Progress in consciousness?

BoGoWo
Have I some how invited your sarcasm? If so please explain as I do not intend to suffer it without response.
Not mentioned because they did nothing to support my arguement or, I thought, deny it, are the existence of 'peripheral' chemoRECEPTORS that suplement the central bodies and guess what, they survived.
It would appear that the intelligent designers of your particular model suffered major deficencies.

Occult??? How lame. You reveal much of your thought processes.

Gelisgesti:
You say that "Random design could have placed the chemoreceptors in say an artery supplying blood to the big toe....with predictable results." Your knowledge of chemoreceptors, Ph,
hyperventilation ,etc., is admirably intelligent, but your mental diversity is open to question when you
obviously consider that the natural evolutionary process of development requires some sort of cosmic "thought" in order to avoid "predictable results" .
As BoGoWo noted the word intelligence itself implies no connection to the occult, or mystical
intervention, as you implied.
Why is it that the word "occult" bothers you people so much when you lean so much to the metaphysical perspective?

Analyzing this entire thread, I'd like to say the following:
JLNobody, your vision of void as potential reminds me of the multiverse some scients speak of, which should somehow be 'proof' (or be complimentary, as can buddhism always be appended) to buddhism. The well known Participatory anthropic Principle.

What do you all mean by 'brain'? The human brain? Surely the ape has the same potentials. And other animals can observe (if an observant is needed, as stated in some comments and theories such as quantum mechanics). The significance of consciousness as perhaps being no more than tropism has already been brought up but apparently swiftly replaced by another discussion. As you said, a rock does not seem to be 'aware' therefor consciousness does not seem to be a requirement for things to exist. Rocks existed before we did. Of course, I have it backwards. I just don't know how else to have it

Time is natures way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once.(yes, quantum physics is a tricky thing
I just can't phantom time as being non-existent. Without us, it would still be. As would matter. I have the distinct feeling i'm missing something vital here.

As for the 'why' being wisdom and 'how' being knowledge (that's how I define 'em). I think the people who don't agree with JLNobody should think of why as a bigger why, the bigger picture. As in, why is the answer the answer and not something else? The answer to that question imo stays the same, but the perspective on it changes. (eg.After having attained enlightenment. Like they say, before: The mountains are mountains and the water is just water. After: The mountains are mountains once again and the water is water once more). I know it seems wrong to be using a buddhist train of thought but I do not think it is less valid or out of place. To quote Alfred North Whitehead- 'Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion.'

Tiaha said: you can understand something without knowing it.
I understand how the telephone works, even though I ahve no way of KNOWING if it exists or not.
BoGoWo replied: one who 'uses' a technological appliance, without understanding how it functions, is losing the essence of its utilization.
My reply: Perhaps, but it remains to be and be used.

Quote: Meaning that which is observed has no autonomy, is observer dependent, and is an emergent property, not of other emergent properties but of that which observes.
Stuh505 replied: The purpose of language is to communicate ideas succinctly but you seem to take pleasure in contorting your meaning in as many ways possible, so that most (I am sure) people who read them cannot make sense of them...why do you do this, so that people don't argue with what you say, simply because they don't know what you're talking about? Please, please...try to talk in a more understandable fashion.
It seems to translate to this: "an object is a property which is dependent on the perceiver and which has not always existed", which still makes no sense to me.
My reply: The latter seems to be the common misconception of quantum physics, nevertheless, I don't get the original message either. Nor do I fully understand quantum physics. But as Niels Bohr said, even if I could, my head should at least be getting dizzy.

Stuh505: Nobody here hates anything. Well, I'm pretty sure we all try not to anyway. It would lessen us. Just like posting our thoughts (deep as they may be) in your utterly blunt way lessens the quality of the post. To bottomline it is one thing, to be honest is a good things. But your approach on the matter could have been more...humble. I do hope you will continue to reply on the matter whenever 'BS' is said and I'm sure you'll come up with descent counter-arguments if you want to.
Nevertheless, it feel 'wrong' to say things do not exist if we do not perceive them (tree falling in the woods <-> uncertainty principle as seen by most here and not by Stuh505 -with good reason-). But the point of this thread and others like it is to clarify this matter. Notwithstanding, I also agree with BoGoWo's point of view of JLN's sensitivity on the matter.
I stopped following from chemoreceptors on

"Why is it that the word "occult" bothers you people so much when you lean so much to the metaphysical perspective? ".
Alikimir, maybe it's better if you don't resort to using 'you people' . As for occult, that's because of it's witchcraftlike connotation. At least in my language, however, I admit I see no such connection in the english language. It's surprisingly congruous on the matter.
But enough of my opinion, let's get back to the content.

It saddens me to disagree with what I understand.
Vice versa.

Sidenote: And I, in no way, understand holism. Not even as a concept.

This concludes my appeal to shed some basic light on things for the laymen reading your advanced babbling
I humbly lay my confusion in your capable hands.

alikimr wrote:




According to what understanding of nondualism?

Nondualism refutes the primacy of a material universe which reduces consciousness to a mere attribute of matter. It is consciousness that is seen as primary, and the source of all manifestation. It is the godhead, the "that" from which all emerges. As Heidegger said there really shouldn't be anything at all. Consciousness is utterly impossible, yet here it is. Every perception is a miracle.

"The first fruit of the Abyss is wonder."

[Douglas Harding]

alikimer,
My thirty plus years of service as a Respiratory Therapist did enrich my understanding of physiology and anatomy. My reference to thought stems from my belief that God imagined the universe and its inhabitants, imagination requires thought. I have no intention of debating God in this forum.
How is it that you and bogowo both equate intelligence with the occult?

In closing I will say that the statement 'you people' is usually associated with a bigoted mind and is not really worthy of comment.

Gelisgesti: 'I have no intention of debating God in this forum'
I hope certainly you mean this thread. I would appreciate your input regarding God, albeit in another thread.
edit: When you forget hope, you must always correct yourself.

Without further research and hence evidence, advances cannot be made...we [our race] have done all the speculation that we can given our current knowledge.

Any attempt to make progress in this field by debate is doomed to make the same turns as this thread did, with the spiritualists confidently arguing their sides...and the rationalists even more vehemently arguing their sides...and with mutual respect being lost due to incomprehension of why the other side exists.

I really wish this thread would just die...I see no possible future for it other than continued strife and insult.

I stand corrected ... thread, thank you.

Rex & geligesti:
You are very right in being critical as to my use of the reference to" you people". It was a carelesss brevity , and really
totally without conscious intent to be frivolous
It is foolhardy to be bigoted when debating in such an intelligent and satisfying Forum such as this.

O.K., friends, I typed a fairly long response and decided to post before getting knocked off, as I often am, when I did get separated from my server. Very frustrating. Here's another attempt.
I don't know where to begin; there's so much to respond to. But I'll skip many details in favor of general comments. First, I want to thank Rex for his constructive attempt to keep us on track. I want to also stress that I am not personally distressed by Stuh's behavior. I try to keep my ego out of this. I do not empower others by taking their comments personally. While I respect BoGoWo's intelligence and creativity, and have told him so, his general orientation, like--it appears--that of Stuh is a bit alien to me. I used to be, in my youth, a child of the Enlightenment, assuming the positivist stance that the world is as I see it, "out there" awaiting scientific measurement and categorizations. In my professional academic days at the university I rebelled in favor of a more interpretive and phenomenological approach to "reality." And this was well before the rise of PostStructuralism and Post Modernism. Today we see that advocates of the paradigm of positivism and the epistemology of Naive Realism fail to give sufficient attention to problematics presented by philosophy (even much of the philosophy of science and social science), "eastern" thought, and the New Physics. To my mind the world is far too complex, vast and subtle to be encompassed by what seems to me to be a rapidly declining Scientism. I believe that knowledge did not come into the being with science as we know it. Science, as a metaphysic is inadequate. But it is the most effective and efficient way to test questions about the physical world. The problem is that the range of questions testable by scientific methods is less than satisfying to the philosophical appetite.
I'm going to post this now, and continue in the next post.

Agreed. What research (presumably experimental, you mean, rather than the neo-scholastic nonsense that often passes for "research") might you propose to get a better grip on "consciousness"? Given that it cannot endanger the subject of the research, we're kinda limited...

Good response-worthy post, btw...

However, I have great respect for honest materialists, and I comprehend their position (and its raison d'etre) quite well

regards, nepo

Rex,, no need to re-invent the wheel

I should stress that I am not anti-science or anti-intellectual (except in the most narrow senses of the terms). I prefer a science that is far broader than the caricature I've just made in my reference to positivism and naive realism. And it appears that theoretical physicists like the late, Bohm and the New Physics in general indicate this is what is emergng in the 21st century. In this broader science there will be, I believe, room for "mysticism" (not occultism, unless it is defined correctly) and a continuous review of metaphysical presuppositions (note that by metaphysical I refer to fundamental, and usually tacit, presuppostions. It has nothing to do with New Age fantasies).
My earlier reference to Cosmic Intelligence refers more to Gel's suggestion of "integrality" than to the order he sees in physiological processes, although the latter can clearly be seen as an entailment of the former. I was thinking of the possibility that the New Physics may reduce the physical world not only from matter to energy, as has been done in the 20th century, but eventually to something that can be called Mind. It will not be much like OUR minds (that would like comparing a drop to an ocean), but I would not like to think that our experience of consciousness is exceptional in the cosmos. My consciousness is--to me--an expression of the Cosmic Process. So is yours. And whatever Ultimate Reality is, I am, and you are, an expression of it. This assumption is the basis for the promise of mystical techniques as a path to philosophical and personal growth.
I want to add that a certain amount of failure to understand one another is inevitable and not necessarily undesireable. I do not understand everything everyone says in these threads because our educational preparation differs both in its quantity and in its foci. I was a social scientist and therefore some of what our hard scientists say goes over my head. My background in Buddhist meditation has not provided me with data to share with others, but it does provide me with an orientation which (while not a state of mature "enlightenment") differs from those of most A2Kers with some delightful exceptions. Consequently, I accept that some things I say will not be understood, and somethings you say I will not understand. But I do not feel in the least tempted to drag you down or over to my "paradigm" for my convenience. I may ask you for clarification or elaborations to help me understand you. Fresco's contributions often require reference to source materials. Sometimes I look them up; other times I just take an intuitive stab at his meanings. But they are always clear if I am willing to undergo sufficient preparation. It's up to me, not him to achieve understanding in such an instance. Twyvel's insights incite some people to anger. His insights are very clear (well most often) and beneficial (always) to me. And that is because of my preparation.
So I will try to raise myself to your level and hope you'll do the same for me. If not, no matter.

Well said.

JLNobody,

Science is definitely becoming more open-minded. Many Eastern methods such as acupuncture and meditation are gaining respect, and rightfully so because they do work and are therefore (to some degree) scientific. I am not sure what you mean by "mysticism", is this what you are talking about? But if you mean ghosts, soul, etc...I don't think science is becoming any more sympathetic to these concepts.

jnhofzinser,

Certainly finding new data in this field is not easy to do...but can happen. Sometimes it is only small little facts which can allow for us to make large connections and understandings.

Today some data on the subject was brought to my attention which I hadn't given enough thought to...and it changed my opinion on the subject. This isn't new data, but it is an example of the kind of new data we could have...I was previously of the mind that our consciousness was a separate thing entirely from our body...and that in order for our consciousness to control our body, there must be direct links between the two.

Anyway, it has been proven that our thoughts can cause chemical changes in our bodies which have very notable effects. For instance, the placebo effect...which in something like 30% of cases can lead to recovery...when the only remedy is "thinking" that the drug will work. People who are depressed are more susceptible to sickness...people can change their blood pressure levels, temperature, and heart beat by thinking about them..or release certain hormones into the bloodstream. In short, our thoughts cause chemical reactions in our bodies where there are no direct links. It is confusing to think about a continuous chemical reaction that has no pre-determined product...but is capable of changing itself in process!

Stuh, by "mysticism" I refer to the wisdom of Sufism, Zen Buddhism, Hindu Vedanta, the Christian mystics like Miester Eckhart, and the method they used to achieve the mystical (non-dualilst) perception of their reality. It has nothing to do with spirits, souls, ghosts, anything other worldly. It has little to do with acupuncture. That's mere medical engineering. Nor does it have to do with meditation has a means to lower one's blood pressure and stress levels. That, too, is "engineering." Thanks for asking. Most people just assume it has to do with things weird. Have you ever noticed how in B movies when a mood of satanism or occultism is desired the directors simply install a statue of the Buddha, most often of the Chinese fat Ho-tai? I once saw in an antique store, actually a flea market posing as an antique store a lamp with the bulb socket coming out of the top of a Buddha's head. I asked the owner to please inform me if she ever comes across a lamp with the bulb socket extending from the head of a crucified Jesus. She was not amused.

Perhaps Gel is referring to the "bigger picture". This is often represented as the "Anthropic Principle" (an excerpt from that link follows:)
I believe that Gel is using "intelligence" to refer to the "design hypothesis" indicated above, which ought to be considered quite legitimate.

My reference to Cosmic Mind is intended to go beyond such considerations. I do not think the universe has been designed by some Platonic Demiurge. And I feel no need to assume the existence of a planner/designer (particularly a God in the Christian sense). No matter how the universe turned out, any conscious component of it would be convinced that it was rationally "designed." My concern is with the Universe as it is, however it is. I am a part of it; I am conscious; I am alive. Ergo, the universe is at least to that extent conscious and alive. Who knows the extent of its consciousness and aliveness? Just because there is no possible way of scientifically demonstrating it, that does not warrant the assumption that it is dumb and dead, a mere mass of energy qua matter and gravity. I choose to think of its energy as ultimately something like mind and gravity as a form of attraction. Who knows?

Butcha gotta admit, it is fun (usually) to talk about.

The lack of scientific evidence of a phenomena does not mean that the phenomena does not exist....rather, that no conclusions can be made yet.