On Consciousness

[schuyler]

Consciousness is really quite simple. The reason so many people grapple with it is because they cannot get rid of the materialist paradigm. The basic idea is the assumption that consciousness emerges from the physical, from the brain, and is the result of firing synapses and chemicals creating an environment where consciousness can thrive. he idea is that consciousness is an emergent property from the physical. The amount of time and effort spent on attempting to explain consciousness in terms of the physical is prodigious, and completely wrong.

Consciousness does not come from the physical. It utilizes (and requires) the physical to manifest. You can still say that consciousness emerges from the physical, but it may be more correct to say it emerges out of the physical in the same way a television program emerges out of the television set. The physical TV has all the circuits and parts necessary to pick up a signal and play it through the TV set. No one would ever claim that the TV program came out of or was created by the TV set itself. The program was created elsewhere and packaged in such a way that it could manifest through the TV set to be seen by the viewer.

When I was a child growing up in the fifties there were quite a few westerns on the three TV channels that were available. I imagined that all the dead cowboys and Indians had to be lying dead in the back of the television set and that if I could get the back of the TV off, that's where I would find them. My father disabused me of this notion when he did that very thing and took the many tubes to the grocery store to a testing machine so he could find the broken ones. There was a lot of dust and cobwebs in back of the TV, but no dead cowboys. Of course I also was afraid to sit in front of the TV in my pajamas because I feared the host of "I Search for Adventure," Jack Douglas, could see I wasn't properly dressed.

You are not going to get anywhere useful in explaining consciousness until you accept the fact that there is more to reality than just the physical. Yes, that's anathema to "science," but you still need to change your ideas of what constitutes reality. Consciousness does not inherently reside "here." Of course, if you call consciousness the "soul" you get into even more trouble with the enlightened people of science, but let's just try it as a mental exercise. For consciousness to manifest in the physical realm it requires a physical brain with all those synapses and chemicals. Once that connection is made you can do what you need to do here. If you need or want to do advanced physics, you need a brain capable of it. That's why apes can't do it. Their brains are not sufficiently developed to allow them to manage those types of thoughts. They still have consciousness, just as all animals do, but their brains are like black and white TV sets without the capacity to show advanced color. Their brains limit their abilities. The growth in the ability of consciousness to express itself requires advanced evolution in brains.

Of course there is a massive feedback loop going on vis-s-vis evolution. You need opposable thumbs and a sufficiently long lifetime to allow for education before you can embark on civilization. So it's complex, to be sure. But NONE of this implies God or Jesus or any of the religious mumbo jumbo that has retarded us as a species. That is what scares materialists the most, the idea that if they accept the duality of consciousness then they must accept dealing with the religious crazies. Don't worry; they're still crazy, but my guess is that the more thoughtful theologians know this very well. As one scientist put it years ago: As you travel up the mountain of understanding searching for the truth, you may very well find the theologians at the top waiting for you.

[midicon]

What evidence do you have that consciousness is not an emergent property?

I don't think 'materialists' are scared, that's just silly.

[schuyler]

What evidence do you have that consciousness is not an emergent property?

I don't think 'materialists' are scared, that's just silly.

No, it's not. The domiant materialist view is that EVERYTHING is physical. Why? Because "science" and the "scientific method" is and was a reaction against the nonsense of the religious views about reality, which was dominated by God, angels, magic and miracles, heaven and hell. The scientific world view does not admit that such things can exist. In that view, it is impossibe. If you try to suggest that Reality is somewhat different, just look at the result.

Your post is a perfect example.

Your "soul" is the program. The TV set is the "brain."  Materilists look in the back of the TV set and can't find the program, so their conclusion is that the program is an emergent property of the TV set.

That's just silly.

[midicon]

I'm asking what evidence you have. I don't believe in Gods, angels magic and miracles heaven and hell.

I am open to different perspectives on reality but maybe just a little something to support your claim that consciousness is more than just an emergent property would make it more than just an opinion.

[schuyler]

I'm asking what evidence you have. I don't believe in Gods, angels magic and miracles heaven and hell.

I am open to different perspectives on reality but maybe just a little something to support your claim that consciousness is more than just an emergent property would make it more than just an opinion.

 
Of course you don't believe in Gods, angels magic miracles heaven and hell. It would be surprising if you did. For the most part, neither do I. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And that's exactly what science has done. Because of the aversion and FEAR of Gods and angels.... absolutely nothing of the sort is allowed. Science claims it is open-minded. I find that laughable. 

That consciousness is an emergent property is also an opinion. What evidence do you have of that? Thousands of pages have been written about consciousness, most tortured explanations that make no sense. In all those thousands of pages, articles, and theories the one conclusion reached is: "We don't know what consciousness is." I'm providing a framework to discuss what consciousness is. I am no more required to "prove" my contention than you are required to prove consciousness is an emergent property. If that's what you think, you prove it. As far as I know, that has never been proven.  It's just been assumed by science as part of that world view. It is myopic. And that world view is preventing us from understanding the larger issues. 

I am going to diverge from this exact subject in my next post and try to tie it together after that...

[midicon]

No, it's not. The domiant materialist view is that EVERYTHING is physical. Why? Because "science" and the "scientific method" is and was a reaction against the nonsense of the religious views about reality, which was dominated by God, angels, magic and miracles, heaven and hell. The scientific world view does not admit that such things can exist. In that view, it is impossibe. If you try to suggest that Reality is somewhat different, just look at the result.

Your post is a perfect example.

Your "soul" is the program. The TV set is the "brain."  Materilists look in the back of the TV set and can't find the program, so their conclusion is that the program is an emergent property of the TV set.

That's just silly.

 

 
Of course you don't believe in Gods, angels magic miracles heaven and hell. It would be surprising if you did. For the most part, neither do I. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And that's exactly what science has done. Because of the aversion and FEAR of Gods and angels.... absolutely nothing of the sort is allowed. Science claims it is open-minded. I find that laughable. 

That consciousness is an emergent property is also an opinion. What evidence do you have of that? Thousands of pages have been written about consciousness, most tortured explanations that make no sense. In all those thousands of pages, articles, and theories the one conclusion reached is: "We don't know what consciousness is." I'm providing a framework to discuss what consciousness is. I am no more required to "prove" my contention than you are required to prove consciousness is an emergent property. If that's what you think, you prove it. As far as I know, that has never been proven.  It's just been assumed by science as part of that world view. It is myopic. And that world view is preventing us from understanding the larger issues. 

I am going to diverge from this exact subject in my next post and try to tie it together after that...

I don't know what consciousness is. I'm not throwing the baby out either. you seemed set in your opinion and statement. Rather than use the word evidence I should have perhaps said what do you base it on. I'm not a hard headed pragmatist.

[Maxmars]

Perhaps consciousness is not a concept that actually applies to physics.

One could always maintain that the sensory equipment that comes with the "human" package cannot include within it, the ability to 'consciously' perceive 'how' it exists without actually escaping the perceptional reality in which it presides.  Which leads to a corollary idea... namely that our perceptions are captive to physical reality, we can hardly articulate in language that which we don't actually experience perceptually.  Proof would necessarily require something that anyone could perceive... if the former is true, the latter cannot be.

There lot's of fiction works that touch on this, and some non-fiction too.  But your topic summons up the effort to go past theory.

All I have are a bunch of obtuse questions... but some of them have meaning to me.

Consciousness seems best represented as a structured awareness, such that presents 'reality' to the 'thinker' in a context which can be objectified.  It manifests in communication - as would be necessary to process between distinct (multiple) consciousnesses...  Language is a means to make a tool of our capacity to generate and refine useful communications.  Language seems inextricably linked to consciousness.

Is consciousness a function of life? Could life exists without consciousness of some sort?  It seems, at least experimentally, like consciousness is not a prerequisite of life.  If it is a simple "data processing" trick, what point does language have... something evolving into hive-mindedness?

Our brains can be muddled by the environment we are in, the physiology of our bodies, even the traumas and events long passed... But somewhen, somewhere, someone decided that consciousness exists in a single organ within us.  (That perception is changing to some degree.)  If human consciousness exists only within the brain, then a person without one is just meat... not human.

Scientific materialism is what some call a "philosophy."  Others consider it existential angst manifesting in fear.  Still others call upon spiritual faith for bolstering against the difficult topic... but then "spiritual" is a concept that only makes the topic even MORE difficult.

[schuyler]

I've been interested in the UFO subject for fifty years now (I know; I can't quite believe it myself) In that time the field has undergone several transformations that mirror the consciousness topic. At first the issue was quite simple. Alien vehicles from other star systems were visiting our planet. They were "nuts and bolts" craft, i.e: They were physical carrying physical occupants through physical space to our planet. That's the Extra Terrestrial Hypotheses in a nutshell, the ETH. 

Except there are problems with this. The nearest star, Alpha Proxima, is 4.2 light years from Earth. Assuming that star had a planet that supported advanced life capable of interstellar travel, and assuming they had vehicles that could approach the speed of light, which has a whole host of problems all by itself, how could they get here? And other stars are even further away. Although today it looks like most stars may host planets, it is still statistically improbable that a single star system would have a planet with just the right conditions to support a civilization that would even want to come here.

Probably at least in part as a response to the inherent problems of the ETH came the "Interdimensional Hypothesis" The IDH. This actually takes several forms postulating everything from actual different dimensions in parallel with our own to the use of portals or wormholes or even black holes to circumvent the problems of faster-than-light travel. There appears to be no consensus on how exactly the IDH works, thus paralleling the problems some people have with consciousness not being emergent from physical properties. t also addresses the issue of flimsy UFOs. Why can they be shot down so easily? How could one of these craft travel in interstellar space? The answer is that they don't. In fact, they may not be from another star system. They may be from here, albeit from another dimension, as it were--just like consciousness. 

This realization has come about because UFOs don't appear to be playing by the rules of physical space. They defy the rules of physics, specifically inertia. They pop in and out of space. They travel way too fast. And there appears to be a paranormal aspect to their presence. Yeah: Paranormal. Science isn't too fond of that either, is it? Throw in a little reincarnation into the pot and you've lost most of them.

[midicon]

I was loathe to enter enter any conversation about consciousness. I did at one time now and then do so on ATS. I gave that up though as it never went anywhere. Some clever posters though did have alternate theories.
I commented here really just to involve myself and give this site some traffic. Your correlation and conflation between the UFO phenomena and consciousness is nothing new. Jung was sayig something similar almost a century ago.
I'm not sure why you brought up reincarnation in particular. You seem very much anti-science.

[schuyler]

I was loathe to enter enter any conversation about consciousness. I did at one time now and then do so on ATS. I gave that up though as it never went anywhere. Some clever posters though did have alternate theories.
I commented here really just to involve myself and give this site some traffic. Your correlation and conflation between the UFO phenomena and consciousness is nothing new. Jung was sayig something similar almost a century ago.
I'm not sure why you brought up reincarnation in particular. You seem very much anti-science.

I am very much pro-science. Indeed, I believe everything can be explained by science--eventually. IOW things like the paranormal aren't really paranormal. They are part of reality. They are just not sufficiently understood by science. Yet the paranormal has been scientfically verified hundreds of times. It's just that the scientific establishment is myopic in terms of its acceptance. That is typical, of course. Advances in science are hard fought. Witness plate tectonics, for example. And there was that book of 100 scientists telling Einstein that he was wrong. Einstein's response; "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." 

Reincarnation is part of the package accepted by many cultures other than "Western." Even then, western Christians will talk about Jesus coming again. Sounds like reincarnation to me. So it is wodely accepted even here, but with very special caveats. And if consciousness is really the soul inhabiting a physical body, reincarnation is but a small step.

The correlation between UFOs and consciousness may not be new, but if you have actually studied the phenomenon  over the decades you will know that it has evolved from a "nuts and bolts" interpretation to a realization that there is "something" about the subject that involves the paranormal and consciusness. That idea is relatively new to the mainstream UFO commmunity. The acceptance of this idea is in the "There may be something there" stage as no one seems to understand precisely what the issue is. 

My purpose is bringing up the subject of what consciousness actually is was the hope for some positive feedback. There has been some, for which I am grateful, but most has exhibited a lack of understanding, perhaps willful, of what I am trying to say. I haven't come across a decent refutation yet. There are always people like Phil Klass or Mick West who delight in throwing stones at new or different ideas. It doesn't matter in the long run because if I'm right, they'll find out eventually. And they will owe me an apology.