|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 15, 2012 0:20:37 GMT
I just did a search for threads about consciousness but I couldn't find any, so I thought I'd start one.
In my view consciousness is the real us. Consciousness isn't a physical thing, and the brain is not the source of our consciousness. We don't think with our brains, we think through our brains. To look at a brain and say that it's the source of everything about us is like looking at a TV and saying that the people on it are inside it.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 16, 2012 21:37:29 GMT
I just did a search for threads about consciousness but I couldn't find any, so I thought I'd start one. In my view consciousness is the real us. Consciousness isn't a physical thing, and the brain is not the source of our consciousness. We don't think with our brains, we think through our brains. To look at a brain and say that it's the source of everything about us is like looking at a TV and saying that the people on it are inside it. First, let us define consciousness to make sure we are all on the same page. What do you mean by consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 17, 2012 0:26:21 GMT
Awareness. Would you agree with that?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 17, 2012 23:26:26 GMT
Awareness. Would you agree with that? Okay, in that case, do you believe that we are aware after we die?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 17, 2012 23:53:53 GMT
I take it you agree that consciousness basically refers to awareness?
Do I believe that we're aware / conscious after our physical bodies stop functioning? Absolutely, very much so.
The usual question at this point would be, what evidence do I base this on. But let's be different and approach it from another angle. Let's think about things like, what is evidence? What makes one person believe what I do and another feel just as strongly in the opposite direction? What is consciousness? Who is conscious? Who is the observer? Is observing and awareness a physical object / phenomenon, or not? Is there a strong scientific concensus as to what conscious is? If not, why not? I think these points are much more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Jan 19, 2012 11:36:16 GMT
I take it you agree that consciousness basically refers to awareness? Do I believe that we're aware / conscious after our physical bodies stop functioning? Absolutely, very much so. In that case, do you think it is possible to communicate with awareness of dead people? If not, what do you base your belief on? Or is it a gut instinct? Evidence is supposed to be objective, repeatable and testable. If your experience cannot meet these minimum standards, it does not qualify as evidence. Of course, some people may have a dream about Jesus and think that the lord is communicating with them. This dream to them is very strong evidence, but only to them. People tend to make mistakes, and our senses can fool us, which is why anecdotes are not considered evidence. Person A can feel about a statement X a certain way. Person B can feel about statement X just as strongly in the opposite way. Who is right? Well, we examine statement X and determine its truth value. This is possible within the scientific community where tests can be done. But lets take the example of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Who is right? Israel thinks it is right, and Palestine thinks it is right. But what is the truth value of the occupation of Gaza Strip and the West Bank? The problem with these non scientific claims is that they are almost always subjective and have no real truth value, only a moral value or just (fairness) value. How can the observer make sure that the object (person) he is speaking to is aware? Well, we take that as granted, since we have vast experience that the people around us behave according to and around us. If I ask you something, I am guaranteed to get a response which makes sense to the question asked. This repeatable test allows me to know that you are a conscious being.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Jan 19, 2012 14:12:18 GMT
Evidence is based on conviction. If you don't have any conviction about anything, no opinions about reality, nothing, if you're an empty shell with no basic framework on which to hang stuff and judge it somehow, than you can't really have any evidence of anything, not even to yourself. Evidence itself isn't objective. It's relative to that framework. If I say I have evidence of something and I show the entire scientific community and they repeat it and test it and agree that what I said is true, that only proves that there's a whole bunch of people with the same framework. It doesn't prove that what I said is true.
A person can be hypnotized to see only what the hypnotists tells them to see, and to omit what they're instructed to omit. In our everyday lives we wouldn't be able to function if we were aware of all things (information overload), so we filter some out, and a hypnotist can tap into that ability and alter what we allow ourselves to perceive. What we "see" with our brains is a far cry from what actually enters our eyes, we're basically blind when it comes to perception of what's actually going on in the universe. We're extremely limited beings with limited perception. We filter out an awful lot and leave only that which we can handle and process. All these things and almost certainly a whole load more go to show that we have very little idea about reality. This is why we shouldn't automatically assume that any given opinion is based on fact, never mind an entire concensus.
So the question is, do we trust ourselves, or do we trust the concensus? A case could be made for trusting ourselves, not trusting ourselves, trusting the concensus, or not trusting the concensus. But we should bear in mind the basics, which is that we are very selective creatures and we can go from one type / level of awareness to another, and also that a concensus in itself is evidence of mutual agreement, not fact. Believing that if x number of people agree on something then it must have validity is based on the premise that if x number of people agree on something then it must have validity.
What does it mean to know anything? Does knowing depend on what others think, or how many of them think it, or what they base that on? No, knowing is when you know. And only you can know something, no one can know anything on your behalf. So where is the source of everything which you could possibly know? You. Your own experience. Sure, others can validate or reject that, but they can't make a truth a nontruth, or vice versa. And yes, sometimes we get it wrong and it's useful if others can demonstrate an error, but given that the only source for knowing anything is within ourselves, it would be foolish to say the least to reject our own experiences.
A couple of paragraphs ago I said that we have very little idea about reality. How does that tie in with what I'm saying now? Well, when considering ourselves and our own experiences, we need to bear in mind that we're limited in perception, but when considering the opinions and conclusions of a whole concensus of people we have to consider that a concensus is not really an opinion at all, it's the sum total / average of many, many limited and possibly inaccurate opinions. Given that none of those people can ever know anything on my behalf, I know who I'd rather trust (although you shouldn't outright reject common knowledge or views without consideration). You seem to have an aversion to subjective experience, but you needn't. At the end of the day, all you have is yourself anyway. If you have the capability to trust a concensus, you have the ability to trust yourself.
Yes, I do believe that it's possible to communicate with dead people.
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on Apr 21, 2012 18:11:49 GMT
Personally I think your view of conciousness is unnecessarily convoluted. However I would like to ask you a few questions for clarification: 1) you said our brains aren't the source.. so what is? 2) you say we think through our brains. what does this mean? how? in what way? 3) how can one communicate with dead people? Also you mentioned something related to this, so I thought you may find it interesting ('group wisdom'). If you can't be bothered to read it all, I'd just go for the 'classic example' bit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowdReality is more than just how things look (in the visual sense of the word). I think you are unjustifiably extrapolating findings about how our visual system works to other areas of life and philosophy. Which I must say is rather ironic considering you don't believe the CNS is producing our conciousness. Just because how something looks to you isn't the way it actually looks doesn't mean that your interpretation has no value. To me I can only gain one point from most of what you have written (in your latest post), which is that reality is subjective. Which I imagine is why you don't believe in the philosophical premises of science and thus reject it's values. Is this the point you were making or have I misunderstood?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Apr 25, 2012 15:26:40 GMT
The brain is a receiver. Our consciousness is the real us. The physical brain "hosts" our consciousness so that we can operate in a physical universe. Mainstream science assumes that the brain is where consciousness comes from. However mainstream science doesn't even know what consciousness is, let alone how the brain supposedly produces it.
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on Apr 27, 2012 10:53:38 GMT
You've pretty much already said that. Would you care to answer any of my questions so that I could understand your position better please?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on May 4, 2012 20:22:12 GMT
What don't you understand? How the brain is a receiver?
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on May 4, 2012 22:10:40 GMT
What don't you understand? How the brain is a receiver? If you refer to reply #7 you will find the questions I was referring to. (they are labelled 1, 2 & 3)
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on May 5, 2012 22:29:14 GMT
1) you said our brains aren't the source.. so what is?
I didn't mean to imply that consciousness has a source. It may do, it may not. All I said was that the brain isn't the source of consciousness. I'm not sure that consciousness has a source at all, I think consciousness just exists. Consciousness is who you are.
2) you say we think through our brains. what does this mean? how? in what way?
It means that our brains host our consciousness, just as a tv hosts tv programmes. The brain is a receiver. The "signal" is us, our consciousness. Our consciousness is what we are. We are non physical, but we operate in a physical world, and the brain is what allows us to do that.
3) how can one communicate with dead people?
I don't know.
When someone has a belief that the physical is all there is, it's understandable that when they become aware of the fact that there's brain activity whenever we do something or feel or think, that this is evidence of a physical thing (the brain) being the first cause of the activity. It fits with the belief that the physical is all there is.
We operate in a physical world. Everything that happens in this physical world is physical in nature. Of course it is. How else could it be? But there's no evidence that the tv programmes that appear on your tv originate from the tv. However if we didn't know better we would probably come to that conclusion. Likewise with the brain. "The physical is all there is" is a huge claim to make.
|
|