- Ron Burnett
- VANCOUVER B.C
- Canada
President and Vice-Chancellor, Emily Carr University of Art and Design
This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Can a map of the Brain really explain the complexities of consciousness?
We have been making extraordinary advances in mapping the brain and at the same time drawing conclusions about consciousness, the ways in which we think and consequently, the ways in which we act as humans.
I consider this approach to be simplistic and reductive. I am worried that we are building "behavioural maps" that cannot account for the complexity of human thought and action. Most of all, these maps cannot account for the unconscious, that part of our brains that cannot be explained by any reference to its parts.
Adriaan Braam 10+
We can have all the spiritual freedom we want or need, but if we cannot rationalize and understand something we can't really put it to good use either!!
If we do not understand God, we can ignore and argue against any concept of God.
A horrible situation would exist if we understood and were 'conscious' of a higher power, and then discard that whole notion all together.
THANKS RON!
Great conversation and, of course, subject!!
Ed Schulte 30+
Both in thanking Ron and all.
and as the Sufi say "Thank Us!!!" ( because all we truly "have" is each other.)
Viola Anderson
For me, the question that arises is how does consciousness fit into this scenario? What function does it serve, how did it arise, and is it continuing to evolve or is it a dead end?
Consider the senses. Each developed for evolutionary reasons. Each enabled individual cells and, then, organisms to survive, if not permanently, at least in the short term. Consciousness in this context can be considered to be a sense. So--what is it sensing? What is it used for? One of the Ted talks tells us every brain function evolved to facilitate movement of the body. Is this true?
There is no reason to believe that evolution of the human organism has ended. That leads to the question: What are the senses we still need to develop in order for our species to survive in a universe that we experience only through our currently evolved senses?
Some believe consciousness to have three components: the id, the ego, and the superego, which could be viewed as cell consciousness, individual consciousness, and pan-species consciousness. As with our other senses, we use them without fully understanding where they came from, how they work, and what their limitations are. The brain, having reached a size within the human body that can no longer enlarge itself through evolution because it would kill any woman giving birth to it, has cast about and found other ways to increase its usefulness. Ted talks and the internet are quite likely one of those ways that individual's brains are linked to (perhaps) form a greater brain.
Ron Burnett 100+
Ed Schulte 30+
By passing the TED systems here
re your "Ed, consciousness with other animals isn't different they just don't talk about it.
Duality: speaking to yourself?
Yes if by "speaking" you intend to include "sensing" "feeling" "awareness" then yes. (English is a very limited tool so one has to be careful ) it is only when HUman as a Dualistic being returns to source ...Theosis ...that it too as you pointed out with the animal example "just doesn't talk about it" because it has ( like animals ) no duality. The german 'words' is "Densein"(sp) is it not? for "being there" a Persian word for pre-Zarathusta origin.
Jah Sun
"People often make unfounded accusations and fact skewing analogies out of desperation, when they feel their ideas are being threatened by others."
Sure, and many of them are defending their materialistic views.
Fact is, that materialism has offered no explanation of consciousness thusfar. None.
Considering the fact that all we can truly be sure exists is our own consciousness, even Occam's famous razor indicates that consciousness based models of reality are simpler than the whole "it is just a random accident of matter" concept which is entirely un-empirical speculation.
Maybe your exploration of Yoga may one day present some transpersonal experiences for you to ponder...
Namaste.
michael johnson
I do not consider it a fact, that all we can be truly sure exists is our own consciousness. Nor, have I found any evidence for your idea of consciousness, although I have spent many years looking for it. If you can provide any evidence to support your views, then I would be delighted to listen.
Here is an article from Susan Blackmore, who also had deep mystical experiences, yet spent nearly 30 years looking for scientific evidence to support it: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm
I am willing to change my views when I find that they are contrary to the facts. Are you?
Adriaan Braam 10+
Let's explore the realms of self-reflection, feeling-imagery, dreams, hypnagogic imagery, hallucinations and preliminary mystical experiences. :) All this is possible because, as I see it, consciousness is a spiritual state and we decide what we'll allow in that state and what not. We all know one aspect of consciousness, it enables us to limit it by deciding not to go there, wherever we decide not to go. E,g, religion, God, flying, marriage. kids, North Pole, etc.
Although we might also, without wanting to, be introduced into experiences we have no control over, like hypnosis. Who is the hypnotizer really talking to when we react??
What does it proof when we have a deja vu?
All this can be seen and even explained as living in a spiritual world (whether we like it or not) with its own levels of state. Levels we can ascend to or not. I hope that the underlying thought that is present here is, we decide, we are the ones that have the freedom to choose.
Talking about choosing, the expression 'breaking the cycle' is this very difficult, life altering decision and process to make big changes in ones life. But it is all done on the mental and thus spiritual plane. It may even mean opening one's mind to actually research spiritual concepts.
There are three spiritual levels, the natural, spiritual and celestial level and we can choose to which one we want to be elevated.
I'm kind of rambling because I'm told to go to bed :) but love this topic and its options.. but proofing anything? Absolutely not.
Well in a way it was possible and has been done. Swedenborg was with a large group of people when all of a sudden he became very nervous. When asked why, he described a fire that was happening close to his house. This house was two days away, on horseback (250 years ago). After two days the news came that a fire had taken place and stopped one door from Swedenborg's house..
When news spread, the Queen of Sweden contacted him and more proof emerged..
Ron Krumpos
E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Love, Grace, Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.
Viola Anderson
Ron Burnett 100+
Frans Kellner 50+
Wat bewustzijn is dat is gelijk voor mij als voor jou maar ieder vult het elk moment met een eigen en unieke inhoud.
Bewustzijn bestaat eigenlijk uit drie lagen. Eerst het bewustzijn van alles en daarbinnen het bewuste deel dat is gelokaliseerd door de activiteit van een organisme en daaromheen een flinterdun laagje waarvan een organisme kennis kan nemen door hierop de aandacht te richten. In het dagelijks spraakgebruik wordt alleen dit laatste als bewustzijn betiteld. Aandacht werkt dan eigenlijk net als een zaklantaarn dat in het duister alleen het stukje oplicht waar het op is gericht en voor de tijd dat dit duurt.
Bewustzijn dat is alles wat is. Het “is” door bewust te zijn want anders was het er niet. Mensen zijn zich dit niet meer bewust doordat zij zich exclusief zijn gaan identificeren met alles wat de zintuigen aan indrukken oproepen. De innerlijke beleving van bewust te zijn wordt hierdoor overstraald. Zo worden we geheel beheerst door wat de hersenen genereren als reactie op wat de zintuigen doorgeven.
Al deze zintuiglijke indrukken bestaan uit vormen, kleuren, texturen, geuren en geluiden en schijnen van buiten te komen. Op al deze indrukken reageert ons lichaam evenals planten en dieren reageren op indrukken uit hun omgeving. Al dit leven evenals een baby is bewust in de wereld maar zij worden vaak als onbewuste wezens gezien omdat deze wezens zichzelf niet of nauwelijks onderscheiden uit deze zee van indrukken.
De functie denken wat een opgroeiend kind ontwikkeld, functioneert op de vaststelling dat het kennis heeft van alle indrukken door hieruit betekenis af te leiden en dit te benoemen om dit dan naar willekeur op te kunnen roepen. Door dit kennen kan men elke nieuwe indruk herkennen en daaruit ook zichzelf onderscheiden en herkennen als het wezen dat kennis heeft van zichzelf en de wereld.
Frans Kellner 50+
Ook een dier of een baby is zich bewust van zichzelf. Anders kon het niet reageren vanuit de eigen behoefte maar het is pas als men dit bewuste zijn overbrengt naar het denkvermogen dat de mensen ditzelfde bewustzijn noemen. Dit denken maakt dat we over al dat ons leven op een moment roert kunnen nadenken. We kunnen het oproepen en beschouwen en in onze gedachte ordenen en indelen naar de betekenis die het voor ons heeft.
Nu is het opmerken van dat waarmee onze zintuigen ons verbinden beperkt door de energie van onze aandacht.
Hersenwetenschappers hebben gemeten dat enige hersenactiviteit boven een bepaalde energiegrens moet stijgen voordat iemand kan aangeven zich van iets bewust te zijn. Van alle activiteit die in de hersenen afloopt is een mens zich maar bewust van enkele pieken in het totale energieverloop. Meer dan 90% van alle hersenactiviteit komt niet beschikbaar voor de mentale functie en blijven volgens het gangbare spraakgebruik dus onbewust.
In de frontaal kwab hebben onderzoekers ook zogenaamde spiegelneuronen ontdekt. Deze neuronen zijn beter ontwikkeld naarmate dieren in een hechter sociaal verband leven. De functie van deze spiegelneuronen is voornamelijk het overnemen van het handelen van anderen door afkijken en zijn noodzakelijk voor leerprocessen via andere leden van de groep. Door deze neuronen kan in de eigen hersenen de handeling van een ander worden geactiveerd tijdens het waarnemen daarvan zodat men dit daarna zelf uit kan voeren als met deze hersenactiviteit het eigen lichaam wordt aangestuurd.
Deze neuronen konden pas worden aangelegd nadat men zich als individu kon onderscheiden door de wereld met daarin zichzelf als geheel in kaart te brengen.
Andere proeven hebben aangetoond dat het bewustzijn dat zich met een lichaam heeft geïdentificeerd zich zonder moeite met een ander lichaam kan identificeren wanneer het d.m.v. allerhande techniek gefopt wordt.
Frans Kellner 50+
Andere vormen van bewustzijn kennen we als dromen en tijdens zogenaamde bewusteloosheid bij ongevallen en medische operaties. In werkelijkheid gaat het bewustzijn dan gewoon door maar is dan tijdelijk ontkoppeld van de zintuigen.
Over dit alles is nog heel veel meer te zeggen maar voor even is het bovenstaande wel genoeg voer om de ratio tot enig begrip te brengen over wat bewustzijn IS.
Een voortdurend worden dus van een bewust zijn dat zich toont in een almaar veranderde uitdrukking die op het lichaam werkt als een eindeloze reeks indrukken die verwerkt worden en weer uitgedrukt om zo het bestaan te continueren. De wereld die men ziet dat is men zelf en dat is het bewustzijn waarvan voor het verstand maar een minimale fractie zichtbaar wordt.
Ethan Podczerwinski
Ron Burnett 100+
Chris Ryan
griffin tucker
if enough information was gathered about a particular individual, could their conscious thoughts be pre-empted or emulated? for instance - if one were to read a sentence, all to do to emulate (although most likely not with 100% accuracy) would be to read the same sentence they are reading.
Sean Ashkenazy
Ron Burnett 100+
Steven Bowden
Consciousness to me is better explained with religion than Science. I believe it is the very essence of individual thought and that we are nowhere near understanding it. I do believe it is some form of energy and call it a soul or consciousness it lives on forever and is the core to who we are. Our bodies are just a very complex machine to house our conscious and when the machine is dead our conscious lives on in another existence that we have accepted.
Comment deleted
michael johnson
Frans Kellner 50+
Ron Burnett 100+
Ed Schulte 30+
about time that the entire physical "body" be included as "Brain"? In that why EACH Body and EACH Etheric body double is not left out of this distinction called "consciousness" or "Structures" of consciousness. (I add the latter because the structure will always be limited by the understanding which this structure was created from).
As the Sufi / Rumi ? re-minds us "The body came out of us, not we from it." And if the translator was of better understanding he would have caught that Rumi said , "These bodies" not "The body" but the essence of the line still stands out. "Cell by we, we made it."
Debra Smith 100+
The conscious self: (Damasio)
http://youtu.be/Q_25uUpippE
Emotions and consciousness by Dr. Antonio Damasio a major researcher in neuroscience.
http://youtu.be/Aw2yaozi0Gg
Ron Burnett 100+
michael johnson
I am a yoga teacher, specializing in helping people move, breathe and think in ways that increase their experience of well-being. I am now leaning toward the material realist view of consciousness being the dynamic activity of a brain, within a body, within a culture and so on. I have believed for many years in the idea that consciousness is primary and material reality is a byproduct, until I saw the many debates between Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer, including this one with Leonard Milodinow, Stuart Hammerof and more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WA76VTq3O8
Although some of us may be attached to beliefs in an afterlife or an inflated sense of importance in the universe that seems to hinge on consciousness remaining unexplained, and therefore feel threatened, I am impressed at the level of politeness demonstrated here. I am vehemently interested in this conversation. Thank you all for participating!
Ron Burnett 100+
michael johnson
Richard Nota 20+
michael johnson
Letitia Falk 10+
Richard Nota 20+
Ed Schulte 30+
" I wish it were possible to "define" consciousness or even to find some shared sense of what consciousness means!" and
"We are really talking about mind and body,."
Having just shared a ""body" inclusion Please" note with Kathy ...yes I whole heatedly agree, But can we not also include a simple principle which modern Science has acknowledge for 50 years and the ancients for 5000 (plus) years? That being "we" HUman are Homo-sapien-sapines meaning "Beings conscious of consciousness" IOW dual in nature ....Consciousness itself AND Conscious of BEing consciousness.
I do not suggest "word playing" here but rather as in when Eckhart Tolle says it ,"when consciousness becomes conscious of itself, THAT is Presence." That is when one re-members that connection to what is "beyond" and before ...name and form.....which is it very "unknowable" (but still felt) source of body and brain.
Frans Kellner 50+
Duality: speaking to yourself?
Debra Smith 100+
The closest I can come to it is an analogy. Yesterday I watched a video of the earth from outer space which was posted by fellow TED commenter Lynn Eschbach. In time lapse photography it shows our planet from the international space station. I was fascinated by the existence of the fragile atmosphere around the planet. It seemed as fragile as the breath in a human being and yet it supports and makes possible the existence of everything on earth. Without it the planet is just another rock in space. This is what consciousness is to me. The magical halo that turns the physical matter of brain into human thought and being. Brain mapping is like a road map. It is not actually consciousness any more than the road map is the actual terrain through which we travel.
Ron Burnett 100+
michael johnson
As far as a definition for consciousness, here is the first one from Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary:
con·scious·ness noun -nəs
1: a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.
This one seems straight forward enough. This particular definition will likely be explained by mechanical processes in the brain if it hasn't been already.
I also agree that the road map is not the same as the actual terrain, but this does not mean that a map cannot give a satisfactory explanation of the actual terrain. I like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Milodinow's argument for Model Dependent Realism in their book The Grand Design, which basically states that our entire view of reality is nothing more than a collection of mental maps...visual, audio, olfactory, tactile, gustatory, etc. Any view of reality is a reductionist mental model at best and never equivalent to the actual terrain.
griffin tucker
on a lighter note; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=XGK84Poeynk
natasha nikulina 30+
" What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. "
Saint Augustin
But the definition you've presented here /which does not define anything :)/ sounds pretty close, "being aware especially of something within oneself.", at least it works for me .
Thanks, Michael !
Letitia Falk 10+
@natasha: unlike time, our high level of consciousness appears to be a uniquely human feature, suggesting that there is an origin of consciousness somewhere in our evolutionary history. Time on the other hand may be a philosophical concept, but seems to affect (or not affect) everything in our physical world equally.
Frans Kellner 50+
Michael you did understand it well but you take what you know for reality. Reality, the content of the mind is in itself a map, not of Arizona but of your knowledge. Knowing galaxies is seeing by means of extensions to our senses yet not different a part of the map of knowledge. Knowledge is what we made out of reality like that picture. A frozen moment that we can review and think about but reality is consciousness that produced that instant of the picture that was taken and is looking back on it through the mind that wonders about it.
As you stated thus we travel by our map of knowledge and think it is real. The only thing real is consciousness that produces infinite instances in infinite appearances from which we derive knowledge. Within that knowledge we see our actions and think that's us, we are but that's just a current in the big stream.
Thomas Jones 50+
Providing a definition of something, and knowing something, are two different things. To know consciousness, we must know consciousness. [And it is that simple.]
Once we know consciousness (assuming it is possible) then we can offer a description of the experience of knowing (not of consciousness.)
So the question is not, "Can we define consciousness?"; the question is, "Can we know it?"
What do you think?
Frans Kellner 50+
This isn't possible with consciousness because it's a stream of awareness that sees into the mind.
To know something is like taking a picture and look on it over and over again while the moment and the world fleets on in the yet unknown. Consciousness in that comparison is you looking at that picture that isn't you but a picture.
Our mind is unequipped to know consciousness.
As I explain in my reply on Letitia it is possible to get an idea about it. At least I hope that I succeeded to give such an idea.
michael johnson
"To know consciousness, we must know consciousness. [And it is that simple.] Once we know consciousness (assuming it is possible) then we can offer a description of the experience of knowing (not of consciousness.)"
I could be wrong, but this kind of logic appears to dismiss realism in general, not to mention the scientific method. In science, based on realism, we start by asking a question about reality, do some research on it, construct a hypothesis or definition of what we think it is or how it works, design and run an experiment to test our hypothesis, analyze the results to see whether or not the evidence confirms our hypothesis and so on. The scientific method is not simply describing our experience of reality which is limited, but reality itself, which does not appear to share our limitations.
Hi Frans, thank you for offering a definition of what it is to know something..."to put it in the mind, to have a grip on it." Perhaps I am still misunderstanding what you mean by 'know'. I know (by your definition) that there are more than a billion stars in this galaxy, although I have never been outside this galaxy. I think when we look at a map of Arizona, we can use it to know Arizona well enough to get to where we need to go, without ever confusing the map for the actual terrain. So, I contend that we can know consciousness, even though we are unable to step outside of it.
Letitia Falk 10+
michael johnson
Hi Natasha, I can't imagine a definition of consciousness that everyone will agree with, given that so many religious and spiritual beliefs hinge upon consciousness existing in supernatural ways that are unlikely to be true. For example, Rolling Stone Magazine voted Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" as the greatest song of all time, with "I Can't Get No (Satisfaction)" by the Rolling Stones at number two. Although they are both great songs, it does not appear that Rolling Stone Magazine was free of bias when making their choices, nor is it likely that everyone will agree that they are the best two songs of all time. With all of that said, I still contend that consciousness is definable and making attempts to do so (however unpopular they may be) will get us a lot closer to understanding the experience, than insisting it will always remain a mystery.
Hi Letitia, thank you for mentioning meme theory! I just recently heard Daniel Dennet's memetic theory of consciousness mentioned in Steven Pinker's book "How The Mind Works." Fascinating stuff! My understanding is that memes are also under the pressure of natural selection, although they do not sexually reproduce. There is only so much brain space for them to occupy, so they evolve. Although its true we do not have a complete understanding of the brain or individual 'connectomes', what seems to be the biological basis for our consciousness, it seems uber unlikely to be something else.
griffin tucker
where i don't agree with it is in the context of non-human consciousness - in the sense of loss-less compression, not only would it not have to be the same size, but there would be room for more (application of memorised functions, predictions, etc.) while still possibly being less than the same size. accuracy of the reality compared to this hypothetical consciousness is a different story.
Thomas Jones 50+
Well, that is one way of knowing.
Another way of knowing something is to put your mind into it (say through practice or repetition.)
And some things can be known somatically, through the body - a jellyfish does not even have a brain, yet it "knows" its food.
I have coined a word for the state of knowing: "gnovidya."
[In the (deduced) Proto-Indo-European language the word “gno” means, “to know.” In Sanskrit, the word “vidya” means “knowledge,” “learning,” and “science.”]
Frans Kellner 50+
Frans Kellner 50+
For long times I worked on a machine and once my hand got stuck and almost pressed off.
By miracle force it went out right but after that I couldn't move my hand to that spot.
Even if I tried the hand would refuse beyond my control. It took months before this hand got any trust again.
That way of learning is also called conditioning.
Jah Sun
The transcendental states achievable in such activities as deep meditation, lucid dreaming, and various ecstatic altered states can certainly give an experience of knowing the ground of knowing.
There already exist many Sanskrit and Pali terms for the variations on what can be known as you probably are already aware of... but your term seems to be more focused on the aspect of knowing knowledge and stops short of such terms as satori, samadhi and nirvana.
Thomas Jones 50+
One does not need to know what Consciousness is in order to know that it is, any more than Faraday needed to know what electricity is in order to find out what it will do. – Elmer R. Gates
The scientific description is not the experience. Of course, the description of consciousness helps us to understand our experience in a way that physics alone could not do. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the priority of experience in giving rise to the descriptions that illuminate the bases of the experience itself. – Gerald M. Edelman
The evolution of consciousness will involve remembering who we are. ... On the one hand, we need to learn to use our intellectual capacity to find ways around the hazards of our still primitive brains. On the other, we need to deepen our appreciation of our interconnection and learn better how to listen and to love. These two directions are actually one and the same, because expanding our mindfulness will involve those around us who remind us to stay on task, correct our misconceptions, and offer alternative perspectives to ours. In this way, human relationships serve as external neural circuits that feed information back to us in comprehensible ways and deepen our awareness of the organism called the human species. – Louis Cozolino
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature, for in the final analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve. – Max Planck
michael johnson
Thomas Jones 50+
You're welcome.
Jah Sun
Your quotes (and dozens more like them) show that the greatest minds in scientific exploration like Planck did not believe what many of the rank amateurs who idolize them always trumpet in their name.
If I had a dollar for everyone who has demanded vociferously that their rather limited conception of reality is sufficient to explain all phenomenon (including consciousness)... I could pay off the national debt and still be in the 1%.
Thomas Jones 50+
Well - as you'll see I do not "take sides" - if I had a dollar for every time someone exuberantly, exclaimed that a metaphysical explanation of all phenomena (including consciousness) was in someway superior to a scientific materialistic explanation, I'd have about 38 dollars (which I presume is about how much you would really have too ... it's just that I'm not a fan of hyperbole.)
Any explanation, is an explanation.
We tend to get lost in our stories.
They just make so ... much ... sense.
Adriaan Braam 10+
This book is about the mind, it shows what the words "Heaven is within you" mean. We have heaven and hell inside of our spiritual 'place' and our 'job' in life is to feed either of them.
The process of being resuscitated on the other side is described in this book starting on paragraph 421 Our state after death.
This conversation is coming to an end but that does not mean we cannot keep learning.
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Heaven%20and%20Hell.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Thomas Jones 50+
Yes, there is a similarity between gnosis and gnovidya but the distinction (for me) is "gnosis" is to know (something) "gnovidya" is the state of knowing (knowing that you know.)
Frans Kellner 50+
We can recollect past experience, that we know but the moment we live is experience.
Gnosis is to know from experience of expanded cosciousness or to be conscious of comprised experience. (As if a life time is seen at one glance, a book read without time, the universe seen at the same time from within as from without, if you look at once into all thoughts ever thought.)
If time starts again we know but can't speak of it.
michael johnson
natasha nikulina 30+
WOW !!!
"One moment holds eternity" Actually,any language, by it's nature is a manifestation of Time, it is based on sequence.
"We still are all we once were. And perhaps we already are all we ever shall be ."
It's the insight that came trough the linguistic barrier .
Jah Sun
Perhaps you would only have 38 dollars... I would have quite a bit more, but I have engaged in conversations on this topic for decades and many of my best friends are hard core materialists.
Hyperbole... sure. But in a playful way and not as the basis of any kind of point of debate.
Hyperbolic statements can be good fun as long as we do not use them as the foundation (or any kind of proof) for a logical argument.
As for getting lost in our stories... that is also a pleasurable activity. However, we should differentiate between our stories and our actual experiences. To deny one's experiences in favor of an argument presented by another (no mater how well argued) amounts to a denial of tangible reality in favor of abstract reasoning.
If, for example, I was able to regularly leave my body and discover information I could not know otherwise and then prove the truth of that information, I would be a fool to deny this in favor of someone's theories about whether such activity is possible or not.
There are people who do not believe that automobiles exist and have no way of coming in contact with one... but their lack of experience with automobiles in no way affects my daily experience of driving one.
Thomas Jones 50+
As I am sure you are aware, in the realm of "knowing" anything that can be experienced and described would be classified as "maya."
And anything that required experience in order to validate (prove) it would, similarly, be classified as an illusion.
One might say there is maya, and there is mahamaya. They are both maya ... one is simply more compelling than the other.
Now, if there were "a place" where maya and mahamaya both "collapsed" that could be an interesting place. Of course, nothing that could experience and describe such a place could "reach" it. The entry and exit requirements would be too stringent, don't you think?
michael johnson
Debra Smith 100+
Michael, I loved the way you started out but am not as impressed by your last post above. Are you sticking tothe level of politeness you yourself admired?
If it was my analogy you were disappointed with let me know and I will attempt to engage you on whatever basis you wish.
Jah Sun
It seems that if your primacy of consciousness model of reality was shaken so fundamentally by a series of debates by a few smart guys... or even an entire shelf of books... it wasn't very solid to begin with.
You may have leaned towards a mystical view of consciousness, and your interest in Yoga shows an openness to esoteric ideas and teachings, but if you had EXPERIENCED the depths mystical experiences firsthand, you would not be speaking in such terms. If you had attained samadhi, been able to leave your body, had contact with discorporate entities, or something along those lines... and been able to verify such experiences empirically for yourself... it wouldn't matter what some other people said about it, regardless of how well they debate.
Scientific materialists always feel the need to convince others that their faith in materialism is justified. They love to try and debunk spiritualism and mystical experiences, and are rarely ever satisfied unless they can get spiritual people to renounce their own experiences... to admit that they are wrong & that their experiences are the result of a deranged or malfunctioning mind. It is all rather defensive & mean-spirited.
The fact is, by and large, that people who have experienced the transpersonal and have direct experiences of the so-called supernatural, are generally completely uninterested in convincing anyone. What does a mystic who can astral project care if you believe in it or not?
There is this common logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof (onus probandi) coupled with the typical red herring fallacies of appeal to authority (learned scientists said this) and appeal to probability (it is possible that we will figure it out, so we will act as if it is inevitable)... and so on... that fuels much of this type of debate. The materialist demands that the mystic prove themselves by materialist terms and forums without even thinking to do the reverse.
The debate is one-sided.
cont.>
Jah Sun
In effect, it is the materialist who is presenting a case against spirituality and using any convenient spiritualist as a straw man. Often, as you have done here, you then present your belief system as if it were fact and demand that the straw man has the burden of proof or must demonstrate his abilities to your satisfaction.
Scientific materialists tend to assume that their positions are rational and logical... despite having not studied the science of logic. In philosophy, materialism is not part of the philosophy of rationalism, and is actually directly opposed to it. Furthermore, there is no logical evidence whatsoever that one can use to leap from one's subjective conscious experience to the assumption of an objective material world. NONE. This is why in hundreds of years of trying, no one has ever been able to refute solipsism.
Your entire material universe and all its apparent laws and reality could conceivably be a dream.
As for a definition of consciousness...
I would perhaps sign on to something along the lines of:
"The field of awareness within which all mental, emotional and perceptional activity takes place. Amounting to the sum total of our experience as ego, id, superego... and including all subconscious and unconscious processes as well."
In this sense, nothing that we experience, know, or can even conceive of takes place outside of consciousness. Our only awareness of the material is through consciousness... and it is impossible to prove that such matter is not in itself also composed of mindstuff.
michael johnson
Jah Sun
"The unconscious mind might be defined as that part of the mind which gives rise to a collection of mental phenomena that manifest in a person's mind but which the person is not aware of at the time of their occurrence. These phenomena include unconscious feelings, unconscious or automatic skills, unnoticed perceptions, unconscious thoughts, unconscious habits and automatic reactions, complexes, hidden phobias and concealed desires."
Just because something is incoherent to you does not make it less valuable or potentially true. You are engaging in a variant of the Mind Projection Fallacy.
I don't care to attack you, and what we are doing here can not be considered a debate. You have taken a dogmatic stance of scientific materialism on this thread and attempt to frame any debate in such a way that all argument must fit into your preconceived boundaries.
I have no knowledge of your level of mystical experience. It does seem, though, that if you had experienced such things you would not be so inflexible in your assertions of material supremacy.
Good luck to you as well.
Richard Nota 20+
To the question, a map of the brain is crucial to understanding what areas of the brain, structures and processes are associated with different aspects of consciousness. Complexities are understood by understanding their simple components.
“Most of all, these maps cannot account for the unconscious,…” Why not? What unconscious activity do you have in mind that could not be so mapped? “… that part of our brains that cannot be explained by any reference to its parts.” It seems to be pure speculation that there are parts of our brains that cannot be explained by reference to their parts. That kind of speculation is without foundation and contrary to experience that all things can be explained and all things are explained by reference to their parts.
A map of the brain will go a long way to explaining the complexities of consciousness. The processes need to be understood as well but is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise?
Is your main concern free will? Is there such a thing or is it an illusion?
Ron Burnett 100+
Arne Strout
Richard Nota 20+
“Most of all, these maps cannot account for the unconscious,…” Why not? Parts of the brain that control heart rate, body temperature and various hormone releases can be identified can they not? What do you mean? Can you provide an example?
Ron Burnett 100+
Richard Nota 20+
Ron Burnett 100+
Richard Nota 20+
I have given a few examples where body control is an unconscious function of the brain. It can be identified and mapped and is more typically referred to as the sub conscious, in my experience.
Without an example of what you term the 'unconscious' there is no basis for assuming that the unconscious exists at all, let alone in some form across all parts of the brain and our bodies, especially if it is not even an entity.
What you might be alluding to is something I put another way. I suggest everything is conscious. All components of our body contribute to our overall consciousness, even if only to maintain it, but our overall consciousness is not directly conscious of every detail. Our overall consciousness is as much about awareness of world and interacting with it.
Ron Burnett 100+
Richard Nota 20+
The best objective understanding is obtained by removing as much influence as possible by the observer on the observed. Greater independence in the case of consciousness is gained by someone else making some observations. In that way the brain is being revealed.
Henrik Martenzon
Ron Burnett 100+
Arne Strout
Ron Burnett 100+
Henrik Martenzon
Just as you mentioned about the brain not being just a single processing unit, its a multi-simultanesly-instant computational "device". So what mistake should we avoid? Assuming that we comprehend the principles of bio-mechanics from what we have built in computers. Instant-multi-simult computation might be natures simple and brilliant way of computing "nature" and we humans will no understand this until we open up and take a look at the mechanics of the brain. (I just got this idea from what you said Arne, thanks!)
Letitia Falk 10+
Most studies of the brain have mapped physical areas of brain activity to function. And we have discovered that the physical body is in fact mapped quite physically in the brain. However less primitive, human traits like consciousness are not as clearly laid out. The problem from my perspective is that there isn't very much difference from one neuron to the next: what could be the molecule or structure that carries the information? If there is one lesson to be learned from the discovery of DNA it is to think simple: for a long time people argued that protein must encode genes because there are 20 amino acids and only 4 nucleic acid bases and we are so complex that the more complicated structure is a more likely candidate.
I could have this wrong, but as another example computers run on an on/off (2 options) system? When it comes to information storage, it seems like having a simple code is the most efficient. I would assume that we're making things too complicated and when we figure consciousness out its going to be really obvious. Maybe it will be as simple as neurons being excited or unexcited in different patterns?
Michael M 30+
I am glad you chimed in. My only problem is when you are studying cellular structure, are you studying the cell or the self? Now you can argue that the self is the sum total of the cell, but do you really feel that. Note I didn't say think that. Do you really get the sense about yourself, and the others around you, that by studying even how cells interact, you are studying the self that is actually the complex, dynamic interaction of all those cells? I am certainly not against mapping or understanding cellular dynamics. What I am saying is step back from your work, look at the being as a whole, and ask yourself if that being is really defined by his cellular structure or by something else.
I think what may be needed is to separate simple/complicated from complexity itself. Sure, there may be on/off switches, but I think I am glad that the bijillion going off at the same time and the complex dance they do in me, makes me unique.
Mapping is good, but I would compare it to the work of the mathematician Edward Lorenz (see his book "The Essence of Chaos" It contains his original article on the subject.) trying to create a model for weather production. We had weather maps, but they didn't of course model anything. They showed snapshots. What he came up with finally was the famous strange attractor and the beautiful butterfly diagram. It was his famous statement "When a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon there is a tornado in Dallas." Complexity and chaos come closer to describing the self than a simple neuron synapse. I think I am more satisfied with that.
Ron Burnett 100+
Letitia Falk 10+
Ron Burnett 100+
Richard Nota 20+
There is however a need to avoid the temptation to say that is just what it is. I do not think that was your intent but that is where the problem of the debate lies. The different patterns give rise to the phenomenon of consciousness but many will still not be able to reconcile the physical observations with the conscious experience.
Letitia Falk 10+
(I hope that that is less reductionist, and more in keeping with the theme of the debate anyway)
Richard Nota 20+
My understanding is that Cartesian dualism was all about separation of mind and body. Anyway there are all kinds of dualisms and I think they are both complementary and necessary. The thing to understand about them all is that they are different perspectives of the same thing rather than the separation of different things. There is every reason to believe that applies to consciousness and physical existence. There is no good reason to believe in such a thing as a disembodied consciousness.
If there was a mirror which could reflect consciousness, metaphorically speaking, I would expect the consciousness to ‘see’ a brain. The consciousness would have to ‘perform’ on first encounter with the mirror to determine that the mirror produced a reflection of itself. The reductionist approach is consciousness applying itself to the physical in order to make a better version of such a mirror.
In other words, I agree with you.
Frans Kellner 50+
Could it not be that consciousness is the base of any structure?
As the hypothetical first cell was formed a membrane enclosed and separated the activity inside from the outside. Inside there was a “knowing” of which chemicals had to be found or disposed of through the capsule. It developed strategies to pursue those places where nutrients or energy could be found. And to make a big jump, in the end different specialized cells bonded to cooperate and join their expertise. An organism was born.
All this “knowing” of what’s needed and what’s available and how to get it can be called consciousness in that sense that an inner process developed and sustained it’s perpetuation independent from the conditions outside. This being within the locality of a membrane or skin is the same being as everything else yet as a separate part communicating and within that duality self conscious.
As being is universal then consciousness is but from the one point perspective of an organism viewed from within. Consciousness isn’t that what is seen but that what sees.
As a complex nervous system not only exchanges minerals, light, heat, sound and touch but also interpret those impressions as meaningful and collect it as shape, color, sound and all else beneficial for that organism to move around and provide for all it can use to survive it wakes up. In this wake it identifies its being with all those characteristics seen, heard and felt and expresses this as being aware to be in a separate world as an independent being. This is what humans call conscious but as he dreams and in all kinds of other ways the body is fully conscious yet unnoticed from our waking modes that depends on a high level of brain activity to generate our world and consumes a lot of energy.
It is easy to prove that the whole body is conscious but in general we aren't aware of it. Within the greater picture where all is put together we are all.
Richard Nota 20+
It could not because consciousness is temporal and only exists in the present.
Jah Sun
Nearly every mystical tradition describes conscious experience of timelessness and multi-dimensionality.
Have you never had a dream that took place within a matter of seconds which contained hours, days... or even lifetimes worth of experiences?
Adriaan Braam 10+
The other day I responded to this issue as comparing this physical approach to life as a child taiking to grandma over the phone and believing she was actually in the phone (a not unusual reaction, but we grow out of it).
Life has two different kind of degrees. We all know the continuous degrees of temperature, distance and light. Then there are the discontinuous degrees like End, Cause and Effect. Or Finite and Infinite, or Love, Wisdom and Use.
Swedenborg calls these degrees of breadth and height (or ascent) and just a short quote from his book Divine Love and Wisdom, paragraph 66:
"In the natural world there are three degrees of ascent, and in the spiritual world there are three degrees of ascent. All animals are recipients of life. The more perfect are those that receive life and all three degrees of the natural world, less perfect are those who receive two degrees of this world, and the imperfect are with one of its degrees.
But man alone is a recipient of the life both of the three degrees of the natural world and of the three degrees of the spiritual world. From this it is that man can be elevated above nature, while the animal cannot.
Man can think analytically and rationally of the civil and moral things that are within nature, also of the spiritual and celestial things that are above nature, yea, he can be so elevated into wisdom as even to see God. But the six degrees by which the uses of all created things ascend in their order even to God the creator, will be treated of later.
From this summary, however, it can be seen that there is an ascent of all created things to the first, who alone is life, and that the uses of all things are the very recipients of life; and from this are the forms of uses."
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/DLW_DP.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Christophe Cop 500+
We also need the dynamics of the brain.
If you add that one (completely understand the dynamics and the complete -adapting- map), then you should in principle be able to understand consciousness... Unless it ends up to be too difficult for a human to understand (which is a real possibility).
I do agree with most of what Jake Williams and Ken Burke say: a map is a very good tool to improve understanding.
As for consciousness: most neuro-scientists agree that consciousness is part of the processes of our brain, and that it is completely caused by the central nervous system.
(When does the talk of Antonio Damasio come online? would help out a lot!)
Ron Burnett 100+
Vivienne Eggers
Thomas Brucia
Ron Burnett 100+
Jah Sun
First of all, it is a logical fallacy to assume that correlation equals causation. Just because certain areas of the brain become active in concert with certain experiences in our minds, this says nothing about whether the thoughts and emotions are causing the bio-electric and bio-chemical reactions, vice versa, or both... or neither.
Personally, I think these things are a two way street.
Fear and panic can cause the adrenal glands to release cortisol and adrenaline, but if you inject someone relatively calm with these hormones, then that person can experience fear and panic as well.
Epinephrine (the neurotransmitter and hormone aka adrenaline) is a powerful drug. The fact that the emotions can trigger the production of it, and that its production can trigger the emotions, indicate a more complicated relationship than simple causation.
IMO, what has been studied in the brain mapping efforts, is not any kind of explanation for consciousness. We can take apart a radio receiver, and learn which circuits control which functions... we can even disable some capacitors and cause interesting and predictable effects in the sound that comes out... but nothing we do with a radio will ever tell us anything about the creation of music, the lives and personalities of the people who made said music, or even anything about the CD's and digital audio tapes being broadcast.
Ron Burnett 100+
Jah Sun
I have been discussing this very subject with some friends a lot over the past few months, and we tend to get polarized into two camps.
My dear "scientific materialist" friends are obsessed with trying to find a material basis of consciousness so they can reduce the Universe down to easily quantifiable blocks... they dread any philosophical talk or epistemology. Solipsism is their knee jerk label for anything that hints at consciousness being larger than a mere function of gray matter... that accidentally grew out of random processes. You know, tiny balls smashing together to form molecules and cells and life and then consciousness all in some ridiculously improbably cosmic accident.
(They don't really understand what solipsism is... even the agnostic and methodological kinds seem to dumbfound them.)
Anyway. I tend to debate on the side that proposes a potential "primacy of consciousness" model. This is the idea that consciousness might not require matter at all, and could conceivably be the impetus for the creation of matter rather than the other way around. (oooohhhhh... spooky.)
Descartes famously opened this can of worms with his "Cogito Ergo Sum," and recognized that consciousness is all we can really know to exist. After all, all our neat little analytics and labeling of the material world could, conceivably, take place within a dream. My dreams can be even more realistic than my waking life...
Anyway, who knows? Certainly not the brain mappers.
Ron Burnett 100+
Adriaan Braam 10+
Spirit is "the impetus for the creation of matter rather than the other way around."
The physical world is the effect (or theater) of the spiritual world.
That is what Creation is all about. Whether you talk about the universe or a painting, it all originates in the spirit, in the spiritual world.
Why is this thought so spooky?? :) Look at steel through a powerful microscope and you look right through it..
Knowing and accepting a spiritual world with its influences on us (good and bad) would make us much more resilient to mental breakdowns and insecurities. Even death of the body becomes 'moving' from one room to another.
Being a mind or spirit does not mean 'nowhere'. It means we live in a real spiritual world now and will become conscious there when the time comes.
This first link is about our mind and the next one is the spiritual world this mind now lives in.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/documents/TheHumanMind.pdf
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/documents/TheSpiritualWorld.pdf
Does this widen the mind? :)
Henrik Martenzon
Anyway, just an idea I got from your text Jah Sun. Its a bit Sci-Fi, but again, it would be really interesting.
And it opens up to many fascinating features such as the idea of that we are "all on" and "willpower" has a whole ned meaning.
Jah Sun
I am with both of you in this, & my personal subjective experience tends to back up these "mystical" models of reality. It is only in acknowledgement of the typical reactions to such notions that arise in my dear die-hard materialist friends that I say "spooky" with a wink & a smile.
As our host in this conversation Ron has indicated, these things are rather difficult to discuss in any kind of objective manner. It would be rather difficult to design any kind of scientific test that would be able to convince the scientific community at large... there is often a kind of hostile entrenchment there which precludes even entertaining any thoughts which might be considered spiritual.
Sadly, I am all too familiar with how these discussions tend to run.
It is very possible (and rather common) for INDIVIDUALS to have transpersonal experiences & glimpse a larger framework for consciousness... for themselves.... but to explain such things to others often proves complicated.
An individual might have the experience of astral projection (for example), and encounter information unknown to him or her in their consensual, material, conscious reality... they could bring back this knowledge & confirm it with their physical self. While such an event would be sufficient (or many such events) to convince oneself that the transpersonal "spiritual" realms one has experienced are real enough... it would never pass muster in the conception of skeptics. To say nothing of those who are offended by the mere notion of the metaphysical.
Nonetheless, a consciousness based model of existence is epistemologically tidier than pure materialism. After all, matter can not be perceived or known without consciousness... while it is conceivable to imagine consciousness without any matter whatsoever.
I do like to think of the brain as a radio tuner. I've even written a number of things on this theme.
I think we will find our electro-magnetic fields to be of interest in this.
Adriaan Braam 10+
If we are just cells than who or what is responsible?? Is it what we ate? Can we take a medicine to become more loving to our spouse?? :)
I very much believe our brain is a receiver of spiritual influence or input but there is no direct connection. It is all done in correspondence and correspondence is the relationship between two totally different layers or existences (if that is a word).
May I even relate this to the Bible? OH OH here we go.. :) But the Ark and the Tabernacle are both built according to very precise instructions. Why? Is God a picky camper?
No, both are a precise model of the human mind and how each part, item or area is used for a specific purpose.
I don't have it in digital format but there is a book "The Tabernacle of Israel" by George de Charms that treats of all aspects in detail.
This seeming unconnectedness exists for one reason only and that is to protect our humanness, the fact that we can shape our character in any way we want, and love it.
If there were proof of God's existence we would be nothing but puppets.
Because of all this I firmly believe that we will never see detectors at our borders, or at our banks, that will set off alarms if we have the notion to blow up something or rob the bank.
Letitia Falk 10+
Also I might be misunderstanding you but I disagree with your statement that "there is no body part that can change itself all by itself" as it certainly can. But we may mean different things by "change". I am thinking of things like the development of cancer from normal cells, aging and cellular turnover, secondary sex characteristics at puberty and development itself. All of which are driven by independent cellular mechanisms. What did you mean?
Adriaan Braam 10+
One thing Swedenborg says about love, it is spiritual substance.
"However, if scientific progress uncovers a biological basis for consciousness, will your definition of the spirit change? Will your belief in God?"
I can say no because that will not happen. Atheists always say 'Just give us time and we'll find out everything' Well that is the limit of science, where the physical ends, there it is where science ends. We can interpret, speculate, reason etc. but there will never be physical proof of the spiritual. We can all feel as one, as is often said, but that is just a feeling. I do agree with that but it is not because we all basically look the same. It is because we are all spirit first. In a spiritual world.
"But we may mean different things by "change""
My first idea was how we can change our mind. Someone can belief something or not and go completely to 'the other side'. I have communicated with atheists that are just that because they cannot accept the Christian interpretation of God (and I agree with them) and when presented with the newest Revelation they do a 180 degree turn.
That is a huge change! There is in my view no part of our body that can do that. There is no part that has the will to do that. A liver cannot decide to accept certain chemicals as before it did not. In a way animals cannot change that drastically. A lion cannot decide to like people, or some people.
I do not know how far science has progressed in the way of knowing what causes cancer. That, to me, is a cell getting infected, not because it wants to but because it happens. After all there are things that will likely cause cancer.
Do you have any idea what makes homeopathy work, as it did for me? How come when we have an infection 'the body' fights that infection with cells, right? The spot turns red.
Adriaan Braam 10+
I left a link to a book about the human mind in yesterday's post but here is its content so you can see the extent to which it covers our topic. Hope it fits too..
Thanks very much for your ideas, and questions!
I. The Quest for the Mind
II. The Mind and the Brain
III. The Sensual Degree of the Mind
The Corporeal and the Sensual
The Scientific and the External Memory
IV. The Formation of the Memory
V. Memory and Imagination
VI. The Rational Mind
The “Pure Intellect”
The Rational Mind
Formation of the Rational Mind
VII. Human Thought and its Discipline
Mental Digestion
The Use of Abstractions
VIII. Types and Degrees of the Rational Mind
Abuse of the Rational
Degrees of the Rational
IX. Relation of the Natural Mind to the Celestial and Spiritual Degrees
Beyond Consciousness
Degrees within the Memory
Supersensible Thought
Opening of the Spiritual Mind
Reformation of the Natural Mind
Liberation of the Natural Mind
X. The Natural Mind after Death
Spiritual Sensation
The Interior Memory
The Natural Minds of Angels
Degrees of the Angelic Mind
The Inmost, or the Human Internal
Thomas Jones 50+
No.
No more than a map of Granville Island can explain the complexities of a dark chocolate truffle from La Baguette et L'Echalote*.
But a map of Granville Island might help one find "La Baguette."
----
* For those who do not get the connection, "La Baguette et L'Echalote" is a bakery and chocolate shop on Granville Island, which is also where Emily Carr university is, which is where Ron Burnett works.
Susan Dianne Mace
Jamil El-Imad
Here is an interesting TED talk on the subject.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html
Ron Burnett 100+