|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 14, 2016 17:41:16 GMT -5
This question comes on the heels of our discussion about NDE's. If the consciousness resides in the brain, NDE's are inexplicable. If it doesn't, NDE's are to be expected, and we ought to listen to those lucky enough to tell us what it's like without the shackles of our brain holding us back.
So where does the "I" reside? The "problem of consciousness" is a huge one, and we seem to be a long ways from solving it. If consciousness forms automatically from the rush of neural activity over millions or billions of brain cells, how does it form into a feeling of "me"? Neuroscientists call this the "binding problem".
Most scientists hang on to the idea that it is in our brain, but the "binding problem" isn't the only mystery.
1. The nature and substance of "thought" seems inherently different from electricity or chemical or protein-based substances. Scientists say "thought exists" and comes from the brain, but can't explain how or why or where. 2. We experience a sense of self that is unexplained if we are a vast collection of simultaneously firing neurons. 3. The unconscious also remains unexplained: why do some of our chemical/electrical events reach consciousness while others do not? 4. We all detest the thought that we have no free will: Are we really subject to the clockwork of our brain activity with no personal accountability?
Nobel Prize winner Sir John Eccles thinks the brain is merely a tool which provides the interface between our consciousness (the "I" or "soul" we really are) and the external world. He doesn't explain how.
Bahram Elahi (professor of surgery and anatomy) thinks the "soul" is not immaterial at all, but is a subtle kind of matter that will someday be discovered. Like we recently discovered electromagnetic waves. He believes discovery will come when put the proper effort into study...presumably study of NDEs and other mysteries, I guess.
The religious think the soul is something eternal, a God-given gift, and have thought so since Plato.
What's the truth about consciousness? Do we take NDE's seriously to study it? How about other paranormal stuff, like out-of-body travel? Don't out-of-body experiences actually contradict Eccles and Elahi as well as traditional scientific thinking?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 18:27:24 GMT -5
Sir, from whatever happened to me, I simply did not know, and still don't know, whether it was in the body, or out of the body--definitely somehow separated from the body as there WAS an awareness of returning to this painful existence. Further, the vision of my body laying on that bed and having to return to pain, remains clear to this day. Yet, even with that, how can I say it was in the body or an out of the body experience? Here I had that experience, and cannot say for sure, only relate what i perceived occurred to/for me.
Yes I know, people with their own experiences wish to relate mine to theirs. It is not so for me, and I do not wish to ever be so presumptuous. It did not seem so unreasonable to me, and still doesn't. Smile, all I know for certain is I have no fear of returning to that state, and, in fact, have begun to long for it.
Yeah, yeah, I know what the TMB's most prolific poster wants everyone to think. As regards that, I reminds me of another account of the guy who did not believe and so to prove it announced the intention of cremation and scattering remains to the winds. Now, if such people really don't believe, why bother to go to all that work? Why bother to post over 25,000 posts to such a forum as this?
|
|
|
Post by InRThoughts on Jan 14, 2016 19:37:46 GMT -5
This question comes on the heels of our discussion about NDE's. If the consciousness resides in the brain, NDE's are inexplicable. If it doesn't, NDE's are to be expected, and we ought to listen to those lucky enough to tell us what it's like without the shackles of our brain holding us back. So where does the "I" reside? The "problem of consciousness" is a huge one, and we seem to be a long ways from solving it. If consciousness forms automatically from the rush of neural activity over millions or billions of brain cells, how does it form into a feeling of "me"? Neuroscientists call this the "binding problem". Most scientists hang on to the idea that it is in our brain, but the "binding problem" isn't the only mystery. 1. The nature and substance of "thought" seems inherently different from electricity or chemical or protein-based substances. Scientists say "thought exists" and comes from the brain, but can't explain how or why or where. 2. We experience a sense of self that is unexplained if we are a vast collection of simultaneously firing neurons. 3. The unconscious also remains unexplained: why do some of our chemical/electrical events reach consciousness while others do not? 4. We all detest the thought that we have no free will: Are we really subject to the clockwork of our brain activity with no personal accountability? Nobel Prize winner Sir John Eccles thinks the brain is merely a tool which provides the interface between our consciousness (the "I" or "soul" we really are) and the external world. He doesn't explain how. Bahram Elahi (professor of surgery and anatomy) thinks the "soul" is not immaterial at all, but is a subtle kind of matter that will someday be discovered. Like we recently discovered electromagnetic waves. He believes discovery will come when put the proper effort into study...presumably study of NDEs and other mysteries, I guess. The religious think the soul is something eternal, a God-given gift, and have thought so since Plato. What's the truth about consciousness? Do we take NDE's seriously to study it? How about other paranormal stuff, like out-of-body travel? Don't out-of-body experiences actually contradict Eccles and Elahi as well as traditional scientific thinking? If it resides in our thoughts/thought processes, then where do our thoughts reside. Some think that we attract thoughts by listening to our inner being Our inner being is like soul , who we are when the skin and bones are gone.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 14, 2016 20:00:02 GMT -5
Dennis, thank you for answering the question I'm always afraid to ask: "do you want to go back."
Also, I'd like to say that I respect and appreciate your honesty.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 14, 2016 20:05:12 GMT -5
Where's Rob Oxenbridge LOL? Raising that beautiful daughter, I'm sure. I'm of the camp that consciousness cannot be explained physically. The body IMO, is a localized, receiver of The Transcendent. Relationships with the Transcendent differ, but the body/mind/God theory of consciousness is indisputably reasonable, gainful, and logical, and most importantly, conservative. For if we are purely physical and random, we will arguably be governed so capriciously. NO NO NO. Trinitarianism is you and me arguing in the Abrahamic tradition even as he was called a friend of God, making a little difference here and a little difference there. Flesh and blood won't inherit the kingdom of God, but in the mean time we shall voice our opinions.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 14, 2016 20:13:37 GMT -5
Consciousness is what our brain does, once it becomes self aware. Consciousness is constrained by our experiences, except in those rare moments when inspirations or epiphany breaks in. Then again, consciousness could just be part of the simulation.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 14, 2016 20:32:52 GMT -5
That's like saying my penis makes children. What the hell planet do you live on? --Are you physicalists so removed from the aggregate and totality of reality. Thank God the preferred political vehicle today is a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 14, 2016 20:49:12 GMT -5
Conscience == con (with) + science (knowledge) One's conscience resides in one's body of learned principles. The magnetic tics of recorded constituent particles of information probably stored in the cloud
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 14, 2016 20:59:10 GMT -5
Consciousness is what our brain does, once it becomes self aware That's like saying my penis makes children. Yikes! I am NOT talking about what my penis does when it becomes self-aware.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 14, 2016 21:01:35 GMT -5
Conscience == con (with) + science (knowledge) One's conscience resides in one's body of learned principles. The magnetic tics of recorded constituent particles of information probably stored in the cloud Technology is equated with salvation today but progress and restraint of evil will be realized in the only way it has been, through good governance.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 14, 2016 21:04:26 GMT -5
Consciousness is what our brain does, once it becomes self aware That's like saying my penis makes children. Yikes! I am NOT talking about what my penis does when it becomes self-aware. I thought it was a comparatively simplistic analogy to the physicalist's interpretation of reality.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 14, 2016 21:06:41 GMT -5
That's like saying my penis makes children. What the hell planet do you live on? --Are you physicalists so removed from the aggregate and totality of reality. Thank God the preferred political vehicle today is a democracy. People like magic. Consciousness is mainly illusion. It's the early days in the Theory Of Mind. Dennett shows we don't understand our own consciousness, and half the time our brains are actively fooling us. www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 14, 2016 21:23:21 GMT -5
Do you reject the transcendent truth of The Tao as CS Lewis explains it. If all values are pursuant to a subjective consciousness, how can they improve on the classical, 'judgment of value'. No doubt the 2x2's definition of The Way differs from this one. But there's a connection insofar as in 2x2ism, we see a revolt or a reaction against relativism. Having lived through a period of time where various political efforts sought to realize the fruit promised by radically new ideologies, CS Lewis was quoted in a recent lecture by Larry Urnn of Hillsdale College: “The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.” “[The Tao] is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected…" "If my duty to my parents is a superstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race. If the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a real value, then so is conjugal fidelity. The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 14, 2016 22:22:13 GMT -5
That's like saying my penis makes children. And when it's not making children?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 14, 2016 23:07:39 GMT -5
Yeah, yeah, I know what the TMB's most prolific poster wants everyone to think. As the currently most prolific poster on the TMB what is it that I want everyone to think regarding consciousness? It will be interesting to hear from you since I currently have no stand on how the functioning brain relates to consciousness, memory, recall, etc. Since you claim to have a step up on understanding I would be interested in learning what I believe and want people to think regarding this.Perhaps as an object lesson.To pass the time? To explore other beliefs/ideas? To question unsupported claims?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 14, 2016 23:34:24 GMT -5
So where does the "I" reside? The "problem of consciousness" is a huge one, and we seem to be a long ways from solving it. If consciousness forms automatically from the rush of neural activity over millions or billions of brain cells, how does it form into a feeling of "me"? Neuroscientists call this the "binding problem". Most scientists hang on to the idea that it is in our brain, but the "binding problem" isn't the only mystery. 1. The nature and substance of "thought" seems inherently different from electricity or chemical or protein-based substances. Scientists say "thought exists" and comes from the brain, but can't explain how or why or where. 2. We experience a sense of self that is unexplained if we are a vast collection of simultaneously firing neurons. 3. The unconscious also remains unexplained: why do some of our chemical/electrical events reach consciousness while others do not? 4. We all detest the thought that we have no free will: Are we really subject to the clockwork of our brain activity with no personal accountability? It might be that there are different methods for different brain activity. Regarding memory creation and recall - the activity can be visualized while it happens and it is spread throughout the brain. Some liken it activating neurons as they are stimulated by external happenings (sight, sound, smell, taste, etc.). These are then linked together and when recalled mimic the stimulations that created them. But it is difficult to actually see a recalled experience as vision even though it is possible to list objects that may have been observed. But with that being said - there could be something like this for storage/recall but it does little to explain thinking about ideas and then recalling the thoughts. Or does creating the thought equate to a stimulation that is stored and then causes that stimulation when recalled? The fact that thoughts can be modified with various external stimulation would seem to point to the idea that they are stored in neural networks. But then how do they translate from stored entities to thoughts? Since the brain is really the only tool we have for examining the brain it presents problems!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2016 4:41:18 GMT -5
This question comes on the heels of our discussion about NDE's. Dubious Disciple, -I decline to enter into any discussion with you.
After having my knowledge ridiculed in spite of having been well acquainted with the subject for my whole working career (a nurse for 40 odd years) I won't give you the satisfaction of your doing so again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 7:20:50 GMT -5
Consciousness is what our brain does, once it becomes self aware. Consciousness is constrained by our experiences, except in those rare moments when inspirations or epiphany breaks in. Then again, consciousness could just be part of the simulation. When I was a child, I suffered wiith epilepsy, the doctor told my mother that I might grow out of it or I might further grow into it. He told her not to let me climb trees or go near cliffs etc. Fortunately gradually I grew out of it in early teen age. When I suffered an epileptic fit/seizure, suddenly my vision would go dark, my head would spin and i would lose consciouness. When unconscious, I was not aware of anything going on around me. When I was coming out ot the seizure, everything speeded up in my head and was racing back at what seemed like 100 miles per hour, that is how my consciousness normally returned. Reality for me, returned at a terrific speed, and with terrific noises. They Were very horrible experiences, as I recall the episodes. It would be very interesting to hear from others who have ever suffered with epilepsy how conscoiusness returned to them.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 15, 2016 8:51:45 GMT -5
I think consciousness is an incredibly complex biological process created in and by the brain. I’m oversimplifying here but I’m relatively happy to think about consciousness as higher-level brain awareness of other brain activity. I’m open to the possibility that the neural activity that creates our own individual consciousness can be perceived by other conscious beings. Now the fact that we are able to alter states of consciousness through sedative drugs seems to me to add to the likelihood that the consciousness is coming from within the brain as opposed to somewhere outside the brain.
Thinking about claims of NDE’s as experiences of consciousness outside of the brain that our brains usually holds us back from. I have to think if consciousness was really outside the brain we should be hearing of many many more reports of people speaking of this external consciousness during times like sedation when regular conscious activity is altered.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 15, 2016 9:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 15, 2016 9:54:34 GMT -5
It would be very interesting to hear from others who have ever suffered with epilepsy how conscoiusness returned to them. I also outgrew mine, partaker. However, I remember the events, at least partially (it's been a long time) so I can't say that consciousness left me. For example, I remember once getting my head stuck under a dresser during a seizure and banging it there up and down, on the floor and the base of the dresser. Of course, I felt no pain.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 15, 2016 10:54:54 GMT -5
Saying that computers can read thoughts may be overstating what is going on. Usually it means that there are electrodes that can pick up activity from certain locations and connected to software that will react to specific wave forms or activity. Biofeedback has been used since the early 1960s. The equipment has become smaller and this has led to more uses but, as far as I know, it is still only measuring the activity of the neurons and not an attempt to determine what information is encoded into the neural network. For example, the relaxed brain exhibits certain alpha and beta electrical activity. Electrodes on the scalp can detect these patterns and by concentrating the subject can modify the activity. Software can then be written that will, for example, cause some external device to operate in a specific way once the desired pattern/frequency has been reached. Implants can also be used to look for abnormal activity and, when detected, output electrical signals that will interfere with the abnormal activity and eliminate certain problems. Stopping the tremors associated with Parkinsonian Syndrome is one such example. There could be newer uses as well. It is a fast moving field and as things get smaller and smaller the implants can be used in many more situations. It is tough to keep up.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 15, 2016 11:01:43 GMT -5
It would be very interesting to hear from others who have ever suffered with epilepsy how conscoiusness returned to them. I also outgrew mine, partaker. However, I remember the events, at least partially (it's been a long time) so I can't say that consciousness left me. For example, I remember once getting my head stuck under a dresser during a seizure and banging it there up and down, on the floor and the base of the dresser. Of course, I felt no pain. I had one student who suffered from absence seizures (petit mal) and during one testing phase when medication was eliminated he would be talking and in the course of 10 minutes might have 5 absence seizures that would last for 1-5 seconds. He was unaware of them and his speech would stop and then restart around the event. As the name implies, for moments he would simply seem to be absent from his body for brief periods of time of which he was unaware.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 15, 2016 11:22:08 GMT -5
My conscience is somewhere in my head. Not my toe nor my back. Whether I am conscious or unconscious it is linked not only to my physical but spiritual senses as well. The connection between the physical and spiritual bodies are welded ( for want of a better word) together. It is difficult to separate them. In my mind anyway. Yes DD out of body experiences involve the consciousness. How do I know? Because ive had them. A number of them through my life. No Im not prepared to talk deeply about it..
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jan 16, 2016 10:40:17 GMT -5
A few scientific tidbits about consciousness:
1. It's tied strongly to the brain, as suspected. In fact, we have charted the circuitry in the brain that modulates consciousness. We can, if we want to, shut off consciousness by cutting its path.
2. But the consciousness isn't gone, it's just hidden away. We now know that people in a vegetative state retain consciousness. We used to think lights out, game over, "he's left us." Studies now show that sometimes such people can understand what we say, because the appropriate section of their brain lights up in response to our questions. In fact, the consciousness can be repressed for as much as ten years, and then woken up...we have had people come back from a "game-over" state as many as ten years later, and consciousness returns.
3. Moreover, consciousness appears to be returnable for several hours after brain death (I should be careful here and say after brain activity can no longer be detected). This happens when clinical death occurs and the patient is revived up to hours later. And if the patients are to be believed, the consciousness continues to work while they are clinically dead.
But what all of this means is lost on me, because I struggle to define exactly what consciousness IS.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 16, 2016 20:55:03 GMT -5
So where does the "I" reside? The "problem of consciousness" is a huge one, and we seem to be a long ways from solving it. If consciousness forms automatically from the rush of neural activity over millions or billions of brain cells, how does it form into a feeling of "me"? Neuroscientists call this the "binding problem". Most scientists hang on to the idea that it is in our brain, but the "binding problem" isn't the only mystery. 1. The nature and substance of "thought" seems inherently different from electricity or chemical or protein-based substances. Scientists say "thought exists" and comes from the brain, but can't explain how or why or where. 2. We experience a sense of self that is unexplained if we are a vast collection of simultaneously firing neurons. 3. The unconscious also remains unexplained: why do some of our chemical/electrical events reach consciousness while others do not? 4. We all detest the thought that we have no free will: Are we really subject to the clockwork of our brain activity with no personal accountability? It might be that there are different methods for different brain activity. Regarding memory creation and recall - the activity can be visualized while it happens and it is spread throughout the brain. Some liken it activating neurons as they are stimulated by external happenings (sight, sound, smell, taste, etc.). These are then linked together and when recalled mimic the stimulations that created them. But it is difficult to actually see a recalled experience as vision even though it is possible to list objects that may have been observed. But with that being said - there could be something like this for storage/recall but it does little to explain thinking about ideas and then recalling the thoughts. Or does creating the thought equate to a stimulation that is stored and then causes that stimulation when recalled? The fact that thoughts can be modified with various external stimulation would seem to point to the idea that they are stored in neural networks. But then how do they translate from stored entities to thoughts? Since the brain is really the only tool we have for examining the brain it presents problems! For declarative memory do you think we actually encode stimulation such as sight, sound etc? Or do we only encode the thought about the stimulation?
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 16, 2016 20:55:30 GMT -5
A few scientific tidbits about consciousness: 1. It's tied strongly to the brain, as suspected. In fact, we have charted the circuitry in the brain that modulates consciousness. We can, if we want to, shut off consciousness by cutting its path. 2. But the consciousness isn't gone, it's just hidden away. We now know that people in a vegetative state retain consciousness. We used to think lights out, game over, "he's left us." Studies now show that sometimes such people can understand what we say, because the appropriate section of their brain lights up in response to our questions. In fact, the consciousness can be repressed for as much as ten years, and then woken up...we have had people come back from a "game-over" state as many as ten years later, and consciousness returns. 3. Moreover, consciousness appears to be returnable for several hours after brain death (I should be careful here and say after brain activity can no longer be detected). This happens when clinical death occurs and the patient is revived up to hours later. And if the patients are to be believed, the consciousness continues to work while they are clinically dead. But what all of this means is lost on me, because I struggle to define exactly what consciousness IS. I'm interested in these can you please provide references?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 17, 2016 9:10:23 GMT -5
For declarative memory do you think we actually encode stimulation such as sight, sound etc? Or do we only encode the thought about the stimulation? I dabble in software for computers - image manipulation, encoding, programming, etc. I don't think the brain works in the same way as data is stored in a computer system but perhaps more like the way information is stored in a large multi-system database with the bits of data all linked to each other in a fluid way that is put into use as required. A direct link between subject "A" and subject "F" may not exist until someone looking at other data finds that subject "A" and subject "F" both bought a car from subject "Q" who had a friend who attended kindergarten with the subjects "O" and "T" who turn out to be the parents of subject "A" and "F". It creates a multifaceted network of connections that allows seemingly unrelated events to be linked even when the direct connections are not available when the 'data' is initially acquired. I doubt that the recall of stored visual images is at all like the storage of digital photos/video. For digital photos there is, at least when displayed, a 1:1 correspondence between between the attributes of the data point (the intensity of the various color components) and what was recorded. The recall of images in the brain do not display the same degree of static 'truthfulness' as do digital images. It has been demonstrated that recalled images are subsequently 're-stored' (meaning placed in storage again) following the recall and any modifications that might have been made to that memory are stored so the 'new' memory now contains the modification and generally is accepted as the true recollection of the events and the old memory is no longer considered valid. As it turns out, as unbelievable as the brain is in processing information its accuracy is far less than perfect. I think this is both good and bad. It does allow for incorrect information but it also provided for a certain amount of fluidity when retelling memories of those blissful halcyon days of our youth. We have all discovered that at times the tales told to us were interwoven with details and 'fact' that had more to do with how the teller wished the events had been or how they interpreted the events at the time and may not have been an accurate reflection of the situation. Designing a new system/story when using incorrect facts can at times lead to an improved system/story. I have read many theories of how information might actually be stored but not a lot of data to support them yet. I wrote the above relying on articles and graphs/illustrations I have seen relating to this as well as the comparison of digital vs. biological image/memory/information storage yet it is difficult to trace how they ever all became linked together to allow them to be told to others (although it might be so disjointed that it makes no sense to anyone else!).
|
|