Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Consciousness

janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness?
777iam
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2015 10:10:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness? : :

Think of consciousness as the mind of God. Everything we experience with our senses comes from the mind of God, whether it's visible or invisible.

Our brain works like a computer processor of information. The consciousness of God is nothing but information in the form of invisible waves. Wavelengths from these waves are just like 0's and 1's in the binary computer code we use in our computers. This means these invisible wavelengths are God's computing language that produces all man's thoughts and visible objects we perceive.

Our bodies are not made of any hard physical material. They are only illusions that are formed by processed wavelengths of energy that appear as visible particles, but only when observed by a created being. Think of a created being as the brain, the processor of information. The visible brain is only an illusion. That explains why a child like this can be born without most of his brain and still function in this world;

https://uk.news.yahoo.com...

We don't actually need a visible brain to experience life with because God can make any kind of illusion he wants us to believe in.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 2:12:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness?

Consciousness is experience, awareness, mentality ect.

It's hard to define exactly what consciousness is, but when we hear the word we know exactly what it refers to. We know consciousness more intimately than anything else.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 2:14:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness?

Consciousness is the substrate of thought, it is the conceptual space within which we find the objects of thought.

Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness?

Consciousness is one of the fundamental constituents of reality, mental properties are neither identical with nor reducible to the physical properties of the brain.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2015 10:43:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Consciousness is one of the fundamental constituents of reality,
What are the other fundamental constituents of reality?
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 10:00:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/2/2015 10:43:42 AM, kp98 wrote:
Consciousness is one of the fundamental constituents of reality,
What are the other fundamental constituents of reality?

Time, space, matter, and energy.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 12:08:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.

Descartes said that to encapsulate the entirety of his wisdom in one sentence. Surely, then, it is answer to OP's question.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 2:51:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 12:08:01 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.

Descartes said that to encapsulate the entirety of his wisdom in one sentence. Surely, then, it is answer to OP's question.

Descartes said it to try to give something which cannot be doubted, not to try to define what "doubt" and consciousness actually is. Just because Descartes was smart doesn't make it an answer to the question.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 3:03:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 2:51:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 12:08:01 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.

Descartes said that to encapsulate the entirety of his wisdom in one sentence. Surely, then, it is answer to OP's question.

Descartes said it to try to give something which cannot be doubted, not to try to define what "doubt" and consciousness actually is. Just because Descartes was smart doesn't make it an answer to the question.

Doubt is the absence of certainty. In everything else besides Descartes' statement, it exists. And, moreover, any question one might ask of things cannot be subjected to probability, therefore we are completely lost. All we have is otherwise are assumptions and pragmatism. The statement answers the question.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 3:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
All we have otherwise*

This place could do with an edit feature.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 3:07:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it probably a duck? Only assuming a certain framework, I'm afraid.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 3:36:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What are the other fundamental constituents of reality?
Time, space, matter, and energy.


Time and space are the same thing according to special relativity ; matter and energy are the same thing according to general relativity, so it could be said should the fundamental constituents are space-time and mass-energy (along with consciousness).

But the more significant thing you said is that conscious is fundamental. That is quite a claim, if I understand it correctly to imply that consciousness existed as long as space-time and mass-energy have existed (ie since the big bang), and we didn't have to wait for a brain to evolve before consciousness to exist. Is that what you think?
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 3:41:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 3:03:48 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 2:51:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 12:08:01 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.

Descartes said that to encapsulate the entirety of his wisdom in one sentence. Surely, then, it is answer to OP's question.

Descartes said it to try to give something which cannot be doubted, not to try to define what "doubt" and consciousness actually is. Just because Descartes was smart doesn't make it an answer to the question.

Doubt is the absence of certainty. In everything else besides Descartes' statement, it exists. And, moreover, any question one might ask of things cannot be subjected to probability, therefore we are completely lost. All we have is otherwise are assumptions and pragmatism. The statement answers the question.

You mean doubt is the feeling of uncertainty? Because doubt isn't simply the absence of certainty, a rock is completely devoid of certainty, yet it doesn't doubt. The question of the mind's existence isn't the topic, it's the definition of the mind. Asking if it exists presumes a definition. I never mentioned probability at all either.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 4:35:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll try to answer the OP as well a I can in a reasonably length post.

Consciousness is a label we give to the difference we intuit to exist between the way certain things (such as people) 'interact' with the rest of the world and the way other things (such as rocks) interact with the rest of the world.

Obviously a rock does respond to external conditions - for example, it expands if the temperature increases. A human also responds to heat in the same physical way - the atoms of our bodies respond to heat according to physical law, just as the atoms of a rock do. But most people believe that while for a rock its reaction to heat ends there, with people there is another level. In short, in additional to merely expanding when heated, humans also 'feel (themselves to be) hot'.

As far as I know, no-one has proved that rocks do not feel themselves to be warm when heated up, but I tend to think its unlikely that is the case! So unlikely that I never seriously consider it... otherwise the real issues of consciousness are not going to get solved.

At least as far as the sort of consciousness humans manifest is concerned (which is the sort of most interest), an important aspect may be that it works by translating from the objective to the subjective. This applies to all senses, but it most familiar in the context of colour. As everyone knows (or should do) light is em radiation and comes in different wavelengths. But we do not perceive different light as being different wavelengts (ie its physical difference) but we perceive is as being different colours (its subjetive difference). Consciousness - at least consciousness as implemented in the human brain - works by translating the objective to the subjective.

Another aspect of consciousness is that - strictly speaking - it is nothing to do with perception of the external world. What we are conscious of is whatever gets encoded into a 'neural representation' in our brain. We have evolved mechanisms by which what we represent in our brains is a fairly accurate model of the external world, but it doesn't matter if our internal model is accurate or not - what you will be conscious of is whatever is in your head, not what is in the world. For example, when you dream you may be conscious of objective and events that have no counterpart in reality, and conversely if you fail to represent some aspect of reality you will not be - cannot be - conscious of it.

There is obviously a lot more that can be said about consciousness, but I'll leave it at that for now to see if any response if forthcoming!
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 9:31:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness?

It is a funny question to an extent, as every concept resides in our brain. We are not certain a chair resides in the real world, but we can be certain it resides in our brain, correct? In the same sense, consciousness resides in our brain as a concept, but it might not be anything outside of our minds.

But to get to the point, consciousness, as I understand it, is what some call "the sense of self". Consciousness is the feeling of being aware of ourselves. Some people say consciousness is what allows us to have subjective experiences, but I simply call that "cognition" and not consciousness. Just to be clear of what I'm talking about :)

I believe consciousness is generated on the brain, and as far as neurobiology goes, it is an inmensely complex process which permeates a lot of brain areas, and that only functions if those areas cooperate, ie cortex and reticular formation. It is also interesting that brains tend to consciousness the more they evolve, ie, worms are probably not very conscious, but fish are more conscious, lizards a bit more, birds are far more conscious, and even in mammals we see a progressive increase, from the not-very-conscious rodents, to the more conscious cats and dogs, and the inmensely conscious orcas, chimps, and finally humans. It is clear why consciousness is a very advantageous process, in fact, most mistakes commited by machines can one way or another be related to their lack of consciousness, and there resides the great importance of AI research, and how even the "emulated/fake consciousness" that exists today in AIs, can greatly improve a robot's work.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 1:18:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 9:31:11 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness?

It is a funny question to an extent, as every concept resides in our brain. We are not certain a chair resides in the real world, but we can be certain it resides in our brain, correct? In the same sense, consciousness resides in our brain as a concept, but it might not be anything outside of our minds.

But to get to the point, consciousness, as I understand it, is what some call "the sense of self". Consciousness is the feeling of being aware of ourselves.

Consciousness is not the same thing as self awareness. Consciousness just means awareness.

Some people say consciousness is what allows us to have subjective experiences, but I simply call that "cognition" and not consciousness. Just to be clear of what I'm talking about :)

I believe consciousness is generated on the brain, and as far as neurobiology goes, it is an inmensely complex process which permeates a lot of brain areas, and that only functions if those areas cooperate, ie cortex and reticular formation. It is also interesting that brains tend to consciousness the more they evolve, ie, worms are probably not very conscious, but fish are more conscious, lizards a bit more, birds are far more conscious, and even in mammals we see a progressive increase, from the not-very-conscious rodents, to the more conscious cats and dogs, and the inmensely conscious orcas, chimps, and finally humans. It is clear why consciousness is a very advantageous process, in fact, most mistakes commited by machines can one way or another be related to their lack of consciousness, and there resides the great importance of AI research, and how even the "emulated/fake consciousness" that exists today in AIs, can greatly improve a robot's work.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 2:55:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Consciousness is not the same thing as self awareness. Consciousness just means awareness.

I am not about the importance of any distinction between aware and self-aware. Is it possible to be 'aware' but not 'self-aware'? What would it be like to be in that state?

Some people say consciousness is what allows us to have subjective experiences, but I simply call that "cognition" and not consciousness.

I think that might be a tad idiosyncratic use of the word 'cognition'.

I would not say consciousness is what allows us to have subjective experiences. I would say that consciousness (at least in the case of human consciouness) operates by producing subjective experiences. However, I have no idea how subjective experiences are produced in our brains!
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 2:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 3:41:59 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 3:03:48 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 2:51:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 12:08:01 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.

Descartes said that to encapsulate the entirety of his wisdom in one sentence. Surely, then, it is answer to OP's question.

Descartes said it to try to give something which cannot be doubted, not to try to define what "doubt" and consciousness actually is. Just because Descartes was smart doesn't make it an answer to the question.

Doubt is the absence of certainty. In everything else besides Descartes' statement, it exists. And, moreover, any question one might ask of things cannot be subjected to probability, therefore we are completely lost. All we have is otherwise are assumptions and pragmatism. The statement answers the question.

You mean doubt is the feeling of uncertainty? Because doubt isn't simply the absence of certainty, a rock is completely devoid of certainty, yet it doesn't doubt. The question of the mind's existence isn't the topic, it's the definition of the mind. Asking if it exists presumes a definition. I never mentioned probability at all either.

And I'm saying that it, and everything by it (the rock, for instance), aren't ever going to be fully defined. What is a rock? I see a rock, therefore I see a rock. But what is the rock?

OP's question escapes any real answer. We are the observers of the infinite, and even if order abounds in that observation, that order is but vaporous. That is the true absolute of consciousness.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 5:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 10:10:56 PM, 777iam wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness? : :

Think of consciousness as the mind of God. Everything we experience with our senses comes from the mind of God, whether it's visible or invisible.

Our brain works like a computer processor of information. The consciousness of God is nothing but information in the form of invisible waves. Wavelengths from these waves are just like 0's and 1's in the binary computer code we use in our computers. This means these invisible wavelengths are God's computing language that produces all man's thoughts and visible objects we perceive.

Our bodies are not made of any hard physical material. They are only illusions that are formed by processed wavelengths of energy that appear as visible particles, but only when observed by a created being. Think of a created being as the brain, the processor of information. The visible brain is only an illusion. That explains why a child like this can be born without most of his brain and still function in this world;

https://uk.news.yahoo.com...

We don't actually need a visible brain to experience life with because God can make any kind of illusion he wants us to believe in.

How is any of this plausible or sensible to you? It's not even as if it's a rigorously thought-through idea, where you have a concrete understanding of what you mean by mind, process and energy (this is a term with a clear scientific meaning, but I assume you're using some other meaning in this particular employment).... no, this is just a collection of nebulous words with god thrown in when convenient, an expression of utterly disorganized thought deemed sensible only by omission of details and suspension of rigorous scrutiny.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
godsworker
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 11:28:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 5:33:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/1/2015 10:10:56 PM, 777iam wrote:
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness? : :

Think of consciousness as the mind of God. Everything we experience with our senses comes from the mind of God, whether it's visible or invisible.

Our brain works like a computer processor of information. The consciousness of God is nothing but information in the form of invisible waves. Wavelengths from these waves are just like 0's and 1's in the binary computer code we use in our computers. This means these invisible wavelengths are God's computing language that produces all man's thoughts and visible objects we perceive.

Our bodies are not made of any hard physical material. They are only illusions that are formed by processed wavelengths of energy that appear as visible particles, but only when observed by a created being. Think of a created being as the brain, the processor of information. The visible brain is only an illusion. That explains why a child like this can be born without most of his brain and still function in this world;

https://uk.news.yahoo.com...

We don't actually need a visible brain to experience life with because God can make any kind of illusion he wants us to believe in.

How is any of this plausible or sensible to you? It's not even as if it's a rigorously thought-through idea, where you have a concrete understanding of what you mean by mind, process and energy (this is a term with a clear scientific meaning, but I assume you're using some other meaning in this particular employment).... no, this is just a collection of nebulous words with god thrown in when convenient, an expression of utterly disorganized thought deemed sensible only by omission of details and suspension of rigorous scrutiny. : :

In the next age, our bodies won't need any organs in them. We will all understand that our bodies are just illusions that aren't real. Do you understand what a hologram is?
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 11:38:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 2:55:15 AM, kp98 wrote:
Consciousness is not the same thing as self awareness. Consciousness just means awareness.

I am not about the importance of any distinction between aware and self-aware. Is it possible to be 'aware' but not 'self-aware'? What would it be like to be in that state?


The cells in your body are aware but not self aware.

Furthermore, why do we have the word self-conscious if conscious means self aware? Are we saying self-self-aware?
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 12:07:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 2:45:07 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 3:41:59 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 3:03:48 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 2:51:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 12:08:01 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.

Descartes said that to encapsulate the entirety of his wisdom in one sentence. Surely, then, it is answer to OP's question.

Descartes said it to try to give something which cannot be doubted, not to try to define what "doubt" and consciousness actually is. Just because Descartes was smart doesn't make it an answer to the question.

Doubt is the absence of certainty. In everything else besides Descartes' statement, it exists. And, moreover, any question one might ask of things cannot be subjected to probability, therefore we are completely lost. All we have is otherwise are assumptions and pragmatism. The statement answers the question.

You mean doubt is the feeling of uncertainty? Because doubt isn't simply the absence of certainty, a rock is completely devoid of certainty, yet it doesn't doubt. The question of the mind's existence isn't the topic, it's the definition of the mind. Asking if it exists presumes a definition. I never mentioned probability at all either.

And I'm saying that it, and everything by it (the rock, for instance), aren't ever going to be fully defined. What is a rock? I see a rock, therefore I see a rock. But what is the rock?

OP's question escapes any real answer. We are the observers of the infinite, and even if order abounds in that observation, that order is but vaporous. That is the true absolute of consciousness.

So now you are stating his question has no answer when the last few posts you were arguing the cogito was the answer......
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 12:08:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 12:07:50 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/4/2015 2:45:07 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 3:41:59 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 3:03:48 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 2:51:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/3/2015 12:08:01 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 10/3/2015 4:57:08 AM, n7 wrote:
At 10/1/2015 9:53:38 PM, Devilry wrote:
I think, therefore I am.

This doesn't tell you what the "I think" is, which is the OP's question.

Descartes said that to encapsulate the entirety of his wisdom in one sentence. Surely, then, it is answer to OP's question.

Descartes said it to try to give something which cannot be doubted, not to try to define what "doubt" and consciousness actually is. Just because Descartes was smart doesn't make it an answer to the question.

Doubt is the absence of certainty. In everything else besides Descartes' statement, it exists. And, moreover, any question one might ask of things cannot be subjected to probability, therefore we are completely lost. All we have is otherwise are assumptions and pragmatism. The statement answers the question.

You mean doubt is the feeling of uncertainty? Because doubt isn't simply the absence of certainty, a rock is completely devoid of certainty, yet it doesn't doubt. The question of the mind's existence isn't the topic, it's the definition of the mind. Asking if it exists presumes a definition. I never mentioned probability at all either.

And I'm saying that it, and everything by it (the rock, for instance), aren't ever going to be fully defined. What is a rock? I see a rock, therefore I see a rock. But what is the rock?

OP's question escapes any real answer. We are the observers of the infinite, and even if order abounds in that observation, that order is but vaporous. That is the true absolute of consciousness.

So now you are stating his question has no answer when the last few posts you were arguing the cogito was the answer......

Cogito is the fullest answer to the question.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 12:28:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/1/2015 8:51:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What is consciousness? Does it reside in our brain? Or is our brain more like a reciever of consciousness?

Conciousness, in theory, is a structure/system which helps an organism cope/react/ to reality.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 1:11:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/3/2015 3:36:10 PM, kp98 wrote:
What are the other fundamental constituents of reality?
Time, space, matter, and energy.


Time and space are the same thing according to special relativity ; matter and energy are the same thing according to general relativity, so it could be said should the fundamental constituents are space-time and mass-energy (along with consciousness).

That's a popular misconception, but it is not entirely accurate and while the difference is subtle, I think it's important.

First, let's recognize that the mathematics of scientific theory are only theoretical abstractions, scientific knowledge is theoretical knowledge. In relativity theory spacetime is a mathematical structure used to describe and extrapolate from observed phenomena, space and time are simply coordinate systems of the geometric structure in which things and events occur within the theory. The mathematical equations are not meant to be ontological statements, they are simply a tool for describing how the variables are related to one another within the theory. The problem of ontologically literalizing the spacetime component of Relativity Theory into something that has independent existence is that it conflicts with the theory it comes from.

In relativity theory, spacetime is a four dimensional coordinate system that mathematically represents the geometric substrate of a manifold of events, if there are no metric or matter fields, there is no manifold of events, if there is no matter and energy, there is no time and space. The case can be made that relativity theory is explicitly ontological, it does in fact tell us what time space matter and energy are, but what it tells us is that they are relationships, it does not tell us what they are relationships among, on that it is silent. It accurately describes the relationships among the variables of the equations, if the fundamental constituents of external reality are time space, matter, and energy, what it has to say about them is that they are all one thing. It's pretty explicit that spacetime and matter/energy" are not two things.

As it relates to the discussion at hand, I think it can be said that external reality and internal reality are two things, and on that basis, it can certainly be said that consciousness is fundamental.

But the more significant thing you said is that conscious is fundamental. That is quite a claim, if I understand it correctly to imply that consciousness existed as long as space-time and mass-energy have existed (ie since the big bang), and we didn't have to wait for a brain to evolve before consciousness to exist. Is that what you think?

The short answer is yes, that's what I think, and I don't think it's really that extraordinary of a claim, reality is experiential, what we are trying to do with our sciences and our philosophies is to come to terms with the experience of reality.
The fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable without a distinction between subject and object, between knower and known, so consciousness is requisite for the very existence of knowledge. There is always a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described whenever you encounter knowledge, you just don"t get to have terms like knowledge, logic, or truth without it.

As to the temporal implications of my assertion, maybe you are inappropriately applying the characteristics of external reality to internal reality, but then again, maybe not. You are clearly making a materialistic presupposition when you express difficulty in believing that consciousness can exist without material basis, but then again, you also implied that very thing when you literalized the mathematics of scientific theory. Mathematics is a mental construct, the Big Bang is in fact, a mathematical construct, it is conceptual in nature and the only place we know concepts can exist are in a mind. Some scientists are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, others are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and we seem to be caught in one conceptual big loop.

Relativity appears to be telling us that realty is contingent upon the observer. Quantum physics appears to be telling us that consciousness is necessary to make reality actual, particles exist in Hilbert Space as probability waves, it doesn't become actual until an observer collapses the wave function, and the collapse of the wave function is said to work backwards temporally. So the argument can certainly be made that consciousness preceded the actuality of the Big Bang.

There is also a boatload of scientific evidence that "brains" are not requisite for the existence of consciousness. A wide range of creatures without brains demonstrate rudimentary forms of consciousness and examining those capabilities in an evolutionary context logically necessitates a broadening of the way we think about consciousness, and makes it very hard to draw arbitrary lines, especially at "brain".
Bacteria are extraordinarily perceptive to their surroundings and can respond to changes in ways that indicate some degree of sentience, they have been observed to communicate with each other and collectively collaborate to engage in sophisticated behavioral responses to their environment. Primitive invertebrates like the annelid worm appear to show maze learning, classical conditioning, and habituation. The fact is, a wide range of creatures without brains show purposeful behavior indicating that they are senate beings that not only "feel" things in their environment, but also "intelligently" respond to sensory inputs. It"s pretty clear that consciousness did not have to wait for the evolution of a brain to come into existence, as nervous systems became more complex, the contents of consciousness became more complex, the evidence suggests that consciousness and brains evolved together.

Let's also recognize that science's fundamental law of cause and effect implies that everything that exists, or occurs, has its cause in that which went before. Nothing can come about that did not already exist in some attenuated way. The potential for all things that have occurred was inherent in the structure to begin with. It is intrinsically implied in science's basic premises about cause and effect. Without it, the entire intellectual construct of science falls apart. Speaking scientifically, a very strong argument can be made that consciousness is a fundamental constituent of reality that does in fact precede the evolution of brains.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 1:26:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 1:11:37 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/3/2015 3:36:10 PM, kp98 wrote:
What are the other fundamental constituents of reality?
Time, space, matter, and energy.


Time and space are the same thing according to special relativity ; matter and energy are the same thing according to general relativity, so it could be said should the fundamental constituents are space-time and mass-energy (along with consciousness).

That's a popular misconception, but it is not entirely accurate and while the difference is subtle, I think it's important.

First, let's recognize that the mathematics of scientific theory are only theoretical abstractions, scientific knowledge is theoretical knowledge. In relativity theory spacetime is a mathematical structure used to describe and extrapolate from observed phenomena, space and time are simply coordinate systems of the geometric structure in which things and events occur within the theory. The mathematical equations are not meant to be ontological statements, they are simply a tool for describing how the variables are related to one another within the theory. The problem of ontologically literalizing the spacetime component of Relativity Theory into something that has independent existence is that it conflicts with the theory it comes from.

In relativity theory, spacetime is a four dimensional coordinate system that mathematically represents the geometric substrate of a manifold of events, if there are no metric or matter fields, there is no manifold of events, if there is no matter and energy, there is no time and space. The case can be made that relativity theory is explicitly ontological, it does in fact tell us what time space matter and energy are, but what it tells us is that they are relationships, it does not tell us what they are relationships among, on that it is silent. It accurately describes the relationships among the variables of the equations, if the fundamental constituents of external reality are time space, matter, and energy, what it has to say about them is that they are all one thing. It's pretty explicit that spacetime and matter/energy" are not two things.

As it relates to the discussion at hand, I think it can be said that external reality and internal reality are two things, and on that basis, it can certainly be said that consciousness is fundamental.

But the more significant thing you said is that conscious is fundamental. That is quite a claim, if I understand it correctly to imply that consciousness existed as long as space-time and mass-energy have existed (ie since the big bang), and we didn't have to wait for a brain to evolve before consciousness to exist. Is that what you think?

The short answer is yes, that's what I think, and I don't think it's really that extraordinary of a claim, reality is experiential, what we are trying to do with our sciences and our philosophies is to come to terms with the experience of reality.
The fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable without a distinction between subject and object, between knower and known, so consciousness is requisite for the very existence of knowledge. There is always a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described whenever you encounter knowledge, you just don"t get to have terms like knowledge, logic, or truth without it.

As to the temporal implications of my assertion, maybe you are inappropriately applying the characteristics of external reality to internal reality, but then again, maybe not. You are clearly making a materialistic presupposition when you express difficulty in believing that consciousness can exist without material basis, but then again, you also implied that very thing when you literalized the mathematics of scientific theory. Mathematics is a mental construct, the Big Bang is in fact, a mathematical construct, it is conceptual in nature and the only place we know concepts can exist are in a mind. Some scientists are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, others are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and we seem to be caught in one conceptual big loop.

Relativity appears to be telling us that realty is contingent upon the observer. Quantum physics appears to be telling us that consciousness is necessary to make reality actual, particles exist in Hilbert Space as probability waves, it doesn't become actual until an observer collapses the wave function, and the collapse of the wave function is said to work backwards temporally. So the argument can certainly be made that consciousness preceded the actuality of the Big Bang.

There is also a boatload of scientific evidence that "brains" are not requisite for the existence of consciousness. A wide range of creatures without brains demonstrate rudimentary forms of consciousness and examining those capabilities in an evolutionary context logically necessitates a broadening of the way we think about consciousness, and makes it very hard to draw arbitrary lines, especially at "brain".
Bacteria are extraordinarily perceptive to their surroundings and can respond to changes in ways that indicate some degree of sentience, they have been observed to communicate with each other and collectively collaborate to engage in sophisticated behavioral responses to their environment. Primitive invertebrates like the annelid worm appear to show maze learning, classical conditioning, and habituation. The fact is, a wide range of creatures without brains show purposeful behavior indicating that they are senate beings that not only "feel" things in their environment, but also "intelligently" respond to sensory inputs. It"s pretty clear that consciousness did not have to wait for the evolution of a brain to come into existence, as nervous systems became more complex, the contents of consciousness became more complex, the evidence suggests that consciousness and brains evolved together.

Let's also recognize that science's fundamental law of cause and effect implies that everything that exists, or occurs, has its cause in that which went before. Nothing can come about that did not already exist in some attenuated way. The potential for all things that have occurred was inherent in the structure to begin with. It is intrinsically implied in science's basic premises about cause and effect. Without it, the entire intellectual construct of science falls apart. Speaking scientifically, a very strong argument can be made that consciousness is a fundamental constituent of reality that does in fact precede the evolution of brains.

lol wow it's been so long since I've spoken to you. Very insightful response by the way.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 1:39:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 1:26:35 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/5/2015 1:11:37 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/3/2015 3:36:10 PM, kp98 wrote:
What are the other fundamental constituents of reality?
Time, space, matter, and energy.


Time and space are the same thing according to special relativity ; matter and energy are the same thing according to general relativity, so it could be said should the fundamental constituents are space-time and mass-energy (along with consciousness).

That's a popular misconception, but it is not entirely accurate and while the difference is subtle, I think it's important.

First, let's recognize that the mathematics of scientific theory are only theoretical abstractions, scientific knowledge is theoretical knowledge. In relativity theory spacetime is a mathematical structure used to describe and extrapolate from observed phenomena, space and time are simply coordinate systems of the geometric structure in which things and events occur within the theory. The mathematical equations are not meant to be ontological statements, they are simply a tool for describing how the variables are related to one another within the theory. The problem of ontologically literalizing the spacetime component of Relativity Theory into something that has independent existence is that it conflicts with the theory it comes from.

In relativity theory, spacetime is a four dimensional coordinate system that mathematically represents the geometric substrate of a manifold of events, if there are no metric or matter fields, there is no manifold of events, if there is no matter and energy, there is no time and space. The case can be made that relativity theory is explicitly ontological, it does in fact tell us what time space matter and energy are, but what it tells us is that they are relationships, it does not tell us what they are relationships among, on that it is silent. It accurately describes the relationships among the variables of the equations, if the fundamental constituents of external reality are time space, matter, and energy, what it has to say about them is that they are all one thing. It's pretty explicit that spacetime and matter/energy" are not two things.

As it relates to the discussion at hand, I think it can be said that external reality and internal reality are two things, and on that basis, it can certainly be said that consciousness is fundamental.

But the more significant thing you said is that conscious is fundamental. That is quite a claim, if I understand it correctly to imply that consciousness existed as long as space-time and mass-energy have existed (ie since the big bang), and we didn't have to wait for a brain to evolve before consciousness to exist. Is that what you think?

The short answer is yes, that's what I think, and I don't think it's really that extraordinary of a claim, reality is experiential, what we are trying to do with our sciences and our philosophies is to come to terms with the experience of reality.
The fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable without a distinction between subject and object, between knower and known, so consciousness is requisite for the very existence of knowledge. There is always a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described whenever you encounter knowledge, you just don"t get to have terms like knowledge, logic, or truth without it.

As to the temporal implications of my assertion, maybe you are inappropriately applying the characteristics of external reality to internal reality, but then again, maybe not. You are clearly making a materialistic presupposition when you express difficulty in believing that consciousness can exist without material basis, but then again, you also implied that very thing when you literalized the mathematics of scientific theory. Mathematics is a mental construct, the Big Bang is in fact, a mathematical construct, it is conceptual in nature and the only place we know concepts can exist are in a mind. Some scientists are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, others are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and we seem to be caught in one conceptual big loop.

Relativity appears to be telling us that realty is contingent upon the observer. Quantum physics appears to be telling us that consciousness is necessary to make reality actual, particles exist in Hilbert Space as probability waves, it doesn't become actual until an observer collapses the wave function, and the collapse of the wave function is said to work backwards temporally. So the argument can certainly be made that consciousness preceded the actuality of the Big Bang.

There is also a boatload of scientific evidence that "brains" are not requisite for the existence of consciousness. A wide range of creatures without brains demonstrate rudimentary forms of consciousness and examining those capabilities in an evolutionary context logically necessitates a broadening of the way we think about consciousness, and makes it very hard to draw arbitrary lines, especially at "brain".
Bacteria are extraordinarily perceptive to their surroundings and can respond to changes in ways that indicate some degree of sentience, they have been observed to communicate with each other and collectively collaborate to engage in sophisticated behavioral responses to their environment. Primitive invertebrates like the annelid worm appear to show maze learning, classical conditioning, and habituation. The fact is, a wide range of creatures without brains show purposeful behavior indicating that they are senate beings that not only "feel" things in their environment, but also "intelligently" respond to sensory inputs. It"s pretty clear that consciousness did not have to wait for the evolution of a brain to come into existence, as nervous systems became more complex, the contents of consciousness became more complex, the evidence suggests that consciousness and brains evolved together.

Let's also recognize that science's fundamental law of cause and effect implies that everything that exists, or occurs, has its cause in that which went before. Nothing can come about that did not already exist in some attenuated way. The potential for all things that have occurred was inherent in the structure to begin with. It is intrinsically implied in science's basic premises about cause and effect. Without it, the entire intellectual construct of science falls apart. Speaking scientifically, a very strong argument can be made that consciousness is a fundamental constituent of reality that does in fact precede the evolution of brains.

lol wow it's been so long since I've spoken to you. Very insightful response by the way.

Hey man, long time no see....I come on less lately, less time, but good seeing you. I'm sure we'll tangle again sooner or later :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater