What is consciousness?

[josephpalazzo]

I don't see how that alone should disqualify me or others from seing the world from the all-knowing perspective.

You do not see the universe from an all-knowing perspective because you are not everything.

You are just a tiny, insignificant piece and as such have a tiny, insignificant perspective.

Is it not correct that according to some quantum physicists, everything is one and the same?

No.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Either I should experience everything or nothing.

Why is it either/or? Your brain networks through the nervous system, and your nervous system does not extend to the whole universe; nor is there reason to expect it would.

As I only experience something and only locally, I think it is no wonder why people think there is a soul, unless it gets explained why we experience anything at all.

Because that is what your brain does. This is not a difficult concept.

My thoughts come from my brain. But why do I perceive them at all? Why am I aware of these thoughts produced by my brain?

Because your brain possesses the internal networking and software to do so.

[Hydra009]

There is a lot more than many are willing to admit about how consciousness works.  The typical atheist will only allow for the material part of the brain, because that is fairly well understood.  But, how that material actually works, is not well understood.

The brain is well-understood but not well understood?   :-k  #-o

And what exactly is the non-physical part of the brain?   :-?

Note, that towards the end where the scientist casually mentions that his colleagues didn't think his experiment would work.  There are a bunch of naysayers out there which will not consider anything other than the physical brain as being able to influence us.

The video does not support your claim at all.  It simply shows that one can reconstruct what one is looking at with a map of brain activity.  None of this is non-physical.

Point being, mediumaevum may be on to something.

A sucker is born every day.

We may not have the vocabulary to talk about it and we may be prejudiced against it, because of all of the charlatans out there, but I don't see why we should just dismiss mediumaevum's questions as being flawed.  In fact, I think it is an interesting topic.

When it isn't fodder for dualism-of-the-gaps.

[Hydra009]

Either I should experience everything or nothing.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[LikelyToBreak]

Hydra009 wrote in part:

The brain is well-understood but not well understood? :-k #-o

And what exactly is the non-physical part of the brain? :-?

The physical parts of the brain are pretty well understood.  The interactions of how those parts actually interact are not as well understood.  Consider the fact that we are not able to cure depression with drugs all of the time.  The drugs we have only work for about half the people taking them.  And both with and without drugs psychologists find actually working with patients to "view" the world differently helps.  Why is this the case if the brain is just a material organ which can be manipulated as we want physically?

Hydra009 wrote in part:

The video does not support your claim at all. It simply shows that one can reconstruct what one is looking at with a map of brain activity. None of this is non-physical.

The point I was trying to make, is that naysayers would have stopped this work if the scientist had listened to them.  Trying to explore the metaphysical can help us to understand things better.  Consider that chemistry was started by the alchemists and that the astrologers started astronomy.  Sometimes it is good to question our paradigms.  By so doing we may find new ways of perceiving things which lead to advancements in science.  And it is not science to just put down new ideas without any research to support your counter claims.

Hydra009 wrote in part:

When it isn't fodder for dualism-of-the-gaps.

Just because people can misuse new information is no reason not to strive to gain new information.  Have you considered that your personal prejudices against religion may be adversely affecting your abilities to rationally consider some ideas?  Even if the ideas are flawed, don't you think we should be able to say more exactly why they are flawed?  Seems to me one of the first thing we should consider when examining new ideas, is what our personal prejudices are so that we can take them into account while we think about the idea's validity.

[the_antithesis]

Why is this the case if the brain is just a material organ which can be manipulated as we want physically?

Because the brain is a complex system and it is stupid to try to explain a complex system with magic.

[Jmpty]

I think the_antithesis pretty much said it. You can only experience the perspective of your body because, as you mention science has confirmed, your thoughts and personality come from your brain. The only reason you would expect to see other people's perspectives is if you had this "soul" that is supposedly independent of your body. Why you would expect this from a lack of one, I honestly cannot fathom.

Either I should experience everything or nothing.

As I only experience something and only locally, I think it is no wonder why people think there is a soul, unless it gets explained why we experience anything at all.

My thoughts come from my brain. But why do I percieve them at all? Why am I aware of these thoughts produced by my brain?

This is the most ridiculous statement so far. Who is this "I" You are referring too, that exists apart from your brain? Or from your thoughts? Think about it for a second. How am I aware of my own thoughts?  Um,....whut?

[LikelyToBreak]

the_antithesis wrote:

Because the brain is a complex system and it is stupid to try to explain a complex system with magic.

I'm not trying to explain the brain with magic.  What I think should be explored with science, is how our thought processes actually work.  Although I know many people may disagree that psychology is a science, at least it tries to understand how the processes of the brain work.  I personally don't think psychology is magic or hokum.  And psychological studies can help those who are examining the inner material workings of the brain by letting them know what they are looking for.  While it is true psychology may be considered to be the alchemy of brain sciences, it still has a useful place in our understanding of how the brain works.

[mediumaevum]

I think the_antithesis pretty much said it. You can only experience the perspective of your body because, as you mention science has confirmed, your thoughts and personality come from your brain. The only reason you would expect to see other people's perspectives is if you had this "soul" that is supposedly independent of your body. Why you would expect this from a lack of one, I honestly cannot fathom.

Either I should experience everything or nothing.

As I only experience something and only locally, I think it is no wonder why people think there is a soul, unless it gets explained why we experience anything at all.

My thoughts come from my brain. But why do I percieve them at all? Why am I aware of these thoughts produced by my brain?

This is the most ridiculous statement so far. Who is this "I" You are referring too, that exists apart from your brain? Or from your thoughts? Think about it for a second. How am I aware of my own thoughts?  Um,....whut?

According to my logic, there should exist only matter and no consciousness or awareness.

Yet cogito ergo sum proves that theory to be false.

I then wonder why.

IF there exists awareness, it should be false, as in Artificial Intelligence that doesn't really own any emotions.

In fact, I am now closer to believe that I am the only human on planet Earth who possess true emotions and everyone else are... biological robots.

How can I be sure that when you show pain, it really does hurt inside you, the same way it would do if I got hurt the same way?
How can I be sure that your reactions are not coded and are purely biochemical coding similar to artificial intelligence or a movie and that you don't really feel anything?

[Hydra009]

The point I was trying to make, is that naysayers would have stopped this work if the scientist had listened to them.  Trying to explore the metaphysical can help us to understand things better.  Consider that chemistry was started by the alchemists and that the astrologers started astronomy.

No.  Chemists started chemistry and astronomers started astronomy.  The reason these scientific fields exist at all is because early scientists took a muddled mess of guesswork/superstition, systematized the data and checked it for accuracy.

Trying to explore the metaphysical can help us to understand things better.

Sometimes it is good to question our paradigms.  By so doing we may find new ways of perceiving things which lead to advancements in science.

The talking point of every charlatan.  (And a few who actually did advance science)  The key difference between the two is that the real deal can substantiate one's claim, while the charlatan can only pretend.

Just because people can misuse new information is no reason not to strive to gain new information.  Have you considered that your personal prejudices against religion may be adversely affecting your abilities to rationally consider some ideas?

Well, let's see, do I reject the idea that the brain is at least partly non-physical because I'm personally prejudiced against it?

Survey says... X

The correct answer was because because it's a bald assertion with no evidence whatsoever.

Thanks for playing.  Buh-bye.

Even if the ideas are flawed, don't you think we should be able to say more exactly why they are flawed?

Volumes and volumes have already been written.  Especially on mediumaevum's ghost in the machine idea (which btw, is something of a dead horse nowadays) but also your self-contradictory non-physical brain idea and oddly nonspecific predilection for "exploring the metaphysical".

[youtube:4f0amyce]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00[/youtube:4f0amyce]

[Hijiri Byakuren]

According to my logic, there should exist only matter and no consciousness or awareness.

Yet cogito ergo sum proves that theory to be false.

What is conscious awareness? How do you define conscious awareness? If it's everything you touch, hear, taste, smell, see, and ultimately process into memory, experience, emotions, etc., then conscious awareness is nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in your brain. If that is the case, what need is there for a separate "soul?"

The rest of your post is irrelevant until you can properly define your terms. Please answer this.

[mediumaevum]

According to my logic, there should exist only matter and no consciousness or awareness.

Yet cogito ergo sum proves that theory to be false.

What is conscious awareness? How do you define conscious awareness? If it's everything you touch, hear, taste, smell, see, and ultimately process into memory, experience, emotions, etc., then conscious awareness is nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in your brain. If that is the case, what need is there for a separate "soul?"

The rest of your post is irrelevant until you can properly define your terms. Please answer this.

I personally define conscious awareness as being aware of your own existence.

[Hydra009]

According to my logic, there should exist only matter and no consciousness or awareness.

Since that isn't the case, your logic is wrong.  Modus tollens ftw.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I personally define conscious awareness as being aware of your own existence, not necessarily by senses like touch, hear, taste, smell, see etc. but more like if I close my eyes and lie in a totally quite room where there are nobody else and I am not disturbed, I often see, hear and touch a totally different world. I have no control of my own thoughts, and I even doubt whether they are thoughts at all, as they seem so real.

If you are any type of creature with a nerve center advanced enough to form memories and experience from processed information, then you are going to be aware of your own existence. By the time you get to our level, you have a nerve center advanced enough to self-reflect and use idle processing power to plan, conceptualize, and fit information into a larger picture to make more sense of the world. A by-product of this is that we are capable of asking the question, "Why am I here?"

None of this requires an external structure beyond the brain. So whence cometh the soul?

[the_antithesis]

According to my logic, there should exist only matter and no consciousness or awareness.

Yet cogito ergo sum proves that theory to be false.

I then wonder why.

IF there exists awareness, it should be false, as in Artificial Intelligence that doesn't really own any emotions.

In fact, I am now closer to believe that I am the only human on planet Earth who possess true emotions and everyone else are... biological robots.

How can I be sure that when you show pain, it really does hurt inside you, the same way it would do if I got hurt the same way?
How can I be sure that your reactions are not coded and are purely biochemical coding similar to artificial intelligence or a movie and that you don't really feel anything?

Wank.