Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84679 wrote:

you "read" this somewhere

what is your source?

There is so much out there on nde's , i wonder if you have looked. Most of it is biased or self interested but its for you to read the reports and decide yourself. If you can imagine the patient reports an nde, the surgeon notes he had no signs of brain activity,they wonder how he might be able to be conscious of an event under those conditions. Now the sceptics argue the cortex does not show up as any brain scan activity, so is this where we live?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kaseijin,

It is rather unnerving to see people of such obvious intellect becoming so blind.

If you choose to consider spirituality as mumbo jumbo that is your prerogative, but to then attempt to make it seem as though anyone else that considers the possibility a very major part of mind /brain discussion is creating useless conversation, is simply suggesting that only what you believe is worth consideration.

That is a rather bold and obnoxious stance to take considering the degree of talent in this board.

If I was you I would not be telling others what they should or should not be addressing in these debates and stick to defending your own ideas and thoughts.

It is obvious that you and oden believe in the religion of science. it is your choice where you place your faith just like it is anyone elses' choice to believe in whjatever religion they choose. But to suggest that the life force of a human has nothing to do with the mind of a human is a little silly IMHO.

4 Replies

@Pathfinder,

The only way of resolving this matter is to devise rigorous experiments to test whether a transcendental consciousness or life force exists or not. I have no idea how that might be done to everyone's satisfaction, but that is what would be needed.

It would also help the transcendentalists' case if such entities could be shown to be measurable or quantifiable in some way. That might not appeal to those with an anti-science prejudice, but I just see science as an open-minded activity seeking to describe, explain and predict "what is there" in a detailed and consistent manner.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84683 wrote:

It is obvious that you and oden believe in the religion of science. it is your choice where you place your faith just like it is anyone elses' choice to believe in whjatever religion they choose. But to suggest that the life force of a human has nothing to do with the mind of a human is a little silly IMHO.

Hi Pathfinder,

I don't know about you, but I really didn't begin investigating spirituality until I was in my late 40s early 50s. I did have some sense of it when I began my studies of yoga and Tai Chi in my 30s, but it would not become part of me until much later in my life. Ditto for most of my friends.

The Hindus say that the first half of life is preparation for the second. Jung thought that individuation didn't begin until the second have of life. It seems like Einstein didn't really begin contemplating the matter of spirituality until later in life. Maybe one of the issues of mixing ages on a forum, is the question of where someone is in their journey?

Rich

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 08:30 AM ----------

ACB;84692 wrote:

The only way of resolving this matter is to devise rigorous experiments to test whether a transcendental consciousness or life force exists or not. I have no idea how that might be done to everyone's satisfaction, but that is what would be needed.

It would also help the transcendentalists' case if such entities could be shown to be measurable or quantifiable in some way. That might not appeal to those with an anti-science prejudice, but I just see science as an open-minded activity seeking to describe, explain and predict "what is there" in a detailed and consistent manner.

It was when I began looking for purpose in life, that the concept of a transcendental soul first came to me. A transcendental soul suggests that there is a reason we are accumulating knowledge, experience, and creating things in one physical life.

So, I asked myself, if there was a transcendental soul, what would the evidence be? It would have to be memory of course, since that is the whole purpose of a transcendental soul. So, I thought what kind of memory would persist, and it occurred to me that memory of skills learned in prior lives. And there was plenty of evidence of this. Child prodigies abound. People in life have greater propensity for all kinds of things such as sports, music, singing, math, business, scamming, etc. So here was my indirect evidence.

The problem of measurement is a challenging one. Bohr Complementarity Principle pre-supposes that classical instrumentation can never view the quanta directly. They are not refined enough since they depend upon light striking the quanta. In effect, we are translating the quanta phenomenon into classical terms (wave or particle) when we attempt to view quanta using classical instrumentation. So, whereas quanta can never be viewed, we infer its existence by indirect classical measurement. Similarly the soul can be inferred indirectly via measurement of skills.

Maybe in time, a completely new view of quanta may arise, as John Steward Bell suggests it might. One that completely embraces a Consciousness component (for me the soul is the individual aspect of Universal Consciousness). But who knows how long? How long was it between the time that ancient cultures first conceived of the atom and we were able to begin to measure it? Just because something cannot be measured, it does not mean it cannot be discussed or inferred.

For me, the weirdest thing is to observe science dig so deep to find quanta and then run away from it, claiming that it has nothing to do with real life. It is the first time in all of history, that I can recollect, that what comprises the whole is considered irrelevant to the behavior of the whole. I am personally not a rationalist, but for those who are, how rationale is such a perspective?

Rich

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

xris;84675 wrote:

I read that nde's can occur with no visible brain activity ,so if the consciousness abides in that hidden cortex ,how would you prove that?

Xris, you'll have to go back and find that, I guess, if you wish to make your presentation more accurately. Also, please do keep in mind (as actually I have pointed out to you before) that I have also done research in the NDE field. For the moment, however, would you please give a descriptive explanation of what exactly you mean by 'no visible brain activity?'

Pathfinder;84683 wrote:

If you choose to consider spirituality as mumbo jumbo that is your prerogative, but to then attempt to make it seem as though anyone else that considers the possibility a very major part of mind /brain discussion is creating useless conversation, is simply suggesting that only what you believe is worth consideration.

Pathfinder, I appreciate the gentleness of your approach, and trust, for now at least, you ability to be honest with the facts that we do have, to the degree that we can call them factual. Now, here is the area to which your quote (above) is alluding to [and if I am wrong here, then please do help me with my misunderstanding]:

[indent]

KaseiJin;84622 wrote:

For those who wish to adhere to the notion that all living and have ever lived animals' brain build/states are 'souls' I strongly urge you to put your definition/descriptions out here on the table--instead of making such far flung assertions that we are 'souls' under your breath in passing as though there were no question at all on such an ancient misconception. If you wish to hold that only human beings are 'souls' or have 'souls' (or however one wishes to 'verb' that phrase), then all the more, please put your definition/descriptions out on the table--otherwise you are simply talking in relgious belief-system mo-jo which has no greater degree of natural truth value than the assertion that the pineal gland is responsible for skeletomotor operation[/color].

[/indent]

Now, Pathfinder, I'm sure you will notice the bold above. If one pays close attention to what I am saying, it should be clear that I am asking for a presentation of definition/descriptions from those of the camp that consider such as I have spelled out there. It is a fact, that my suggestion is that to the extent that one does not do so, one is otherwise simply repeating religious belief-system mo-jo.

I hold this to be true in that any one can say anything, make any assertion, and in the event that there is no explanation behind it, backing up what the assertion or claim is communicating to be an external truth, a fact of nature, then it is of very little value in the face of, and as opposed to evidence which more fully and logically supports an assertion, or claim, which contradicts that former said assertion, or claim.

Spirituality or whatever, if a person claims that the individual animal, or that the individual H. sapein only, as a center of intellectual and singularity of consciousness, or mental awareness, is a 'soul,' then that person, regardless of whatever talents or skills or educational background they may have, will have to fully explain and argue points of that explanation.

Therefore, you have quite possibly misread what I have written. Please go back over that carefully, and consider what you have said above. In the event that you are of the camp that considers yourself, or myself (just for example) to be 'souls,' then please, by all means, do expound on what you exactly mean, and the reasons for thinking so, and present the available evidences that would be needed to convince a neutral third party individual;as well as be prepared to argue them properly.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84657 wrote:

paulhanke, I have no idea what you're talking about

... okay, let's try a more traditional phrasing:

"Scientific observation is theory-laden."

... a simpler version:

"You only find what you look for."

... even simpler yet, imagine a conversation between two never-heard-from plant biologists:

Dr. A: "How the heck can photosynthesis be this efficient?!"

Dr. B: "I dunno, but quantum physics isn't going to solve the problem of photosynthesis so it really doesn't offer us much in this regard"

Dr. A: "Yeah, you're right - quantum effects never impact the macro-world, and, well, how could blind randomness possibly be of any use here? ... let's go back through our billiard ball models yet again to see if we can refine them"

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84706 wrote:

...
Dr. A: "Yeah, you're right - quantum effects never impact the macro-world, and, well, how could blind randomness possibly be of any use here? ... let's go back through our billiard ball models yet again to see if we can refine them"

Yes. When it doesn't work into our model, just deny its existence.

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 10:20 AM ----------

KaseiJin;84702 wrote:

In the event that you are of the camp that considers yourself, or myself (just for example) to be 'souls,' then please, by all means, do expound on what you exactly mean.

soul: that which remembers (has memory) from one physical life to the next. It physically passes this memory through genes which interact with the human nervous system.

consciousness: that which is observing, learning, creating, for its own amusement via the souls. Multiple souls are like the human nervous system.

separability: Not possible. Everything is intertwined at the lowest level. Therefore, any attempt to measure any particular thing is impossible. Hence all measurements must be questioned. Measuring what?

Personally, I love my view of life. It is alive!

Rich

3 Replies

@Kielicious,

I dont believe in individual souls any more-i think there are no individuals, this is an illusion or delusion due to the faculty of ego. that person we think we are, the identity we create, is nothing more than the sum of all our experience.however, I believe there is something that animates human beings and animals, and exists as well in everything we can sense in the physical world. that is beyond the physical, therefore transcendent.

I believe certain people, call them adepts or masters, have refined other senses and faculties that most people and science are not aware of and cannot control or identify, which can be used to observe natural phenomena that is not physical. there are also ways of having a glimpse of the transcendent through nde's, drugs, psychic crises, stress, and it is proof enough for those who have the experience. to me nothing is supernatural or paranormal-we simply have not been able to document anything beyond the physical. how can we produce physical proof of something that is not physical?

I would say that thoughts are a biological process-but consciousness is that which exists that is not physical. it is a seamless energy (for want of a better word) that not only manifests but perpetuates the physical. portions of it are filtered through various portals in the physical world. I dont know what that means...but it has to be something that is common in all physical matter. probably permeates the most basic building block of physical matter-i would have to ask a physicist.

if science wants to investigate something that might yield proof of a connection to something beyond the physical, i would suggest they start with the chakras.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;84707 wrote:

soul: that which remembers (has memory) from one physical life to the next. It physically passes this memory through genes which interact with the human nervous system.
Rich

Do you remember when you were an insect?

Do we really have such hubris to believe that we have always been, and always will be, human? Or at the very least, hominid?

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;84720 wrote:

Do you remember when you were an insect?

Do we really have such hubris to believe that we have always been, and always will be, human? Or at the very least, hominid?

Humans appear to have remnants of its evolution. It all depends upon how much you believe in theory of evolution. I believe it has merit.

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In so far as the individual soul, I find it difficult to deny that I am observing things, creating things, sharing things, with other individual beings, and I cannot distinguish what may be real and not real when I am in any given state - e.g. awake state vs. sleep state. It is all as it is for me. I am simply observing it.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;84707 wrote:

soul: that which remembers (has memory) from one physical life to the next. It physically passes this memory through genes which interact with the human nervous system.

consciousness: that which is observing, learning, creating, for its own amusement via the souls. Multiple souls are like the human nervous system.

The above definitions are predicates rather than intrinsic descriptions; they say what 'soul' and 'consciousness' do rather than what they are. What you would need in order to make sense of these ideas is a metaphysical model linking them to each other (and to the physical world) in a coherent way. It would need to answer questions such as:

1. Can a soul accidentally lose its memory (like a person) and still remain a soul?

2. By what mechanism does 'consciousness' split up and enter individual souls?

3. By what (metaphysical) mechanism do multiple souls interact? Do they all interact? Is their interaction subject to physical constraints such as the speed of light, or any other physical or non-physical laws?

4. Is all consciousness 'located' in souls, or is any of it 'free' - in limbo, as it were? (Presumably it would have to be able to exist in a 'free' state, since the early universe contained no life.)

5. Is consciousness subject to a law of conservation of energy, so that the total amount of consciousness remains constant? If so, what happens if population increase causes the total number of souls to exhaust the total supply of consciousness? (This is why quantification is vital to any satisfactory theory.)

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;84726 wrote:

The above definitions are predicates rather than intrinsic descriptions; they say what 'soul' and 'consciousness' do rather than what they are. What you would need in order to make sense of these ideas is a metaphysical model linking them to each other (and to the physical world) in a coherent way. It would need to answer questions such as:

Hi ACB,

It is a very reasonable observation. For me, life is process. It is movement in order to experience, create, share. These are all processes. However, it is a reasonable question to ask, what is doing all this? I do know that I get some sense of what it is, by observing what peers through my eyes and that which dreams. But does it have substance? I guess that is where we are at in our evolution at this point. What is quanta? I cannot see beyond this at this time.

ACB;84726 wrote:

1. Can a soul accidentally lose its memory (like a person) and still remain a soul?

Apparently yes. Just like we lose memory of dreams and just like we lose memory of physical prior lives. I have my ideas of why this might be. But Heraclitus said it very well: "Nature likes to hide".

ACB;84726 wrote:

2. By what mechanism does 'consciousness' split up and enter individual souls?

I do not think it actually splits up. It creates waves, like waves in the ocean. There is individuality but there is also One connected Ocean.

ACB;84726 wrote:

3. By what (metaphysical) mechanism do multiple souls interact? Do they all interact? Is their interaction subject to physical constraints such as the speed of light, or any other physical or non-physical laws?

I would say that Light/Photon is the mode for communication.

ACB;84726 wrote:

4. Is all consciousness 'located' in souls, or is any of it 'free' - in limbo, as it were? (Presumably it would have to be able to exist in a 'free' state, since the early universe contained no life.)

I would speculate that there is Individual Consciousness that is imbued in the soul (that which is imbued in the wave), but at the same time, since the wave is part of the Ocean, then whatever is in the Ocean and Wave are being shared, via process/light.

ACB;84726 wrote:

5. Is consciousness subject to a law of conservation of energy, so that the total amount of consciousness remains constant? If so, what happens if population increase causes the total number of souls to exhaust the total supply of consciousness? (This is why quantification is vital to any satisfactory theory.)

I look at it like this. Consciousness (or Dao) starts swirling, like a hurricane. The number of spirals that can be created are infinite within the finite.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;84721 wrote:

Humans appear to have remnants of its evolution. It all depends upon how much you believe in theory of evolution. I believe it has merit.

I thought we were talking about this,

richrf;84721 wrote:

soul: that which remembers (has memory) from one physical life to the next. It physically passes this memory through genes which interact with the human nervous system.

not evolution.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;84737 wrote:

not evolution.

It appears, that we are all evolving in our awareness of that which is evolving - but maybe in a different direction or at a different rate of change. Everyone is different and sees things differently.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;84741 wrote:

It appears, that we are all evolving in our awareness of that which is evolving - but maybe in a different direction or at a different rate of change. Everyone is different and sees things differently.

Rich

I'm sure this would make more sense if I were drinking Ayahuasca . . .

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;84747 wrote:

I'm sure this would make more sense if I were drinking Ayahuasca . . .

Hmmm .... Let's see if I can say it a different way.

People see things differently because they are aware of different things - about themselves and their surroundings. And they are becoming aware at a different rate depending upon their sensitivity to the environment and themselves.

Rich

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB;84692 wrote:

The only way of resolving this matter is to devise rigorous experiments to test whether a transcendental consciousness or life force exists or not. I have no idea how that might be done to everyone's satisfaction, but that is what would be needed.

It would also help the transcendentalists' case if such entities could be shown to be measurable or quantifiable in some way. That might not appeal to those with an anti-science prejudice, but I just see science as an open-minded activity seeking to describe, explain and predict "what is there" in a detailed and consistent manner.

I have just the expreiment for you than:

Lets take two bodies and lay them on tables alongsode each other.

One can be you for the sake of proximity. the other will be taken from a morgue.

Now let us compare the two and see which one would exhibit signs that suggest some form of an ineer life force that is undoubtedly causing one body to appear to have something quite different from the other.

Hopefully we will all see some very clear signs of what might be considered life within one of the bodies.

And if we can't. well than maybe you were the wrong choice for the other body! lol

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84769 wrote:

Now let us compare the two and see which one would exhibit signs that suggest some form of an ineer life force that is undoubtedly causing one body to appear to have something quite different from the other.

Hopefully we will all see some very clear signs of what might be considered life within one of the bodies.

... yes, you have demonstrated that life is not intrinsic to a material body ... but this does not relieve you from having to demonstrate your claim that life can occur in the absence of a material body ... all that this thought experiment is proof of is the simple fact that feedback processes can fail catastrophically ...

2 Replies

@richrf,

xris;84680 wrote:

There is so much out there on nde's , i wonder if you have looked. Most of it is biased or self interested but its for you to read the reports and decide yourself. If you can imagine the patient reports an nde, the surgeon notes he had no signs of brain activity,they wonder how he might be able to be conscious of an event under those conditions. Now the sceptics argue the cortex does not show up as any brain scan activity, so is this where we live?

well you are talking about anecdotes and not even giving me links

Pathfinder;84683 wrote:

It is rather unnerving to see people of such obvious intellect becoming so blind.

this is pretty much the entire neuroscience field actually

(I wonder why)

Pathfinder;84683 wrote:

It is obvious that you and oden believe in the religion of science

empiricism isn't a religion

Pathfinder;84683 wrote:

it is your choice where you place your faith just like it is anyone elses' choice to believe in whjatever religion they choose. But to suggest that the life force of a human has nothing to do with the mind of a human is a little silly IMHO.

why?

richrf;84695 wrote:

I don't know about you, but I really didn't begin investigating spirituality until I was in my late 40s early 50s. I did have some sense of it when I began my studies of yoga and Tai Chi in my 30s, but it would not become part of me until much later in my life. Ditto for most of my friends.

The Hindus say that the first half of life is preparation for the second. Jung thought that individuation didn't begin until the second have of life. It seems like Einstein didn't really begin contemplating the matter of spirituality until later in life. Maybe one of the issues of mixing ages on a forum, is the question of where someone is in their journey?

oh I see well KaseiJin is probably at least somewhat advanced in age being a professor with what looks like a fairly extensive research background

and then there are plenty of other scientists and freelance skeptics who are middle-aged or older

seriously, do you think CSICOP is staffed with pimple-faced teenagers?

what it seems you are insinuating is that, with age, I will "come around" to giving tangible evidence and pretentious utter shite equal weight

is this why they call you "rich"?

richrf;84695 wrote:

So, I asked myself, if there was a transcendental soul, what would the evidence be? It would have to be memory of course, since that is the whole purpose of a transcendental soul. So, I thought what kind of memory would persist, and it occurred to me that memory of skills learned in prior lives. And there was plenty of evidence of this. Child prodigies abound. People in life have greater propensity for all kinds of things such as sports, music, singing, math, business, scamming, etc. So here was my indirect evidence.

Occam's razor recommends "some people are just really smart at things"

richrf;84695 wrote:

The problem of measurement is a challenging one. Bohr Complementarity Principle pre-supposes that classical instrumentation can never view the quanta directly. They are not refined enough since they depend upon light striking the quanta. In effect, we are translating the quanta phenomenon into classical terms (wave or particle) when we attempt to view quanta using classical instrumentation. So, whereas quanta can never be viewed, we infer its existence by indirect classical measurement. Similarly the soul can be inferred indirectly via measurement of skills.

do little floor robots that exhibit emergent cooperative / cheating behaviors through genetic programming have souls too

I mean cooperating and cheating are skills right?

richrf;84695 wrote:

I am personally not a rationalist

it shows

paulhanke;84706 wrote:

... okay, let's try a more traditional phrasing:

"Scientific observation is theory-laden."

... a simpler version:

"You only find what you look for."

... even simpler yet, imagine a conversation between two never-heard-from plant biologists:

Dr. A: "How the heck can photosynthesis be this efficient?!"

Dr. B: "I dunno, but quantum physics isn't going to solve the problem of photosynthesis so it really doesn't offer us much in this regard"

Dr. A: "Yeah, you're right - quantum effects never impact the macro-world, and, well, how could blind randomness possibly be of any use here? ... let's go back through our billiard ball models yet again to see if we can refine them"

oh ok well decoherence takes place on a much smaller time scale than neural activity but if you can find any evidence that quantum effects play a role in neural computation I'm all ears

richrf;84707 wrote:

Yes. When it doesn't work into our model, just deny its existence

deny what

richrf;84707 wrote:

soul: that which remembers (has memory) from one physical life to the next. It physically passes this memory through genes which interact with the human nervous system.

if you claim that the "soul" is passed through genes, then can the same person live in more than one generation concurrently??

wtf

richrf;84707 wrote:

Personally, I love my view of life. It is alive!

it's also bull

salima;84717 wrote:

how can we produce physical proof of something that is not physical?

good point

richrf;84707 wrote:

Apparently yes. Just like we lose memory of dreams and just like we lose memory of physical prior lives.

nice totally unfalsifiable

richrf;84707 wrote:

I would say that Light/Photon is the mode for communication.

huh

the brain isn't optical

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 06:10 PM ----------

paulhanke;84778 wrote:

... yes, you have demonstrated that life is not intrinsic to a material body ... but this does not relieve you from having to demonstrate your claim that life can occur in the absence of a material body ... all that this thought experiment is proof of is the simple fact that feedback processes can fail catastrophically ...

a busted radio loses the life essence

is it not obvious

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84780 wrote:

oh ok well decoherence takes place on a much smaller time scale than neural activity but if you can find any evidence that quantum effects play a role in neural computation I'm all ears

... and neural activity takes place on a much smaller time scale than phenomenological mind, but I doubt that would lead you to conclude that neural activity can't possibly be contributing to phenomenological mind ... at any rate, I'm not committing to quantum effects playing a macroscopic role here - but I'm certainly not ready to ignore the possibility, either ... it's also interesting to wonder what unexpected sorts of things might emerge when you let the quantum seep into the macroscopic world to interact with determinism in various massively parallel feedback-laden system organizations ...

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know