Things you don't like about Materialism

[QuestioningMind]

No. I did not think so. I simply deduced it from your statements. Can you not understand that much? Do you really think that I am an imbecile?

I however accept I am ignorant and do not know anything of life process and its origin. But it seems you know everything about life and awareness. You know what is birth and death? Please enlighten us of the process of birth and death and vanishing of "I" sense from a dead body although all physical elements are present.

What is the process of 'life' that creates consciousness of "I" and power of digestion in a living body? And if brain is life-consciousness then why does it not prevent the body from dying?

YOU wrote: "This again shows that brain is not the master creator of consciousness. It is switched off by yet unknown power even as computers are switched off by us."

If it's not what you think, why the heck did you write it?

"And if brain is life-consciousness"

What the heck is 'life-consciousness'?

"And if brain is life-consciousness then why does it not prevent the body from dying?"

The brain is an organ, a PART of the body. The part of the body that apparently creates our consciousness. Are you the opinion that your consciousness can make cancer disappear from your body? Do you think that your consciousness should be able to stop you from bleeding to death if your throat is slit?

The heart is a part of the body. It's the organ that pumps blood throughout the body. You're question is like asking, if someone poisons you with strychnine, why doesn't the heart prevent the body from dying?

 

[sayak83]

So, do you agree that Mulaprakriti is Avyakta (unmanifest) and the categories are its manifestations?

Yes.

 

[sayak83]

Actually, now that I've read that blurb (beyond the first paragraph), there seems to be nothing really new in it. It is well known and accepted (note Parnia's paper above), that after the last shockable heartbeat, measureable electrical activity continues for some 10-20 seconds, maybe even 30 seconds in some cases.

Therefore?

 

[Polymath257]

My question is simple "If brain is life-consciousness then why does it not prevent the body from dying?"

The brain is the physical substrate for consciousness. Why would you expect it to be able to keep the body alive? The question makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Please do not be evasive. Read the full and respond to the OP.

We can only proceed if the fundamental difference between a third party waking state electrical record of a man 'sleeping/dreaming/experiencing non dual consciousness/dying'' on one hand and and the actual first party contents of consciousness in those respective states, on the other hand, is appreciated.

What do you see as the 'fundamental difference'? One is an external view of the other. If it is a reliable recording, all the aspects of the conscious state can be read from it.

Similarly, an appreciation of the distinction between 'contents of consciousness' and 'consciousness itself' will also help, if we wish to discuss further.

What do you see as being the distinction? One is consciousness, the other what what you are conscious of. So, the consciousness is the program running on the computer, which is the brain. The contents of consciousness are the data that is being processed by that program.

 

[Polymath257]

Earlier you said: "My intentions are brain states. My actions can change brain states." Now you add "Brain is the creator of "I" consciousness. And brain is the sole seer of the "I" acting and thinking? And it is also the modifier of its own states, thereby able to modify mental and physical results.

Is my understanding of your position correct?

Well, sensory data comes in through the senses and also alters the brain state. So the brain isn't the *sole* modifier of its own state. But yes, one part of the brain can alter how another part of the brain processes things.

The best analogy I can come up with right now is that the brain is the physical substrate on which the program that is consciousness runs. But consciousness isn't the only program running and many other programs affect how the consciousness program works.

 

[Pudding]

 

[Pudding]

 

[atanu]

YOU wrote: "This again shows that brain is not the master creator of consciousness. It is switched off by yet unknown power even as computers are switched off by us."

If it's not what you think, why the heck did you write it?

"And if brain is life-consciousness"

What the heck is 'life-consciousness'?

"And if brain is life-consciousness then why does it not prevent the body from dying?"

The brain is an organ, a PART of the body. The part of the body that apparently creates our consciousness. Are you the opinion that your consciousness can make cancer disappear from your body? Do you think that your consciousness should be able to stop you from bleeding to death if your throat is slit?

The heart is a part of the body. It's the organ that pumps blood throughout the body. You're question is like asking, if someone poisons you with strychnine, why doesn't the heart prevent the body from dying?

You do not understand the issue That I am flagging and you do understand what you are saying.

Being the creator of consciousness means that the brain is creator of a representation of self, of the “I” and it’s form/s. Why it should create something over which it has no control?

 

[Polymath257]

You do not understand the issue That I am flagging and you do understand what you are saying.

Being the creator of consciousness means that the brain is creator of a representation of self, of the “I” and it’s form/s. Why it should create something over which it has no control?

Why do you think there is no control? Why is that even relevant?

The brain is the *substrate* on which the program of consciousness runs. Consciousness isn't a 'thing': it is a process. It is how we (our brains) form an internal representation to better determine how to interact with the external world.

 

[Nakosis]

I think it would more sense if you replaced video player with video camera.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You do not understand the issue That I am flagging and you do understand what you are saying.

Being the creator of consciousness means that the brain is creator of a representation of self, of the “I” and it’s form/s. Why it should create something over which it has no control?

What makes you think that everything you create you have control over? I can rub two sticks together in order to create a fire. Just because I created the fire doesn't mean I have absolute control over it. The fire I created can conceivably start to burn OUT OF MY CONTROL. With the help of my wife I've created 3 children. The fact that I created my children DOES NOT mean that I have control over them. Please, do tell me where you got the silly idea that you have control over everything that you create?

 

[atanu]

The brain is the physical substrate for consciousness. Why would you expect it to be able to keep the body alive? The question makes no sense to me at all.

Well, sensory data comes in through the senses and also alters the brain state. So the brain isn't the *sole* modifier of its own state. But yes, one part of the brain can alter how another part of the brain processes things.

The best analogy I can come up with right now is that the brain is the physical substrate on which the program that is consciousness runs. But consciousness isn't the only program running and many other programs affect how the consciousness program works.

Okay. This is qualitatively different than claiming brain to be the creator consciousness, the primary manifestation of which is the "I" consciousness. "I am this" etc. are modifications (and delusions) of pure "I" consciousness, which has no attribute.

But this raises some other issues to which I may come back later, time permitting. I will like to clarify a few points from your other responses first.

 

[atanu]

What do you see as being the distinction? One is consciousness, the other what what you are conscious of. So, the consciousness is the program running on the computer, which is the brain. The contents of consciousness are the data that is being processed by that program.

Let me try.

To me and many other Hindus consciousness is not only the of manifest objects and feelings. We transit through three different states/forms of consciousness: waking, dreaming, and sleeping. In these three states, the form of consciousness is different: gross, subtle, and lack of awareness. But in waking and dreaming the sense of self persists. The sense of self apparently does not seem to persist through the deep sleep but if that were so, one may not return from sleep as the same person. The sense of sense is not contained in intellect. It is deeper than that and controlst all our mental tendencies.

This is approximately analogous to three forms of water: liquid water, ice and steam. These have different forms because they have different associations with other factors, heat in this case. But what underlies these three states of water is different from these three forms.

Similarly the underlying consciousness is not manifest but its first manifestation is "I" sense, which as per Vedanta is the beginning of mind. The mind, in Vedanta is not only the manifest waking state cognition of physical and mental objects but is four fold: Intellect (the debater, analyser), mind (repository of all memory, including the genetic), EGO (I am sense), and pure attribute less mind (called citta, which is nearest to consciousness). The main point to remember here is that the mind contains an information of the specific self "I am this" etc.

So, to me consciousness is the seer of the three states of consciousness and is ineffable in itself to the intellect because it is the very source of the intellect.

Science, it would seem. considers only the waking state manifestations as consciousness and probably equates that with with mind.

What do you see as the 'fundamental difference'? One is an external view dreaming, and of the other. If it is a reliable recording, all the aspects of the conscious state can be read from it.

There are several category differences, which IMO are unbridgeable.

1. What is the electrical signature of "I am this" or "I am Atanu", and how that will differ from signature of "I am Polymath"? This is most crucial. Person to person variations depend on this and the full of mental content that stores the genetic information.

2. The very forms of consciousness in three states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping are different. Do the electrical signatures capture these category differences?

3. Same applies to consciousness of fainting man, dying man, or a man experiencing non dual boundaryless-selfless consciousness. Spiritual teachers call this non dual consciousness as unborn. Experiencing and abidance in this non dual state is a paradigm shifting event for a fate bound human. One realises that one is not bound to any forms, which are creations of consciousness-mind. Many will term the above as delusion. But for me it is not so. Non dual experience is very real and is paradigm changing.

So, how does third party waking state recording of his stupendous event capture the reality?

4. Physical science can perhaps demonstrate correlations between physical conditions of one sort or another and conscious states of one sort or another; but this does not explain consciousness. Correlation is not explanation. The mere fact that something goes on in your brain when you think does not explain what thinking essentially is.

5. The consciousness on one hand and its manifestations, which are of unlimited variety, on the other hand, are not of the same category. We are recording only the manifestations and that too through a teller, who can only speak of speakable experiences and somethings from dreaming. He has no way to tell about the deep sleep state, although the deeper "Identity" consciousness persists through this state.
......

There are many more points but I will limit to this much.

Best.

 

[atanu]

What makes you think that everything you create you have control over? I can rub two sticks together in order to create a fire. Just because I created the fire doesn't mean I have absolute control over it. The fire I created can conceivably start to burn OUT OF MY CONTROL. With the help of my wife I've created 3 children. The fact that I created my children DOES NOT mean that I have control over them. Please, do tell me where you got the silly idea that you have control over everything that you create?

No. I can intelligently control fire, so that it does not go out of control. That is what the role of unborn free consciousness and objective intelligence are.

In contrast, if your conscious self and intellect are created by some blind process, you have no control over that.

 

[sayak83]

Let me try.

To me and many other Hindus consciousness is not only the of manifest objects and feelings. We transit through three different states/forms of consciousness: waking, dreaming, and sleeping. In these three states, the form of consciousness is different: gross, subtle, and lack of awareness. But in waking and dreaming the sense of self persists. The sense of self apparently does not seem to persist through the deep sleep but if that were so, one may not return from sleep as the same person. The sense of sense is not contained in intellect. It is deeper than that and controlst all our mental tendencies.

This is approximately analogous to three forms of water: liquid water, ice and steam. These have different forms because they have different associations with other factors, heat in this case. But what underlies these three states of water is different from these three forms.

Similarly the underlying consciousness is not manifest but its first manifestation is "I" sense, which as per Vedanta is the beginning of mind. The mind, in Vedanta is not only the manifest waking state cognition of physical and mental objects but is four fold: Intellect (the debater, analyser), mind (repository of all memory, including the genetic), EGO (I am sense), and pure attribute less mind (called citta, which is nearest to consciousness). The main point to remember here is that the mind contains an information of the specific self "I am this" etc.

So, to me consciousness is the seer of the three states of consciousness and is ineffable in itself to the intellect because it is the very source of the intellect.

Science, it would seem. considers only the waking state manifestations as consciousness and probably equates that with with mind.



There are several category differences, which IMO are unbridgeable.

1. What is the electrical signature of "I am this" or "I am Atanu", and how that will differ from signature of "I am Polymath"? This is most crucial. Person to person variations depend on this and the full of mental content that stores the genetic information.

2. The very forms of consciousness in three states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping are different. Do the electrical signatures capture these category differences?

3. Same applies to consciousness of fainting man, dying man, or a man experiencing non dual boundaryless-selfless consciousness. Spiritual teachers call this non dual consciousness as unborn. Experiencing and abidance in this non dual state is a paradigm shifting event for a fate bound human. One realises that one is not bound to any forms, which are creations of consciousness-mind. Many will term the above as delusion. But for me it is not so. Non dual experience is very real and is paradigm changing.

So, how does third party waking state recording of his stupendous event capture the reality?

4. Physical science can perhaps demonstrate correlations between physical conditions of one sort or another and conscious states of one sort or another; but this does not explain consciousness. Correlation is not explanation. The mere fact that something goes on in your brain when you think does not explain what thinking essentially is.

5. The consciousness on one hand and its manifestations, which are of unlimited variety, on the other hand, are not of the same category. We are recording only the manifestations and that too through a teller, who can only speak of speakable experiences and somethings from dreaming. He has no way to tell about the deep sleep state, although the deeper "Identity" consciousness persists through this state.
......

There are many more points but I will limit to this much.

Best.

Nice post. Would like to refer you to an old thread that you may find interesting.
Atman and Brahman in the Upanisads

 

[Polymath257]

Let me try.

First of all, I want to thank you for what you wrote. It was very helpful in making distinctions we can use in our discussions.

To me and many other Hindus consciousness is not only the of manifest objects and feelings. We transit through three different states/forms of consciousness: waking, dreaming, and sleeping. In these three states, the form of consciousness is different: gross, subtle, and lack of awareness. But in waking and dreaming the sense of self persists. The sense of self apparently does not seem to persist through the deep sleep but if that were so, one may not return from sleep as the same person. The sense of sense is not contained in intellect. It is deeper than that and controlst all our mental tendencies.Start Page - Linux Mint

And my *guess* is that this consciousness is, in essence, a program operating in the brain that is running during wakefulness and in dreaming but not (as much) during the sleeping phase.

This is approximately analogous to three forms of water: liquid water, ice and steam. These have different forms because they have different associations with other factors, heat in this case. But what underlies these three states of water is different from these three forms.

Nice analogy, but I don't consider consciousness to be a substance with phases. I see it more as a program with different program states. In fact, there are distinct difference in our consciousness even during times of the day.

Similarly the underlying consciousness is not manifest but its first manifestation is "I" sense, which as per Vedanta is the beginning of mind. The mind, in Vedanta is not only the manifest waking state cognition of physical and mental objects but is four fold: Intellect (the debater, analyser), mind (repository of all memory, including the genetic), EGO (I am sense), and pure attribute less mind (called citta, which is nearest to consciousness). The main point to remember here is that the mind contains an information of the specific self "I am this" etc.

So, to me consciousness is the seer of the three states of consciousness and is ineffable in itself to the intellect because it is the very source of the intellect.

Science, it would seem. considers only the waking state manifestations as consciousness and probably equates that with with mind.

Well, there is a scientific question here: does the sense of 'I' actually precede the intellect? I have to admit that I am skeptical. There are a great number of quite intelligent animals that don't appear to have a specific sense of self-identity. In fact, since only fairly advanced brains seem to show this, I might suggest that a sense of self is a fairly late development in the course of life and is probably less well grounded in our behavior than many might like to think.

There are several category differences, which IMO are unbridgeable.

1. What is the electrical signature of "I am this" or "I am Atanu", and how that will differ from signature of "I am Polymath"? This is most crucial. Person to person variations depend on this and the full of mental content that stores the genetic information.

Mental storing genetic information?? You might want to re-phrase that one.

But I get what you are asking: what is it that distinguishes 'me' from 'you' in our brain states? At this point I do not know. I do know that people have very different *patterns* of brain 'usage' which depend on a great many factors. Again, I see consciousness as related to the *pattern* of brain functioning (the running of the program) and not the differences in the substrate (the specific CPU).

2. The very forms of consciousness in three states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping are different. Do the electrical signatures capture these category differences?

This I can answer with a definitive yes. There are *huge* differences in how the brain functions in these three cases. And differences between these and those in a coma, or in 'conscious sedation', or under anesthetics, etc.

3. Same applies to consciousness of fainting man, dying man, or a man experiencing non dual boundaryless-selfless consciousness. Spiritual teachers call this non dual consciousness as unborn. Experiencing and abidance in this non dual state is a paradigm shifting event for a fate bound human. One realises that one is not bound to any forms, which are creations of consciousness-mind. Many will term the above as delusion. But for me it is not so. Non dual experience is very real and is paradigm changing.

So, how does third party waking state recording of his stupendous event capture the reality?

Well, certainly we can detect differences in the brains of people in these different states. I'm not sure what you mean by 'capture the reality' here. But yes, we can tell the differences in these states from brain scans.

4. Physical science can perhaps demonstrate correlations between physical conditions of one sort or another and conscious states of one sort or another; but this does not explain consciousness. Correlation is not explanation. The mere fact that something goes on in your brain when you think does not explain what thinking essentially is.

Why not? What else is required for an explanation? Suppose we get correlates to each brain state to the place that we can 'read the mind' of people through brain scans. We can determine their intentions, their thoughts, their plans, what stte of consciousness they are in, etc simply by looking at their brains. How does that NOT give an explanation of consciousness? What else do you think is required?

I'll give an analogy. When we were investigating magnetism, we found that it was 'correlated' to the movement of charge. This correlation was detailed and specific. Because of this, it was accepted as an explanation of magnetism. We understand when magnetism is produced, how to use it, etc. So we have an explanation.

Why is consciousness so different? If we find neural correlates of conscious states and they are reliable and specific, how is that NOT an explanation?

5. The consciousness on one hand and its manifestations, which are of unlimited variety, on the other hand, are not of the same category. We are recording only the manifestations and that too through a teller, who can only speak of speakable experiences and somethings from dreaming. He has no way to tell about the deep sleep state, although the deeper "Identity" consciousness persists through this state.

But the brain scans *can* tell of this state. More so, they can say why the verbal areas of the brain are shut off (so why we cannot talk of this), etc.

There are many more points but I will limit to this much.

Best.

And again, thank you for what you wrote.

 

[atanu]

First of all, I want to thank you for what you wrote. It was very helpful in making distinctions we can use in our discussions.

I thank you for finding the note helpful.

Mental storing genetic information?? You might want to re-phrase that one.

For rest of your post, I will take more time to respond. On the quoted point, I reiterate that I said what I wanted to. Let me repeat again, using Sanskrit words this time and adding a bit more detail. I will request patience, which I think I can expect from you.

As per Hindu darsana (understanding), the reality called Brahman, with its inherent nature of Sat (truth-existence), Prajnana (wisdom--the faculty and competence for knowledge, for right discernment), and Ananda (unbroken bliss) is unborn and metaphorically like an infinite sea. The waves on it are us, but we have in our core the inherent nature of Brahman. The point is to attain union with the core of the existence and attain freedom from bondage to nature's whims.

Each wave (each individual: animate being or inanimate objects) is equipped with mind, which is of NATURE (changeable) and is driven by three qualities of nature. The three qualities are : a)Predilection for acquiring knowing and wellbeing of all; b)Predilection for acquiring objects and power over others; and c)Predilection for total lethargy (stone like). Admixture of these three qualities differentiate all natural objects.

In Hindu understanding, the mind is just not the intellect. The mind is understood as stacked/layered into 4 major components as per functions.

The first (surface layer) is Buddhi (Intellect): It is the dissection power, mainly. But, one may note that the dissection power rarely investigates "Who is it that is dissecting".

The second one is the ahankara (identity sense). Ahankara is not exactly the ego as understood in the western sense. Whatever you’re identified with, your intellect functions only around that. If my identity is of a dog, the intellect will follow that.

The third layer is called Manas (approximately Mind). This is also called manomayakosha, the mental sheath that covers our core. It is a huge volume of memory, which is not here or there. As per Hindu understanding, Manas pervades the entire body which hosts huge memory. It is because of such memory that my gait may be like my grandmother and my nose like that of my father etc. etc.

The fourth (core-deepest) layer of the mind is Chitta, pure intelligence unsullied by memory. It has no trace of any kind of memory, it’s just pure intelligence, constituting our core. It is said that sages who can touch this core intelligence, have access to the source of creation. Metaphorically it is the infinite sea, whereupon a local being comprising manas (memories), ahankara (identity sense) and buddhi (intellect), are built. These waves are ever changing and have no reality of their own. But each wave has the power of objectivity, being endowed with pure unsullied unborn prajnana (wisdom to discern). You are That.
...

 

[QuestioningMind]

No. I can intelligently control fire, so that it does not go out of control. That is what the role of unborn free consciousness and objective intelligence are.

In contrast, if your conscious self and intellect are created by some blind process, you have no control over that.

You can TRY to control fire once you've created it, but that obviously isn't always the case or communities wouldn't need to have fire departments. How can that happen? According to your foolish claim IF you create something you should be able to ALWAYS control it. Yet people create fire and it GETS OUT OF THEIR CONTROL all of the time. Guess that pretty much proves that just because you create something DOES NOT mean that you'll always have control over it.

Come on, give up trying to defend such a ludicrous claim.

 

[atanu]

You can TRY to control fire once you've created it, but that obviously isn't always the case or communities wouldn't need to have fire departments. How can that happen? According to your foolish claim IF you create something you should be able to ALWAYS control it. Yet people create fire and it GETS OUT OF THEIR CONTROL all of the time. Guess that pretty much proves that just because you create something DOES NOT mean that you'll always have control over it.

Come on, give up trying to defend such a ludicrous claim.

Cut out personal attacks and we may discuss. For understanding to increase we need to hear the alternate views with dispassion. You may someday understand that.