I'm curious to know what people think it is, and I also have a theory.
Personally, I think awareness and consciousness are two different things: Awareness is self explanatory, something having the property of being aware because there is no other way for it to function, and consciousness is a conglomerate of many different units that have awareness.
I think that if you have one aware unit, and another aware unit, and combine them so they have very tight communication, then it will appear as if it is one aware unit.
An example to this would be split brain patients; when communications between the two hemispheres of the brain are severed, they operate almost like two separate conscious entities.
I think that each conscious entity can be broken down to very small, barely aware units, such as a cell, and that awareness exists because it is impossible for it to not exist. A cell could not function without it's basic, almost nonexistent awareness just as humans are not just programs walking around without consciousness, only performing predesignated tasks and responses.
To sum it up, our consciousness is just a conglomerate of smaller aware units; our conscious minds are not really one entity.
Consciousness: What is it?
Re:
The property of the whole doesn't necessarily extend to its parts (see division fallacy), but it could still accidentally be the case that the parts just so happen to have the properties of the whole. But I don't see any reason to think that this is the case here.Spaceboy wrote:Well, why not?
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13691
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
I saw a science show a few years back that studied if certain sleeping people had the ability to have out-of-body experiences. Using a numbered card face up on a high, inaccessible shelf, they were able to get two subjects to name the number on the cards because they claimed they could float outside their bodies in their sleep. Now is this consciousness or awarness if they're supposedly asleep?
Re:
Reality Enigma
Consciousness is energy with intent, like everything else in the universe. Matter is \"frozen light\", as David Bohm put it.
Given an \"Out of Body Experience\" (projecting the non-physical etheric body from the physical body) or an \"Astral Projection\" (Astral body into Astral planes, the Astral planes being where everyone goes when they physically \"die\") or 2, all of your views on reality would change rather quickly and drastically. It's ironic that such \"OBE\"s and \"AP\"s are actually more \"real\" (less illusionary) than physical experiences since they take place on much more \"inner\" planes of existence (closer to \"the Source\") whereas the physical happens to be the outermost, with the densest energy of all, and therefore the most limited.
Consciousness is energy with intent, like everything else in the universe. Matter is \"frozen light\", as David Bohm put it.
Given an \"Out of Body Experience\" (projecting the non-physical etheric body from the physical body) or an \"Astral Projection\" (Astral body into Astral planes, the Astral planes being where everyone goes when they physically \"die\") or 2, all of your views on reality would change rather quickly and drastically. It's ironic that such \"OBE\"s and \"AP\"s are actually more \"real\" (less illusionary) than physical experiences since they take place on much more \"inner\" planes of existence (closer to \"the Source\") whereas the physical happens to be the outermost, with the densest energy of all, and therefore the most limited.
é ^_~
Skyalmian is where I was like 6 years ago. =P
Keep going, mate, and I hope you'll get somewhere.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that energy is a physical property of substances, forces, and fields; that is to say that energy is something that a substance, force, or field possesses, but it is not a substance, force, or field itself.
Skyalmian is where I was like 6 years ago. =P
Keep going, mate, and I hope you'll get somewhere.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that energy is a physical property of substances, forces, and fields; that is to say that energy is something that a substance, force, or field possesses, but it is not a substance, force, or field itself.
The first issue, as with any philosophical/science question is a matter of definition. Consciousness is merely being \"awake\" and \"aware\" of one's surroundings at it's root level. Based on this definition, all beings with sensory perception and an IQ high enough to be aware of all three dimensions is thus ...conscious. One can obviously get very technical and talk about whether a worm is conscious as the first response would be to say \"no\". Yet it has a theoretical IQ of at least 2 simply because it can tell the difference between up and down. Other's may argue it's simply a foreign sensory system such as a sensitivity to gravity or some other \"field\" such as those senses that many migratory birds have. Is this consciousness? Again, a matter of definition. The point is, this definition does not only include humans as I have no doubt that my pet parrot is very conscious and aware of her surroundings at all times. However, she is more aware based on primal instinct rather than CONSCIOUS THOUGHT.
And here is where the separation occurs between animals and the rest of the animal kingdom. I'm not going to dwell on the uber-species such as dolphins, some primates, elephants, African Greys, etc that some argue may be more similar to humans in \"consciousness\" than other animals. I'll simply deal with the things that separate us from other species and ultimately lead to our *advanced* consciousness.
First and foremost is something I have never actually really seen discussed in science but has always been something I think is unfortunately overlooked. TIME. I'm not sure if there are any other species out there that have any concept what-so-ever about time. Animals like squirrels may store nuts in anticipation of winter, but they most likely have no conscious idea why they are doing it. That being said, humans can recall the past at whim - events that are totally irrelevant to the situation around them - as well as plan for the future and reflect on the present. Although \"reflection\" is a property often only granted to humans, it is possible only because of our concept of time.
A second property that's beaten to death is language. Yes other animals talk but no where near to our extent. And yes this post is \"arrogant\" in terms of the superiority of humans ...but we are superior in this respect. Our ability to converse is immense and mixed with our concept of time, allows for reflection.
A final aspect is memory and the associated neural synaptic networking of our brains. Related to our size, we have enormous brains and more importantly, they are incredibly complex, efficient, and task-divided. Our brain is cut into areas that devote themselves to specific tasks and it does them incredibly well. This allows us to devote a lot of our neural processes into building a library of memory-related information that can be recalled on whim from our LTM (long-term memory). Most animals devote their entire day to staying \"alive\". If you look at the anthropologic data of our brain development over the last 100,000 years, you will note that as humans have progressed from \"caveman\" (essentially like other animals), into sedentary farmers, into a society that created specific jobs and roles, and finally into the society we have now where we can devote much of our time to simply sitting and thinking, our brains have concurrently become more devoted to \"intellectual\" tools. Rather than having a cerebellum devoted to raw motor tasks such as throwing a spear, it has fine-tuned itself into building computer chips. The entire prefrontal cortex has become a powerhouse for discerning the events occurring around us at a much higher level than simply \"reacting\". We are a planning species ...we can conceive of time, recall our past experiences, and also use language and our prefrontal cortex to anticipate consciously and analyze the consequences - storing these into LTM again.
Mix all of this together and you get the human. A species that is \"conscious\" at a higher level. This species can create microchips, weaponry, psychological tests, religion, and philosophical and theoretical assumptions based on completely abstract principles. It's important here to not rule out language - as overused as it is. Can you imagine conveying to someone the idea of a black hole without language? Even if you had a voice, if you couldn't tell your own self the idea in your head using language, you'd never be able to actually conceive of the idea. And I don't just mean \"language\" to be \"spoken\" such as English. It could be braille, sign-language, or even rudimentary and arbitrary symbols. The point is ...we need SOME way of organizing our own thoughts and then coherently conveying the idea to another.
So that's my theory ...
And here is where the separation occurs between animals and the rest of the animal kingdom. I'm not going to dwell on the uber-species such as dolphins, some primates, elephants, African Greys, etc that some argue may be more similar to humans in \"consciousness\" than other animals. I'll simply deal with the things that separate us from other species and ultimately lead to our *advanced* consciousness.
First and foremost is something I have never actually really seen discussed in science but has always been something I think is unfortunately overlooked. TIME. I'm not sure if there are any other species out there that have any concept what-so-ever about time. Animals like squirrels may store nuts in anticipation of winter, but they most likely have no conscious idea why they are doing it. That being said, humans can recall the past at whim - events that are totally irrelevant to the situation around them - as well as plan for the future and reflect on the present. Although \"reflection\" is a property often only granted to humans, it is possible only because of our concept of time.
A second property that's beaten to death is language. Yes other animals talk but no where near to our extent. And yes this post is \"arrogant\" in terms of the superiority of humans ...but we are superior in this respect. Our ability to converse is immense and mixed with our concept of time, allows for reflection.
A final aspect is memory and the associated neural synaptic networking of our brains. Related to our size, we have enormous brains and more importantly, they are incredibly complex, efficient, and task-divided. Our brain is cut into areas that devote themselves to specific tasks and it does them incredibly well. This allows us to devote a lot of our neural processes into building a library of memory-related information that can be recalled on whim from our LTM (long-term memory). Most animals devote their entire day to staying \"alive\". If you look at the anthropologic data of our brain development over the last 100,000 years, you will note that as humans have progressed from \"caveman\" (essentially like other animals), into sedentary farmers, into a society that created specific jobs and roles, and finally into the society we have now where we can devote much of our time to simply sitting and thinking, our brains have concurrently become more devoted to \"intellectual\" tools. Rather than having a cerebellum devoted to raw motor tasks such as throwing a spear, it has fine-tuned itself into building computer chips. The entire prefrontal cortex has become a powerhouse for discerning the events occurring around us at a much higher level than simply \"reacting\". We are a planning species ...we can conceive of time, recall our past experiences, and also use language and our prefrontal cortex to anticipate consciously and analyze the consequences - storing these into LTM again.
Mix all of this together and you get the human. A species that is \"conscious\" at a higher level. This species can create microchips, weaponry, psychological tests, religion, and philosophical and theoretical assumptions based on completely abstract principles. It's important here to not rule out language - as overused as it is. Can you imagine conveying to someone the idea of a black hole without language? Even if you had a voice, if you couldn't tell your own self the idea in your head using language, you'd never be able to actually conceive of the idea. And I don't just mean \"language\" to be \"spoken\" such as English. It could be braille, sign-language, or even rudimentary and arbitrary symbols. The point is ...we need SOME way of organizing our own thoughts and then coherently conveying the idea to another.
So that's my theory ...
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13691
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Here's a conrundum. Say a person has no sense of sight, smell or touch, is conscious and awake, but cannot interact with the world with their senses. Are they 'aware' of themselves or their surroundings or are they incapable of having a frame of reference to decide what is reality?
Does their existance boil down to just random 'thoughts' locked in a physical body or can their thoughts exist on another astral plane separate from the body and be coherent?
If it can, is that a separate entity from the body, a soul maybe or do all things vanish upon the death of the brain?
Does their existance boil down to just random 'thoughts' locked in a physical body or can their thoughts exist on another astral plane separate from the body and be coherent?
If it can, is that a separate entity from the body, a soul maybe or do all things vanish upon the death of the brain?
Re:
You'd have to take "hearing" out of that equation.tunnelcat wrote:Here's a conrundum. Say a person has no sense of sight, smell or touch, is conscious and awake, but cannot interact with the world with their senses. Are they 'aware' of themselves or their surroundings or are they incapable of having a frame of reference to decide what is reality?
Does their existance boil down to just random 'thoughts' locked in a physical body or can their thoughts exist on another astral plane separate from the body and be coherent?
If it can, is that a separate entity from the body, a soul maybe or do all things vanish upon the death of the brain?
Smell pretty much does away with taste so I'll give you that one.
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
If they have had all these senses previously, yes they are very aware. They still would have acquired language, sense of time, and would have LTM and memories. However, things like your sense of time and the vividness of your memories would eventually become distorted. Imagine being locked in a prison cell with no windows for several years. After time, you may have no concept of what day or time of day it is. Things like the sharpness of colours for objects and the smell of a rose will likely become dull. Are you still conscious and aware? Yes. We've still developed these concepts, although they have weakened. Our language may also weaken and we may develop symptoms of schizophrenia simply because we have no way to *express* our consciousness with others - an aspect of our consciousness that people need (and a fundamental part of many dream theories on why we dream).
Now take an individual such as Helen Keller who was born without many of these senses. Luckily for her, she had her sense of touch and a very patient teacher. Had she had neither, there's a good chance she would have had no real \"conscious\" as I defined before. It's really hard to say what she would have developed had she had none of the 5 senses. She'd have had no way to really interact to develop any sense of reality. Reality, after all, is nothing more than a conglomerate experience of our sensory systems.
Another example are \"wolf children\" raised in the wild or children who are locked away for years by neglectful parents. They often never fully develop our language as those circuits are pruned away from under-use at a young age. These children often have all of their senses but their interactions have changed the types of memories and experiences they had and often times their brains are geared more toward instinctual or primal tasks - such as mere survival.
Nonetheless, I believe they still are \"conscious\" moreso than the average animal simply as a result of the evolution of our brains being designed to recognize our own self in the environment and to analyze, plan, and anticipate. But there's no way you can tell me that a \"wolf child\" would have the same level of consciousness as you are me. Again, call it arrogant, but they simply have no need for it given their particular environment. For what purpose would they need to sit there and think to themselves \"cogito, ergo sum\" or \"Hmm, I wonder what I should do tomorrow?\" They wouldn't.
The whole idea of \"astral planes\" and out of body experiences is one lacking any real and trusted empirical evidence altogether. I'm the first person to open their mind to new ideas and love to dabble in different fields of study for exactly that purpose, including the less empirical studies such as philosophy and psychology. That being said, even the study of astral projection for naming a card on a shelf was conducted by a group of questionable scientists and never properly replicated. Most of those stories are for Spike TV specials just to grab some air-time. That being said, I do believe in the possibility and likelihood of forces we have not yet fully understood or even discovered. This also includes the incredible potential of our own brain, especially given the idea that we prune a MASSIVE proportion of it at a young age and are apparently only utilizing approx. 10% of it at any given moment. Human prodigies such as Einstein, Galileo, Davinci, and the more recent examples of Hawking and especially Kim Peek elude to the fact that we are much more capable than we initially presume. It's actually scary in some respects ...
And finally, the idea of a soul. All religious gabbing aside, I have *heard* a study involving a completely hermetically sealed room in which a dying man was placed for scientific purposes. The alleged scientists measured the mass of the room prior and post death and there was a micro-loss of mass after his death. The theory is that his soul left his body. Sadly I have never actually seen the study myself or been able to find any mention of it. Leads me to believe it's a fairy tale altogether but it would be an interesting study nonetheless if it was ethically plausible.
I guess we probably won't be able to answer \"soul\" questions until we die or until we start creating complex cyborgs and seeing which parts are critical in creating morality, self-perception, and other such humanistic concepts of what the soul may or may not be responsible for. Would a cyborg go to heaven if he/she was a good little bot? I guess St.Peter better start writing an amendment to his ol' book
Now take an individual such as Helen Keller who was born without many of these senses. Luckily for her, she had her sense of touch and a very patient teacher. Had she had neither, there's a good chance she would have had no real \"conscious\" as I defined before. It's really hard to say what she would have developed had she had none of the 5 senses. She'd have had no way to really interact to develop any sense of reality. Reality, after all, is nothing more than a conglomerate experience of our sensory systems.
Another example are \"wolf children\" raised in the wild or children who are locked away for years by neglectful parents. They often never fully develop our language as those circuits are pruned away from under-use at a young age. These children often have all of their senses but their interactions have changed the types of memories and experiences they had and often times their brains are geared more toward instinctual or primal tasks - such as mere survival.
Nonetheless, I believe they still are \"conscious\" moreso than the average animal simply as a result of the evolution of our brains being designed to recognize our own self in the environment and to analyze, plan, and anticipate. But there's no way you can tell me that a \"wolf child\" would have the same level of consciousness as you are me. Again, call it arrogant, but they simply have no need for it given their particular environment. For what purpose would they need to sit there and think to themselves \"cogito, ergo sum\" or \"Hmm, I wonder what I should do tomorrow?\" They wouldn't.
The whole idea of \"astral planes\" and out of body experiences is one lacking any real and trusted empirical evidence altogether. I'm the first person to open their mind to new ideas and love to dabble in different fields of study for exactly that purpose, including the less empirical studies such as philosophy and psychology. That being said, even the study of astral projection for naming a card on a shelf was conducted by a group of questionable scientists and never properly replicated. Most of those stories are for Spike TV specials just to grab some air-time. That being said, I do believe in the possibility and likelihood of forces we have not yet fully understood or even discovered. This also includes the incredible potential of our own brain, especially given the idea that we prune a MASSIVE proportion of it at a young age and are apparently only utilizing approx. 10% of it at any given moment. Human prodigies such as Einstein, Galileo, Davinci, and the more recent examples of Hawking and especially Kim Peek elude to the fact that we are much more capable than we initially presume. It's actually scary in some respects ...
And finally, the idea of a soul. All religious gabbing aside, I have *heard* a study involving a completely hermetically sealed room in which a dying man was placed for scientific purposes. The alleged scientists measured the mass of the room prior and post death and there was a micro-loss of mass after his death. The theory is that his soul left his body. Sadly I have never actually seen the study myself or been able to find any mention of it. Leads me to believe it's a fairy tale altogether but it would be an interesting study nonetheless if it was ethically plausible.
I guess we probably won't be able to answer \"soul\" questions until we die or until we start creating complex cyborgs and seeing which parts are critical in creating morality, self-perception, and other such humanistic concepts of what the soul may or may not be responsible for. Would a cyborg go to heaven if he/she was a good little bot? I guess St.Peter better start writing an amendment to his ol' book
Of course things like earthworms are conscious. They just don't possess a spirit like men do. The 'soul' doesn't leave the body, 'soul' is just a word used to explain that man became a living, conscious thing after the breath of life (his spirit) entered in. The spirit is not a conscious thing such that its consciousness survives death.
Things like spirits and out-of-body projection is not something that would gain attention even if credible scientists studied it. In this day and age, scientists try to stay away from spiritual things as much as possible.
Some people don't seem to have a very good definition of 'physical.' Everything must be physical, otherwise the two domains would be completely separate from each other, and the concept of immanence wouldn't make sense.
It's obvious to me that things such as spirits and \"astral planes\" exist. It shouldn't matter that scientists don't prove or believe in it, because a good amount of their work is questionable, and physics itself is still inadequate.
Things like spirits and out-of-body projection is not something that would gain attention even if credible scientists studied it. In this day and age, scientists try to stay away from spiritual things as much as possible.
Some people don't seem to have a very good definition of 'physical.' Everything must be physical, otherwise the two domains would be completely separate from each other, and the concept of immanence wouldn't make sense.
It's obvious to me that things such as spirits and \"astral planes\" exist. It shouldn't matter that scientists don't prove or believe in it, because a good amount of their work is questionable, and physics itself is still inadequate.
Re:
[quote="Burlyman"][/quote]
What have you spiritually accomplished?
What have you spiritually accomplished?
Your first statement seems contradictory. If earthworms are conscious, yet do not possess a spirit, then how come humans only become living, \"conscious\" beings once the spirit enters them?
I suppose you should define consciousness and also your definition of spirit would be great as well. And while you're at it, immanence? Are you tackling this from a religious perspective? Spirituality is a tricky term all by itself. Many people, including a lot of atheists are \"spiritual\" yet do not believe in a spirit as an entity.
I'm just really confused by your post, so my apologies. Not sure I see how you are separating, comparing, or equating 'spirit' and 'conscious' ...?
I suppose you should define consciousness and also your definition of spirit would be great as well. And while you're at it, immanence? Are you tackling this from a religious perspective? Spirituality is a tricky term all by itself. Many people, including a lot of atheists are \"spiritual\" yet do not believe in a spirit as an entity.
I'm just really confused by your post, so my apologies. Not sure I see how you are separating, comparing, or equating 'spirit' and 'conscious' ...?
I'm not an atheist, but that doesn't mean I'm tackling this from a religious perspective.And while you're at it, immanence? Are you tackling this from a religious perspective? Spirituality is a tricky term all by itself. Many people, including a lot of atheists are "spiritual" yet do not believe in a spirit as an entity.
Because human beings aren't animals.If earthworms are conscious, yet do not possess a spirit, then how come humans only become living, "conscious" beings once the spirit enters them?
The spirit of a man is an entity that gives him life, among other things. That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that the spirit of a man is the same as a 'spirit being.' Everything is made according to its own kind.
All I was saying was that God can't be immanent if there exist a "physical" domain and a "non-physical" domain; everything comes from the same source.
I've accomplished gaining the knowledge that "new age" theory is not the be all and end all or anywhere near that, I've accomplished that. And some new age mystics act like their incomplete theories constitute 100% of the picture when they are only like 1% in actuality.Skyalmian wrote:What have you spiritually accomplished?
Combine the aforementioned presumption with relativism, and you have a good recipe for a nauseating theory. x_x
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13691
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Re:
OOPS! I meant ALL the senses. That's what I get for posting when bone tired and sunburned. Also, I'm asking the hypothetical question as if the person was BORN without any senses at all and couldn't receive any information about the world outside the body and had no previous knowledge of said world.AlphaDoG wrote:You'd have to take "hearing" out of that equation.
Smell pretty much does away with taste so I'll give you that one.
The brain is still alive inside this body prison. Would it be 'conscious' at birth and make up a reality for itself or just go insane and neurotic without any stimulation as time progressed. Would it give up, shut down and die immediately? Would it have any 'awareness' of itself either if it couldn't access the outside world and other beings for comparison?
dOggY, I'll have to admit that out-of-body experiences are downright weird to fathom. But that particular study, and I can't find it anywhere on the nets, was just incredible if these 2 people were able to lift out of their bodies, in sleep mind you, and read the number on a card that sat on a high, inaccessible shelf that could only be seen from above. It was a monitored study to prevent cheating.
The guy who is most famous for the astral expt is Robert Bruce. Although I heard during a lecture on psychokinetics that similar projection experiments were done in the 30's (not sure on the details) as some had claimed that guys like Houdini could make things happen out of body. Regardless, if you can't find any actual info on it, it means it probably hasn't been empirically verified and replicated to any significant degree ...much like the \"mass of a dying body\" experiment. Most of it is hearsay, anecdotes, etc. I just did a quick Google Scholar search and found nothing except for personal claims. I'm not arguing that it isn't possible - only that without some reliable data, I'm skeptical and unconvinced.
Sorry for mis-interpreting your query about a person born with NO senses. In such an extreme case I would actually tend to believe that the brain would basically prune itself into a primal appendage solely controlling nervous system functions and the person would remain in an infant stage. I spent the last 3 years getting my honours degree in neuropsych, specifically in the visuo-motor field and one of the fundamental properties of the brain is that without constant stimulation, the brain will remove neural networks that are not being used. Pruning. As I said before with the language scenario of children who are deprived of learning language, they struggle to ever gain a true concept of it later on as these circuits are never truly developed. I would posit that the same would be true of an individual with no sensory stimulation. How would they ever create a reality at all? I personally can't imagine this scenario as it's beyond me but it's interesting to argue whether they are still \"conscious\". The only thing I can even compare it to is dedicated Buddhist monks who enter zazen/samadhi for extended periods of time. Some are so \"unconscious\" that they can self immolate (Thich Duc comes to mind) and not even flinch. Are they in a state of unconsciousness and then able to re-enter?
I did hear from my Mahayana Buddhism prof that there was an experiment with one particular group of monks in which they could physically change the rates of their body functions simply through meditation. Body temperature, heart rate, etc. These, to me, are unconscious processes and it brings a whole other element to the question. Can you enter the unconscious?
p.s. sorry if this post makes no sense. I'm tired and cold from being outside and sadly I can't control my own body temperature. And I'm apparently too unconscious to dress for the weather.
Sorry for mis-interpreting your query about a person born with NO senses. In such an extreme case I would actually tend to believe that the brain would basically prune itself into a primal appendage solely controlling nervous system functions and the person would remain in an infant stage. I spent the last 3 years getting my honours degree in neuropsych, specifically in the visuo-motor field and one of the fundamental properties of the brain is that without constant stimulation, the brain will remove neural networks that are not being used. Pruning. As I said before with the language scenario of children who are deprived of learning language, they struggle to ever gain a true concept of it later on as these circuits are never truly developed. I would posit that the same would be true of an individual with no sensory stimulation. How would they ever create a reality at all? I personally can't imagine this scenario as it's beyond me but it's interesting to argue whether they are still \"conscious\". The only thing I can even compare it to is dedicated Buddhist monks who enter zazen/samadhi for extended periods of time. Some are so \"unconscious\" that they can self immolate (Thich Duc comes to mind) and not even flinch. Are they in a state of unconsciousness and then able to re-enter?
I did hear from my Mahayana Buddhism prof that there was an experiment with one particular group of monks in which they could physically change the rates of their body functions simply through meditation. Body temperature, heart rate, etc. These, to me, are unconscious processes and it brings a whole other element to the question. Can you enter the unconscious?
p.s. sorry if this post makes no sense. I'm tired and cold from being outside and sadly I can't control my own body temperature. And I'm apparently too unconscious to dress for the weather.
Re:
(For those interested) His site, Astral Dynamics. Of incredible use is "N.E.W.", meaning "New Energy Ways", which have exceedingly efficient techniques for developing the energy bodies.d0ggY wrote:The guy who is most famous for the astral expt is Robert Bruce.
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13691
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Actually dOggY, you do make sense. I guess if you're born with no senses, the brain wouldn't be able to form memories or higher thoughts without external stimuli in the first place, so it would be impossible for any thoughts, learning, emotions and consequently neurosis, psyhcosis or or other mental complications to occur. The brain would resort to basal living functions and I'm guessing that the higher level brain function areas would never even form and grow since they would never be used. But would this brain have 'consciousness'? Does it need external stimulation to have it?
I've heard of these Monks and what they can do, very impressive. Did you know that extreme deep water divers have also learned to control their breath holding times and heart rates to almost incredible limits, by shear mental will? But could someone control their bodies to the point of unconsciousness, I wouldn't think so. The brain has powerful survival instincts that, I would think, would override any self-control of the body functions for shear survival.
As for the out-of-body study, it was originally shown on a TV science show a few years back and since I can't find more verification on the results, I'm afraid I'm lacking in more information or proof for your perusal. It did provoke some comtemplation as to the existance of a 'soul' or other separate energy 'astral plane' for humans.
I've heard of these Monks and what they can do, very impressive. Did you know that extreme deep water divers have also learned to control their breath holding times and heart rates to almost incredible limits, by shear mental will? But could someone control their bodies to the point of unconsciousness, I wouldn't think so. The brain has powerful survival instincts that, I would think, would override any self-control of the body functions for shear survival.
As for the out-of-body study, it was originally shown on a TV science show a few years back and since I can't find more verification on the results, I'm afraid I'm lacking in more information or proof for your perusal. It did provoke some comtemplation as to the existance of a 'soul' or other separate energy 'astral plane' for humans.
Can’t you sit in a dark room, and sense your own existence? Yes, I would have to guess that you would still have consciousness. It’s a flawed experiment, because you would still have nerves throughout your body to sense stuff, and without those your life would be impossible.
You would need to move to the “brain in a bottle” but that would still be flawed.
BTW, what you are referring to, as far as the Monks, is called Biofeedback, it’s been around a long time, and I used to use it during my obsession with working out. (anybody can do it)
You would need to move to the “brain in a bottle” but that would still be flawed.
BTW, what you are referring to, as far as the Monks, is called Biofeedback, it’s been around a long time, and I used to use it during my obsession with working out. (anybody can do it)
Biofeedback!! Thanks! I was racking my brain all yesterday trying to remember the damn term. Out of curiosity, what all were you able to master for working out? It fascinated me when my prof talked about it and I had always meant to do a meta-analysis of any research since I was in both Buddhism and Pysch at the same time but guess I never got around to it.
As for sitting in a dark room, a few years back I went to a cave in South Dakota and the guide took us to one spot in which he said that there are only two spots in the entire world that have complete blackness. Deep underwater and deep underground. He told us to sit completely still and he flicked all the lights off in the caves. I can tell you that I have never felt so immediately disoriented in my entire life and I didn't even move. Altho I'm not sure how much this relates to consciousness, it was interesting to see how vulnerable our sensory systems are when they are quickly thwarted.
The brain in the bottle is exactly the type of \"cyborg\" thing I alluded to in my first post. What is essential for consciousness and how much do our other organs, nervous system, and the possibility of a soul/spirit really play in our emotions, thoughts, etc. Now we just need a corrupt ethics committee and a volunteer!
Tunnel, I really wonder too about what would happen specifically to the higher functioning areas. I can't fathom how they would ever develop, though, without external stimuli. I just think of an infant and how unaware they are until their sensory systems start building a repertoire. I guess the first question to answer is, do infants have a conscious???
...ok so I sat for a few minutes and thought about that and vaguely recall a number of psychologists talking about at what point infants become \"human\" in the sense that they become aware of the \"self\". I guess when you start labeling some people as conscious and others not, you're essentially equating it to the developmental level of the brain. Thoughts?
As for sitting in a dark room, a few years back I went to a cave in South Dakota and the guide took us to one spot in which he said that there are only two spots in the entire world that have complete blackness. Deep underwater and deep underground. He told us to sit completely still and he flicked all the lights off in the caves. I can tell you that I have never felt so immediately disoriented in my entire life and I didn't even move. Altho I'm not sure how much this relates to consciousness, it was interesting to see how vulnerable our sensory systems are when they are quickly thwarted.
The brain in the bottle is exactly the type of \"cyborg\" thing I alluded to in my first post. What is essential for consciousness and how much do our other organs, nervous system, and the possibility of a soul/spirit really play in our emotions, thoughts, etc. Now we just need a corrupt ethics committee and a volunteer!
Tunnel, I really wonder too about what would happen specifically to the higher functioning areas. I can't fathom how they would ever develop, though, without external stimuli. I just think of an infant and how unaware they are until their sensory systems start building a repertoire. I guess the first question to answer is, do infants have a conscious???
...ok so I sat for a few minutes and thought about that and vaguely recall a number of psychologists talking about at what point infants become \"human\" in the sense that they become aware of the \"self\". I guess when you start labeling some people as conscious and others not, you're essentially equating it to the developmental level of the brain. Thoughts?
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13691
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Re:
The other flaw is if the brain has already formed memories and has had external stimulation, the brain can just come up with it's own entertainment to amuse itself, even if it comes in the form of dreams or hallucinations. To test the hypothesis out correctly, you would need to start with a brain that's not been stimulated or exposed to the world in any way, shape or form from the beginning. Not an ethical experiment though.Spidey wrote:Can’t you sit in a dark room, and sense your own existence? Yes, I would have to guess that you would still have consciousness. It’s a flawed experiment, because you would still have nerves throughout your body to sense stuff, and without those your life would be impossible.
Spidey, you did remind me of this with your dark room example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation
and the experiment in the 1950's:
http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/570/S ... ation.html
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13691
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
Hey Spidey, you ought to try the 'sitting in a dark cave with no lights' entertainment dOggY described. I got that thrill in the Oregon Caves as part of their tour. Damn it was creepy, cold and disorienting. But it soon progressed to claustrophobia and fear as time progressed. You couldn't tell which way was up and you didn't know where the exit was located. I can see how it would drive someone nuts. 
tc, ya you can definitely understand how solitary confinement would quickly lead to \"insanity\". Our guide only turned the lights off for maybe 30 seconds and it really was an unbelievable experience to have your eyes \"adjust\" but still not be able to see ANYTHING. Kind of indescribable actually. I now know how they say when you are deep underwater, you can't tell which way is up or down and why they attach cables to divers so that they can tell where the surface is.
If anyone ever has a chance to go into a deep cave where they turn the lights off, DO IT!
If anyone ever has a chance to go into a deep cave where they turn the lights off, DO IT!
Did that at Meremac Caverns a few years ago. The guide told everyone that when the lights go off you could put your thumb on your nose and wiggle your fingers and not be able to see your fingers. Well the lights went of for about 30 seconds, and then came back on, standing in front of the group were a bunch of kids laughing their asses off at all the adults who were doing the finger wriggling bit.
Quite humorous to say the least.
Quite humorous to say the least.
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
Re:
hee hee, almost missed your responseSpidey wrote:I always knew you were a robot Pandora…
Just Kidding…Really.
this talk about astral planes and stuff always makes me go all rational...
-
Tunnelcat
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 13691
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.
How's that? Can't you be 'conscious' and not have any interaction with your surroundings? I would think that all you would need is sensory input to know you're conscious. For example, say someone who is totally paralyzed is just sitting in a chair, looking out of the window. They can SEE the scenery, but they're not interacting with it. How would you define 'interaction'?
Animals also interact with their environment as well and many are quite adept at controlling and altering it to suit their needs.
Animals also have access to sensory input the same as us ...and some have extra-sensory systems that go beyond us.
I still hold that the difference is in our brain structure and the way we analyze the information we receive.
Y'know, one could argue that \"consciousness\" is almost a 6th sense in humans. It almost seems to \"develop\" at a certain age when one becomes aware of the self in relation to the other. As we grow and mature, this strengthens, much like our other senses. It allows us to \"see\" the world in a new light and to interact differently. Much like each of our other senses. We can actually use our \"conscious\" to \"sense\" things. I'm sure all of you have thought about a situation you are in and \"had a bad feeling\". To me, that intuition is nothing more than conscious processes that are very sensitive to the available information of environmental surroundings, memory, and anticipation.
Animals also have access to sensory input the same as us ...and some have extra-sensory systems that go beyond us.
I still hold that the difference is in our brain structure and the way we analyze the information we receive.
Y'know, one could argue that \"consciousness\" is almost a 6th sense in humans. It almost seems to \"develop\" at a certain age when one becomes aware of the self in relation to the other. As we grow and mature, this strengthens, much like our other senses. It allows us to \"see\" the world in a new light and to interact differently. Much like each of our other senses. We can actually use our \"conscious\" to \"sense\" things. I'm sure all of you have thought about a situation you are in and \"had a bad feeling\". To me, that intuition is nothing more than conscious processes that are very sensitive to the available information of environmental surroundings, memory, and anticipation.
Re:
sorry, tunnelcat, my post was really unclear (not sure if this one is better, though).tunnelcat wrote:How's that? Can't you be 'conscious' and not have any interaction with your surroundings? I would think that all you would need is sensory input to know you're conscious. For example, say someone who is totally paralyzed is just sitting in a chair, looking out of the window. They can SEE the scenery, but they're not interacting with it. How would you define 'interaction'?
There is more and more evidence that in the brain sensory and motor system are tightly coupled, and researchers are actually providing evidence that perceptual systems are involved in action control and, vice versa, that motor systems contribute to perception.
In one way, it is really logical that it should be like this. Sensory systems have evolved to serve action. We wouldn't have sensory systems if they would not have any practical benefits. You can see this even in the simplest lifeforms where the sensory organs are directly connected to motor functions and determine their actions. And even humans retain this link. The whole upper part of the brain seems to be dedicated of programming all the possible actions that are possible in the environment. If you see an object, the brain automatically computes how you can grasp it, and to which uses you can put it. In a sense, the object *is* its associated actions. Similarly, if you see something flash in peripheral vision, the brain computes the proper eye movements to foveate it. In a way, all scenes in front of us are structured in terms of possible eye and bodily movements we can perform to navigate them.
Put another way, humans (and probably all lifeforms) experience the world as opportunities for action. What our conscious selves appear to be doing is acting as a sort of gatekeeper, letting some actions out, and preventing others from being performed. You can see how in patients with Alien Hand Syndrome or Utilization behavior this control has gone awry, they automatically perform the actions that are triggered by the environment, if they want to or not.
So, long story short, consciousness must be, in one form or another, an action control device. I do not believe that you will have any form of consciousness, if you are not (or have not been) able to act in at least a rudimentary manner.