A plea for Consciousness

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

A plea for Consciousness

Postby waechter418 » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:03 pm

As most of the responses to my posts regarding Consciousness were attempts to bind it into psycho/somatic frameworks, I feel obliged to plead for its liberty.
If consciousness should ever have had psycho/somatic confines, it transcended them latest at the time of LaoTzu, Buddha & Socrates, about 2500 years ago. Attempts to confine it again, are (to say the least) quite unreasonable – particularly in a time when its capabilities are dearly needed.
User avatar
waechter418
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:33 pm
Location: Costa Rica

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:12 am

Why do you want for it to be something magical and mysterious?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24517
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Wyld » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:23 pm

waechter418 wrote:As most of the responses to my posts regarding Consciousness were attempts to bind it into psycho/somatic frameworks, I feel obliged to plead for its liberty.
If consciousness should ever have had psycho/somatic confines, it transcended them latest at the time of LaoTzu, Buddha & Socrates, about 2500 years ago. Attempts to confine it again, are (to say the least) quite unreasonable – particularly in a time when its capabilities are dearly needed.


What do you even think consciousness is? Do you seriously think there is such a thing as "consciousness itself" or as somehow utterly independent of material bodies?
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:25 pm

Qualia is not the brain.

A colorblind scientist can understand the red in the brain, but not red in the mind.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Wyld » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:34 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Qualia is not the brain.

A colorblind scientist can understand the red in the brain, but not red in the mind.


You don't seem to... grasp what it is I'm saying.

Ok then.

"Qualia" is a fairly useless concept. It basically just stands in for "that which is ineffable", the self-irreducibility of subjective experiential form. Right-- these forms are indeed self-irreducible, precisely because they terminate in only themselves and beyond any mere "analysis" or "empiricism".

So basically you're asking the wrong questions.
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:41 pm

What are the right questions? What is consciousness?

Consciousness is the I, the Eye, the fact of perception.
Since there is matter in this universe i doubt it will ever run out of content to percieve

qualia is an information data set which contains information
All a colorblind scientist knows about the brain IS qualia, 2+2=4 is a qualia, black text on a screen
so a person who is not colorblind actually has more information than someone who doesn't
this information cannot be accessed by another person who is outside their brain, which means the information is contained within consciousness or the soul itself
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Wyld » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:44 pm

As I said elsewhere, consciousness is basically just the fact that material organic systems developed enough subtlety and sophistication to become capable of responding directly to non-material things. It really is that simple.
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:03 pm

No its not that simple, but I appreciate you taking the time to only make it a paragraph to say this. Daniel Dennett took 500 pages to say the same thing
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Wyld » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:06 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:No its not that simple, but I appreciate you taking the time to only make it a paragraph to say this. Daniel Dennett took 500 pages to say the same thing


Explain how/why you think it isn't that simple.
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:13 pm

Wyld wrote:
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:No its not that simple, but I appreciate you taking the time to only make it a paragraph to say this. Daniel Dennett took 500 pages to say the same thing


Explain how/why you think it isn't that simple.


An analogy would be saying, "The explanation of magnet trains, is that a magnet trains moves using a magnet."
Not a satisfying answer.

Not satisfying because,
Doesn't explain the history behind building the magnet train, the exact mechanics of the magnet train, and the destination of the magnet train.

I am looking for, what is the History behind why consciousness is here on Earth, What exactly in the brain causes consciousness to operate, and perhaps are their functions outside of the brain such as a soul. And what is the destination of consciousness after it leaves our bodies
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:15 pm

Why is consciousness here on Earth when their are 5 million other bodies.

Why is consciousness here in this body when there are 5 million other bodies
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Wyld » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:46 pm

Consciousness arose on earth as a result of very simple organisms mutating their genes in such a way that allowed for an inside and outside partition to be erected between the organism and its environment, for example the boundary of a cell as its membrane, basically an exclusionary zone; originally there were very simple free floating RNA strands drawing amino acids and heat from the primordial soup around them to further the most basic replication of the strand, but soon strands started to code for basis "proteins" that allowed for some degree of protection as isolation from the soup and from other strands or from environmental hazards, namely an RNA strand that has mutated randomly to code for the creation of some protein molecules around itself was able to survive a bit more easily than strands without that. This was the beginning of evolution as natural selection, and over time RNA strands of amino acids became longer and coded for more complex proteins until basically a "cell" formed. The first cell was able to isolate itself from the surroundings via a cell membrane wall, which wall was also porous in the right way to allow needed amino acids inside for replication of the RNA strand. Eventually cells became able to provide for their own energy by converting other proteins taken from the environment (other RNA proto-cells) into energy as breaking apart those proteins to extract the amino acids out of which they are made, and using released chemical energy from these molecular processes as cellular energy to power an increasingly complex cellular protein machinery.

Later, small protein structures evolved to allow the cell to move around via little tail-like protrusions. This meant that the cell could divert some of its internal chemical energy into that tail causing it to spasm around, causing the cell to move randomly, which increased mobility and thus allowed further increase to survival potential since this cell was now able to encounter more free amino acids and more proteins from its environment than were other cells without such tails and thus basically just sat there helplessly in the currents of the soup.

From here, natural selection took these proto-cells to multicellular organisms and eventually to the first sea life. At some point a photosensitive cell evolved, which is just a cell that was able to respond inside itself to a differential of photons impacting the chemical machinery in that cell, and natural selection selected this mutation because now the organism could respond to the presence or absence of light. And so on and so on, until a whole cellular molecular machinery of sensorium had evolved. Look up sometime the molecular processes involved in your own eyesight, you will be amazed how utterly complex and intricate these processes are.

Eventually you had organisms evolving a central area in the multi-cell structure for where inputs from the sensorium converged, which allowed for different sense inputs to affect each other directly, leading to de facto coordination of inputs, leading to increased ability of the organism to direct its own movements to move toward what was good for it and avoid what was bad for it: this architecture of moving toward or away is what we call instincts, which rigidified over a long time as natural selection selected certain configurations of the sensoriums that happened to benefit the organism itself, by making it sensitive to the presence of nutrients and forming a connection between the flailing of the tail and the senses that could detect nutrients, again thanks to the convergence of inputs and outputs that would later become the nervous system.

Organisms that got eaten or that ate things unhealthy to it simply died off as their RNA structures did not live long enough to reproduce, so the evolution was being refined both ways, positively and negatively, until organisms were highly specialized to thrive in their environments.

Now, "consciousness" is basically just this same system of the evolving environmentally-sensitive organism carried forward to the nth power; eventually the instinct pathways were extensive enough and lengthy (internally spatial) enough qua chemical molecular chain-reaction processes that "time" appears in them, namely the time it takes from the impact of a stimulus to the reaction it ultimately causes from the organism was sufficient to produce an inner sense of time passing, which simply means that those instinct pathways were long and complex enough to tie in other instincts and biological processes, which meant that instinct became "self-responsive" and able to mediate its own interactions by siphoning off some of the chemical impetus from the chemical chain-reaction into other processes. This allowed for an "inner world" to start to appear as a kind of sense of the organism to itself, its ability to start to respond internally to its own responses... eventually this created mammal life and then humans.

Our own human consciousness is simply this mammal structure taken to the nth degree, and by various lucky genetic mutations we developed the capacity for digital (concrete repeatable phonemes) speech, for a weaker jaw muscle which allowed the cranium to soften and expand to allow a larger brain, and opposable thumbs that allow hugely increased controlled interaction with the environment. Long story short, early human ancestors evolved from primates as all those changes converged and we developed the basic capacity for, as I already called it, using our physical material organism and brains to respond to non-physical, non-material conditions such as the fact of something, or the deeper meaning of something, or the non-immediate of something (predicting a future state before it obtains). This is basically what our "self-consciousness" is now, a very complex machine of material processes that fills itself in with non-material things ("ideas", etc.) in order to self-reprogram ourselves and each other over time and as what we call thought, emotions, and culture. This all gives us access to far more truth than any other animal can access. It's what allowed us to make acute observations and record these in external texts and stories able to survive our own death and to spread insights to others who can read those texts or stories, thereby creating a huge external universe of ideas that grows over time. It is by virtue of that universe of ideas, so called, that infants today are educated and able to become human, otherwise without it they would just be feral, like feral kids raised in isolation from other people; such kids don't become human, because they lack access to the universe or collected ideas and programmed response-patterns that make us human.

Consciousness is just a very complex system of reflex and response, and in humans this includes very complex self-reflexivity and self-responsiveness as well.

As for souls or consciousness outside the body, I can't speak to that.
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby gib » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:22 pm

waechter418 wrote:As most of the responses to my posts regarding Consciousness were attempts to bind it into psycho/somatic frameworks, I feel obliged to plead for its liberty.
If consciousness should ever have had psycho/somatic confines, it transcended them latest at the time of LaoTzu, Buddha & Socrates, about 2500 years ago. Attempts to confine it again, are (to say the least) quite unreasonable – particularly in a time when its capabilities are dearly needed.


What makes you think consciousness is separable from the body?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:23 pm

gib wrote:
waechter418 wrote:As most of the responses to my posts regarding Consciousness were attempts to bind it into psycho/somatic frameworks, I feel obliged to plead for its liberty.
If consciousness should ever have had psycho/somatic confines, it transcended them latest at the time of LaoTzu, Buddha & Socrates, about 2500 years ago. Attempts to confine it again, are (to say the least) quite unreasonable – particularly in a time when its capabilities are dearly needed.


What makes you think consciousness is separable from the body?


OBE's.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby gib » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:31 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:OBE's.


Have you or waechter experienced this?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Along The Way » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:09 pm

gib wrote:
waechter418 wrote:As most of the responses to my posts regarding Consciousness were attempts to bind it into psycho/somatic frameworks, I feel obliged to plead for its liberty.
If consciousness should ever have had psycho/somatic confines, it transcended them latest at the time of LaoTzu, Buddha & Socrates, about 2500 years ago. Attempts to confine it again, are (to say the least) quite unreasonable – particularly in a time when its capabilities are dearly needed.


What makes you think consciousness is separable from the body?


One problem is that no one has ever, ever, ever, found consciousness in a body. We can chop the brain into a million pieces but we'll never see consciousness. Only matter.

The second thing is that people have and can experience themselves as pure awareness, not located in any body or any other material "thing". From this perspective the body not only seems like one object among many, but also it seems like the body is contained inside the mind and not vice versa. Further, this experience feels far more real, pure, natural, etc. then the typical experience of the mind being somewhere in the head/body.

Now I'm not going to outright say that there is not connection between consciousness and the body. Clearly there is. But I can't say for certain that consciousness is reducible to the body any more than I can say that I am reducible to my car.
Along The Way
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:46 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Wyld » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:17 pm

Along The Way wrote:
gib wrote:
waechter418 wrote:As most of the responses to my posts regarding Consciousness were attempts to bind it into psycho/somatic frameworks, I feel obliged to plead for its liberty.
If consciousness should ever have had psycho/somatic confines, it transcended them latest at the time of LaoTzu, Buddha & Socrates, about 2500 years ago. Attempts to confine it again, are (to say the least) quite unreasonable – particularly in a time when its capabilities are dearly needed.


What makes you think consciousness is separable from the body?


One problem is that no one has ever, ever, ever, found consciousness in a body. We can chop the brain into a million pieces but we'll never see consciousness. Only matter.

The second thing is that people have and can experience themselves as pure awareness, not located in any body or any other material "thing". From this perspective the body not only seems like one object among many, but also it seems like the body is contained inside the mind and not vice versa. Further, this experience feels far more real, pure, natural, etc. then the typical experience of the mind being somewhere in the head/body.

Now I'm not going to outright say that there is not connection between consciousness and the body. Clearly there is. But I can't say for certain that consciousness is reducible to the body any more than I can say that I am reducible to my car.


If you get a brain injury, your consciousness changes.

If you ingest brain-altering chemicals, your consciousness changes.

If your body is under stress, your consciousness changes.

If you get a bullet through the head, your consciousness changes.

Basically, consciousness is something that emerges from a certain kind of structure of the brain+body and the interaction of that structure with experiences. To believe anything else is nonsensical, unconfirmed reports of OBE's notwithstanding.
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:31 pm

Wyld wrote:Consciousness arose on earth as a result of very simple organisms mutating their genes in such a way that allowed for an inside and outside partition to be erected between the organism and its environment, for example the boundary of a cell as its membrane, basically an exclusionary zone; originally there were very simple free floating RNA strands drawing amino acids and heat from the primordial soup around them to further the most basic replication of the strand, but soon strands started to code for basis "proteins" that allowed for some degree of protection as isolation from the soup and from other strands or from environmental hazards, namely an RNA strand that has mutated randomly to code for the creation of some protein molecules around itself was able to survive a bit more easily than strands without that. This was the beginning of evolution as natural selection, and over time RNA strands of amino acids became longer and coded for more complex proteins until basically a "cell" formed. The first cell was able to isolate itself from the surroundings via a cell membrane wall, which wall was also porous in the right way to allow needed amino acids inside for replication of the RNA strand. Eventually cells became able to provide for their own energy by converting other proteins taken from the environment (other RNA proto-cells) into energy as breaking apart those proteins to extract the amino acids out of which they are made, and using released chemical energy from these molecular processes as cellular energy to power an increasingly complex cellular protein machinery.

Later, small protein structures evolved to allow the cell to move around via little tail-like protrusions. This meant that the cell could divert some of its internal chemical energy into that tail causing it to spasm around, causing the cell to move randomly, which increased mobility and thus allowed further increase to survival potential since this cell was now able to encounter more free amino acids and more proteins from its environment than were other cells without such tails and thus basically just sat there helplessly in the currents of the soup.

From here, natural selection took these proto-cells to multicellular organisms and eventually to the first sea life. At some point a photosensitive cell evolved, which is just a cell that was able to respond inside itself to a differential of photons impacting the chemical machinery in that cell, and natural selection selected this mutation because now the organism could respond to the presence or absence of light. And so on and so on, until a whole cellular molecular machinery of sensorium had evolved. Look up sometime the molecular processes involved in your own eyesight, you will be amazed how utterly complex and intricate these processes are.

Eventually you had organisms evolving a central area in the multi-cell structure for where inputs from the sensorium converged, which allowed for different sense inputs to affect each other directly, leading to de facto coordination of inputs, leading to increased ability of the organism to direct its own movements to move toward what was good for it and avoid what was bad for it: this architecture of moving toward or away is what we call instincts, which rigidified over a long time as natural selection selected certain configurations of the sensoriums that happened to benefit the organism itself, by making it sensitive to the presence of nutrients and forming a connection between the flailing of the tail and the senses that could detect nutrients, again thanks to the convergence of inputs and outputs that would later become the nervous system.

Organisms that got eaten or that ate things unhealthy to it simply died off as their RNA structures did not live long enough to reproduce, so the evolution was being refined both ways, positively and negatively, until organisms were highly specialized to thrive in their environments.

Now, "consciousness" is basically just this same system of the evolving environmentally-sensitive organism carried forward to the nth power; eventually the instinct pathways were extensive enough and lengthy (internally spatial) enough qua chemical molecular chain-reaction processes that "time" appears in them, namely the time it takes from the impact of a stimulus to the reaction it ultimately causes from the organism was sufficient to produce an inner sense of time passing, which simply means that those instinct pathways were long and complex enough to tie in other instincts and biological processes, which meant that instinct became "self-responsive" and able to mediate its own interactions by siphoning off some of the chemical impetus from the chemical chain-reaction into other processes. This allowed for an "inner world" to start to appear as a kind of sense of the organism to itself, its ability to start to respond internally to its own responses... eventually this created mammal life and then humans.

Our own human consciousness is simply this mammal structure taken to the nth degree, and by various lucky genetic mutations we developed the capacity for digital (concrete repeatable phonemes) speech, for a weaker jaw muscle which allowed the cranium to soften and expand to allow a larger brain, and opposable thumbs that allow hugely increased controlled interaction with the environment. Long story short, early human ancestors evolved from primates as all those changes converged and we developed the basic capacity for, as I already called it, using our physical material organism and brains to respond to non-physical, non-material conditions such as the fact of something, or the deeper meaning of something, or the non-immediate of something (predicting a future state before it obtains). This is basically what our "self-consciousness" is now, a very complex machine of material processes that fills itself in with non-material things ("ideas", etc.) in order to self-reprogram ourselves and each other over time and as what we call thought, emotions, and culture. This all gives us access to far more truth than any other animal can access. It's what allowed us to make acute observations and record these in external texts and stories able to survive our own death and to spread insights to others who can read those texts or stories, thereby creating a huge external universe of ideas that grows over time. It is by virtue of that universe of ideas, so called, that infants today are educated and able to become human, otherwise without it they would just be feral, like feral kids raised in isolation from other people; such kids don't become human, because they lack access to the universe or collected ideas and programmed response-patterns that make us human.

Consciousness is just a very complex system of reflex and response, and in humans this includes very complex self-reflexivity and self-responsiveness as well.

As for souls or consciousness outside the body, I can't speak to that.


Cool story bro
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:36 pm

Wyld wrote:If you get a brain injury, your consciousness changes.

If you ingest brain-altering chemicals, your consciousness changes.

If your body is under stress, your consciousness changes.

If you get a bullet through the head, your consciousness changes.

Basically, consciousness is something that emerges from a certain kind of structure of the brain+body and the interaction of that structure with experiences. To believe anything else is nonsensical, unconfirmed reports of OBE's notwithstanding.


You think i have never been shot in alternate dimensions? I have been shot multiple times. I know what it feels like to nearly die. You can still think when you are dying, you make deals with God until they use 50 caliber.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:42 pm

Wyld wrote:If you get a brain injury, your consciousness changes.

If you ingest brain-altering chemicals, your consciousness changes.

If your body is under stress, your consciousness changes.

If you get a bullet through the head, your consciousness changes.

Basically, consciousness is something that emerges from a certain kind of structure of the brain+body and the interaction of that structure with experiences. To believe anything else is nonsensical, unconfirmed reports of OBE's notwithstanding.


Not really no. Your consciousness never really changes. Well at least mine does not. I have a distinct experience of being a spectator to my own reality, my voice/body at times, distinctly feels like it is someone else whom I don't identify with.
I had a near death experience before, my consciousness didn't really change, it felt the same.
Saying consciousness changes is like saying your consciousness changes when you enter a 711. The stimulus entering your consciousness changes but your consciousness remains the same
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby gib » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:54 pm

Along The Way wrote:One problem is that no one has ever, ever, ever, found consciousness in a body.


Why should they? Consciousness only exists as a first-person phenomenon--you can't find it by looking for a third-person phenomenon.

Along The Way wrote:The second thing is that people have and can experience themselves as pure awareness, not located in any body or any other material "thing". From this perspective the body not only seems like one object among many, but also it seems like the body is contained inside the mind and not vice versa. Further, this experience feels far more real, pure, natural, etc. then the typical experience of the mind being somewhere in the head/body.


I find it dubious to speculate on what some esoteric experience feels like as evidence for the possibility of the mind leaving the body. The only thing that would really challenge a view like mine (that the human mind is irrevocably tied to the brain) is OBEs; so unless this experience of "pure awareness" (whatever that is) is like looking at your body from a remote location, I'd say: why can't the brain just produce such an experience?

Along The Way wrote:Now I'm not going to outright say that there is not connection between consciousness and the body. Clearly there is. But I can't say for certain that consciousness is reducible to the body any more than I can say that I am reducible to my car.


For the record, I wouldn't say that either. I'd say the body, or the brain, is reducible to the mind--but I still maintain they are inseparable.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:58 pm

You think I haven't explored to the depths? You think I haven't thought of everything that can be thought of?

How many of you have the courage to say what needs to be said, how have the courage to put down the dick of science and the cup of mainstream popular tea-logic and the balls to do so and say what needs to be said. I'm not some bible thumper, I have played and toyed with atheism and went to its depths. I have thought about the great sea of nothingness and the cosmos and the universe more than many men. How many of you, day end and day out, thought abut the art of nothingness and the idea of the void? I have thought in many ways and pushed many boundaries and in fact many things have changed because of thoughts like mine.

How many of you, would ridicule, scoff and mock the idea of spirits, anything that doesn't conform to your self-inflicted limited way of empirical reason, just to feel a girlish satiation and to pat your self on the shoulder as you drink your metaphorical tea? How many of you, really ponder reality and spirituality to the very depths, pushing beyond even the envelopes of the philosophers before you, fearing not uncharted ideas and philosophies? How many of you really self-examine, and can objectively scrutinize and criticize their own philosophy and how many, would abandon their own philosophies at a moments notice, without experiencing any pangs of regret?

How many of you argue just to argue, and not arguing to explore new ideas, but just enforce set ways of thinking?
Think about how you are still here, in this body, in the flesh, and think about the ideas of the multiverse, is it not plausible and possible that there are, alternate outcomes, alternate dimensions, in where, you are gravely injured? And is it not possible that we, are still here, because our timeless consciousness automatically enters the dimension in which we maintain our existence? And when one piles up years upon years of life experience, one can feel deep in their bones, echoes and glimmers of what could have been, one can empathize and understand experiences which did not quite happen, yet, are felt deep in your bones.

Does providing a long and detailed explanation of the mechanical machinations of life, much of which is unproven, actually explain consciousness? It no more explains consciousness that would be explaining the functions of an IBM computer.

As far as OBE's go, science and society, is unprofessional and needs to get serious about it. Nurses need to do proper, scientific, OBE testing, using playing card technique, in all hospitals
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:02 am

If Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawkins, Neil De Grasse Tyson, and Daniel Dennett were all in a room with me, they would all kneel before me, inherently sensing my superiority, due to my pheromones, as well as their psychic realization in awe of my dominance, and recognition of my greatness

This is not a joke
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:05 am

I have outdebated stronger men, more creative men than they, I have boosted my mental agility with the talk of the best of the best, the Internet is not for the passive or the faint
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A plea for Consciousness

Postby Along The Way » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:19 am

gib wrote:
Along The Way wrote:One problem is that no one has ever, ever, ever, found consciousness in a body.


Why should they? Consciousness only exists as a first-person phenomenon--you can't find it by looking for a third-person phenomenon.

Along The Way wrote:The second thing is that people have and can experience themselves as pure awareness, not located in any body or any other material "thing". From this perspective the body not only seems like one object among many, but also it seems like the body is contained inside the mind and not vice versa. Further, this experience feels far more real, pure, natural, etc. then the typical experience of the mind being somewhere in the head/body.


I find it dubious to speculate on what some esoteric experience feels like as evidence for the possibility of the mind leaving the body. The only thing that would really challenge a view like mine (that the human mind is irrevocably tied to the brain) is OBEs; so unless this experience of "pure awareness" (whatever that is) is like looking at your body from a remote location, I'd say: why can't the brain just produce such an experience?

Along The Way wrote:Now I'm not going to outright say that there is not connection between consciousness and the body. Clearly there is. But I can't say for certain that consciousness is reducible to the body any more than I can say that I am reducible to my car.


For the record, I wouldn't say that either. I'd say the body, or the brain, is reducible to the mind--but I still maintain they are inseparable.


I believe they are inseparable as well. I made the mistake of confusing "inseparable" from "reducible".
Along The Way
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:46 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Peter Kropotkin, surreptitious57