To Atheists & Agnostics: When did consciousness first appear?

[ScottySatan]

Us philosophers make the precise same argument against the institution of science.
Not everything is accessible to the scientific method, and that is why we have other methods
such as hermeneutics, phenomenology, logic, and metaphoric literature as well as mysticism.

For example, just because I may witness a crime, does not mean that I can prove it
to a formal pedantic institution. That crime I still know to be real. But science that does not appreciate
its own limited philosophical context, will claim that the crime does not exist because it cannot be proven
to the institution.

It is true, that many people turn to dogmatic religion, often for instant explanations, but in recent centuries,
that is the role played by the institution of science, which itself often replaces empiricism and logic
with sheer belligerence and arguments from economics. Plenty of people get paid to to do all sorts
of things, and the more society progresses, the more people are paid redundantly.

The methods of hermeneutics, phenomenology, logic, metaphoric literature and especially mysticism
have all demonstrated that Gnosis of God is a real and lucid experience, which has motivated
the minds of the greatest thinkers, almost without exception.

I totally agree that there's a place for non-science in this. But your OP gave us a scientific context so that's what I went with.

I agree with you about the beligerence and stuff about lots of scientists, but not science itself. It looks like there's a strong link between skepticism (essential in today's science paradigm) and cynicism (usually bad in today's science paradigm). Someone with a healthy dose of one has a healthy dose of the other. But we are advancing in spite of ourselves.

I don't agree that there is anything that science can never ever figure out. We've been wrong about that too many times. That's my take-home message.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I totally agree that there's a place for non-science in this. But your OP gave us a scientific context so that's what I went with.

I agree with you about the beligerence and stuff about lots of scientists, but not science itself. It looks like there's a strong link between skepticism (essential in today's science paradigm) and cynicism (usually bad in today's science paradigm). Someone with a healthy dose of one has a healthy dose of the other. But we are advancing in spite of ourselves.

I don't agree that there is anything that science can never ever figure out. We've been wrong about that too many times. That's my take-home message.

The curious thing about skepticism and cynicism, is that very few scientists take psychology seriously.
It becomes a routine part of psychology to realize that cynicism (cognitive dissonance) is a tell-tail
sign of denial or illogical thinking. Whenever I feel overwhelmingly annoyed at someone who is calm,
its a warning from the subconscious to take a step back, and closely re-examine my point of view.
Focusing specifically on what annoyed me so much, often leads me to an error in my thinking.
Alternatively it reveals a better technique in dealing with people who are just being deliberately contrary.
The key, is in not moving away from the issue until a calm frame of mind is attained.

 

[ScottySatan]

very few scientists take psychology seriously.

I like what you said in general, but I don't think this part's justified. You haven't met most scientists, right? Replace the word "scientists" with some ethnicity and some would call you bigoted.

 

[ScottySatan]

The curious thing about skepticism and cynicism, is that very few scientists take psychology seriously.
It becomes a routine part of psychology to realize that cynicism (cognitive dissonance) is a tell-tail
sign of denial or illogical thinking. Whenever I feel overwhelmingly annoyed at someone who is calm,
its a warning from the subconscious to take a step back, and closely re-examine my point of view.
Focusing specifically on what annoyed me so much, often leads me to an error in my thinking.
Alternatively it reveals a better technique in dealing with people who are just being deliberately contrary.
The key, is in not moving away from the issue until a calm frame of mind is attained.

Also, out of curiosity, is this coming from your conversations with scientists or science fans? There's a huge difference.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I was looking for a place to put this question.

Because the notion of abiogenisis (life originating from inanimate matter)
seems to me to be neither scientifically proven nor even reasonable,
I have placed this in the paranormal section.

After all, what could be more paranormal than a bunch of atoms
somehow achieving consciousness?

But besides all of that, I am mostly interested in hearing
when materialists think that consciousness first comes about in
their model of nature.

If you decide it is at the advent of being 'human' could you be specific
about whether it is Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Australopithecus or any other type
of creature? (...that I was taught in Anthro 101 should actually be termed 'hominid'.)

Do you think dogs have consciousness?
What about fish?
Where do you draw the line?

I realize that the likely answer you will give is that we cannot know,
but in that case, I am asking you to make an educated guess.
After all, you are claiming that you know that abiogenisis occured
based on an educated guess.

It depends on how you define consciousness, but it seems to be a function of higher mammals. I think consciousness can be adequately explained in evolutionary terms because even simple organisms have an awareness of their environment, it is then just a question of sophistication.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To me it's largely synonymous with the word 'awareness'. Reasoning capacity and responding and doing and all that aren't it's purview.

I tend to agree, and I regard consciousness as that basic function of awareness. For everything else I would refer to the activity of mind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I was more referring to the thread topic regarding the mystery of consciousness and the assumption of many scientists that it is a product of brain functioning....i.e. the brain creates consciousness. I know that this particular prejudice is quite common.

It isn't "prejudice", it is simply what the evidence suggests. There is no evidence for consciousness being the fundamental ground of everything, that is a matter of religious belief and speculation.

 

[George-ananda]

It isn't "prejudice", it is simply what the evidence suggests.

Only if you limit the evidence to that which fits. My study of the multiple subfields of so-called paranormal phenomena has convinced me beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.

A funny but poignant quote I recall from a scientist: If you ignore the data that doesn't fit the theory, the rest of the data supports the theory quite nicely. I think this applies to the physical consciousness creation theory.

There is no evidence for consciousness being the fundamental ground of everything, that is a matter of religious belief and speculation.

The evidence is the direct experience and teachings of advanced souls that perceive reality beyond the senses. Now, science cannot work with subjective experiences and should remain agnostic to the theory but I as an individual have come to accept what these advanced souls are saying as clearly the best theory I have heard.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The evidence is the direct experience and teachings of advanced souls that perceive reality beyond the senses. Now, science cannot work with subjective experiences and should remain agnostic to the theory but I as an individual have come to accept what these advanced souls are saying as clearly the best theory I have heard.

The problem here is that there are many "advanced souls" and no consensus. Undoubtedly people have profound experiences ( I've had a few myself ) the problem is always one of interpretation, and there are many ways of looking at things. Personally I am quite cautious about projecting out internal experiences and claiming that they correspond to "reality" or whatever, this rapidly becomes a question of religious belief rather than direct insight.

 

[Kirran]

The problem here is that there are many "advanced souls" and no consensus. Undoubtedly people have profound experiences ( I've had a few myself ) the problem is always one of interpretation, and there are many ways of looking at things. Personally I am quite cautious about projecting out internal experiences and claiming that they correspond to "reality" or whatever, this rapidly becomes a question of religious belief rather than direct insight.

I guess this relates more to something like the realisation of the Buddha that all phenomena are impermanent, and thus ultimately unreal. This is something anyone can learn to observe directly and realise. There are marks of existence of that nature. Attachment leading to suffering is another.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I guess this relates more to something like the realisation of the Buddha that all phenomena are impermanent, and thus ultimately unreal. This is something anyone can learn to observe directly and realise. There are marks of existence of that nature. Attachment leading to suffering is another.

I guess it is, but it does underline my point about the diversity of interpretation across the Dharmic traditions. There are many different beliefs, assumptions and methods.

 

[Kirran]

I guess it is, but it does underline my point about the diversity of interpretation across the Dharmic traditions. There are many different beliefs, assumptions and methods.

Yeah, that's true. But hey, I'm one of those annoying perennial philosophy types!

 

[George-ananda]

The problem here is that there are many "advanced souls" and no consensus. Undoubtedly people have profound experiences ( I've had a few myself ) the problem is always one of interpretation, and there are many ways of looking at things. Personally I am quite cautious about projecting out internal experiences and claiming that they correspond to "reality" or whatever, this rapidly becomes a question of religious belief rather than direct insight.

I have found all my lengthy paranormal and spiritual studies have dovetailed to a common worldview. And I believe the east (India) has delved deeper into the nature of reality than any other of mankind's wisdom traditions including western religion and western materialist-science.

What are the reasons you view all of this as a lack of consensus? I am not talking about every experience of every Tom, Dick and Harry where you might come across some weird things but the teachings of very advanced souls like Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and a hundred others who I have judged worthy of my respect. And even these teachers say to find out for yourself by experiencing but this level of understanding does not usually happen in our first lengthy meditation session. Before I experience for myself, I take these teachers as having presented by far the most believable hypothesis out there.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What are the reasons you view all of this as a lack of consensus? I am not talking about every experience of every Tom, Dick and Harry where you might come across some weird things but the teachings of very advanced souls like Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and a hundred others who I have judged worthy of my respect. And even these teachers say to find out for yourself by experiencing but this level of understanding does not usually happen in our first lengthy meditation session. Before I experience for myself, I take these teachers as having presented by far the most believable hypothesis out there.

There is a great diversity across the Eastern religions, and no consensus. Even within Hinduism there are many different beliefs and interpretations, and or course Buddhism teaches something different again. The Dharmic traditions are inherently pluralistic and diverse.

As for meditative experiences, they can be interpreted in different ways. You can view them as purely internal, or you can believe they correspond to some larger reality. While it is good to keep an open mind, I am dubious when people insist that their internal experiences must correspond to or reflect some larger reality. It often looks rather needy and egocentric, because essentially they are claiming that what happens in their mind defines the cosmos. Hmm.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yeah, that's true. But hey, I'm one of those annoying perennial philosophy types!

While there are common themes, I think it is better to recognise and respect the many differences. I'm not a fan of woolly syncretism or lame universalism because this invariably leads to misrepresentation, and messy attempts to bang square pegs into round holes.

 

[Kirran]

While there are common themes, I think it is better to recognise and respect the many differences. I'm not a fan of woolly syncretism or lame universalism because this invariably leads to misrepresentation, and messy attempts to bang square pegs into round holes.

I suspect our views are roughly similar then, it's just that my focus is more on the commonalities and yours on the diversity.

 

[George-ananda]

There is a great diversity across the Eastern religions, and no consensus. Even within Hinduism there are many different beliefs and interpretations, and or course Buddhism teaches something different again. The Dharmic traditions are inherently pluralistic and diverse.

As for meditative experiences, they can be interpreted in different ways. You can view them as purely internal, or you can believe they correspond to some larger reality. While it is good to keep an open mind, I am dubious when people insist that their internal experiences must correspond to or reflect some larger reality. It often looks rather needy and egocentric, because essentially they are claiming that what happens in their mind defines the cosmos. Hmm.

Well, I start from my observation of the many subfields of paranormal phenomena that things not explainable by a materialist worldview do occur beyond reasonable doubt. I believe any worldview I would ascribe to must have these phenomena as part and parcel of a more complete understanding. People like Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Adi Shankara, ben d , and a hundred other masters have taken eastern philosophy to what (in my opinion) is its highest level. We each judge for ourselves. I see great similarity and very little disagreement at all between what these (imo) great souls are saying. In my beliefs great souls can take incarnation for the purpose of teaching (as opposed to the more common reason of growing from material experiences).

What significant differences are you referring to and who is espousing them?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Well, I start from my observation of the many subfields of paranormal phenomena that things not explainable by a materialist worldview do occur beyond reasonable doubt. I believe any worldview I would ascribe to must have these phenomena as part and parcel of a more complete understanding. People like Yogananda, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Adi Shankara, ben d , and a hundred other masters have taken eastern philosophy to what (in my opinion) is its highest level. We each judge for ourselves. I see great similarity and very little disagreement at all between what these (imo) great souls are saying. In my beliefs great souls can take incarnation for the purpose of teaching (as opposed to the more common reason of growing from material experiences).

You have repeated what you always say here, that you believe in the paranormal and you have faith in the interpretation of some Hindu teachers. And so?
The fact remains that there is no objective evidence for consciousness being the fundamental ground of everything, so it is a matter of religious belief and speculation.

Let's not confuse beliefs with facts, and more specifically, let's not confuse internal experiences with religious interpretations OF those experiences. And let's not ignore the human need for religious interpretation of such experiences, ultimately stemming from the fear of death as annihilation.

 

[George-ananda]

You have repeated what you always say here, that you believe in the paranormal and you have faith in the interpretation of some Hindu teachers. And so?
The fact remains that there is no objective evidence for consciousness being the fundamental ground of everything, so it is a matter of religious belief and speculation.

Let's not confuse beliefs with facts, and more specifically, let's not confuse internal experiences with religious interpretations OF those experiences. And let's not ignore the human need for religious interpretation of such experiences, ultimately stemming from the fear of death as annihilation.

So I am saying that the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence has led me to the point where I can say that I believe beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness is something not understood by materialistic science/philosophy. For the paranormal I can provide strong consistent down to earth evidence but as for consciousness being the ground of all being there is no such down to earth evidence that I can show. I believe the theory espoused by those who I have come to believe are highly advanced souls and teachers.

We each consider all the evidence and argumentation for all positions and form our own judgment. I have formed my view and I am willing to defend it even in a debate forum. If you require physical evidence that consciousness is the ground of all being then that is your position and there is nothing to debate. For me the quantity, quality and consistency of many things has clearly dovetailed to form my personal beliefs. I do not see the divergence among the many great teachers that you claim exists. I see a convergence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I believe the theory espoused by those who I have come to believe are highly advanced souls and teachers.

That's fine, but your faith in particular teachers is very subjective.

I have formed my view and I am willing to defend it even in a debate forum. If you require physical evidence that consciousness is the ground of all being then that is your position and there is nothing to debate.

Err...OK.