Consciousness

[mulberryman]

Well yes, technically biology is defined as the study of life, but the definition of life is not limited to biology.
I would further say that this greater and pervasive awareness that is life would greatly surpass lesser organisms, and would extend possibly even past the cellular level into the realm of chemical reaction and composition, possibly even further unto atoms and subatomic particles breaking past the boundaries of the infintesimly small higher dimensions that make up those atoms into whole new dimensions where this awareness, this life has physical dimension beyond our known universe, to the very boundaries of our farthest imaginations, and beyond.

 

[fastandbulbous]

^ Yeah but do you have anything concrete to back that statement? I could easily say that I believe that the whole thing is orchestrated by pixies & elves, but without something (however small) securely rooted in the biological/life sciences, it's just my eccentric ramblings

 

[mulberryman]

^ Yeah but do you have anything concrete to back that statement? I could easily say that I believe that the whole thing is orchestrated by pixies & elves, but without something (however small) securely rooted in the biological/life sciences, it's just my eccentric ramblings

The hypothetical "sterile neutrino" is theorized to travel outside of our 4-dimensional "brane" into the higher spatial "bulk" after being created during neutrino "flavor oscillation", and to interact only via gravity and no other fundamental force. Perhaps something like this underlies consciousness, or there is something like a "menton", or mental particle, that travels outside the brane (and the brain) and could interact with other mentons in ways that translate into thought. But goddamn that's a big "perhaps".

But the whole thing is orchestrated by pixies and elves, and also, emphatically not so. Inside a black hole, there is a rip in the fabric of the universe, in our very dimension. Outside our dimension, there exists literally an infinite possibility. Unfortunately, we can never see what exists through that black hole, as gravity, which is the limit of the 3rd dimension, because we can never see beyond its event horizon. But if there, truly are 10 dimensions, which the current theory of everything tells us, then, it stands to reason that, those higher dimensions exist beyond the very small width that they occupy within the congruency of the 3rd dimension with which we occupy, since the 3 dimensions exist in this larger sense. Within 10 dimension, in fact, just within 8 dimensions, everything that ever could exist in every way it possibly could have been created or destroyed exists. Now there is no physical way to prove any of this within the third dimension with which we are confined to, but within our brains, as within all mater (and energy for that matter) exists a part of 7 dimensions higher than our own. It is a pretty big perhaps that there could be "mentons," or particles (or non-particles?) that move in and out of our dimension inside our brains. Within the confines of 10 dimensions these mentons, do in fact exist (and emphatically not, and even a three ringed circus could, or in actuality does exist within each of these mentons, as well as inside every molecule, every particle, and emphatically does not exist as well. Now, of course none of this can be proven, but all of this does in fact exist, simply because it cannot be proven, and if follows that anything and everything does not exist because it can be proven that it does in fact exist.

 

[swilow]

^^Now your losing me mulberryman I like the paradoxes though

 

[cognosis]

***i9
Okay, so I had to hold off on responding to this thread and let some material generate in order to adequately respond; here goes nothing… I’m going to deviate a bit off topic but I feel like with the nature of this thread it’s inevitable anyways.

/#/
The definition: "The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness.” for consciousness is somewhat problematic in the sense that it’s confusing a couple of different processes. Mainly, it seems that Consciousness is a totally different enterprise than Cognizance.

IE.

“Awareness” I would use to exclusively define Consciousness. To be aware is the same as being lucid. It is when one is present to being presented with a certain kinds of stimuli, but not mediated through symbolic-discursvie thinking. There’s a level of abstraction involved with consciousness where it can’t be localizable and isn’t constant.
%Think about when you woke up this morning, how you felt: were you really aware at that moment you were awake and all the potentials that existed to you at that moment or is it in retrospect you realize that you were awake when you got up and then you got dressed or did whatever?

Cognizance – recognizing elements of the environment and how one relates to it. This would relate to the “having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”.
Cognition is largely an issue of semiotics, All perception is sensory data organized/filtered into discrete onto categories that make information meaningful to the subject. I find it rather difficult to think without using words/pictures of some sort.
_Cognizance is intelligence and operates at the mentalistic level of representation, of which there still isn’t a clear relationship established between it and the 3/d physical uni. However, the individual must have the cognitive capacity (the brain power) to create as a version of a particular version-structuring of reality. That is to say, the brain and nervous system do interpret sensory input and are not completely divorced from the formulation of what one would call mind whereas I think being aware is a process that has nothing to do with biological processes.


~I have a big problem with Dennett’s theory trying to posit that mind and/or consciousness works at an entirely a 3 or 4D physical system. Number one, his ideas are Newtonian oldskool and doesn’t even acknowledge anything about M- /String- theory
or contemporary physics, he lives in a very small universe. That and I think mind and consc are two separate things and exist at different levels of experience. Also, said it a million times, but the whole idea that physical construction of language (the sounds, the little squiggles you’re looking at on some box) is pretty much inert and has no intrinsic value suggests another domain|strata|dimension in which symbols operate. *Maybe mind is an epiphenomenon. Mind is an amalgamation of programs|elves|thoughtforms|words that combine together to construct an individual(unique would be a more appropriate term probs) version of interpersonal reality. Religions were precursor to psychology in that they tried to explain all the internal and external forces at work within a person or societies universe. Religion and Psychology has developed some usefulness, but always pertaining to specific periods of time and are never able to understand the workings of individuals and groups that belong to a different regime of signs, and until these metaphors we’re using relate to actual structures in the brain and can account for the way in which mind and consciousness interacts with the physical they’re always relative and limited in usefulness. This is actually what I love about the RC scene, the whole idea of “developing a vocabulary of awareness” as Shulgin said. We’re actually exploring neural pathways and finding out what happens effects you get if you substitute one atom for another.

&A problem too, with trying to understand it all, has a lot to do with how we conceptualiz eprecedence for the levels of reality. The Top-Down or Bottom-Up approach?

 

[mulberryman]

^^ Facinating. But does conciousness actually require lucidity? As one may experience non-lucid dreams and still aware of the experiences within them. For that matter, does lucidity actually require conciousness; in other words, can ghosts exist?

 

[cognosis]

^^ Facinating. But does conciousness actually require lucidity? As one may experience non-lucid dreams and still aware of the experiences within them. For that matter, does lucidity actually require conciousness; in other words, can ghosts exist?

How much of your awareness of dream content being presented to you is during the dream and how much of it is something you tell your_self about in retrospect?

IMO, consciousness|awareness is the same thing as lucidity. What is lucidity if not being aware? What is being aware if not being conscious? You aren't aware most of the time. People are dreaming, even when awake. We've become used to our lives we just tell ourselves stories about reality instead of really looking at it.

I'm confused by your question of ghosts. to try and answer though,
I like the idea on egodeath where they are talking about ego as a virtual environment. I think that in the sense that mind *might* be generated from the brain/nervous system and to a degree localizable implies a no retention of ego after death. If mind is an amalgamation of different programs|thought-forms, "I" is definately one of those programs and the concept/formation of the subject is based very much on the linguistic system one is embedded in. No doubt, ancient Egyptian or Sumerian subjectivity differed greatly from the types of egos floating about today. This is the whole problem with Freuds ideas of what constitutes a person(Id, Ego, SuperEgo) as it doesn't represent what's happening in the brain or in everymind and is embedded in a very particular time and cultural period marked by specific (ie. Oedipal) relationships.

I don't think an ego lives on after death if that's what you mean. I have a problem with though with strictly saying that because the idea though that a conscious system can impart structures on our environment, and those structures can continue to exist and affect the rest of reality. Here think about philosophers, or any one person who has been able to interject their own narrative into the social matrix to the extent that they become part of the a part of the way the rest of society functions-thinks.

Biology is the study of life, but any intro Bio course that's any good will begin by saying there isn't a clear understanding of what life is, only a set of characteristics with which they use to decide when something is alive (reproduction, ATP production, etc). The 2nd law of thermodynamics says energy transfers result in less order, and everything tends towards entropy --this is what's supposed to be so special about life, because it's quite ordered and sophisticated, it fights against entropy. Living systems aren't the only higher structured phenom though, look at crystals. They are atoms repeating at regular intervals.

I feel like consciousness is a thing that was never a part of biologic to begin with. Although, I think at certain levels of biological organization consciousness becomes apparent, and the ability of one to have a self to be used in interpersonal communication is something that requires a lot of brain power and necessitates a mentalistic level of representation --of which consciousness if it can be conscious that is thinking something must not be embedded or a result of that level of experience too.

 

[mulberryman]

But don't people experience their dreams as they dream them? Avareness does not require retrospective memory. And people can consciously remember things they did unconciously, even though it may require altering their level of counciousness, as in hypnosis. Also, awareness can be achieved without consciousness, as often is the case during somnambulism.

As for ghosts, well I'll admit I cannot explain their existance, but many, inlcuding myself, have experience paranormal activity first hand. How are we to explain such phenonmena as people speaking languages they do not know under hypnonsis, and even physical movement of objects that have been documented and unexplained? Perhaps, conciousness does exist, at least in part, outside of our brains?

 

[Dondante]

Thanks for the input Cognosis. We have some very similar ideas ... I find the definition of life issue quite fascinating myself. The line that is drawn is ultimately arbitrary, which is quite similar to the way that consciousness (awareness) is arbitrarily said to manifest somewhere along the timeline of evolutionary history. One thing that I've been thinking about though is ... what is evolution? What is the basis of the force that seems to oppose entropy? And why isn't it talked about more? Is there any relationship between the order achieved in a crystalline structure and that of DNA-based life forms?

I'm interested in your thoughts on Dennett's shortcomings. Is there an author that gives a similar, but more in depth refutation ... or would you be willing to expand on that? I've always disagreed with Dennett, but have never been able to effectively articulate why. Cognizance is a fascinating topic itself, but the fundamental property of awareness is altogether enchanting. It's on the same plane with metaphysical questions about the ultimate nature of reality, being, and the world.

 

[mulberryman]

Is there any relationship between the order achieved in a crystalline structure and that of DNA-based life forms?

This reminds me, I believe that very unusual life forms resembling worms were recently discovered living inside crystals of certain flammable gases frozen on the ocean floor. If I remember correctly, these worms were not carbon-based organisms and metabolized these gases in a way that crystalized them, not otherwise naturally possible. Not sure how this relates, but...

 

[fastandbulbous]

these worms were not carbon-based organisms

That alone would have got it the front page of every scientific journal, so I think that might be a tad inaccurate as anything other than carbon for a basis for life is saying that there's a life form that doesn't require DNA/RNA to replicate itself. That's up there with finding signals from intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy in terms of newsworthyness (and I've never heard anything about non-carbon life forms except in sci-fi.

 

[swilow]

^A recent New Scientist article suggested that silicon could be a potential bulding block for alien-life forms. Its from within the last three months of editions. Very interesting.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Potential being the operative word. Silcon & carbon are in the same column of the periodic table and so have similar chemical properties, but it's an enormous leap to go from life based on carbon to life based on silicon

 

[B9]

I dunno I reckon you've got to see it from more than one perspective at the same time to follow mulberrymans ramblings. I reckon I get what he's driving at ( I think ) but words are inadequate at best and misleading at worst. That helped make it really clear now didn't it ? 8(

 

[mulberryman]

I wish I could post where I seen it, but alas...

But if I remember correctly, when they tried to remove these worms from the crystals underwater, they actually dissolved into the water, and when brought to the surface they evaporated with the crystals themselves.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Try a Google search & post the refs.

 

[mulberryman]

^^ Ive been trying, I dont think the problem is that google isnt finding it, but finding it within 40,000+ results..

Anyway, I think I remember they saying they weren't even sure if these thing were actually alive at all, could have been chemical reactions that resembled lifeforms. But thats kinda the point of comparing life to the forming of crystals or other chemical reactions since life is basically a chemical reaction too when defined purely physically.

 

[Dondante]

Might this be what you are referring to?

Mynock

A mynock is a black leathery-looking silicon-based organism, that grow up to 1.6 m (5.25 ft) long, with wingspans of up to 1.25 m (4.1 ft), that feed on electrical energy. They are often found leeching power from spacecraft, as mynocks are one of the few species that could live in the vacuum of space, feeding on stellar radiation and "silicon and other minerals from asteroids and other space debris". Mynocks also have bat-like wings which they used to fly in the atmosphere. They reproduced by mitosis.

They were commonly eaten by another silicon-based creature, the space slug. Swarms of mynocks can be found alive, flying around a space slug's innards for a long time before they start to become digested. Found across the galaxy (having spread prolifically from their original system), mynocks tend to flock together, migrating annually in large groups. The most notable of these migrations were the famed migrations of Roon, where the sky could literally become darkened from swarms of these creatures.

Despite being a silicon-based lifeform, a properly prepared mynock could be ingested by carbon-based life forms; they were sometimes used in Twi'lek cuisine. The Jedi Order, in honor of the mynock's skill at evading attack, named a form of lightsaber combat after the beast, called Soresu.

Okay, back on topic now ...

 

[mulberryman]

I guess the real question is, just what has conciousness? Obviously, most people appear to have conciousness, as do many animals, but as our own conciousnesses are limited only to our own awareness, we can never really know the answers to questions such as, does my neighbor, who is a definitive ass who thinks he should be able to let his large aggressive dogs roam free the neighborhood, really have a conciousness? Does my pet cat, who I personally find to be a superior lifeform than my neighbor really have a conciousness? Do mynocks, which do exist, although, simultaniously do, emphatically not exist (see my earlier posts) have conciousness, or for that matter does say an ant, or an amoeba, or even a chemical reaction, or hell, even an electron? Or for that matter do we, in fact, orselves really have conciousness, or is it merely an illusion, and if it is an illusion, does that mean it can still exist, and thus perhaps everything that isn't real really does in fact exist and have meaning?

 

[DivineMomenT]

I'm a bit lost here as everyone has their own opinion, some going in completely different directions, which is good.....I like variety

"Consciousness requires only awareness of the external world."
Using this definition of the word, I would agree that many mammals are indeed conscious. The question of how humans became conscious is one that has been on my mind for years and will be forever. It is simply amazing how far we have come in the last 100 years. Language was most likely the spark that caused our consciousness to evolve into something much more. Language is what sets us apart from other species. Our ability to communicate with one another has enabled us to advance further and further. When a human being is raised under normal circumstances, they will acquire one language or another to communicate with other people and learn what it is to be human. There have been studies where deprived children were found and the findings were disturbing. If a child is improperly socialized they will exhibit behaviors much like those of animals. There is nothing inside of human beings that drives us to be what they are. Each and every second of our lives we are soaking in information from our surroundings, peers, family, but we can selectively choose what information we want to integrate into our lives.

I believe there was some sort of spark that led us to become self aware and I have read my share of Terrance and his theory about the mushrooms is out there, but not too far fetched. All it took was for one human to develop the capacity to communicate and the rest is history.

Compared to other species we might think of ourselves as "Gods", but if there is a little bit of God in all of us, then there is a little bit of God in everything. After all, every particle in the universe is gravitationally connected to one another. In a sense, we are all connected.

Now...why did this all happen? Why humans? Were we the chosen ones? I like to believe that there is something special about the human race because of our ability to think back upon ourselves and make decisions based on past experiences, morals etc, but there is truly something special about all species in the world. I think we highly underestimate the mental capacity of animals. Animals have a completely different prospective of the world but who is to say their reality isn't more true than ours?

We are just another product of evolution and if the conditions would have been any different, who knows what the human race would have ended up like. What about life on other planets? Life as we know it is only able to thrive on planets which are a certain distance from the sun. I was not aware of any forms of life other than carbon based life, but if there are any other forms of life, there are endless possibilities to the number of different intelligent species in the universe. It all boils down to the fact that humans always want to learn more. Some of these questions simply cannot be answered and we will only be able to speculate about some of the marvels of the universe, but collectively we can come up with some damn good theories.

I do know this......I am here to live, love and have a good ass time. I feel truly lucky to be here. If you think about it, millions of other sperm could have impregnated my mother, but I went for the gold and came out 9 months later. Under any different circumstances, I would not exist. The same goes for everyone else here. We might not be here for a reason, but we might as well make use of the time we are alloted, however long that might be. What happens next is what intrigues me.

Hopefully I can contribute more to this thread later....later :0 Thanks everyone....and as always.peace