« RSSB guru in poor health, cancels satsangs for six months | Main | How is it possible to prove the RSSB guru is a fraud? »

June 04, 2022

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It seems to me that consciousness as a thing, as a particular occurrence that arises in a in a particular part of the brain, is bound to falter. Not because consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, but because its more likely to be a product of the brain's entire processing network – so can never be isolated to one area.

The Zen or Chan Buddhist (that Blackmore practices) logs consciousness as being the sixth sense and consciousness arises with the interaction of a subject and an object. One cannot be conscious of something that has never been experienced – say a noegip – as no word or image exists in memory of such a thing. But rearrange the letters to read pigeon and immediately an image arises from the word.

It is tempting to allocate consciousness as an inherent quality of the entire universe (panpsychism) and that our brains are a conduit for consciousness. Panpsychism has recently experienced a resurgence as an answer to the mind /body problem. Panpsychism can also substitute for the vacuum left with the dethroning of religion and gods.

Also, as Paul Singh points out in his book 'The Great Illusion', by taking the term conscious and making it into an abstract noun by adding 'ness' to it, it immediately becomes a thing to be studied (by the experts!) rather than a process that anyone can observe.

In my opinion conscious'ness' – along with the concepts of free will and the separate self are just some of the illusions our amazing brain/body organism has evolved to allow us to navigate and survive in our particular environments.

All that matters from our place on planet earth is..

1. Consciousness exists and can be measured... Wakefulness, awareness, memory. Aware of other people, aware of ourselves, accuracy of understanding, accuracy of executive decision making, levels of self control and self management. In psychology, the varied aspects of higher cognitive functioning have been measured extensively.

2. Consciousness can be expanded, raised, developed. Practices of meditation are one area that has proven effective in improving the above measures. Diet, exercise, mental practice, medication are other areas.


The physical body and the personality that utilizes it only exist as transitory aliveness.

Consciousness, I suggest, is aliveness happening in now-ness.

All living things are consciousness. They do not have consciousness. They are consciousness happening.

Consciousness is not a separate thing from aliveness. Human aliveness evolved to be an ability to be aware of being aware of being human and make sense of the neuro/electro/chemical activity in the human brain that interacts with sensory data input.

Human awareness is therefore dependent on a living human brain and cannot exist independent of one.

This means that the experience we refer to as ego, personality, mind, soul, spirit or self, comes to an end when the human brain on which it is dependent dies beyond the point where life can be resuscitated.

The unevidenced (not personal anecdote) belief in the continuance of what you believe is you, or any thing (physical, emotional, psychological, or any combination thereof) that may be considered as being connected in any way with what you believe is you, is unhelpful in that it creates an attachment to a future that does not exist and turns the mind away from the experience of now-ness.

Consciousness = brain activity

Awareness = me being aware of my brain activity

Self-awareness = me being aware of what is hiding below the surface

Aliveness = biological functioning of the body

"Also, as Paul Singh points out in his book 'The Great Illusion', by taking the term conscious and making it into an abstract noun by adding 'ness' to it, it immediately becomes a thing to be studied (by the experts!) rather than a process that anyone can observe."


.....Never heard of Paul Singh, but he talks sense. There's no consciousness, merely people (and animals, maybe, and birds, not to forget bats) that are conscious, and (a subset of them) able to formulate abstractions like 'consciousness'. There's no thoughts, merely people (and other creatures?) thinking, and (some of them) able to formulate abstractions like "thoughts". Just as there's no actions per se, only people (and animals, et cetera) doing things.

That neatly cuts through the Gordian knot of the hard problem.

Hi A you wrote
"There's no consciousness, merely people (and animals, maybe, and birds, not to forget bats) that are conscious, and (a subset of them) able to formulate abstractions like 'consciousness'."

While this may not be an entirely scientific view, it is a practical one, and one that I must admit, I agree with.

The entire creation could be labeled conscious, but that would merely be in how we define that word.

We know that human beings can be aware of others, can care for others, can hurt others. To some extent animals can do the same.

The earth heals itself, but by mostly mechanical responsive means that are often blind,. This is where human awareness can help, such as with the development of solar and wind energy, or the efforts to limit micro plastic pollution. The earth is largely unaware. We are injuring her in her sleep, so to speak.

But however we symbolize it, our biological awareness is a powerful tool and to the extent humans have it, relatively unique. We should help develop that awareness, because in that is the potential for greater good.

Hi, Spence.


"While this may not be an entirely scientific view, it is a practical one, and one that I must admit, I agree with."


.....Glad you agree.

I'm not sure whether this is scientific. But I'd imagine the burden of proof would be on showing that such a thing as consciousness actually exists. In the absence of such evidence I guess it would make sense to posit otherwise. But then that's just me thinking aloud, and thinking aloud knee-jerk: I might be mistaken, I admit that. Although sitting here I don't see quite how.


-----


"The entire creation could be labeled conscious, but that would merely be in how we define that word."


.....Whoops. Hardly the entire creation. It may turn out that way, just like the creation may turn out to be a simulation, but absent evidence we can hardly assume that. I don't see how definitions come into play here, by any normal usage of the word 'conscious', I don't think we can say that the universe is conscious. We can speculate, sure. Like Olaf Stapledon did, very entertainingly indeed.


-----


"...however we symbolize it, our biological awareness is a powerful tool and to the extent humans have it, relatively unique. We should help develop that awareness, because in that is the potential for greater good."


.....Agreed.

Blackmore states that consciousness and self are illusions. Not in the sense that they are not real, just that they are not what they seem to be. And what they seem to be, what we feel them to be is some strange phenomenon that resides within us – almost a separate entity, a director of sorts.

As a naturalist, I can only see the simplicity of nature. To impose abstract reasoning onto the simplicity of nature seems to me to deny its grandeur which is surely not what our ability to think, to basically solve the problems of survival has evolved for.

I think it is important for us to shake off the shackles of the type of thinking that compels us to conceive that we are somehow special, that there is an element that raises us above the rest of nature.

To be conscious of something then, is to be able to sense it, to perceive it; whether it is a physical or a mental 'object'. Consciousness arises on contact. If something is not sensed then there is no conscious experience. It could be that the brain enables a focusing on its content. This focusing, this attention function being the experience of being conscious.

To see the self, our ‘identity’ as it is – a bundle of memories, thoughts and ideas, then the identification with these mind contents loses its tenacious hold. Freed from the amalgamation of ‘self’ concepts (and we are the author of none of them, being programmed with them from birth) perhaps we can begin to understand the inherent sameness or oneness that we all are.

All this mental phenomenon can be realised. I also think that the very act of watching the mental processes that go to make what we call the mind, self, me, consciousness etc. can allow us to see that there is no me, no observer, no special entity doing the watching - just the ever processing brain/body doing living its natural life.

@ Ron E. [ All this mental phenomenon can be realised. I also think that the very act of watching the mental processes that go to make what we call the mind, self, me, consciousness etc. can allow us to see that there is no me, no observer, no special entity doing the watching - just the ever processing brain/body doing living its natural life. ]

Thank you for probing the subject of consciousness. While IMO it's important to
identify the baggage of "me/self" to an extent, I think it's confounding to assert
we exist in a "natural life of brain/body" untethered from observation, from any
trace of dualism whatever. After all, the immersive nature of dualistic thought
ensures we're operating in its framework... even when we're identifying that
pesky sense of "me" that burdens us.

So at this level we haven't actually realized who or what we are. That may
mean we are a transcendent entity playing a game, dumbing down our
awareness for an exhilarating, dramatic scene of tag. One day a faint,
pre-arranged voice within whispers and we hear an insistent bell calling
us back. We follow the sound and step out from the playground. Now
we're home again and realize we never really left. It was just a game.

I can assure you that my cat knows more than I do… and I scored the highest IQ of all the students in my school which was one of the the top ranked schools in the United States.

We humans are so disgustingly arrogant and ignorant.

I can ensure you that “intelligence” does NOT equate with success or happiness.

It is now commonly recognized that one only needs average intelligence to be successful in this world.

AVERAGE. Average is good. It’s humble and harmonious. You might call it Wisdom…

@Sonya
Yes equilibrium also in E Q

meditation brings that - this time I mean contemplation

77

Curiosity <<< Which School ?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.