Thread: Defining Consciousness

where do you get this information

Through approximately 10 years of actively seeking it. I can give you a few books that can point in this direction.

The first I will recommend vastly influenced my intellectual life. Once read, it will change anybody. The author, Ken Wilbur, is IMO one of the most intelligent men alive today. His writing is very heavy. This book is written in a question/answer format and is pretty much a synopsis of his work.

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-...4609208&sr=8-1

The second is also hard reading, but worth the read.

http://www.amazon.com/Vibrational-Me...4609574&sr=1-1

hahahaha

Here is the first review from this Amazon page I linked to with regards to "A Brief History of Everything."


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

186 of 194 people found the following review helpful:
Superb, August 17, 2000
By David K. Bell (Portland, Oregon United States) - See all my reviews


This review is from: A Brief History of Everything (Paperback)
This book was written as a summary of the work presented in Sex Ecology, Spirituality and was intended for a more popular audience. I recommend it as the best first Wilber book, as a relatively accessible introduction to his thought. That said, this is not a popular market "spirituality" book. There is a lot of meat here.
I am among those who think Ken Wilber is one of the great thinkers of our time. His great contribution to world thought is as an integrator of a staggering breadth of philosophical thought, psychological research and accounts of mystical experience. He maintains that each of the wisdom traditions and methods of inquiry into human experience has at least some valid contribution to make. He then sets about the daunting task of finding the ground upon which they all can be said to agree and integrating them into a theoretical structure that can be used to understand how, though no single discipline can present the whole truth, all can deliver a piece of it. For example, it is not that neuroscience is right and mysticism is wrong or vice versa. They are both right but incomplete. There really are neurons that can be observed to behave in certain ways. But that is not, and cannot be, all there is to say about human experience. Wilber succeeds establishing an integral theory of consciousness that draws from the wisdom of all the traditions of inquiry to a greater extent than any other thinker I have read.

I have read nine of Wilber's books so far, and I think this is the best one to start with, if you are interested in looking into his work. For those who have read some of his other work, this is a good, succinct overview of his system that can be a useful look at the forest when you get immersed into some of the more detailed material about the trees



Here is the wiki entry with regards to Ken Wilbur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilbur

Originally Posted by zeneyes

Through approximately 10 years of actively seeking it.

Yeah? Take a course on 'philosophy of mind' at a university, because half the things you hold for true have been extensively disproven years ago.

Originally Posted by zeneyes

The Humanist Atheist will define awareness as chemical reactions and electrical potentials in the brain.

Most of the time that's true, but it's not implied by those definitions.


Just wanted to point that out, I'm not getting involved in this pointless discussion.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yeah? Take a course on 'philosophy of mind' at a university, because half the things you hold for true have been extensively disproven years ago.

Alright, I'll bite. What has been disproven?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yeah? Take a course on 'philosophy of mind' at a university, because half the things you hold for true have been extensively disproven years ago.

Science of mind is more interesting, you might find.

Originally Posted by zeneyes

Through approximately 10 years of actively seeking it. I can give you a few books that can point in this direction.

What doesn't point in this direction?

humanist atheist

whatsoever can be said -

Originally Posted by zeneyes

Alright, I'll bite. What has been disproven?

Neruo usually thinks it's enough to say something been disproven and allude to something he may or may not have read.

But I suggest you spend the next ten years looking up lot's of different authors besides Ken Wilbur.

Originally Posted by zeneyes

Alright, I'll bite. What has been disproven?

Where I differ is with the sixth sense of mind. Mind is not physically determined, at least not in the same way the five senses are. Mind is not the result of chemical reactions in your brain, and this is why computers will never become self aware or possess consciousness.

You are both wrong because every aspect of the mind, thinking, talking, reasoning, feeling stuff (having an eery feeling, not just feeling hot or cold), personality, memory, hapyness, concentration, can all be changed by manipulating parts of the the brain electrodes (or by manipulating how neurons interact by pumping some drugs into the system).

Mind certainly is a result of chemical reactions in the brain.

Also, you are a biochauvinist for saying computer will never become self-aware. That claim doesn't fit in with evolution. The first super-simple self-replicating cell wasn't fundamentally different from the matter it was born in, and us complex multi-cellular beings still don't fundamentally differ from matter in any aspect, thus a complex enough computer (probably it would need a neural network, not a cpu) could certainly think. A simple example of this is that it is theoretically perfectly possible to let a transistor take the place of a neuron. If the transistor does exactly what the neuron would have done, there is no difference to the subject. Then, you could replace all the neurons with transistors (not very practical, but theoretically possible), and you would have a non-biological thinking being.

---

Anyhow. You will not believe me, because you are one of those self-absorbed new-agers that will completely ignore all rational arguments, saying people that don't blindly accept everything that fits their fantasy world are close-minded. (At least, I am guessing you are, I haven't met another kind of new-age kid on dreamviews that acted differently, so excuse me if you are not.) But just take it from me: Your concept of mind and conciousness is littered with false emotion-driven preconceptions and blind assumptions. If anything, at least reflect on the possibility that the way you look upon the mind is already completely manipulated by your western-Christian-influenced new-age pseudo-eastern belief system.

No Neruo people only act that way toward you because you act like a douche when you talk about this stuff.

Besides that just disproves dualism, that matter and awareness are separate. What you fail to recognize is that awareness is the essence of existence, not contained in things, but what things are made up of. This can be proven simply by sitting by yourself in careful reflection. Of course, you probably won't believe me, because you're one of those polarized atheists that has to associate every abstract idea you see to a fairy tale so you can cling to a concrete based universe.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Neruo usually thinks it's enough to say something been disproven and allude to something he may or may not have read.

But I suggest you spend the next ten years looking up lot's of different authors besides Ken Wilbur.

Well I have read many other authors as well as written much myself. I just put Wilber out there because he is exceptional with his "transcend and include" philosophy. I find it hard to refute his logic and have spent much time with him. But...like I said, I have read many different authors, subjects, points of view.

so who is your Wilber Omnius?

The best way to understand it is to understand vibrational frequencies. Much like the speed of light

This doesn't make sense.

The speed of light is a unit of measurement, it has nothing to do with vibrational frequencies. Actually light doesn't vibrate it moves in a straight path.

Vibrational frequencies is abit vague, what do you mean? As define what you mean by vibrational and what do you mean by frequencies.

Each level is higher than the preceding and is vibrating at a higher frequency.

This is meaningless, how is this got to do with anything scientific. Nor how has this got to do with light, which doesn't even vibrate.

Some say it's all just randomly occuring events, nothing more than holons colliding and coming from nowhere. There is nothing wrong with this.

What is a holons? According to present day physics, quarks are the smallest thing.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Anyhow. You will not believe me, because you are one of those self-absorbed new-agers that will completely ignore all rational arguments, saying people that don't blindly accept everything that fits their fantasy world are close-minded. (At least, I am guessing you are, I haven't met another kind of new-age kid on dreamviews that acted differently, so excuse me if you are not.) But just take it from me: Your concept of mind and conciousness is littered with false emotion-driven preconceptions and blind assumptions. If anything, at least reflect on the possibility that the way you look upon the mind is already completely manipulated by your western-Christian-influenced new-age pseudo-eastern belief system.

I don't think I am self absorbed or "new-ager."

"western-Christian-influenced new-age pseudo-eastern" This made me laugh because it's true, sort of. I think it's an accurate description of how I got here at least. Renounced Christianity, but it was imprinted into my psyche due to childhood events. Checked out "new-age" and found mainly certifiable crazzies so moved on. Eastern, yes I would say Buddhsim has influenced my adult psyche more than any other belief system because it is so logical and appeals to reason.

I try to reflect on the possibility that this is all simple physics but fail to swallow it. I wonder, Neuro, if you can take your own advice. For instance, how much do you know about Buddhism or Eastern thought? Have you ever read a sutra? Have you ever really considered it, or was it just a class that you took in college with a closed mind relative to your perspective? You come off as angry, and I wonder why? You don't have to hate people who think differently than you, or accuse them of being illogical.

We are all trying to understand the world we live in. You are obviously intelligent and I would like to debate this with you. Maybe you aren't interested, but if you take a deep breath than maybe you will see that you give good advice with considering new possibilities. If it's true for me than it must be true for you, especially since it's your own advice.

That said, I don't think computers will ever become "conscious," not like we are. I think they will mimick it to the point where we can't tell the difference, but I don't think they will trully know what it is to feel pain, or suffering, or happiness, or joy. I do leave room for being wrong on this. Discussing this issue is actually very relevant to this topic.

Something else I would point out here (I have already done so with no reply) is that if we were to actually create machines that became self aware than we would be their Gods would we not? We would have created them, as a new race of being in the universe, and therefore we would be their God. Would this not create a problem in regards to Atheism? I trully wonder about this. If it's possible for humans to create consciousness using their brains, which are supposedly nothing more than complicated biological mechanics, than the concept of God would have to be possible. Where do you stand on this? It's something I have never thought about before.

That said, I don't think computers will ever become "conscious," not like we are. I think they will mimick it to the point where we can't tell the difference, but I don't think they will trully know what it is to feel pain, or suffering, or happiness, or joy.

The fact is, don't we mimick behaviour? If you look at children that get abandon and live in forest they mimick the behaviour of other animals.

Would this not create a problem in regards to Atheism?

No. See unless atheist start calling themselves god, then no.

If it's possible for humans to create consciousness using their brains, which are supposedly nothing more than complicated biological mechanics, than the concept of God would have to be possible. Where do you stand on this? It's something I have never thought about before.

No the concept of god would not become more likely. Again, a women can have a baby, that makes her a mother not god. Hence, humans would be like mothers to robots not gods.

Originally Posted by zeneyes

What is it to be aware of self and other? How is this possible? This question is important...IMO the most important question that should be asked because it's answer determines how you define reality. Whether God is in that reality or isn't doesn't matter one way or the other.

So far this is fair and reasonable.. (mostly depending on your definition of things).

The Humanist Atheist will define awareness as chemical reactions and electrical potentials in the brain. This is no mystery. Still, it begs the question, how do these physical processes translate into the reality that you know? I can understand the five senses of touch, seeing, smelling, tasting, and hearing in a physically determined fasion. This is simply science and really has no need to be argued. In this sense the Humanist Atheist is correct.

A bit of a simplifcation but alright.. let's stick with that for now..

Where I differ is with the sixth sense of mind. Mind is not physically determined, at least not in the same way the five senses are. Mind is not the result of chemical reactions in your brain, and this is why computers will never become self aware or possess consciousness. Mind does exist in a physical sense, but after mind is gone, there is nothing. The best way to understand it is to understand vibrational frequencies. Much like the speed of light. Mind is vibrating at a much higher frequency than science can measure currently at least. In this sense it does have a physical location, just not on this plane of existance, not at the level we reside.

The mind is physically determined.. you just said it was.

Here's why the mind is necessary:
+ Humans need to survive.
+ In order to survive, humans need to interact
+ Humans need to interact and identify with each other how they are feeling in order to propel a society they can survive in
+ The mind allows self-identification and language allows the communication of these ideals.
+ Together, these things allow humans to collectively survive.

A simple explanation.. but I'll leave it at that for the moment to see your response.

The brain translates the mind into a frequency that can operate here in the world we live in. IMO the brain is a receiver/transmitter. It receives the mind and translates it and visa versa. We can observe this process scientifically and we can correlate certain emotions to a certain area of the brain. We can watch the brain "think" so to speak, but it's really just converting and translating mind.

You have one major flaw - you arn't defining what the mind is. You say that the humanist atheist cannot physically identify the mind (which I disagree with) but then you fail to define it at all. How can you say what properties the mind translates and sets forth if you don't even know where it's coming from?

Furthermore, what you are saying creates an odd question: is what you are currently thinking coming from your mind or from the translation of your mind?

The fact is that thinking certain things changes the EEG of your brain which can be traced very easily. So.. what is that then to you..?

Mind is what makes you self-aware. Mind is what makes consciousness possible. There are many different levels of mind that we are capable of experiencing. Each level is higher than the preceding and is vibrating at a higher frequency. These higher levels of consciousness can only be entered through training, discipline, and diligence, but they can be entered and known. The final level is the level of no-mind.

Two issues; as I said earlier, it is necessary for humans to have self-awareness because otherwise they cannot survive as a society. This is the foundation of mind.

Secondly, if our minds are sequentially vibrating, how can we measure this? More importantly, how did you originally find that the mind sequentially vibrates at different pulses on a progessive scale?

When you say no-mind, do you mean dead?

At the tip of this spear is where mind is capable of going and being, but beyond that is impossible. Beyond that is where the big bang lies.

Please elaborate... you are breaching on grounds that thousands of scientists are trying to simply define at CERN.

Where the mind cannot go and where language cannot go is where you find the creation of matter. This is where the big bang happens. The mind is the event horizon beyond which there is no mind. I do believe at some point science will make it to the event horizon, but to go beyond it is to explode outward into a new universe.

This is nonsense considering you have not defined the mind at all besides some arbitrary vibrating. You can say anything from this.

In the Buddhist context, this point of no-mind is enlightenment. This point is where all spiritual beliefs endeavor towards, and ironically it's the same place science is going. It's most certaintly a sphere, and the two disciplines are seemingly going in the opposite direction, but eventually they will have to meet.

Okay... how do you get there?

There have been remarkable men who have been able to access this place of no-mind, and they have come back to tell us about it. But what it is can't trully be defined because language cannot go there. That is why the Buddha always says what enlightenment is not, but he never says what it is, because it is nothing. The same place that science eminates from, nowhere. In order for us to understand our existance we have to understand that something comes from nothing. You can argue about the rhetoric all you want, but in the end you have to believe that everything is nothing because it came from nowhere and is ultimately going back.

Oh God.. another subjective argument about language and self-perceptions. This is all true and I agree with it except when you make leaps to planes of enlightenment. I would say that this is nothing but a state of mind - and by mind I mean the physical mind because there is no other as per my reasoning above.

(please for the love of knowledge let's not digress into name calling in this thead. Let's try to have a discussion about these ideas.)

Okay so.. most importantly.. define the mind. All you have done is refer to a sixth sense and then what the mind is not. Just saying that the mind is not physical does not prove anything.

I pray for a rational discussion.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Okay so.. most importantly.. define the mind. All you have done is refer to a sixth sense and then what the mind is not. Just saying that the mind is not physical does not prove anything.

I pray for a rational discussion.

~

Finally somene who is willing to act reasonalbe and civil. I was beginning to think I was barking up the wrong tree.

You pointed out a lot, piece by piece, and thankyou for ending with something I can attempt to answer without spending all day in rebuttal.

Mind:

1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.

This definition comes from dictionary.com, and I only use it for a starting point. I find when in a discussion such as this it is a good thing to agree on something. I think this is a reasonalbe definition, and I will also point out that at dictionary.com there were 19 definitions for the noun form of "mind." I can't know if you agree with this definition, but I will assume for now.

I will start with the sensation of feeling. If something touches your skin, it sends an impulse to your brain, and your brain processes what that "feeling" is and than you can respond accordingly. Let's go with something that feels good to you. There is a certain chemical that is released in the body to cause this feeling, let's say serotonin and this chemical makes you feel euphoric. All of this is physically determined. My problem is taking the leap from that chemical to that feeling.

To use the machine example. I'm sure at some point we will create a machine that can mimick this process, but will that machine actually have a feeling, not just in the physical sense. The perception of the chemical in your mind is what I have a hard time believing, and this is ultimately why I believe there is more to our perceptions than physical determination. Why is their a feeling associated with any chemical? I understand evolution and the reasoning behind say oxcytocin, the nurturing chemical for females, but I don't understand why that chemical had to be associated with a feeling. If it's all machine like, than why wouldn't that chemical just cause us to do whatever is intended, like a machine. Why do we have to have emotions associated with feelings? This is where the disconnect lies for me. This is where I leave mainline science.

This is where my definition of "mind" would come in.

To be honest I have never sat down and tried to define what it is, but I will try.

Mind is the perceiving presence...the witness of all things experienced. Mind is what gives life meaning. I think mind eventually encompasses everything within it.

The matrix is a good model to work through what I mean with this. This idea that we are not experiencing the truth in our every day waking life, that there is something more. In the case of the matrix we are imprisoned by machines which we created (which I believe given what I have seen some here would say this is a likely future). Everybody is convinced with absolute certainty that what they experience is reality when in reality it's just software. That software program is the chemical processing we experience, and it's deterministic and mechanical, and there is no special providence to it. There is more to our reality, but it doesn't come freely.

You believe that what you experience is determined by physics, but you can't prove it, all you can do is point to the brain while hooked up to an EEG and point and say "there, there is that thought." Sure, there is something mechanical going on, and I won't deny that reality, but I will say there is more to it that you aren't seeing. You believe that one day scientist will be able to read your mind bassed on an EEG or some similar technology, and indeed they can already do this in a broad fasion at least. Albeit not very specifically. The bottom line is that now the only way for you to know what anybody is thinking is to ask them, this is not so with computers. You can look at computer code and no what the computer is "thinking." At the end of the day you have to concede that what you believe is simply more probable, but not provable.

That being the case, between believing that my fate is nothing more than chemical reactions, and believing that somehow I have a say in what happens to me, I will choose that special providence. I can't prove that there is more to mind than the matrix, but I can choose to believe it knowing that you can't prove me wrong. If everything is predetermined due to some randomly occuring play between holons colliding, than what is the point? There can only ever be the illusion of choice. I don't know how to reconcile this to believing there is no God, and that is why I say the question of God is nothing more than a distraction. You can't know until you are dead, so why bother with it. But I can know different levels of existance whether it be through dreams, OBE, Astral projection...I believe in all of these things because I have experienced them.

What is the evolutionary precedent for dreaming?

So let me close this up.

Mind is what enables you to experience a sense of self.

And to clarify what holons are I decided it would be easiest just to pull the Wiki on this one.

From Wikipedia:

General definition
A holon is a system (or phenomenon) that is a whole in itself as well as a part of a larger system. It can be conceived as systems nested within each other. Every system can be considered a holon, from a subatomic particle to the universe as a whole. On a non-physical level, words, ideas, sounds, emotions—everything that can be identified—is simultaneously part of something, and can be viewed as having parts of its own, similar to sign in regard of semiotics.

Since a holon is embedded in larger wholes, it is influenced by and influences these larger wholes. And since a holon also contains subsystems, or parts, it is similarly influenced by and influences these parts. Information flows bidirectionally between smaller and larger systems as well as rhizomatic contagion. When this bidirectionality of information flow and understanding of role is compromised, for whatever reason, the system begins to break down: wholes no longer recognize their dependence on their subsidiary parts, and parts no longer recognize the organizing authority of the wholes. Cancer may be understood as such a breakdown in the biological realm.

A hierarchy of holons is called a holarchy. The holarchic model can be seen as an attempt to modify and modernise perceptions of natural hierarchy.

Ken Wilber comments that the test of holon hierarchy (e.g. holarchy) is that if a type of holon is removed from existence, then all other holons of which it formed a part must necessarily cease to exist too. Thus an atom is of a lower standing in the hierarchy than a molecule, because if you removed all molecules, atoms could still exist, whereas if you removed all atoms, molecules, in a strict sense would cease to exist. Wilber's concept is known as the doctrine of the fundamental and the significant. A hydrogen atom is more fundamental than an ant, but an ant is more significant.

The doctrine of the fundamental and the significant are contrasted by the radical rhizome oriented pragmatics of Deleuze and Guattari, and other continental philosophy.

Originally Posted by zeneyes

Mind:

1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.

This definition comes from dictionary.com, and I only use it for a starting point. I find when in a discussion such as this it is a good thing to agree on something. I think this is a reasonalbe definition, and I will also point out that at dictionary.com there were 19 definitions for the noun form of "mind." I can't know if you agree with this definition, but I will assume for now.

Tentatively.. sure.

I will start with the sensation of feeling. If something touches your skin, it sends an impulse to your brain, and your brain processes what that "feeling" is and than you can respond accordingly. Let's go with something that feels good to you. There is a certain chemical that is released in the body to cause this feeling, let's say serotonin and this chemical makes you feel euphoric. All of this is physically determined. My problem is taking the leap from that chemical to that feeling.

There are a plethora of studies I could reference to you that combinations of chemicals and certain electrical activity in the brain will cause certain feelings and emotions. (eg. anger = heightened testosterone, heart rate, etc. etc.).

To use the machine example. I'm sure at some point we will create a machine that can mimick this process, but will that machine actually have a feeling, not just in the physical sense. The perception of the chemical in your mind is what I have a hard time believing, and this is ultimately why I believe there is more to our perceptions than physical determination. Why is their a feeling associated with any chemical? I understand evolution and the reasoning behind say oxcytocin, the nurturing chemical for females, but I don't understand why that chemical had to be associated with a feeling. If it's all machine like, than why wouldn't that chemical just cause us to do whatever is intended, like a machine. Why do we have to have emotions associated with feelings? This is where the disconnect lies for me. This is where I leave mainline science.

I feel I can quell the issues in this paragraph by simply saying that the feelings are the chemicals. There is no association when they are both the samething.

This is where my definition of "mind" would come in.

Mind is the perceiving presence...the witness of all things experienced. Mind is what gives life meaning. I think mind eventually encompasses everything within it.

Fair enough I think.. the mind is a phenomenological process which labels and catalogues experiences in order to understand and comprehend it's surroundings. I think this is good so far.

The matrix is a good model to work through what I mean with this. This idea that we are not experiencing the truth in our every day waking life, that there is something more. In the case of the matrix we are imprisoned by machines which we created (which I believe given what I have seen some here would say this is a likely future). Everybody is convinced with absolute certainty that what they experience is reality when in reality it's just software. That software program is the chemical processing we experience, and it's deterministic and mechanical, and there is no special providence to it. There is more to our reality, but it doesn't come freely.

Now we hit a snag. If you are implying that what we are experiencing now is an uncertainty, then by that logic we can never be certain of any existance we are in. We can, however, know for certain that whatever we are exisint in, we are existing.

You believe that what you experience is determined by physics, but you can't prove it, all you can do is point to the brain while hooked up to an EEG and point and say "there, there is that thought." Sure, there is something mechanical going on, and I won't deny that reality, but I will say there is more to it that you aren't seeing. You believe that one day scientist will be able to read your mind bassed on an EEG or some similar technology, and indeed they can already do this in a broad fasion at least. Albeit not very specifically. The bottom line is that now the only way for you to know what anybody is thinking is to ask them, this is not so with computers. You can look at computer code and no what the computer is "thinking." At the end of the day you have to concede that what you believe is simply more probable, but not provable.

I don't understand your point here. You are saying that I can identify feelings from chemical identifications, but I can't prove it..? That seems to me what proving is - if I inject you with X chemical you will have Y response and that is the proof and causation.

I think what you mean to focus on is the idea that this does not properly represent all things involved with the minds process and phenomenological perception, correct? In that case, we are briding on the philosophy of subjective representation for communication. But I'll hault at this moment before delving into that to see if that is the case.

That being the case, between believing that my fate is nothing more than chemical reactions, and believing that somehow I have a say in what happens to me, I will choose that special providence. I can't prove that there is more to mind than the matrix, but I can choose to believe it knowing that you can't prove me wrong. If everything is predetermined due to some randomly occuring play between holons colliding, than what is the point? There can only ever be the illusion of choice. I don't know how to reconcile this to believing there is no God, and that is why I say the question of God is nothing more than a distraction. You can't know until you are dead, so why bother with it. But I can know different levels of existance whether it be through dreams, OBE, Astral projection...I believe in all of these things because I have experienced them.

You also cannot prove my imaginary friend wrong, does that mean it is true or valid? Not at all. Your supernatural world you speak of then is just as valid as my imaginary friend and utilises the exact same logic. No?

What is the evolutionary precedent for dreaming?

There are a few mixed theories. By mixed I mean there is an interaction of many things at play. Things like the information processing theory, physical recovery, etc. I don't see the relevance..? If you are referring to dreaming as a bridge to another world, then the active chemicals (serotonin, adenosine, acetylcholine) ought to also be included in this other world..?

Mind is what enables you to experience a sense of self.

I would say that the mind is the self.

And to clarify what holons are I decided it would be easiest just to pull the Wiki on this one.

From Wikipedia:

General definition
A holon is a system (or phenomenon) that is a whole in itself as well as a part of a larger system. It can be conceived as systems nested within each other. Every system can be considered a holon, from a subatomic particle to the universe as a whole. On a non-physical level, words, ideas, sounds, emotions—everything that can be identified—is simultaneously part of something, and can be viewed as having parts of its own, similar to sign in regard of semiotics.

So why cannot the mind exist merely as a physical entity that functions within the large universe that is an organic whole..? Rather than differentiating all phenomenological beings individually, consider them all as one..? No..?

~

Originally Posted by zeneyes

I don't think I am self absorbed or "new-ager."

"western-Christian-influenced new-age pseudo-eastern" This made me laugh because it's true, sort of. I think it's an accurate description of how I got here at least. Renounced Christianity, but it was imprinted into my psyche due to childhood events. Checked out "new-age" and found mainly certifiable crazzies so moved on. Eastern, yes I would say Buddhsim has influenced my adult psyche more than any other belief system because it is so logical and appeals to reason.

'Logical and appeals to reason', a lot of people that you would find logical and full of reason in their scientific field disagree with you that Buddhism is all that logical and appealing to reason.

Also, with post-christian, I don't know whether it is a mainstream term, but I read it somewhere, I meant to say: You still have very metaphysical devine-order concepts of soul, the inherent 'good' of nature, the existence of higher 'good' and 'bad', and stuff like that. It's really silly that so many non-religious people are so dogmatic about their 'godly' certainties. I think it should be seen in a historical context, and not taken for granted that people believe things so dogmatically.

I try to reflect on the possibility that this is all simple physics but fail to swallow it. I wonder, Neuro, if you can take your own advice. For instance, how much do you know about Buddhism or Eastern thought?

A bit. I read the basics of Buddhism. At basically every line of Buddhist teachings you can say: "What? Why? Maybe that's your oppinoin, but that isn't nessecerially so". Also, reincarnation is pretty gay, I hope we can agree on that. ('gay' as in something stated as a fact, with no proper proof and completely contradicting the things we do know about the mind and the (absence of the eternal) soul.

Have you ever read a sutra? Have you ever really considered it, or was it just a class that you took in college with a closed mind relative to your perspective?

Did I say in my previous post you call everyone that doesn't go with your nonsense assumptions 'close minded', or did I saw that in a different post?

Probably didn't read a sutra. But since I do happen to know Buddha wasn't really big on the whole scientific method, I see no reason why he could disprove the scientific facts we do know about the mind, and the (because-of-evolution) relativeness of morality.

You come off as angry, and I wonder why? You don't have to hate people who think differently than you, or accuse them of being illogical.

Have a discussion with the guy called 'really' and 'cyclic13' on this topic, or just look at their 'shingronicity' topic. Really, I rather discuss with a christian fundamentalist, they are often more rational. I completely don't like Christian fundamentalists, so I rather debate things on the internet 'with an edge' to express my disliking of the rapists-of-quantum-mechanics-and-all-things-great-to-science, the new-age faggots.

We are all trying to understand the world we live in. You are obviously intelligent and I would like to debate this with you. Maybe you aren't interested, but if you take a deep breath than maybe you will see that you give good advice with considering new possibilities. If it's true for me than it must be true for you, especially since it's your own advice.

Yeah, well, I have to say that you appear to be one of the least silly new-age / spiritual / boeddhists I talked to on the internet in a long time. So 'kudos' for that. (Whatever it means, but it appears to be something positive to say.)

Oh, so don't get a wrong idea about the 'humanist atheists' because I personally discussus things on the internet in a pretty cynical way. Most atheists, and I myself in a discussion off the internet, are more likely to discussus in a civil way like O'nus and Xei do.

Oh, and I wouldn't call myself a humanist. From what I know of humanists, they are all about 'human rights' and stuff like that. I think the concept of 'human rights' are pretty silly and dogmatic. I am all for a liberal democratic state and for help to homeless people and such, but I accept my reasons to be more arbitrary and relative, and don't base my convictions on dogmatic assumptions about 'inherent human worth' or something. More like 'externally projected human worth because I have mirror neurons and empathy'.

Anyhow, yeah I would like to discuss and I'll 'try to keep an open mind'.

That said, I don't think computers will ever become "conscious," not like we are. I think they will mimick it to the point where we can't tell the difference, but I don't think they will trully know what it is to feel pain, or suffering, or happiness, or joy. I do leave room for being wrong on this. Discussing this issue is actually very relevant to this topic.

I will simply ask: Why? What is inherently unique about human brains? Regardless of whether or not very different kinds of mind can exist, could a brain made of transistors that behave exactly in the same way as neurons, organized in the exact same ways as neurons in my brain, be concious? I honestly don't see why. You just assume things have to be biological to be concious?? (or does attributing equal concious to machines clash with your concept of a soul or karma or reincarnation?? )

Something else I would point out here (I have already done so with no reply) is that if we were to actually create machines that became self aware than we would be their Gods would we not? We would have created them, as a new race of being in the universe, and therefore we would be their God. Would this not create a problem in regards to Atheism?

See, this is what I mean with post-Christian. You seem to have this idea of a sort of 'essence' that goes along with 'being (something's) god'. Isn't 'god' just a word to by synonymous to 'creator' here? Is a watch-maker god of his watch? Really, it's just a matter of silly definition. The way you use 'god' simply signifies a relation between an object (a human) and a concious being resulting from it (an artificial mind in this case), are parents your gods? Are bio-engineers, that can create animals, in the near future from normal, not-egg, cells, gods? Would be pretty lame to call them that, and it would only be a random label with no intrinsic meaning. Nothing magically appears when we could create artificial minds. So it totally isn't a problem for atheists.

I trully wonder about this. If it's possible for humans to create consciousness using their brains, which are supposedly nothing more than complicated biological mechanics, than the concept of God would have to be possible. Where do you stand on this? It's something I have never thought about before.

How does the possibility of concept of god have anything to do with our minds being a result of purely physical things? I don't see the relation. The very reason people dropped dualism and started to think the mind is a direct result from the physical brain is because there is no reason (or room, actually) for things like 'god(s)' and 'souls'. The fact that mind exists by virtue of matter doesn't mean god puts it there, or that something magical arises.

Anyhow. I don't see all that many blind assumptions or faults in my reasoning, since it is pretty much the same as a truckload of scientists and philosophers that make a live out of looking for blind assumptions and faults. I do however see a few blind assumptions in your reasoning. So. Become a physicalist (aka materialist), m'okay?

hmmmmm in regards to tests proving that our thoughts are just chemical reactions and science can manipulate with drugs or some other probing of the brain, then you would be forgetting that a lot of these test subjects were still able to say "I was aware my own thoughts were not really mine"

anyone who meditates would understand the phenomenon of awareness being entirely separate from thoughts and emotions

when you meditate you can separate yourself from any current thought floating in your mind. you can witness this thought as if it isn't yours. you can experience pure consciousness that is not worried or concerned, because all those nagging thoughts are far away from you *or aren't really your thoughts once you have separated from ego*. this pure consciousness is always in a state of peace.

this isn't a crazy idea that people came up with to brain wash you.

its something people experience first hand

experience it first hand if you don't believe. experience it first hand if you do believe!

Consciousness is a synonym for awareness.

End thread?