~ What if it were possible to die? ~

[Bernard]

Its a terribly naive view that consciousness is a mental product.

It appears I'm not naive then as I think it the product of the physical and self-consciousness the product of two physicals.

But what if consciousness resides in the Higgs boson particle, (the God Particle) or in other such fundamental particles?

Well I don't know if you run with any of the quantum notions (and i am amateur) but any particle is a wave super position and requires at least a fragmentary amount of einselectiom in order to have a classical state of any sort, so I think consciousness would lie somewhere in the einselection activity.

[Arising_uk]

funny how you say 'what is it your saying"

when 50 other people nevr blink or comment.

that line and the
how much have you drunk..

classic old lines.
it simply is not posible that your post is crap...

no it must be the reader..
how could munificent I post crap?

.

Who you talking to?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Its a terribly naive view that consciousness is a mental product.

It appears I'm not naive then as I think it the product of the physical and self-consciousness the product of two physicals.

But what if consciousness resides in the Higgs boson particle, (the God Particle) or in other such fundamental particles?

Well I don't know if you run with any of the quantum notions (and i am amateur) but any particle is a wave super position and requires at least a fragmentary amount of einselectiom in order to have a classical state of any sort, so I think consciousness would lie somewhere in the einselection activity.

OK, my point being that there is much that we don't know, i.e., mind, consciousness, origins of the universe, theory of everything, etc. So could it be that any decision to say what it's not or what it is, is purely conjecture at this point, and thus not really worth arguing. Of course this is true as long as it's not something really out there, like consciousness is to be found in bovine farts or other such absurd notions. I'm saying that it's ever so hard to argue about something that is still so steeped in mystery, regardless of ones side, as no one is necessarily right or wrong. What is the point? Does any of us really believe that somehow we shall be the one that actually sheds light on such topics? Or is it merely an exercise for ones imagination?

[Diogenes]

OK, my point being that there is much that we don't know, i.e., mind, consciousness, origins of the universe, theory of everything, etc. So could it be that any decision to say what it's not or what it is, is purely conjecture at this point, and thus not really worth arguing. Of course this is true as long as it's not something really out there, like consciousness is to be found in bovine farts or other such absurd notions. I'm saying that it's ever so hard to argue about something that is still so steeped in mystery, regardless of ones side, as no one is necessarily right or wrong. What is the point? Does any of us really believe that somehow we shall be the one that actually sheds light on such topics? Or is it merely an exercise for ones imagination?

Humans love to speculate. And argue about their speculations. It think it's not so much an exercise for the imagination as a peculiar kind of primate dominance ritual, only with the poo-flinging transposed into verbal abstractions.

Being a human, I am also inclined speculate, so here is my speculation on this topic:

It's a common view these days that consciousness is reducible to various electro-chemical processes in the brain, and that when these processes cease, consciousness simply ends. Thus, death would be the end of our individual consciousness. This would make consciousness a local phenomenon, i.e. local to the brain. And this materialist account of things seems to fit with our experience: after all, we can effect our consciousness by effecting our brain chemistry. This is obvious to anyone who has ever taken psychedelics. And of course, if the brain is damaged, this also effects an individual's consciousness in predictable ways. We have determined that different areas of the brain are correlated with different aspects of (conscious) experience. Thus, the idea that consciousness is a purely local phenomenon seems to be simply common sense and the idea that it might somehow survive death is handily dismissed as so much quantum woo woo.

On the other hand, there is another possibility: what if consciousness is a non-local phenomenon which is received, modified, and transmitted locally by the brain - much the way that radio waves are received, modified, and transmitted by a radio set? If you were to present somebody wholly ignorant of radio waves with a working radio set, they might very well assume that the noises and sounds produced by the radio originated within the set itself - that these sounds are merely local phenomena. After all, if you take apart a radio and apply voltage to specific parts of the radio this produces a measurable change in the output - much the way that altering certain parts of the brain produce measurable changes in experience. And of course when the batteries in the radio die out, the output simply fades away - as we assume that consciousness does upon brain death. However, radio waves of course are not local to or dependent upon the radio set. And they still exist even after the radio's batteries die out. If consciousness is non-local, then it could be said to be analogous to the radio waves in this example. Which would mean that consciousness would survive the death of the body.

Speculative? Certainly, but no more speculative than the idea that the brain is the producer (rather than the receiver) of consciousness.

[Bernard]

I think people are too hard on themselves and unaware of their own innate knowledge of life, death and existence in general. Society raises us to breed and not question or attempt to know more than what is acceptable to know. Speculation and conjecture are often used, when examined to mean 'don't go there'. I understand consciousness to be local and non-local, that it is a product of the brain or anything else - the variations of extent to which it is produced by various things is infinite. Consciousness is fundamental to existence, not a happy by-product. Existence is a matter of no end of living forms encasing no end of other living forms. It has been so forever and will be so forever.

[Arising_uk]

...
On the other hand, there is another possibility: what if consciousness is a non-local phenomenon which is received, modified, and transmitted locally by the brain - much the way that radio waves are received, modified, and transmitted by a radio set? If you were to present somebody wholly ignorant of radio waves with a working radio set, they might very well assume that the noises and sounds produced by the radio originated within the set itself - that these sounds are merely local phenomena. After all, if you take apart a radio and apply voltage to specific parts of the radio this produces a measurable change in the output - much the way that altering certain parts of the brain produce measurable changes in experience. And of course when the batteries in the radio die out, the output simply fades away - as we assume that consciousness does upon brain death. However, radio waves of course are not local to or dependent upon the radio set. And they still exist even after the radio's batteries die out. If consciousness is non-local, then it could be said to be analogous to the radio waves in this example. Which would mean that consciousness would survive the death of the body.

I haven't heard this one in years!! And I thank you as I'd forgotten it and how nice it sounds but I don't thank you for how many are going to jump on this band-wagon now.

The problems I have with it are; why aren't we all playing the same tunes then? If we are then why can't I remember being another radio set and if we're not then you'd have to have a unique channel and show for each receiver, if this is the case then you'll still be a dead radio set when it 'dies'. This applies if you say that we are a special type of set that modifies the signal.

Still, it does remind me of the old 'prayer position' idea, i.e. in the praying position we act as an antenna for 'Gods' transmission.

Speculative? Certainly, but no more speculative than the idea that the brain is the producer (rather than the receiver) of consciousness.

i don't think it is just the CNS that produces consciousness, I think you need a couple of other sub-systems to do this, viz, the endocrine and skeletal musculature systems. Them and a power source, not sure what they are called but I mean the blood, lungs and stomach.

[Diogenes]

I haven't heard this one in years!! And I thank you as I'd forgotten it and how nice it sounds but I don't thank you for how many are going to jump on this band-wagon now.

Thanks for your enthusiasm, although I seriously doubt we'll have many people on this particular bandwagon.

The problems I have with it are; why aren't we all playing the same tunes then?

Well, in a certain sense we are "playing the same tunes": as human beings, we all have rather similar perceptual apparatus and experience the world in (broadly) similar ways, due to the fact that we all have more or the less the same physical configuration.

People who don't "play the same tunes" are often classified as insane.

If we are then why can't I remember being another radio set

Well, first of all, the continuity of consciousness in this model doesn't necessarily imply the continuity of the individual self or its memories (although neither does it exclude this as a possibility). Memory might be more analogous to a local recording feature on the set.

But that said, a number of people do report memories of past lives. This model provides one possible explanation for the phenomena of past life memories.

and if we're not then you'd have to have a unique channel and show for each receiver, if this is the case then you'll still be a dead radio set when it 'dies'. This applies if you say that we are a special type of set that modifies the signal.

Output from a specific radio set might cease, but the radio waves themselves would still continue (perhaps to be picked up or modified on a different set).

i don't think it is just the CNS that produces consciousness, I think you need a couple of other sub-systems to do this, viz, the endocrine and skeletal musculature systems. Them and a power source, not sure what they are called but I mean the blood, lungs and stomach.

I probably should have said "body" rather than "brain" to include the full system. I agree that consciousness is effected by the whole of the body and not simply the CNS.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Diogenes, thanks for this, I like the radio analogy, and while I've never used it before, I have stated something similar, but it was frowned upon, probably because I never used a radio, something someone knew was real, as an analogy.

What I find amusing, is that some look at this and see that you have compared consciousness to something one knows is real, a radio. But they continue to evaluate the point of the analogy, in this case, that conscious is out there and that we are merely receivers, as only being capable of being radio like in the strictest sense, as if this idea of comparing the two, is necessarily all inclusive.

The fact, that one sees, that what it is to be radio like, is not all inclusive, of what it could be, to be a consciousness receiver, says nothing, of the potential of it being true, rather it seems a programmed response, as if one is caught up in their own version of reality, as taught, so as to not be capable of lifting the veil, of potential possibilities.

If we are so focused, only, on the structure of our own particular version of reality, as programmed, how can we ever build upon the framework of the program.

I guess it's the forest and the trees all over again.

"Blinded by the light..."

[Arising_uk]

Thanks for your enthusiasm, although I seriously doubt we'll have many people on this particular bandwagon.

Lets hope so.

Well, in a certain sense we are "playing the same tunes": as human beings, we all have rather similar perceptual apparatus and experience the world in (broadly) similar ways, due to the fact that we all have more or the less the same physical configuration.

People who don't "play the same tunes" are often classified as insane.

Or religious.

Well, first of all, the continuity of consciousness in this model doesn't necessarily imply the continuity of the individual self or its memories (although neither does it exclude this as a possibility). Memory might be more analogous to a local recording feature on the set.

But that said, a number of people do report memories of past lives. This model provides one possible explanation for the phenomena of past life memories.

A very dubious phenomena I think.

Output from a specific radio set might cease, but the radio waves themselves would still continue (perhaps to be picked up or modified on a different set).

On the whole the whole analogy is a killer to logically refute.

But the above is the crux I think, with respect to the issue of 'self' dying that is, as if this broadcast consciousness is modified then its not the same as the broadcast and as such when the set expires so does the modified consciousness, so no 'me' set carrying on.

Another thought about this idea, I presume this broadcast consciousness to be either the lowest form of consciousness or the highest form of it so either bodies modify it up depending upon complexity or can only strive towards it depending upon complexity, either way the 'consciousness' produced still vanishes when the set expires.

I probably should have said "body" rather than "brain" to include the full system. I agree that consciousness is effected by the whole of the body and not simply the CNS.

We agree and I think self-consciousness is because there are two of them that recognize each other, and maybe language has a role but unsure about this now-a-days.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.









......................................................................................................................................We are consciousness.


How would you kill it?


How can consciousness die?









...............................................................................







How can we affect something we cannot see?


How can we affect something that is beyond us as individuals?


How can consciousness not exist?






.

[Arising_uk]

We are consciousness.

We are conscious or more accurately we are self-conscious. You're already assuming there is an external entity of which we are an instantiation of some sort?

How would you kill it?


How can consciousness die?

Old age, disease, shooting, bombing, stabbing, et al seems to do the trick.

How can we affect something we cannot see?

How can we affect something that is beyond us as individuals?

Again you are assuming this 'entity'? If we think that there is no such external entity as 'consciousness' then these questions are meaningless.

How can consciousness not exist?[/size]

Who claims it doesn't!? As its obvious that we are, but very far from obvious that it can exist without us.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


You mentioned death of our physical bodies.


I maintain that ultimately we are not our thoughts. We are not limited by our emotions alone. We are not completely located in our physical bodies. Certainly all of those aspects make-up our organic presence.

There is a higher set of subtle hydrogens that we are eternally connected to.

If we, as philosophers, look hard & deep enough we may be able to realize that we are consciousness. We are located in pure consciousness. Or as you correctly stated, self consciousness or perhaps better still...objective consciousness.


There is a book called, the Bible, wherein a concept called Hellis forever; eternal, Heaven, for us, is eternal, and even a concept called Purgatory is considered to be eternal. In a way, that metaphor is very true.


There is no way out in the sense that we would, one day, experience non-existence. We may change forms but based upon one of the deepest moments of understanding that I have ever experienced in this lifetime, there is only one thing that I am certain of...we never cease to exist.



I am certainly NOT saying that this concept is for you.



Quite the contrary.






.......................................................................................



Thank you for allowing me to further define an important aspect of this thread that needed to be expressed.






.

[Arising_uk]

You mentioned death of our physical bodies.

No, I didn't, if that is you are referring to my last post.

I maintain that ultimately we are not our thoughts. We are not limited by our emotions alone. We are not completely located in our physical bodies. Certainly all of those aspects make-up our organic presence.

You're right, ultimately we are Body. Again you are right, we are not limited by our emotions as we have reason. They rest you'd have to give some way of allowing us to test this for ourselves as just you saying so doesn't cut-it.

There is a higher set of subtle hydrogens that we are eternally connected to.

Once again you demonstrate your ability to totally ignore the philosophical points others have put to you if they involve you considering your assertions. So how do you deal with the idea that the Physics and Chemistry you misuse does not consider Hydrogen the basic element?

If we, as philosophers, look hard & deep enough we may be able to realize that we are consciousness. We are located in pure consciousness. Or as you correctly stated, self consciousness or perhaps better still...objective consciousness.

We don't have to look hard to know that we are conscious.

Since you don't read philosophy I understand that you don't know that this argument has already been made a few times and with much better arguments than your 'because I say so'. Its also been made by a few religions and the New Age dippies which is where I guess you've got it from. I'm assuming that you think that if this became a universal belief things might change in some way but it has been believed on and off for a long-time and look where we are. You believe it and it doesn't appear to have made you anymore wiser, happier or more cheerful?

Still, instead of quoting the philosophers who've made this argument I'll stick with the metaphor of the radio that was being discussed. The point is that your idea makes no difference to the consciousness that is us so what point it if we are trying to make a better place or improve ourselves?

There is a book called, the Bible, wherein a concept called Hellis forever; eternal, Heaven, for us, is eternal, and even a concept called Purgatory is considered to be eternal. In a way, that metaphor is very true.

Do you understand that the Bible was knocked-up by the Romans to solve their heretical troubles? That the Catholic Church suppressed later discovered Gospels?

There is no way out in the sense that we would, one day, experience non-existence. We may change forms but based upon one of the deepest moments of understanding that I have ever experienced in this lifetime, there is only one thing that I am certain of...we never cease to exist.

Your thoughts are illogical and just wishful thinking.

I am certainly NOT saying that this concept is for you.

Quite the contrary.

Damn right as I like reason and logic and dislike pointless metaphysics based upon some emotional need. My take is that you should return to your original faith.

Thank you for allowing me to further define an important aspect of this thread that needed to be expressed.

Your needs are of little interest to me but I'll always reply when I see philosophical reason and logic being abused by the gnu.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So how do you deal with the idea that the Physics and Chemistry you misuse does not consider Hydrogen the basic element?

I am familiar with the periodic table, name the 'element' that comes before hydrogen, that has less than one valance electron.

"hydrogen is the lightest element and its monatomic form (H1) is the most abundant chemical substance, constituting roughly 75% of the Universe's baryonic mass."

--wikipedia--

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




.....................................................................





I LOVE the fact that you used Wikipedia to define the term Hydrogen.


I explicitly agree with you.



I actually created, what I think, is one of the most interesting and yet short threads ever to appear here at the Philosophy Now Forums, titled simply - Hydrogen.


The philosopher P.D. Ouspensky created a philosophical Table of Hydrogens. Really insightful.





.