What If Consciousness Comes First?

[Howard Is]

There is nothing which indicates that it is a continuum.Sure, that is possible because clinically dead does not mean that the brain is dead. The brain continues to work for some time after clinical death utilizing the oxygen already supplied to the brain. When that is finished, the brain is finally and truely dead. To conserve the oxygen, the brain shuts down all pain-centers, all sensory experiences and all motor movements. Only thought remain. It is just like a dream.

In fact, if you are well dosed with hydergine (ergoloid mesylates), brain death is considerably delayed.
A cat with all its blood removed experiences brain death after a couple of minutes, but when pre-dosed on hydergine, the brain is alive for about 45 minutes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do you believe this? What do you think is happening in the brains of other primates and all the other species of animals? Especially when they display such a range of behaviours, that were they carried out by humans, they would certainly present much the same as what we would describe as consciousness.

Just like two humans reason and behave differently, it is so with the animals also. Normally chimps lead a social life, but there are some rogues also who trouble other chimps. We are not much different from animals.

 

[Howard Is]

Just like two humans reason and behave differently, it is so with the animals also. Normally chimps lead a social life, but there are some rogues also who trouble other chimps. We are not much different from animals.

Chimps dosed with LSD in utero only socialise with other chimps who were dosed in utero.

Irrelevant I know. Fascinating though, eh ?

BTW, hydergine and LSD were both invented by Dr Albert Hofmann, and are structurally similar (ergoloid is a mix of three hydrolysed ergot alkaloids). Both induce neurogenesis, increase life expectancy, and make you smarter

 

[Aupmanyav]

Both induce neurogenesis, increase life expectancy, and make you smarter

Do I need that?

 

[Howard Is]

Do I need that?

Sure as sh** didn’t hurt me : )
But if you get any smarter, the NSA will probably ‘recruit’ you, so be careful.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But if you get any smarter, the NSA will probably ‘recruit’ you, so be careful.

I am in what Hindus term as 'Sannyasa Ashram' (Renunciation age, 75 +). They will need better people.

 

[gnostic]

But in this discussion we are not just trying to define and study it but asking philosophical questions too. What is the nature of consciousness? Is it created by material interactions or is it something mysterious and fundamental, The latter are valid questions too.

It is funny how you would selectively used the words “material interactions”, and not “physical interactions” or “natural interactions”.

Using the word “material” often implied “materialism”. Is that what you are hinting at?

Second. Understanding the nature of the physical world is already fundamental.

And there are enough mysteries in nature of our world, without resorting to the supernatural, the paranormal or the ineffable.

 

[Polymath257]

Patterns are the diverse experiences and the experiencer?

The 'experiencer' is a verb. A process.

 

[George-ananda]

It is funny how you would selectively used the words “material interactions”, and not “physical interactions” or “natural interactions”.

Using the word “material” often implied “materialism”. Is that what you are hinting at?

I see those things as synonyms.

I
Second. Understanding the nature of the physical world is already fundamental.

I don't think you understand what was meant by 'fundamental'. It is something that 'is' and is not created by any process. Consciousness is a fundamental part of reality in my view.

And there are enough mysteries in nature of our world, without resorting to the supernatural, the paranormal or the ineffable.

I am not trying to create any more or any less mysteries, but just trying to understand reality.

 

[Polymath257]

I see those things as synonyms.

I don't think you understand what was meant by 'fundamental'. It is something that 'is' and is not created by any process. Consciousness is a fundamental part of reality in my view.

What makes you think consciousness qualifies as fundamental, especially if it is 'created' by physical processes?

We also have a slight difference in definitions here. I see 'funamental' as meaning the baseline level for understanding. So, the physical world is fundamental because it underlies everything else (whether or not specific examples are created by some process from other physical things).

I am not trying to create any more or any less mysteries, but just trying to understand reality.

As are we all.

 

[George-ananda]

What makes you think consciousness qualifies as fundamental, especially if it is 'created' by physical processes?

George: Consciousness is fundamental and matter is a derivative of Consciousness

Polymath: Matter is fundamental and consciousness is a derivative of Matter.

We also have a slight difference in definitions here. I see 'funamental' as meaning the baseline level for understanding. So, the physical world is fundamental because it underlies everything else (whether or not specific examples are created by some process from other physical things).

Actually our definitions of 'fundamental' are not really different. Our worldview is what is different as shown above.

 

[gnostic]

I don't think you understand what was meant by 'fundamental'. It is something that 'is' and is not created by any process. Consciousness is a fundamental part of reality in my view.

What makes you think consciousness qualifies as fundamental, especially if it is 'created' by physical processes?

We also have a slight difference in definitions here. I see 'funamental' as meaning the baseline level for understanding. So, the physical world is fundamental because it underlies everything else (whether or not specific examples are created by some process from other physical things).

I don’t think I need to say much about fundamental since I agreed with what Polymath257 have written above.

If consciousnesses are part of the process of the physical brains and sensory organs (eg eyes, ears, nose, nerve systems), then understanding how the physical works, is understanding the fundamental of the physical brains and sensory organs.

Since consciousnesses cannot exist without the physical (eg living brains), then I don’t see why you could object to what I say?

Without life, brain will die, and so will any process, and then all consciousness will cease. Consciousnesses don’t exist independent of the brains’ functionality.

And there are scientific and medical evidences that external interactions that can affect the brain, can also alter a person’s consciousness, such alcohol, drug, suffocation, head injury and trauma, etc.

A person suffer from brain damage can have his or her consciousness hampered or affected. This damage will or could also affect their behavioral and emotional disposition.

Lastly, the author quoted (in the OP) from Psychology Today, is expressing one’s opinion, which other psychologists can agree or disagree with, isn’t peer reviewed journalism, not unless it actually provide reviewable data.

And Rawlette never provide any data to her research, hence not peer reviewed article. Where are her data?

And psychology isn’t exact science, since there are so many different variables that will lead to different analysis, different conclusions, and different treatments or therapies. (It is possibly why I am not good in psychology.)

 

[Road Less Traveled]

Second, consciousness in the sense of self-awareness or knowing you're being, is greatly overrated. The real heavy lifting in the brain is done by the nonconscious parts.

There are some who view consciousness as a curse, and that the ‘unconscious’ is where the treasure is at.

 

[George-ananda]

I don’t think I need to say much about fundamental since I agreed with what Polymath257 have written above.

LOL, are you saying if @Polymath257 says something it is beyond needing to be discussed further, LOL.

If consciousnesses are part of the process of the physical brains and sensory organs (eg eyes, ears, nose, nerve systems), then understanding how the physical works, is understanding the fundamental of the physical brains and sensory organs.

Since consciousnesses cannot exist without the physical (eg living brains), then I don’t see why you could object to what I say?

Without life, brain will die, and so will any process, and then all consciousness will cease. Consciousnesses don’t exist independent of the brains’ functionality.

And my alternate view is that Consciousness/Brahman/God came before the physical. The universe is a thought-form of Brahman/God.

Also I believe there are non-physical beings that are conscious on the higher (spiritual) planes of reality (that obviously are not dependent on physical brains).

And there are scientific and medical evidences that external interactions that can affect the brain, can also alter a person’s consciousness, such alcohol, drug, suffocation, head injury and trauma, etc.

A person suffer from brain damage can have his or her consciousness hampered or affected. This damage will or could also affect their behavioral and emotional disposition.​

And I say these things obviously affect the expression of consciousness at the physical level but your argument does not answer the question of why there is consciousness in the first place (the 'hard' problem).

 

[Aupmanyav]

A cat with all its blood removed experiences brain death after a couple of minutes, but when pre-dosed on hydergine, the brain is alive for about 45 minutes.

Howard, it is possible that the brain loads itself with some Hydergine-like substance when it senses death to prolong its life. The Amygdalae. I do not know what research has been done in this direction. But animal body workings have many surprises.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

As far as I understand the Orch OR theory of consciousness, it starts at the pre-material (quantum) level of the universe. There is a baseline of pure energy and consciousness is a waveform that arises from that to collapse at the microtubules of the brain. These microtubules are capable of going into superposition.

In they last few years studies have shown that your sense of smell functions due to quantum entanglement. Its pretty interesting stuff. This theory would definitely place consciousness in the pre-material plane of existence first and the material plane second only after the waveform has collapsed (once every 60 milliseconds).

This vid is a little dated now but it explains the fundamentals of the theory well:

 

[atanu]

The 'experiencer' is a verb. A process.

I ran. He ran.

These are processes involving a subject. Do you mean to say the brain pattern themselves are the experiencer and the experiences?

 

[blü 2]

There are some who view consciousness as a curse, and that the ‘unconscious’ is where the treasure is at.

The Good Life certainly includes sleeping well. But I like the awake bits too. (That statement begs the question of how to define consciousness, of course.)

 

[Howard Is]

Without life, brain will die, and so will any process, and then all consciousness will cease. Consciousnesses don’t exist independent of the brains’ functionality.

Memento mori

When I read your word ‘consciousnesses’, I see the same meaning as Buddha was expressing as ‘identification with the aggregates’, or the sense of an innately existing self.
This deceptive sense, according to Buddhism, arises continuously in discrete ‘moments’ consisting of ‘pattern matching’ sensory data to previous inputs and reacting. Much like (exactly like ?) neural nets.

Whether there is a pervading ‘transcendent’ principle called awareness, or there is an emergent property called ‘awareness’, or awareness is coemergent with form, is the question here.

From my perspective, that makes no difference whatsoever to the nature of our experience. I also think it is unknowable, what Buddha called acintya (Sanskrit - inconceivable), irrelevant, and if considered at length will likely drive you crazy, according to him.

 

[Howard Is]

Howard, it is possible that the brain loads itself with some Hydergine-like substance when it senses death to prolong its life. The Amygdalae. I do not know what research has been done in this direction. But animal body workings have many surprises.

It is certainly possible IMO. Exogenous triggers only do what they do by acting like endogenous triggers.

My life experience has also taught me that a yogi can learn to produce the endogenous triggers, at least in some cases. An imaginary experience is the same as a real experience, because it is using the same mechanisms.

Nice question BTW