The organizer of matter is consciousness which requires light as a transporting medium. So the material brain in no case preceeds the brains design carried on light.
Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
- Thread starter socratus
- Start date
As I already said, to me consciousness and brain are just two different sides of the same coin (interior and exterior). Humans are of course material beings but human consciousness is the state of being a human brain attached to a human body. None is subordinated to the other in the same way that convex isn't subordinated to concave.
But let's say i go along your more straightforward materialist view. Than to me this would clearly be a case of the result (consciousness) being much more than the sum of its parts (large chunks of flesh). There's no denying there is a direct causal route from matter to consciousness. But unless you deny the possibility that we as humans have an authentic free will that can transcend materialistic determinism by opening up possibilities for ourselves, must you not admit that there has to be some form of causal chain that can also originate in consciousness or at least in the transcendent properties of the brain-body organism? Can a purely materialistic account of reality support the deep intuition most of us have that we are free agents ultimately responsible for our actions? Or does a purely materialistic account of reality only support the idea that whatever we do is the end result of a blind causal chain leading up to the Big Bang? Or am I offering a false dichotomy? In that case what alternative view would you offer?
Suppose we one day fully understand how bits of interacting matter cause consciousness. That would mean matter has come to understand itself. And if you accept that statement, then you'd have to accept the idea that matter can be self-conscious. And to me that would be close to my understanding of consciousness as being the inner ontological state of matter.
If you don't accept this statement and insist that matter can't be self-conscious, then you'd have to locate consciousness elsewhere. And where would that be?
Casually one must ask in passing whether modern "science" - until perhaps recently - has not been in the same "primitive" ignorance as regards the world of life, when it ascribes all causation to mother matter without being able to rise to the apprehension that the matter it studies so assiduously has first and anciently been impregnated with father spirit or Mind. This is equivalent to taking the birth (of physical nature) for granted without postulating the necessary act of fatherhood! Arcane science tells us that back in the night of time the "ray" of intelligence was shot into the "egg" as the basis for the conception of all things. The planting of the "seed" of spirit in matter is part of the integral mythology of the past.
The creation was, then, effected by the precipitation into activity on the open field of space of the six elementary forces which were to substantialize matter and organize forms. These six, deploying one after the other, were cumulatively to build up a form or body of requisite sensitivity and responsiveness to higher currents which would
New Lectures on the Ancient Wisdom--No 7.
The creation was, then, effected by the precipitation into activity on the open field of space of the six elementary forces which were to substantialize matter and organize forms. These six, deploying one after the other, were cumulatively to build up a form or body of requisite sensitivity and responsiveness to higher currents which would
New Lectures on the Ancient Wisdom--No 7.
Brain:an apparatus with which we think we think
Ambrose Bierce( Author,1842-1914)
From a materialistic POV, I'm pretty sure that free will is a myth based upon the evidence supplied by genetics. We are what we are and do what we do not because of decisions made by us, but by what our genes say we are and do. We can only be and do what our genomes say we can be or do.
Consciousness is simply awareness. That is a quality due to brain activity.
Consciousness is simply awareness. That is a quality due to brain activity.
No, I don't think that's a false dichotomy, but I think you might be being a little too reductionist here, and I think the usual scientific reductionism will not provide the answers. I seriously doubt that consciousness can be understood in terms of the behaviour of the brain's individual constituents. I don't think an individual brain cell can be conscious for instance but a complexly interacting network of them can be. I wonder what the threshold is, a million? A billion? And what other critters might be conscious in a manner similar to the way we are? Dolphins and apes certainly show signs of self-awareness, like recognizing themselves in a mirror, something I'm pretty sure from observing them that the cats and dogs I've had in my life can't do. Or maybe cats can but just don't care, that'd be typical of them.
I think the question of free will is unresolved, and trying to lay conditions like that on it is premature. Frankly I don't know whether we have free will or not, though I'll immediately concede that I certainly feel like I do. I've seen compelling arguments on both sides, most recently from Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, taking opposite views, but neither of them convinced me. I think we discussed a video of Dennett trying to make the case for free will in some other thread around here, and concluded that it was inconclusive.
Well, kinda, but not really. It wouldn't mean that matter itself can be self conscious, but that a particular assemblage of matter interacting in particular ways can be self-conscious, and so far we don't really understand much about how that works, except that it clearly does. You may be trying to force conclusions that we don't have the data to justify. It's okay to say "I don't know," that's what drives the scientific enterprise, and right now that's about all I can say to most of your questions. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I know what I'd like to be true, but that's usually not a good guide to what actually IS true.
Dosn't every force and field employed by the brain exist in the universe independent of the human brain?
I would assume so in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't seem likely that there'd some physics unique to the human brain, that's about on par with geocentrism, but again, we don't really know.
But if we consider it shouldn't we have to consider heliocentrism as well?
Is an exposed rock conscious of the sunlight? If so are there any material changes in the rock because of that information?
Is an exposed rock conscious of the sunlight? If so are there any material changes in the rock because of that information?
I'm fine with ''I don't know'' because I don't have a clue myself.
I've just finished a book by Raymond Tallis called ''Aping Mankind'' in which the author (who is atheist) criticizes what he calls ''darwinitis'' and ''neuromania'' which would be the tendency to systematically explain all human behaviour in terms of natural selection and neurology. He insists (and rightly so in my opinion) on the necessity of considering the fact that what constitutes our distinctness as human beings is the fact that our consciousness is embedded in a very deep and complex cultural background that clearly transcends natural selection and reductionist neurology. I'd be curious to know what you think of it if by any chance you've read it.
I've just started tackling ''Consciousness Explained'' by Dennett which isn't the easiest read. I'm really not sure I'll understand everything he has to say but it's still worth trying!
Since the sun is central to human existence in every material way I'm naturally inclined to look to it, or the stuff it is, as the source of our assembly matrix.
I would say the combination of Sun and the biosphere make life possible. I still think we are pure energy and that physical reality is a cultural program, a matrix.
How can we stop there though? Those two are connected to all the rest of the matter and energy.
Well, I was going to continue but I didn't. ;-)
Allegedly, Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine and walked through a wall (I know it is allegory) but there have been recorded stories of others who have accomplished similar feats. How is this possible? Could it be that there were certain initiates who attained a level of consciousness that allowed them to alter their frequency to match that of water or a wall or match the energy of water to that of wine? If they were, then it would seem to me that matter can be altered by consciousness.
Hey I am a believer in what was called magic. In fact there is no dependable way to exclude magic from consideration, in fact it is employed by astrophysics to this very day, for instance a power they cannot see or define, dark energy, runs the universe which contains many chunks of matter we cannot see or define. Would pulling a rabbit out of a hat be out of order considering that? Mind over matter that is the ancient rule.
Oh Oh. Here come the materialist purists to poo poo magic.Hey I am a believer in what was called magic. In fact there is no dependable way to exclude magic from consideration, in fact it is employed by astrophysics to this very day, for instance a power they cannot see or define, dark energy, runs the universe which contains many chunks of matter we cannot see or define. Would pulling a rabbit out of a hat be out of order considering that? Mind over matter that is the ancient rule.