Thread: The source of consciousness

I was pondering this the other day during a long car ride. Is it possible that our consciousness (awareness of awareness) arises not simply from a physical aspect of our brain, but rather the existence of multiple thought processes at once? If you only were capable of a single flow of thoughts, you would be unable to simultaneously think about what you were thinking AND think it at the same time. our subconscious allows us to be capable of two different perspectives within our own thoughts and therefor our consciousness arises not from the awareness of an individual mind simply 'waking up' but from the conversation between minds; each individual mind is capable of detecting what the other is thinking and collectively they provide a full awareness of the conversation and all involved parties.

i think a good metaphor would be like having two intelligent talking flashlights that can only 'see' whatever their light is shining on and can only 'think' while their light is on, and also can only think about whatever their light is illuminating. they can never see themselves. they can see each other, and through conversation they become collectively aware of themselves as a group. the multiple minds we possess only allow us awareness of ourselves because our consciousness arises from the conversation, the combined experience that increases the dimensionality of the awareness.

in an attempt at better psychology terms, our consciousness would be the ego, which is the conversation between the id and the super-ego. becoming aware of this within your own mind causes enlightenment, as you become collectively aware of the sources of your thoughts, rather than taking turns only being aware of the 'other side' while thinking through one side. this is the evolution of consciousness that steps up from
1. first person: linear, autonomous awareness
2. second person: oscillation between two streams of thought, each being aware only of the 'other's' thoughts and not of its own; duality
3. third person: awareness of all involved parties simultaneously; oneness.

just food for thought really. i think it sounds feasible. maybe not perfectly accurate, but feasible at least.

Is it possible that our consciousness (awareness of awareness) arises not simply from a physical aspect of our brain, but rather the existence of multiple thought processes at once?

The general term for what you appear to be descibing here is emergence, which is a branch of philosophy that's seems to be undergoing something of a revival at the moment.
A lot of scientists detest the idea because of it's previous associations with mysticism.
You might want to get hold of 'Emergence, contemporary readings in philosophy and science' by Bedau and Humphreys, which is a summary of the whole shebang, and deals directly with consciousness in a couple of chapters.
Personally, i file this under 'philosophical poodling', but that's more due to laziness than actually having particularly thought about it, so i'm probably wrong.

I don't know if I agree with you about that. I looked up emergence and found that it was the concept of the whole being greater than its parts. I don't think our consciousness is greater than the parts that make it, but rather we are unaware of all the parts, and awareness of this causes enlightenment/peace of mind.

I looked up emergence and found that it was the concept of the whole being greater than its parts.

I think to be fair that's an oversimplification. Perhaps a better summary might be the concept of getting something from nothing, but even that' doesn't really seem to cover all of it.

The intro to the book i mentioned above gives a couple of examples to get a 'feel' for emergence;


"The liquidity and transparency of water sometimes are said to emerge from the properties of oxygen and hydrogen molecules in structured collections of water molecules."

"...the shape of a pile of grains of sand. As grains of sand are added succesively to the top of the pile, the pile forms a conical shpae with a characteristic slope, and succesively small and large avalanches play an important role in preserving the that shape. The charcteristic sand pile slope is said to emerge from the interaction among the grains of sand."

"Evolutionary processes shaping biological lineages are also said to involve emergence. A comlplex, highly differentiated biosphere has emerged over billions of years from what was originally a vastly simpler and much more uniform array of early life-forms."


My understanding is that for science, emergence has a potential explanatory power in those instances where a reductionist approach fails for one reason or another. I think in a similar way that chaos theory shows that randomness can be fundamental to a deterministic system. That's almost certainly a bad analogy, but what the hell.

I don't think our consciousness is greater than the parts that make it, but rather we are unaware of all the parts, and awareness of this causes enlightenment/peace of mind.

I took your meaning to be that consiousness is irreducible to physical causes, which as far as i can make out, is what emergence discusses both specifically with regard to consciousness and in more general terms.

As to your conclusion; i like it. 'Know thyself', essentially .

[Note: this post has ended up so f'ing garbled due to my exhaustion from insomnia, that I have separated the middle section containing my main point from the erroneous first and third paragraphs. If you can make sense of it all, great; I'll gladly discuss it when I'm rested. But really, just read the second paragraph to hear what's relevant.]

I don't think your examples point to cases where the outcome is irreducible to physical causes, but instead indeterminable physical interactions. Given a chance, complexity is bound to evolve; the complexity of the universe has been in constant acceleration since as far back as we can tell. Unless of course this would also include emergence explaining how the world of general relativity arises from the quantum world; in that case I would have to change my mind and agree. Great scott my editing job is horrendous, I'm now flip-flopping my opinion throughout my post and making myself to look like a hypocrite at best. I'm way too tired to rearrange these things, but hopefully you'll get the idea.

My biggest point was trying to show (poorly) that it is not the physical aspects of the brain that causes awareness in the same sense that the physical presence of multiple people does not cause an argument, but rather the way these people interact or converse. The multiple streams of thought allow us to think of at least two things at once, including thinking about our thoughts. This is not possible with one stream of thought, just as a debate is not possible with only one person, (unless they have schizophrenia, in which case they are arguing with their own subconscious and are a perfect example of.. something i'm talking about. who knows.) I guess it could be said that it can still be broken down into physical causes since without the two hemispheres we would cease to have multiple streams of thought, but having two hemispheres does not automatically cause this.

I guess it doesn't really matter. Seems to be the same principle that one stream of thought is based on, too: the collective consciousness of all organisms joined by the nervous system. Perhaps the brain just organizes these into channels, and we are the radio listener constantly having our channel changed on us, unknowingly. The only reason I'm sure of this is because of my own personal experience of overcoming suicidal depression and conquering the 'evil' of my own ego to attain peace of mind. If that had never happened and I was still the stubborn science geek I had always been, I would never care about this and for that reason I don't expect to convince anyone, so your agreement on 'know thyself' is a small success in the science community that makes me very happy. I am seriously considering changing my major from engineering to psychology. If you've even actually read all this ranting, I apologize for probably wasting your life. I haven't slept in over a day and my mind is foggy, and it helps to vomit out words. I'm actually going to read that book, too; my school library actually has it. As it stands I'm definitely judging a book by its cover.

I simply hold the belief of Psycho-Physical Parallel Dualism until proven otherwise. How is it that electrochemical impulses make up your subjective awareness? Where is the screen in my brain that shows the images that I make up in my mind?

The way that I look at it is that consciousness (the fact that humans are aware of and can tell others about their feelings, thoughts, perceptions and memories) is a way to communicate with others during the evolution of social groups. The ability of humans to communicate with others (here: verbally) might also imply that humans are able to send and receive those same messages inside their own heads, so to think and be aware of our own existence.

Consciousness is organized sensory imput.!!!

Originally Posted by clueshussbund

Consciousness is organized sensory imput.!!!

Although I've been frequently accused of expressing views in reductionistic terms, isn't this an oversimplication? Please, if you will, elaborate.

Origionaly posted by cluelusshsbund
Consciousness is organized sensory imput.!!!

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Please, if you will, elaborate.

Our brane an senssory imput has evolved to a pont whare the brane organizes the sensory imput into what is preceived as "consciousness"... ie... consciousness is biological.!!!

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Origionaly posted by cluelusshsbund
Consciousness is organized sensory imput.!!!

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Please, if you will, elaborate.

Our brane an senssory imput has evolved to a pont whare the brane organizes the sensory imput into what is preceived as "consciousness"... ie... consciousness is biological.!!!

Sensory input is only half of the equation - the intrinsic half. Consequently, consciousness is only half biological.

The other half being from INTELLIGENCE, not at all biological, and further to my reasoning - entirely extrinsic.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

consciousness is biological.!!!

True

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Sensory input is only half of the equation - the intrinsic half. Consequently, consciousness is only half biological.

The other half being from INTELLIGENCE, not at all biological, and further to my reasoning - entirely extrinsic.

Care to elaborate? Are you saying intelligence is not emergent of brain biology? If so, where do you think it is coming from?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

consciousness is biological.!!!

True

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Sensory input is only half of the equation - the intrinsic half. Consequently, consciousness is only half biological.

The other half being from INTELLIGENCE, not at all biological, and further to my reasoning - entirely extrinsic.

Care to elaborate? Are you saying intelligence is not emergent of brain biology? If so, where do you think it is coming from?

I would be delighted to further engage you in this, however I guess the optimum word here will be 'elaborate', and right now I have a couple of highly essential tasks to attend to, that will require me to shut down this puter and hit the road. I will surely get back to you on this - in around 10 hours or so.

So in the meantime, you will find I've already made numerous posts to this forum, which in combination, will go (some way) to answering your question. If you're interested, you can find some of these posts here, here, here, and here.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Care to elaborate? Are you saying intelligence is not emergent of brain biology? If so, where do you think it is coming from?

Apparently I have to assume at this point that you have decided to avoid reading my suggested posts in regards your question, therefore I guess I will have to start at the beginning upon the explanation of your request. If you have previously read some/all of those posts, perhaps we can redirect to an alternative point, but I will obviously leave the questioning and doubts to you, my friend.

Initially, maybe the best place to commence is for me to get a fuller handle on your pivotal term 'emergent', yet until I do, I will respond from my understanding.

Secondly, I generally write the term 'intelligence' in either upper or lower case, to indicate two separate dimensions/manifestations of the same thing. It is much like if I were to write A. EARTH and B. earth; indicating the two separate realities indicated by the same noun, as such;
A. The physical stuff belonging to the physical environment we generically inhabit - the composite we physically walk upon every day.
B. The physical stuff belonging to the physical environment we personally inhabit - our respective portion of the far greater physical supply (A.) - that earthly environment in which we respectively dwell each day of life - our personal flesh and bone (body)

With regards 'earth' however, we already have two separate terms to distinguish the two phenomenons (earth and flesh), but with INTELLIGENCE, we do not - that anyone on this forum - and this side of a long standing religious misinterpretation will accept, at least.

The two manifestations of INTELLIGENCE on the other hand, would present as virtually identical to the above observation of 'earth'; in that there is; an extant greater pervasive supply of A. INTELLIGENCE, of which we are granted B. intelligence, to utilise (per our choices) for a few years. That is; a portion - our personal slice of a far superior SPIRITUAL storehouse - of INTELLIGENCE.

Therefore we have;
A. The SPIRITUAL stuff belonging to the SPIRITUAL environment we inhabit - the PURE supply we call upon every day of our lives.
B. The SPIRITUAL stuff we individually utilise every second of our lives.

Of course, the similarities don't end there, for both our respective portions of the greater EARTH and INTELLIGENCE, have the entirety of their origin and being - as extrinsic to 'me' individually, and therefore, ultimately they are not 'mine', and it is only sheer ignorance and arrogance that promotes 'me' to regard them as in any dimension 'mine'. At best, we have been enormously blessed to be permitted stewardship over them for a few years - BUT NEVER SOVEREIGNTY - as we would generically expect it, at least.

As for the meaning behind the term 'emergent' (as I understand it); our individual (portion) intelligence does indeed emerge from the region of our biological brain, for this is the organ that processes the greater available supply in a similar manner to an individual radio, which - once tuned into the greater availability; processes that portion of interest, per choice.

So the respective portion of the radio signal does indeed emerge from within the individual bedside unit set up to process the greater availability, but just as 'EARTH' and 'INTELLIGENCE', what you hear did NOT originate in that thing, does NOT belong to that thing - nor the ears that receive it, and will forever be a part of an overarching spectrum supply - as available to all - as per 'my' interest/s and for 'my' personal stewardship - for as long as it has 'life'.

I hope I have answered one or two of your doubts, and I am fully aware as to how this must be presenting for the first time, for someone who has likely never come across such SIMPLE and obvious parameters of sustenance, in a world where we seem to look for complexity as our first course.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

Initially, maybe the best place to commence is for me to get a fuller handle on your pivotal term 'emergent', yet until I do, I will respond from my understanding.

Secondly, I generally write the term 'intelligence' in either upper or lower case, to indicate two separate dimensions/manifestations of the same thing. It is much like if I were to write A. EARTH and B. earth; indicating the two separate realities indicated by the same noun, as such;
A. The physical stuff belonging to the physical environment we generically inhabit - the composite we physically walk upon every day.
B. The physical stuff belonging to the physical environment we personally inhabit - our respective portion of the far greater physical supply (A.) - that earthly environment in which we respectively dwell each day of life - our personal flesh and bone (body)

With regards 'earth' however, we already have two separate terms to distinguish the two phenomenons (earth and flesh), but with INTELLIGENCE, we do not - that anyone on this forum - and this side of a long standing religious misinterpretation will accept, at least.

The two manifestations of INTELLIGENCE on the other hand, would present as virtually identical to the above observation of 'earth'; in that there is; an extant greater pervasive supply of A. INTELLIGENCE, of which we are granted B. intelligence, to utilise (per our choices) for a few years. That is; a portion - our personal slice of a far superior SPIRITUAL storehouse - of INTELLIGENCE.

Therefore we have;
A. The SPIRITUAL stuff belonging to the SPIRITUAL environment we inhabit - the PURE supply we call upon every day of our lives.
B. The SPIRITUAL stuff we individually utilise every second of our lives.

Of course, the similarities don't end there, for both our respective portions of the greater EARTH and INTELLIGENCE, have the entirety of their origin and being - as extrinsic to 'me' individually, and therefore, ultimately they are not 'mine', and it is only sheer ignorance and arrogance that promotes 'me' to regard them as in any dimension 'mine'. At best, we have been enormously blessed to be permitted stewardship over them for a few years - BUT NEVER SOVEREIGNTY - as we would generically expect it, at least.

As for the meaning behind the term 'emergent' (as I understand it); our individual (portion) intelligence does indeed emerge from the region of our biological brain, for this is the organ that processes the greater available supply in a similar manner to an individual radio, which - once tuned into the greater availability; processes that portion of interest, per choice.

So the respective portion of the radio signal does indeed emerge from within the individual bedside unit set up to process the greater availability, but just as 'EARTH' and 'INTELLIGENCE', what you hear did NOT originate in that thing, does NOT belong to that thing - nor the ears that receive it, and will forever be a part of an overarching spectrum supply - as available to all - as per 'my' interest/s and for 'my' personal stewardship - for as long as it has 'life'.

I hope I have answered one or two of your doubts, and I am fully aware as to how this must be presenting for the first time, for someone who has likely never come across such SIMPLE and obvious parameters of sustenance, in a world where we seem to look for complexity as our first course.

If I may, there are generally two views of consciousness most often considered in discussion: philosophical/religious and physiological/neurological. One view requires virtually no evidence in science while the other does. If I understand correctly, your comment describes your philosophical/religious perspective. Although I hold a philosophical perspective of consciousness, the physiological/neurological perspective is the one I most adhere to. I tend not to engage in philosophical perspectives of consciousness because most are overwhelmingly dependent on subjective views and evidence that can not be independently or scientifically verified. Without tangible neurological evidence most views of what comprises consciousness is merely speculation--in my opinion.

Consciousness, from a neurological perspective, is indeed a product of brain function--as is intelligence. We know this view is valid because we are unable to assess or obtain any tangible, cogent evidence of consciousness or intelligence, within a lifeform, without the presence of some central neural structure and sensory response system. When we assess consciousness and intelligence, we must adhere to the only examples of these qualities that we are truly capable of understanding for our assessments to be valid--human consciousness and intelligence. With human consciousness and intelligence as our model, all other expressions of same can be assessed in degrees of equivalency that may either subceed [sic], equal, or exceed our model. Based on the neurological evidence, consciousness is merely evidence of awareness that is supported by physiological/neurological responses that suggest an organism's perception that it is a distinct entity that is separate and apart from its surrounding environment and the influences from the stated environment.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Sensory input is only half of the equation - the intrinsic half. Consequently, consciousness is only half biological.

The other half being from INTELLIGENCE, not at all biological, and further to my reasoning - entirely extrinsic.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Care to elaborate? Are you saying intelligence is not emergent of brain biology? If so, where do you think it is coming from?

What do you mean by "emergent" in the context you used it above.???

Hello DrmDoc,

There are quite a few observations within the body of your text that really need to be quantified. You indicate firstly, that the physiological/neurological perspective of consciousness requires evidence in science, which I would suggest is a reasonable enough aim, however I doubt the level of evidence we might seek in order to truly call it 'scientific' will ever be available to us, so we will inevitably be required to fall back onto anecdotal evidence, simple observation, a little philosophical perspective and theorising from such parameters, as afforded at any time.

So even though I agree that the human level of consciousness is the most tenable to investigate, yet for mine, we can argue over consciousness all we like, but I seriously doubt it will be overly productive until we first deal sufficiently with the fundamentals. For it would be apparent to me that a far more appropriate investigation would be to appreciate the underpinning contributors into the reasoning process that surely takes place within the organic mind - and ultimately permits us access to a spiritual consciousness in the first instance, as well as supporting every aspect of it after such genesis.

As you can appreciate, I somewhat seem to differ with your terminology, and in particular note; do not regard 'consciousness' and 'intelligence' as equitable in any way. For my intention is to illustrate that consciousness is a combined result of two oppositional inputs - intelligence and emotions - being the binary core impulses into an individual's mentality, that in fact results in the consciousness. Please permit me to explore what I mean in the following confessional anecdote.

Just a few hours ago, my dad passed away, so to speak; in my arms - with a dozen of his family, friends and others standing around crying and hugging each other. This rather emotional spectacle presented a graphic observation of quite a few validations according that reality we all consider ourselves as appreciating and embracing - called 'life', and the essential consciousness that gives it purpose and validity.

Within the events as they unfolded, it was clear that some entirely intangible essence/s had departed the cooling physical earth that was left behind by that departure. So what could we consider as departing the previously active portion of earth, apart from that (perhaps other) intangible we call 'life', and which; I would assert as the self evident constitution, that underscores that life?

It was most obvious to everyone that Charles had ceased to enjoy an apparently active consciousness to call upon, and although there is much anecdotal evidence that; even if entirely removed from the now empty mass, some form of consciousness continues – for a time, at least, there was little immediate comfort to be had apart from a few other emotionally devastated individuals. Even so, I believe it is an overly simplified result to suggest that 'life and/or consciousness has left the body'.

In such observations, I would suggest there are two separate underpinning elements (core impulses) that had at some point (or points), ceased being apparent and/or active from within that physical form, yet both are entirely non-physical, therefore (as explained previously), correctly assigned the identification 'SPIRITUAL', as is the consciousness they (in combination) constitute/d.

So as I considered the scene over the next hour or so, a most discernible footnote was once again highlighted - the missing pieces of the composite jigsaw that was for 89 years; my dad, were his A. emotions and his B. intelligence – indeed the two separate binary impulses that underpinned his consciousness as well as every decision he ever made through it. Furthermore, another self evident observation is that this man, and every other human being, presents at any moment, as the consummated amalgam of all the choices to action made during their lifespan - to that point, and in the case of my dad - his now finalised application thereof.

Therefore it is obvious that our choices – every one of them, are cumulatively instrumental and authoritative in regards who we each; at any time are, and so it becomes essential that we appreciate the impulses that constitutionally and consistently contribute into each choice - indeed the (perhaps) tens or hundreds of millions ever entered into over the course of a dynamic life - while it lasts.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

Just a few hours ago, my dad passed away, so to speak; in my arms - with a dozen of his family, friends and others standing around crying and hugging each other.

First, my condolences on the loss of your father. I understand how the passing of a dear one can cause us to ponder our own mortality and the existential.

There are quite a few observations within the body of your text that really need to be quantified. You indicate firstly, that the physiological/neurological perspective of consciousness requires evidence in science, which I would suggest is a reasonable enough aim, however I doubt the level of evidence we might seek in order to truly call it 'scientific' will ever be available to us, so we will inevitably be required to fall back onto anecdotal evidence, simple observation, a little philosophical perspective and theorising from such parameters, as afforded at any time.

I disagee; In the cross-species analysis of decerebrate and brain injury studies, there is more than sufficient evidence to support a scientific (physiological/neurological) perspective of what defines and constitutes consciousness within the known parameters of terrestrial life.

So even though I agree that the human level of consciousness is the most tenable to investigate, yet for mine, we can argue over consciousness all we like, but I seriously doubt it will be overly productive until we first deal sufficiently with the fundamentals.

I agree.

For it would be apparent to me that a far more appropriate investigation would be to appreciate the underpinning contributors into the reasoning process that surely takes place within the organic mind - and ultimately permits us access to a spiritual consciousness in the first instance, as well as supporting every aspect of it after such genesis.

I disagree; spiritual consciousness, by my understanding of your use, is beyond our ability to test and observe materially, physiologically, and neurologically. Spirituality, by definition, describes the physically intangible and, by extension, the directly unobservable. Consciousness, in its more terrestrial, observable form, is well defined by the nature of brain function, the functional matrix of brain structure, and the absence of observable evidence of consciousness when brain function ceases.

As you can appreciate, I somewhat seem to differ with your terminology, and in particular note; do not regard 'consciousness' and 'intelligence' as equitable in any way.

You may have misunderstood my comments regarding consciousness and intelligence as arising from brain function. Although the two describe different qualities, my comments were merely a statement of what empirical brain study suggests--consciousness and intelligence are products of a functioning brain as evident by the absences of observable attributes of same when brain function ceases.

For my intention is to illustrate that consciousness is a combined result of two oppositional inputs - intelligence and emotions - being the binary core impulses into an individual's mentality, that in fact results in the consciousness. Please permit me to explore what I mean in the following confessional anecdote.

Just a few hours ago, my dad passed away, so to speak; in my arms - with a dozen of his family, friends and others standing around crying and hugging each other. This rather emotional spectacle presented a graphic observation of quite a few validations according that reality we all consider ourselves as appreciating and embracing - called 'life', and the essential consciousness that gives it purpose and validity.

Within the events as they unfolded, it was clear that some entirely intangible essence/s had departed the cooling physical earth that was left behind by that departure. So what could we consider as departing the previously active portion of earth, apart from that (perhaps other) intangible we call 'life', and which; I would assert as the self evident constitution, that underscores that life?

In our grief over the loss of a loved one, we want to believe that there is more to what may have been an extraordinary life than what ends in death. Indeed, there may be, but that is beyond our ability to materially test and observe. From a terrestrial perspective, the human body and brain is little more than a sophisticated physiological/neurological machine. Rather than the departure of some ethereal essence of that machine, death is merely the final cessation of its primary function, which is life. Although this must clearly be an emotional time for you, the evidence in science suggest that consciousness is merely a product of the machine’s programming that ends when the machine stops functioning.

It was most obvious to everyone that Charles had ceased to enjoy an apparently active consciousness to call upon, and although there is much anecdotal evidence that; even if entirely removed from the now empty mass, some form of consciousness continues – for a time, at least, there was little immediate comfort to be had apart from a few other emotionally devastated individuals. Even so, I believe it is an overly simplified result to suggest that 'life and/or consciousness has left the body'.

In such observations, I would suggest there are two separate underpinning elements (core impulses) that had at some point (or points), ceased being apparent and/or active from within that physical form, yet both are entirely non-physical, therefore (as explained previously), correctly assigned the identification 'SPIRITUAL', as is the consciousness they (in combination) constitute/d.

So as I considered the scene over the next hour or so, a most discernible footnote was once again highlighted - the missing pieces of the composite jigsaw that was for 89 years; my dad, were his A. emotions and his B. intelligence – indeed the two separate binary impulses that underpinned his consciousness as well as every decision he ever made through it. Furthermore, another self evident observation is that this man, and every other human being, presents at any moment, as the consummated amalgam of all the choices to action made during their lifespan - to that point, and in the case of my dad - his now finalised application thereof.

Therefore it is obvious that our choices – every one of them, are cumulatively instrumental and authoritative in regards who we each; at any time are, and so it becomes essential that we appreciate the impulses that constitutionally and consistently contribute into each choice - indeed the (perhaps) tens or hundreds of millions ever entered into over the course of a dynamic life - while it lasts.

Although I adhere to a more terrestrial view of consciousness, I also understand the limits of my view. I’ve made a study of dreams, dreaming, and the dreaming brain for more than three decades. During that time, I have personally encountered and studied hundreds of extraordinary experiences that continue to defy my comprehension. Indeed, given my personal experiences, there may be more to life than what ends at death.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

Just a few hours ago, my dad passed away, so to speak; in my arms - with a dozen of his family, friends and others standing around crying and hugging each other.

First, my condolences on the loss of your father. I understand how the passing of a dear one can cause us to ponder our own mortality and the existential.

My thanx to you friend, yet there are quite a few observations still to be made in regards this unfortunate yet natural enough event, even though some of these will necessarily require much space and time of their own to explore. So I will perhaps leave all that for another day and/or to a lesser extent; as they become relevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

There are quite a few observations within the body of your text that really need to be quantified. You indicate firstly, that the physiological/neurological perspective of consciousness requires evidence in science, which I would suggest is a reasonable enough aim, however I doubt the level of evidence we might seek in order to truly call it 'scientific' will ever be available to us, so we will inevitably be required to fall back onto anecdotal evidence, simple observation, a little philosophical perspective and theorising from such parameters, as afforded at any time.

I disagee; In the cross-species analysis of decerebrate and brain injury studies, there is more than sufficient evidence to support a scientific (physiological/neurological) perspective of what defines and constitutes consciousness within the known parameters of terrestrial life.

I understand your position here, however as our exchange evolves, I expect you to see the possibilities of another view. I'm not saying such will necessarily change your position too greatly, yet there certainly IS another aspect for appraisal.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

For it would be apparent to me that a far more appropriate investigation would be to appreciate the underpinning contributors into the reasoning process that surely takes place within the organic mind - and ultimately permits us access to a spiritual consciousness in the first instance, as well as supporting every aspect of it after such genesis.

I disagree; spiritual consciousness, by my understanding of your use, is beyond our ability to test and observe materially, physiologically, and neurologically.

Well, so far you do NOT disagree at all, although with a little more re. further eplanation of my model, your position may not be the same, and I expect - will be greatly strengthened in ways you may not yet appreciate.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Spirituality, by definition, describes the physically intangible and, by extension, the directly unobservable. Consciousness, in its more terrestrial, observable form, is well defined by the nature of brain function, the functional matrix of brain structure, and the absence of observable evidence of consciousness when brain function ceases.

Again, I'm failing to see how we can simultaneously agree and disagree on the same points, sorry. On the other hand, the fact we seem to be on the same page regarding the definition of ‘spirit/ual', is in my opinion, a wonderful step forward. This usually is a great stumbling block for most.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

As you can appreciate, I somewhat seem to differ with your terminology, and in particular note; do not regard 'consciousness' and 'intelligence' as equitable in any way.

You may have misunderstood my comments regarding consciousness and intelligence as arising from brain function. Although the two describe different qualities, my comments were merely a statement of what empirical brain study suggests--consciousness and intelligence are products of a functioning brain as evident by the absences of observable attributes of same when brain function ceases.

Again, we are pretty close, although whilst I would maintain consciousness as indeed a function and product of the physical brain, intelligence (or my perspective of it), is certainly NOT a product, but rather one (of two) inputs into the processing towards the product.

Rather for mine, memory is the product to which I believe you are referring, which is often misinterpreted as intelligence. Again, they are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

For my intention is to illustrate that consciousness is a combined result of two oppositional inputs - intelligence and emotions - being the binary core impulses into an individual's mentality, that in fact results in the consciousness. Please permit me to explore what I mean in the following confessional anecdote.

Just a few hours ago, my dad passed away, so to speak; in my arms - with a dozen of his family, friends and others standing around crying and hugging each other. This rather emotional spectacle presented a graphic observation of quite a few validations according that reality we all consider ourselves as appreciating and embracing - called 'life', and the essential consciousness that gives it purpose and validity.

Within the events as they unfolded, it was clear that some entirely intangible essence/s had departed the cooling physical earth that was left behind by that departure. So what could we consider as departing the previously active portion of earth, apart from that (perhaps other) intangible we call 'life', and which; I would assert as the self evident constitution, that underscores that life?

In our grief over the loss of a loved one, we want to believe that there is more to what may have been an extraordinary life than what ends in death. Indeed, there may be, but that is beyond our ability to materially test and observe. From a terrestrial perspective, the human body and brain is little more that a sophisticated physiological/neurological machine. Rather the departure of some ethereal essence of that machine, death is merely the final cessation of its primary function, which is life. Although this must clearly be an emotional time for you, the evidence in science suggest that consciousness is merely a product of the machine’s programming that ends when the machine stops functioning.

Believe me, you have misinterpreted a few things here. My motivation certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the passing of my dad. Indeed, he became ill around a week ago, yet I commenced upon the path of investigation, education and discovery of the things I am now posting to this forum, around 5 or 6 years ago - a long time prior to any hint of illness.

Secondly, this particular time is actually less of an emotional experience for me than the last movie I watched on television, around two weeks ago. That being a doco about the regular slaughter of dolphins in a bay in Japan, and how a few Americans struggled to covertly uncover the practice, and the lies about it being told by the authorities to the locals and world - those same authorities who of course deny everything right up to the second they find themselves caught with their grubby insensitive fingers in the cookie jar. How surprising!!! And how natural! An observation of the ill effects of our natural occuring emotional slavery – emotions in control over us – and over the alternative input; being intelligence.

In any case, the passing of my dad differs markedly, in that it is a natural course of events - the natural culmination of a life of choices - his choices. In fact, prior to, and during the relevant 10 or 15 minutes of demise - the evening before last, I actually felt a little guilty, selfish and callous, being amidst so many loved ones who were struggling to contain their emotional outpouring - while I was (and am) feeling no emotion whatsoever - right up to this moment.

You will likely find yourself agreeing with my 'feelings' at the time, and also some members of my family - about me being some kind of callous and delusional fool, so if that is the case, perhaps I need to explain a few more details underlying my assertions and model. We will see, but in the meantime – for mine, this is a clear evidence – another stepping stone from theory to observable; of the relevance of intelligence over emotions – the converse observation to the Japanese authorities, and the naturally occuring way of being – for everyone.

So for mine, from beginning to end - it has been an entirely INTELLECTUAL experience - outside the usual emotions - full stop!

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

It was most obvious to everyone that Charles had ceased to enjoy an apparently active consciousness to call upon, and although there is much anecdotal evidence that; even if entirely removed from the now empty mass, some form of consciousness continues – for a time, at least, there was little immediate comfort to be had apart from a few other emotionally devastated individuals. Even so, I believe it is an overly simplified result to suggest that 'life and/or consciousness has left the body'.

In such observations, I would suggest there are two separate underpinning elements (core impulses) that had at some point (or points), ceased being apparent and/or active from within that physical form, yet both are entirely non-physical, therefore (as explained previously), correctly assigned the identification 'SPIRITUAL', as is the consciousness they (in combination) constitute/d.

So as I considered the scene over the next hour or so, a most discernible footnote was once again highlighted - the missing pieces of the composite jigsaw that was for 89 years; my dad, were his A. emotions and his B. intelligence – indeed the two separate binary impulses that underpinned his consciousness as well as every decision he ever made through it. Furthermore, another self evident observation is that this man, and every other human being, presents at any moment, as the consummated amalgam of all the choices to action made during their lifespan - to that point, and in the case of my dad - his now finalised application thereof.

Therefore it is obvious that our choices – every one of them, are cumulatively instrumental and authoritative in regards who we each; at any time are, and so it becomes essential that we appreciate the impulses that constitutionally and consistently contribute into each choice - indeed the (perhaps) tens or hundreds of millions ever entered into over the course of a dynamic life - while it lasts.

Although I adhere to a more terrestrial view of consciousness, I also understand the limits of my view.

I must admit that I am most impressed with the progress so far.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I’ve made a study of dreams, dreaming, and the dreaming brain for more than three decades. During that time, I have personally encountered and studied hundreds of extraordinary experiences that continue to defy my comprehension.

It is my considered expectation that your comprehension and a few other observations, will not be defied for too much longer.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Indeed, given my personal experiences, there may be more to life than what ends at death.

My model has me absolutely convinced beyond doubt - and increasing by the day - there to be a GREAT deal more to life – before birth, during the experience, and after death, than we have yet begun to appreciate.

Truly the evidence towards this model is at present unfolding, and I know for certain, that some major advances in such spiritual-come-physical evidence will be revealed in the very near future. Of course and as usual, through the mighty efforts of religion, most folk will entirely miss the developing witness on clear display for all to behold.

I will keep you posted for as long as I am able.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

In the cross-species analysis of decerebrate and brain injury studies, there is more than sufficient evidence to support a scientific (physiological/neurological) perspective of what defines and constitutes consciousness within the known parameters of terrestrial life.

I understand your position here, however as our exchange evolves, I expect you to see the possibilities of another view. I'm not saying such will necessarily change your position too greatly, yet there certainly IS another aspect for appraisal.

If I may, that hardly seems likely, since all other appraisals of consciousness, to be scientifically acceptable, must have a basis in tangible evidence or materially verifiable results. If you are referring here to the spiritual, then our discussion will be primarily grounded in faith rather than fact. Faith isn’t an aspect I wish to explore because, invariably, the proponents of which seem fanatically blind to logic, thought, and reason--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

For it would be apparent to me that a far more appropriate investigation would be to appreciate the underpinning contributors into the reasoning process that surely takes place within the organic mind - and ultimately permits us access to a spiritual consciousness in the first instance, as well as supporting every aspect of it after such genesis.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I disagree; spiritual consciousness, by my understanding of your use, is beyond our ability to test and observe materially, physiologically, and neurologically.

Well, so far you do NOT disagree at all, although with a little more re. further eplanation of my model, your position may not be the same, and I expect - will be greatly strengthened in ways you may not yet appreciate.

Indeed we do disagee; my understanding of your comments was that you intend to provide some correlation or connection between the “organic mind”--which I assume regards the brain and brain function--and spiritual consciousness, which cannot be organically evinced. When you speak of “spiritual consciousness,” you seem to be referencing a quality that cannot be quantified material or physically. Without such quantification, this again becomes a discussion involving issues of faith rather than fact.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Spirituality, by definition, describes the physically intangible and, by extension, the directly unobservable. Consciousness, in its more terrestrial, observable form, is well defined by the nature of brain function, the functional matrix of brain structure, and the absence of observable evidence of consciousness when brain function ceases.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

Again, I'm failing to see how we can simultaneously agree and disagree on the same points, sorry. On the other hand, the fact we seem to be on the same page regarding the definition of ‘spirit/ual', is in my opinion, a wonderful step forward. This usually is a great stumbling block for most.

Where we disagree, as I understand, is in whether consciousness arises from brain function or from some source beyond the physical/material. My contention is that we can only prove, with testable examples and physical evidence, one position and not the other. The other cannot be proved because it asks us to accept the intangible and physically unverifiable. Acceptance without evidence is faith.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

…although whilst I would maintain consciousness as indeed a function and product of the physical brain, intelligence (or my perspective of it), is certainly NOT a product, but rather one (of two) inputs into the processing towards the product.

That would be interesting to consider since intelligence, by terestrial standards, results from a confluence of brain activity and sensory perception. What, exactly, is your interpretation of intelligence?

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

…memory is the product to which I believe you are referring, which is often misinterpreted as intelligence. Again, they are not the same thing.

In my view, memory is merely part of the confluence of brain activity that produces intelligence.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

Believe me, you have misinterpreted a few things here. My motivation certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the passing of my dad. Indeed, he became ill around a week ago, yet I commenced upon the path of investigation, education and discovery of the things I am now posting to this forum, around 5 or 6 years ago - a long time prior to any hint of illness…So for mine, from beginning to end - it has been an entirely INTELLECTUAL experience - outside the usual emotions - full stop!

I understand.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I’ve made a study of dreams, dreaming, and the dreaming brain for more than three decades. During that time, I have personally encountered and studied hundreds of extraordinary experiences that continue to defy my comprehension.

It is my considered expectation that your comprehension and a few other observations, will not be defied for too much longer.

A bold statement given you’ve no ideal what those experiences have been or how versed I am in this area of human experience. You seem to have considerable faith in your position.

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

My model has me absolutely convinced beyond doubt - and increasing by the day - there to be a GREAT deal more to life – before birth, during the experience, and after death, than we have yet begun to appreciate.

Truly the evidence towards this model is at present unfolding, and I know for certain, that some major advances in such spiritual-come-physical evidence will be revealed in the very near future. Of course and as usual, through the mighty efforts of religion, most folk will entirely miss the developing witness on clear display for all to behold.

No offense intended, but that is a phase I’ve heard uttered, in one form or another, from the pulpits of many a televangelist. Is it your intent to bare witness on the intangible in this bastion of science? Although I respect the deeply held beliefs of others, I have no desire to be lured into a religious discussion. For all my espousals of science, I am also a person of strong personal beliefs. However, I do not believe in cramming my philosophies down the throats of others. If I have misunderstood your intent, my apologies.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

If I may, there are generally two views of consciousness most often considered in discussion: philosophical/religious and physiological/neurological. One view requires virtually no evidence in science while the other does. If I understand correctly, your comment describes your philosophical/religious perspective. Although I hold a philosophical perspective of consciousness, the physiological/neurological perspective is the one I most adhere to. I tend not to engage in philosophical perspectives of consciousness because most are overwhelmingly dependent on subjective views and evidence that can not be independently or scientifically verified. Without tangible neurological evidence most views of what comprises consciousness is merely speculation--in my opinion.

Consciousness, from a neurological perspective, is indeed a product of brain function--as is intelligence. We know this view is valid because we are unable to assess or obtain any tangible, cogent evidence of consciousness or intelligence, within a lifeform, without the presence of some central neural structure and sensory response system. When we assess consciousness and intelligence, we must adhere to the only examples of these qualities that we are truly capable of understanding for our assessments to be valid--human consciousness and intelligence. With human consciousness and intelligence as our model, all other expressions of same can be assessed in degrees of equivalency that may either subceed [sic], equal, or exceed our model. Based on the neurological evidence, consciousness is merely evidence of awareness that is supported by physiological/neurological responses that suggest an organism's perception that it is a distinct entity that is separate and apart from its surrounding environment and the influences from the stated environment.

I have to admit that threads on consciousness are way over my head but I do understand that defining consciousness, in both science and philosophy, appears to be a big problem. I also am aware that the brain is not fully understood, at the present time, but I do not follow why explaining consciousness is so difficult.
If one accepts that consciousness involves being aware of one's surroundings, and oneself as a separate entity, then I find it difficult to imagine a living creature, with the intelligence of a human, that would not possess consciousness. In other words consciousness would seem to be the inevitable product of life and a certain level of intelligence. Having said that I know it is dangerous to simplify such complex questions so I would be grateful if someone was able to state clearly why explaining consciousness fully is such a big problem.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I have to admit that threads on consciousness are way over my head but I do understand that defining consciousness, in both science and philosophy, appears to be a big problem. I also am aware that the brain is not fully understood, at the present time, but I do not follow why explaining consciousness is so difficult...consciousness would seem to be the inevitable product of life and a certain level of intelligence. Having said that I know it is dangerous to simplify such complex questions so I would be grateful if someone was able to state clearly why explaining consciousness fully is such a big problem.

Indeed, much remains to be understood about the brain; however, in my opinion, enough is understood to rendered a cogent explanation or description of consciousness relative to brain function. As I perceive, the difficulty in explaining consciousness resides with its philosophical perspective because of that aspect's subjective and intangible approach to study. The focus of this discussion line had been the source of consciousness, which some perceive as metaphysical in nature. The reality is that consciousness, given our current technologies, can only be cogently assessed and understood neurologically because that is the only approach that provides physical examples to test and support our conclusions. If the nature of consciousness remains an enigma for some, I think that is because some of us may not have given sufficient consideration to how the brain likely evolved. Consciousness--when we fully consider the succession of evolutionary milestones in brain structure and function that we share with other species--isn't necessarily a unique or exclusive quality.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Indeed, much remains to be understood about the brain; however, in my opinion, enough is understood to rendered a cogent explanation or description of consciousness relative to brain function. As I perceive, the difficulty in explaining consciousness resides with its philosophical perspective because of that aspect's subjective and intangible approach to study. The focus of this discussion line had been the source of consciousness, which some perceive as metaphysical in nature. The reality is that consciousness, given our current technologies, can only be cogently assessed and understood neurologically because that is the only approach that provides physical examples to test and support our conclusions. If the nature of consciousness remains an enigma for some, I think that is because some of us may not have given sufficient consideration to how the brain likely evolved. Consciousness--when we fully consider the succession of evolutionary milestones in brain structure and function that we share with other species--isn't necessarily a unique or exclusive quality.

I don't think I fully understand the meaning of the two sentences from "As I perceive" to "metaphysical in nature". I am not saying I disagree with them!
I do agree that consciousness is not necessarily unique to humans but that point of view, in itself, says little about the problem of defining consciousness.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I don't think I fully understand the meaning of the two sentences from "As I perceive" to "metaphysical in nature". I am not saying I disagree with them!
I do agree that consciousness is not necessarily unique to humans but that point of view, in itself, says little about the problem of defining consciousness.

"As I perceive" = as I understand or how I interpret the issues involved or being discussed.
"metaphysical in nature" = that which is beyond or outside physical/material boundaries.

This discussion line began with a question about the sources of consciousness rather than its definition. In discussion, two sources are often considered: Spiritual and physical. Spiritual sources are difficult to prove because they rely on evidence beyond or outside the physical/material boundaries essential to our direct observations and testing. Physical sources are easier to prove because they rely on evidence, such as brain function, which we can observed and tested. With physical sources as our evidence, we can render a definition of consciousness based on our observations and testing. Base on our physical observations and testing, consciousness could be basically defined as "evidence of awareness that is supported by the physiological/neurological responses that suggest an organism's perception that it is a distinct entity that is separate and apart from its surrounding environment and the influences from the stated environment." Defining consciousness really isn't much of a problem when we rely on physical/material evidence.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

an i thank the prollem ant so much definin consciousness... but our lack of ability in conceptualizin the term "consciousness"...

Conceptualizing consciousness requires an intimate understanding of the various aspects of brain function that merge to produce consciousness. To produce consciousness, our brain would have, after several important functional milestones, required the ability to integrate sensory information through a process that permitted behaviors independent of behaviors consider instinctual. Consciousness is evidence of proactive rather reactive behaviors such as those produced by instinct. Our brain arrived at this ability to engage proactive behaviors through its evolution of the thalamus. The thalamus is that core component of the brain through which all sensory information must flow initially, except olfactory, before entering the cortex where higher cognitive activity occurs. Thalmic function integrates incoming sensory data to the brain and decides what data enters the cortex. The thalamus also has a role in consolidating outgoing directives from our brain's higher cognitive functions. Without a neural connection to the thalamus, the cortex is without function; therefore, consciousness could be viewed as arising primarily from the functional interactions between the thalamus and cortex. Do a search on the thalamus, you will see that its design is similar to that of the cortex with its right and left hemisphere. From an evolutionary perspective, it is the cortex design that's similar to the thalamus because thalmic function evolved before and gave rise to cortical structure and function.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

In the cross-species analysis of decerebrate and brain injury studies, there is more than sufficient evidence to support a scientific (physiological/neurological) perspective of what defines and constitutes consciousness within the known parameters of terrestrial life.

I understand your position here, however as our exchange evolves, I expect you to see the possibilities of another view. I'm not saying such will necessarily change your position too greatly, yet there certainly IS another aspect for appraisal.

If I may, that hardly seems likely, since all other appraisals of consciousness, to be scientifically acceptable, must have a basis in tangible evidence with materially verifiable results. If you are referring here to the spiritual, then our discussion will be primarily grounded in faith rather than fact. Faith isn’t an aspect I wish to explore because, invariably, the proponents of which seem fanatically blind to logic, thought, and reason--in my opinion.

Fanaticism is all about the emotions, and in my opinion; both are all about such things as religion, and so do not have any place in science, nor indeed logic. Faith on the other hand, is an aspect of human reasoning that must not be discredited. I am not referencing ‘religious faith’ here, but the need for each of us to daily perform under faith (or confidence) in all kinds of ways.

You say that any scientific appraisal should have tangible and verifiable results, but how does science relate when faced with an obvious essential such as intelligence, yet has no way of perceiving or measuring it beyond a mere witnessing of the material results of such essential commodity? So although the tangible and verifiable results of INTELLIGENCE is in abundance everywhere, yet we have always made assumption – from start to finish; as to what has produced them. I would propose it is at this juncture; we have forever been making a fundamental mis-assumption.

The problem we have always faced is we have been looking at the picture of our existence via a basic and languid back-to-front religious perspective. What I mean be all this will become clearer as the discussion and subsequent verifiable proof evolves, and it will become increasingly obvious that there is absolutely no emotions involved in evidence which can ONLY be appreciated when referenced back through INTELLIGENCE – alone, once the emotional garbage is removed.

Truly; I am the least religious person you have ever encountered, and that about which I am posting, is as far removed from ‘religious’ faith as you could possibly imagine. Therefore resorting to ‘faith’ based argument is certainly not my thing. On the other hand, I cannot account for the (emotional) reaction of anyone to terminology I might employ. Such terms as ‘spirit/ual’ and ‘soul’ for instance (list will be added to by the end of this post), will barricade many off due to a ‘faith’ cringe, however my references are consistently verifiable, scientifically stable, and further – via original definition.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apophis Reject

For it would be apparent to me that a far more appropriate investigation would be to appreciate the underpinning contributors into the reasoning process that surely takes place within the organic mind - and ultimately permits us access to a spiritual consciousness in the first instance, as well as supporting every aspect of it after such genesis.

I disagree; spiritual consciousness, by my understanding of your use, is beyond our ability to test and observe materially, physiologically, and neurologically.

Well, so far you do NOT disagree at all, although with a little more re. further eplanation of my model, your position may not be the same, and I expect - will be greatly strengthened in ways you may not yet appreciate.

Indeed we do disagee; my understanding of your comments was that you intend to provide some correlation or connection between the “organic mind”--which I assume regards the brain and brain function--and spiritual consciousness, which cannot be organically evinced. When you speak of “spiritual consciousness,” you seem to be referencing a quality that cannot be quantified material or physically. Without such quantification, this again becomes a discussion involving issues of faith rather than fact.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, however I am profoundly convinced through (among many other experiences), my recent encounter with my dad's passing; that a pure and verifiable scientific proof is emerging of those precepts I have been explaining, and again – this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with anything you might regard as ‘religious’.

You reference ‘spiritual consciousness’, yet I maintain that all consciousness is fundamentally spiritual, for (again) the term ‘spiritual’ has nothing to do with anything of religious hue, but merely relates to those core essences which cannot be regarded as physical – such as thought, consciousness, emotions and intelligence, which indeed cannot be quantified materially or physically - apart from the abundant results of actions that emanate from such – all around us, and upon which we all display MUCH faith – daily.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Spirituality, by definition, describes the physically intangible and, by extension, the directly unobservable. Consciousness, in its more terrestrial, observable form, is well defined by the nature of brain function, the functional matrix of brain structure, and the absence of observable evidence of consciousness when brain function ceases.

Again, I'm failing to see how we can simultaneously agree and disagree on the same points, sorry. On the other hand, the fact we seem to be on the same page regarding the definition of ‘spirit/ual', is in my opinion, a wonderful step forward. This usually is a great stumbling block for most.

Where we disagree, as I understand, is in whether consciousness arises from brain function or from some source beyond the physical/material. My contention is that we can only prove, with testable examples and physical evidence, one position and not the other. The other cannot be proved because it asks us to accept the intangible and physically unverifiable. Acceptance without evidence is faith.

I expect by now, you have recognised the faith I am referencing, is all about an opulent wealth of testable examples of physical evidence.

Ultimately, until we begin to look in the right direction, we will always be required to invent the 'faith' of your referencing, but the moment our perception is corrected, our previous requirement for 'faith' according such perspective, becomes unnecessary as it is progressively replaced with a vast self-evident exploration of reality.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

…although whilst I would maintain consciousness as indeed a function and product of the physical brain, intelligence (or my perspective of it), is certainly NOT a product, but rather one (of two) inputs into the processing towards the product.

That would be interesting to consider since intelligence, by traditional standards, results from a confluence of brain activity and sensory perception. What, exactly, is your interpretation of intelligence?

Intelligence is one half of the two-part genetic input into all human reasoning – the other half, being emotions. Every single aspect of every series of choices we ever make towards any choice to action, requires these two to ‘combine’ via our individual decision - the vast majority of which, we have long since become immune to recognising, even though we remain active and responsible until the moment of our respective death. So our individual identity, is all about the choices we have made, and the whom we (each) at any point are; is all about the accumulation of our every choice – perhaps the many tens of millions of them – to that point.

The main issue here though is; we do not ‘develop’ or even ‘harbour’ that half of our reasoning that I term ‘intelligence’, in the same manner as our ‘emotions’. These two relative core essences underpinning our thinking, may at first appear to be very similar and even inseperable, yet they have two entirely different origins, two profoundly different characteristics, two separate (ultimate) destinations, and so act upon our reasoning in totally different ways and towards different ends. They in fact form an antagonistic interplay, which necessarily requires each of us to continually make choice between the two - in order to achieve any action at all, per our physicality.

So it is not so easy to reference or explain ‘intelligence’ without also implicating our (individual) emotions. However our intelligence cannot really be called ‘individual’ in the same way as our emotions, for it is not (originally) intrinsically generated in anything like the same manner. Again, it is at this juncture that we have been (religiously) mis-reading the whom; we all are – at any point in time.

So as fractal as it might at first present; INTELLIGENCE is itself INTELLIGENT, is self-existent beyond our (generic) expectations and boundaries. It is the self-evident authority over everything of substance, and most essentially, is ETERNAL - cannot ever die - towards being superceded.

Therefore the very laws of existence are founded entirely within it's parameters, which never change - what was of INTELLIGENCE a thousand years ago, remains intelligent today and will still be according INTELLIGENCE in a million years time. Therefore INTELLIGENCE is timeless.

We individually; merely tap into the vast storehouse of availability presenting for our emergent purposes, in a very similar parallel manner to our physicality emerging as a physical microcosm of the far greater storehouse that be the physical planet - to which it ALWAYS belongs; prior to, during, and post our using it, again for our emergent purposes.

One disclaimer I need to make here is; the pronoun 'it', when used (as above) in referencing the particular core essence that be INTELLIGENCE, is comprehensively insufficient. Further explanation follows shortly.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

…memory is the product to which I believe you are referring, which is often misinterpreted as intelligence. Again, they are not the same thing.

In my view, memory is merely part of the confluence of brain activity that produces intelligence.

Now, I disagree with you! For you seem to be saying that memory presents into our reasoning process prior to intelligence being developed, yet I see it in the converse. Memory is far more a recollection of emotional residue from past actions/thoughts/experiences/choices, than about anything to do with intelligence.

Please consider it this way – we discover at some point, that two apples in the left hand and two in the right, will always result in four apples - being an intelligent conclusion we all understand. However we recall such detail because of the feelings that an apple has upon our reasoning, yet this residual transition took place (from our consciousness to sub-conscious) in a moment that we have long since forgotten. It’s the same with a hot surface – we have all touched one at some point, felt the discomfort, and now sport an emotional memorial that such regions are; if possible recognised and best avoided.

Now I might not have liked the taste of those fruits upon which my math is predicated, but enjoy the taste of another apple, yet the intelligence behind the math, will NEVER vary. Therefore, it is part of a completely different genetic source than my emotions – for it is an ETERNAL REALITY, and can never be updated. Yet the emotional residual, as was the emotion/s upon which it was founded; was always destined at some point; in one way or another, to die and be replaced.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I’ve made a study of dreams, dreaming, and the dreaming brain for more than three decades. During that time, I have personally encountered and studied hundreds of extraordinary experiences that continue to defy my comprehension.

It is my considered expectation that your comprehension and a few other observations, will not be defied for too much longer.

A bold statement given you’ve no ideal what those experiences have been or how versed I am in this area of human experience. You seem to have considerable faith in your position.

Firstly; my apologies if I present as arrogant or disrespectful re. your position and/or education, for this is in no way my intention.

Additionally, indeed I have much faith, but it will neither harmonise with the generic use of the term, nor with anything you might regard as ‘religious’.

My ‘faith’ is scientific and consistently verifiable, for it is founded in EVERYTHING we recognise as being ‘physical’ and temporal, and more particularly, that ‘spiritual’ essence mentioned above and in most of my posts, which is ETERNAL and has an undeniable authority over everything that is temporal.

I might make another observation at this juncture, which may at first appear to be unnecessary or inane, yet the implications upon our existence and who we are is quite profound. Science has long explained that we all have both a male and female aspect to us and the two genders are not as far removed from each other as we might feel. Therefore it makes a harmonious sense that the two-part reasoning for each of us, is likewise male and female. So our emotions can be regarded as our female (or Mother) perspective/input, and intelligence as our male (Father) influence/input.

Interestingly enough, we have always appreciated half of this picture, for our emotions indeed emerge into our reasoning from their genesis within our physical flesh, which will always be a portion of the greater planet, which in turn has become recognised as 'Mother Earth'. So why have we not concurrently recognised that the other essential half of our reasoning and core to the existence of which we have always presented, is indeed - our Father? You might have a peek at the final couple of sentences (of this post) for the answer to that question.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

My model has me absolutely convinced beyond doubt - and increasing by the day - there to be a GREAT deal more to life – before birth, during the experience, and after death, than we have yet begun to appreciate.

Truly the evidence towards this model is at present unfolding, and I know for certain, that some major advances in such spiritual-come-physical evidence will be revealed in the very near future. Of course and as usual, through the mighty efforts of religion, most folk will entirely miss the developing witness on clear display for all to behold.

No offense intended, but that is a phase I’ve heard uttered, in one form or another, from the pulpits of many a televangelist. Is it your intent to bare witness in this bastion of science on the intangible?

Indeed it is – but certainly NOT in any manner via intangible witness. The unfolding witnessing will be highly offensive to every televangelist, whilst also - fundamental, scientifically sound and verifiable.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Although I respect the deeply held beliefs of others, I have no desire to be lured into a religious discussion. For all my espousals of science, I am also a person of strong personal beliefs. However, I do not believe in cramming my philosophies down the throats of others. If I have misunderstood your intent, my apologies.

I understand, and you (no doubt) will always be free to agree or disagree, read or divert attention, reply or not. However you will never find any religious discussion from my posts, apart from the observations that religion (as a whole) has a great deal for which to answer – re. the entirety of humanity.

It is they who arrogantly set themselves up to expound for us; the non-physical aspect of our existence, so consequently it is they who have failed us throughout. Yet even though they cannot explain by any degree satisfactorily without resorting to myth, what this SPIRITUAL aspect of us is all about, they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge their consummate failure and thereby deny the call to release their downtrodden slaves into the wilderness, and upon their respective SPIRITUAL journey to discover the promised land of REALITY - for themselves.

Don't get me started now!

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Fanaticism is all about the emotions, and in my opinion; both are all about such things as religion, and so do not have any place in science, nor indeed logic. Faith on the other hand, is an aspect of human reasoning that must not be discredited. I am not referencing ‘religious faith’ here, but the need for each of us to daily perform under faith (or confidence) in all kinds of ways.

Without a doubt, given my understanding of your comments here, your focus does indeed appear to be religious in nature. Faith isn’t logic or reason based on deductive evidence in science. Faith is belief without physical supportive evidence of any kind, which is not science.

You say that any scientific appraisal should have tangible and verifiable results, but how does science relate when faced with an obvious essential such as intelligence, yet has no way of perceiving or measuring it beyond a mere witnessing of the material results of such essential commodity? So although the tangible and verifiable results of INTELLIGENCE is in abundance everywhere, yet we have always made assumption – from start to finish; as to what has produced them. I would propose it is at this juncture; we have forever been making a fundamental mis-assumption.

As I understand, this discussion envelopes the nature of consciousness. Intelligence and consciousness are not the same. Although the measures for intelligence are debatable. the measures suggesting the cognitive hallmarks of consciousness in living organisms are clearly represented by well defined areas and aspects of brain function and the functional deficiency and efficiency of same we find through applicable testing.

The problem we have always faced is we have been looking at the picture of our existence via a basic and languid back-to-front religious perspective. What I mean be all this will become clearer as the discussion and subsequent verifiable proof evolves, and it will become increasingly obvious that there is absolutely no emotions involved in evidence which can ONLY be appreciated when referenced back through INTELLIGENCE – alone, once the emotional garbage is removed.

I have a sense that this comment regards intelligent design which, again, is not my interest.

Truly; I am the least religious person you have ever encountered, and that about which I am posting, is as far removed from ‘religious’ faith as you could possibly imagine. Therefore resorting to ‘faith’ based argument is certainly not my thing. On the other hand, I cannot account for the (emotional) reaction of anyone to terminology I might employ. Such terms as ‘spirit/ual’ and ‘soul’ for instance (list will be added to by the end of this post), will barricade many off due to a ‘faith’ cringe, however my references are consistently verifiable, scientifically stable, and further – via original definition.

“A rose by any other name is still a rose.” Whether one references faith or some ethereal intelligence, it remains a discussion arising from an effort to give oneself hope or comfort against some pervading fear, uncertainty, vulnerability, or tragedy, which is the religious mindset—in my opinion.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, however I am profoundly convinced through (among many other experiences), my recent encounter with my dad's passing; that a pure and verifiable scientific proof is emerging of those precepts I have been explaining, and again – this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with anything you might regard as ‘religious’.

A discussion of faith regarding consciousness is inexorably link to the religious mindset.

You reference ‘spiritual consciousness’, yet I maintain that all consciousness is fundamentally spiritual, for (again) the term ‘spiritual’ has nothing to do with anything of religious hue, but merely relates to those core essences which cannot be regarded as physical – such as thought, consciousness, emotions and intelligence, which indeed cannot be quantified materially or physically - apart from the abundant results of actions that emanate from such – all around us, and upon which we all display MUCH faith – daily.

Consciousness, as I have explained, is a verifiable output of brain function that is distinct from intelligence. To describe consciousness as “fundamentally spiritual” is to ascribe some metaphysical/supernatural quality to this functional output. Given your perspective of consciousness, any and every manifestation of brain function could be perceived as spiritual (e.g., bike riding, smoking, insanity). Any discussion of spirituality is inherently a discussion of some supernatural quality, which is a faith-based discussion beyond the boundaries of acceptable evidence in science and reason.

I expect by now, you have recognised the faith I am referencing, is all about an opulent wealth of testable examples of physical evidence.

Unfortunately, I do not. You have yet to provide substantive physical evidence of the quality you wish to explore in discussion here.

I might make another observation at this juncture, which may at first appear to be unnecessary or inane, yet the implications upon our existence and who we are is quite profound. Science has long explained that we all have both a male and female aspect to us and the two genders are not as far removed from each other as we might feel. Therefore it makes a harmonious sense that the two-part reasoning for each of us, is likewise male and female. So our emotions can be regarded as our female (or Mother) perspective/input, and intelligence as our male (Father) influence/input.

Interestingly enough, we have always appreciated half of this picture, for our emotions indeed emerge into our reasoning from their genesis within our physical flesh, which will always be a portion of the greater planet, which in turn has become recognised as 'Mother Earth'. So why have we not concurrently recognised that the other essential half of our reasoning and core to the existence of which we have always presented, is indeed - our Father? You might have a peek at the final couple of sentences (of this post) for the answer to that question.

If I understand correctly, you wish to bare witness to an “Eternal Reality” you perceive as consisting of a mother quality (emotion) and a father quality (intelligence). It is also your contention that the two qualities somehow comprise or give rise to consciousness. If true, I vehemently disagree. Emotion is a response suggestive of consciousness rather than its progenitor. The brain areas associated with our emotional output are more closely related to memory production rather than the cognition suggestive of consciousness. Intelligence is not a quality essential to consciousness, which is an awareness of one’s distinction as a living organism that is separate and distinct from one’s environment and surrounding influence. At its most basic level, consciousness can be assess through responses suggesting an organisms awareness that it has been moved from a steady state by influences alien to the organism.

Given the tone of your comments and references, such as “Eternal Reality” and “Mother Earth”, it is clear to me that this isn’t a discussion of the science behind consciousness. This seems more like a discussion for the Philosophy or Religious forum, which is not my current interest. Therefore, I will move on to what I believe are more substantive discussions. I wish you well.

In response to the OP, Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions — motion, speech, self-awareness — shut down one by one. An astonishing story.

For me, the topic of consciousness is a no-go zone given its complexity, however I have some very elementary philosophical background knowledge on it, and came across an initially very compelling argument as to why consciousness cannot be explained by a physicalist account of the human mind i.e. can be explained by appealing to the neurophysiological structure of the brain and its processes. For those of you that are interested, here is a link to an outline to the thought experiment:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_room

X

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Without a doubt, given my understanding of your comments here, your focus does indeed appear to be religious in nature. Faith isn’t logic or reason based on deductive evidence in science. Faith is belief without physical supportive evidence of any kind, which is not science.

Sorry, but your understanding is not correct. I am referring to the kind of faith that permits most of us to live some variety of normal life – to get into a plane or an elevator without being convinced it will crash and kill me, to sit on a chair without fear of it collapsing under my weight, to venture outside my front door with some confidence my house will not burn down while I’m away. We exercise faith in a great many ways (and things) every day of our lives, or else life would simply not be worth the living.

You say 'Faith is belief without physical supportive evidence' and that is probably correct, for if I venture out of my house, there is no evidence whatsoever it will not be a pile of ashes when I return, so I need to employ"faith ..... without supporting evidence" to counteract such fear. Now all that may be 'not science' in your opinion - yet nonetheless it is an obvious.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

“A rose by any other name is still a rose.” Whether one references faith or some ethereal intelligence, it remains a discussion arising from an effort to give oneself hope or comfort against some pervading fear, uncertainty, vulnerability, or tragedy, which is the religious mindset—in my opinion.

I would expect that intelligence is ethereal by all definitions, for it cannot be accessed in any material manner, and furthermore the only hope we ever have to give ourselves “hope or comfort against some pervading fear, uncertainty, vulnerability, or tragedy”, is through our ethereal intelligence. Our emotions are the source of all our fears, and faith in our Intelligence to sufficiently deal with the fear from our emotions is the only antidote. Again, this is clearly NOT about any religious mindset you have ever come across.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

A discussion of faith regarding consciousness is inexorably link to the religious mindset.

Regardless whether we are referring to religious faith, such as my having 20 virgins waiting for me after I blow up a few infidels, or the far more generic and habitual version (as above) which permits us to experience a life worth experiencing - and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion; all faith lives in the consciousness. So I’m sorry, but do not understand your point here.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Consciousness, as I have explained, is a verifiable output of brain function that is distinct from intelligence.

I agree with you, for consciousness is the (non-physical=spiritual) output of a brain function, that emerges from the two (non-physical=spiritual) inputs into that brain function. I will attempt to further explore this towards the end of this post.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

To describe consciousness as “fundamentally spiritual” is to ascribe some metaphysical/supernatural quality to this functional output. Given your perspective of consciousness, any and every manifestation of brain function could be perceived as spiritual (e.g., bike riding, smoking, insanity).

Such as riding a bike is a physical outpouring of a (non-physical=spiritual) consciousness, and requires both (non-physical=spiritual) inputs - to combine through choice, to eventuate. At the very least – unless I desire (emotional input towards the action) to ride the thing, I will not get on it in the first place.

Emotions are the springboard, or catalyst to all our actions - through choice.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Any discussion of spirituality is inherently a discussion of some supernatural quality, which is a faith-based discussion beyond the boundaries of acceptable evidence in science and reason.

Via conventional reasoning, I have no argument. However I am referring to a concept which whilst admittedly being unorthodox, yet I would maintain as being eminently verifiable. And furthermore, as far as I can see, we have never really had a consistently viable definition of intelligence. Nor for that matter, emotions.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

You have yet to provide substantive physical evidence of the quality you wish to explore in discussion here.

Can anyone scientifically evince intelligence or emotions or memory or even a thought? We all have a deep confidence they exist (or three of the four do at least) and experience them every waking minute of our lives, yet all are entirely unavailable to any corporeal contact, so I doubt any physical ‘evidence’ can ever be accessed by anyone, for again they are profoundly (non-physical=spiritual).

Surely the very best anyone can manage in reality, is to recognise their physical emanations and then work at defining them sufficiently and consistently, being a result I believe is yet to eventuate – which is why I am trying to do so.

As far as Intelligence is concerned, how much more physical evidence do we need than the abundance of physical results we see all around us, all of which has come into existence through this intrinsic essence at the core of all of us?

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

If I understand correctly, you wish to bare witness to an “Eternal Reality” you perceive as consisting of a mother quality (emotion) and a father quality (intelligence).

At any moment of our lives, we are the composite result of all our choices to that point, so these (perhaps tens of millions of them) become more than an integral part of every one of us, for they fundamentally represent who we are at that moment. Yet given one or two more choices, we will have further evolved. So it is essential for us to not only come to terms with what they are, but more essentially understand the underpinning of every choice - being the influences upon consideration at the moment such reasoning applies itself towards selection, which culminates in the choice to act.

In effect, we make all choices based upon an evaluation process from between our emotions (what I want to do) and Intelligence (what is right to do). If you like, I can explain in further detail why the emotions equates with a ‘mother’ influence and Intelligence with a ‘father’, however for now it is probably sufficient to note that we clearly ‘obey’ these inputs whenever we make any choice – like a child obeys his mother/father. Moreover, I would assert that every decision into which we ever enter, is according an obedience to just one of these, and a virtual rejection of the other, for they effectively oppose each other.

Finally, the emotions half of our input to reasoning towards choice, does not have an ‘eternal’ quality in the same manner as the other side. What we like today, will be out of favour as soon as tomorrow, but what is fact today will still be a reality in a million years - yes, even to eternity.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

It is also your contention that the two qualities somehow comprise or give rise to consciousness. If true, I vehemently disagree. Emotion is a response suggestive of consciousness rather than its progenitor.

I agree – on one side of the equation; for our consciousness in concert with such variable influences as environment and upbringing, will surely as a young child, serve to shape our emotions. However we are not always children, so we gradually make our own choices, which originally will surely be based upon parental persuasion, but through our ongoing selections, we evolve - commence to develop our own taste, memory and knowledge. Indeed we continually transform ourselves through our choices.

Even though it is true many wander through life in an aimless and reckless manner, the process itself does not eventuate as haphazardly as we might believe. For prior to every choice, we weigh the current parameters at our disposal. The resultant action, will to some degree in turn alter who we are, giving in the process new criteria which will then affect future selections, and so on. It is this side of the equation to which I am referring – the (emotional) input into the choice rather than the (emotional) effect of the completed action upon us.

Of course we also have an intellectual input into every choice, yet I strongly doubt Intelligence itself emerges from the action in the same manner as feelings (emotions).

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Intelligence is not a quality essential to consciousness, which is an awareness of one’s distinction as a living organism that is separate and distinct from one’s environment and surrounding influence. At its most basic level, consciousness can be assess through responses suggesting an organisms awareness that it has been moved from a steady state by influences alien to the organism

I’m sorry but I simply fail to relate to the above. How can we possibly be aware or conscious unless we have an advanced level of intelligence? I would again suggest that our emotions and Intelligence are the inputs into our consciousness that permits us to experience and understand all outside influences and information.

If someone was to surreptitiously stick a needle into me, the first awareness my consciousness would have of the action, would be a sharp pain which would bring about a reaction. Then I might employ my Intelligence to investigate the sudden discomfort. So surely both my emotions and Intelligence are invoked in order to have any awareness whatsoever.

Indeed I can be a pin cushion of sorts, yet my Intelligence would surely be highly offended many times over by such inaction, and I would further suggest your conclusion of me, would fall well short of including the term 'human'.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Therefore, I will move on to what I believe are more substantive discussions.

I sincerely doubt you will ever happen upon any discussion that will prove more substantive and germane than this particular one. I would further suggest that you already realise the validity of that statement, and most likely the awesome implications it foreshadows, and therefore the disturbance this all brings to the surface; being I expect, the reason you select avoidance.

Well, believe it or not, I can appreciate your trepidation, threatening as this unveiling surely does, to overturn a few deeply cherished (under faith) convictions. Even so, averting one’s attention from the plain core realities of existence will never succeed in delivering long-term satisfaction.

So although it may appear your hope to be that my explorations have run their limits, I will now attempt explanation as to why our emotions input into our reasoning towards choice, which (in part) simultaneously propagates our consciousness; can be scientifically equated to a ‘Mother’ influence, with the counterpart ‘Father’, being our Intelligence.

A choice by definition, can be simply defined as; a selection from between A. and B., and as expressed in previous posts, every choice into which we ever enter is effectively according a surrender to just one of the two inputs into the reasoning underlying that choice – respectively being on the one hand;
A: An emotional demand upon ‘me’ of that particular moment, OR on the other;
B: The alternative suggestion presenting from 'my' Intellect.

So as with any child who chooses (or not) to obey his mother’s or father’s request through his choice to action, we; throughout our lives, similarly continue in our every choice. The only thing that changes as we grow into adulthood, is the parental imperative effectively transfers from the extrinsic (physical) type of childhood, to the intrinsic (spiritual = non-physical) archetype.

Whilst children, our mother and/or father are clearly the (extrinsic type) physical human parents, yet as we get older, we naturally transfer our trust and allegiance from the physical to the spiritual (intrinsic archetype). So the controlling inputs into our choices, essentially become personal - from the two objective earthly entities, to the two corresponding subjective non-physical; that essentially make up the core ‘me’- the ‘spiritual’ counterparts of; Mother (emotions) and Father (Intelligence). Yet someone will obviously ask – why does my emotions equate to ‘Mother’, and Intelligence; as Father?

In the first instance, we need to make the obvious (but not so understood) connection, that our physical self; i.e., ‘my’ bone, flesh and blood, never actually belongs to ‘me’ as such, but has always, and will always be an integral part of the greater planet. Moreover, the stuff of my physical body is on loan to ‘me’ for a time – under stewardship – nothing more, nothing less. Only sheer arrogance of the human nature would apply any alternative definition to our existence. Yet in 2010, we all seem to increasingly live out our entire lives under this most basic of misconceptions of judgement; which for mine; is indicative of the incredible level of arrogance to where our evolution has delivered us.

Clearly this obvious but virtually lost precept; that my physical self is; whilst permitted for a few years, merely under my personal management rather than ownership, in effect places upon me, a powerful responsibility to care for my quantum of the physical planet through my choices, and particularly the actions to which I subject this particular earthly extraction by those very choices. The same rule of course, applies to everything of corporeal structure I might consider myself at any time, as ‘owning’. Although sadly not in such predominance in 2010, something close to this hue of appreciation of existence seems to have been the perspective for many ancient societies, such as the Hebrews, Maya, Aztecs, American Indian, Zulu and Chinese.

Secondly, the issue of ‘my’ choices are infinitely more important to ‘me’ than we generically recognise. For the entirety of individual that ‘I am’ at any moment, is effectively the conglomerated result of all my choices to that moment. Indeed, different choices along the way = a variant result of presenting individual.

Third; that visceral half of the input into my every choice, emanating from my emotions, effectively derives it’s genesis from within this same personal quantum of matter that effectively represents the corporeal planet. At perhaps the most basic level, my body at regular intervals, screams at my reasoning - time to add another allowance of physical substance (food) and/or moisture, in order to maintain optimum functionality. So through choice, I dutifully submit, locate and consume in the usual manner, until such time my carnality issues another directive – ‘enough’.

Even so, we do not make our choices at this stage based upon the physical need of our expectation, but rather defer to taste – desire. So it could be argued that even though my intellect might well accede to the call for replenishment, yet my emotions are not so readily satiated, and therefore demand satisfaction on a different basis – per ‘want’, desire. So a simple apple or salad and glass of water will not be nearly as acceptable as (for instance) a full course of culinary favourites and a few beers.

Similarly my body, when it requires relocation, will (again through my emotions) make demand upon my reasoning towards the relative choice, for the most lavish means of migration. So the intellectual requirement may indeed for some reason; be transportation from here to there, yet the emotional demand will perhaps be for something as close as practicable to a Ferrari, rather than by foot or a less flamboyant conveyance.

The list of parallels as to just how we constantly and mindlessly default to emotions over intellect is a virtually endless observation per human reasoning, but how does all the above equate with the ‘Mother’/‘Father’ of this unveiling, and exactly how does our ‘Father’ essence have an eternal quality, relative to the ‘Mother’ faction - which does not?

It is perhaps a more obvious connection for us to make; that our emotions derive their short-term existence from, and therefore belong entirely to our carnality – our flesh and bone, which in turn derives it’s existence, and emanates from the physical planet – indeed MOTHER Earth! So our emotions clearly equate to our mother input towards our every choice. Axiomatically enough; everything of the earth, as with emotions, comes with a time limitation - a deadline to its life expectancy; eventually returning to its greater physical Mother - the EARTH.

So not only do we need to recognise that our emotions are per a maternal demand upon us which emanate from within, and return after death to our corporeality, and as such have an extraordinarily limited life expectancy, but more essentially yet; we need to make the quite obvious (but not easily accepted) cerebral connection; that we are in fact, by default a hapless slave to emotions, and regardless how hard we might labour at denying this, it is an almost inescapable dilemma, into which we all are enmeshed. The great paradox in all the above, is that 'my' emotions – even though they can rightly claim superiority over 'me', do not in reality exist – beyond 'my' supposition, at least.

So what now, of the other half [of input] into our reasoning towards choice – being our Intelligence, and how does this particular genetic essence differ in comparison with all the above?

Initially, it is quite an obvious witness per our existence, that the lesser (from one perspective) male seed first needs to be planted into the greater (from the same perspective) female earth, prior to any new life being commenced towards realisation. This of course, is via the more easily recognised physical perspective, however there is another perspective which [even though it has no physicality, therefore is not so readily witnessed – for indeed it is spiritual], nonetheless can be scientifically verified, and which will henceforth be explored;

1. Unlike our emotions, Intelligence does NOT have an inbuilt time frame, nor terminal quality about it.

2. Once we commence our investigation upon a consistently verifiable scientific platform, it becomes clear - Intelligence is not only superior by every definition [apart from our default choice], but is clearly extant AND INTELLIGENT; with the evidence in great profusion everywhere we care to look.

3. Unlike our emotions, our Intellect does NOT emerge from within our personal earthly flesh, but rather from without – through our personal ‘Heaven’, being our conscious or sub-conscious mentality.

4. Even though our Intellect in comparison to our emotions, is infinitely more genuine and superior, it (more correctly 'He') effectively submits to the support role in deference to our (maternal) emotions – whilst such continues as our default choice. Our biggest problem however, being that we are generically unaware that we have an alternative choice available to us, so mostly continue as subservient to an unforgiving non-entity slavemaster for the duration of our days.

5. Quite obviously then, we each present as both 'Heaven' and 'Earth' - Mind and Body - Spiritual and Physical - Archetype and Type - Life and Death - Yah and Weh; and upon such prevailing basic definitions, are our constantly recurring options per choice - A. and B. based.

So not only are the physical and spiritual comparisons lucid, profound and self-explanatory, but also scientifcally evinced, as is the relative impact upon our reasoning between the two opposing genetic inputs; A. and B. Therefore if our emotions can rightfully be expressed as; (B.) earthly ‘Mother’, then the VASTLY SUPERIOR (opposing option) input, is manifestly per (A.) ‘Father’.

Interestingly the comparisons between the two essential inputs do not end there. For when we take a fresh look at how we make choice, we will soon recognise that our reasoning functions remarkably similar to that of the intrinsic binary code of all computers; with every step along the pathway from selection to completed action [for some processes, perhaps being many millions], according a very similar and fundamental, recurring on/off, or yes/no switching.

The corresponding intrinsic, recurring (human code) switch which underpins each choice then; as with every computer, is clearly oppositional in nature and effectively represents the ‘Father’/’Mother’ – ‘yes’/’no’ - A./B. - life/death processing - many of which by set default, that (again) drives our every choice towards it's eventual completion.

And again - to round off this aspect of the emerging picture; at any moment during the course of our lives, we certainly each present, as the aggregated result of our every choice to action (as above) – to that moment.

Now, I have to ask - can any discussion possibly be more germane and substantive than all that?

Postnote: If acceptable to the moderators concerned, I might soon commence exploration of just how our oppositional inputs towards selection, effectively interact at the point of each respective (Father/Mother or A./B. switch) choice, and in so doing; provide the genetic spark to the requisite power supply - the electrical impulse/s, that in turn issue en route to empower the muscles in the process towards the physical result of the choice (to action) - indeed, the pathway of; the spiritual being made physical.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

consciousness is biological.!!!

True

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Sensory input is only half of the equation - the intrinsic half. Consequently, consciousness is only half biological.

The other half being from INTELLIGENCE, not at all biological, and further to my reasoning - entirely extrinsic.

Care to elaborate? Are you saying intelligence is not emergent of brain biology? If so, where do you think it is coming from?

Cockroaches will display intelligent behaviour even with their heads pulled off, they can sustain life for a week, and only reason they die is due to starvation. Sea turtles will also display a elaborated intelligent behaviour even with their heads cut off, due to evolved CNS.

Major part of all intelligence studies only involve concious brain functions, not the CNS.

I myself as many of my irl friends, has in the middle of the night awoken to subconciously solved some problem, often math problem when we were in school, by that Imo our brain is actually not the major part of our conciousness.

Originally Posted by HexHammer

I myself as many of my irl friends, has in the middle of the night awoken to subconciously solved some problem, often math problem when we were in school, by that Imo our brain is actually not the major part of our conciousness.

The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. Sleep doesn't terminate brain activity - far from.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by HexHammer

I myself as many of my irl friends, has in the middle of the night awoken to subconciously solved some problem, often math problem when we were in school, by that Imo our brain is actually not the major part of our conciousness.

The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. Sleep doesn't terminate brain activity - far from.

People who break their neck, thus loses all ability to move arms and rest of their body, they lose some cognitive abilities, isn't that so?

Originally Posted by HexHammer

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by HexHammer

I myself as many of my irl friends, has in the middle of the night awoken to subconciously solved some problem, often math problem when we were in school, by that Imo our brain is actually not the major part of our conciousness.

The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. Sleep doesn't terminate brain activity - far from.

People who break their neck, thus loses all ability to move arms and rest of their body, they lose some cognitive abilities, isn't that so?

The answer to your question resides in how you understand the definition of cognitive abilities relative to brain function and processes. Verifying the term and you will have your answer.

Originally Posted by HexHammer

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Originally Posted by HexHammer

I myself as many of my irl friends, has in the middle of the night awoken to subconciously solved some problem, often math problem when we were in school, by that Imo our brain is actually not the major part of our conciousness.

The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. Sleep doesn't terminate brain activity - far from.

People who break their neck, thus loses all ability to move arms and rest of their body, they lose some cognitive abilities, isn't that so?

Not so. Persistent vegetative state, in which cognition is impaired, occurs only with brain damage. 'Locked-in' syndrome occurs when the brain stem region or lower is damaged but leaves the higher brain intact. When this occurs a person is completely paralysed with full cognition. Trauma affecting only the neck and resulting in complete paralysis, as you describe, would result in locked in syndrome - although such an unfortunate person would still have function above the neck.

P.S. A fantastic book painstakingly written by a bloke with locked in syndrome - using the one thing he could still move - an eyelid: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: A Memoir of Life in Death by Jean-Dominique Bauby.
Worth reading whether you're interested in the snydrome or not.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Not so. Persistent vegetative state, in which cognition is impaired, occurs only with brain damage. 'Locked-in' syndrome occurs when the brain stem region or lower is damaged but leaves the higher brain intact. When this occurs a person is completely paralysed with full cognition. Trauma affecting only the neck and resulting in complete paralysis, as you describe, would result in locked in syndrome - although such an unfortunate person would still have function above the neck.

P.S. A fantastic book painstakingly written by a bloke with locked in syndrome - using the one thing he could still move - an eyelid: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: A Memoir of Life in Death by Jean-Dominique Bauby.
Worth reading whether you're interested in the snydrome or not.

I'm not talking about vegetative state people, I'm talking about plain neckfractures with a concious mind like Christopher Reeve.

Originally Posted by HexHammer

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Not so. Persistent vegetative state, in which cognition is impaired, occurs only with brain damage. 'Locked-in' syndrome occurs when the brain stem region or lower is damaged but leaves the higher brain intact. When this occurs a person is completely paralysed with full cognition. Trauma affecting only the neck and resulting in complete paralysis, as you describe, would result in locked in syndrome - although such an unfortunate person would still have function above the neck.

P.S. A fantastic book painstakingly written by a bloke with locked in syndrome - using the one thing he could still move - an eyelid: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: A Memoir of Life in Death by Jean-Dominique Bauby.
Worth reading whether you're interested in the snydrome or not.

I'm not talking about vegetative state people, I'm talking about plain neckfractures with a concious mind like Christopher Reeve.

Christopher Reeve had something like locked in syndrome but admirably managed to restore some function. As far as i understand he had no loss of cognitive ability - because he suffered no brain injury.

hmmmmm

Originally Posted by HexHammer

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Christopher Reeve had something like locked in syndrome but admirably managed to restore some function. As far as i understand he had no loss of cognitive ability - because he suffered no brain injury.

If mr Reeve had broken his heck up at the skull, not midway he would have lost all CNS.

He shattered C1 and C2 - the first 2 vertebrae from the skull. The degree of tetraplegia depends on the extent of injury to the spinal cord, encased within the vertebrae. It is possible to break your neck and have no spinal cord injury. His brain wasn't injured in the accident and he suffered no cognitive decline as a result from his spinal injury.

Bottom line is what we call consciousness resides in, or emerges from, the brain.

By the way, the CNS includes the brain as well as the spinal cord.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

He shattered C1 and C2 - the first 2 vertebrae from the skull. The degree of tetraplegia depends on the extent of injury to the spinal cord, encased within the vertebrae. It is possible to break your neck and have no spinal cord injury. His brain wasn't injured in the accident and he suffered no cognitive decline as a result from his spinal injury.

Bottom line is what we call consciousness resides in, or emerges from, the brain.

By the way, the CNS includes the brain as well as the spinal cord.

Very well, you are wiser.

Originally Posted by HexHammer

Originally Posted by Prometheus

He shattered C1 and C2 - the first 2 vertebrae from the skull. The degree of tetraplegia depends on the extent of injury to the spinal cord, encased within the vertebrae. It is possible to break your neck and have no spinal cord injury. His brain wasn't injured in the accident and he suffered no cognitive decline as a result from his spinal injury.

Bottom line is what we call consciousness resides in, or emerges from, the brain.

By the way, the CNS includes the brain as well as the spinal cord.

Very well, you are wiser.

Unlikely. It's just that i'm a nurse and it's kind of my job to know this sort of stuff.

Originally Posted by HexHammer

Cockroaches will display intelligent behaviour even with their heads pulled off, they can sustain life for a week, and only reason they die is due to starvation. Sea turtles will also display a elaborated intelligent behaviour even with their heads cut off

This is interesting, but is it correct? Can you please verify, Mr. Hammer - or anyone for that matter?

Originally Posted by HexHammer

I myself as many of my irl friends, has in the middle of the night awoken to subconciously solved some problem, often math problem when we were in school, by that Imo our brain is actually not the major part of our conciousness.

IMHO the brain is more like a computer than we have previously imagined - little more than the centre of processing of the relative inputs (into it) – in turn, predominantly emerging from two genetic resources; indeed from two separate realms of reality;

1. Intrinsically - from our physicality - via the various sensory definitions, including sight, sound, touch, smell, as conveyed through our nervous system towards a non-physical code we term feelings or EMOTIONS. This effectively becomes one half of the binary code, through which we (via brain activity) process, reason, evaluate towards ultimately making choice.

2. Extrinsically - yet likewise requiring conversion to the second (non-physical) half of the binary code; INTELLIGENCE - which in turn presents as the alternative option from which each choice is made.

Additionally, as with any computer we also must include another essential factor into our processing - memory; which again is non-physical, and is attached to the intrinsic source underlying our reasoning – our emotions. This input, I would suggest; merely supports the processing of the two (above) binary inputs towards action, rather than forming a third input/option.

Of course unlike a computer, I doubt the brain can ever be truly shut down; at least until needing to be placed into the great trash can – in preparation for recycling. Therefore your spectacular mid-night realisations, have emerged from precisely the same processing activity; albeit less hampered by external distractions, as you notice during your waking hours.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

This is interesting, but is it correct? Can you please verify, Mr. Hammer - or anyone for that matter?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_can_a_cockroach_survive_without_its_head_ and_specifically_where_is_this_documented

Ah! Now after 2 decades I know why roaches display such intelligent behaviour without their head, some species have decentralized system and some 6 brains. :?

I'v tryed to search the internet for sea turtle beheading, but some soup turtles, will be gutted alive, as the butchers claim it won't make any difference beheading the turtle as it will move around just the same.

I find it also interesting to note that apparently when condemned people in France had their heads guillotined off, reports would suggest their eyes to continue to function - following people move around for five minutes or so - if memory serves me correctly.

I wont bother read all the posts, so correct me if I'm right.

I'm hoping someone has asked for consciousness to be defined. Maybe they went into some detail about the futility of discussing what something is or where it comes from, without knowing what that something is...


Assuming that someone on here knows what the subject of the conversation is, can you tell me what consciousness we are talking about so I can take part in the discussion please?

thank you and I look forward to joining this productive talk!

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

the futility of discussing what something is or where it comes from, without knowing what that something is...

That is a part of the problem. Current science has no means to meaningfully describe subjective experience.

This may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Actually it has nothing to do with modern science. It's in the definition of the word. We will never be able to describe subjective experiences, that is why they are called subjective; you have to objectify something to describe it. The subject is the one doing the describing.

This is no a problem though, it's a distraction from the real problem, IMO, that people do not want to objectify their experiences. They cling to arbitrary meanings, and archaic concepts like "states of mind" and "feelings" that folk-wisdom says to be true and universal, but psychologists have no evidence of.

Since consciousness "happens" in other people, and not just yourself, you can define it.

Consciousness in the sense of being awake can be defined with brain wave activity, at least within a theoretical framework; as compared to brain wave activity when you are defined as being asleep. Maybe there is a transition of falling asleep, and another, or same transition of waking up; I do not know, I'm just showing that things can be defined. While these brain waves do not tell us what is happening subjectively, they can tell us, with enough previous studies done on the subjects, what the general implications are of these subjective experiences.

If subjective experiences were completely mysterious to us, artists, and namely performance artists and writers would be pretty useless individuals.... i mean, more so than they often are

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Actually it has nothing to do with modern science. It's in the definition of the word. We will never be able to describe subjective experiences, that is why they are called subjective; you have to objectify something to describe it. The subject is the one doing the describing.

The question to be answered is "Why do we have subjective experiences?" Why do you think that science should not try to answer this question?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

like "states of mind" and "feelings" that folk-wisdom says to be true and universal, but psychologists have no evidence of.

What the hell do you mean?? There is no explanation for them, but I don't think that there is anyone who seriously denies their existence.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Consciousness in the sense of being awake can be defined with brain wave activity,...

You are completely missing the point.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Since consciousness "happens" in other people,

Can you prove it?

Numbered responses refer to questions in the order they were asked, I will answer them out of order however.

4: No, there are no proofs except in linguistics, mathematics, and baking ( :

We are discussing observations, and the most we can do is appeal to a theory, or particular interpretation of those observations.

1: We exist.

If I was a moronic dick, I would use the framework you have set forth by asking me for proof, and ask you for proof that "we have subjective experiences" since it means the same thing as what I said "Consciousness happens in other people"

I wont go there though, because I don't care about anyone's subjective experiences, I'm too busy experiencing my own, and find it impossible to subjectify(I don't know maybe my logic relies too much on language?) the other... it's like giving "holism" a holistic definition.

I'm concerned with objective phenomena.

We cannot understand what we cannot define(this is one of those linguistic proofs as mentioned above) except in my opinion through experience. Then if one sought to share one's understanding with another, on something they understood but could not define, they would need to lead the other through a series of experiences. Consider this: defining a word; taking a measurement; making a calculation; doing an experiment; intepreting results; communicating

-these are all experiences

and God said "Let there be Empiricism!"

Unless you want to resort to the existential dissection of eacother's linguistic shticks, I'd recommend focusing on observables.

We do not experience anything.

I experience particular things, you experience particular things, and inanimate objects experience particular things to.

We have a nervous system that allows us to predict, observe, reflect on, learn from, communicate etc, these experiences. We are objectifying the subjective; everything, conscious or not, has subjective experiences.

2: science has no obligations, and science doesn't do anything. People use the scientific method and share their work with the scientific community. Whether or not people should do anything is beyond me. I never said anything about what we should or shouldn't do with the scientific method or for the scientific community. I smell a straw man.

3: You know what I mean because you then rephrased what I meant in your anecdotal rebuttal that consisted of little more than another straw man.

So if I understand you correctly, you claim that no consciousness exist, not even your own?

You do not understand me correctly

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

We have a nervous system that allows us to predict, observe, reflect on, learn from, communicate etc, these experiences.

We have a nervous system, which is all about our feelings/emotions – being one half of what we refer to as ‘our consciousness’, and which permits us to experience (including observe) BOTH the external and internal worlds.

However I would suggest such as prediction, reflecting (upon) and learning (from) – that which is presented to our attention via our nervous system (as above), are alternatively accomplished through the subsequent application of our Intelligence – being it turn, the second half of our consciousness.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

We are objectifying the subjective; everything, conscious or not, has subjective experiences.

What the heck does all that mean? You could just as easily say “everything, conscious or not, has objective experiences” – which would factually be more correct, for only ‘things’ which enjoy consciousness, can possibly be subjective.

Consciousness, seen as a singular entity in and of itself, is a self-refuting concept. There are a lot of things that make up a sense of self, and to say that a persons' sense of self is separate from all things that make up a sense of self is logically unsound.

"I" is just a reference point the brain uses to associate itself to the rest of the world; in just the same manner as it differentiates people it differentiates itself.

The Multiple Drafts Model makes more sense than the belief that consciousness is some sort of singularity or separate entity. In fact, it would be easier to just get rid of the word 'consciousness' all together and just replace it with the word 'brain'.

Originally Posted by Obviously

In fact, it would be easier to just get rid of the word 'consciousness' all together and just replace it with the word 'brain'

Have you ever seen a single brain in a jar or otherwise outside a living being (other than in some horror fantasy on TV) which can make any change whatsoever to its environment, has any understanding of its surroundings or even knows it is? If your answer is in line with the expectation of everyone else, then the definition for ‘brain’ and ‘consciousness’ would have to be completely separate, wouldn’t you think?

This may shock you, but it wasn’t your brain that read, made sense (perhaps) of that last paragraph and agreed (or not) with it - but rather; your consciousness!

Originally Posted by Obviously

Consciousness, seen as a singular entity in and of itself, is a self-refuting concept. There are a lot of things that make up a sense of self, and to say that a persons' sense of self is separate from all things that make up a sense of self is logically unsound.

Does that even make sense? Your entire argument reads like the very definition of “logically unsound”.

Consciousness is an implied quality of the brain when it employs means of receiving sensory input. Any organism with means of gathering any sort of information from its surroundings is/has a brain that is conscious. The brain can even consist of only a single cell, like a neuron. I believe there are insects or some living creatures of the sort that contain brains that consist of single neurons.

This approach to consciousness narrows the scope of the question, 'At what point* does a being with a brain become conscious', down to a single answer: when the brain receives input. For the sake of avoiding confusion, the interpretation of the input and reaction to input are implicit. If a cell is receiving information from a source outside of itself, it has no choice but to make an interpretation and react automatically.

* : presumably "how many neurons", "which configuration(s) of neurons", and/or "which set(s) and/or sequence(s) of active neurons"

I believe that a better phrasing for the question in mind, since I presume it to be the question of interest pertaining to human consciousness, should read something like 'At what point* does a human being achieve collective consciousness', which is fairly unclear at this point other than the distinction between sleeping and waking states. I contend that, outside of any possible findings of specific human brain firing patterns that produce what we know as our collective consciousness, the question cannot be answered sufficiently. A distinction may be made that 'brain' does not equate to 'consciousness' but that's about as far as it can go. One can state what it is and what it is not in as many ways conceivable but all of the answers would remain corrupt with subjectivity.

Yet, the definition for brain and the definition for consciousness is not "completely separate". Consciousness is an implied characteristic of the interactive brain, 'interactive' in same sense as the requirement for consciousness, receiving sensory input. Without a brain, consciousness does not exist. A brain receiving no sensory input is not conscious either. Hence, consciousness depends on the brain, and, if a suitable definition were to exist, a definition of consciousness would be along such lines, not completely separate.

A big point that I want to make explicitly clear is that it IS "your brain that read, made sense (perhaps) of that last paragraph and agreed (or not) with it." The brain was entirely and solely responsible for doing all of those things. Those things imply the seemingly elusive concept of consciousness. They do not separate it from the brain. Thus, "your consciousness" cannot be responsible for anything, whatsoever, since it is the brain that actually does everything.


P.S. I realize that my post reads a bit hypocritically. When I say that consciousness is undefinable and then follow with a "Consciousness is...", I mean to convey only that consciousness exists as a quality of the brain. I am not trying to define exactly what about the brain's subjective experience constitutes consciousness.

I would suggest the quality of consciousness implies a brain, rather than the other way around.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

A big point that I want to make explicitly clear is that it IS "your brain that read, made sense (perhaps) of that last paragraph and agreed (or not) with it." The brain was entirely and solely responsible for doing all of those things.

Are you sure about all that explicitly clear stuff? It seems you are clear that the eyes didn’t have any part to play in the reading process, huh? How about the nerves that some folk expect transmit the messages from the eyes (or anywhere else in the body) to the back of the brain - prior to the major organ having any chance to ‘make sense’ of the transmitted images – in this case the reading material? If you are correct that the brain is solely responsible for doing everything, perhaps we have misapprehended the tasks of, input from and requirement for these other aspects of our physical human machinery????

Of course consciousness and the brain are not in any way inseparable, yet I have no idea how you can possibly conclude otherwise from anything in my previous post. Indeed what I said was the two have separate definitions – which is certainly NOT the same thing as the two being separated. I hope you can now recognise the obvious difference.

The brain is a physical organ – supposedly constituted of atoms, but consciousness is not physical in any way – so again; they have entirely differing definitions.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Thus, "your consciousness" cannot be responsible for anything, whatsoever, since it is the brain that actually does everything.

So again – have you personally ever witnessed any 'brain that actually does everything’, without having any consciousness – with which to do it ALL?

experiences imply an experiencer, hence they are subjective

you can witness an experiencer of an experience, and then objectify the experience; in which case you call it an event, or a series of events, and calculate/measure/define them to better understand what happened

this doesn't put you in the experiencer's shoes though



and i can simulate consciousness in language, so until you define consciousness, I suppose all we can do is pass back and forth empty words to be subject to eachother's rhetorical jabs.

Originally Posted by Marcusclayman

and i can simulate consciousness in language, so until you define consciousness, I suppose all we can do is pass back and forth empty words to be subject to eachother's rhetorical jabs.

I have not much idea what your rhetoric is about, yet for mine this certainly is NOT about jabs, but rather the critical process of defining that essential commodity which we all share and call consciousness, but as you so eloquently imply – for which we have precious little consistently verifiable definition. So until we do, our struggle to understand what it is that we are talking about, will surely continue.

Originally Posted by Marcusclayman

experiences imply an experiencer, hence they are subjective

All events are by definition objective, however whenever one eventuates for an individual enjoying consciousness, it will necessarily be interpreted via that individual’s emotions – such as “Was that a good experience for me?” or “Did I enjoy the experience?”. It is this type of investigation and the personal conclusions decided upon, that gives the entirely objective experience the ‘subjective’ (personal) interpretation we subsequently live with.

It really is as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Have you ever seen a single brain in a jar or otherwise outside a living being (other than in some horror fantasy on TV) which can make any change whatsoever to its environment, has any understanding of its surroundings or even knows it is? If your answer is in line with the expectation of everyone else, then the definition for ‘brain’ and ‘consciousness’ would have to be completely separate, wouldn’t you think?

This may shock you, but it wasn’t your brain that read, made sense (perhaps) of that last paragraph and agreed (or not) with it - but rather; your consciousness!

As long as there's some form of sensory input, the brain will respond to it. Without sensory input, the brain cannot respond to anything.

Your analogy of a brain doing something outside a body is ridiculous. The brain is a part of a body, meaning that it cannot function without it. It's like saying an arm detached from its body cannot change its environment. Which is true, but really irrelevant. Your argument boils down to a simple non sequitur.

The brain will not have any conception of anything without sensory input, which it basically gets already after 26 weeks in the womb onwards. If you take a brain in a jar after that, it will only know what it has experienced so far. Given time without sensory input, the brain will probably go over the information it has thus far over and over again. Which makes sense given that no new information is being fed.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Does that even make sense? Your entire argument reads like the very definition of “logically unsound”.

That would mean that you both understood my argument and didn't at the same time. Which sounds absurd when you think about it; but apparently it's possible.

Feeling, taste, sight, hearing and smell. These different senses are a part of what makes up who you are. To say that ones sense of self is separate from all the things that make up a sense of self (senses, memory, neural network, chemistry, body, etc) is logically unsound.

Savvy?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Your analogy of a brain doing something outside a body is ridiculous.

Is it really? Shall we join in a little analytical investigation into that claim?

Originally Posted by Obviously

The brain is a part of a body, meaning that it cannot function without it. It's like saying an arm detached from its body cannot change its environment. Which is true, but really irrelevant. Your argument boils down to a simple non sequitur.

Looks to me like irrelevant pleas of illogical reasoning, yet can logic show the fallacy of such illogic?

Please notice - an arm - even whilst attached to its body cannot do anything to influence its environment. Only the mentality/consciousness that controls the electrical impulses that in turn drive the relative movements of the muscles within that arm can do anything at all to affect the environment. On the other hand, and contrary to your claim; even a DETACHED arm can still be motivated to some extent by externally derived electrical impulse, even as to have the appearance of being attached. Yet either way, the arm still cannot do anything at all unless it is in some manner attached to a consciousness.

So you are incorrect on both counts, for it is;
A. Exceedingly relevant, and
B. Your arm illustration effectively proves point (A.). Yet any ‘non-sequitur’ applies to your illogical reasoning.

And therein lies the rationality you failed to address, for unlike your arm, no matter what you can do for a detached brain, for mine it will NEVER AGAIN enjoy consciousness – apart from fantastic horror weirdness at least.

Originally Posted by Obviously

If you take a brain in a jar after that, it will only know what it has experienced so far. Given time without sensory input, the brain will probably go over the information it has thus far over and over again. Which makes sense given that no new information is being fed.

Really? Have you noticed how this is in direct contradiction to your second statement above? So how does your 'logic' plan to explain this embarrassing faux pas?

Yet maybe you are right this time around, and a detached brain continues to ‘go over the information it has thus far over and over again’ - ad infinitum! Most would have expected however; a brain in a jar (or anywhere outside a living being) to be nothing more than a lifeless lump of meat – without consciousness, without memory, without reasoning and without ‘knowing’, and upon which perhaps; nature should be permitted to take its usual course in returning it to the earth from whence it originally emerged.

Originally Posted by Obviously

That would mean that you both understood my argument and didn't at the same time. Which sounds absurd when you think about it; but apparently it's possible.

Actually it meant I understood the words you employed, but the argument they were supposedly addressing failed to make any logical sense.

Savvy?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Savvy?

"I don't understand you, therefore you are wrong"

Yes, I understand completely.

This discussion reminds me of an interview by Dawkins with some Indian "guru" type fellow. The Indian fellow, probably a Hinduist, made remarks such as: a rock has a "rock-ness" quality and a tree has a "tree-ness" quality...

These are idiotic observations that do not provide any insight into anything other than the intellectual state of the person holding these ideas as valuable. At what point does "tree-ness" become "leaf-ness" and "wood-ness" and "cellulose-ness" and "carbon-ness" and "electron-ness"? The program was about religion, superstition and ignorance.

"Conscious-ness" is a word invented by people to describe a subjective idea that is shared to different extents by many people. It is an abstraction that is more useful that the idiotic "tree-ness", but it is only an abstraction.

The brain does things and all those things that the brain does cease to happen once the brain dies.

You are not "conscious" before your own conception so why would you be conscious after death once all the molecules of your brain have been returned to the earth, the plants and the animals?

.o:0|O|0:o.

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

This discussion reminds me of an interview by Dawkins with some Indian "guru" type fellow. The Indian fellow, probably a Hinduist, made remarks such as: a rock has a "rock-ness" quality and a tree has a "tree-ness" quality...

These are idiotic observations that do not provide any insight into anything other than the intellectual state of the person holding these ideas as valuable. At what point does "tree-ness" become "leaf-ness" and "wood-ness" and "cellulose-ness" and "carbon-ness" and "electron-ness"? The program was about religion, superstition and ignorance.

"Conscious-ness" is a word invented by people to describe a subjective idea that is shared to different extents by many people. It is an abstraction that is more useful that the idiotic "tree-ness", but it is only an abstraction.

nonsense

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

The brain does things and all those things that the brain does cease to happen once the brain dies.

You are not "conscious" before your own conception so why would you be conscious after death once all the molecules of your brain have been returned to the earth, the plants and the animals?

.o:0|O|0:o.

Who claims otherwise?

Another attemt to explain consciousness:
Can computers suffer?

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Who claims otherwise?

Religious zealots.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Another attemt to explain consciousness:
Can computers suffer?

Living beings suffer when they have needs that are not met.

A computer does not have needs.

When/if a computer is developed to the point where it has needs, then it will also be capable of suffering.

.o:0|O|0:o.

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

Living beings suffer when they have needs that are not met.

What about pain?

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

A computer does not have needs.

It needs electricity.



If you will have a robot that is programed to cry when hurt, will it suffer?

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

Living beings suffer when they have needs that are not met.

What about pain?

Pain works on a lower level than suffering and is more closely associated with survival and self preservation than it is with need. Pain is associated strongly with the instinct to remain alive and intact.

Pain evolved in order to protect organisms from immediate physical threats, it is a stimulus that provokes discomfort and alerts the organism to a danger. Typically, not taking note of pain leads to the organism sustaining harm/injury/damage or death (pain can also be a consequence of something going wrong in the body, like cancers).

Pain does not require a complex brain to be experienced, i.e., the sort of brain that is capable of emotional suffering. Emotional suffering can lead to physical pain (e.g. stomach cramps, headaches) and prolonged physical pain can lead to suffering (in complex beings).

Sometimes the term "emotional pain" is used. This is an inaccurate use and is usually the consequence of the person not being fully aware of the distinction between "pain" and "suffering", i.e., a limited vocabulary (very common these days, init).

Computers, if they will, are likely to experience pain long before they are capable of suffering, the same way as living organisms evolved the ability to experience pain before they developed brains complex enough to experience suffering.

Pain and suffering, however, are unique to living organisms, and engineering a computer to feel pain would be nonsensical unless it were living and that sort of stimulus were useful (e.g. androids). Similarly, engineering a computer to suffer, though this would also be cruel and immoral if it did not serve a purpose for the computer's wellbeing. We are obviously not talking about PCs here.

.o:0|O|0:o.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

Living beings suffer when they have needs that are not met.

What about pain?

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

A computer does not have needs.

It needs electricity.



If you will have a robot that is programed to cry when hurt, will it suffer?

A computer does not have a need for electricity. It is human beings that for some purposes need electricity to make computers work.

The computer does not cease to exist without electricity; human beings cease to live without oxygen.

A robot programmed to cry upon receiving a certain stimulus or being damaged, is like a human being instructed to cry if someone damages their suit.


.o:0|O|0:o.

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

A computer does not have a need for electricity. It is human beings that for some purposes need electricity to make computers work.

But where does that need come from?

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

The computer does not cease to exist without electricity; human beings cease to live without oxygen.

But it ceases to function for example when submerged. Yet it does not suffer, it is compeltely indifferent to anything that happens to it.

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

A robot programmed to cry upon receiving a certain stimulus or being damaged, is like a human being instructed to cry if someone damages their suit.

Exactly.

Computers, if they will, are likely to experience pain

Pain and suffering, however, are unique to living organisms, and engineering a computer to feel pain would be nonsensical unless it were living and that sort of stimulus were useful (e.g. androids). Similarly, engineering a computer to suffer, though this would also be cruel and immoral if it did not serve a purpose for the computer's wellbeing. We are obviously not talking about PCs here.

How will you make it experience something? The answer is: nobody has any idea.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

A computer does not have a need for electricity. It is human beings that for some purposes need electricity to make computers work.

But where does that need come from?

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

The computer does not cease to exist without electricity; human beings cease to live without oxygen.

But it ceases to function for example when submerged. Yet it does not suffer, it is compeltely indifferent to anything that happens to it.

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

A robot programmed to cry upon receiving a certain stimulus or being damaged, is like a human being instructed to cry if someone damages their suit.

Exactly.

Computers, if they will, are likely to experience pain

Pain and suffering, however, are unique to living organisms, and engineering a computer to feel pain would be nonsensical unless it were living and that sort of stimulus were useful (e.g. androids). Similarly, engineering a computer to suffer, though this would also be cruel and immoral if it did not serve a purpose for the computer's wellbeing. We are obviously not talking about PCs here.

How will you make it experience something? The answer is: nobody has any idea.

Computers are not useful in explaining biological minds. In their current form, they do not function anything like brains. They are tools with a specific purpose and that purpose is neither to live nor survive nor to further their genes. Using the analogy of a computer not caring about its demise is analogous to talking about a bucket of sand not caring about its demise (no surprise at all).

Living organisms evolved to flourish in a physical environment; this means they evolved mechanisms to account for, compensate for and take advantage of the real world around them. "Consciousness" is a qualitative and quantative measure of how far the biological brain is able to perceive its environment in relation to its needs as a vulnerable entity and this may involve very indirect perceptions (such as formulating theories). We have a good idea of what "consciousness" is because we see it at different stages in other organisms and in ourselves.

.o:0|O|0:o.

Living organisms evolved to flourish in a physical environment; this means they evolved mechanisms to account for, compensate for and take advantage of the real world around them.

Yes, of course. But why are these systems so fundamentally different from robots programmed to cry when damaged?

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Living organisms evolved to flourish in a physical environment; this means they evolved mechanisms to account for, compensate for and take advantage of the real world around them.

Yes, of course. But why are these systems so fundamentally different from robots programmed to cry when damaged?

Since the robots you are talking about are meant to immitate living beings, not the other way round, the question "why are robots so fundamentally different" is more meaningful.

The brain is the evolutionary standard here, the microprocessor, so far, is merely a toy of the brain: an electronic counter that performs calculations in binary, oblivious about the world. The processor is that way because we designed it that way. Not long ago it was a mechanical device.

When we start designing robots that use biological brains along the same principles as our own, organisms that respond to stimuli in a far more complex and multifacetted way than "input, operation, output", we will eventually have an artificial consciousness.

.o:0|O|0:o.

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

When we start designing robots that use biological brains along the same principles as our own, organisms that respond to stimuli in a far more complex and multifacetted way than "input, operation, output", we will eventually have an artificial consciousness.

.o:0|O|0:o.

You mean using a real biological brain to control a robotic body? Even if you could find someone crazy enough to do it, it would not be an artifical consciousnes and it would not help us understand how consciousness work.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

When we start designing robots that use biological brains along the same principles as our own, organisms that respond to stimuli in a far more complex and multifacetted way than "input, operation, output", we will eventually have an artificial consciousness.

.o:0|O|0:o.

You mean using a real biological brain to control a robotic body? Even if you could find someone crazy enough to do it, it would not be an artifical consciousnes and it would not help us understand how consciousness work.

I said:

"...biological brains along the same principles...".

Living neurons made in the lab and arranged in a controlled way.

You would start off with small clusters and progress to larger clusters. Since the brain is the foundation of "consciousness" you would see increasingly sophisticated versions of it emerging in the man made version -- a bit like you see a quantative difference between different animals.

.o:0|O|0:o.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Originally Posted by Obviously

Savvy

Savvy

"I don't understand you, therefore you are wrong"

Yes, I understand completely.

Not much tolerance for logic huh? You may notice your consciousness struggles for understanding within a brain that is very much like another – which in turn, has less confusion and dilemma.

The difference is NOT so much between the two physical brains, but within that which is not at all physical – the respective consciousness!

Cheers

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.

I said:

"...biological brains along the same principles...".

Living neurons made in the lab and arranged in a controlled way.

You would start off with small clusters and progress to larger clusters. Since the brain is the foundation of "consciousness" you would see increasingly sophisticated versions of it emerging in the man made version -- a bit like you see a quantative difference between different animals.

.o:0|O|0:o.

Why do you think that biological neurons are so different? Where is the difference? How would it help us understand how consciousness works? It doesn't matter wheter you trasplant an existing brain or grow one artifically, it still does not equal artifical consciousness. (just like growing trees does not equal artifical trees) Not to mention that it would be extremely impractical.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Not much tolerance for logic huh? You may notice your consciousness struggles for understanding within a brain that is very much like another – which in turn, has less confusion and dilemma.

The difference is NOT so much between the two physical brains, but within that which is not at all physical – the respective consciousness!

Cheers

A healthy human is more conscious than a healthy goldfish. It is the brain (the number of neurons and the way they are interconnected) that determines the quantitative differences between the two organisms. When the quantative difference increases we see qualitative differences emerge, even though the individual neurons do not change.

When comparing the brains of twins, the brains are as similar as can be but they are not identical. They will not share the same consciousness because they do not share the same brain: when one twin is depressed, the other may be fullfilled.

The different states of mind depend on the physical brain, the stimuli, experiences, prejudices, ...All of these "software" variables of the brain also modify the physical networks in the brain, in a process called reinforcement or learning.

Confusion and dilemma are states of mind, usually transient asepcts of one's consciousness and usually explainable using psychology or neurology.


There is no software without hardware. What is surprising about that?


(Who is the antiquated slob used as your avatar?)


.o:0|O|0:o.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

...not at all physical...

Yet, its definition would have no foundation, not one, rooted in anything non-physical. Consciousness, as it is most commonly perceived, may seem to have this Gestalt-like quality, but it simply doesn't. It's impossible for anything to exist if it is not rooted into physical reality in some direct, fundamental way. I apologize for breaking any bubbles of the religious.

I deemed the brain responsible but I did not purpose that the consciousness was non-existent. Also, did my heavy emphasis on the sensory input for the brain throughout the entirety of the post escape you? You're picking at me for my final statement because of my failure to mention the eyes. Are you serious? I find it hard to believe that anyone with a triple digit IQ would read the whole post and believe that I charged the brain itself, without the aid of its means of sensory input, wholly responsible for reading and understanding and creating experiences. This is why it's impossible to argue with you. You isolate phrases and attempt to attack them completely out of context, attempting to display my statement in a light that contradicts the message I was delivering just so that you can go right back and agree with it, but not completely, of course, since you still purpose your ever-so unique claims throughout.

If your aim in a debate is to simply wear down your opponent until he/she gives up, you seem to have a good amount of skill in doing it.

Well let me add my thoughts. I know it's probably fruitless, but I'm actually after a real discussion here. I notice a lot of materialists out here. That is, people who equate conscious experiences to neural activity.
Let me start out by saying that that is, of course, a very respectable position. It is one that most neuroscientists hold.
However, it's not a self-evident or uncomplicated view. I guess most of you here are familiar with the ideas of Nagel and Frank Jackson, or Searle's chinese room, or Leibniz's mill, or Chalmers's hard problem (if not let me know, I can expand on it).
It all basically comes down to the same point: materially speaking there is nothing special about neural activity. It is mainly just electrons travelling along axons.
And there comes the riddle, why do migrating electrons cause the experience of seeing red, or the smell of a rose, or the sound of beethoven's ninth. Or even more: why do these migrating electrons cause any experience at all.

Now, of course, an answer could be: these moving electrons are part of a system, and this system performs X or Y. Yet, that is not logically sufficient. In fact, it does not seem to help a lot. The question basically remains: why would moving electrons in a system that produces X give rise to any experience? Why can't these electrons just move around without giving rise to any conscious percept?

This has led to more than one expert in the field (e.g. Chalmers or Nagel) drawing surprising conclusions. Basically these people say: we are missing an important ingredient. Or to reformulate: it is empirically obvious that neural activity is correlated with conscious percepts, but this correlation does not imply causation.
Compare it to retinal activity, it is obvious that retinal activity is tightly correlated with visual experiences, but it is now also obvious that this activity in fact does not create these experiences. The retina just passes the information on to the brain. So what people like Chalmers argue is that the story does not end with information reaching the brain. Because neural activity is mainly just electrons moving around, and electrons in motion do not seem logically sufficient to solve the problem of why conscious experiences exist either. So there will have to be an extra ingredient, one we do not know yet, that actually is the source of all these experiences.

At any rate, I do not have a very strong position on this one way or the other, but I do think that a lot of people hold an over-confident view on the matter. The correlations between neural activity and conscious experiences do not settle the matter. And since it seems nearly impossible to logically deduce conscious experiences from electrical activity I think we have a serious question on our hands.

Anyway, I would be curious to hear your thoughts about this, maybe I'm overlooking a very simple solution to the problem or am over complicating things, if so please feel free to let me know.

Originally Posted by ypi

I'm actually after a real discussion here.

Truly melodious music to my long-starving ears and neurons.

Originally Posted by ypi

I notice a lot of materialists out here. That is, people who equate conscious experiences to neural activity.

How true, and I must add - how incredibly sad - whilst they fail to see beyond the physical/material!

Originally Posted by ypi

I guess most of you here are familiar with the ideas of Nagel and Frank Jackson, or Searle's chinese room, or Leibniz's mill, or Chalmers's hard problem (if not let me know, I can expand on it).

I am most interested to hear more - please expand to your heart's content.

Originally Posted by ypi

It all basically comes down to the same point: materially speaking there is nothing special about neural activity. It is mainly just electrons travelling along axons.
And there comes the riddle, why do migrating electrons cause the experience of seeing red, or the smell of a rose, or the sound of beethoven's ninth. Or even more: why do these migrating electrons cause any experience at all.

Also, what is love, affection, relationships, thought, imagination, reason, memory, emotions, Intelligence - in short, all those aspects/qualities that make us so colourful, complex, comprehensive, capital and confusing all in one - yet have no physicality whatsoever?

Originally Posted by ypi

This has led to more than one expert in the field (e.g. Chalmers or Nagel) drawing surprising conclusions. Basically these people say: we are missing an important ingredient. Or to reformulate: it is empirically obvious that neural activity is correlated with conscious percepts, but this correlation does not imply causation.
Compare it to retinal activity, it is obvious that retinal activity is tightly correlated with visual experiences, but it is now also obvious that this activity in fact does not create these experiences. The retina just passes the information on to the brain. So what people like Chalmers argue is that the story does not end with information reaching the brain. Because neural activity is mainly just electrons moving around, and electrons in motion do not seem logically sufficient to solve the problem of why conscious experiences exist either. So there will have to be an extra ingredient, one we do not know yet, that actually is the source of all these experiences.

W*O*N*D*E*R*F*U*L! But be warned - in an environment such as this, where the favoured egoistic postion is 'I already know everything', such statements will likely be met with the stuff of ego - scorn, derision and/or disdain!

Originally Posted by ypi

Anyway, I would be curious to hear your thoughts about this, maybe I'm overlooking a very simple solution to the problem or am over complicating things, if so please feel free to let me know.

I will accept your most welcome invitation with more thanx than you can possibly imagine right now.

Firstly I do think you are over-complicating things a little, but you must not be entirely blamed for this - for it is just the way we have always been required to approach a reality - our own personal reality, that we much too easily take for granted, whilst failing to recognise the generic perception of humanity is badly convoluted - at it's core. Please permit me to expand a little further....

You will soon enough recognise that I have been making more than the odd wave on this forum with this very point in one way or another, for quite some months (years). For mine, your 'missing ingredient' is not one, but two, even though they are not missing at all, but rather - long misplaced/misunderstood. That is; we have been relating to ourselves through a badly cracked and bleeding looking glass, and furthermore; the solution you rightly and Intelligently seek is way more germane than we could possibly imagine - but first we will be required to relax our inert rigidity and open our glazed-over eyes just a little.

In short, we effectively have no consistently verifiable definition for either 'emotions' nor 'Intelligence', and as a result, we have been relating in a back-to-front fashion - through a generic misunderstanding of these two core genetic commodities, that together effectively make up every aspect of each one of us. We all believe we have always known and understood, but actually have precious little to back up our taken-for-granted belief - which is deeply personal and therefore ingrained in our egos.

Forums such as this present with an astounding opportunity to open our eyes, share and delve - far and wide, and in relative safety. However this wonderful gift is much too often spoiled and wasted with ego, testosterone, pretension, bull-headedness and argument in lieu of discussion and investigation. We severely need a breath of fresh air - and my friend; you may well be it - indeed even with your first post, no less!

As always time will tell, but right now - a BIG welcome to you, and I am surely hopeful!

For those people taking a metaphysical stance to the very broad concept of "consciousness":

No one will ever be able to explain anything to you until you clarify exactly what it is that you want explained. Also, if you keep modifying your own definition, then no explanation will ever be satisfactory and I don't see why anyone should waste there time compensating for YOUR confusion.

In other words, you must provide YOUR definition of what YOU mean by consciousness first.

There is no point in me wasting my time and energy explaining to you how my take on the term works because by doing so I am explaining something else, not what you want, and I will not try to read your mind in an attempt to immerse myself in the same confusion as you seem to thrive in.

This feeds right back into my point that "consciousness" is a collection of ideas and different people tend to group different ideas under that umbrella term.

This is precisely how ignorance turns into idiotic religion and I won't be a part of it. I'm out. You take a jump.

.o:0|O|0:o.

You have apparently just two days ago joined this forum, and so far have only two posts to this discussion, so how can you have possibly become so hot under your steaming collar so quickly? Or have you previously posted under another bombastic argumentative moniker???? I thought the site rules banned such actions, so perhaps not?????

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0.o.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

But be warned - in an environment such as this, where the favoured egoistic postion is 'I already know everything', such statements will likely be met with the stuff of ego - scorn, derision and/or disdain!

There is no point in me wasting my time and energy explaining to you how my take on the term works

Hey ypi - see what I mean?

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0.o.

This feeds right back into my point that "consciousness" is a collection of ideas and different people tend to group different ideas under that umbrella term.

So if you could permit your angst and animosity a couple of seconds of rest – before you take that jump; what would YOUR scientific definition for an ‘idea’ be?

After all, that seems simple and innocuous enough, right?

Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0.o.

I'm out

Well that was fast - even before I realised you were 'in'!

Hey Apopohis,

Thanks for your hearty welcome. And thanks for actually responding to my post I will gladly expand on the arguments of Nagel, Jackson and Searle.
However, I do have a question for you. You seem to take this debate to heart, why is that? I mean, there is an actual truth, we are just working to find out what it is, but it surely does not depend on us convincing each other? So I'd say a debate about fundamental matters like this just serves to enlighten the participants in the debate, there will be no actual consequences of it.

About the other response... Well I'm not sure it was a response to my post, since I most certainly do not take a metaphysical point of view on consciousness (nor mention that anywhere in the post). I'm also far from religious, so perhaps that response was directed at another post. At any rate, one important question is mentioned there: what is your definition of consciousness.

To answer that: a little bit about my background: I'm currently working as a neuroscientist, specialization consciousness So obviously I'm quite familiar with the standard definition of consciousness in our circles. So I'll just give that one. The way we view consciousness in neuroscience is a bit different from the layman's definition. Consciousness does not denote self-awareness or "thinking about" things, it denotes any experience. So that can be any visual experience, for instance the sight of a red blob, a squarey form, or much more elaborated visual experiences, such as a sunset. Or an auditory experience, and so on.

Now of course, you can play dumb, and pretend you have no idea what I'm talking about when I refer to experiences. Well if that's the case I agree that there is no base for any discussion. However, I would categorize that as evasive behavior. It reminds me of discussions I used to have with a very good friend of mine about christianity. This guy is a really nice and good person, but when it came to his religion he became really defensive and evasive. So when I'd try to point out inconsistencies in christianity he would basically pull up smoke screens of words, where he'd go into redefining all kinds of stuff to divert the discussion. So I agree that that's not a path to go down.

At any rate: if someone would claim that (s)he does not know what an experience is, then this person would have a lot of explaining to do. Does such a person not know what the difference is between being blind and sighted (the lack of visual experiences)? Can such a person not comprehend the phenomenon of blindsight, (where a stimulus gets processed by the brain, and enables responses, but does not evoke any visual experience)? Does such a person does not understand the difference between locked in syndrom and unconscious coma (in both cases no physical movement is possible, but in one case a person has experiences, thoughts, auditory and visual experiences, whereas in the other case the person has no experiences at all)? And finally, how is such a person to understand anything of science? After all: science starts with experiments. And as the word says, experiments are not much else than undergoing experiences. For instance, you throw two types of materials together and experience (visually and auditory) what the results are. And based on these experiences you draw your conclusions about the nature of these materials. Or you set up a certain arrangement, connect this to some type of meter, and visually experience what number this meter will display. And so on. At the base of virtually every theory there is data. And data is nothing more than a bunch of conscious experiences.

Then finally the arguments of Searle, Nagel and Jackson.
Nagel famously coined his "what's it like to be a bat". So let's assume that bats have conscious experiences like we do. That is they have visual experiences, auditory experiences and so on. Then we are confronted with an interesting question. They also have sonar. We obviously don't have that. So then the question becomes: what is it like to experience information through a sonar-sense? Is it like hearing? Is it like seeing? Or is it like an entirely different sense, as different as seeing is from hearing?
The point is: we can study the brains of bats all we like, and exactly map out how each and every single atom in the bat-brain behaves when it employs sonar, but then so what? We then are as removed as ever of knowing what it is actually like to be a bat and undergo sonar-experiences.
A similar point was made by Frank Jackson. Imagine Mary, a color-blind scientist, who (o the irony) studies color perception. She is one hell of a scientist so she is able to entirely map out exactly how a normal human brain processes color. Again, she has got it pinned down right to the atomic level. But then what? Does she then know what it is actually like to experience color?
The point of these two thought-experiments is the following. If experiences are nothing more than a bunch of physical facts, then knowing these everything about these physical facts should mean knowing all there is to know about the experience. However, these thought-experiments suggest that this is false. Even if you do know all the relevant physical facts, you still don't know everything about the experience (for instance, you do not know what it is actually like to undergo the experience).
Searle made a very similar point with his "chinese room" thought experiment.
Imagine you are in a room, and somebody slips a note under the door in chinese. You obviously cannot read or comprehend chinese, but you have a very extensive rule-book that tells you exactly how to respond to any combination of chinese characters. So you follow the rule book, you scribble some figures on a piece of paper and shove it under the door again. The chinese man on the other side is delighted. Your rule book is so good that it seemed to him that you gave an intelligent response, so he thinks you understand chinese. So he replies to your note, you look up his reply in your rule-book, and so on.
Searle's point here is: no matter how complicated the rules are that you follow, this will not bring you any inch closer to actually understanding chinese (although it might help you to fake understanding). So, to understand something is more than just blindly following rules. Since that is exactly what robots/computer do, blindly follow rules that is, being a robot is not sufficient for ever gaining real understanding.

Okay, I'd be interested to hear anybody's take on these arguments, but I guess they all make a similar point, at least intuitively it seems very implausible that the physical facts suffice to make up experiences. There are many responses to these thought experiments, and they are hotly debated, but this case is by no means settled, so anyone's point of view could be an interesting contribution.

I would have to most certainly agree that current understanding leaves an awful lot to be desired. It's fair to say that most to all of the postings on this topic are mostly speculative. Anyhow, we are entitled to such for the most part.

Yes, it does seem a bit odd to imagine electrical impulses down axons producing the end result that we experience and have come to recognize as what we call consciousness. Notice that I define consciousness as the end result, the term for experience comprised of what we see, smell, taste, touch, hear, think, feel and so on, but I digress. I think you're jumping ahead, skipping way too many intermediate steps, and it's producing the illusion of a paradox (in my opinion, a paradox, that is).

...why do migrating electrons cause the experience of seeing red, or the smell of a rose, or the sound of beethoven's ninth. Or even more: why do these migrating electrons cause any experience at all.

You can see from that statement alone that the jump from electrons to the end experience is made, and it does appear troubling if one tries to understand it that way, which gives rise to "there must be something else in action" so to speak. I believe that the "something else" is something that is already known of, yet not understood. I would define such as the emergent events that take place when many neurons are firing in different configurations, properties that appear in groups, yet no single neuron possesses. For example, Psychology versus Sociology. "What happens when you have a large number of 'them' acting within a group?" Typically, qualities emerge from a group that cannot be broken down into individual contributions.

In the sense of neurons and the brain and the end result known as consciousness, the emergence of qualities that cannot be broken down to individual contributions still conserves the end result, consciousness, as no less of a physical phenomenon than the firing neurons themselves. **

**: While the rest of the post was directed toward ypi's comments, this statement was meant to address the proposals of Apopohis Reject.

The way I have explained it thus far may lead one to believe that consciousness is more than the sum of its parts, but I wish to clarify that such is not the case. I purpose consciousness to be an encrypted sum of its parts.

You are exactly right that simply knowing exactly how an experience works and comes to being does not equate to knowing the experience itself. There is no point in simply knowing other than to satisfy a particular craving in the grand pursuit of knowledge, but I find the issue in the "so what" part.

In your particular example of the colorblind scientist that has effectively acquired a complete understanding of perception of color, that particular knowledge can be applied to areas of medicine dedicated to curing colorblindness, which does not in any way deserve a "so what".

Hi dr. Spo.

Thanks for your excellent replies. I think you are deeply mistaken in both replies, but I think you are making fundamental mistakes, which make them all the more interesting. I think we need to further clarify the issues with both your replies (btw they are related), and I think we can then make these errors blatantly clear. Which would be very interesting, since these errors are quite common.
So you say that consciousness is "an emergent" property. But what are emergent properties? A very simple example is water. Water is wet, yet watermolecules are not wet. So combining a lot of watermolecules creates a property that does not exist in single water molecules. However, there is nothing mysterious about this. These are all simple mechanical interactions that can easily be calculated. In a nut shell, when water molecules interact with eachother, they necessarily form a framework that is not entirely loose, but rather loose. We call such an arrangement liquid or wet. If the framework would be less rigid we'd call it vapour; more rigid, we'd call it solid.
Now, again, there is nothing mysterious about this, and calling it emergent is not very profound either. It just shows that a single molecule cannot form a framework, and a group of watermolecules can.
However, what does this have to do with consciousness and neural activity? Okay, groups of electrons moving around will have a lot of different properties then a single electron. Perhaps they form certain bonds, which underly super conductance, but what does this have to do with consciousness? Emergency is nothing else than that a lot of building blocks together can make a building. One brick is not a house, but a lot of bricks together can be. But again, is this something new? Even in theory, how is that to give us something? All we get from combining electrons is a bunch of mechanistic properties. For instance, if we put electrons in the right framework, we can build a machine that will light certain lamps given certain input (a computer). That is trivial. But the explanatory gap around consciousness remains. Let's say we build a computer that lights a red lamp whenever you press the letter L. Why would this give rise to any experience (in the computer)? Does it? And if so which one? Or doesn't it? And why not?
The point is: you can calculate the emergent properties, just based on the knowledge we have about electrons and the framework we put them in, but we can't deduce for the life of us what experiences (if any) it creates.
And that's also the point of the color-blind Mary, or knowing the bat's brain. Based on the exact arrangement of the brain we can calculate all mechanistic ongoings. We can calculate exactly how the bat brain is going to react to what input, and what output this will generate. Yet, we cannot calculate for the life of us what kind of experience these moving electrons will generate (if any).
So that seems to point at a fundamental difference between mechanistic features and experiences. We can easily calculate all mechanistic features of a system, yet still know nothing about the experiences of this system. If mechanistic features equal experiences, then it is obviously not possible to know all about mechanistic features, but not know everything about the experiences. That would be like saying: Light is electro magnetic activity, yet I know everything about the electromagnetic activity in this room, but nothing about the light in this room.

Anyway, sorry if my tone is a bit strident, really not trying to be condescending or arrogant, just in an enormous rush so not enough time to polish my post. Please don't take it to heart, and let me have it in return

consciousness is awareness of awareness

computers know 'how' to do things but dont know 'what' they are doing.

being 'aware' is knowing 'what' you are doing

Hi ypi

I've come across Mary the colourblind scientist in regard to qualia. Dennett gave the response that should Mary then aquire the faculty of seeing red she would not, in fact, learn anything new about the experience red, having understood the experience completely in her studies. I don't pretend to fully understand this line of thought, particularly when he starts talking about RoboMary, just interested to know what your response is to this.

Also, as a neuroscientist, i was just wondering if you had heard of an experiment in which a number of vibrators were placed around a person's waist. A vibrator would vibrate if it were facing north. The interesting facet of this research was the qualitative report of the participants who apparently reported that after a few weeks they felt they had a new sense quite unlike their other senses and that it felt like they had alwyas had this sense. I only saw it in passing on a documentary and would be interested in seeing the actuall study report.

Hey ypi,

Originally Posted by ypi

So I'd say a debate about fundamental matters like this just serves to enlighten the participants in the debate, there will be no actual consequences of it.

I have to say I must disagree with the above statement, for it shows we haven’t begun to recognise the consequences, which are more astounding than we could possibly imagine from the darkness in which we sit right now. Hopefully I will find opportunity to expand on this in future.

Originally Posted by ypi

The point is: we can study the brains of bats all we like, and exactly map out how each and every single atom in the bat-brain behaves when it employs sonar, but then so what? We then are as removed as ever of knowing what it is actually like to be a bat and undergo sonar-experiences.

Well I’m not so sure about all that. Apparently this fellow Daniel Tammet is no longer alive, which is unfortunate on many levels, however if you have not seen the video, you might be interested, for it would appear he had a developed ability that seems at some level to have (at least) imitated sonar. I would be interested re. your take on it.

I guess I am of the opinion that perhaps tools for existing that we see in the animal kingdom, are very likely all available to us, however we have rarely been required to develop most of them, due to the overall effectiveness of what we do normally use. This is simply a consideration I have at times been guilty of.

Originally Posted by ypi

Consciousness does not denote self-awareness or "thinking about" things, it denotes any experience.

I would suggest that consciousness would certainly be on the one hand, about how we relate to any experience - post the eventuality, but also (and more essentially) the processing of our personal input into generating an experience in the first instance.

For example, I might choose per your options, to watch the sunset, so I certainly experience the results of that choice. At the same time however, I would not have had the experience if I did not initially make the choice for it. So the choice effectively came out of my consciousness – even though it necessarily had to be influenced and perhaps even directed towards that action in the first place.

This process, it would appear to me, has to do with two core commodities/essences – our emotions and Intelligence. That is; “Do I want to watch the sunset” (emotional) Vs perhaps; ‘Is it right to watch the sunset” (Intellectual). Of course this definition is based upon “thinking about” things.

Originally Posted by ypi

Emergency is nothing else than that a lot of building blocks together can make a building. One brick is not a house, but a lot of bricks together can be. But again, is this something new? Even in theory, how is that to give us something?

My response to this question will undoubtedly, as per usual be ridiculed my some, for it may initially come across as hinting ‘religious’, however it is the absolute farthest thing from such, but even this will not help when the funny-bone is tickled.

Ypi, your brick, nor even many bricks together will ever make a house until some INTELLIGENCE has been applied to their existence. So even though Intelligence is not physical by any means, it is surely the genetic difference between the building blocks and any desired result. Of course Intelligence was invoked for the bricks to be in existence in the first place.

What I am saying, is that there is something germane, beyond and underpinning the physical, that itself is NOT physical. However whilst our focus continues placing everything as either subservient to the physical on the one hand – or religious on the other, it will be virtually impossible to so much as entertain this reality. Even so, my intention is to continue (whilst permitted) my attempts to explain this to a less than welcoming audience, until I can manage to complete the text picture, and/or someone finally makes the connection.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Notice that I define consciousness as the end result, the term for experience comprised of what we see, smell, taste, touch, hear, think, feel and so on, but I digress.

This is where I disagree with the good Dr. For my definition of consciousness is NOT really about the end result, but far more essentially; the starting point - even though it is also my contention for there being two intrinsically presenting essences that continuously underpin it – again; emotions and Intelligence. Of course experiences once had, or rather our emotional response to (and after) each experience, will add to the complexity and direction of our consciousness, which in turn necessarily affects subsequent choices, and so on.

Now please consider a concept – perhaps a drawing of a car on a piece of paper. If the paper was large enough and the artist sufficiently good, it would look for all the world like an actual car – until we tried to get into it and go somewhere. So the experience would clearly not match the expectation, and after the (emotional response of) disappointment, we would subsequently need to look elsewhere – for an actual car that could deliver the proposed experience.

This word picture is to explain how our emotions deal with us - presenting into our consciousness and suggesting that we can trust it to deliver to our expectations – as generally promised by our emotions. It is on this basis that we make choice – over and again. Yet our input emotions (into reasoning) are merely conceptual and can deliver nothing apart from the ‘dream’. What we need to turn to every time in order to experience our promised result is our Intelligence – because right there and ready to deliver, is the real deal – the actual genetic provider. Moreover, despite what we might like to think, we did not select the vast majority of our actions based upon our input Intelligence, but the empty promises of our input emotions.

So it is a relatively simple observation that we naturally serve the demands of a master (emotions) which can only deliver concepts. On the other hand, how much more would be possible for our experience if and when we select to choose our Intelligence over this adversary? We can only imagine whilst our failure to recognise and deal with this convoluted intrinsic dynamic continues unchallenged.

Originally Posted by ypi

Thanks for your hearty welcome. And thanks for actually responding to my post

Responding to your post was a greater pleasure than you can possibly imagine right now; the kind of which I rarely enjoy. Thank you for your consideration and reply.

I have fallen into a throe of laziness, deeply entrenched into my character at the moment. The worst yet. So, in interest of this fact, I'm going to give a last, brief response about Apopohis Reject's response to my point on consciousness.

I do not find it useful to continue this discussion on my part. The fundamental difference between my "end result" view and your "starting point" view will lead us in circles. However, in reality, we should end up (appropriate with my circle metaphor) at the same point of agreement when given ample time; the two views would become different forms of the same thing. Seeing the truth in this is difficult, but I stand by it nonetheless. Although you claim that your stance is not dualist, spiritual, religious or anything of that sort, your position certainly identifies more closely with those views.

Do not misconstrue how I have presented your point. For I am not brushing it aside as non-scientific or useless. I recognize merit in your logic and reasoning. It is the interpretation of reasoning which you employ that generates our differences. I consider it a difference that cannot be ignored for further discussion or be overcome to bring ourselves into the same arena.

Henceforth I conclude my involvement in this thread.

Consciousness, according to chakra theory is a type of waste, an excess.

I think this is an interesting POV however archaic it's foundation, because people do things like meditate, and consume self destructive substances, and participate in seemingly self destructive rituals for so called "elivated states of consciousness."

Have you, are anyone else here, ever experienced this so called elevated state of consciousness?

What are these so called elevated states of consciousness?

sorry sorry for my late reply, too caught up in other stuff.
Anyway, prometheus, yes I've heard of this vibrating stuff on your stomach, a german scientist I knew worked with these people. But he told me that if you ask on these people clearly indicate they are still blind, and this vibration-stuff just helps them to navigate, but does not give them any weird qualia that you or I never have. It's just that sometimes blind people will say stuff like 'I see', this is just a matter of speaking in these instances, not that they actually have visual experiences through the stimulation of their belly (or tongue).
@Apopophis, you seem to have quite an interesting point of view, where you emphasize intelligence. Yet I do not fully grasp it. Could you explain your point of view again, but then dumb it down a bit Thanks.

Originally Posted by ypi

Apopohis, you seem to have quite an interesting point of view, where you emphasize intelligence. Yet I do not fully grasp it. Could you explain your point of view again, but then dumb it down a bit Thanks.

Thank you ypi, but I initially need to make an apology or two;

1. The link provided in my previous post, labelled ‘Daniel Tammet’ – which is very exciting in itself, was incorrect and should rather have been; Ben Underwood – about a young man who as a result of not being permitted to wallow in self pity over his loss, developed an astounding ability which very much imitated sonar.

2. You have entered this discussion at the end of what has been a rather exhausting process – to explain how our generic perception per the RESULT of consciousness has let us down badly, and that there is another side to the human equation that has been profoundly ignored – the GENETIC side. So I will try to ‘dumb it down’, yet this clearly is not an observation that easily lends itself to ‘dumb’.

3. I’m not at all sure if this post will be available long enough for your consideration, as apparently my posts are to be deleted from this sub-forum due to some arbitrary dogma-based intransigence.

So now in the expectation my post will be permitted to stand – here is my response…..



Folk generally consider such things as emotions and Intelligence, as per the RESULT of consciousness. That is;

A. As for emotions; we have an experience, which results in a generated feeling about the event. So our emotions are clearly affected and influenced by each experience – a frightening exposure may lead to fear and reservation, an enjoyable one – to a sense of well-being and exuberance.

Therefore a resultant emotion will be generated by the impulse/s towards that result – being the feeling/s that at first enter our consciousness/awareness via the sensory system, will subsequently be translated into a memory, based upon an emotional evaluation of the experience.

B. Similarly, we generically relate to Intelligence as an accumulated result of consciousness – an incremental learning about our environment through the relative experience/s as delivered into our awareness, which in turn support the thoughts/consideration towards future choices and their resultant experiences, and so on.

However, I have long been arguing there to be BOTH an emotional and an Intellectual INPUT genetically initiating consciousness, and through it - via choice and action; the vast majority of experiences we ever encounter - after which, the above resultant process commences.

So this is according the GENETIC (rather than resultant) side of the equation, which has largely been ignored. Yet for mine, it is this side of consciousness that presents by far the most complete definition of man – being the rather set-apart entity having the capacity to reason from such an advanced Intellectual INPUT into his choices, which then translate into the experience (as above), leading to the accumulating dual-awareness (emotions and Intelligence) that we have come to recognise as consciousness.

For mine, it works like this;

Emotion + Intelligence > CONSCIOUSNESS > considerations > choice > action > experience > resultant emotion as memory > + Intelligence > considerations (based upon resultant emotion + Intelligence) > choice > etc.

The above model defines consciousness overall, however the main (but not only) problem with average perception, is that we skip the first (GENETIC) step, and in particular the most essential aspect of it - INTELLIGENCE, and reason that the equation commences with consciousness, as if it has no core foundation, nothing supporting it – and call this scientific???


Post Note; Even though you and I may be the only ones reading it, I will in good faith commence a thread in Philosophy to discuss further – if you will.

3. I’m not at all sure if this post will be available long enough for your consideration, as apparently my posts are to be deleted from this sub-forum due to some arbitrary dogma-based intransigence.

So now in the expectation my post will now be permitted to remain – here is my response…..

I will allow this to remain, but no more.

ypi, despite Apopohis Reject's claim that he has been banned from this subforum due to an "arbitrary dogma-based intransigence", the reason he has been excluded is because he has been spouting decidedly non-scientific, personal musings and philosophy as fact and as self evident, while doing so by using the most confusing language he can. He has not heeded multiple warnings and requests by me and other members about this and has hence been excluded from this subforum.

He is free, however, to post in philosophy (for as long as Sunshinewarrior permits him) or in the New hypothesis and ideas or even the Pseudoscience sections (for as long as TheBiologista permits him). For a lengthy discussion where you can go over his posts and our attempt to make sense of them, read through the pages of this thread, as well as "Culpable stupidity".

If you have any specific questions for Apopohis Reject though, I would request that you open a thread in another section as he will not be permitted here.

hi Apopohis and Kalster,

I respect both your points of view.
Apopohis, you seem to think you are on to something, and you might well be. But I guess Kalster's problem is that it is not clear/developed enough for this subforum yet. Which is also fair play obviously.
Anyway, I'll try to find you on the other fora and then respond more at length (since this is apparently not the place to respond).

cheers,

ypi