state of mind!!!!!

Ray wrote:

Quote:
It's not awareness, it's speculation.

It's a postulate.

Quote:
Conciousness is probably constituted by nothing more than the behaviour of neurons, and therefore probably isn't one big 'thing' that many bodies can latch on to. Even if my consciousness was somehow exactly the same as yours, it would still be seperate to yours, because it would be caused my my neurons, and not yours. The concept of the universal mind seems to rely on Descartes being on the right track - but he wasn't; there is no non-physical, non-spatial mind seperate from the body.

But this is also an assumption as they haven't found the mechanisms of consciousness yet. Yeah, your brain is seperate from mine, but what I was aiming at was to show a common identity, that is, human consciousness. A consciousness is a part of the universe, that is it's a part of a wholeness. Bohm postulate that the universe could possibly be a hologram. I don't see why it's not possible for there to be collective consciousness even if the brain is seperate. Our consciousness are not the neurons themselves.

It is an assumption, hence my use of the word 'probably.' I do think it's harder to question than your assumption thaty consciousness is some magical... thing, though. What exactly is your definition of consciousness? Would you say the mind is non-physical? Or that we have a soul which is sort of made of 'stuff' but not the same stuff as our brains? Or what? Let's stop being vague and mystical - what the hell do you mean by, "A consciousness is a part of the universe, that is it's a part of wholeness"???! My brain is also a part of the universe, believe it or not. In fact, isn't absolutely everything that exists part of the universe? If consciousness exists, then yes I'm sure it's part of the universe. What a breakthrough! Now, please explain what you mean by wholeness, and what it's got to do with anything...

Frank, you never cease to impress me by just being so... sane! Very Happy

Keep it up!

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Frank, you never cease to impress me by just being so... sane!

Thanks.

Quote:

Keep it up!

Oh...I definitely will.

You stick around too...and keep fighting the good fight. :wink:

0 Replies

0 Replies

Quote:

It is an assumption, hence my use of the word 'probably.' I do think it's harder to question than your assumption thaty consciousness is some magical... thing, though. What exactly is your definition of consciousness? Would you say the mind is non-physical? Or that we have a soul which is sort of made of 'stuff' but not the same stuff as our brains? Or what? Let's stop being vague and mystical - what the hell do you mean by, "A consciousness is a part of the universe, that is it's a part of wholeness"???! My brain is also a part of the universe, believe it or not. In fact, isn't absolutely everything that exists part of the universe? If consciousness exists, then yes I'm sure it's part of the universe. What a breakthrough! Now, please explain what you mean by wholeness, and what it's got to do with anything...

The mind is non-physical but relies on physical interactions. :wink:

Because everything is a part of the Universe, everything is connected in one way or another then the only seperation that occurs between my consciousness and your consciousness is the apparent space in which it occupies and the neurons which brings up the consciousness, but the "consciousness" is still the same.

Pardon me for being so "mystical" but I'm trying to see if I can provide a plausible argument, so don't be so hyped up ok? Very Happy

Now, this might get into Plato's theory of forms so please brace yourself. Laughing

0 Replies

So the mind is constituted by the brain? That's what I believe. I don't understand where the non-physical part comes in. Are you saying that there is also a non-physical mind/soul/spirit that interacts with the brain? Because that would be dualism wouldn't it, are you a dualist?

0 Replies

Quote:

So the mind is constituted by the brain? That's what I believe. I don't understand where the non-physical part comes in. Are you saying that there is also a non-physical mind/soul/spirit that interacts with the brain? Because that would be dualism wouldn't it, are you a dualist?

The mind is not something material, but is something which arises in the phenomenal world from material interactions. Whether it's possible for a mind to exist outside a body in some form or not, I do not know.

0 Replies

Explain what you mean by the phenomenal world...

0 Replies

The phenomenal world, is the empirical world. Noumena, as Kant called it, is the actual world.

0 Replies

So it's pretty much just 'the world' then...

0 Replies

I am not a dualist. As far as I'm concerned there is only the material-mental world. Mind (consciousness, experience, phenomena, etc.) is a function of brain AND brain is an idea/phenomenon of mind. They are not two; they are aspects of the same unity. As I see it, the mentalism-materialism debate rests on a false dichotomy, ontologically speaking. It is reallly an epistemological matter of perspectives. We can switch back and forth from materialism to mentalism, depending on the need of the moment. Unfortunately, most people are stuck in one or the other. Ultimately, they are both illusory, existing only as useful constructions of human culture.

0 Replies

The thing is that when we see something, we're not really seeing the thing-in-itself, we are limited by our senses. This is the "phenomena" ( I think). This phenomena discovers only "a part" of the noumena.

I'm a bit cloudy on this area, please correct me anyone who's familiar with Kant's metaphysics.

0 Replies

JLNobody, I was thinking of myself as a monist, but now that I ponder it more, I find it harder to imagine it and think of it as monistic. I was thinking that the neurons interaction allow consciousness to arise, but I can't see consciousness as the brain itself.

0 Replies

Ray, you say " I was thinking that the neurons interaction allow consciousness to arise, but I can't see consciousness as the brain itself." Nice distinction. Neural interaction is a process; the brain is a thing. I cannot imagine a mind (consciousness) without the workings of a nervous sytem. This would seem to classify me as a materialist. But I also cannot imagine the idea of a nervous system except as a mental experience. They are two (materialist and mentalist) sides of a SINGLE coin, each seen from one of two perspectives.

0 Replies

psychmajor

The original conversation about "duplicate states of mind" cannot be taken out of context. We all "know" (purport to share a group bonding) about "politicians", and we all "know" (can predict) that psychologists and philosophers have "problems" with psychophysical-parallellism. The fact that "mind" is used in both arenas is of little academic significance.

The extrapolation of the thread to a discussion of "group consciousness" is interesting in its own right in as much that all successful communicatiom seems to be predicated on shared cognitive contexts. I suggest that "sameness" or "equivalence" only has meaning from this viewpoint.

0 Replies

Nobody, that is Davidsons theory. And I agree. Very well put.

0 Replies

Quote:

" I was thinking that the neurons interaction allow consciousness to arise, but I can't see consciousness as the brain itself."

I agree. It's the same with music for instance. Music travels from the CD to the ear through an electrical signal. But this signal itself is not the essence of the music. It is merely the medium used to convey it, or sustain it in the case of conciousness.

But back to the music. The signal that reaches the speaker makes it vibrate, and sound is created. What this is in reality is an electronical re-rendering of the original sound. A singer sings into a membran (in a microphone) and the vibrations make electrical signals that are transformed into an imitation of the sound the singer makes. The accuracy of this science is so great that the smallest details are rendered close to perfection.
My question is: How is this possible if there is no connection between us whatsoever? I am thinking of the headline, a universal mind.

0 Replies

fresco:-

Have you read A Materialist Theory of Mind?

Why the emphasis on "all".

Isn't a smart bomb up Saddam's fundament a successful communication which is not predicated on shared cognitive contexts.

spendius.

0 Replies

Sire:-

Well maybe the signal is the essence.The medium is the message.You must have heard of that.McLuhn I think is the spelling of his name.

I don't watch programmes on telly so much as watch telly itself.Some programmes draw me in I'll admit but then I feel a bit like a kid at the Punch&Judy show.
Television is much more interesting when you watch the medium at work.If ever you fancy working in television,or any other media,that's the approach to begin with.

There are the ones who do and the ones to whom it is done.(Lenin).

Does a tree falling in the jungle make a noise if there is no-one there to hear it?

spendius.

0 Replies

I believe you mean, does the waves that are created as a tree falls qualify as sound if no ear catches it? Do you?

I don't think any answer is correct. We'll just have to agree on one and stick to it... Smile

0 Replies

Spendius,

"Bombs" and "success" don't seem to sit too happily together Smile

...and yes, I have certainly read "materialist" theories of mind, but like JLN I take a nondualist view.

0 Replies

state of mind!!!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know