consciousness - your opinions

PianoBasher said:
The fact that you can alter your own consciousness to such wildly varying degrees by way of ingesting chemical substances suggests that it's a physical and electrochemical phenomenon, and nothing to do with a "soul" or suchlike, IMO.

If your consciousness truly was tied to a "soul", then surely some otherwise nice people wouldn't become absolute tools when drunk?
Click to expand...

Your not altering your conciousness though, but altering your perception and how your brain reacts to stimuli.
 
consciousness is quite simply how your brain processes the parameters provided by your sensors (eyes, ears etc.). There is nothing more to it than that.

There is common ground between most people as we are all descended from the same ancestors, have a similar (if never identical) genetic make-up and most people, other people know, are from similar social backgrounds.

There is nothing more or less to it than that.

Whether God exists is by the by and entirely unrelated imo.
 
consciousness is the state of the higher self. when a person masters this it has an absolute control over his physical, emotional and mental strength. unfortunately many people suppress their consciousness and live on impulsive, judgmental and critical states of existence. they do not know who they are and everything is meaningless to them.
 
Surfer said:
Isnt it a kind of category mistake to think of consciousness without considering its antecedents ie the physical brain processes which define, change and cause it to be? (both conscious and unconscious)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

Theres all different levels of awareness. my awareness right now. Different kind of awareness when driving a car etc.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether you adhere to a materialistic or dualistic theory of mind. If materialistic then yes - consciousness can only exist if there are these antecedents. If dualistic then no, the mind can exist without the body and theoretically without external stimuli as a result.

I would argue that, at this stage, a functionalist account of mind (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism) is the most effective which we have. However, it is by no means perfect - problems of qualia in particular, which contradict our daily experiences, are currently too prevalent in the theory. Its main strength, I would argue, is that it effectively does away with the dualism/materialism debate, and encompasses both.

Thesaff said:
A by-product of evolution not some pseudo mystic vibration or universe wide energy.
Click to expand...

I think that we need to move away from the belief that all dualistic theories invoke god or some form of mysticism. Most modern, dualistic theories of mind step away from this area and are still worthwhile theories in their own right. Look at Donald Davidson's predicate dualism as an example.
 
Last edited:
Manic111

what do you think of this idea:

Recent discoveries in genetics tend to refute the idea that consciousness is simply an effect of brain-activity. Brain specialists, Sir Cyril Burt, Prof. J. C. Eccles, Professor W. H. Thorpe and Dr. Wilder Penfield have stated that, in their opinion, the brain appears to be a complicated organism to register and channel consciousness as opposed to producing it
Click to expand...

Quite interested in this whole consciousness area. Mainly due to a NDE i had when i was a child. Pretty much sparked my interest. I have also tried other substances as an experiment with how they affected consciousness.

Been talking with someone else over whether consciousness is a local(brain) or non-local event. And one way perhaps to determine this is if all these nde experiences people have. If they occur at a time when the brain is clinically dead (not really brain death as that apparently happens over a longer period of time) and in the process of necrosis and current medical instruments cannot measure any neuro activity.

What seems weird to me is that we can presently see what happens in the brain when people are talking, doing etc so we are used to seeing what normal brain activity is like. Now someone who has an nde when they are in a life critical state and experience a Realer than Real conscious experience and yet bizarrely.their brain barely registers this?

Why? If consciousness is totally local then why doesnt the brain register these experiences? If consciousness is 100% dependent on a functioning brain then how do people have these experiences?
 
you should read the 'DMT - spirit molecule" by Dr Strassman has it has a lot research into the pineal gland and NDE. Would be good for you to compare you experience to those in the study he held.
 
Surfer said:
Manic111

what do you think of this idea:
Click to expand...

Can you clarify the idea? How do the professors define consciousness? It could simply mean that it channels representations of the external world as picked up by our senses (eg sights, sounds etc), which isn't so relevant to this discussion, as we're talking about consciousness as that "higher level" of thought. That's the problem with debates like this - it takes long enough to nail down what the key terms actually mean.

EDIT: With all due respect, L@br@t, the notion of the pineal gland being some sort of link to the soul was introduced by Descartes frantically clawing at ideas to back up his theory of dualism back in the 1600s. It was widely discredited 400 years ago, when most people did believe in a soul, and nowadays is an idea seen as laughable by most philosophers and scientists. A brief piece from Spinoza's rebuttal of this Cartesian idea below:

"Indeed, I am lost in wonder, that a philosopher, who had stoutly asserted, that he would draw no conclusions which do not follow from self-evident premisses, and would affirm nothing which he did not clearly and distinctly perceive, and who had so often taken to task the scholastics for wishing to explain obscurities through occult qualities, could maintain a hypothesis, beside which occult qualities are commonplace."
 
Last edited:
Have you read the research that was done on DMT and the pineal gland in the early 1990's
http://rickstrassman.com/?q=node/12

It is a very well researched Book and documents the ONLY study on DMT in the world and was funded and backed by the USA government. I have read it and it has changed by view on this subject.

The pineal gland in a fetus after 49 days releases a large amount of DMT into the body this infact ties up with Buddhist views that the soul enters the body after 49 of conception and that the soul leaves the body after 49 days of death. Coincidence? I think not! This belief is 1000's of years old.

Pineal gland is know as the 3rd eye or crown chakra in Hinduism/Buddhism religions that predate Christianity by several 1000 years.

You may have you opinion and disregard my views but please borrow the book and read it before taking judgment especially as 400 years ago was the peak of Christian/jewish religious intolerance to such ideas.
 
Last edited:
LabR@t said:
Have you read the research that was done on DMT and the pineal gland in the early 1990's
http://rickstrassman.com/?q=node/12

It is a very well researched Book and documents the ONLY study on DMT in the world and was funded and backed by the USA government. I have read it and it has changed by view on this subject.

The pineal gland in a fetus after 49 days releases a large amount of DMT into the body this infact ties up with Buddhist views that the soul enters the body after 49 of conception and that the soul leaves the body after 49 days of death. Coincidence? I think not! This belief is 1000's of years old.

Pineal gland is know as the 3rd eye or crown chakra in Hinduism/Buddhism religions that predate Christianity by several 1000 years.

You may have you opinion and disregard my views but please borrow the book and read it before taking judgment especially as 400 years ago was the peak of Christian religious intolerance to such ideas.
Click to expand...

OK - I've read some synopses of this, and the theory of his appears to be that DMT allows us to experience these fantastic things. Rather than me going and reading the book, could you outline how he relates this to consciousness? Is his theory that our soul is "created" 49 days after birth, due to the quantity of DMT released by the pineal gland? As such, it is this which gives rise to our conscious self?

EDIT: And Descartes was a Christian - he was proposing the use of the pineal gland as an interaction point between soul and body. As such I'm not entirely sure why you think that Christians would oppose him in this?
 
Last edited:
LabR@t said:
you should read the 'DMT - spirit molecule" by Dr Strassman has it has a lot research into the pineal gland and NDE. Would be good for you to compare you experience to those in the study he held.
Click to expand...

its on my "to buy" list ...in fact prolly get it soon as im nearly finished the book im reading :)

manic111 said:
Can you clarify the idea? How do the professors define consciousness? It could simply mean that it channels representations of the external world as picked up by our senses (eg sights, sounds etc), which isn't so relevant to this discussion, as we're talking about consciousness as that "higher level" of thought. That's the problem with debates like this - it takes long enough to nail down what the key terms actually mean.
Click to expand...


Not sure actually i was reading something else to do with consciousness and the guy mentioned it (what i quoted). That doesnt help much does it! :D
 
Surfer said:
Manic111

what do you think of this idea:



Quite interested in this whole consciousness area. Mainly due to a NDE i had when i was a child. Pretty much sparked my interest. I have also tried other substances as an experiment with how they affected consciousness.

Been talking with someone else over whether consciousness is a local(brain) or non-local event. And one way perhaps to determine this is if all these nde experiences people have. If they occur at a time when the brain is clinically dead (not really brain death as that apparently happens over a longer period of time) and in the process of necrosis and current medical instruments cannot measure any neuro activity.

What seems weird to me is that we can presently see what happens in the brain when people are talking, doing etc so we are used to seeing what normal brain activity is like. Now someone who has an nde when they are in a life critical state and experience a Realer than Real conscious experience and yet bizarrely.their brain barely registers this?

Why? If consciousness is totally local then why doesnt the brain register these experiences? If consciousness is 100% dependent on a functioning brain then how do people have these experiences?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that paper, it sound highly interesting.:)
 
I personally think there only is conciousness nothing else exists. And that conciousness is one big whole one not individual seperate little people conciousnesses.

I suppose conciousness is a bit like awareness. And the brain is nothing to do with conciouness either.

Not to be confused with touch, smell etc etc.

I think god is pure conciousness.
 
Some people are getting a bit caught up between the difference of consciousness and sentience.
However, they are almost one and the same, but not close enough so should be regarded as a seperate topic.

Animals have a concious on the level of at least, some intelligence, sometime sapience, but they won't neccesarily have self-areness or intentionality.
Sentience is arguable.

Therefore, I'm out.
 
Last edited:
PianoBasher said:
The fact that you can alter your own consciousness to such wildly varying degrees by way of ingesting chemical substances suggests that it's a physical and electrochemical phenomenon, and nothing to do with a "soul" or suchlike, IMO.

If your consciousness truly was tied to a "soul", then surely some otherwise nice people wouldn't become absolute tools when drunk?
Click to expand...

But surely if it is physical then we are only just bodies, and if we are only just bodies then why does our conciousness remain when nearly every cell in your body is replaced within seven years?

Are you aware of what the hard problem of consciousness is?

dazzerd said:
There is no such "thing" as consciousness it is a functional description of our experience; which is itself a property of a brain.

Once we understand how the brain works then the question of what is consciousness will be seen as absurd. Much the same as asking why a square has squareness; it just is and would be absurd to try and understand squareness without referring to the square.
Click to expand...

This still would not explain what consciousness is, how it arises and how it relates to your personal identity. Even if we completely figure out how the brain works the very properties of consciousness still require explaining.

This is both a philosophical problem as well as a scientific one, people would do well to realise this.
 
Last edited:
Woody__ said:
But surely if it is physical then we are only just bodies, and if we are only just bodies then why does our conciousness remain when nearly every cell in your body is replaced within seven years?

Are you aware of what the hard problem of consciousness is?

.
Click to expand...

You could also replace every part of a car, or a computer, yet it still functions properly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom