What If Consciousness Comes First?

[Howard Is]

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

This vid is gold.

I loved his mathematical analysis of the amount of computing power required to equal the processing power of the human brain. It starts around the 13 minute mark. He really schooled the AI people !

In the abidharma, early Buddhist commentary and extensions of the canonic suttas (aka sutras), there is a reference to this ‘quantised consciousness’. It says there are 17 trillion mind moments in the time it takes to blink your eye.

I have thought for a long time that all of our knowledge begins as an externalisation, in thoughts, images, maths, cosmology etc, of an inner process. By which I mean the actual process of our physical existence, the body.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, in case of a deer with its neck in the jaws of a lion or lioness, the trigger will make it see that it is frolicking near its mother in a grass field by the side of a lake. Brain works in mysterious ways.

 

[Howard Is]

So, in case of a deer with its neck in the jaws of a lion or lioness, the trigger will make it see that it is frolicking near its mother in a grass field by the side of a lake. Brain works in mysterious ways.

That is a great point.
I once made an acid-headed joke - “Delusion is God’s Best Trick”

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't know about God, but we are tricked each moment by 'maya'.

 

[Howard Is]

Brain works in mysterious ways.

This is one of my favourite pics. Dr Hofmann was still professionally active at age 100.
He microdosed LSD every day for decades until his death, which he says prolongs life, as does Hydergine.
In fact in lab tests, Hydergine extended the lifetime of rats by between 100 and 200%

, the average was 150% .

 

[Howard Is]

Don't know about God, but we are tricked each moment by 'maya'.

Arose by any other name ; )

 

[gnostic]

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

George, we have already argued about consciousness in other older threads, so you should already know that I have disagree with you about consciousness existing independent of the physical.

Since the article from the OP was written for Psychology Today, we can assume it is talking about consciousness of humans, not of other animals, or alien life forms, or plants or bacteria.

So with that in mind, consciousness cannot exist without life, without brain.

The brain controlled every single functions of the body (motor function, heart, lungs, liver, kidney, all sensory organs), as well as thinking, memory, dreams, emotions, and so on, and consciousness.

All of the above, are pretty much evidences, through studies of human biology and in medicine.

The claim that consciousness existing externally and independently, have never been demonstrated, through verifiable evidences; largely because it is just pure conjecture.

There are no such thing as "pure consciousness", let alone "transcendent consciousness" or "ultimate consciousness", these superlative adjectives are nothing more than superficial window dressing and unsubstantiated woo.

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 here are the woo.

There are never any demonstration of higher planes of reality, such as that of spirits or spiritual, other than in religions, in esoteric philosophies, in myths, in sci-fi and paranormal fictions, in delusions, and worse of all, from fraudulent activities.

 

[Howard Is]

There are no such thing as "pure consciousness", let alone "transcendent consciousness" or "ultimate consciousness", these superlative adjectives are nothing more than superficial window dressing and unsubstantiated woo.

‘Mundane’ consciousness is pretty ****ing amazing.

 

[gnostic]

‘Mundane’ consciousness is pretty ****ing amazing.

Agreed.

Consciousness is already amazing, without venturing into the supernatural version of consciousness, and George-ananda's higher planes of reality (or spiritual world) is example of such supernatural.

 

[atanu]

The idea that inanimate objects generate the primary awareness of “I am” is a myth

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.

Identification of awareness with aggregates is the mistake. OTOH, that the foundation of discernment is the unborn Nirvana itself, is taught by Buddha. Some guys consider the 'anatta-anitya' to be the ultimate. With Hindu teaching, there is no doubt. Shankaracharya said "The flower pot that I saw I touched", suggests unity of self-consciousness. There is self awareness pervading waking, dreaming, and sleeping states. Ignorant do not see the unbroken-unparitioned-non dual ground of consciousness of the deep sleep state.

 

[George-ananda]

George, we have already argued about consciousness in other older threads

And yet you INITIATED our conversation in this thread again, right?

 

[Howard Is]

Identification of awareness with aggregates is the mistake. OTOH, that the foundation of discernment is the unborn Nirvana itself, is taught by Buddha.

Nirvana does not mean ‘the unborn’. It means ‘free of craving and aversion’, which is an undisturbed mind, no more and no less.

Buddha had no interest in cosmology and theology, nor did he teach any.

 

[Willamena]

Notice I said ‘mysterious’ thing called consciousness. It is what gives us subjective experiencing. A computer can never feel but only mimic. I don’t see complexity creating a new thing that didn’t exist when simpler.

Now, that’s the magic thing.

 

[Howard Is]

Now, that’s the magic thing.

Which isn’t a thing

 

[Howard Is]

Nirvana does not mean ‘the unborn’. It means ‘free of craving and aversion’, which is an undisturbed mind, no more and no less.

Going further, any person in an awake state free of craving and aversion is at that point experiencing nirvana as defined by Buddha. It is ordinary mind.

In relation to this thread, I am stating the Buddhist teaching as I received it first hand from various Tibetan lamas, and also Theravadins, to dispel the idea that Buddhism makes any theological or cosmological claims.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

This vid is gold.

I loved his mathematical analysis of the amount of computing power required to equal the processing power of the human brain. It starts around the 13 minute mark. He really schooled the AI people !

In the abidharma, early Buddhist commentary and extensions of the canonic suttas (aka sutras), there is a reference to this ‘quantised consciousness’. It says there are 17 trillion mind moments in the time it takes to blink your eye.

I have thought for a long time that all of our knowledge begins as an externalisation, in thoughts, images, maths, cosmology etc, of an inner process. By which I mean the actual process of our physical existence, the body.

When I first came across the theory, it seemed to tie religion, or at least many of my experiences as a mystic, and science together. I think as the theory advances and more evidence is accrued there may one day be a convergence of the two.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Howard Is, you are my type of man or woman or someone other (Internet does not categorize that, nor do I care).

 

[Howard Is]

When I first came across the theory, it seemed to tie religion, or at least many of my experiences as a mystic, and science together. I think as the theory advances and more evidence is accrued there may one day be a convergence of the two.

I get what you mean. It’s ‘mysticism’ because it is mysterious. Duh. Basic etymology. Even the most hardcore scientists admit that the nature of consciousness is a mystery for **** sake.
And ‘occult’ simply means hidden from view. Which we all agree consciousness is !

The discussion at around 33 minutes is interesting.
The interviewer mentions a criticism of OrchOR, or more a challenge, that some feature of brain consciousness can only be explained using quantum mechanics.
As I understand it, from a cognitive scientist who pointed it out to me, it is observable at times that different areas of the brain act in sync, despite there being no known mechanism of communication between those regions fast enough to account for it.

I would appreciate any links or references to that subject.

 

[Howard Is]

Howard Is, you are my type of man or woman or someone other (Internet does not categorize that, nor do I care).

Thank you, I appreciate that. We do appear to have very similar views. I have read numerous of your posts re Brahman for example, and I find your view very refreshing. True Advaita without any FSMs, lol.

Yes, I am a man. Unless CRISPR offers me some kind kind of musically useful upgrade, lol.
My avatar is a recent pic of me.
Your remark caused me to think of this...

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I understand it, from a cognitive scientist who pointed it out to me, it is observable at times that different areas of the brain act in sync, despite there being no known mechanism of communication between those regions fast enough to account for it.

Or perhaps it is like multiple files in different locations. Can be accessed by any programs which need them. Perhaps the memory is not as localized as we might think. In Windows, there could be four copies of the same file, none of them should be removed, the computer manages that by itself. Of course, I do not have any references, but it does not seem outlandish.

My avatar is a recent pic of me.

Oh, my mug is not very photogenic NOW.