'I' am not consciousness

Ahnimus · May 2007

baraka wrote:

Boy, this thread grew overnight.................

Ahnimus, I agree to the idea that combinations of various sensory data plus data from memory states are things that an “upper consciousness”, with it’s personality and feeling of self, needs for coming into existence. But it also needs the possibility for experience (which you feel is an illusion?), and that is the basis for all consciousness – experience and raw conciousness are the same.

Your 'hero' Blackmore and other qualia-opponents fail to explain how phenomenally represented information (qualia) gets to be experienced in the first place. They only have theories on how already experienced information accumulate and creates an illusion of a self. This is why I prodded you about it last night, as I knew you would regurgitate their stance. And, if you were part of the scientific community, you would know that they are NOT in agreement over the definition of consciousness.

Now, whether qualia are separated from the experience (conscious unit) itself, or actually is the experience, is a tough question. But just as you can compare qualia with an organization, and state that “an organization is only a concept or illusion - it’s actually just a bunch of people”, you can say that yes, consciousness might only be a concept or illusion, but it’s components are just as real as that bunch of people.

Consciousness consists not of data, but of phenomenal information, since it’s experience-able. Again, that information might be experience itself, but still the components are real since experiencing is real. So, why can’t we locate qualia in the brain? Because qualia are the instruments through which "we" (the experiences) examine the world. We would have to leave experiencing to be able to find qualia, but then of course we wouldn’t be able to experience the finding of qualia.

Really. Not many people in the field care about qualia. It was labelled the 'hard problem', but it's not really that hard of a problem. Consider the solidity of an object. That solidity is the product of the electrons orbit and so on. Various quantum properties cause the solidity of an object. But that doesn't explain how those quantum properties make the object solid. That's just the kind of thing that is happening with consciousness. If you are looking for a direct link, you are probably not going to find it for a few centuries. You should be working with what we know instead of speculating about 500 years from now, especially if you've no means to test your theories. As a scientist, you know this.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Imagine this. In order for me to know what I think, or to know how I act, I must be self-aware. This is what we call consciousness.

But, 'I' am not my consciousness. 'I' am what 'I' am conscious of. 'I' am in no way my awareness of what 'I' am, but rather 'I' am what 'I' am aware of.

Could you please provide me clarity? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you perceive the unconscious processes that precede our sense of "I" awareness as being consciousness? Or do you only consider consciousness as being what we know we perceive?

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

Could you please provide me clarity? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you perceive the unconscious processes that precede our sense of "I" awareness as being consciousness? Or do you only consider consciousness as being what we know we perceive?

The "un-" prefix denotes something that is not the word it's prefixed to "-consciousness". Does that answer your question?

Ahnimus · May 2007

sicnevol wrote:

Okay, Buddha, put down the hash pipe.....

"Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced, believe not because it is your national belief, believe not because you have been made to believe from from your childhood, but reason truth out, and after you have analyzed it, if you find it will do good to one and all, believe it, live up to it and help others live up to it."
- Buddha

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The "un-" prefix denotes something that is not the word it's prefixed to "-consciousness". Does that answer your question?

There are numerous altered states of consciousness, such as hypnosis, which is accessing unconscious material and bringing it conscious; there is dream states of consciousness that are "not real" by most people's standards. There are those who learn to raise their consciousness, including making what is unconscious to the masses, conscious and a part of their awareness. One can learn to ground their consciousness in their body and tap into consciousness of bodily process that are "unconscious" for the masses.

Do you acknowledge the altered states? And the concept of using choice to make what is "unconscious" conscious? People often assume that the unconscious is something we don't have access to, and yet psychology proves otherwise. An individual can access old processes from, say 30 years ago, that happened to them, and raise their awareness of the past, in the present, altering what they know, in terms of healing or otherwise affecting their perception of that past event.

I'm wondering if you acknowledge then, that how far "back" in our consciousness we are conscious has to do with our personal choice and efforts?

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

There are numerous altered states of consciousness, such as hypnosis, which is accessing unconscious material and bringing it conscious; there is dream states of consciousness that are "not real" by most people's standards. There are those who learn to raise their consciousness, including making what is unconscious to the masses, conscious and a part of their awareness. One can learn to ground their consciousness in their body and tap into consciousness of bodily process that are "unconscious" for the masses.

Do you acknowledge the altered states? And the concept of using choice to make what is "unconscious" conscious? People often assume that the unconscious is something we don't have access to, and yet psychology proves otherwise. An individual can access old processes from, say 30 years ago, that happened to them, and raise their awareness of the past, in the present, altering what they know, in terms of healing or otherwise affecting their perception of that past event.

I'm wondering if you acknowledge then, that how far "back" in our consciousness we are conscious has to do with our personal choice and efforts?

Oh yeah, I acknowledge that hypnosis works, NLP probably works and psychoanalytics works. All that stuff can reprogram us and empower us to make better decisions. But none of it takes away from what I've said.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Oh yeah, I acknowledge that hypnosis works, NLP probably works and psychoanalytics works. All that stuff can reprogram us and empower us to make better decisions. But none of it takes away from what I've said.

Maybe not. However, we can follow consciousness to all kinds of unconscious levels. It's natural and all it takes is some learning, and effort. I wasn't sure whether you understood this or not.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

Maybe not. However, we can follow consciousness to all kinds of unconscious levels. It's natural and all it takes is some learning, and effort. I wasn't sure whether you understood this or not.

Oh yeah, but you aren't taking consciousness to an unconscious level. Rather, the opposite, you are delaying reacting on uncionscious activity and allowing it to manifest in consciousness.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Oh yeah, but you aren't taking consciousness to an unconscious level. Rather, the opposite, you are delaying reacting on uncionscious activity and allowing it to manifest in consciousness.

By choice, one is making conscious, what was previously unconscious.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

By choice, one is making conscious, what was previously unconscious.

Right

But not from free-will. It's still only requires will to explain it. It also doesn't make consciousness anymore than an awareness.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Right

But not from free-will. It's still only requires will to explain it. It also doesn't make consciousness anymore than an awareness.

I'm wondering, do you have any studies that have been done during meditation, that show what the processes are that are happening? For example, you say " you are delaying reacting on uncionscious activity and allowing it to manifest in consciousness." This sounds like you are using one researcher's findings and applying it to other functions of altered states of consciousness that may not have been studied. Do you specifically have proof of what is found to happen during meditation, in terms of this "delay"?

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

I'm wondering, do you have any studies that have been done during meditation, that show what the processes are that are happening? For example, you say " you are delaying reacting on uncionscious activity and allowing it to manifest in consciousness." This sounds like you are using one researcher's findings and applying it to other functions of altered states of consciousness that may not have been studied. Do you specifically have proof of what is found to happen during meditation, in terms of this "delay"?

Uh, yes, it takes 200 ms for any conscious thought to get there. Is it absolute proof, no, but there is no evidence supporting an alternate theory. The logical hypothesis is that it doesn't defy the laws of physics.

catefrances · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Some time in the future when we can stimulate specific patterns in your brain that match those of a bat. Then you will know what it's like to be a bat.

but that's hardly reality is it? it is just a simulation of a reality.

Ahnimus · May 2007

catefrances wrote:

but that's hardly reality is it? it is just a simulation of a reality.

Yea, that is all experience is. A simulation of reality.

catefrances · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, that is all experience is. A simulation of reality.

so then what.....reality doesn't exist as a definite thing; only as a simulation of something else?

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Uh, yes, it takes 200 ms for any conscious thought to get there. Is it absolute proof, no, but there is no evidence supporting an alternate theory. The logical hypothesis is that it doesn't defy the laws of physics.

So, you don't have specific data in reference to meditation, itself, then. How can you assume what the process is, considering the "delay" thing was not at all about meditation, which is an altered state of consciousness. The Libet studies you talk abour refer to normal consciousness, in my understanding. It's not logical to apply the dynamics of an orange to an apple, imo.

sicnevol · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The following text is from Nobel Laureate Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul

The chemical properties of each atom are determined almost entirely by its nuclear charge. The other properties of the nucleus--its mass, its secondary electrical properties such as strengths of its dipole, and its quadripole--make in most cases only small differences to its chemical properties.

Now, to a first approximation, the mass and charge of the nucleus of an atom never change, at least in the mild environment in which life flourishes on earth. Thus the knowledge of the substructure of the nucleus is not needed for chemistry. It makes no difference that an atomic nucleus is composed of various combinations of protons and neutrons, and that they, in turn, are made up of quarks. All the chemist needs to know about each atom is its nuclear charge in order to explain most of the facts of chemistry. To do this he needs to understand the rather unexpected type of mechanics (called "quantum mechanics") that controls the behavior of very small particles and of electrons in particular. In practice, since the calculations soon become impossibly intricate, he mainly uses various rules-of-thumb that we now can see have a reasonable explanation in terms of quantum mechanics. Below this level he need not venture.

*The major exception to all this is radioactivity: the rare change of one atom into another that occurs in stars, atomic piles and bombs, and, less spectacularly, in the atoms of radioactive minerals an in specially contrived experiments in the laboratory. Radioactivity can produce mutations in DNA, the genetic material, so it cannot be ignored completely, but it is unlikely to be important as a basic process in the behavior of our brains.

I can predict with %99.999~ certainty that the walls of my apartment will remain walls to my apart out of their own quantum volition.

You take quantum mechanics to mean something at the macroscopic layer of reality, when in-fact, that meaning is relatively irrelevant to most things discussed about the macroscopic/macrochosmic reality.

well I guess my b.s in Physics is usless now....

angelica · May 2007

sicnevol wrote:

well I guess my b.s in Physics is usless now....

lol

FinsburyParkCarrots · May 2007

In being selfish, is a meme conscious, and therefore consciously selfish? And if it isn't, can it be said to exist? Argue the case against Dawkins and Blackmore, pit Cartesians!

(I don't mean the board member meme, by the way.

)

sicnevol · May 2007

Kann wrote:

That's not true. Physical laws are true until proven wrong, it's not exactly the same. No physical, biological or chemical law is absolute, they can be applied to explain that which surrounds us and which we percieve but they are not absolute laws and can be broken. Take gravity, it is a law, but it has been proven wrong.
That's why I fail to see where Descartes is wrong, until we achieve total understanding of our universe (you know, the unified law in physics) the only thing that is sure is that we can doubt reality.

really can you tell me who exactly proved that every atom attracts every other atom in the universe with a force <-> corolated to the distance between them wrong. Do tell.

'I' am not consciousness

Comments

Categories