What is Consciousness?

[Ben Dhyan]

They arose along the same lines.

A circular argument tells us nothing.....you need to be able to delineate precisely where interactions become consciousness...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well that's another opinion I suppose...

I think Dr Hagelin is on the right track....

 

[outhouse]

I think Dr Hagelin is on the right track....

He is pushing unsubstantiated rhetoric a this time, focusing on meditation to for claimed states of higher consciousness. And that is unsubstantiated at this time.

He is pushing his own pseudoscience.



NOW on the positive, it doesn't hurt to look into different levels ect, but s far nothing exist out of the physical brain.

 

[Yerda]

I think Dr Hagelin is on the right track....

I watched that video. About ten seconds in he claims quantum physics and molecular biology indicate that we create our own realities. That can't mean what I think those words mean. So what does it mean?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I watched that video. About ten seconds in he claims quantum physics and molecular biology indicate that we create our own realities. That can't mean what I think those words mean. So what does it mean?

It means that as individuals and collectives, we interpret reality according to each our apparent separate unique perspective in time and place...(not withstanding the underlying universal basis of consciousness). It follows that depending on the result of the interpretation of reality, our reactions to it create changes to it...(thus karma and the need to act responsibly)...

 

[Runewolf1973]

A circular argument tells us nothing.....you need to be able to delineate precisely where interactions become consciousness...

I believe those interactions began in a primordial soup. It may not be that awareness developed initially as a survival mechanism. Initially it may have been no more than a bi-product of complex behavior. Only later on as life progressed did that by-product prove itself useful as a tool for survival.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe those interactions began in a primordial soup. It may not be that awareness developed initially as a survival mechanism. Initially it may have been no more than a bi-product of complex behavior. Only later on as life progressed did that emergent by-product (primitive awareness) prove itself useful as a tool for survival.

That does not address my question about the determination of where interactions are sufficiently complex that they are considered consciousness?

Btw, do you think there is such a thing as a planetary human collective consciousness?

 

[Runewolf1973]

That does not address my question about the determination of where interactions are sufficiently complex that they are considered consciousness?

Btw, do you think there is such a thing as a planetary human collective consciousness?

The way I see it, there are many different levels of awareness. The answer to your question is subjective and depends entirely on what each of us considers "conscious". I don't believe anything is truly conscious to be perfectly honest, as humans our brains and our bodies are merely interacting in an extremely complex manner...acting and reacting to the environment around us. We label that complex behavior "consciousness", but at the core it is form of interaction, nothing more.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh yah, I don't believe in a planetary collective consciousness, but I don't see anything wrong with calling it that either. To me it is more like strings of energy carrying information that can travel great distances. Maybe this sounds retarded, but I feel that information could in a way "ride" those quantum waves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The way I see it, there are many different levels of awareness. The answer to your question is subjective and depends entirely on what each of us considers "conscious". I don't believe anything is truly conscious to be perfectly honest, as humans our brains and our bodies are merely interacting in an extremely complex manner...acting and reacting to the environment around us. We label that complex behavior "consciousness", but at the core it is form of interaction, nothing more.

Now I can agree you there Runewolf....interactions are ubiquitous and at all levels of cosmic being....It get's interesting though when it evolves to function in a form that has enhanced sensory perceptions to 'see' more of the local cosmic environment and develop self awareness as distinct from pure awareness...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh yah, I don't believe in a planetary collective consciousness, but I don't see anything wrong with calling it that either. To me it is more like strings of energy carrying information that can travel great distances. Maybe this sounds retarded, but I feel that information could in a way "ride" those quantum waves.

Quite intuitively so...the name is not important (except as a form of pointing finger or sign post)...the reality it is meant to represent is... I suspect you are on the right track with the concept of brain activity somehow producing a form of modulation on the underlying quantum vacuum interactions..

 

[Yerda]

It means that as individuals and collectives, we interpret reality according to each our apparent separate unique perspective in time and place...(not withstanding the underlying universal basis of consciousness). It follows that depending on the result of the interpretation of reality, our reactions to it create changes to it...(thus karma and the need to act responsibly)...

Thanks.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I don't disagree with the idea of a higher reality or a higher awareness. My personal preference is not to use terms like "Pure Consciousness" or "quantum consciousness" to describe it. If there is in fact a higher reality or higher awareness, using fantasical or mystical terms to describe it only detracts from the realism of it. I don't want people to think that higher level of awareness is some mystical thing because then many people will just slough it off as pseudoscience. It is a reality and simply calling it a higher level (possibly the highest level) of interaction somehow to me gives it more credibility.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't disagree with the idea of a higher reality or a higher awareness. My personal preference is not to use terms like "Pure Consciousness" to describe it. If there is in fact a higher reality or higher awareness, using fantasical or mystical terms to describe it only detracts from the realism of it. I don't want people to think that higher level of awareness is some mystical thing because then many people will just slough it off as pseudoscience. It is a reality and simply calling it a higher level (possibly the highest level) of interaction somehow to me gives it more credibility.

I think you misunderstand....by pure awareness I was referring to the omnipresent cosmic quantum vacuum interactions, and the interactions at all the other levels of cosmic being...this is the cosmic interactive environment in which a sentient individual functions as a self aware being...

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think you misunderstand....by pure awareness I was referring to the omnipresent cosmic quantum vacuum interactions, and the interactions at all the other levels of cosmic being...this is the cosmic interactive environment in which a sentient individual functions as a self aware being...

I don't misunderstand, but you demonstrated my point. Using terms like "pure awareness" can lead to people associating it with something mystical and not that which is real. Those omnipresent quantum interactions are real, so why put a mystic label on them?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't misunderstand, but you demonstrated my point. Using terms like "pure awareness" can lead to people associating it with something mystical and not that which is real. Those omnipresent quantum interactions are real, so why put a mystic label on them?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.... because I understand the real is forever on the other side of concepts that are meant to represent them....I see the concept of quantum interactions as a sign post pointing to the same reality as the concept of pure consciousness.... However for you I will use your preferred label if that's what you would like..no problem for me...

 

[Runewolf1973]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.... because I understand the real is forever on the other side of concepts that are meant to represent them....I see the concept of quantum interactions as a sign post pointing to the same reality as the concept of pure consciousness.... However for you I will use your preferred label if that's what you would like..no problem for me...

I understand a rose by any another name would smell as sweet, but sometimes to avoid the naysayers, it is better to just call a rose a rose.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't believe awareness or consciousness is special to human brains.

The kind of awareness that sea slugs/sea hares, ants, fish, etc., have is akin to what is often called procedural memory in humans. My usual way of explaining this is as follows:
Imagine that you are driving to work (if you don't drive, work at home, are in school, or there is some other issue such that this doesn't apply, just imagine driving, walking, biking, or otherwise traveling a route that you are very used to). You are so familiar with the route that you don't need to think about it. In fact, today you are thinking about the presentation you have to give: is it long enough? too long? were the prepared jokes funny? too edgy? did you cover everything you meant to?

As you are thinking of all these things, your body is reacting to your environment. You applying complex motor skills to maneuver your vehicle reactively- tracing curves, stopping at stop signs and lights, taking turns, etc.

Other examples include so-called "muscle memory", instinctive reactions to pain or loud noises, simple repetitive tasks like knitting or making chain mail, and so on. In other words, we do an amazing number of things that are beyond the capacity of most living systems (most animals, for that matter) without thinking about them or being aware of what we are doing AND we do them while consciously thinking of other things.

Animals without brains don't have procedural memory because that's the only kind of awareness they are capable of. They don't have consciousness, because that requires conceptual processing and currently the only systems in the world capable of this are brains.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The kind of awareness that sea slugs/sea hares, ants, fish, etc., have is akin to what is often called procedural memory in humans. My usual way of explaining this is as follows:
Imagine that you are driving to work (if you don't drive, work at home, are in school, or there is some other issue such that this doesn't apply, just imagine driving, walking, biking, or otherwise traveling a route that you are very used to). You are so familiar with the route that you don't need to think about it. In fact, today you are thinking about the presentation you have to give: is it long enough? too long? were the prepared jokes funny? too edgy? did you cover everything you meant to?

As you are thinking of all these things, your body is reacting to your environment. You applying complex motor skills to maneuver your vehicle reactively- tracing curves, stopping at stop signs and lights, taking turns, etc.

Other examples include so-called "muscle memory", instinctive reactions to pain or loud noises, simple repetitive tasks like knitting or making chain mail, and so on. In other words, we do an amazing number of things that are beyond the capacity of most living systems (most animals, for that matter) without thinking about them or being aware of what we are doing AND we do them while consciously thinking of other things.

Animals without brains don't have procedural memory because that's the only kind of awareness they are capable of. They don't have consciousness, because that requires conceptual processing and currently the only systems in the world capable of this are brains.

As far as I was aware, pretty well every creature has at least some form of brain, even if it is a small one with limited capacity. Yes, we humans do a lot of things beyond the capacity of other animals, but that's just because our brains have evolved to perform even more complex functions and interactions. The brain is highly evolved, yet you talk as though no other creatures have one. Or is what you are saying is that what sea slugs and ants have is not really a brain? It doesn't really matter anyway because what they do have is the ability to interact with their environment in a (somewhat) complex manner. Sure it is not as complex as some other brains, but it is a start. Everything started somewhere.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As far as I was aware, pretty well every creature has at least some form of brain, even if it is a small one with limited capacity.

Actually the majority don't. I think it might be true that most have a nervous system. But actually, even animals with brains aren't necessarily capable of conceptual processing or even the unconscious awareness that we are capable of (procedural memory).

Yes, we humans do a lot ot things beyond the capacity of other animals, but that's just because our brains have evolved to perform even more complex functions and interactions.

A mouse is capable of a kind of qualitatively different awareness than the best artificial intelligence systems in the world. Computational intelligence paradigms (e.g., artificial neural networks, evolutionary algorithms, gene expression, swarm intelligence, statistical learning algorithms, etc.) use the reactionary "awareness" most living systems are capable of combined with human intellect and unmatched (mindless) computational power to do things like process linguistic input, recognize faces, mine datasets, or win Jeopardy! as IBM's "Watson" did. But it is all just syntactic processing, all mindless, all purely reactionary. Same with almost all living systems.

The brain is highly evolved, yet you talk as though no other creature ever had one.

I said "brain" rather than humans or human minds because the earliest demonstrations that behaviorism and purely algorithmic, reactionary (rule-based) learning/awareness used rats. In two experiments in particular, Tolman, Ritchie, and Kalish (and Tolman and Ritchie) showed that rats (or possibly mice; it's been years since I read the studies) are able to represent spatial maps of mazes internally (in their brains) such that they can solve mazes they have learned not by recalling "rules" (i.e., as a series of turns: left, left, right, left, right, right, right, left, etc.) but by a mental, conceptual "map" of the maze which enables them to solve it even when the starting place (and thus the sequence of turns necessary to solve the maze) is changed.

Animals without brains...I never heard of such thing.

Have you heard of an amoeba? Ants? Earthworms?