Philosophy Now Forum

Greylorn;

Please consider the following responses:

Greylorn Ell wrote:When young I was a devout Catholic and used rationalization skills similar to yours to blow off opposing truths. Physics was a wake-up call. When I set about the job of devising a better theory I used the engineering approach, which required that all truth must be incorporated into a problem solution, else the solution sucks.

Yes. All truth must be incorporated, but how can "truths" be opposing? Most people will assume that if "truths" are opposing, then one of them is not true, so they select the one that they prefer. I generally do not use my skills to "blow off" opposing truths, but instead look for the common ground. If one can find a common ground in both truths, then that commonality is usually the actual truth of the matter. The other information is due to perspective and/or interpretation, which is a very common problem in the study of consciousness, because it is mostly interpreted through each person's or discipline's perspective.

As an example, consider the Flower Children of the 60's and 70's. Part of their philosophy was that all life is connected in a spiritual awareness, that there is a communal nature to everything, and that one can be in contact with this communal nature and actually "feel" it. Of coure it was nonsense; but was it?

We now know that ecosystems are self-balancing and will even rejuvinate themselves after a volcano erupts or after a tsunami. This implies some kind of communication and awareness between species. In the last 50 years, we have learned a tremendous amount about pheromones, and know that there is much more to learn about connections within and between species. Most people associate pheromones with sex, but they also help species with finding food and protecting their homes, trees use them to communicate pest problems, plants use them to discourage being eaten. I even read one article where tumble weeds could recognize their own spores, and saw a video that showed bacteria communicating using chemistry that works very like pheromones.

So if all species use pheromones, and it looks like they do; and if these pheromones are moving through the air all of the time for a variety of reasons, and it looks like they are; then could people be spiritually aware of this subconsciously? Since pheromones work through the olfactory system in animals, and since this system dumps it's information into the sub/unconscious mind, and since the sub/unconscious aspect of mind is where religion, emotion, and spirituality reside, then yes it is possible. The Flower Children's "spiritual awareness" philosophy about communing with nature, was most probably based on an unrecognized awareness of the pheromones that all life produces. This is probably also the reason why walking through a field or forest smells so damned good, because we are subconsciously experiencing a communication with life.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:After all, if consciousness were easy to figure out, then someone would have already done it -- so I must be very careful.

What exactly must you be careful about?

Well, the only real tool that I have to work with is my mind, as consciousness is intangible and elusive. Since the rational mind can rationalize whatever we choose, and history shows us that our minds are very good at making shit up, I have to remember that my best tool is also the greatest liar on the face of this planet. So yes, I must be careful if I want truth.

Greylorn Ell wrote:If you get consciousness wrong, you'll simply join a long list of others who have done the same, and you will be ignored. All the intellectual acclaim that you currently experience will go away.

If you get consciousness right and share your insights, the shit will hit the Boeing wind-tunnel fan while you are standing in front of it admiring its engineering. You'll need to obtain a CCW permit and find the largest bore firearm that you can safely handle and punch holes in paper targets with.

You don't really believe this, do you? Even if I completely understood and explained consciousness, I would still die unknown and unlamented. It will be many years, probably decades or centuries, after my death before consciousness is really understood.

Greylorn Ell wrote:This morning I did some rethinking on a prior conversation re: the mechanism behind emotion, thanks to your conversations on the matter. Is it brain or beon (or soul)? After developing Beon Theory a half-century ago I realized that this was a problem to which I had no answer. My first answer was identical to yours, perhaps for the same reason-- emotions seem so personal, and so deeply associated with self that they had to come from beon level.

I don't yet know what you mean by beon, but my ideas regarding emotion come from studying it in an objective manner. Most people think of emotion as thought that is a little unruly and difficult to control, but emotion is not thought. It does not work like thought and it exists deeper, more personally, and prior to the rational mind. Since emotion exists prior to the rational mind, it is always honest, which does not mean that it is right or wrong, good or bad, it just means that it is honestly what it is. Thought is much more flexible and controlable so it can be whatever we decide it to be. This is why I stated that the rational mind can and does lie, because it has choice.

Emotion does not have "choice". We can use our thoughts to deny emotion, or even to try to change emotion, but at the end of the day, emotion is what it is, feels what it feels, is honest. Consider that changing a person's mind about thought is easy; just produce a rational proof. But changing a person's mind about belief is almost impossible. Why? Because belief is simply thought that has emotion attached. The problem is that emotion can attach to thoughts that are not honest and not true, but we will still believe those thoughts because we have an inherent understanding that emotion is honest and true, so we accept the thoughts that emotion attaches to as being honest and true. But this is not always a good idea, as thoughts and even facts can be misunderstood, manipulated, misinterpreted, confused, or they can even be down-right lies.

This understanding that emotion is honest is the basis for psychoanalysis and the Freudian slip. Emotion also dominates in the unconscious mind, is an important part of religion, spirituality, the paranormal, morality, and even instincts. So one could say that emotion keeps us alive and groups us together. I have recently begun to suspect that it also forms the parameters of mind.

Greylorn Ell wrote:In the midst of this I experimented with drugs, prescription and otherwise, learning this:
Drugs affect emotions. With pills you can feel great while making your last stand in bankruptcy court, or feel downright suicidal after receiving a big fat check, or angry after getting laid. Under pot, one can find great amusement over irrelevant trivia. Under speed one can feel invincible, or brilliant while composing drivel.

I talked to a woman, who has seen auras all of her life with two exceptions. When she was a teen, she took Mescalin (not sure of the spelling) and did not see auras for two years. In the third trimester of pregnancy, she never sees auras. Both conditions produce chemical changes.

I learned of two people, who were given massive doses of steroids and morphine for serious medical issues. In both cases the people stopped taking the morphine because they saw angels and demons under the influence of these drugs. Seeing angels and demons is a rather common occurrence with morphine, and I suspect that it is more common when administered with steroids.

Greylorn Ell wrote:I took Prosac for a month, and noticed that I, whatever "I" was, had become decidedly suicidal. Yet I was no longer depressed over a recent heartbreak, and felt "fine," which translated into no longer caring about anything. This simple pill clearly affected my emotions on several levels, none of them positive.

I was given Prosac and took it for a few weeks. It was prescribed because my doctors thought that I was depressed, and that was why I was always so tired. Actually, I was exhausted all of the time, which is depressing, but the exhaustion was from MS, which was undiagnosed. Anyway, I remember watching one of my little ones run into the road, and thinking that if a car hit my child it would make a terrible mess. Once I realized what I was thinking, I stopped taking the Prozac. That is a horribly over-prescribed medication; and it is dangerous.

Greylorn Ell wrote:Drugs affect brain, not beon or soul. It follows that if drugs affect emotions, they are doing so through the brain.

Well, you did say that the beon/soul/mind, works with and through the brain -- didn't you? Clearly different chemicals cause different feelings and emotions and even delusions.

Greylorn Ell wrote:However, I have noticed that at the beon level I can change my feelings, and overcome physiological pain. I have become expert at being socially rejected, which serves me as well on forums as on the dance floor. This is done by controlling brain chemistry from beon level. I suspect that you have done the same, but perhaps without analyzing the process. This would lead you to the conclusion that "soul" is the source of emotions,

I don't think that soul is the source of emotions. I think that the connections to, and activation of, consciousness "feels" like feeling and emotion. I think that chemistry in the brain activates emotions and that emotions change chemistry in the brain. It is a top down and bottom up cause and effect that connects beon/soul/consciousness to brain, but it subjectively feels like moods, feelings, and emotion.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:If it is truly unknown, then which direction would that be? Consciousness is not like most problems, as it is even difficult to find the starting point, much less which direction to move. Consider that science generally starts with the brain; religion usually starts with a "vision"; eastern religion/philosophy starts with a study of self through meditation; you seem to have started with some paranormal experiences and physics; I started with a question regarding ESP almost 50 years ago, which was, "How does it get from here to there?". Critical thinking is expansive and exploratory, so it is a good place to start looking.

Critical thinking is a method, not a place.

Agreed. A good place to start is with that method.

Greylorn Ell wrote:My path was to declare that with respect to answers about the beginnings of things, religions, philosophies, and science were all wrong. It is so much easier to write on an uncluttered blackboard.

Probably, but my path was to see that religions, philosophies, and science all were right about some part/perspective of consciousness. So I decided to consider what they know together.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:One can use logical thinking with regard to theories and explanations because the theory is known, so there is something to work with. We can compare the theory with the realities that we understand, logic, and how the theory consistently explains its "facts" or evidence. Every accepted theory of consciousness that I have read has some valid information about consciousness, this includes religions and philosophies, but also ignores some aspects of consciousness. The idea that every theory is a little bit right, but not complete, led me to the conclusion that consciousness is much more complex than people realize. We underestimate it.

You made a serious error in that conclusion. Consciousness is a simple phenomenon with awesome potential, and, "What you mean, 'we,' Kemosaby?"

I agree that consciousness may well start out as something very simple, but it certainly does not stay that way. I do have a tendency to use "we" a lot because I see myself as just one of many.

I will have to break this post here because my computer is also having memory problems and likes to lock up. I will continue responding in the next post. Take your time reviewing what I have already written.

G

Probably, but my path was to see that religions, philosophies, and science all were right about some part/perspective of consciousness. So I decided to consider what they know together.

A noble start Gee and an honest one, let's hope you find something true. And no offence to grey but his so called self professed nobility is fine, but when it comes from hubris it leaves most people cold. It's not 400 BC you can't convince people of anything by just ignoring anyone who have or has had a cogent argument.

Call them trolls all of them, call the whole thread a nation of trolls, but call them legion for they are many.

And let me add, there is no troll who is sincere, so stop calling me a troll. If you don't like my contentions with a self professed Messiah fine, but don't misuse the language to indulge in prose or rhetoric that has no basis in reality.

I am perfectly well aware of what this thread is, a chat amongst two people with which no one else is allowed to join. But don't subjugate all the other people who have posted on the basis of your circle jerk, it makes you look like a fool/

You said before you had gone to other forums to find this Eden you seek, this comfortable circular talking amongst only those who are agreed, but you never found it, well welcome to the real world, you never will. Unless religion gets its way by meaningless messiahs who seek nothing but to take our freedom from us. As I said before if you want circle jerks where everyone is on board and no on disagrees you are more than welcome to start your own forum, invite grey and all your friends and then just talk around in ever decreasing circles, but don't come to a forum and have the affrontary to chastise it because you want just a nice little circle jerk, it's hypocrisy and you know it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gee was the same person as Greyhorn El, seen this sort of trick before, they post from two different IPs but are essentially the same person arguing with himself to promote some whatever on whatever medium. You can't stop this advertising but you can at least make it redundant.

Greylorn;

Continued:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:Agreed. But philosophy studies the unknown -- not physics and engineering problems. Philosophy is a discipline that studies what is real and true, which can get very complicated very quickly. Consider that when philosophy started to study reality, it was discovered that some truths were fixed. A "fixed" truth is a truth that is true in and of itself without regard to perspective and/or time. An example of a "fixed" truth would be a book. A book will remain a book no matter what time of day, or which day it is, or who examines it; it is still a book -- true in and of itself. As more was learned about "fixed" truths, an entire division evolved from philosophy to study these "fixed" truths. That division is now called science, and the "fixed" truths are now called facts.

The notion that philosophy studies the unknown and is somehow unique in this respect is, with all due and considerable respect, complete nonsense.

We are back to the problem-definition question.

Here you conflate "unknown" with "not understood." Philosophy "studies" consciousness, in its customarily incompetent manner. Consciousness is known, which is why philosophers study it. They are insufficiently imaginative to study anything that is genuinely unknown-- that's NASA's job. Consciousness is known but is not understood, and the confused studies of the glut of mundane philosophers has only served to make it less understood, if that is even possible.

No. No. No. I suspect that this part of your post is what brought the bitch out. I will try to explain this carefully and concisely so that even an arrogant scientist can figure it out. Conscousness is an unknown. We can not prove that it exists except to ourselves -- which is not proof. You may think that you are conscious, but you can not prove it to me. You can say that you are conscious, but so can a robot -- does that make a robot conscious? If saying that you are conscious is the indicator of consciousness, then any species that can not assert this is not conscious. Language becomes the proof of consciousness -- so robots and stereos are conscious, other species are not.

This kind of thinking is why some people can conclude that other species do not possess consciousness. So if my dog is hit by a car and the vet states that he is alive, but unconscious, does that mean when he regains consciousness, he will be able to talk? Of course not. Language is not the proof of consciousness.

So what does it mean when a veterinarian or medical science or neurology talks about states of consciousness? Doesn't that prove consciousness? Well, no. Medical science can only test the physical responses to reality, so they are testing reactions. They can not know if a mind or qualia or actual awareness exists in the way that we think we are conscious. Neurology can actually locate thoughts in a brain, but can not know if or how those individual thoughts relate to mind, which is why there is so much drama and conflict related to pulling the plug on comatose patients.

Mind and consciousness are known only subjectively, so there is no objective proof that they exist. There are some people who believe that reality does not really exist and is only a "dream" in their mind -- that the mind is the only thing that really exists. This is a form of solipsism; think, The Matrix. This is very difficult to disprove. It is my thought that a better understanding of emotion may be able to actually disprove solipsism because emotion can only exist between things -- so a single mind could not be the only thing that exists.

In the thread that I started on the Supernatural in the Science Forum, some of the members tried to tell me that ESP does not exist and can not be proven. I reminded them that mind and consciousness also can not be proven, then informed them that they were "cherry picking" their unprovens. Although most people are in agreement that consciousness and mind exist, these concepts are not objectively proven to exist; therefore, they are not known.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:But there remains a great deal of truth that is not fixed. There is truth in perspective; what may be true to you may not be true to me. There is truth that is relative to time; I can say that I am alive, and that would be truth, but it may not be truth in ten minutes. And there is the unknown. Consciousness is relative to perspective, time, and the unknown, so it is very much under the jurisdiction of philosophy.

Again, and again with respect, nonsense! So called "truths" relating to perspective are the province of mystics. Philosophers who delve into them are nits who muddle the conversation.

Physics has long since learned to deal with the issue of perspective. No physics experiment will ever yield the precise, exact result as another because of experimental error. (Those errors are the physicist's equivalent of perspective.) Experimental physics is half art, half technology, and depends entirely upon humans more or less skilled in either. Therefore, every experiment comes with "error-bars," estimates of the experiment's precision.

Whereas physics has learned to deal with the vagaries of human observations and perspectives, philosophy seems to have made a separate and irrelevant art of it.

This may shock you, but there are things that are "irrelevant" to science, but relevant to the rest of the world. Some people grow up to be historians, others become musicians. Why? Perspectives. The lamb thinks that the wolf is evil, but the wolf cubs think that a good Mom brings dinner. Why? Perspectives. Some people like to sail, others like to fly. Why? Perspectives. In war the soldiers believe that soldiers from the other side are bad. Why? Perspectives. Perspectives are relevant to truth.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:Once we define something, so we know what it is, then we hand it off to science, so they can work their magic on it.

I don't see philosophers as defining anything or handing off squat.

In pre-Newtonian, pre-Galilean times, there was a segment of philosophy that dealt with the real world, called natural philosophy. Some of its practitioners identified real problems but could not resolve them. Science came along with a different methodology to deal with that subset of philosophical problems.

Have you ever heard the statement that, "Science is a child of philosophy."? Science was not dropped on a doorstep by "God". It did not drop out of an orifice as a bastard child. It was nurtured and grew out of philosophy. There are a number of philosophers who have been named the Father of Science, and Aristotle, who was a PHILOSOPHER, has been named the first scientist.

Where the hell do you think the rules of rigorous discipline, that are the backbone of science, came from?

Greylorn Ell wrote: In current times, philosophy and physics are on separate tracks. Philosophers rarely study physics and when they do it is at a superficial level. I doubt that there is a serious problem defined by philosophy on which some physicists have not picked up.

Yet, what I just said is, to some extent, bullshit. I've noticed a trend in physics over the last few decades toward mysticism, into some arcane corners of philosophy. I dislike it.

I have noted a trend in science where they seem to have forgotten their roots, so it would not surprise me if they are getting off track.

Greylorn Ell wrote:My approach to truth is to introduce physics into philosophy, but few philosophers are willing to accept such an intrusion. What I see happening is an intrusion of mystical philosophy into physics, and the consequent descent of hard-core physics into the realms of speculative nonsense. And that's another topic.

While in the Science Forum I came across a post about how to conduct an experiment. In that post the OP quoted Feynman as stating, "First you guess. . .", and I thought, "What?". Guessing is about the stupidest way that I can think of to start any exploration, and Feynman is supposed to have been a bright guy. I saw too many people there using assumption, imagination, speculation, and opinion to do their science, so I wrote a post explaining how one starts an inquiry.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:How has your logical, linear thought process worked for you so far? From here it looks like it has served you well in the elimination of bad ideas. Has it helped you to devise a better theory?

Well, I don't have a theory, but I do have some ideas.

Okay, Matthew 25:26-30 seems relevant here.

I had to look up the quote from Mathew. Very funny. You are confusing my lack of arrogance with a lack of ambition.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote:Given your above statements, I expect that you understand that most people invest way too much energy on solutions, and not nearly enough energy on defining the problem to be solved. Once a problem is well defined, the solution generally follows in a logical and linear manner.

I think that I am still defining consciousness, but if I had to give a definition of it, I would call it communication. Consciousness is nothing, if it is not communication. Whether it is internal or external, it is all communication.

Communication is a prerequisite for consciousness, but is not it.

Although I can not dispute your assessment, I would like to state that communication is our only evidence of consciousness. I work like a back-yard mechanic. I take things apart to see how they work together and individually, so understanding that communication is an indication of consciousness allows me to have a trail to follow.

G

yogisuba wrote:Blessings, ...

Peace.

While i have spent many years meditating, the truth of the matter is, we have these experiences all the time. We can be completely absorbed in thought to the point where all our senses are forgotten, the pains of the body disappear, etc... Be this thought spiritual, scientific, or just plain ole' obsession. In the same way, we can be so enraptured with the sense experiences that thought disappears. Be this some visual experiences, the sounds of beautiful music, or an orgasm. In both cases the flashlight beam of awareness brings us so closely to our chosen focus, that everything else is left out: even out of the periphery.

Understood and not sure it's 'even' as such focus is pretty much the ignoring of the peripheral I'd have thought.

As for Samadhi, in my experience, when we continue to rest our attention on some one thing/experience/etc... we start to meld/fall/morph/or whatever appropriate word we can use to describe the experience of the subject (meditator) and object (focus) disappearing. There is just this experience of being without reference point. It lasts only a moment in my experience, but it seems to be something that we can familiarize ourselves with and practice to lengthen in duration.

I'll take your word for it.

One thing is for certain, upon coming back to my body/mind, i am unbound-fully-joyful and want nothing else but to somehow abide in that state, if state is what we call it?

Sorry, I can't tell from this which state it is that you wish to abide in?

Bringing this all back to Gee's original thought, i wonder if consciousness could be tainted/impure? Is it like water, where it can be clouded like a muddled mind, agitated like a frazzled one, and so on. The Eastern Tradition has a nice bucket analogy that goes along with this line of thought. Or is it more like energy, which, while not taintable, at least, as far as i understand energy, it is merely channeled, used, and experienced via the system/packet/particle from which it is connected/associated/partook/etc. in/with? (i have a really hard time finding the right words because each word used often shines light upon the subject in a different way, that while one word cannot encompass the whole of the subject matter, it does participate in helping us understand the subject. In saying, please forgive me if i slash words together in the hopes of capturing more of what i am thinking:)

In a nutshell, my personal belief/thought/opinion and feeling/intuition is that consciousness cannot, in anyway, be impure - it just is whatever the heck it is. ...

I agree. However, one could put some sense to the idea of 'pure' consciousness if we mean the state obtained by removing all sensation and internal processing, or as much as possible. This way one would be 'experiencing', in my terms, the structure of the CNS, as in my world a neural net cannot be inactive, it must always have a 'base' state or level of activation, always working in a sense, so if one can get near this then one would be 'experiencing' 'pure' consciousness in a sense.

For instance, the crystal analogy seems to draw this out. Lets for fun sake say that a crystal is analogous to consciousness, and no matter how many colored pieces of fabric or lights are placed under it or shown through it, the crystal never changes even though it appears to take on the color as itself. To complicate things a little bit, i believe consciousness is experienced in degrees, not because consciousness is gradient-ed, but because of the capacity and complexity of the object/organism/or whatever you want to call it. ...

I agree but not with any idea that consciousness is 'out-there' in any other sense than being bodies with senses in an external world.

This belief of course does not include the different facets/aspects/domains/dimensions/etc. of consciousness, that's a completely different subject to discuss. To continue the crystal analogy, the capacity and complexity of the whatever (for no better word), is more like a smearing/dusting of the crystal faces. While it does not directly change consciousness, it does impact the whatever's ability to experience the fullness/pureness of consciousness. In other words, depending on the capacity/complexity of whatever will determine not only its level/depth/breath of experience, but also its degrees of consciousness. So while an elemental particle will not have any sense of self, it does have preference, in that, it is attracted to some things, repulsed from others, and indifferent to one or the other given different circumstances and environmental factors. Moving on up the evolutionary chain we get distinct feelings and experiences, degrees of environmental awareness, variety of personality traits, self-consciousness, mystical experiences of consciousness colored by a person's beliefs, and, what some believe to be the pinnacle of conscious experience, the pure experience of consciousness uncolored by sensory experiences or thought/memory/etc.

Seems fine to me, apart from the idea that something is being 'smeared'. I have it all as being bodies with senses in an external world with complexity of the interacting systems, i.e. the CNS, endocrine, et al being the deciding factors.

Blessings Be...

All the best.

Blessings,

Thanks for the response Arising_uk. I am interested in the idea of pure consciousness being connected/associated/related with the base state of neural activity. What would that be like: dreamless sleep? Would consciousness activate the neural system beyond the base state? I have read a few articles and papers on meditation and brain waves – what would you consider the relationship between the base state and brain frequencies?

I must admit, I am a little intimidated with neural science, in that, I know very little about it. The little bit I do know though is refreshing and inspiring. Unlike some, who see it as the final nail in the spiritualist's coffin, I find it useful towards self-knowledge and enlightenment (whatever either of those terms mean.) Any thoughts you can offer regarding my above questions would be awesome.

I imagine that with the advances in neural science and our ability to focus our attention on specific areas of our brains, can, and will, deepen our experiences of/in life…

Blessings Be…

yogisuba wrote:Blessings,

Thanks for the response Arising_uk. I am interested in the idea of pure consciousness being connected/associated/related with the base state of neural activity. What would that be like: dreamless sleep? Would consciousness activate the neural system beyond the base state? I have read a few articles and papers on meditation and brain waves – what would you consider the relationship between the base state and brain frequencies?

I must admit, I am a little intimidated with neural science, in that, I know very little about it. The little bit I do know though is refreshing and inspiring. Unlike some, who see it as the final nail in the spiritualist's coffin, I find it useful towards self-knowledge and enlightenment (whatever either of those terms mean.) Any thoughts you can offer regarding my above questions would be awesome.

I imagine that with the advances in neural science and our ability to focus our attention on specific areas of our brains, can, and will, deepen our experiences of/in life…

Blessings Be…

I assume that by "base state" you are referring to the gamma range. The 40 Hz theory basically says that attentional states are states whereby populations of neurons are synchronized. The process of synchronization comes about through attention, so we can say that attention plays an important role when it comes to consciousness.

If mediation can be explained as a state of heightened state of awareness then Gamma waves would probably be important. There are other ranges of frequency that control neural activity, but I guess the gamma range is the one that is important to consciousness. This is what the research tells us.

Arising_uk;

After considering your following quotes, I have the impression that you think that consciousness is within the human body. Is this so?

If my assessment is correct, would you please explain how you could possibly know this?

Arising_uk wrote:I agree but not with any idea that consciousness is 'out-there' in any other sense than being bodies with senses in an external world.

Arising_uk wrote:Seems fine to me, apart from the idea that something is being 'smeared'. I have it all as being bodies with senses in an external world with complexity of the interacting systems, i.e. the CNS, endocrine, et al being the deciding factors.

G

Gee wrote:Arising_uk;

After considering your following quotes, I have the impression that you think that consciousness is within the human body. Is this so?

If my assessment is correct, would you please explain how you could possibly know this?

Arising_uk wrote:I agree but not with any idea that consciousness is 'out-there' in any other sense than being bodies with senses in an external world.

Arising_uk wrote:Seems fine to me, apart from the idea that something is being 'smeared'. I have it all as being bodies with senses in an external world with complexity of the interacting systems, i.e. the CNS, endocrine, et al being the deciding factors.

G

Hi G,

I hope you don't mind me contributing at this point.

One way of looking at the problem is to look at what science and philosophy says. The science tells us that consciousness resides within the brain. From the scientific perspective there are no ifs or buts about this. This of course does not mean that science is correct.

Philosophy tells us that consciousness resides within the brain. Philosophy can also tells us that consciousness resides wholly outside the brain. This is probably unlikely. Another philosophical approach tells us that consciousness resides both within and outside the brain. In other words, consciousness is an interaction between the quantum environment at the micro level and the physical brain at the macro level. I tend to favor this philosophical interpretation, but at the moment there is no scientific way of demonstrating this.

Ginkgo wrote:The science tells us that consciousness resides within the brain. From the scientific perspective there are no ifs or buts about this. This of course does not mean that science is correct.

The thing is Ginkgo, what sort of science can you do about consciousness that is not associated with brains?

uwot wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:The science tells us that consciousness resides within the brain. From the scientific perspective there are no ifs or buts about this. This of course does not mean that science is correct.

The thing is Ginkgo, what sort of science can you do about consciousness that is not associated with brains?

I guess there is no such science at the moment. For science to say otherwise is to give ground to apriori knowledge. Giving such ground suggests that natural phenomena exist other than by scientific laws. From a scientific point of view this is untenable-- and rightly so.

Gee wrote:Arising_uk;

After considering your following quotes, I have the impression that you think that consciousness is within the human body. Is this so?

You appear to think its a thing that could be outside of a body?

I think it a product of being a body with senses in an external environment. If you mean self-consciousness rather than awareness, I think this essentially a product of having two of these with a language.

If my assessment is correct, would you please explain how you could possibly know this?

By looking at dead ones and by being a live one. By those who claim otherwise being unable to produce a disembodied consciousness.

Arising_uk;

Thank you for responding. I am sorry to be so late answering your post. I had some unexpected, but very welcome, company. Often I will take my time and think about a response, but won't usually be this slow.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:Arising_uk;

After considering your following quotes, I have the impression that you think that consciousness is within the human body. Is this so?

You appear to think its a thing that could be outside of a body?

Sure, it could be. But I am a philosopher by nature, so I would rather learn what and where it is, rather than what and where it could be.

You did not really answer my question. Do you think that consciousness is within the body? This is an important question for me, because I have noted that a lot of people think that consciousness is within the body, but I have seen no evidence of this. I understand that we "feel" like consciousness comes from our bodies, but that is a subjective observation and therefore not evidence or proof of anything.

I have come to the conclusion that this is the result of a religious belief. "God" drops a "soul" (consciousness) into a body, therefore consciousness is within the body until death when "God" retrieves the "soul" (consciousness). If there is other evidence, I would really like to hear about it.

Arising_uk wrote:I think it a product of being a body with senses in an external environment. If you mean self-consciousness rather than awareness, I think this essentially a product of having two of these with a language.

Which senses are you talking about? The five, sight, hearing, tactile, taste, and smell, or are you also including emotion?

I'm sorry. I lost you. Two of what with a language?

Arising_uk wrote:

If my assessment is correct, would you please explain how you could possibly know this?

By looking at dead ones and by being a live one. By those who claim otherwise being unable to produce a disembodied consciousness.

So you think that something that can die is conscious prior to death?

G

Gee wrote:Greylorn;

Please consider the following responses:

Greylorn Ell wrote:When young I was a devout Catholic and used rationalization skills similar to yours to blow off opposing truths. Physics was a wake-up call. When I set about the job of devising a better theory I used the engineering approach, which required that all truth must be incorporated into a problem solution, else the solution sucks.

Yes. All truth must be incorporated, but how can "truths" be opposing? Most people will assume that if "truths" are opposing, then one of them is not true, so they select the one that they prefer. I generally do not use my skills to "blow off" opposing truths, but instead look for the common ground. If one can find a common ground in both truths, then that commonality is usually the actual truth of the matter. The other information is due to perspective and/or interpretation, which is a very common problem in the study of consciousness, because it is mostly interpreted through each person's or discipline's perspective.

As an example, consider the Flower Children of the 60's and 70's. Part of their philosophy was that all life is connected in a spiritual awareness, that there is a communal nature to everything, and that one can be in contact with this communal nature and actually "feel" it. Of coure it was nonsense; but was it?

We now know that ecosystems are self-balancing and will even rejuvinate themselves after a volcano erupts or after a tsunami. This implies some kind of communication and awareness between species. In the last 50 years, we have learned a tremendous amount about pheromones, and know that there is much more to learn about connections within and between species. Most people associate pheromones with sex, but they also help species with finding food and protecting their homes, trees use them to communicate pest problems, plants use them to discourage being eaten. I even read one article where tumble weeds could recognize their own spores, and saw a video that showed bacteria communicating using chemistry that works very like pheromones.

So if all species use pheromones, and it looks like they do; and if these pheromones are moving through the air all of the time for a variety of reasons, and it looks like they are; then could people be spiritually aware of this subconsciously? Since pheromones work through the olfactory system in animals, and since this system dumps it's information into the sub/unconscious mind, and since the sub/unconscious aspect of mind is where religion, emotion, and spirituality reside, then yes it is possible. The Flower Children's "spiritual awareness" philosophy about communing with nature, was most probably based on an unrecognized awareness of the pheromones that all life produces. This is probably also the reason why walking through a field or forest smells so damned good, because we are subconsciously experiencing a communication with life.

Gee,

I don't accept the notion that truths can be opposing, and erred if I implied otherwise. People typically treat their beliefs as truth, and muddle them with evidence, which is allegedly science's truth base. I treat opposing "truths" as an indicator that at least one is incorrect.

For example there is a longstanding issue in physics. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are mutually exclusive at some arcane levels of physics, yet both theories produce mathematical models that work very well. Semiconductors use quantum principles, and the semiconductors in GPS locators run programs that use General Relativity theory. I personally favor GR.

I have no problem with connectivity notions between people and nature, and within nature. Long ago I did my own version of the Baxter experiments. One of our lab's EEs hooked my chrysanthemum plant to a sensitive measuring device and found that it reacted when I called into the office to check on it, and when a pissed-off lab director walked in on a group of people verbally threatening a plant. Pheromones might explain the plant's reaction to our Director, but don't explain its reaction to a phone call. Likewise they do not explain the original Baxter experiments.

I've learned a few mysterious healing techniques, Reiki, Biomagnetic Touch Healing, and others. They all work, and when combined with telepathy on a hypnotized subject, work extraordinarily well. I've not found pheromones a sufficiently complex form of communication to explain the effectiveness of such tools.

I've telepathed to dogs, and humans. I can feel when someone is focused upon me from out of sight, and others can sense when I do the same. Upwind or downwind makes no difference, ruling out short-term chemical transference. I've noticed that trees planted close together will avoid one another and that this avoidance extends to other tree species; but they ignore my house made from dead trees. Pheromones can explain the behavior of trees or the attractions between humans, but not my connections with critters or people.

You wrote, "could people be spiritually aware of this subconsciously?" I'd suggest two levels of awareness, one at the "spiritual" or beon/soul level, yet another at the subconscious or brain level, probably the hypothalamus.

Regarding your divisions, I attribute religion and emotion to the subconscious (cortical brain), but not genuine "spirituality," at least not in the sense that I understand it.

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Gee wrote: After all, if consciousness were easy to figure out, then someone would have already done it -- so I must be very careful.

What exactly must you be careful about?

Well, the only real tool that I have to work with is my mind, as consciousness is intangible and elusive. Since the rational mind can rationalize whatever we choose, and history shows us that our minds are very good at making shit up, I have to remember that my best tool is also the greatest liar on the face of this planet. So yes, I must be careful if I want truth.

Well said! Yet I invite you to take more risks. Nothing will freeze the imagination like the fear of making a mistake.

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:If you get consciousness wrong, you'll simply join a long list of others who have done the same, and you will be ignored. All the intellectual acclaim that you currently experience will go away.

If you get consciousness right and share your insights, the shit will hit the Boeing wind-tunnel fan while you are standing in front of it admiring its engineering. You'll need to obtain a CCW permit and find the largest bore firearm that you can safely handle and punch holes in paper targets with.

You don't really believe this, do you? Even if I completely understood and explained consciousness, I would still die unknown and unlamented. It will be many years, probably decades or centuries, after my death before consciousness is really understood.

I only write what I believe to be true. Your success at explaining consciousness will more likely be a function of your marketing skills than anything else. Had you discovered my theories instead of me, they would already be well known. Perhaps you'll revisit your comment after perusing DUAS?

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:This morning I did some rethinking on a prior conversation re: the mechanism behind emotion, thanks to your conversations on the matter. Is it brain or beon (or soul)? After developing Beon Theory a half-century ago I realized that this was a problem to which I had no answer. My first answer was identical to yours, perhaps for the same reason-- emotions seem so personal, and so deeply associated with self that they had to come from beon level.

I don't yet know what you mean by beon, but my ideas regarding emotion come from studying it in an objective manner. Most people think of emotion as thought that is a little unruly and difficult to control, but emotion is not thought. It does not work like thought and it exists deeper, more personally, and prior to the rational mind. Since emotion exists prior to the rational mind, it is always honest, which does not mean that it is right or wrong, good or bad, it just means that it is honestly what it is. Thought is much more flexible and controlable so it can be whatever we decide it to be. This is why I stated that the rational mind can and does lie, because it has choice.

Emotion does not have "choice". We can use our thoughts to deny emotion, or even to try to change emotion, but at the end of the day, emotion is what it is, feels what it feels, is honest. Consider that changing a person's mind about thought is easy; just produce a rational proof. But changing a person's mind about belief is almost impossible. Why? Because belief is simply thought that has emotion attached. The problem is that emotion can attach to thoughts that are not honest and not true, but we will still believe those thoughts because we have an inherent understanding that emotion is honest and true, so we accept the thoughts that emotion attaches to as being honest and true. But this is not always a good idea, as thoughts and even facts can be misunderstood, manipulated, misinterpreted, confused, or they can even be down-right lies.

This understanding that emotion is honest is the basis for psychoanalysis and the Freudian slip. Emotion also dominates in the unconscious mind, is an important part of religion, spirituality, the paranormal, morality, and even instincts. So one could say that emotion keeps us alive and groups us together. I have recently begun to suspect that it also forms the parameters of mind.

This is a superb analysis, so I've replaced your original pedestal with a higher one. You've done a better job analyzing emotion than I ever could. Permission to use your words?

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:In the midst of this I experimented with drugs, prescription and otherwise, learning this:
Drugs affect emotions. With pills you can feel great while making your last stand in bankruptcy court, or feel downright suicidal after receiving a big fat check, or angry after getting laid. Under pot, one can find great amusement over irrelevant trivia. Under speed one can feel invincible, or brilliant while composing drivel.

I talked to a woman, who has seen auras all of her life with two exceptions. When she was a teen, she took Mescalin (not sure of the spelling) and did not see auras for two years. In the third trimester of pregnancy, she never sees auras. Both conditions produce chemical changes.

I learned of two people, who were given massive doses of steroids and morphine for serious medical issues. In both cases the people stopped taking the morphine because they saw angels and demons under the influence of these drugs. Seeing angels and demons is a rather common occurrence with morphine, and I suspect that it is more common when administered with steroids.

Fascinating information! Thank you. I once spent a long day on morphine, without spooks. However, my mind seems to be able to block intrusions of that sort.

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:I took Prosac for a month, and noticed that I, whatever "I" was, had become decidedly suicidal. Yet I was no longer depressed over a recent heartbreak, and felt "fine," which translated into no longer caring about anything. This simple pill clearly affected my emotions on several levels, none of them positive.

I was given Prosac and took it for a few weeks. It was prescribed because my doctors thought that I was depressed, and that was why I was always so tired. Actually, I was exhausted all of the time, which is depressing, but the exhaustion was from MS, which was undiagnosed. Anyway, I remember watching one of my little ones run into the road, and thinking that if a car hit my child it would make a terrible mess. Once I realized what I was thinking, I stopped taking the Prozac. That is a horribly over-prescribed medication; and it is dangerous.

Agreed. Your own experience makes my point, which is that drugs affect emotions, and even suppress them altogether. Since drugs can only affect the brain, the brain must be the source of emotions. Soul, spirit, or beon is therefore not the source of emotions.

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:Drugs affect brain, not beon or soul. It follows that if drugs affect emotions, they are doing so through the brain.

Well, you did say that the beon/soul/mind, works with and through the brain -- didn't you? Clearly different chemicals cause different feelings and emotions and even delusions.

Yes, kind of. I said, or tried to say, that beon and brain are thoroughly integrated. However, it is important to note that I treat beon and brain as mechanisms, whereas "mind" is merely a function of those two mechanisms working in concert.

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:However, I have noticed that at the beon level I can change my feelings, and overcome physiological pain. I have become expert at being socially rejected, which serves me as well on forums as on the dance floor. This is done by controlling brain chemistry from beon level. I suspect that you have done the same, but perhaps without analyzing the process. This would lead you to the conclusion that "soul" is the source of emotions,

I don't think that soul is the source of emotions. I think that the connections to, and activation of, consciousness "feels" like feeling and emotion. I think that chemistry in the brain activates emotions and that emotions change chemistry in the brain. It is a top down and bottom up cause and effect that connects beon/soul/consciousness to brain, but it subjectively feels like moods, feelings, and emotion.

This is another analysis that I anticipate we will revisit a few months down the road, after you consider an alternative description of consciousness. I expect it to integrate nicely with your experience-based understandings.

Gee wrote:If it is truly unknown, then which direction would that be? Consciousness is not like most problems, as it is even difficult to find the starting point, much less which direction to move. Consider that science generally starts with the brain; religion usually starts with a "vision"; eastern religion/philosophy starts with a study of self through meditation; you seem to have started with some paranormal experiences and physics; I started with a question regarding ESP almost 50 years ago, which was, "How does it get from here to there?". Critical thinking is expansive and exploratory, so it is a good place to start looking.

Greylorn wrote:Critical thinking is a method, not a place.

Gee wrote:Agreed. A good place to start is with that method.

A good method to start with is that method. Places are not methods. Sherlock has his methods, but he goes to the scene of the crime before applying them. If you try to mix neurolinguistic programming with critical thinking, termites will burrow into your pedestal's legs.

I expect that in a few weeks you will have found a starting point for the understanding of consciousness that you've not previously considered. I'm looking forward to some intense conversations, and am certain that you will find insights that I missed.

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:My path was to declare that with respect to answers about the beginnings of things, religions, philosophies, and science were all wrong. It is so much easier to write on an uncluttered blackboard.

Probably, but my path was to see that religions, philosophies, and science all were right about some part/perspective of consciousness. So I decided to consider what they know together.

Me too. Our different approaches can be inclusive. Perhaps they can be described.

I took a selective approach to incorporating ideas from different styles of study, cherry-picking ideas from each. However, I concluded that with respect to their ideas about the beginnings of all things, every one was dreadfully mistaken. I focused upon correcting their woeful errors about the beginnings, did so IMO, and found some interesting fallout.

Gee wrote:One can use logical thinking with regard to theories and explanations because the theory is known, so there is something to work with. We can compare the theory with the realities that we understand, logic, and how the theory consistently explains its "facts" or evidence. Every accepted theory of consciousness that I have read has some valid information about consciousness, this includes religions and philosophies, but also ignores some aspects of consciousness. The idea that every theory is a little bit right, but not complete, led me to the conclusion that consciousness is much more complex than people realize. We underestimate it.
G.

Your focus is off target. A hunter drawing down on a nice buck for next week's meat supply must not be distracted by the wolves stalking it. Nail the buck, and shoot the wolves when they come back to eat it.

You've been distracted by bogus theories, the wolves nipping at the heels of conceptual discovery. You correctly noted that the various theories incorporated some valid knowledge about consciousness, ignoring others. The "ignoring" part was your clue that the theory was BS. A valid theory incorporates all facts, and predicts others yet undiscovered. Another conclusion would have been that the current theories about consciousness are complex, and wrong. The actual phenomenon of consciousness might be simple.

Critical thinking requires that you discard all invalid theories, especially all theories that ignore evidence. Then derive an independent theory that incorporates ALL evidence.

Beon Theory describes consciousness as a simple and inevitable natural phenomenon that preceded the structuring of the universe, and had nothing to do with creating the components used in the structure.
Greylorn

You have gotta love how Grey just ignores other peoples points, and no I don't mean mine, to discuss the subject with his disciple Gee.

Sorry I am not buying this, this is not a discussion and somehow doubt Gee is other than Grey, or if he is he's clearly someone he knows just stringing the folks along.

It's too hokey. Grey if you want to sell a book, sell it but don't clutter up threads with shameless book pugs, you really are making it all about advertising and this is nothing but spamming your advert. I am at a loss to see why spammers who are selling a product should be given wide scope, I am at a loss to see why proselytising without any sort of philosophy is given such scope as I said before, but there you go.

When will you get bored of shameless advertising though Grey, and when can we expect you to leave this forum, because one trick ponies are not really what forums are about. I genuinely have nothing against anyone who wants to spread their gospel truth amongst the masses, but I personally believe forum should not be cluttered up by advertising which is nothing more than spam or proselytising, which is best done on forums more conducive to people who will buy that sort of thing.

I guess I am alone in that, but it has to be said.

yogisuba wrote:Blessings,

Peace.

Thanks for the response Arising_uk. I am interested in the idea of pure consciousness being connected/associated/related with the base state of neural activity. What would that be like: dreamless sleep? ...

No idea, just to be clear my ideas come from computational neural nets not actual neural science, in those systems there's always activation going on just to keep the net active, so I assume the case holds for actual neural activity and it would seem to me that when such as you meditates and reaches a state where sensation inputs are 'ignored', i.e. the body inputs, and internal representations are also in abeyance then what are you left with? The base activation of the CNS, so in a sense the base of consciousness.

Would consciousness activate the neural system beyond the base state? ...

I think the sensations produced by the external world would do this, i.e. perceptions occur, but also think that since we have memory we can also reuse such representations without the inputs and hence consciousness can activate the CNS in a feedback system or some such.

I have read a few articles and papers on meditation and brain waves – what would you consider the relationship between the base state and brain frequencies?

I think the 'brain' is a misnomer as its the CNS but the relationship is that 'frequencies' are a representation we create of the states of the CNS.

I must admit, I am a little intimidated with neural science, in that, I know very little about it. The little bit I do know though is refreshing and inspiring. Unlike some, who see it as the final nail in the spiritualist's coffin, I find it useful towards self-knowledge and enlightenment (whatever either of those terms mean.) Any thoughts you can offer regarding my above questions would be awesome.

Hope this helps but like I say, not neural science just musing.

I imagine that with the advances in neural science and our ability to focus our attention on specific areas of our brains, can, and will, deepen our experiences of/in life…

I agree, as given visual representations of CNS activation we'd have an external feedback system in place which may allow us to play with how we think.

Blessings Be…

Congruent thinking.