The most important question I can ask.

reply to post by notsympl

what makes you think biology isn't a result of consciousness?

Because a change in biology precedes and causes a change in consciousness. Though I don't deny the possibility of what you are saying I just think that the evidence we have points to it being incorrect.

your ego remains whole, your ego is not the only part of you that thinks.

Nor did I say it was; damage to my thumb (or any other part of my body that would not result in death) does not affect any part of my consciousness but damage to my brain does, profoundly. Thus to say that my consciousness resides in another part of my body is not consist with the observed reality.

cells in your thumb were conscious before you destroyed them. there are various levels of consciousness.

What do these cells do that they can be said to be conscious, how does this fit with accepted scientific and common usage definitions of consciousness, and what evidence is there to suggest that what you say is correct?

Originally posted by Mike_A
Why didn't you refer to the rest of that section of my post?

“If we were discussing language you wouldn't say that language is a particle or wave either would you. Nor would you say there is a grasping or spitting particle, because these are things we do not physical things in themselves.”

What I'm trying to get across is that you are treating consciousness as a physical thing when it isn't, it's a concept that refers to the product of mental processes. Just as grasping or spitting refers to the product of a physiological process but are not physical things in themselves.

Grasping and spitting ARE physical actions. They are muscle contractions, even inhaling and sharply exhaling air with a certain mouth formation (also formed by muscle contractions) to expel saliva from the mouth like a projectile. I would even say everything about those two actions is already completely physically understood in biology, except biologists still aren't sure how the conscious commands to move muscles in the first place arise.

But I am not saying consciousness itself is a physical phenomenon and if you really think I believe that then I have to wonder where your mind has been as you "read" all of my last posts.

But you have no reason to believe it's an antenna though.

I have plenty of reason to believe it's an antenna. What you meant to say is I don't have widely-accepted objective evidence. And in that case neither do you that consciousness is isolated within the brain and a result of its physical processes.

We observe that damage to the brain changes our consciousness, the simplest explanation is that the brain produces that consciousness.

Simple does not mean accurate or objectively verified.

Your consciousness can also reside in these parts of your body

But on what observations do you base this?

Physical experiences.

If I destroy certain parts of my brain I can no longer make decisions for myself (one function that is associated with a conscious being) but if I destroy my thumb my entire consciousness remains intact, that is clear evidence that consciousness is a product (or resides in, though that isn't correct) of the brain.

First of all, just because you can live and be conscious without your thumb does not mean there is not consciousness in your thumb. It just means it is not critical to maintaining your sense of self, which is derived from your brain (your "ego" again). But I didn't say anything about your thumb anyway when I was talking about relocating your conscious awareness to other parts of your body. I said there are groups of neurons in your brain, heart, gut, and spine. Cut off access to ANY of those things and your state of consciousness will be severely affected immediately and across your whole body. People who have "gut instincts" or emotional feelings in their heart are not just playing with words, it is rooted in biology, and these are recent discoveries in themselves.

I didn't say consciousness was a particle or wave.

No, you implied that consciousness was a physical thing akin, i.e. a particle or wave (or packet of energy which I missed out)

No, I did not say consciousness was a physical thing. That is the exact opposite of what I believe. It's you who are arguing that consciousness is the result of some kind of physical interaction in your brain, remember? Obviously there IS a physical interaction in your brain, but the source of it has not been shown confined to the physical brain and neither is the interacting force. And what your brain does with it is not what other animals' brains do with it.

The point you seem to be perfectly happy to talk in your own absolutes (a rock is conscious, consciousness is inherent to everything etc) but you don't like others doing it. That's a double standard.

And you are free to criticize me for it, and you have been. That's not a double standard. That's the nature of a discussion like this.

I'll point out now btw that you ignored quite a lengthy post in favour of pronouncing on the wrongfulness of my opinion. I wish I could get stars for ignoring valid opinions!

I posted an even lengthier post immediately before yours and you also failed to respond to huge chunks of it. So what? Are we arguing on the basis of how long our posts are now?

What I am trying to find out is what evidence do you have for saying these absolutes, I'm giving you mine

What have you given to demonstrate that consciousness is isolated within the brain?

Assuming a unified field theory is possible then we would agree that everything is fundamentally made up of the same stuff but where we seem to diverge is on the idea that this automatically confers consciousness onto everything.

I'm saying the unified field itself is the source of consciousness when the most subtle parts of it are received and amplified by the right "antenna," ie masses of neurons for example. And though it manifests most dramatically that way it also permeates through all physical matter in the universe and sustains ALL of it.

I don't see why this should be the case any more than it conferring the quality of being a little bit grumpy.

I don't see why it can't do that either. In order to be grumpy you have to first experience a state of being. From there the human brain develops this energy into a loop that becomes self-referencing and an "I," and then throw in the chemical soup that is emotion and you have a "grumpy" pre-disposition for the looping "I" circuit.

LOL there are 2 pages of discussion on what conscience is.

Well I can tell you have I have got one, my cute dog also has one.

It appears even insects has conscienceness. I put my finger on its path, it realizes that it is in danger and tries to avoid my finger on its way.

Anything living creature with a BRAIN has a conscienceness. We humans have the biggest brain so we are more complicated than others.

So I don't understand these long essays of people describing what conscieness is and where it comes from.

It comes from your brain.

My question is, after death, do we have a spirit that lives on or is it just a void..?

All religions I think, exisists because we think that there is an after life. (well thats obivious)

Here is an anecdotal video about a woman who observes her surgery during a time where she is clinically dead.

Pam Reynolds


If that isn't compelling enough... here is a documentary about a boy who recalls his past life and is verified with a psychologist who investigates the details.


This should give some weight to the argument that consciousness exists outside the body. This is something I already know as fact, so refuting it really is mute. We existed before this life and will exist long after it's dust.

Enjoy eternity.

Ok, so conscienceness or spirit exists outside of the physically body.

Then we are not a simple biological machine.

We are something greater.

Then were the heck is the Creator??

What do you think

Originally posted by saabacura
Then were the heck is the Creator??

Funny you should ask a question that the reflection in your mirror should answer.

what? I don't understand. I am the creator? im confused.

Originally posted by emsed1
Consciousness is both separate and biological.

Man is the only creature with self-awareness, free-will and an understanding of the passing of time.

Your purpose here is simple. You exist to learn moral and ethical lessons, experience good and evil, and to love and serve your fellow humans.

Death is an ending only in a biological sense. The consciousness survives with full awareness of personality and memory.

Life is for living! Enjoy it! :-)

Yes , that sounds just about right to me . Maybe we will meet in " Another " Lifetime emsed1 , you seem to be a very Aware person ...

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

reply to post by saabacura


We all are. It's complicated when you try to understand it from such a subjective perspective that comes with human life. It's probably one of the most difficult concepts to grasp that we are "the creator" or "a creator" when what we see is just an aspect of creation.

In describing it, all I can say is "you" the creator only has had, and will ever have... itself to create with. And to do so, "you" individualized yourself into many parts to create the many reality systems of which you now observe yourself as.

I know it seems radical in terms of thinking but once you see that consciousness is reality, and that it all comes from one source...

It becomes very apparent. The creator is also the creation it created, in every possible fraction of what we call reality.

It's a bad case of quantum entanglement in my opinion.

I think there would be a chaos if everyone is a creator.
I don't believe that there are any definitive answer to any of this yet.
Perhaps there will never be an answer, until everything ends.

reply to post by saabacura


It is a very complicated affair, I do confess. You think of everyone as separate things to a oneness that exists where we are all parts of a whole.

That is just the illusion that makes this matrix reality work so wonderfully. The "self" has tricked itself into thinking it is not itself but someone of some mundane unimportance.

Yet, when that mundane part of itself goes looking for it's true self, it always finds itself. What it makes of it, well you will answer to yourself on that matter one day.

Just remember the man in the mirror. It is a reflection of the true creator lost within itself. We are all part of the same Universe, the same "reality", the same "dream" if you will.. all part of the same whole.

What is lacking is our realization that our belief that we are separate from it all, is the grandest of illusions.

It's like the body is just a container of consciousness which is but a drop from an infinite ocean of consciousness. When the body shatters and the consciousness leaks back into the ocean, what becomes of it then?

Right now we are but a rain drop, when the journey ends, we will be an ocean again.

well then, i hope we become an ocean again. It is my wish that we return to where we originally came from.

reply to post by saabacura


It is my understanding that we can return home, as you say. But in doing so we find that being here, having experienced human life has ultimately changed us from what we once were.

It is not a horrid realization that we have some how evolved, but the realization that we left home because home got repetitive.

My memory for becoming human stems from boredom. Taking the plunge has certainly sent me on some wild loop. Well... all of us really because we are all now playing the "human" experience game.

Got ourselves this nice little biological avatar by which we tromp around Earth and live a life oblivious to the fact it's some cosmic form of role-play at best. And that in reality, we are a highly-evolved ecosystem of epic consciousness bored with that gift to only reduce ourselves to this silly biological idea.

It's mad really. I still shake my head and ask my self why I took the blue pill.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]

reply to post by Mike_A


Hi Mike_A.

Just thought I'd wade back in at this point to ask your opinion on 2 things. Firstly, What do you make of the Holographic or Holonomic model of the brain proposed by Karl Pribram?

And secondly, What do you make of David Bohm's 'implicate order'?

If anyone else wants to chime in on this too, that'd be great.

some linkys:

www.acsa2000.net...

www.theosophy-nw.org...

thanks.

This should give some weight to the argument that consciousness exists outside the body. This is something I already know as fact, so refuting it really is mute. We existed before this life and will exist long after it's dust.

You say this is something you know as fact. Would you mind explaining what experiences (if any) brought you to this conclusion?

thanks

reply to post by bsbray11

Grasping and spitting ARE physical actions.

Actions, but not things in themselves.

But I am not saying consciousness itself is a physical phenomenon

Everything you have posted treats consciousness as a physical thing, such as the line “scientists still can't tell you where it comes from or even what exactly it is, what it is "made of,"” Which certainly sounds like you think it’s made of something, i.e. physical. A unified energy field is still a physical thing btw.

I have plenty of reason to believe it's an antenna. What you meant to say is I don't have widely-accepted objective evidence. And in that case neither do you that consciousness is isolated within the brain and a result of its physical processes.

No I meant reason as defined as having evidence for your belief.

And yes I do have evidence, the fact of localization of function in the brain which I have mentioned a number of times. Fair enough if you disagree but you could at least attempt to provide the evidence for what you are saying.

First of all, just because you can live and be conscious without your thumb does not mean there is not consciousness in your thumb. It just means it is not critical to maintaining your sense of self, which is derived from your brain (your "ego" again).

You said that my consciousness resides in other parts of my body, so why is it only affected when my brain is damaged? What evidence do you have for your assertion?

But I didn't say anything about your thumb anyway when I was talking about relocating your conscious awareness to other parts of your body. I said there are groups of neurons in your brain, heart, gut, and spine. Cut off access to ANY of those things and your state of consciousness will be severely affected immediately and across your whole body. People who have "gut instincts" or emotional feelings in their heart are not just playing with words, it is rooted in biology, and these are recent discoveries in themselves.

Neurons exist across the entire body, but they are not all the same type of neurons. The Neurons in the gut and heart are afferent and efferent neurons responsible for motor control and relaying sensory input. Those in the central nervous system are interneurons which are very different.

Neurons in the thumb are basically the same as in the heart and gut so any difference between the two are not down to the neurons.

And no, the heart and gut are not capable anything analogous to consciousness; no one really has a “gut feeling” or are they led by their heart in the sense that you suggest. Again, where is the evidence for this?

No, I did not say consciousness was a physical thing.

See above.

I posted an even lengthier post immediately before yours and you also failed to respond to huge chunks of it. So what? Are we arguing on the basis of how long our posts are now?

No I didn’t, I responded to every point made, I just didn’t quote it all. You refused to even reply to almost all of what I wrote, which covered a lot of what we are covering now. All because you think it’s wrong for me to have an opinion.

What have you given to demonstrate that consciousness is isolated within the brain?

Lesion patients and localization of function in the brain, for the fourth time. You have completely refused to discuss this; why is consciousness changed by brain damage and not by any other kind of damage except those that also affect the brain (such as a heart attack stopping oxygen getting to the brain)?

Even if you introduce the idea that the brain is an antenna (an unnecessary step) you are still saying that there is something unique to the brain (you talked about a collection of neurons earlier) that is not shared by other things such as a rock.

But this antenna theory is still not consistent with what is observed, we can observe neurons firing in the brain, we know that causing these neurons to fire results in things such as the expression of a certain emotion. These things are consistent with the idea that the brain produces these functions but not with the idea that it is acting as an antenna.

I'm saying the unified field itself is the source of consciousness when the most subtle parts of it are received and amplified by the right "antenna," ie masses of neurons for example. And though it manifests most dramatically that way it also permeates through all physical matter in the universe and sustains ALL of it.

But you haven’t given any evidence or logical reasoning to suggest that this is true.



reply to post by Chonx


I’ve only really skimmed those things to be honest so I don’t have much of an opinion; there’s a possibility as with what has been discussed here but there needs to be a lot more research to verify it.

I’ll give the links a read.

Edit – From what I understand these theories, as they relate to consciousness, still rely on the unique structure of the brain and processes there in to explain the phenomena and don’t posit that everything is conscious.



[edit on 20-1-2010 by Mike_A]

so isn't it possible that there is the first consciousness that thought first? The first aware being was god and we are part of its consciousness. In a way we are all connected and result of it? Is it possible that God is living almongst us not knowing that it was the first conscienceness?

Open a Bible and start reading. I recommend the gospel of John.
Jesus claimed things that no one in his capacity ever claimed, and if he is lying then what of the miracles/experiences that caused his followers to choose death over apostasy?
If he is telling the truth then he is of the utmost importance to all of humanity.

Basically he is either the Creator of all existence in a human body, or a lying lunatic....either way it deserves our utmost attention because IF true, it dictates EVERYTHING.

PS. don't run from Christianity because it's so cliche or corny or wore-out. If you have a "draw" to it, you would be wise to let it lead you where it will, using your reason and logic as a map and a light.

Originally posted by Mike_A

Grasping and spitting ARE physical actions.

Actions, but not things in themselves.

The concepts "grasp" or "spit" are not physical things, but the things which the concepts represent are physical interactions. Going by that logic then you already agree with me that consciousness is not a physical thing, but only semantically.

Everything you have posted treats consciousness as a physical thing

Everything I've posted has been to the extent that it gives rise to physical things but is not bound by physical laws itself. That's a big difference. And believe me, I know what I believe, better than you know what I believe. I live with me.

such as the line “scientists still can't tell you where it comes from or even what exactly it is, what it is "made of,"” Which certainly sounds like you think it’s made of something, i.e. physical. A unified energy field is still a physical thing btw.

My point when I tell you that you can't find it or tell me what it's made out of is that it's NOT a physical thing. It's being rhetorical, though I guess you are not used to people speaking to you rhetorically. Again, trust me, I know what I think. Don't you think it's a little silly to be telling me what I believe and have been posting about, especially after I've said a few times that you should read my posts more carefully and not try to read "between" the lines?

No I meant reason as defined as having evidence for your belief.

A reason is not the same as scientific evidence.

And yes I do have evidence, the fact of localization of function in the brain

You are going to keep repeating this even though I have addressed it repeatedly so I'm going to ignore it from now on. You can't tell me that consciousness is localized within the brain when you can't even find it. What you THINK you experience as consciousness solely within your brain is what is known as SELF-consciousness and it is a feature of being human, but as many times as I've tried to explain the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness you have never responded to that.

which I have mentioned a number of times. Fair enough if you disagree but you could at least attempt to provide the evidence for what you are saying.

Excuse me but you could at least provide the evidence for what YOU are saying!

Post me the scientific papers proving that consciousness must be localized within the human brain, for whatever scientific reasons. Anything that is scientific evidence along those lines. You should find yourself in the same boat as me, but in the case that you are reluctant to admit as much, I want you to actually post the science (an independent source) that verifies your claim please.

You said that my consciousness resides in other parts of my body, so why is it only affected when my brain is damaged?

It's not. Your SELF-consciousness and other higher-level thought processes that require the brain are affected. The awareness afforded to you by your heart, gut and spine, for example, would still be intact, and if you affected any of those areas you would also experience a change in consciousness, whether you are aware of it or not. What evidence do I have for this? Personal experience. If you are only interested as an intellectual curiosity in life then don't worry about it, this information is pointless for you anyway. But if you actually decide to take up meditation one day (assuming you haven't already) you can start figuring it out for yourself. There is no way I can post body awareness online.

Neurons exist across the entire body

But not in as complex of formations like as in the brain, heart, gut, spine. But you are right, they do.

but they are not all the same type of neurons.

They don't have to be to fire electrical signals across them and process information in a complex way. If you were more familiar with your own body you would know exactly what types of experiences your heart and gut generate, for example. It is not the same kind of "thinking" your brain does but they are real and legitimate forms of "information processing" nonetheless. It is very much what you would expect for a "gut feeling" in the case of your gut if you would like to explore that, and your heart is more of an emotional/intuitive center but it is also very important to your sensation of being a SELF separate from the rest of the universe. Your heart exhibits the strongest magnetic field in your body and it has been shown to be able to couple with your brain's magnetic field in certain states of mind and create a unique state of awareness in which the brain and heart share information more immediately.

Follow Your Heart

"...our hearts may actually be the
'intelligent force' behind the intuitive
thoughts and feelings we all experience."

Throughout the ages, the heart has been referred to as a source of not only virtue and love, but also of intelligence. One of the most prevalent themes in ancient traditions and inspirational writing is the heart as a flowing spring of intelligence.

Many ancient cultures, including the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek, assert that the heart is the primary organ responsible for influencing and directing our emotions and our decision-making ability. Similar perspectives of the heart as a source of intelligence are found in Hebrew, Christian, Chinese, Hindu, and Islamic traditions. For example, the Old Testament saying in Proverbs 23:7, "For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he," is further developed in the New Testament in Luke 5:22, "What reason ye in your hearts?"

The characteristic of balance and the attainment of bodily equilibrium are also recognized as the essence of Yoga traditions, which identifies the heart as the seat of individual consciousness and the center of life. In traditional Chinese medicine, the heart is seen as the connection between the mind and the body, forming a bridge between the two.

Even with all these traditions and colorful heart metaphors, most of us have been taught that the heart is just a ten-ounce muscle that pumps blood and maintains circulation until we die. Medical science asserts that the brain rules all of the body's organs, including the heart. However, it is interesting to note that the heart starts beating in the unborn fetus even before the brain has been formed.

Neuroscientists have recently discovered exciting new information about the heart that makes us realize it's far more complex than we'd ever imagined. Instead of simply pumping blood, it may actually direct and align many systems in the body so that they can function in harmony with one another.

These scientists have found that the heart has its own independent nervous system – a complex system referred to as "the brain in the heart." There are at least forty thousand neurons (nerve cells) in the heart – as many as are found in various subcortical centers of the brain.

The heart communicates with the brain and the rest of the body in three ways documented by solid scientific evidence: neurologically (through transmissions of nerve impulses), biochemically (through hormones and neurotransmitters), and biophysically (through pressure waves). In addition, growing scientific evidence suggests that the heart may communicate with the brain and body in a fourth way – energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Through these biological communication systems, the heart has a significant influence on the function of our brains and all our Systems.

www.therealessentials.com...

For centuries, the heart has been considered the source of emotion, courage and wisdom. At the Institute of HeartMath (IHM) Research Center, we are exploring the physiological mechanisms by which the heart communicates with the brain, thereby influencing information processing, perceptions, emotions and health. We are asking questions such as: Why do people experience the feeling or sensation of love and other positive emotional states in the area of the heart and what are the physiological ramifications of these emotions? How do stress and different emotional states affect the autonomic nervous system, the hormonal and immune systems, the heart and brain? Over the years we have experimented with different psychological and physiological measures, but it was consistently heart rate variability, or heart rhythms, that stood out as the most dynamic and reflective of inner emotional states and stress. It became clear that negative emotions lead to increased disorder in the heart’s rhythms and in the autonomic nervous system, thereby adversely affecting the rest of the body. In contrast, positive emotions create increased harmony and coherence in heart rhythms and improve balance in the nervous system. The health implications are easy to understand: Disharmony in the nervous system leads to inefficiency and increased stress on the heart and other organs while harmonious rhythms are more efficient and less stressful to the body’s systems.

www.heartmath.org...

I can keep going with these, I can even post articles to the technical studies, if you want to debate them.

Are you beginning to see yet how the brain is not the sole processor of conscious information in the body? This would make consciousness in the body and various sensations of "being" not limited to the brain, or at least provide as much "evidence" that consciousness is in the heart as it is in the brain, given that you STILL haven't even figured out what consciousness is "made of" scientifically. Now I guess it's time to discredit the human heart and its importance to your sensation of being conscious?

[edit on 20-1-2010 by bsbray11]