Consciousness

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom wrote"
A materialist might understand that we don't really control ourselves ... that as Alan Watts points out there is not an intrinsic self. That our beliefs are not separate from our environment.
I agree. The difference is the definition of the environment. Panentheism includes a transcendent mystery within the environment. This is also consistent with Campbell.

This transcendent mystery is the source of reality. It became the peopled universe.

The source of consciousness , love, beauty, etc. isn't the vibrating atoms, it is the mystery that became the atoms and love and beauty.

From Watt's perspective, what we define as the universe is really an image of part of the mystery. Materialism takes this a step further and only the image is thought to exist. There is no great mystery only gaps in our knowledge.

The problem with this view is that it doesn't due justice to reality. A firefighter saving a child from a burning building is just chemicals. Beethoven is just chemicals. Love and consciousness are just chemicals.

I think the opposite is true. The experience transforms the brain and enhances our ability to experience. This we call learning. The experience of the wonder of the sky makes an astronomer.

In reality we understand very little. Science only works for simple repetitive systems. It is an extremely powerful tool for studying the repetitive part of physical reality, but it has severe limits.

The mystery is everywhere. It is us.

In the 1890s many good physicists concluded that physics was over. Everything was understood. Then came relativity and quantum mechanics.

I think we should learn from history.
.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Andreas wrote,
Well in my opinion if something is reasonable it is also materialistic.Personally I dont think they have to be reasonable (the alternatives) unless ofcourse that is what you want but yeah.. whatever.. Smile
You are right. I am focused on the reasonable part because we have been discussing materialism. Certainly things like love, beauty, and honor don't need reasons.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:Andreas wrote,
Well in my opinion if something is reasonable it is also materialistic.Personally I dont think they have to be reasonable (the alternatives) unless ofcourse that is what you want but yeah.. whatever.. Smile
You are right. I am focused on the reasonable part because we have been discussing materialism. Certainly things like love, beauty, and honor don't need reasons.
Reasonable, I find, is subtly different from a reason.

The latter can imply purpose and the former implies (or can imply) understanding.

Our consciousness is by and large unaware of the machinations of the various bits of matter that make up thought. Do those bits of matter have consciousness?

Does our personal consciousness come into existence with our existence, and never fade even with our death? Is a brick conscious?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom wrote:
Reasonable, I find, is subtly different from a reason.

The latter can imply purpose and the former implies (or can imply) understanding.
I agree I was replying to two points. I'm sure I could have one a better job. The first point was the need by intellectual types for a reasonable image of reality. Second, that there are qualities of human reality that exist for their own sake and reason plays a secondary role. Love is an example.

Rom Wrote:
Our consciousness is by and large unaware of the machinations of the various bits of matter that make up thought. Do those bits of matter have consciousness?

Does our personal consciousness come into existence with our existence, and never fade even with our death? Is a brick conscious?
These are classic questions. In my opinion what we refer to as consciousness is the consciousness of the whole human being. I also believe the cells are conscious in a non-intellectual way.

As I have mentioned before I don't believe in eternal individual souls, so for me the human experience begins with birth and ends with death. Before birth and after death we are the Whole, which for a panentheist has a personality.

In my opinion bricks are not conscious. I know there are individuals who believe inanimate physical objects are conscious, but I don't share that view. Some materialists think chemical reactions are conscious.

I think of consciousness as a dimension like the intellectual dimension. We use IQ to measure intellectual aptitude, and in the same way there could be a scale for consciousness. What is the IQ of a rock? I would say 0. If we define a CQ or consciousness quotient then the CQ of a rock is 0.

Taking this game to the next level. Physicists have tried to determine how many dimensions are needed to describe the physical universe. String theorists concluded that the number is eleven. It takes eleven dimensions to describe our physical reality. some of these dimensions are extended in size and some aren't.

I have wondered how many dimensions it would take to describe human reality and in my opinion it is necessary to add five more non-extended dimensions. These are intellect, consciousness, emotion, sensuality, and willfulness.

At a given time a person has an IQ, a CQ, an emotional quotient, etc.

In this theory a human is a 11 + 5 = 16 dimensional being. I know this is a big number, but blame the string theorists.. A plant might be a 12 or 13 dimensional being, and their may be 17 or higher dimensional beings. Anyway it is a fun game. String theory is not testable and this theory is even worse, but it is fun to speculate,
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:
rom wrote:Reasonable, I find, is subtly different from a reason.

The latter can imply purpose and the former implies (or can imply) understanding.
I agree I was replying to two points. I'm sure I could have one a better job. The first point was the need by intellectual types for a reasonable image of reality. Second, that there are qualities of human reality that exist for their own sake and reason plays a secondary role. Love is an example.
I am not sure I completely understand here Ron.
Surely things like hate, fear and disgust would also exist for their own sake ... and reason plays a secondary role at best. Though I can't help thinking there are evolutionary explanations for the "positive and negative" emotions.

Note ... NOT evolutionary purposes.
Roncooper wrote:
rom wrote:Our consciousness is by and large unaware of the machinations of the various bits of matter that make up thought. Do those bits of matter have consciousness?

Does our personal consciousness come into existence with our existence, and never fade even with our death? Is a brick conscious?
These are classic questions. In my opinion what we refer to as consciousness is the consciousness of the whole human being. I also believe the cells are conscious in a non-intellectual way.

As I have mentioned before I don't believe in eternal individual souls, so for me the human experience begins with birth and ends with death. Before birth and after death we are the Whole, which for a panentheist has a personality.

In my opinion bricks are not conscious. I know there are individuals who believe inanimate physical objects are conscious, but I don't share that view. Some materialists think chemical reactions are conscious.

I think of consciousness as a dimension like the intellectual dimension. We use IQ to measure intellectual aptitude, and in the same way there could be a scale for consciousness. What is the IQ of a rock? I would say 0. If we define a CQ or consciousness quotient then the CQ of a rock is 0.

Taking this game to the next level. Physicists have tried to determine how many dimensions are needed to describe the physical universe. String theorists concluded that the number is eleven. It takes eleven dimensions to describe our physical reality. some of these dimensions are extended in size and some aren't.

I have wondered how many dimensions it would take to describe human reality and in my opinion it is necessary to add five more non-extended dimensions. These are intellect, consciousness, emotion, sensuality, and willfulness.

At a given time a person has an IQ, a CQ, an emotional quotient, etc.

In this theory a human is a 11 + 5 = 16 dimensional being. I know this is a big number, but blame the string theorists.. A plant might be a 12 or 13 dimensional being, and their may be 17 or higher dimensional beings. Anyway it is a fun game. String theory is not testable and this theory is even worse, but it is fun to speculate,
I don't think a priori there has to be an absolute mathematical description the way universe ticks. The fact that we can describe the ticking, at least partially, is amazing enough. I hope your adding human attributes to the dimension physicists need to reconcile relativistic and quantum phenomena was tongue in cheek. Adding qualitative human perceptions to physical dimensions, I don't find helpful to bring the discussion along.

Personally, I don't need panentheism ... or as Laplace apocryphally had it, I have no need of that hypothesis.

I am fairly certain consciousness is not what it seems. It is an historical account/agglomeration (apparently) of the brain chemistry that has occurred over the last two to three seconds. Now for a brick, like you I am skeptical, but I have no way of knowing what consciousness a brick exhibits over a century or even a millennium.

I can be pretty sure, it is not like mine over the last two or three seconds.

I also don't believe in eternal bricks. ;) Other than in the "now" that is. And my now is a much shorter time than that of a brick.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Locked