Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@paulhanke,

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 ...

And once again, while even looking at the evidence before their noses, they seem to be blind to its reality.

What is the body before the life becomes activated in it? Or where was this life force before it entered the material body?

The only difference between the corpse and your body is that the corpse no longer contains the life force that was in it at one time. Every molecule and physical composition is exactly the same as yours, but one has life and the other has none.

3 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84786 wrote:

The only difference between the corpse and your body is that the corpse no longer contains the life force that was in it at one time. Every molecule and physical composition is exactly the same as yours, but one has life and the other has none.

Yes. The heart just stops. What stops?

In Chinese metaphysics, the Shen, the spark of life, resides in the heart.

I am enjoying your thoughts. Very refreshing and alive.

Rich

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84706 wrote:

... a simpler version:

"You only find what you look for."

Paul, you are seemingly brushing aside one very important fact--and it is a fact--namely, that many, if not most, of the greater discoveries (especially is this so in the neurological field) have been made while NOT looking for them, but while tinkering around with other hypotheses or theoretical points.

Also, I am a bit surprized that while the actual activity behind behind your wording is true, as the scientific method is built on taking a starting point (as is just about any thing else, you see...so there is no extra 'to be taken careful note of' leverage in pointing solely to it), you have cast your wording in an unnecessary degree of negative emotional tag.

Although I feel as though I somewhat largely understand the position you are coming from, and don't have any objections nor major concerns about that, I wish to point out here, as regards the brain related sciences (as you will recall I have done the other day) that other things have been, and are being, taken into consideration--and result so far is that there is basically no big issue about what quantum effects are there, because they are obviously there anyway, already, and as regards neurology, we can't really do anything with it that we are more obviously already doing through the biological elements.

My effort here, is to primarily point out, not only the advantage in critical thinking, but the greater virtue of free inquiry and ration that has stood the test of time, and has given us the scientific method. We can put scientism (or science as some institution) aside in a somewhat large way, and focus on the greater value of critical thinking, free inquiry, and by extension, scientific method (which of course, is used by the far greater portion of scientists in a fair and open manner).

Therefore, to answer to Pathfinder once again, it is linguistically and socially accurate enough to call science a religion, in one sense of the word, yet it is totally incorrect to apply that word in the sense of 'religious belief-system' towards scientific method, towards critical thinking, and towards much of the discipline of science...like or not, that's just the way it is. I do hope you can understand that, Pathfinder, richrf.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

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 ...

Hi Paul,

I think we may get a glimpse (or maybe more than a glimpse) of this when we are in the dream state.

When we are dreaming, we have no sense of material bodies. We are simply in a state of thought. Now I realize that we wake up into a different state, but what I am suggesting is that the awake/sleep cycle may be very similar to the death/life cycle.

Again, I am looking for clues, and there are many similarities including the loss of some memory of what happened. However, clearly there differences in remembering your physical body. But let's face it, the experience of sleep is much different than the experience of awake even though it is the same mind. To me this is incredible to be able to move between states. If so, then what other states can the mind move between.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 06:23 PM ----------

KaseiJin;84790 wrote:

Therefore, to answer to Pathfinder once again, it is linguistically and socially accurate enough to call science a religion, in one sense of the word, yet it is totally incorrect to apply that word in the sense of 'religious belief-system' towards scientific method, towards critical thinking, and towards much of the discipline of science...like or not, that's just the way it is. I do hope you can understand that, Pathfinder, richrf.

Hi KaseiJin,

Thanks for presenting your perspective and I understand it. However, I think you might also understand that it was precisely because of very critical analysis of the scientific process, that has led me to the views I have, particularly in regard to the nature of consciousness and life. I have used approaches, other than ones that are supported by scientific evidence, with great practical success - e.g. in the fields of business, health, sports, arts, etc. There is a very practical side to my perspective of life and how it processes.

Rich

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84683 wrote:

Kaseijin, . . .

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.

There is this consideration called 'on topic,' and it would be of a much better format of argumentation, and would present itself to be much more organized in nature, to adhere, as closely as possible (though allowing for embedding to a few degrees to demonstrate the factuality or truthfulness of a point, which supports a point used to argue a point of the main discussion). Please do take the time and concern to acknowledge the main theme and presentation of the thread . . . that is a most noble act !

Pathfinder;84683 wrote:

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.

Please clear point out just how it is that I have stated, or insinuated such a conclusion.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84780 wrote:

wtf

it's also bull

It appears that good manners still elude you in this life.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 06:33 PM ----------

KaseiJin;84795 wrote:

There is this consideration called 'on topic,'

If the topic is as I read it, Consciousness is a Biological Problem, then I feel that Pathfinder is right on topic. However, he is simply framing his position in a way that best describes it. Am I missing something? I certainly understand his position and agree with it that consciousness is not a problem, and that biology is a manifestation of consciousness. Once consciousness leaves the physical body, the physical body still remains as is but it no longer has life force. It appears to be perfectly cogent and quite understandable.

Rich

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84785 wrote:

... and neural activity takes place on a much smaller time scale than phenomenological mind

it does?

I was not aware of this

paulhanke;84785 wrote:

I'm not committing to quantum effects playing a macroscopic role here - but I'm certainly not ready to ignore the possibility, either

ok cool there's no evidence for this proposition but when you can dig some up I'll be all ears

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;84796 wrote:

If the topic is as I read it, Consciousness is a Biological Problem, then I feel that Pathfinder is right on topic.

To make sure, I had been replying more directly to a comment which had been made by Pathfinder, namely:

Pathfinder wrote:

If I was you I would not be telling others what they should or should not be addressing in these debates ...

(see #362

But it is true that he has twice made rather long attacks on Science, which has nothing at all to do with the topic, actually.

Also, I can see, richrf, that you are using the word consciousness in a different sense than what has been proposed as a general definition/description for this thread, and that is fine, but please do understand that you'll most likely have to defend the benefit that you think can be gained by using it in that newer sense . . . even the general dictionary definition seems not to give much room at all for that sense.

I'll have to get back later tonight, tomorrow, or Monday...there is a lot, a whole lot of ground to cover (and I wish to continue with my presentation) and I have noticed some major errors. Please bear with me as I point things out to you and Pathfinder, richrf.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84786 wrote:

The only difference between the corpse and your body is that the corpse no longer contains the life force that was in it at one time. Every molecule and physical composition is exactly the same as yours, but one has life and the other has none.

errr no, decomposition starts rapidly after death

I still remember a video we saw in high school AP Bio class where a cell had its nucleus removed and started to die ... the nucleus was replaced and BAM! it started up again

reanimation and creation of life is certainly possible. entire viri have already been synthesized, and the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium has also been recreated from scratch, an important step to creating something that can indisputably be called synthetic life

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 08:01 PM ----------

richrf;84796 wrote:

It appears that good manners still elude you in this life

maybe, but honesty and integrity have not

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 08:04 PM ----------

richrf;84787 wrote:

In Chinese metaphysics, the Shen, the spark of life, resides in the heart.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/artificial-heart-abiocor-hand.jpg

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 08:07 PM ----------

if you have claims that can be refuted with one picture, it's probably time to find new ones

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;84800 wrote:

Also, I can see, richrf, that you are using the word consciousness in a different sense than what has been proposed as a general definition/description for this thread, and that is fine, but please do understand that you'll most likely have to defend the benefit that you think can be gained by using it in that newer sense . . . even the general dictionary definition seems not to give much room at all for that sense.

This is a fair observation. Because I have done so much readings on so many different topics relating to consciousness, I have adopted a meaning that may not be readily recognized. I would say that my perspective is somewhat aligned with that of David Bohm, the noted quantum physicist:

David Bohm[INDENT]

Quote:

"I would say that in my scientific and philosophical work, my main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment...."
(David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order)

[/INDENT]Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[INDENT]

Quote:

The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms).

[/INDENT]Rich

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84786 wrote:

What is the body before the life becomes activated in it? Or where was this life force before it entered the material body?

... consider autocatalysis ... a chemical feedback loop along the lines of <A catalyzes a reaction between B and C which produces D which catalyzes a reaction between E and F which produces A> ... as long as all of the components of this process remain available, the feeedback process keeps going of its own accord ... remove access to a component (say, B), and the process catastrophically fails ... in "Origins of Order", Kaufmann develops mathematical models that indicate that the natural self-organization of such autocatalytic processes in a chemical soup is highly likely ...

... now consider autopoiesis ... a super-process of autocatalytic processes ... a process that creates and maintains the very thing that enables it - a body ... remove access to a component needed by any of the autocatalytic processes of which it is made, and it catastrophically fails; breach its body more than it is able to repair, and it catastrophically fails ...

So in response to your question, where was this life force before it entered the material body - I think that's simply the wrong question ... life is a self-organizing process ... the universe is not full of life force - it's full of life potential.

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 05:16 PM ----------

odenskrigare;84799 wrote:

it does?

I was not aware of this

... a neuron can fire roughly once every five milliseconds - I don't know about you, but that's orders of magnitude faster than I can think! Smile

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

aspects of your thoughts can be so fast

how do you measure the speed of the phenomenological mind?

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84809 wrote:

... So in response to your question, where was this life force before it entered the material body - I think that's simply the wrong question ... life is a self-organizing process ... the universe is not full of life force - it's full of life potential.

very interesting ideas, and very appealing as well. but at the same time, a force must be applied, dont you think? potential must have force applied in order to become probable, possible and actual.

"life is a self organizing process" to me indicates a force in itself, and rather than concluding the universe is full of life potential instead of the universe is full of life force, i might say "the universe is full of life"

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84814 wrote:

aspects of your thoughts can be so fast

how do you measure the speed of the phenomenological mind?

... with a watch (it took three seconds to consciously think this) Smile

...

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

three whole seconds?

try not to drink so heavily

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;84817 wrote:

very interesting ideas, and very appealing as well. but at the same time, a force must be applied, dont you think? potential must have force applied in order to become probable, possible and actual.

"life is a self organizing process" to me indicates a force in itself, and rather than concluding the universe is full of life potential instead of the universe is full of life force, i might say "the universe is full of life"

... Eric Chaisson wrote an interesting book named "Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature" ... in it, he discusses the mathematics of an expanding universe, how the expansion results in different rates of change in the density of energy than of matter, and how that difference in the rates of change creates energy-matter gradients, which result in energy flows, which result in the contingent self-organization of matter, which constrain the energy flows, which results in further contingent self-organization of matter, which ... ... ... you get the picture ... so I think the force you are looking for may be the very expansion of the universe itself, which fills the universe full of energy-matter gradients and drives the resulting contingent realization of potential ...

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 06:18 PM ----------

odenskrigare;84825 wrote:

three whole seconds?

try not to drink so heavily

... a tour in the Army will do that to you :bigsmile: ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84827 wrote:

so I think the force you are looking for may be the very expansion of the universe itself, which fills the universe full of energy-matter gradients and drives the resulting contingent realization of potential ...

I would call this force the Will (Zhi) of Consciousness (Shen). I would ascribe purpose to it also: to observe and create (Yi). Chinese metaphysical philosophers arrived at all this thousands of years ago by simple observation. They used descriptive language to describe what they observe. So did Heraclitus. Modern day observers may prefer to use mathematics. That is fine. Mathematics is simply another way to describe what is happening in the Universe with different practical applications. This, I believe, is what Life is all about: observation and creation.

I think both ways to describe have their own beauty.

Rich

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Let me make something clear with regard to scientific advances.

I do see science as a valuable means to gain knowledge and information. There are many scientific revelations that I accept eagerly and without dispute. I appreciate the tasks and accomplishments of the scientific community.

My problem is not with science, it is with people who do not understand science and follow it religiously. Anyone who simply accepts scientific claims as facts without considering the hypothesis and other scientific debates of said claims, is no different than the religious zealot who believes his choice of religion without consideration.

It is the extremes that accept without logical consideration and questioning that I speak out against because it leads to misconception, untruth and deceit.

For instance, the common acceptance of the teaching of evolution in schools today as though it is a factual science, when it is still being argued by many reputable scientists around the world. Those same minds that have tolerated and promoted this are the same that can be found arguing spirituality as though it has been proven to be non existent and not worthy of study.

There is a bias in that community that their science cannot be refuted, and that anything extra physical is a danger to their scientific environment. Therefore they strive to belittle and downplay the worthiness of spiritual endeavors.

I place this community in the same level as religious fanatics and extremists that go out of their way to promote their agendas as well.

Kaseijin,

this is a cut of the post you made in post 355 that I responded to:

...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. UNQUOTE

I am not attacking you in any personal way and appreciate your choice to stand as you may, I am simply addressing what you said in that post which I read as a suggestion that anyone that wants to discuss spirituality should be able to prove it first. Again as though you who believe in these scientific hypothesis that you and oden and others have been preaching, are facts instead of theories.

What I am saying is that if you want to suggest that we provide facts to support what we would like to offer for discussion, than you should be doing the same. These hypothetical scientific theories that you are quopting and dsicussing are no more facts than the spiritual things that we are quoting.

What really intrigues me is that all of you know this as well as I do, but you continue to avoid the accusation.

This discussion is all about the human consciousness which immediately refers to the life behind the human physicality.

It is as much about the possibilities of a life force active within a human being as it is about the physical forces of that life after it is endowed into a human. What you and your supporters accept as the physical components of that life force and how it can be measured and observed scientifically, me and minds like mine seek to understand those dynamincs of that same force that is not observable and measurable but that we all know resides in that same body.

you say that because it cannot be touched, measured ort seen in your microscope that it should not be studied. We say, because it cannot be seen, measured or touched is exactly the reason that it intrigues us.

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 09:27 PM ----------

Paul hanke,

What is you definiton of the difference between life force and life potential?

It sounds as though you are saying that within the universe there is always that potential for a life to be created from somewhere/something but that there is no deliberate force behind the creation. Is that correct?

I am assuming that was your way of saying that although there is definitely life being created, this does not mean that there is something actually creating life.

There is simply the potential for it to occur becaause the possibilitiy exists.

you will have to correct me if I am misunderstanding what you have posted, it is a little obscure.

---------- Post added 08-21-2009 at 09:38 PM ----------

I would like to sincerely ask those who scoff at the spiritual a question:

If you refuse to consider spirituality as some degree of the human consciousness, than how do you define your personal effort to challenge it if it is not some spiritual aspect of your own eagerness to learn and expound on what you have learned?

You see, I see each of you as being very personally involved in this discussion, otherwise you would not be bothering with it. Is the determination to dispute what others believe, that is in contradiction with what you believe, not a spiritual component of your own consciousness? Do you simply see your desire to dispute as some sort of non deliberate firing of brain cells. How exactly do you define your desire to confront and debate the issue, if it is merely a presupposed act of the brain acting before you even choose to respond?

Where is your desire and intention in your definition of the physical act of debate?

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84842 wrote:

Paul hanke,

What is you definiton of the difference between life force and life potential?

It sounds as though you are saying that within the universe there is always that potential for a life to be created from somewhere/something but that there is no deliberate force behind the creation. Is that correct?

I am assuming that was your way of saying that although there is definitely life being created, this does not mean that there is something actually creating life.

There is simply the potential for it to occur becaause the possibilitiy exists.

you will have to correct me if I am misunderstanding what you have posted, it is a little obscure.

... a "life force" to me connotes that there is something akin to gravity that is very specific to life ... "life potential", on the other hand, simply connotes a point in the dynamic systems phase space of the universe ... this phase space is unfathomably large, and only the tiniest fraction of it has been (and ever will be) explored ... that the universe has unfolded the way it has and created life on earth is a contingent result of an untold number of broken symmetries - the actual trajectory of the universe through the phase space of its potential actualities ... that the universe is full of matter and not anti-matter (or something even more exotic) is a broken symmetry (a contingent selection at a fork in the road) - that terrestrial life is "left handed" is another ... the universe is the engine of creation, as it (deterministically? probabilistically? both?) lays down its trajectory through the phase space of potential actualities ... and now that we are part of the universe, we are part of the engine of creation ... maybe that doesn't hold a candle to the poetry of the mystics, but I think it's poetry nonetheless Smile

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

maybe it can be said that the cosmos or universe, all of creation, no matter what name you want to give it-is in a state of becoming; what it is cannot be separated from what it is doing. in other words, the energy cannot be separated from the field. and manifestation, the reflection of it, likewise is a part of it. there are the three integral components.

i personally have not experienced or detected anything that would be called 'intent to create', and i dont feel it is necessary that there be one. that may be trying to humanize something that is way beyond the comprehension and capability of human beings.

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know