the idea you present has some back-up that is acceptable. Third, you would want to do as much damage as possible to the first wolf that approached to discourage the others--so hit the first one hard and fast. Be intelligent, civil, informed, and have references at the ready, but nice and polite gets you nowhere.

 

I managed to get 15 pages on the topic of the "supernatural" in this forum, which is no small feat, so I believe these tactics can work. It was difficult, but I learned some things, so it was worth it. This strategy won't make you popular, but you might be able to discuss your topic.

 

Good luck, and I hope to be able to see more of your ideas.

 

G

 

 

Ophiolites post is nonsense? I would say pot meet kettle but that would give you too much credit...

[cladking]

 

 

I managed to get 15 pages on the topic of the "supernatural" in this forum, which is no small feat, so I believe these tactics can work. It was difficult, but I learned some things, so it was worth it. This strategy won't make you popular, but you might be able to discuss your topic.

 

Good luck, and I hope to be able to see more of your ideas.

 

 

 

 

It is impressive and I share your desire to see more.

 

It's patently obvious people misunderstand consciousness. Here we are all sharing almost exactly the same premises as everyone else but we can't agree on much of anything. No one seems able to comprehend that there are multiple modes of consciousness possible for people or that we are a product of our time and place. The deep divisions in beliefs despite the sharing of premises seems natural to us just as genocide seems natural if all our friends and neighbors are doing it (or victims of it).

 

I once had opportunity to try to learn to do the impossible. There was a ledge deep inside a wooden structure that was about 2/3rds the width of wider lenght of a nine volt battery. My objective was to toss a battery up onto this ledge so that it would stay. It required many dozens of attempts to merely determine the best theory for accomplishing the feat. it had to reverse its spin after the first collision and then hit the ledge nearly flat and bounce off the back wall to stick. Several thousand attempts resulted in a few near misses but no successes. "I" finally got it about the 4000th attempt. Each success came closer and closer until I actually got three out of four attempts to stay and lost interest.

 

Most people attribute this to "muscle memory" but this is nonsense. My learning stopped when I figured out how to do it very early on. The fact is each successful attempt was not identical. My position and the initial position of the hand and arm varied somewhat. "Muscle memory" could not account for this apparently learned behavior. Just as an amputee who suffers the worst possible pain "in" his missing limb is not remembering old pain. It's far more likely that the ganglia in the human body are each conscious and each capable of learning. A dinosaur is believed to have had a brain in its tail as well and this is a similar situation. The medula simply screens out all these consciousnesses to prevent us from being overwhelmed with "trivia". Your leg is very self aware and is also aware of your thoughts. Primarily it only sees the thoughts related to plans that affect it. If you think "I'm hungry" your ganglia are very unlikely to be privy to it but when you think "I'll stand and walk to the food" they are listening and preparing. We think in words primarily but we also think in "pictures" a little when it concerns activities. Some activities are also instinctive which probably means that ganglia are acting on their own in anticipation of signals. There are various disease processes that can make one more in tune with these consciuousnesses and it might be possible to do it through will or to simply be brought up aware of them.

 

How anyone can look at nature and believe only humans are conscious eludes me. How anyone can not know anything that will happen next week and believe humans are omniscient is beyond me. How can anyone read a 120 year old encyclopedia and believe humans are even intelligent? We are all stumbling blindly into the future with the beliefs that we athletes with 20 : 20 vision.

[Endy0816]

Most people attribute this to "muscle memory" but this is nonsense. My learning stopped when I figured out how to do it very early on. The fact is each successful attempt was not identical. My position and the initial position of the hand and arm varied somewhat. "Muscle memory" could not account for this apparently learned behavior. Just as an amputee who suffers the worst possible pain "in" his missing limb is not remembering old pain. It's far more likely that the ganglia in the human body are each conscious and each capable of learning.

 

 

Proprioception is pretty well understood...

 

Entirely possible to fool the system and "replace" the phantom limb. All based on your perception.

 

 

 

 

If your theory was correct, your visual perception wouldn't matter.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Endy0816

[cladking]

 

 

 

Proprioception is pretty well understood...

 

Entirely possible to fool the system and "replace" the phantom limb. All based on your perception.

 

 

 

 

If your theory was correct, your visual perception wouldn't matter.

 

True, except this doesn't work in all individuals. It's not my contention that the consciousness we experience is distinct from the rest of the body but quite the contrary; the mind and consciousness is the entire body. the relationship of this consciousness to the other consciousnesses in the body and the neurons of which they are primarily composed is exceedingly complex because of the interplay between all these parts and consciousnesses. Just because we aren't aware of a ganglion doesn't mean it isn't a part of our consciousness or that it lacks its own.

 

Where we aren't conscious of such things there might still be a two way flow of information through the medula which can allow the mirror trick to work.Perhaps it works only if the sufferer can belief he's seeing the missing limb. The ganglia might respond by shutting down pain signals. The nervous systems are quite complex and not well understood. It's possible too that there is some other trigger. Pain perception is very poorly understood.

Edited October 20, 2013 by cladking

[Ringer]

This is all true and I agree with you. Ophiolite's rebuttal is, of course, nonsense. I expected that it would be, but checked just in case I was wrong. All of the links are about the brain, and the brain's relationship with consciousness--not about consciousness.

The difference is?

 

I am not sure that science actually has a position on consciousness as there is no valid theory of consciousness that fully explains it, but scientists seem to think that it emits from the brain. It is my thought that they are confusing the medical neurological explanation of the conscious, unconscious, and preconscious aspects of mind, with actual conscious life. There are some huge problems with this position, the least of which is the ignoring of emotion, feeling, and awareness. Then there is the problem that all life is sentient, therefore; all life is conscious, but all life does not have a brain.

Since all evidence points to consciousness is part of the brain it's a good position. Have any counter evidence?

 

So if we decide that consciousness comes from the brain, then the brain came first, caused consciousness, and life followed. The really sad part of this thinking is that if you exchange the word "brain" with the word "God", this is a mirror explanation of the account in Genesis. It is nonsense. Consciousness does NOT come from the brain. The brain processes consciousness, and develops it, and expands it, but the brain is not the source of consciousness. It can't be, because our brains are a latter development in evolution, so they can not be the source.

Life came after the brain? Our single celled ancestor would disagree. Anyway, the idea is that the ill defined concept of 'consciousness' is a by-product of brain activity.

 

Another problem is that equating consciousness with thought, memory, thinking, and knowledge, while avoiding the aspects of feeling, emotion, and awareness, make a human brain and a computer essentially the same thing. They are both processors. But a computer is not alive, it does not possess feeling, emotion, or awareness, and can only mimic these things--it is not conscious.

Yeah, psychology doesn't avoid those aspects. Straw-man.

 

Science is making progress in it's search for consciousness in many different fields. Neurology is finally learning something because it has teemed up with endocrinology, and so it is finally studying emotion. Biology is learning a great deal about pheromones, which is another aspect of consciousness. Physics seems to be knocking on the door, and psychology knows a great deal more than people realize about consciousness. So work is being done, but most of these other fields do not state that their work is relative to consciousness--but it is.

What do you think consciousness is?

 

[snip]

G

Please just define consciousness if you want any sort of conversation.

 

It is impressive and I share your desire to see more.

 

It's patently obvious people misunderstand consciousness. Here we are all sharing almost exactly the same premises as everyone else but we can't agree on much of anything. No one seems able to comprehend that there are multiple modes of consciousness possible for people or that we are a product of our time and place. The deep divisions in beliefs despite the sharing of premises seems natural to us just as genocide seems natural if all our friends and neighbors are doing it (or victims of it).

This is part of the problem with consciousness discussions. So many people go, 'no one can agree on what consciousness is, that's because they don't know how I define it!'.

 

How anyone can look at nature and believe only humans are conscious eludes me. How anyone can not know anything that will happen next week and believe humans are omniscient is beyond me. How can anyone read a 120 year old encyclopedia and believe humans are even intelligent? We are all stumbling blindly into the future with the beliefs that we athletes with 20 : 20 vision.

This I can agree with.

 

True, except this doesn't work in all individuals. It's not my contention that the consciousness we experience is distinct from the rest of the body but quite the contrary; the mind and consciousness is the entire body. the relationship of this consciousness to the other consciousnesses in the body and the neurons of which they are primarily composed is exceedingly complex because of the interplay between all these parts and consciousnesses. Just because we aren't aware of a ganglion doesn't mean it isn't a part of our consciousness or that it lacks its own.

Again, redefining consciousness isn't helpful unless you can show it's a workable definition.

[swansont]

I managed to get 15 pages on the topic of the "supernatural" in this forum, which is no small feat, so I believe these tactics can work. It was difficult, but I learned some things, so it was worth it. This strategy won't make you popular, but you might be able to discuss your topic.

!

Moderator Note

It should also be noted that your tactics earned you warnings, and are not in keeping with the rules. Regardless of the popularity, the strategy will get you in trouble and, if one persists with them, suspended.

 

DO NOT drag the discussion off topic by responding to this modnote. Questions about the rules or general moderation policy can be discussed in the suggestions/comments/support section.

 

 

[Gees]

Hello Ringer;

 

You asked some reasonable and intelligent questions, so I will try to explain my position.

 

The difference is?

 

Terminology. Definition. Neurology's definition and Philosophy's definition. Which definition is chosen is relevant to the source of conscious awareness.

 

Since all evidence points to consciousness is part of the brain it's a good position. Have any counter evidence?

"Part of the brain"? I am aware that neurology explains that, their definition of consciousness, is processed by and emerges because of the brain, but have no knowledge of a specific physical piece of the brain that is consciousness. Am I wrong?

Life came after the brain? Our single celled ancestor would disagree. Anyway, the idea is that the ill defined concept of 'consciousness' is a by-product of brain activity.

Regarding our single-celled ancestors, did you notice that I stated that the idea of life coming after the brain was "nonsense"?

 

There is nothing "ill defined" about neurology's or psychology's concepts of consciousness. They are very well defined concepts and similar in some ways. I have studied in neither discipline, so you will have to accept my layman's interpretation, but I think that neurology's concept is about being aware of yourself and surroundings, psychology's concept is about control of your mind. Both concepts imply intentionality and some control or power over your awareness. Philosophy would call this being aware that one is aware.

 

But people who are unconscious and even in states of coma have been known to hear what was said around them, and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind will sometimes surpise you with a "Freudian slip", so these states of sub/unconsciousness are still aware. Being unconscious is not the same as being dead. So yes, brain activity is very much a part of these definitions of consciousness. This is why philosophy theorizes that a tree has no idea that it is aware (alive) -- no brain.

Yeah, psychology doesn't avoid those aspects. Straw-man.

The psychology that understands feeling, emotion, and awareness is not much more than 100 years old, so it will take a while for it to overturn thousands of years of belief. Also note that psychology is considered a "soft" science, as are animal behavior studies. Psychiatry, endocrinology, and biology do study some forms of emotion because they can study something physical like the brain, chemistry, and hormones -- instincts. All of these things relate to the brain and neurology, which reinforces the idea that consciousness comes from the brain.

 

But if you need further evidence, go to the Philosophy forum where you will find yet another debate on the "Brain v Computers". Debates like this are all over the science and philosophy forums.

 

Or if you need a more respectable reference, go to the on-line SEP (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), which is a very well respected and peer reviewed encyclopedia. In the SEP you can find out all about Dennett's book, "Consciousness Explained" where he shows that computers are going to miraculously become aware, and you can find out about Chalmer's book, "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" which is a rebuttal to Dennett's book and brings up the "zombie" theory. It is a great deal of fun.

 

If you type in "emotion" for a search in the SEP's Contents, you will get Stoicism, some articles on feminism, and a great deal on how to control emotion, mostly from eastern religions/philosophies. So in science, studies of emotion are "soft", and in philosophy studies of emotion are about controlling it. I think that psychology is the first to really study emotion, feeling, and awareness, and I expect that psychology will be the forerunner in the quest to understand consciousness. I did not make a "straw-man" argument.

What do you think consciousness is?

Well that is the question, isn't it? Everybody seems to have a different idea, and all of the disciplines have a different theory. But no one has a valid theory of consciousness that fully explains it. I looked at the ideas from science, philosophy, and religion, then went further and considered the paranormal/supernatural. What I decided was that they all knew something about consciousness, but were slicing and dicing it to make it fit into their interpretations. My conclusion was that consciousness is much more vast and complex than people realize, so I decided to break it down into aspects rather than disciplines in order to study it.

 

I think that consciousness is all of the mental aspects. It is what we are aware of, what we feel, our emotions, our knowledge, our memories, and our thoughts. Instincts, imagination, dreams, and creativity are all combinations of the first six aspects. All species possess at least some of these aspects in different combinations, and I suspect that consciousness in it's simplest form is part of our reality.

Please just define consciousness if you want any sort of conversation.

 

The simplest way to define consciousness is that it is communication. Whether that communication is internal or if it deals with the external reality--it is all communication.

 

I am not sure that I want a discussion of the philosophical idea of consciousness in a "speculations" forum.

 

G

[Ringer]

Hello Ringer;

 

You asked some reasonable and intelligent questions, so I will try to explain my position.

 

 

Terminology. Definition. Neurology's definition and Philosophy's definition. Which definition is chosen is relevant to the source of conscious awareness.

What's the definition then?

 

"Part of the brain"? I am aware that neurology explains that, their definition of consciousness, is processed by and emerges because of the brain, but have no knowledge of a specific physical piece of the brain that is consciousness. Am I wrong?

It's a property of many pieces of the brain, but consciousness doesn't have a strict definition. To ask for a specific piece that is the cause is multiple levels of misunderstanding.

 

Regarding our single-celled ancestors, did you notice that I stated that the idea of life coming after the brain was "nonsense"?

That doesn't follow. Single cellular organisms don't have brains. What is nonsense is saying consciousness happened before life.

 

There is nothing "ill defined" about neurology's or psychology's concepts of consciousness. They are very well defined concepts and similar in some ways. I have studied in neither discipline, so you will have to accept my layman's interpretation, but I think that neurology's concept is about being aware of yourself and surroundings, psychology's concept is about control of your mind. Both concepts imply intentionality and some control or power over your awareness. Philosophy would call this being aware that one is aware.

No, neither have a strict definition of consciousness.

 

But people who are unconscious and even in states of coma have been known to hear what was said around them, and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind will sometimes surpise you with a "Freudian slip", so these states of sub/unconsciousness are still aware. Being unconscious is not the same as being dead. So yes, brain activity is very much a part of these definitions of consciousness. This is why philosophy theorizes that a tree has no idea that it is aware (alive) -- no brain.

You're equivocating the different definitions of conscious.

 

The psychology that understands feeling, emotion, and awareness is not much more than 100 years old, so it will take a while for it to overturn thousands of years of belief. Also note that psychology is considered a "soft" science, as are animal behavior studies. Psychiatry, endocrinology, and biology do study some forms of emotion because they can study something physical like the brain, chemistry, and hormones -- instincts. All of these things relate to the brain and neurology, which reinforces the idea that consciousness comes from the brain.

There is no evidence that consciousness or any other experience, however you want to define it (except to specifically say it doesn't include the brain), comes from anywhere except the brain. Please show evidence otherwise if you have any.

 

But if you need further evidence, go to the Philosophy forum where you will find yet another debate on the "Brain v Computers". Debates like this are all over the science and philosophy forums.

 

Or if you need a more respectable reference, go to the on-line SEP (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), which is a very well respected and peer reviewed encyclopedia. In the SEP you can find out all about Dennett's book, "Consciousness Explained" where he shows that computers are going to miraculously become aware, and you can find out about Chalmer's book, "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" which is a rebuttal to Dennett's book and brings up the "zombie" theory. It is a great deal of fun.

 

If you type in "emotion" for a search in the SEP's Contents, you will get Stoicism, some articles on feminism, and a great deal on how to control emotion, mostly from eastern religions/philosophies. So in science, studies of emotion are "soft", and in philosophy studies of emotion are about controlling it. I think that psychology is the first to really study emotion, feeling, and awareness, and I expect that psychology will be the forerunner in the quest to understand consciousness. I did not make a "straw-man" argument.

I thought speculations fell under the rules of science, meaning you can come up with philosophical theories all you want, but if you want to discuss things you should back up your declarations with evidence.

 

 

Well that is the question, isn't it? Everybody seems to have a different idea, and all of the disciplines have a different theory. But no one has a valid theory of consciousness that fully explains it. I looked at the ideas from science, philosophy, and religion, then went further and considered the paranormal/supernatural. What I decided was that they all knew something about consciousness, but were slicing and dicing it to make it fit into their interpretations. My conclusion was that consciousness is much more vast and complex than people realize, so I decided to break it down into aspects rather than disciplines in order to study it.

You can't explain something that isn't defined. Define it.

 

I think that consciousness is all of the mental aspects. It is what we are aware of, what we feel, our emotions, our knowledge, our memories, and our thoughts. Instincts, imagination, dreams, and creativity are all combinations of the first six aspects. All species possess at least some of these aspects in different combinations, and I suspect that consciousness in it's simplest form is part of our reality.

1.) Define mental aspects

2.) evidence shows all mental activity that can be measured comes from the brain, so mental aspects come from the brain

 

The simplest way to define consciousness is that it is communication. Whether that communication is internal or if it deals with the external reality--it is all communication.

So are ants, plants, single celled organisms, etc conscious?

 

I am not sure that I want a discussion of the philosophical idea of consciousness in a "speculations" forum.

 

G

I know I don't, it'll be pointless

[doG]

I will argue that there is evidence consciousness can exist outside of the body.....

Citations please. Just because you say so is no reason to give it any benefit of a doubt. I see no reason to consider your claims any more credible than any other rumor and gossip that goes around.

[Unorthodo_x]

Unorthodo_x, on 19 Oct 2013 - 1:19 PM, said:

I would also like to say my main interest was just to see how Atheist interpret this:
DMT is: scientifically shown to be ubiquitous in nature, ubiquitous in the human body and brain, and produced in the pineal gland. There is a purposeful biological function that DMT excites. Ignoring it would be no different than ignoring any of the other important evolutionary biological mechanism. It has a meaning, a purpose, and an evolutionary history. You can't just dismiss it. I guess I should have made a separate post.

Lots of chemicals cause hallucinations and have similar receptors in the brain, this can be be attributed to plants producing chemicals to discourage animals from eating them...

 

Ok that's just not true. Because there are many cultures centered around these chemicals. I'm not sure it's logical to argue their biological function is to prevent consumption when they do exactly the opposite. True psychedelics are non-toxic, especially DMT which is eliminated in a matter of minutes by your body. There is no case in history of anybody or anything dying from ingesting a pure psychedelic. That about as ridiculous as saying pot is harmful.

There is something extremely interesting going on with regard to DMT. Regardless of if it has spiritual implications or not.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Unorthodo_x

[Moontanman]

Unorthodo_x, on 19 Oct 2013 - 1:19 PM, said:

 

Ok that's just not true. Because there are many cultures centered around these chemicals. I'm not sure it's logical to argue their biological function is to prevent consumption when they do exactly the opposite. True psychedelics are non-toxic, especially DMT which is eliminated in a matter of minutes by your body. There is no case in history of anybody or anything dying from ingesting a pure psychedelic. That about as ridiculous as saying pot is harmful.

 

There is something extremely interesting going on with regard to DMT. Regardless of if it has spiritual implications or not.

I am not arguing the toxicity of these substances one way or another but a deer that eats hallucinogenic plants would have problems dealing with reality and get eaten. This does not change the fact that both and and animals use intoxicating substances, the exact nature of the effects is unknown to all but the creature who does it. Something that might do harm to an animal by messing with it's mind might be a pleasant thing for humans who are more dependent on shelter and socially taking care of each other.

[Ringer]

Unorthodo_x, on 19 Oct 2013 - 1:19 PM, said:

 

Ok that's just not true. Because there are many cultures centered around these chemicals. I'm not sure it's logical to argue their biological function is to prevent consumption when they do exactly the opposite. True psychedelics are non-toxic, especially DMT which is eliminated in a matter of minutes by your body. There is no case in history of anybody or anything dying from ingesting a pure psychedelic. That about as ridiculous as saying pot is harmful.

 

There is something extremely interesting going on with regard to DMT. Regardless of if it has spiritual implications or not.

Some plants produce capsaicin to deter mammals from eating their fruits. I love spicy food and many areas of the world traditionally eat a lot of spicy food. Just because people eat them for certain effects doesn't falsify the fact that the effects evolved for them to avoid being eaten.

[Unorthodo_x]

Ok good perspective. What about DMT though. It naturally occurs all throughout the body and is produced in the pineal gland?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Unorthodo_x

[BusaDave9]

Consciousness is the thought processes of the brain. Consciousness can not exist independent of the brain.

[Ringer]

Ok good perspective. What about DMT though. It naturally occurs all throughout the body and is produced in the pineal gland?

What about it? There is no evolutionary difference if that's what it evolved for (it may serve some other function, I haven't researched it so I don't know). I don't know what it occurring naturally has to do with the argument. Ingestion of a chemical can have different effects from when it is released as an endocrine chemical/neurotransmitter. IIRC, DMT analogs are used in mammals and DMT is a byproduct of metabolizing those products. Plus, when ingesting DMT you are ingesting something that is only found in trace amounts. The dosage makes a huge difference in reactions.