Consciousness

[godnotgod]

Is consciousness self-evident at all, under any conditions? I've seen that asserted, here and elsewhere, but I haven't seen it demonstrated in any way that clearly "wins" over other models of consciousness. And it certainly appears that is because it is not defined in clearly testable ways acceptable to all of those who are studying it.

When you accidentally fall into a cold mountain lake, do you immediately KNOW that the water is cold?

When you stop the mind from thinking, does consciousness cease to be self-evident via your own immediate observation? If you don't stop the mind from thinking, you will wander off into some MODEL about consciousness, rather than experiencing consciousness first-hand.

You have the choice: eat the meal or eat the description of the meal.

 

[crossfire]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

Well, consciousness is certainly fundamental to holding this discussion!

 

[godnotgod]

So, as a self-realized, self-identified modern mystic, who has basked in the glow of Oneness on many occasions, do you not wonder why I simply do not agree with the vapid and authoritarian assertions made by those whose camp I supposedly share?

heh...heh....such a 'self-realized, self-identified modern mystic', if authentic, would have no sense of 'self' OR identity, which is why he would be 'realized'.

Do you know the difference between an assertion based upon the thinking mind and a statement made that is based upon direct experience?

You can read about tongues of fire descending upon the foreheads of the apostles in the Bible, and then go to your window and have tongues of fire actually descend upon yours. Is there a difference?

 

[allfoak]

So, as a self-realized, self-identified modern mystic, who has basked in the glow of Oneness on many occasions, do you not wonder why I simply do not agree with the vapid and authoritarian assertions made by those whose camp I supposedly share?

So, as a self-realized, self-identified modern mystic, who has basked in the glow of Oneness on many occasions, do you not wonder why I simply do not agree with the vapid and authoritarian assertions made by those whose camp I supposedly share?

No worries.
Any effort i may be making to convince you of the merit of the statements of some physicists is to some degree for my own benefit i assure you.
There is very little that we say or do that is solely for the benefit of others.

 

[crossfire]

Well, consciousness is certainly fundamental to holding this discussion!

The ability to doubt is also fundamental to both this discussion and to consciousness, so my tenative answer to the OP would be MU!

 

[allfoak]

The ability to doubt is also fundamental to both this discussion and to consciousness, so my tenative answer to the OP would be MU!

Is not the ability to doubt simply an aspect of consciousness?

 

[crossfire]

Is not the ability to doubt simply an aspect of consciousness?

Consciousness can manifest in various levels of development.

 

[crossfire]

Also, we can't communicate or even be aware of all manifestations of consciousness--for instance, if there was formless consciousness, we would probably not be able to detect it, as there would always be the possibility of whatever observations we make simply being a reflection or product of our own consciousness. You could say the same thing about areas of forms, as well.

 

[YmirGF]

heh...heh....such a 'self-realized, self-identified modern mystic', if authentic, would have no sense of 'self' OR identity, which is why he would be 'realized'.

While I have resisted urges to respond to your prior pontifications, I am weak, so will continue to resist them even if I occasionally give in. I recognize that is your own highly authoritarian position but it is certainly not mine. Who is right? More importantly, who really cares?

Do you know the difference between an assertion based upon the thinking mind and a statement made that is based upon direct experience?

Considering the bulk of my comments spring from my direct experience, I rather expect, I do. No doubt you will feel an urge to explain why I have this so very, very wrong.

You can read about tongues of fire descending upon the foreheads of the apostles in the Bible, and then go to your window and have tongues of fire actually descend upon yours. Is there a difference?

I don't tend to labor over drivel of this nature.

 

[YmirGF]

Also, we can't communicate or even be aware of all manifestations of consciousness--for instance, if there was formless consciousness, we would probably not be able to detect it, as there would always be the possibility of whatever observations we make simply being a reflection or product of our own consciousness. You could say the same thing about areas of forms, as well.

This is an idea I unreservedly support. How would one know? (If they were being honest, that is.) Having written on this phenomena extensively offline, for many years, I've come to the conclusion that if one did visit such an aspect as formless consciousness you would likely have no memory of it other than a blank spot. That is not to say that one could not theoretically enter such a state, and still have full consciousness, rather, upon return to ordinary consciousness, you would retain no memory.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

When you accidentally fall into a cold mountain lake, do you immediately KNOW that the water is cold?

When you stop the mind from thinking, does consciousness cease to be self-evident via your own immediate observation? If you don't stop the mind from thinking, you will wander off into some MODEL about consciousness, rather than experiencing consciousness first-hand.

You have the choice: eat the meal or eat the description of the meal.

1) Not immediately. My understanding is that it takes several hundred milliseconds for the sensations to be sent from the nerve endings to our brainstem and hindbrain, and it takes several more milliseconds for those signals to be processed and sent along to other centers of the brain, and signals to be send from the various parts of the body in response.

Or are you suggesting that there is some 'conscious' experience of falling into the lake prior to the nerve signals reaching the brain?

2) When I've stopped my internal monologue, the flow of experience continues (except when it stills when I fall asleep). but my ongoing experience is based in the transmission of nerve impulses from receptors to the various pre, un, and sub conscious parts of the brain in a process taking many milliseconds before the signals reach my awareness.

While I am receptive to the idea that there might be conscious experience unmediated by nerve pathways and the brain, I personally do not see any way to demonstrate that that is what happens. What evidence is there?

Once one resumes thinking, of course one tries to analyze and understand the experience. The map is certainly not the territory of experience. But neither is it self-evident from experience that we are anything but a conscious mind dependent upon sensory input for experience.

The exercise of putting consciousness first, of making it the ground of existence, the "behind" of our experiences is just another model about consciousness. Where and what is the evidence that this is the case? As far as I can tell, it seems to be an untestable assumption.

3) No. false dichotomy. A meal is the sensory impulses from your nerves, into and processed by the brain--your EXPERIENCE. The ongoing narrative your mind provides is a map of your experience, not the experience itself.

And again, what is the evidence that consciousness is so self-evidently prior to the existence of a body with sensory receptor nerves, a transmission pathway, and processing at several different levels and locations within the brain?

 

[sealchan]

It is not a matter of persuasion but rather that science will not even consider the subject because it is out of the realm of what we consider science.
Statements being made about reality that go beyond what can be tested with current methods are ignored regardless of how plausible they may be.

There has been interdisciplinary work being done on understanding the nature of consciousness for decades now...

Center for Consciousness Studies . Tucson . Arizona

I went to the second or third conference hosted at the University of Arizona back in the day...

Toward a Science of Consciousness - Wikipedia

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

I can only see where a conscious being's consciousness might feel this to be true (or even desire it to be true), when really it is very likely the other way around. Consciousness stands on the shoulders of the material of the universe (namely, matter and energy).

I don't even know why anyone insists on the idea that nothing would exist if there weren't consciousness to perceive it. In my opinion, it's ridiculous. Consider death - I think we can all agree that "consciousness" leaves the body upon death, yes? Consider the consciousness at that point "freed" from a body - it would have no direct way to perceive anything. "Consciousness" has no eyes... no nose... no hands... no mouth... no skin. What does anyone who supports these ideas have to say about "consciousness" (without a body) interpreting the matter of the universe? What the hell does it even use to perceive it? We know of no other instruments than those based in material property to process and interpret sensory data. Anything anyone might have to offer on that score is complete and utter useless speculation.

Now, as to whether or not it would matter if there were substance to the universe without a conscious mind to perceive it... that's an entirely different subject.

 

[blü 2]

Consciousness cannot be defined.

In that case, neither of us knows what ─ if anything ─ we're talking about; and all talk of consciousness is the merest of hot air. (However, fortunately for me, I have a workable definition.)

Do not think that because something is labeled "subjective" it is any less real than what is considered "objective" or"material".

All aspects of brain function happen in reality. So, for example, our concepts are particular physical brain states and patterns. But that doesn't mean the contents of every concept have a counterpart in objective reality ie refer to a real thing. The unicorn is an example. So are 2, and pi, and "a chair", supernatural beings. psi powers, the characters of legend and fiction, the lumeniferous ether and much much more.

 

[sealchan]

I can only see where a conscious being's consciousness might feel this to be true (or even desire it to be true), when really it is very likely the other way around. Consciousness stands on the shoulders of the material of the universe (namely, matter and energy).

I don't even know why anyone insists on the idea that nothing would exist if there weren't consciousness to perceive it. In my opinion, it's ridiculous. Consider death - I think we can all agree that "consciousness" leaves the body upon death, yes? Consider the consciousness at that point "freed" from a body - it would have no direct way to perceive anything. "Consciousness" has no eyes... no nose... no hands... no mouth... no skin. What does anyone who supports these ideas have to say about "consciousness" (without a body) interpreting the matter of the universe? What the hell does it even use to perceive it? We know of no other instruments than those based in material property to process and interpret sensory data. Anything anyone might have to offer on that score is complete and utter useless speculation.

Now, as to whether or not it would matter if there were substance to the universe without a conscious mind to perceive it... that's an entirely different subject.

The physical reality of consciousness can best be seen as the impact that human consciousness has had on the biosphere of this planet, or the noosphere as I think Teilhard de Chardin would call it. The noosphere includes all the brain activity, language, culture and other forms of physical transformation that occurs in a biosphere containing self-organizing groups of self-aware agents. Just as biology emerges as something new out of chemical systems in a planetary environment, consciousness emerges as something new out of biological systems in complex interaction. Biology and noology are able to effect changes to and hence control to some extent their substrates, but they cannot exist independently of them nor even meaningfully do so. Such would be to make the mistake of disembodying mind.

One trick I think is to consider that mind isn't really anything special...only it is special to us "mind-ers". The systemic qualities of mind are those of many other systems except, perhaps, that the interconnections between systems and the sheer depth of layering of systems associated with mind are more intense than with any other interconnected system.

We, in our consciousness, stand tall on the top of a great mountain (of physical substrates) and our view is so vast that we easily forget the deep roots out of which that view has evolved and grown and upon which it utterly depends.

 

[allfoak]

I can only see where a conscious being's consciousness might feel this to be true (or even desire it to be true), when really it is very likely the other way around. Consciousness stands on the shoulders of the material of the universe (namely, matter and energy).

I don't even know why anyone insists on the idea that nothing would exist if there weren't consciousness to perceive it. In my opinion, it's ridiculous. Consider death - I think we can all agree that "consciousness" leaves the body upon death, yes? Consider the consciousness at that point "freed" from a body - it would have no direct way to perceive anything. "Consciousness" has no eyes... no nose... no hands... no mouth... no skin. What does anyone who supports these ideas have to say about "consciousness" (without a body) interpreting the matter of the universe? What the hell does it even use to perceive it? We know of no other instruments than those based in material property to process and interpret sensory data. Anything anyone might have to offer on that score is complete and utter useless speculation.

Now, as to whether or not it would matter if there were substance to the universe without a conscious mind to perceive it... that's an entirely different subject.

As long as you continue to consider ideas other than your own ridiculous, i am afraid continuing this conversation holds little benefit to myself.

 

[allfoak]

In that case, neither of us knows what ─ if anything ─ we're talking about; and all talk of consciousness is the merest of hot air. (However, fortunately for me, I have a workable definition.)
All aspects of brain function happen in reality. So, for example, our concepts are particular physical brain states and patterns. But that doesn't mean the contents of every concept have a counterpart in objective reality ie refer to a real thing. The unicorn is an example. So are 2, and pi, and "a chair", supernatural beings. psi powers, the characters of legend and fiction, the lumeniferous ether and much much more.

It is unfortunate but i do believe that you are unable to understand what i am saying.
Consciousness is akin to the All, that which is unknowable.
Through the understanding and use of certain laws and forces of mind we can learn how to converse with the All but never can we know all there is to know.

 

[blü 2]

...or that there are areas of consciousness functioning of which we are not aware. IOW, it is not OUR consciousness; it is non-local consciousness, with the brain simply being a tool consciousness utilizes to take care of certain functions that would get in the way of an event requiring our immediate awareness and attention, such as an impending auto accident.

What is 'non-local consciousness'?

How and where does it exist independently of the brain?

Why would it need or want a brain anyway?

What real thing am I looking for if I go in search of it, and what test will tell me whether any candidate is 'non-local consciousness' or not?

It has been proven that the brain is capable of non-local communication. Here:

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

Thank you for the link.

Unfortunately, that's Dean Radin's site, albeit not his article. Wikipedia tells me that ─

Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims. The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature, charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.​

With all due respect to J. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, M. Delaflor, L. Attie, and A. Goswami, the authors of the paper you link, if they want to be taken seriously by science, Dean Radin's site isn't where you publish.

Leaving aside all the wafty 'quantum' hypotheses of their text, their substantial claim is this ─

after a meditative interaction between two human beings in which both subjects are instructed to maintain direct communication (i.e., to feel each other's presence even at a distance), in about one in four cases when one of the subjects is stimulated in such a way that his/her brain responds clearly (with a distinct evoked potential), the brain of the nonstimulated subject also reacts and shows a transferred potential of a similar morphology. The transferred potentials never occur when the subjects do not interact, when the evoked potential is unclear, or when a signal (flash) is not applied. The statistical analysis shows that the transferred potential is obtained from the moment of stimulation to about 132μs. The striking similarity between the transferred and evoked potentials and the total absence of transferred potentials in the control experiments leaves no room for doubt about the existence of an unusual phenomenon, namely, propagation of influence without local signals. As noted already, the similarity of the evoked and transferred potentials could not be due to an unspecified low frequency EEG correspondence (alpha waves) because of the low frequency filters that we used. The data indicate that the human brain is capable of establishing close relationships with other brains (when it interacts with them appropriately) and may sustain such an interaction even at a distance. Our results cannot be explained as due to sensory communication between subjects
​

Let a number of factors be greatly clarified, eg what 'feel each other's presence even at a distance' means, so that all elements of the experiment are clearly defined and their existence detectable hence verifiable. Let the methods be examined by people expert in experimentation and other people expert in stats. Let the results be published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal of science. Let the experiment be performed by various scientists having the degree of skepticism science requires. And if then the same results are obtained we'll have a phenomenon to take seriously.

Meanwhile we don't. We may instead have the familiar case, not of seeing is believing, but believing is seeing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As long as you continue to consider ideas other than your own ridiculous, i am afraid continuing this conversation holds little benefit to myself.

Your response conveniently allows you to completely dodge the question of how a consciousness separate from a body would perceive any part of the universe. Note also that I could talk about this all day long... regardless how belligerent you got to try and top me (yes, I do realize how I appear and come off).

The best I think one could hope for is to postulate a scenario (at this time, a fiction) in which the consciousness separated from the material exists on some other plane of existence, where sensory input is either unnecessary to discern "whatever" or some kind of new sensory inputs are granted it. But then... our particular brand of consciousness exists in THIS realm, and on this plane of existence, doesn't it? And that is what we're talking about in the first place... that the matter of THIS universe somehow isn't sustained without consciousness present to perceive it? Well shoot.

 

[blü 2]

It is unfortunate but i do believe that you are unable to understand what i am saying.
Consciousness is akin to the All, that which is unknowable.

You purport to know quite a lot about the unknowable. How's that done? What test did you use to determine whether the All is unknowable or not?

Through the understanding and use of certain laws and forces of mind we can learn how to converse with the All but never can we know all there is to know.

Do these conversations have information content or are they just emoting? Will the All give me a proof or disproof of the Riemann hypothesis? Will it tell Groucho the capital of South Dakota? Or do the All and the visitor just gaze at each other's navels?