Consciousness - the elephant in the room

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby VelisEtRemis » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:14 pm

Tayga,

I try to develop the association between EMR, space and charge....

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10284

You tell me if it makes sense?

:|
VelisEtRemis
Guest
 

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby VelisEtRemis » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:34 pm

Here is an Interresting Ted Talks lecture that is relevant, I think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s0CpRfyYp8&sns=em

:|
VelisEtRemis
Guest
 

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby tayga » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:12 pm

VelisEtRemis wrote:Tayga,

I try to develop the association between EMR, space and charge....

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10284

You tell me if it makes sense?

:|


Kind of. You start out with magnetism undefined and unexplained, though, and knotting suggests you have reified field lines. But it's a noble effort. Have you heard of Sorce Theory?
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby tayga » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:15 pm

VelisEtRemis wrote:Here is an Interresting Ted Talks lecture that is relevant, I think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s0CpRfyYp8&sns=em

:|


I agree it's relevant but maybe not in the same way that you do. I don't subscribe to the notion that the brain is the mind or that it is the source of consciousness but I do consider is the interface between mental and physical activity.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby VelisEtRemis » Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:35 pm

I was reading a post on this board regarding that the brain behaves somewhat like a radio. It tunes into specific frequencies which are associated with engaging in specific types of thought.

A noted spiritualist named David Hawkins suggests that a standing field of consciousness penetrates everything in the universe. When we have thought we are not responsible for the product because they are not really our personal thoughts and this happens as a result of an alignment with a particular level of consciousness. Is this alignment liken to tuning in the radio?

Maybe our brains function on some level as antennas?

:|
VelisEtRemis
Guest
 

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby tayga » Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:35 am

VelisEtRemis wrote:I was reading a post on this board regarding that the brain behaves somewhat like a radio. It tunes into specific frequencies which are associated with engaging in specific types of thought.

A noted spiritualist named David Hawkins suggests that a standing field of consciousness penetrates everything in the universe. When we have thought we are not responsible for the product because they are not really our personal thoughts and this happens as a result of an alignment with a particular level of consciousness. Is this alignment liken to tuning in the radio?

Maybe our brains function on some level as antennas?

:|


Maybe. Because of their intimate association, it's extremely difficult to isolate properties and functions of the brain from those of the mind. Mysticism deals with numerous phenomena that have to do with the association of consciousness with the physical and also of perception and communication that bypass it altogether. That is to say that thought communication may or may not be conveyed via the brain. Logcally, if such a thing as non-physical consciousness exists then it makes little sense for it to use a physical organ to communicate with other consciousness. On the other hand, if such a thing does exist it would make perfect sense that it would require an interface with the physical but only to effect physical changes and monitor physical perception.

I might agree with David Hawkins and I don't think he implied that the brain is involved in that communication. At the same time I'm aware that I am less than a novice in spiritual matters and what appeals to my reason is informed by my knowledge and experience. This field is my main area of interest these days and my opinions may very well change in future.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby VelisEtRemis » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:59 am

Tayga,

If not the brain, then what is the interface? If there is anything to interface with at all? If Hawkins is right then something about us interfaces with the fields.

The brain uses approximately half the total energy requirements of the body, utilizes and emits EMR and so seems the most likely organ to tune in, and respond to external fields. If the brain is not important, then why have one, some people seem to be without one its true and yet they manage.

:|
VelisEtRemis
Guest
 

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby VelisEtRemis » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:02 pm

Also, consciousness and self awareness are subject to physical influences, and so I assume that ours is based in the effect of these things upon the brain. If I drink too much, take drugs, fall asleep, have my brain exposed to strong magnetic fields...then the result is a physically induced alteration or negation of consciousness. I don't see how this basic fact can be dismissed?

:|
VelisEtRemis
Guest
 

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby tayga » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:33 pm

VelisEtRemis wrote:If not the brain, then what is the interface?


I must have written badly. There is little doubt that the brain is the best candidate for an interface between the physical and non-physical dimensions if such exist.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby tayga » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:42 pm

VelisEtRemis wrote:Also, consciousness and self awareness are subject to physical influences, and so I assume that ours is based in the effect of these things upon the brain. If I drink too much, take drugs, fall asleep, have my brain exposed to strong magnetic fields...then the result is a physically induced alteration or negation of consciousness. I don't see how this basic fact can be dismissed?


Me neither. In fact, many drugs are associated with the achievement of what are considered higher levels of consciousness. Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke experience and recent fMRI studies showing reduced levels of brain activity during such experiences lead me to believe that there is real substance to the notion that egoic mental activity blinds us to these states.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby roughone » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:20 pm

Tayga,

David Hawkins is a former colleague and collaborator of Linus Pauling, he is well versed in scientific method, and If you haven't read any, I recommend" Power vs Force, The Hidden Determinants of Human Behaviour ", as an introduction to his thought.

He claims the same thing as you in that drugs and alcohol can eliminate the lower levels of consciousness, leaving one to experience a higher level. You referred to it as ego.

:ugeek:
roughone
Guest
 

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby tayga » Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:42 am

roughone wrote:David Hawkins is a former colleague and collaborator of Linus Pauling, he is well versed in scientific method, and If you haven't read any, I recommend" Power vs Force, The Hidden Determinants of Human Behaviour ", as an introduction to his thought.

He claims the same thing as you in that drugs and alcohol can eliminate the lower levels of consciousness, leaving one to experience a higher level. You referred to it as ego.


Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't familiar with him but he does look worth a read. :)
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Consciousness - the elephant in the room

Unread postby roughone » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:26 pm

To me consciousness is experiential. I am not going to then dictate to the universe that it must be conscious also. The cosmos can be anything it wants to be and the coherence we observe is not a function of will. It is a necessity.

The world can be anything and the mind would adapt to it, this is called intellect. But the suggestion that the creator, if there is one, expresses reality like us is ridiculous. That would again limit the creator by our terms and ignore the likelihood that he or she is not human, if there is a creator.

:geek:
roughone
Guest
 

Previous

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests