Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

Interesting stuff here: https://www.quora.com/Is-consciousn...the-brain-or-a-fundamental-property-of-matter

From your link:

Emergence

Calling on emergence to explain consciousness is a non-explanation for the following reasons:

• Emergence in and of itself is not an explanation, it is an observation. When researchers observe emergent behavior in ant hills, they haven't explained that behavior. Just like researchers observing intelligence emerging from neuron activity, haven't explained intelligence.

• Saying "X emerges from Y", is introducing causality. Such a statement clues you in on how the magic trick works. You can also replace 'emerges from' with the less magical 'follows from'. "Consciousness follows from brain activity" is a more bolder statement. But what does this tell us exactly? How strong is this causality? Say "Derron Brown's successful magic tricks follow from misdirection and sleight of hand skill". Great, now can you explain how his tricks really work, please?

We want to answer what consciousness really is. All these "follows from"'s and "emerges from"'s and "by-products from" or "is an emergent property"'s can't be used as proper explanations, yet they serve as common-sense explanations all the time, and they obfuscate like magic.
*****

TV signals do not 'emerge' from the TV set; they are non-local. Just as a primitive would assume the moving figures he sees on the TV screen are inside the TV set, (because he has no means of detecting the TV signals in space), science assumes conscious activity 'emerges' from the brain, because in both cases, when the TV set/brain is non-functional, there is no longer conscious activity/TV broadcasts. Science, like the primitive, has no tools to detect the signals coming from non-local consciousness to the brain. IOW, the brain is both a storage device and a signal receiver. That it is a non-local receiving organ has been proven beyond doubt:

 

[godnotgod]

It is a scientific fact that given enough time and the right conditions, things in nature change and new forms and new phenomena emerges. It is really not that difficult of a concept to grasp, so I don't see why you're having so much trouble with it. Stubbornness I guess?

I'm not arguing that 'things in nature' emerge or not; we know how many of them DO emerge, such as how plants photosynthesize their own food. But we don't know how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter, or even from the brain, for that matter, assuming it DOES emerge from matter. It's just an assumption, and you are using to base your theory upon. Otherwise, for the umpteenth time, you should be able to provide the details as to how this kind of emergence actually occurs. Just to say that emergence is true in nature does not follow that it is true about consciousness.

So, I assume you about ready to provide a detailed explanation as to exactly how the illusion of consciousness 'emerges' from non-conscious matter.

 

[godnotgod]

In the Buddhist suttas consciousness is consistently described as arising in dependence on sense-organ and sense object...

It is clear from the suttas that there are various kinds of consciousness, and that consciousness dependent upon sense-organ/sense-object are particular to them. This is true, but what kind of consciousness, then, is the Buddha employing in order to make this observation? We know that the Buddha declared and confirmed the accomplishment of what he termed his 'Supreme Enlightenment', so it must have been out of this new vision that he was able to make the observations that he did. So because he was able to make observations about the arising of consciousness as dependent upon sense-organ/object, the consciousness he was using is NOT the kind dependent upon sense-organ/object, nor which arises and recedes.

The difference between the two kinds of consciousness is that, those which arise in dependence upon sense-organ/object are rooted in PERCEPTUAL REALITY. This kind of awareness arises and subsides, and is conditioned, while the consciousness inherent in the Buddha's experience of Supreme Enlightenment is Unborn, Unconditioned, and Ungrown. This is the experience of ULTIMATE REALITY. It is transcendent of the illusory self, and as such, can then only be of a universal nature, as there is no other choice.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So, I assume you about ready to provide a detailed explanation as to exactly how the illusion of consciousness 'emerges' from non-conscious matter.

The same way in which the illusion of "consciousness" emerges from technological advancement as machines (robots) gradually become more and more complex and human-like. We are just not there yet as far as complexity-wise. Nothing can quite compare to billions of years worth of evolution and change.

 

[godnotgod]

The same way in which the illusion of "consciousness" emerges from technological advancement as machines (robots) gradually become more and more complex and human-like. We are just not there yet as far as complexity-wise. Nothing can quite compare to billions of years worth of evolution and change.

Heh...heh...heh...now that's an interesting rabbit you've pulled from your hat. However, your analogy is illogical: Robots/machines are programmed by conscious humans; they have no consciousness of their own, so they do not labor under any illusion of consciousness. All of their 'consciousness' comes from human consciousness.

So are you now ready to tell us exactly how the illusion of consciousness emerges from the material brain?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Heh...heh...heh...now that's an interesting rabbit you've pulled from your hat. However, your analogy is illogical: Robots/machines are programmed by conscious humans...

I already stated that humans are not truly conscious, they are highly interactive. Robots are not quite as interactive as humans since they do not have billions of years of natural programming as the basis for their interaction. Highly interactive humans constructed interactive machines.

 

[godnotgod]

I already stated that humans are not truly conscious, they are highly interactive. Robots are not quite as interactive as humans since they do not have billions of years of natural programming as the basis for their interaction. Highly interactive humans constructed interactive machines.

OMG! ridiculouser and ridiculouser as we go!

I see. So someday, robots, too, will be able to share in our illusion of consciousness, a condition which is an obviously advanced one since our species is the lucky recipient of millions of years of natural evolution.

Look, just s**t or get off the pot! Tell us, once and for all how the illusion of consciousness emerges from the material brain. If you, like Spiny, don't know the answer, just say so, instead of having us all go round and round the bush with you to no end.

 

[Runewolf1973]

OMG! ridiculouser and ridiculouser as we go!

I see. So someday, robots, too, will be able to share in our illusion of consciousness, a condition which is an obviously advanced one since our species is the lucky recipient of millions of years of natural evolution.

Look, just s**t or get off the pot! Tell us, once and for all how the illusion of consciousness emerges from the material brain. If you, like Spiny, don't know the answer, just say so, instead of having us all go round and round the bush with you to no end.

First of all, why are you getting so emotional about this? Just relax already.

Secondly, since there is no possible way to go back in time 3 billion years to see exactly how it all took place, all I can do and all science can do is make a logical assumption or conclusion based on presently available evidence and facts. This is called a THEORY. Neither myself, nor science is in the business of claiming absolute truths on the matter. What you are asking for is an absolute answer to your question and that is simply not possible. There is still much research to be done.

To present views as absolute truth without facts or evidence to back them up is just plain silly.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To present views as absolute truth without facts or evidence to back them up is just plain silly.

I think this happens when there is a strong attachment to a religious belief, in this case the belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - essentially it's a reification of consciousness. I can see no credible evidence for consciousness being a fundamental property of the universe.
Maybe they will find a Chopra particle lurking in the dark matter?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is clear from the suttas that there are various kinds of consciousness.

No it isn't, and again you seem intent on misrepresenting Buddhist teachings so that they fit your theory. You are trying to force square pegs into round holes, as usual. As I've explained, it's clear from the suttas and the Heart Sutra that consciousness is always dependently arising and conditional, and not some kind of fundamental property.

What you believe in is clearly much more like Advaita than Buddhism. As I've observed before what you are promoting here is a sort of new-age Hinduism, much the same as Chopra does.

What you believe in is up to you, but I am genuinely puzzled by your need to continually misrepresent things in order to prop up your beliefs - there is an air of desperation about it. It's rather like watching somebody trying to "prove" the existence of God. I suppose this makes sense because you have reified consciousness and made it into your "God".

In any case there is no credible scientific evidence for consciousness being a fundamental property of the universe. If you're looking for religious "support" for your beliefs then I think Advaita would be an appropriate route to follow.

 

[godnotgod]

If you're looking for religious support then I suppose Advaita would be the place to look.

Thanks for the advice, but you are no one to assume the role of Director of Destinies.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[godnotgod]

I think this happens when there is a strong attachment to a religious belief, in this case the belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe -

How do you determine that a belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe is religious in nature? The logic does not follow. I think your problem is that you are a staunch entrenched fundamentalist, playing it safe in your stagnant Hinayanist backwater.

Hey! Where's my blankee!?

 

[godnotgod]

Professor Norman smugly and proudly admiring himself in the mirror after thinking he's won some sort of argument, not realizing his own is full of holes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How do you determine that a belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe is religious in nature?

Because:
1. There is no credible scientific evidence for it.
2. You try to use ideas from religious traditions to support your belief.
3. You are strongly attached to this belief and become irrational and abusive when challenged.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Professor Norman smugly and proudly admiring himself in the mirror after thinking he's won some sort of argument, not realizing his own is full of holes.

I think we've talked before about your tendency to project.

 

[godnotgod]

No it isn't, ....

Yes, it is:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/consciousnesses.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/consciousnesses.html

There's nothing of relevance in there, you really are desperate. Show me a sutta which describes consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe.

Even better, stop pretending that Buddhism supports your new-age Hinduism. Why do you even bother?

 

[godnotgod]

Because:
1. There is no credible scientific evidence for it.
2. You try to use ideas from religious traditions to support your belief.
3. You are strongly attached to this belief and become irrational and abusive when challenged.

The tools of science are inappropriate for detecting consciousness.

Some of the religious teachings confirm my own insight as being correct. Just because they're religions doesn't make them wrong.

On the contrary, it is you who has the knee jerk abusive snide response, incorrectly land irrationally abeling everything that doesn't agree with your view as 'new age', which actually says nothing.

I become abusive of erroneous arguments, such as that of RW, who can't even offer an explanation for his view, and abusive of your own entrenched ignorant views of Buddhism.

A belief that consciousness is the fundamental property of the universe is not a religious view, though a religion may point to this as being the case. You see how your logical mind is faulty?

Are you going to answer my question or not? Was the Buddha's Enlightenment an experience in consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

There's nothing of relevance in there, you really are desperate. Show me a sutta which describes consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe.

You are diverting the discussion. I said that the suttas indicate a number of different consciousnesses. That idea is discussed in the link I provided.