Continuity of Consciousness

[PolyHedral]

This example is not a general one. May for every 100000 times that an external agent shuts down a PC, once a hardware/SW failure cause so. And there will be not a single time when a PC boots up on its own. Further, even with the example provided by you, the presumption is that an external agent may repair and bring back a PC.

It doesn't matter how likely it is for an electronic computer that it shuts down because someone pushes the button. With biological machinery, there isn't a clearly defined start, (because it "starts" as one half of another machine, which then splits in two) and they always end by hardware failure of some kind. And it does follow that the PC could be rebuilt, (with sufficiently powerful and precise machinery) but only if you had a copy of the information in the neurons.

What we both are saying amounts to the same thing. A brain is indeed a computer as long as life force animates it. Once the support of life force is withdrawn, a brain is just a mass of tissue, which in time mixes indistinguishably with earth.

But I'm saying there isn't a life force of any kind, beyond exothermic chemistry. The thing that stops a brain dissolving is the immune and circulatory systems, and they are kept running by various mechanisms in the body's cells.

 

[atanu]

It doesn't matter how likely it is for an electronic computer that it shuts down because someone pushes the button.

Well. We must agree to differ. It matters that a third agent almost always shuts a PC off. Or, in rare cases of a failures, a third agent brings back the PC. The blue print of bringing the PC back is in the third agent.

---but only if you had a copy of the information in the neurons.

This is going circular. What memory does a dead body that contains all the neurons carry?

But I'm saying there isn't a life force of any kind, beyond exothermic chemistry. The thing that stops a brain dissolving is the immune and circulatory systems, and they are kept running by various mechanisms in the body's cells.

Whatever name you prefer.

Is this science or is this mere imagination by and in something that has the 'exothermic chemistry'? Yes. We also call it tapah -- heat. While denying the life force, you are validating it. A PC does not say I see a few windows. It is you who says so. The world does not come and say "I have a few windows". It is the you who sees/models the world.

The thing that stops a brain dissolving is the immune and circulatory systems, ----

Then? What keeps the immune and circulatory system working that keeps brain from dissolving?

Some other glue perhaps? One will go on and on till one dies without resolving a single question -- (if one does not look for the source in oneself).
...

 

[PolyHedral]

The blue print of bringing the PC back is in the third agent.

Ludicrous. You know the intricacies of semi-conductor design when you push the power button?

This is going circular. What memory does a dead body that contains all the neurons carry?

None. The neurons themselves are there, but the information they encoded has been destroyed.

Is this science or this mere imagination by and in something that has the 'exothermic chemistry'? Yes.

Was that even grammatical? Regardless, I don't understand what you're saying.

Then? What keeps the immune and circulatory system working that keeps brain from dissolving?

Chemistry. Nothing more.

 

[atanu]

Ludicrous. You know the intricacies of semi-conductor design when you push the power button?

Hi PH

I agree it is ludicrous. I may or may not know the intricacies but the PC does not know it. And some one other than the created PC surely knows it. It seems that without wanting, you are actually speaking of a creator.

None. The neurons themselves are there, but the information they encoded has been destroyed.

Then the PC should not come up again.

Was that even grammatical? Regardless, I don't understand what you're saying.

I am sorry. But I corrected it before your post. Please check.

Chemistry. Nothing more.

No. I say Physics and nothing more. Prove me wrong.
...........................................

Whether we call it Physics or Chemistry, the Being who gives the name to the processes is self proven and needs no other proof. That only is the point.

...

 

[Meow Mix]

No. I say Physics and nothing more. Prove me wrong.

Chemistry is just specialized physics

 

[PolyHedral]

Hi PH

I agree it is ludicrous. I may or may not know the intricacies but the PC does not know it. And some one other than the created PC surely knows it. It seems that without wanting, you are actually speaking of a creator.

In the case of the literal computer, IBM's engineers know. But they are not at all necessary for the computer to run.

Then the PC should not come up again.

And it won't, unless you put a suitable set of information back into the neurons.

I am sorry. But I corrected it before your post. Please check.

It still refers to "the" exothermic chemistry, which is the bit I don't understand.

No. I say Physics and nothing more. Prove me wrong.

What Meow said. Chemistry is just a shorthand for a set of physics.

Whether we call it Physics or Chemistry, the Being who gives the name to the processes is self proven and needs no other proof. That only is the point.

The process is computation. Are you saying that the universe itself, collectively is a being?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Chemistry. Nothing more.

Some of my personal experiences have lead me to "know" that consciousness is more then just the mind. That is why this is my opinion. Both Erwin Schrodinger and Robert Oppenheimer have also written about some of these experiences. These experiences are more real then any opinion that any scientists can argue. Even the Atheist Sam Harris has wrote on this subject. I have talked to more then one well know scientist (due to the fact I live near Berkley, Stanford, and Davis), at Hindu temples in my area. They have told me they don't talk about their spiritual practice or experience because it has no place in science and they will receive much criticism in their views.

This will not prove it to you.

Like Erwin Schrodinger said our views will never be shown to be true by science.

 

[PolyHedral]

Like Erwin Schrodinger said our views will never be shown to be true by science.

Under most circumstances, reality and only reality is shown to be true by science. Why doesn't science apply to your idea of reality?

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Today's science has yet to know all of the universe's laws. They also have yet to find out what Spiritual Seers already know and have known for milleniums. Just as gravity existed before Newton, there are many things today yet to be found by science.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Under most circumstances, reality and only reality is shown to be true by science. Why doesn't science apply to your idea of reality?

I would not say that science contradicts my limited notion of reality. If you look at my history of posting except for this subject of Consciousness they are for the most part agreeable. With the exception of comments based on ignorance and not on disagreement.

Still there is a sizable minority of scientists who agree with Schrodinger and Oppenheimer on this subject.

I must admit however that I am not very scientific in thought. I tend to agree with Friedrich Nietzsche that Art and Philosophy are a better expression of humanity and most of my interests are there.

 

[atanu]

The process is computation. Are you saying that the universe itself, collectively is a being?

Whether we call it physics or chemistry or computation, the Being who gives the name to the processes is self proven and needs no other proof. Universe does not come and tell a man "I am a being".

Hawkings says "---given the existence of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". He has not denied his existence yet.

A man theorises a lot during waking time to prove his point. With what intentionalty? And whose intentionality? The same man goes to sleep and loses all intentionality and loses all need to prove. But the same man exists in both states, whatever other changes might take place.

But all changes begin and return to this state, which is the source of mind (awareness of differentiation).

Under most circumstances, reality and only reality is shown to be true by science.

One cannot examine the ground under one's feet. With mind, the mind's modifications are well nigh impossible to know. Nothing that one sees and knows is outside the mind. Science would not be science if it claimed its models to be the truth.
...

 

[atanu]

In the case of the literal computer, IBM's engineers know. But they are not at all necessary for the computer to run.

So, we agree that a PC is just an instrument which IBMers created (we similarly say that mind is an instrument --antahkarana).

And it won't, unless you put a suitable set of information back into the neurons.

That is right.

It still refers to "the" exothermic chemistry, which is the bit I don't understand.

Exothermic energy (called as 'desire' by us) runs the universe automatically, just like an automatic machine. And in automated ways all the PCs that are pre-programmed as if to say "I am this", will say that they have free will -- all the time tied to the desire to copulate (very fundamental desire).

But exothermic energy belongs to the being, whom no PC knows.

What Meow said. Chemistry is just a shorthand for a set of physics.

Name does not matter.

...

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Consciousness IMO is just an egocentric reality what was emergent as soon as the universe acquired a critical level of complexity with a pattern of neurobiological information processing. I do think the consciousness and the self who is expressed as “you” is necessary because it is simply not possible for you to be aware of any of the states you don’t exist such as in the dark age era of the universe or the future degenerative era of the universe.

 

[atanu]

Consciousness IMO is just an egocentric reality what was emergent as soon as the universe acquired a critical level of complexity with a pattern of neurobiological information processing. I do think the consciousness and the self who is expressed as “you” is necessary because it is simply not possible for you to be aware of any of the states you don’t exist such as in the dark age era of the universe or the future degenerative era of the universe.

Dear Bruno

What you say is based on the premise "I am this body mind and there are other body minds in this world, which is separate from me and others".

Unfortunately, the eastern philosophies start with a different understanding of a single unbroken reality and a single unbroken mind sprouting (call it OM or Big Bang) from and dissolving in the unchanging substratum. In this view, the phenomena of dark era etc. are not separate from mind and me.

Most discussions in this thread stem from this difference of premise.

...

 

[atanu]

This might be interesting in this thread. I give only one link of the 6 of the series.

[youtube]UhRWYFJ2pyI[/youtube]
YouTube - Alan Watts: The Nature of Conciousness (Part 1 of 6)

...

 

[atanu]

For the restless, listening to the last of the series may be enough.

[youtube]l3I8btxyDI4[/youtube]
YouTube - Alan Watts: The Nature of Conciousness (Part 6 of 6)

...

 

[PolyHedral]

Whether we call it physics or chemistry or computation, the Being who gives the name to the processes is self proven and needs no other proof. Universe does not come and tell a man "I am a being".

You are anthropomorphizing where there is nothing to anthropomorphize.

Hawkings says "---given the existence of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". He has not denied his existence yet.

Denying his body's physical existence would be a monumentally stupid statement, indeed. But denying that the concept of "I" isn't constant isn't stupid at all.

A man theorises a lot during waking time to prove his point. With what intentionalty? And whose intentionality? The same man goes to sleep and loses all intentionality and loses all need to prove. But the same man exists in both states, whatever other changes might take place.

But all changes begin and return to this state, which is the source of mind (awareness of differentiation).

Pure mathematics is aware of differentiation, so I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say it is the source of "mind."

One cannot examine the ground under one's feet. With mind, the mind's modifications are well nigh impossible to know. Nothing that one sees and knows is outside the mind. Science would not be science if it claimed its models to be the truth.
...

But science's models will be the most accurate.

So, we agree that a PC is just an instrument which IBMers created (we similarly say that mind is an instrument --antahkarana).

"Instrument" implies that it is created for a specific, external purpose. What is this purpose?

Exothermic energy (called as 'desire' by us) runs the universe automatically, just like an automatic machine. And in automated ways all the PCs that are pre-programmed as if to say "I am this", will say that they have free will -- all the time tied to the desire to copulate (very fundamental desire).

Energy doesn't run anything, since energy is a property of the universe. Also, the desire to reproduce is a consequence of brain chemistry, and is not at all intrinsic to any sort of biology.

But exothermic energy belongs to the being, whom no PC knows.

There is no evidence for such a being.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Being who gives the name to the processes is self proven and needs no other proof. Universe does not come and tell a man "I am a being".
...

Why do you call the Universe a being?

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

I'm going to take a crack at this so please forgive me. This is something I only recently began wondering about.

What I mean is, the concept of a soul or Self is kind of a placeholder because I haven't really seen it precisely explained.

What makes my Self the same Self as it was yesterday?

I personally found the nature of the self to be in a constant state of evolution, so it is not the same, as consciousness is ever changing.

You may say it's an eternal individual, but consider ramifications of what you've said. You've also said that the Self transcends time and space.

So, for instance, if it doesn't exist in time or space, what makes my Self separate from your Self? (If I recall, you are not Advaita. Correct me if I am mistaken about that.) What makes my Self the same between now and yesterday, while it remains different/separate from your Self?

It is Chaos. It has many components, it is all every changing and ever evolving. It is changeless in this chaotic nature. It is inside all of us witnessing/percieving as our divine consciousness which connects us, yet in it's chaotic state each persons soul/self is changing differently and in different ways, but always staying in the same constant, ever changing consciousness,changeless in it's chaotic changing nature.

My personal beliefs are that it is in the hands of the spiritual seeker whether or not they choose to lose thier self in this changeless consciousness/chaos. I personally choose to maintain my individuality while also trying to be in tune with my eternal self. Just me. I like how I have shaped myself. It's a lot of work and still a work in progress I don't wish to turn to mush so hastily.

 

[Penumbra]

This is similar to a discussion in another thread. I repeat that one then should be able to explain why in a dead body, the brain is no more the creator of "I". Has some thing flown out?

...

The example that PolyHedral provided is the same one that I commonly use, so he has said much of how I would have said in response to this. I'll still say it in my own words, I suppose.

Windows 7, or any software basically, is just a series of calculations performed by the hardware of the computer. The software is an emergent property of the computer, and only exists as long as the hardware remains in the correct organized manner. The same is true for computer memory- the saved information is saved in the form of organized hardware.

If a computer is smashed to bits, or if it overheats and burns itself, or if water is poured all over it and short circuits it, or if the computer simply becomes very aged and the connections falter, then the software will cease to work. If the computer is irrevocably damaged, the software doesn't "fly out", but rather simply ceases to exist. The software is a purely emergent property of the hardware and is dependent on a specific organization of the hardware. When that organization no longer exists, the software no longer exists. If the computer is irrevocably damaged, then it will be impossible to repair and the memory will be lost forever.

Consider as an example a jigsaw puzzle. When I put a jigsaw puzzle together, it will be a complete picture. If, however, I take the puzzle apart and even destroy the pieces, then the picture doesn't "fly out" anywhere. It simply ceases to exist because it was only existent when the pieces were existent and organized properly.

The brain can conceivably be considered the same unless some sort of soul can be shown to exist or if its necessity is proven. The mind exists because the brain is constantly performing work. If the brain is damaged to a certain extent, then it will be unable to perform the functions that lead to a mind and to consciousness/awareness. It can also be damaged to a point where it begins acting differently such that the personality changes.

In this way, the mind can be an emergent property of the brain, just like how Windows 7 is an emerges from the computer or how a picture emerges from a completed jigsaw puzzle. When the brain dies, the mind or the self doesn't necessarily fly out anywhere; it may just cease to exist because the parts that made it up cease to exist in the proper organized form.