Philosophy Now Forum

If the brain dont produce consciousness then it must source it consciousness by intereacting with nonlocality. Nonlocality by reason must have existed be for the universe existed as locality. So the nonlocal you which is your consciousness must have pre existed the event you which is your brain. Consciouness is there for the unmoving thing non directional time or death in terms of evolution.

pineal glands

-Imp

jackles wrote:If the brain dont produce consciousness then it must source it consciousness by intereacting with nonlocality. Nonlocality by reason must have existed be for the universe existed as locality. So the nonlocal you which is your consciousness must have pre existed the event you which is your brain. Consciouness is there for the unmoving thing non directional time or death in terms of evolution.

The Orch-OR model for consciousness theorized by Penrose and Hameroff claims that consciousness derives from deeper level finer scale quantum activities inside of cells most prevalent in brain neurons.*

wikipedia

* An indirect reference to microtubules

The difference between Orch-OR and other theories of consciousness is a quantum explanation can provide us with a non-computable explanation for experience. According to the theory the brain does produce consciousness, but it depends on how you interpret Hameroff's subsequent explanations. It is more than likely that the answer is both. Suffice to say that I am confident Hameroff would want to say our brains are hard-wired into the finer quantum scale of the universe. This is not Penrose's position.

I think Hameroff hedges a bit on the question as to whether the universe is conscious at the finest scale. Nonetheless, the actual Orch_OR theory itself is a testable scientific theory. Subsequent explanations by Hameroff are not testable.

Yes ginkgo but can you see that if its nonlocality things begin to add up in all departments as they should do if something is right. The evolution problem is solved by death as nonlocality being the creator and changer of local forms . Time its self is nonlocality as omni presents.

The 'brain' doesn't produce consciousness, it's the having of a CNS attached to a body in an external world that does that.

Ur sorry could you please explain what cns is.

jackles wrote:Ur sorry could you please explain what cns is.

Central nervous system.

Ginkgo wrote:

jackles wrote:Ur sorry could you please explain what cns is.

Central nervous system.

You mean like a starfish's central nervous system?

A_Seagull wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

jackles wrote:Ur sorry could you please explain what cns is.

Central nervous system.

You mean like a starfish's central nervous system?

I think UK means a central nervous system as pertaining to higher order mammals.

jackles wrote:Yes ginkgo but can you see that if its nonlocality things begin to add up in all departments as they should do if something is right. The evolution problem is solved by death as nonlocality being the creator and changer of local forms . Time its self is nonlocality as omni presents.

Sorry jackles but I don't see how this is relates to Orchestrated Objective Reduction.

Root consciousness is beond the c .n .s then . consciousness is nonlocal and nonmoving .

A_Seagull wrote:You mean like a starfish's central nervous system?

You saying a starfish is not conscious? I take your point though but since I view the CNS as just a neural network I think a starfish has one.

jackles wrote:Root consciousness is beond the c .n .s then . consciousness is nonlocal and nonmoving .

Pray tell what 'root consciousness' is?

Arising_uk wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:You mean like a starfish's central nervous system?

You saying a starfish is not conscious? I take your point though but since I view the CNS as just a neural network I think a starfish has one.

I would say that all animals, including starfish, have a central nervous system and to some extent are 'aware' of their environment as they have to interact with it.

However I think it takes a higher order animal to be aware of its own existence, which is necessary for consciousness. And,of course, awareness of ones own existence is not necessary for an effective intereaction with the environment.

A_Seagull wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:You mean like a starfish's central nervous system?

You saying a starfish is not conscious? I take your point though but since I view the CNS as just a neural network I think a starfish has one.

I would say that all animals, including starfish, have a central nervous system and to some extent are 'aware' of their environment as they have to interact with it.

However I think it takes a higher order animal to be aware of its own existence, which is necessary for consciousness. And,of course, awareness of ones own existence is not necessary for an effective intereaction with the environment.

A good summary Mr. A Seagull.