Brain and conscious mind are linked like two sides of a coin

Here's some excerpts from a story in the June 2021 issue of Scientific American, "The Brain Electric," by Christof Koch. 

Koch makes some great points about the current state of science's understanding of the brain/mind. There's no doubt that the mind is the brain in action. Meaning, no brain, no mind. 

But even though the physicality of mind is clear, there's plenty of mystery left to be explored in the highly complex three pound hunk of meat that resides between our ears.

-- You're headed toward a storm that's a couple of miles away, and you've got to get across a hill. You ask yourself, "How am I going to get over that, through that?"

-- You see little white dots on a black background, as if looking up at the stars at night.

-- You look down at yourself lying in bed from above but see only your legs and lower trunk.

These may seem like idiosyncratic events drawn from the vast universe of perceptions, sensations, memories, thoughts and dreams that make up our daily stream of consciousness. 

In fact, each one was evoked by directly stimulating the brain with an electrode. 

As American poet Walt Whitman intuited in his poem, "I Sing the Body Electric," these anecdotes illustrate the intimate relationship between the body and its animating soul. 

The brain and the conscious mind are as inexorably linked as the two sides of a coin. 

...As neuroprosthetic devices move through clinical trials, they will help people with visual impairments see and those with physical disabilities perform actions such as steering a wheelchair with their thoughts, like the mind-Pong-playing monkey.

For everyone else, the benefits of highly invasive brain surgery are unlikely to outweigh the costs.

But the true Annapurna ahead involves understanding how three pounds of excitable brain matter is responsible for seeing, moving, and suffering.

Yes, the physical substrate of heaven and hell is rooted in bioelectric signals that obey natural laws. But that tells us precious little about how a trillion electrical signals spiking each second, streaming over networks of tens of billions of heterogeneous cells, constitute a sight, sound, or emotion.

Intracranial brain stimulation highlights the daily miracle of the brain's water changing into the wine of consciousness.

The question remains, though: What is it about the brain, the most complex piece of active matter in the known universe, that turns the activity of 86 billion neurons into the feeling of life itself?

Comments

[Dungeness]

@ 777 : "Highlights the daily miracle - U'r sure?"

Here's the author's line 777 is quoting:
"Intracranial brain stimulation highlights the daily miracle of the brain's water changing into the wine of consciousness"

Alternatively, the mystic says the daily miracle is really consciousness
pulling gently the puppet strings of a dancing brain. A gift from the king
to the servant, although he is ordinarily inanimate, so he may live for a
precious moment to partake of the heavenly scent of wine.

P.S.
Either that or it's a ploy of consciousness to get it past the brain-mind's
custom agents... which reminds me of a joke:

Custom Agent: What's in that flask?
Traveler: Just holy water.
Custom Agent: [sniffs] Mister, that's wine!
Traveler: [crosses himself] Mamma Mia! It's a miracle!

[Ron Elloway]

According to the 'science of information philosophy':-

“The “stuff” of thought is pure information, neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication. Information is the modern spirit, the soul in the body, the ghost in the machine.

Information philosophy makes the straightforward claim that human beings, especially their minds, are the most highly evolved form of information generation and processing system in the known universe. Recognizing this simple fact provides a radically new perspective on the central problems of psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind.
In a very deep sense, we are information”.

So, seeing the mind simply as information takes some of the mystery away from it. With the mind as information it is easy to see how, from this mind we assume a self. In other words, what I call 'I', 'me' or 'self' comes down to the accrued contents, of the mind.

That's lovely. This 'me', this ego/mind, is an idea, a concept. All there is is an organism perfectly suited to survive in its environment – and further, only experiencing suffering and conflict when this illusory 'me' believes it is real!

[Ron Elloway]

Oh, and consciousness! That's a dozy. There is no such thing/entity as conscious'ness'. There is an organism that is conscious, a state that simply comes into being when the ever active brain, through the senses, comes into contact with an object (or a thought) and recognises it as something to be avoided or embraced – as any simple celled creature also does.

Do away with the words – self, mind, consciousness, soul etc. - all our treasured concepts and what remains is all there ever was - an perfect organism experiencing life as it is.

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote from Ron Elloway's comment:

"There is no such thing/entity as conscious'ness'. There is an organism that is conscious, a state that simply comes into being when the ever active brain, through the senses, comes into contact with an object (or a thought) and recognises it as something to be avoided or embraced "

.................That seems very insightful. People keep faffing away about consciousness this, consciousness that, the hard problem of consciousness, all that. But thinking of it in these straightforward terms seems to take down the whole house of cards, that is the whole gaggle of speculations around consciousness.

We're a pretty complex organism. And this complex organism, comprising primarily the brain, but also our nervous system, and the innumerable other symbiotes that populate our bodies, together has evolved to be conscious and to be self-aware.

To make a song and dance about consciousness and self-awareness, as if these are actual things, seems like a linguistic sleight of hand. Just because you can add a "ness" after "conscious" as well as "aware", and make them into abstract nouns, does not really make them a thing at all. Just because our language can conceive of and express those abstract nouns does not make them real things, to be explained (and that somehow elude explanation).

We're complex organisms. As a result of evolution, and as function of our complexity,we're conscious, and we're self-aware. That's all there is to it.

Nor is this a prosaic view. It's merely not fanciful, that's all. This kind of view does not take away from the wonder that it is to be conscious, or the wonder that is to be self-aware.

Cue Douglas Adams' very apt quote: " 'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"We're complex organisms. As a result of evolution, and as function of our complexity,we're conscious, and we're self-aware. That's all there is to it."

It does seem that you have missed the most important part. The unknown.

Please note what the author above wrote

" Yes, the physical substrate of heaven and hell is rooted in bioelectric signals that obey natural laws. But that tells us precious little about how a trillion electrical signals spiking each second, streaming over networks of tens of billions of heterogeneous cells, constitute a sight, sound, or emotion.

"Intracranial brain stimulation highlights the daily miracle of the brain's water changing into the wine of consciousness.

"The question remains, though: What is it about the brain, the most complex piece of active matter in the known universe, that turns the activity of 86 billion neurons into the feeling of life itself?"

" The fact there are trillions of activated signals around each thought does not, mathematically, make sense with how slow our brain's biochemical connections are.

Why do Atheists presume a closed system when the author, a scientist, doesn't?

It is the attempt to use science to make claims about soul and God.

Real scientists don't do that.

Today science doesn't know how the brain and consciousness respond as quickly as they do. Physically it is impossible. This is in part what the author alludes to. And secondly, the very place stimulated that elicited those memories won't tomorrow. The same location, stimulated a second time, brings forth different memories!

Honor the mystery.

An open mind might see the brain as a window, a portal between worlds. This would explain quite readily what science knows today. If capturing different thoughts is all the brain does, the brain only needs to respond to the stimuli in parallel, not on sequence. When a trilion firings occur, they could all do so simultaneously, near instantly, if they were all stimulated externally by another as yet undiscovered, subtler reality, just as every tiny point of a photograph is exposed at the same time the external reality the camera is pointing to. The brain actually functions in both ways. There are sensory signal links that bring the world into a complex neutral net. But how that complex network responds so quickly has not been discovered yet.

The brain's downstream, dendritic trees could be that link to another reality, just as a computer linked to the web can access a range of information that it alone could not possibly process in anything like the speed of information availability through the net.

This goey slow biochemical brain actually functions as quickly as 86,000 conventional computer processors per second. How can a slow biochemical brain restricted to the slow electro chemical transmission rates of neurons, complete more processing and faster than 86,000 processors all running full bore in parallel?

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors

The answer is something else. It's in the unknown.

[Dungeness]

@ AR : "We're complex organisms. As a result of evolution, and as function of our complexity,we're conscious, and we're self-aware. That's all there is to it."

Ah, we evolved into that abstract state we whimsically call "consciousness", a term
which, by the way, is mere linguistic "sleight of hand." It's an open and shut case for
"complexity" magically transforming matter, one fine eon, into our beautiful garden
of self awareness. No fairies spotted at the scene. Elementary, my dear confused
mystic.

Of course, the mystic demurs and points to a discipline using self awareness itself
to reveal more. But, most sigh and turn back to their explorations. "Look at all
we've found in the creation ," they say. "We've probed, tested and measured and
one day we'll corner the creator himself. The truth is out there. Surely any damn
fairies will leave clues on the footpath. They can't elude us forever. Until then we'll
leave fairy speculation to the masses. Now, I really must finish my investigation.
It's getting dark."

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, Dungeness,

Sure, we don't know a great deal. Sure, what little we know pales against the vastness that is yet unknown. When it's known, we'll accept it, whatever "it" might be. Be it consciousness. Or be it fairies. Until such time, as we do know such exists substantially, we'll treat is as not existing. Be it consciousness, or be it fairies.

I don't see anything lacking in this straightforward POV. This isn't in any way to shut oneself off from the possibility of what might be. Nor is it to shut oneself into unreasonable closed-minded certainty that nothing beyond what is known might ever be known. All the possibilities of Mystery, with a capital M, are acknowledged, and indeed honored. But not accepted, until one has reason to.

Nor does it stop one from performing one's own researches. Into science, or into technology. Into fairies, on into mystic realities. Into whatever appears promising to one, into whatever appeals to one.

But one will not, no matter the allure of Mystery, pretend to know what one in fact does not know. That much seems entirely straightforward to me.

And again, I don't see Atheism, with a capital A, as some kind of a position one takes. It is, to the contrary, simply the particular conclusion one happens to have arrived at, for now. What one is, and what one strives to be, is a rationalist, and a realist. Willing to, and wanting to, discover reality for what it is.

Personally I'd prefer a theistic universe, with a benevolent paternalistic God figure looking after me, now and for ever and ever more. I'd love that. Barring that, I'd love for some deep rabbit hole of a mystic cosmology within which to burrow in, discovering at the end of the rainbow within an inexhaustible pot of bliss. I'd love all that, and prefer all of that to ...their absence. Barring even that, I'd be happy to settle for Osho Robbins's deism, from which conceivably we all arose and into which we'll merge back again (or from which we've never even been other, as he'd no doubt put it).

But things are what they are. Pretending otherwise doesn't avail oneself anything. Wishful thinking doesn't get one anywhere. I don't see we can do any more than accept things as they are. Which does not stop us from striving to find out more, in such ways as we are able and willing.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Until such time, as we do know such exists substantially, we'll treat is as not existing. Be it consciousness, or be it fairies."

That system of belief would put an end to all science.

Science is based on exactly the opposite. That the unknown exist, and that to understand reality we must investigate and learn.

Many things do exist that are unknown. Your statement is tantamount to claiming the unknown doesn't exist.

It does. Scientists admit as does the author in the post, that science only understands a part. That's the basis of science.

You wrote
" All the possibilities of Mystery, with a capital M, are acknowledged, and indeed honored. But not accepted, until one has reason to."

You have equated non - existence with not accepted. These are not the same.

Many things exist we know little about. In fact we must accept the unknown exists even knowing nothing about it, of we are truly acknowldging Reality.

What we cannot accept is an explanation as fact. But we can and must accept the unknown exists to accept Reality as it is.

Otherwise people reject facts to conform to their pre-conceived notions. Like thinking what the author wrote supports atheism when it doesn't. It supports acknowldging facts as a small and exciting part of the greater puzzle science is working on.

To pretend the unknown doesn't exist is to accept a false premise. I don't think Atheism should rely upon a false premise.

Atheism that relies upon a conclusion about reality therefore is not fact based. Because the fact that we don't know is not the same as the belief that nothing is there.

A dark room may not be empty. Pretending it is empty isn't science.

Science has shown that dark rooms do indeed have things in them, though they are usually quite different than what we think.

Meanwhile, what you witness reflects something real.

Symbols carry meaning and power. The parts of ourselves that generate them have their source. And that is reality inviting us to investigate.

[Spence Tepper]

Another point about fairies.
The person who sees them reliably must incorporate them into their reality.

The label anyone else applies is meaningless to the person who experiences them.

The term fairies is used all the time here as an example of the product of hallucination, and without corporeal substance.

But to the persons experiencing them they may be very real.

And if they actually witness them on a reliable basis, they represent something worthy of investigation, not derogatory labels.

A good anthropologist acknowledges the social and psychological reality of myths, symbols, visions, even dreams and investigates these as real parts of the societies that believe in them.

Others don't. For example a racist doesn't. A racist looking at other culture's myths, symbols and beliefs says "it's just illusion and false and should be dismissed as unreal."

[Dungeness]

@ AR : "But things are what they are. Pretending otherwise doesn't avail oneself anything. Wishful thinking doesn't get one anywhere. I don't see we can do any more than accept things as they are. Which does not stop us from striving to find out more, in such ways as we are able and willing."

I agree. Fairies can't become fanciful, wished for sightings. But every day,
many times, especially in stillness, I hear a warning: "Always keep watch...
on what's going on within. It's real. That's where fairies live... or die. But
they won't be able to go on hiding."

[Tendzin]

The fine-tuning of the universe is all but proof that mind isn't limited to brain tissue.

That is, the expansion rate and the precise entropy of the universe, the laws of physics being exactly what they are, the nuclear laws, magnetic theory, the precise tilt of the planet and its distance from the sun, and so on...there's a very long list of things that are *precisely* right for life to exist on earth at all, and hence for our brains to exist.

In other words, this evidence of a cosmic designing intelligence stands in the way of a conclusion that our consciousness is an independent material unit of grey matter.

[Sonia]

The brain is a light bulb, but where does the electricity come from?

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Spence.

In your last two comment you quoted these words of mine, ""Until such time, as we do know such exists substantially, we'll treat is as not existing. Be it consciousness, or be it fairies."

And you started out your comments with these words, developing this theme further in the rest of your two comments addressed to me :

Quoting you this time: "That system of belief would put an end to all science.

Science is based on exactly the opposite. That the unknown exist, and that to understand reality we must investigate and learn.

Many things do exist that are unknown. Your statement is tantamount to claiming the unknown doesn't exist."

-------

This is exactly the kind of apparent ignorance about the nature and the implications of the scientific method that I'd spoken of the other thread, that one sometimes comes across from people one would certainly expect to know better. Not only that, this entirely misrepresents my own words, part of which you'd yourself quoted, to attempt to argue against a blatantly strawman version of my comments. The whys and the wherefores of this I'd rather not get into, but the 'what' of it is incontrovertible.

-------

The latter portion of what I've just now said, first, as that is so much easier to establish.

Here's what I'd said in my own comment, that you've quoted from (and I quote these extracts verbatim):

"This isn't in any way to shut oneself off from the possibility of what might be. Nor is it to shut oneself into unreasonable closed-minded certainty that nothing beyond what is known might ever be known. All the possibilities of Mystery, with a capital M, are acknowledged, and indeed honored. But not accepted, until one has reason to."

"Nor does it stop one from performing one's own researches. Into science, or into technology. Into fairies, on into mystic realities. Into whatever appears promising to one, into whatever appeals to one."

"I don't see we can do any more than accept things as they are. Which does not stop us from striving to find out more, in such ways as we are able and willing."

It is astonishing that you should apparently parse the above so as to conclude, as you do here, that "That system of belief would put an end to all science. ... Science is based on exactly the opposite. That the unknown exist, and that to understand reality we must investigate and learn. ... Many things do exist that are unknown. Your statement is tantamount to claiming the unknown doesn't exist." (etc)

You've read exactly the opposite of what I'd very clearly said in my post. I wonder why that is?

-------

Moving beyond these I-said-you-said inconsequentialities, let us turn to the more ...consequential part of your comment, that betrays a confusion about the implications of the scientific method, that is surprising coming from you.

Cue, at this time, Carl Sagan: “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” Because what you're advocating here is clearly the equivalent of having one's brains fall right out.

There are many things we don't know. The domain of what we don't know is far more vast, infinitely more vast, than what we do know. Further, what little we do know is tentative, and always subject to correction in future. But what are the implications of this? It is reasonable to accept and treat as known what we do know thus far, no far how little and no far how tentative. The rest it is reasonable to reject. And to reject something is neither to claim that it shall forever remain rejected, nor to turn away from exploration of it; to reject some hypothesis is no more than to not accept such at this time, and such rejection is always tentative and always subject to correction in future. Like I'd said in the other thread, it is surprising that this obvious thing should need to be spelt out in this manner to those whom one would have expected would know better.

Let's take an actual example to make this clear.

There's this real-life hypothesis that our universe is a simulation. We don't know enough to incontrovertibly reject the hypothesis. Indeed there are actual physicists who are researching this very issue. But as far as actually accepting this claim, what is the reasonable stance? The reasonable thing to do is to not accept this hypothesis, for now, to clearly reject this hypothesis, for now. Such rejection is not to say that one will not research this subject, nor to claim that one has shut oneself off from ever accepting this hypothesis; it is only to state that one does not have justification, at this time, to rationally accept this hypothesis. For all practical everyday purposes, one rejects this hypothesis. (To emphasize again, that does not preclude people who are interested in the subject from exploring and researching it further.)

Thus with consciousness and mystical realities and the God question, which is clearly what this discussion is all about at bottom. Until the day we have reasonable rational grounds to accept such, we will not accept such. That is a perfectly sound position. That does not stop us from speculating. Nor does that stop us from actually exploring and researching the issue. That also does not stop us from realizing the essentially tentative nature of our rejection --- which tentativeness is an intrinsic part of the scientific worldview --- and it does not stop us from promptly changing our mind in future should circumstances so warrant.

To see in this clearly stated position the antithesis of science, as you do, is to completely misunderstand one's clearly written words, as well as to profoundly misunderstand the nature of a scientific worldview.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Another point about fairies.
The person who sees them reliably must incorporate them into their reality."

-------

Sure, Spence. Agreed, as far as the above.

Now we both know that we're not really talking of fairies here. We both know you're referring to your own mystical visions here. So let's engage directly with that specific subject.

You've discussed your mystical visions here. When it comes to others, like us, evaluating such discussion, clearly one of the possibilities one considers, with whatever subjective probability one might assign to such, is that you're saying something that isn't true. (Absolutely no offense implied when I say this, Spence. Nor is this in the slightest to impute dishonesty to you. But it is reasonable for anyone other than you to consider this eventuality, like I said with whatever subjective probability we might wish to assign to this eventuality.)

When it comes to you yourself, that above possibility you can, with certainty, rule out, obviously. But that still leaves the interpretation of your experiences wide open. Might they be mere hallucinations? (Unlikely, I agree, given the established commonalities with others' visions, provided such commonality were incontrovertibly established.) Might they merely correspond with particular patterns of stimulation of our brain and our nervous system. (That is a reasonable enough hypothesis.) Might they actually represent the cosmology RSSB teaches? (That also is possible, but that is a very extravagant claim, and therefore clearly requires more concrete evidence in order to accept.)

Absolutely, you who see these visions must and should incorporate them in your worldview. As, for that matter, must and should the rest of us as well. But to do the equivalent of accepting the existence of fairies, or even to do the equivalent of not, at this time, and given what evidence we do have at this time, to actually reject the fairies hypothesis (which is what you're clearly advocating here, in interpreting this rejection as somehow, as you put it, "derogatory") is to turn the whole nature of a scientific worldview on its head. It is exactly what Carl Sagan referred to by speaking of brains falling out. (And none of this is to suggest in any way that your experiences are not real, or that you must not research them further, or indeed that those of us who are interested in this subject should not further explore this ourselves.)

[Sonia]

Well, it all depends on your vantage point.

The Overview Effect and the Ultraview Effect: How Extreme Experiences in/of Outer Space Influence Religious Beliefs in Astronauts

If you can take the time to write a bunch of words, then you can take the time to read this. :)

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/religions/religions-11-00418/article_deploy/religions-11-00418.pdf

The Truth is out there… (the outside/inside thing). Awareness isn’t really directional.

[Sonia]

AR,

You’ve never had an Inner experience but you’ve never had an Outer experience either. (Unless you’ve actually travelled to space and just never mentioned it before.)

[Appreciative Reader]

"https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/religions/religions-11-00418/article_deploy/religions-11-00418.pdf"

.................Glanced through it for now. Seems interesting.

"You’ve never had an Inner experience"

.................Yes and no, Sonia. Nothing quite as profound as the kind Spence discusses, not even close, but well enough removed from the ordinary, that is to say the everyday range of experiences that I have hitherto had access to, that I am deeply interested in its implications, as well as the possibility (not to mention the implications) of those more profound experiences.

On the other hand, one of the traditions I follow (or try to follow) explicitly holds that such experiences, while real, are moot. In essence no different from the most mundane experiences, in that they are transient. Now I don't swallow the "teachings" of this tradition, nor any tradition, unquestioningly. But I do find this philosophy, not quite conclusive, but persuasive, certainly. So there's that.

"...you’ve never had an Outer experience either. (Unless you’ve actually travelled to space and just never mentioned it before.)"

.................Hm, so you're taking it as certain that I'm not Richard Branson?! Just as well, I suppose. :--)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"You've read exactly the opposite of what I'd very clearly said in my post. I wonder why that is?"

I think you missed my point:
"You have equated non - existence with not accepted. These are not the same."

This appears to be the crux of the matter. What has yet to be explored is not non - existant.

In context I also wrote...

" Many things exist we know little about. In fact we must accept the unknown exists even knowing nothing about it, if we are truly acknowldging Reality.

"What we cannot accept is an explanation as fact. But we can and must accept the unknown exists to accept Reality as it is."

You can use all the discrimination at your power to reject any notion you like, but it must be based on evidence, scientific evidence, if you wish to claim science as the foundation of your thinking.

The explanation that something has no evidence yet cannot be used to prove anything.

We see this mistake repeatedly like a broken record among folks who are trying to be rational. But all that is really happening is that they are limiting their view of reality to their experience, and selected western scientific evidence, as the basis for rejecting the possibilities in the unknown. But there is no evidence about the unknown yet. That is what science will tell us tomorrow.

The same false argument that lack of evidence is proof. That a dark room is empty. It isn't.

And claiming that you will believe for now it is empty isn't scientific. All of the unknown is without evidence. But the whole history of science is proof that what is unknown exists and every day science is bringing more of to light. Something is in that dark unexplored room, though we can't say what with scientific certainty.

It is illogical to claim nothing exists until science proves it. Science proves that what was unproven does exist, and science does this all the time.

Science is all about gathering and weighing evidence about the unknown.

What you can say correctly is that no scientific study of God or soul, that is a valid study, exists. Therefore no conclusions can be made on scientific grounds about the existence or nature of God or Soul. To make any claims, either way, even provisionally, cannot be done on scientific grounds. God and Soul, from the perspective of true science, are unknown.

But some folks seem to need to draw conclusions. To do that scientifically, you need to set up your hypothesis and test it. A real controlled experiment where real scientists agree on the theory being tested, the operationalization of that theory in solid hypotheses, and agreement as to the internal and external validity of the design. Then you conduct the experiment.

If someone claims anything at all is a part of reality, and there is any chance they have witnessed something which leads them to make that claim, nothing more can be concluded until experimentally, the source of that claim can be duplicated reliably in the lab. Then you may have evidence of the actual cause of the event. Or not. The experiment must be set up on the basis of solid theory, design and control.

Using neuroscience studies to make claims about God and soul is plain abuse of scientific data. It is overreach and unscientific.

So I say to all devoted Atheists, I get why you believe as you do. You believe what is in your experience and existing accepted results within the culture of established western science. But in parallel fashion, so do many of Faith.

Therefore to make claims about someone else's experience or about ultimate reality, please conduct good science first.

Until then, I honor your reasoning, but it is limited to your experience, as is mine and everyone else's. Use scientific evidence in support of the theory and hypothesis that experiment was designed to test, not in support of an unrelated theory connected by some argument about reality truly unconnected scientifically to the actual experiment and what was tested.

That's not actually rational.

The unknown is something. It's not nothing. It isn't what you or I claim it is or isn't.

It's unknown. Within that is God, Soul and every claim that has not yet undergone rigorous scientific research.

It isn't nothing. It's unknown.

[albert]

It's interesting that in addition to the cells in our brains, that we also have ten million cells in our eyes that are involved in processing information. These cells are actually in the retina of the eye and are interacting with each other in complex ways, and this is just part of the processing involved in sight. We have a system of processing sight that is far superior to man made technologies. An article in BYTE by John K Stevens says “While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.”

As to the animating Force, Itself, no language can describe It accurately. Just be extremely grateful that you have It...that you are not a rock.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"Might they merely correspond with particular patterns of stimulation of our brain and our nervous system. (That is a reasonable enough hypothesis.)"

Absolutely. That's what I believe. This brain is an evolving clone containing bits and pieces over a million years in development. Understood rightly, it is an incredible museum from a forgotten antiquity. Generated from two microscopic strands of DNA.

And it has both impressions and connections we do not understand.

How can this brain process more information in one second than 82,600 modern processors in the same second when every single biochemical connection operates slower than one single electronic circuit?

What we are about to learn, what science is about to uncover will be mind blowing.

So let's keep an open mind, willing to explore. Conclusions about the unknown are all premature guesses.

[Spence Tepper]

I may have shared this experience before...
About twelve years ago Baba Ji made a surprise visit to Chicago.
We all sat in a junior college basketball court awaiting Baba Ji.
The fellow next to me struck up a conversation. Turns out he was a seeker, who was also a practicing bar tender. He was curious about the path, and very sincere that he was searching for something. We stared at the small desk with chair at the end of the basketball court that had been set up for Baba Ji. It was set up on a platform perhaps six inches off the floor.
There were several folks wearing Indian garb walking about, sitting down, moving around to and from the seats set up on the basketball court. The bar tender and I sat on the bleachers with most of the attendees.
A man casually strolled up to the platform and stepped on it. He was just another Indian. But in an instant he turned into Baba Ji. He became Baba Ji. I was shocked but remained silent. Of course I was seeing things, but why? I'm not prone to such things. In the same instant I knew this was some kind of hallucination, I could not understand how it happened to me. So I kept silent. It was my problem to deal with.

Then the bar tender turned to me, also shocked, and asked, "Did you just see what I saw?! That man turned into Gurinder Singh!!"

I didn't know what to say. I couldn't explain it.

So I just said, "Yes, I saw it, too. Welcome to Sant Mat."

It's one thing to see things. It's another to have corroboration from someone else at exactly the same time that they also saw the same impossible occurrence.

What does it mean? Unknown.

It defies conventional, logical explanation. But one day science will explain it. For now, it is unknown.

[Sonia]

albert,

That is truly fascinating!!! I guess the eyes really are the windows to the soul. ;)

[777 - Dhyan]

Quote of the Day
"All meaningful and lasting change starts first in your imagination and then works its way out. Imagination is more important than knowledge."
— Albert Einstein —
777

[albert]

Thank you, Sonia and Spence (prior comment). It is a fact that the aggregate of functions of one single cell in one second are - according to Michiu Kaku - more than the entire city of Tokyo! Biologists cannot "make" a living cell, though they can tamper with the gene coding of an existing living cell. That is why I will never agree that "dead" computers, restricted to the binary number system, can even come close to simulating a human being...not even remotely close. So far, the most advanced supercomputers cannot mimic the instinctual activities of even a cockroach, so advanced are living creatures.

The Life-Force which allows for our prized 1) conscious perception 2) sensation and comprehension 3) regulation of action - cannot be isolated or bottled up as one might a beverage or food. Many would give their entire fortunes to have one drop! Alas, the fountain of youth is not of this world.

Our own awareness is worthy of self-introspection and analysis. That is where the "spiritual gold" is, not anywhere in the external material universe. When alone and contemplating your very own awareness try to separate IT from all thoughts, feeling, reveries, bodily sensations and desires. Be alone with your aloneness. You will find that there is something there (Here) that is truly marvelous and wonderful! Hint: THAT something is not emptiness or nothingness.