• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Death, your views?

Sl33p3r

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
1,123
Location
Canada
Hey guys
I just got a few questions that im curious to know your views on.

Where do you think you go when you die?

Are you afraid of death, If so/if not why?

But i think if im asking for feedback, i should leave some of my own answers.

Honestly, I have no idea at all where i'll be goin, i try not to think about it. To me this is the scariest thing in life. I dont wanna die, i fear the unknown basically. I dont have much more to say, maybe get some feedback and ill say more.
 
i think if you can properly come to terms with death, accept it as inevitable, you can get on in life much better without having a hidden fear behind everything.
alot of people try to pretend it will never happen, or try to actively not think about it. i think theres alot of things to learn from death. if you hold in mind the fact that your impermanent and have only limited time, it can wake you up from thinking you have all the time in the world.
obviously i have no idea what happens when we die, what i do know is that energy cannot be destroyed, and that the energy that makes me up will forever exist in the universe in some way. i think we 're-join' what we were before we were born, that is, everything else.
but im not afraid of death, atleast not at the moment, maybe when people close to me start dying it will change.
 
I get pretty forthright about this kind of stuff ... as you'll see. ;)

Where do you think you go when you die?
You don't go anywhere. Your consciousness fails, and you turn into a cold lump of meat. The whole idea of an afterlife was invented to comfort people who can't face death. Why should we have a consciousness after we die? We certainly didn't have one before we were born ...

Are you afraid of death, If so/if not why?
Fuck yeah - because I think it's the final end. Still, if you've led a fulfilling life before you die, that at least will be a comfort.

Honestly, I have no idea at all where i'll be goin, i try not to think about it. To me this is the scariest thing in life. I dont wanna die, i fear the unknown basically.
I find that contemplating death just makes me want to get out and make the most of life, while I still have it. My more "spiritual" friends think my view is pessimistic, but it really helps me appreciate life a lot more.
 
I like what the Buddha had to say on this matter, which is basically that the question is unanswerable and when we attempt to answer it we are trying to put the ocean in a box.

"Where does the candle flame go when you blow it out?"

In Buddhist enlightenment, there is an experience of mind that is beyond our own little personal segment of being, and tapping into this indestructable mind has had a calming affect on those practitioners who get there. Where were you before you were born? Any concept we attach to death says more about our fear of the unknown than it does about death; death is not "forever" or "black" or anything of the sort.
 
Osbie Feel said:
We certainly didn't have one before we were born ...
Yup, that's what I think death is like.

As for the question, "we" don't go anywhere when we die. The ego is an illusion. The brain that harbors it stops working and rots. That's about it. Now if you want to talk about a "soul," the influence that "you" had on the world will affect things until the end of time. "You" won't be concious to experiece it, but some part of you will continue on until the end of the universe.

I'm not really afraid of death, but then again, I don;t plan on dying for a long time. I'm either getting frozen, or uploaded, whichever is available first.;) There's not really a whole lot to be afraid of. It sucks for the people who knew you when you die, but you would be completely indifferent. Plus it would be kinda fun to see what dying feels like.
 
death is the beggining life is the practice, your astral self is formed....

.... when you die you travel 'upward' in frequency, well your electromagnetic self (soul) does.....


check this sight out about the string theory and what spossed to happen when you die and all sorts of random info about alien sivilizations blahblah....

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3799.asp

really you should REALLY check out the link... :\
 
" You don't go anywhere. Your consciousness fails, and you turn into a cold lump of meat. The whole idea of an afterlife was invented to comfort people who can't face death. Why should we have a consciousness after we die? We certainly didn't have one before we were born ... "

how do you know that? i used to think like you until i learned through direct experience that conscoussness isn't created by the brain. i'll post this article which gives a rather rough explanation of what i mean:

3. A Sentient Universe


A nature found within all creatures but not restricted to them; outside all creatures, but not excluded from them.

The Cloud of Unknowing


What is consciousness? The word is not easy to define, partly because we use it to cover a variety of meanings. We might say an awake person has consciousness, whereas someone who is asleep does not. Or, someone could be awake, but so absorbed in their thoughts that they have little consciousness of the world around them. We speak of having a political, social, or ecological consciousness. And we may say that human beings have consciousness while other creatures do not, meaning that humans think and are self-aware.

The way in which I shall be using the word consciousness is not in reference to a particular state of consciousness, or a particular way of thinking, but to the faculty of consciousness–the capacity for inner experience, whatever the nature or degree of the experience.


"For every psychological term in English there are four in Greek and forty in Sanskrit."

A. K. Coomaraswamy



The faculty of consciousness can be likened to the light from a video projector. The projector shines light on to a screen, modifying the light so as to produce any one of an infinity of images. These images are like the perceptions, sensations, dreams, memories, thoughts, and feelings that we experience–what I call the "contents of consciousness." The light itself, without which no images would be possible, corresponds to the faculty of consciousness

We know all the images on the screen are composed of this light, but we are not usually aware of the light itself; our attention is caught up in the images that appear and the stories they tell. In much the same way, we know we are conscious, but we are usually aware only of the many different perceptions, thoughts and feelings that appear in the mind. We are seldom aware of consciousness itself.

Consciousness in All

The faculty of consciousness is not limited to human beings. A dog may not be aware of all the things of which we are aware. It does not think or reason as humans do, and it probably does not have the same degree of self-awareness, but this does not mean that a dog does not have its own inner world of experience.

When I am with a dog, I assume that it has its own mental picture of the world, full of sounds, colors, smells and sensations. It appears to recognize people and places, much as we might. A dog may at times show fear, and at other times excitement. Asleep, it can appear to dream, feet and toes twitching as if on the scent of some fantasy rabbit. And when a dog yelps or whines we assume it is feeling pain–indeed, if we didn’t believe that dogs felt pain, we wouldn’t bother giving them anesthetics before an operation.

If dogs possess consciousness then so do cats, horses, deer, dolphins, whales, and other mammals. They may not be self-conscious as we are, but they are not devoid of inner experience. The same is true of birds; some parrots, for example, seem as aware as dogs. And if birds are sentient beings, then so, I assume, are other vertebrates–alligators, snakes, frogs, salmon, and sharks. However different their experiences may be, they all share the faculty of consciousness.

The same argument applies to creatures further down the evolutionary tree. The nervous systems of insects are not nearly as complex as ours, and insects probably do not have as rich an experience of the world as we do, but I see no reason to doubt that they have some kind of inner experience.

Where do we draw the line? We usually assume that some kind of brain or nervous system is necessary before consciousness can come into being. From the perspective of the materialist metaparadigm, this is a reasonable assumption. If consciousness arises from processes in the material world, then those processes need to occur somewhere, and the obvious candidate is the nervous system.

But then we come up against the inherent problem of the materialist metaparadigm. Whether we are considering a human brain with its tens of billions of cells, or a nematode worm with a hundred or so neurons, the problem is the same: How can any purely material process ever give rise to consciousness?

Panpsychism

The underlying assumption of the current metaparadigm is that matter is insentient. The alternative is that the faculty of consciousness is a fundamental quality of nature. Consciousness does not arise from some particular arrangement of nerve cells or processes going on between them, or from any other physical features; it is always present.

If the faculty of consciousness is always present, then the relationship between consciousness and nervous systems needs to be rethought. Rather than creating consciousness, nervous systems may be amplifiers of consciousness, increasing the richness and quality of experience. In the analogy with a video projector, having a nervous system is like having a lens in the projector. Without the lens there is still light on the screen, but the images are much less sharp.

In philosophical circles the idea that consciousness is in everything is called panpsychism, from the Greek pan, meaning all, and psyche, meaning soul or mind. Unfortunately, the words soul and mind suggest that simple life forms may possess qualities of consciousness found in human beings. To avoid this misunderstanding some contemporary philosophers use the term panexperientialism–everything has experience. Personally, I prefer the term pansentience–everything is sentient.

Whatever name this position is given, its basic tenet is that the capacity for inner experience could not evolve or emerge out of entirely insentient, non-experiencing matter. Experience can only come from that which already has experience. Therefore the faculty of consciousness must be present all the way down the evolutionary tree.

We know that plants are sensitive to many aspects of their environment–length of daylight, temperature, humidity, atmospheric chemistry. Even some single-celled organisms are sensitive to physical vibration, light, and heat. Who is to say they do not have a corresponding glimmer of awareness? I am not implying they perceive as we do, or that they have thoughts or feelings, only that they possess the faculty of consciousness; there is a faint trace of sentience. It may be a billionth of the richness and intensity of our own experience, but it is still there.

According to this view, there is nowhere we can draw a line between conscious and non-conscious entities; there is a trace of sentience, however slight, in viruses, molecules, atoms, and even elementary particles.

Some argue this implies that rocks perceive the world around them, perhaps have thoughts and feelings, and enjoy an inner mental life similar to human beings. This is clearly an absurd suggestion, and not one that was ever intended. If a bacterium’s experience is a billionth of the richness and intensity of human being’s, the degree of experience in the minerals of a rock might be a billion times dimmer still. They would possess none of the qualities of human consciousness–just the faintest possible glimmer of sentience.

The Evolution of Consciousness

If the faculty of consciousness is universal, then consciousness is not something that emerged with human beings, or with vertebrates, or at any particular stage of biological evolution. What emerged over the course of evolution was not the faculty of consciousness, but the various qualities and dimensions of conscious experience–the contents of consciousness.

The earliest living organisms, bacteria and algae, had no sensory organs and detected only the most general characteristics and changes in their environment. Their experience might be likened to an extremely dim, almost imperceptible hint of light on an otherwise dark screen–virtually nothing compared to the richness and detail of human experience.

With the evolution of multicellular organisms came the emergence of specific senses. Some cells specialized in sensing light, others in sensing vibration, pressure, or changes in chemistry. Working together, such cells formed sensory organs, increasing the detail and quality of the information available to the organism–and enhancing the quality of consciousness.

In order to process this additional information and distribute it to other parts of the organism, nervous systems evolved. And, as the flow of information became more complex, central processing systems developed, integrating the different sensory modalities into a single picture of the world.

As brains grew in complexity, new features were added to the image appearing in consciousness. With mammals the limbic system appeared, an area of the brain associated with basic feelings such as fear, arousal, and emotional bonding. With time, the mammalian the brain grew yet more complex, developing a new structure around it, the cerebral cortex. With this came better memory, focused attention, greater intention, and imagination.

The picture appearing in consciousness had by now reached the richness of detail and diversity of qualities that we associate with our own experience. But this is not the end of the story. With human beings another new capacity emerged–speech. And with this, the evolution of consciousness took a huge leap forward.

For a start, we could use words to communicate experiences with each other. Our awareness of the world was no longer limited to what our senses told us; we could know of events occurring in other places and at other times. We could learn from each other’s experiences, and so begin to accumulate a collective body of knowledge about the world.

Most significantly, we began to use language internally. Hearing words in our minds without actually saying them, allowed us to talk to ourselves. An entirely new dimension had been added to our consciousness–verbal thought. We could form concepts, entertain ideas, appreciate patterns in events, apply reason, and begin to understand the universe in which we found ourselves.

Then came the most important leap of all. Not only could we reflect upon the nature of the world around us, we could also reflect upon thinking itself. We became self-aware–aware of our own awareness. This opened the door to a whole new arena of development. We could begin to explore the inner world of the mind and, ultimately, delve into the nature of consciousness itself.


http://www.peterussell.com/SG/ch3.html
 
where do we go? Heaven or Hell.

Am i afraid? Not one bit. I look forward to the afterlife, its what i live for. :)
 
why not live for this life as well? it's possible to attain oneness with God and see the kingdom while still in a physical body.
 
the seeker said:
" i used to think like you until i learned through direct experience that conscoussness isn't created by the brain.

LOL, good one dude. oh wait...8(

I didn;t take the time to read through that steaming pile of bullshit, I tried, but when I got to this I stopped:

"When I am with a dog, I assume that it has its own mental picture of the world, full of sounds, colors, smells and sensations."

Seems to be assuming an awful lot, at least some of which we know is flat out wrong. If you don;t think conciousness is created by the brain you need a serious reality check. There's tons of literature about brain damage and how it affects the concious experience. I'l try and get through the rest of your post, and if I'm wrong I'll be sure to correct myself. I seriously doubt its going to happen tho.
 
Alright I read it. The logic is valid, however in order for it to be true you must accept the premises. First of all, I disagree with the author's definition of conciousness. Conciousness means that there is some element of self-awareness, the experiencer recognizes the difference between itself and its environment. A rock would not be able to do this because it has no senses with which to even know that there is an outside world.
Then we have "The faculty of consciousness is not limited to human beings."
If by conciousness we mean self-awareness then there have been experiments like the mirror test which show that dogs and most other animals are not aware of themselves. Of course the authors definition is very loose, so this seems not to apply to his argument.
"We usually assume that some kind of brain or nervous system is necessary before consciousness can come into being. "
It would certainly seem that way. After all, the author was just arguing that insects do not have the same experience as us because their nervous system is less developed. by extension, something with no nervous system at all would not have an experience.
"Consciousness does not arise from some particular arrangement of nerve cells or processes going on between them, or from any other physical features; it is always present."
Another premise we must accept for this to be the truth. The author doesn;t show this in any way, we are jsut expected to believe him.
"Rather than creating consciousness, nervous systems may be amplifiers of consciousness" Reeeeal scientific. Sources please.
I could go on, but you get the point. This is just some whacked out theory that expects you to accept its truth as the basis for the argument. But then again, so is most religion, so believe what you want.
 
I personally feel our DEEP unconscious fear of death is the root cause of so many miseries in life. Like the "treadmill existance" of trying to constantly earn as many achievements, possessions, promiscuous sexual relationships, power and other external material pursuits that we can possibly achieve.

Anyone who says they are unafraid of death- who hasn't experienced death in a "holotropic" state of consciousness is lying. We are all unconsciously terrified of the final biological destruction.- it rules the world.

As for what I think about life after death- I don't have anything clearly defined yet as I'm still on my -rite of passage- but right now I'm inclining on universal consciousness. How our adventures in consciousness truely begin when we meet our biological demise.

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

"the Universe is not only weirder than we imagine, it's weirder than we can imagine"
 
paranormality said:
death is the beggining life is the practice, your astral self is formed....

.... when you die you travel 'upward' in frequency, well your electromagnetic self (soul) does.....


check this sight out about the string theory and what spossed to happen when you die and all sorts of random info about alien sivilizations blahblah....

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3799.asp

really you should REALLY check out the link... :\

Interesting read paranomarlity. thanks for that.

And the seeker, thanks as well.

Osbie feel, i disagree. Personally i have had an expierence, which proves (to me at least) that there is an afterlife.
Ill share it if any of you are intrested.
 
oh man, i had a whole long reply typed out and i lost it. damn. here is what i rememnber:

the idea that consciousness arises from a specific arrangment of matter in the brain is no different from a religious beleif. you may claim that its based on logic or evidence but really there is no evidence that proves or suggests this. yes we know changes to the brain affect consciousss experience but that would also be true under the other theories. you claim we must accept the author's premises but why should we accept your premise that consciousness can arise from a specific arrangement of matter? why do certain arrangements of matter lead to a consciouss experience and others do not? explain that. there is a thing called occam's razer which states that we should make no more assumptions necessary to answer a question. if we assume conciousness as fundamental we need no further assumptions. however, if we assume the insentience of matter we need to make EXTRAORDINARY assumptions to explain experience. in addition eistein showed that all matter was really energy condensed in lower vibration, therefore nothing but energy exists and conscioiusness is really a form of energy (energy is consciousness to be more accurate). the brain directs and conducts energy.


also, if we look at this form an evolutionary prospective we see it makes far more sense to assume consciousness as fundamental. if conciousness is simply produced by the brain then why wouldnt it simply be "along for the ride"? how would it double back and affect the behavior of an organism? if the brain works like a computer what is the need for consciousness at all? it could run perfectly well mechanically and indeed what possible advantage could consciousness provide? are you suggesting that at some point because of some random genetic mutation an organism was sunddenly born with experience over its insentient brothers and sisters? absurd. even if true this elementary consciousness would pose no a survial advantage because it wouldnt be able to influence the behavior of the organism and thus conciousness would never have been a trait that was passed on.

here are some links that argue against the reductionalist approach to consciiousness and provide an alternate explanation:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~dolascetta/MetaFrameSet.html


in my last post i had the arguments summarized but i am too lazy to type it again so you will have read them for youself.


in closing id like to say that i used to be a materialist just like yourself only eventually i stopped blindly accepting the materiast paradigm and started asking my questions. i found that satisfactory answers to my questions could only befound outside the materiast paradigm and indeed modern science, such as string theory, does not support the materialist paradigm. there have also been many people like myself, timothy leary, alexander shulgin, etc who were materialst scientists but then completely changed their worldviews when they experienced the pure conciousness via psychedelics. and everyone can have an experence of the pure conciousness nature of reality, even you and even without drugs. either all these people were completely nuts or they were on to something and i believe they were onto something. and i predict that within the next century the materialist paradigm will fade and scientists will come up with a completely new view of the universe, just as fundamental christianity will fade. i really have no desire to debate this further though because i can't really prove anything more than i have already attempted to do just as you can't prove your theory. basically i think if you will take an honest logical look at this problem and apply occam's razer you'll see that there is no reason to assume anything beyond the pure consciousness view of the universe. we all know experience exists but we truly don't know if anything else exists. but my goal is here is not to convince anyone anything because i realize you are attatched to your beliefs and will have a hard time giving them up over what some wacko on the internet has to say. im just trying to give you some things to think about that maybe one day you will be open to the pure consciousness that i and many others have discovered.

edit: just a couple more questions to think about:

would an unconsciouss universe exist? if so how and where would it exist?

does the brain exist in the mind?
 
Last edited:
Well a couple months ago, i was moved a couple hours north from where i live to get off drugs. At this time i was clean for a couple months. I was goin to counselling for my mom (she died from cancer when i was 13) (im 16 now). I was told to write a letter to here, i guess to get some feelings out or whatever. In the letter one of the thing i mentioned is for here, if she is still around and if she can see this to give me a sign. Throughout the day nothing, i was dissapointed. Later that night, went to bed.

At about 3:00am, i woke up for no reason at all. I open my eyes and what do i see? I see a vivid but still clear image of my mom standing just across the room. I remember saying something, because i beilived that much she was there. At the time, no DRUGS were involved at all, so to me this is proof. Ever since then, i have felt a precence of here, which i couldnt feel before.
 
the seeker said:
the idea that consciousness arises from a specific arrangment of matter in the brain is no different from a religious beleif. you may claim that its based on logic or evidence but really there is no evidence that proves or suggests this. yes we know changes to the brain affect consciousss experience but that would also be true under the other theories.
its a lot different from a religious belief. Religon=no evidence, faith. This on the other hand has lots of evidence to back it up. Why when we look at brain scans can we actually watch changes as they relate to the concious experience? Why if your visual cortex gets damaged can you not see? I could go on and on. If the brains purpose is not conciousness then what is it there for? It seems an awfully complicated machine to just control breathing and other essential funtions. There are core regions of our brain that do this, and they are actually essentially the same as a reptile's brain. further evidence agaisnt the authors claim that reptiles are concious.
you claim we must accept the author's premises but why should we accept your premise that consciousness can arise from a specific arrangement of matter?
because all the evidence points to it?
why do certain arrangements of matter lead to a consciouss experience and others do not? explain that.
We don;t know yet. That in itself proves nothing tho.
there is a thing called occam's razer which states that we should make no more assumptions necessary to answer a question. if we assume conciousness as fundamental we need no further assumptions. however, if we assume the insentience of matter we need to make EXTRAORDINARY assumptions to explain experience.
I'm well aware of Occams razor. You need to assume that conciousness permeates the universe. I need to assume that certain arrangements of matter lead to conciousness. How is mine any more complicated than yours? Add into the mix that tons of evidence points to my views, while there is jack shit to show for yours. I didn;t pull my view out of my ass, I looked at scientific studies that point to it. all you have is Tim Leary on acid. by the way, Tim Leary is a crackpot, don;t put too much stock in what he says.
in addition eistein showed that all matter was really energy condensed in lower vibration, therefore nothing but energy exists and conscioiusness is really a form of energy (energy is consciousness to be more accurate). the brain directs and conducts energy.
I agree with everything here except your little twist on the end. Here's a little game for you. We have a box full of balls of all different colors. Lets say you pull out a ball and its red. Ok now we know some of the balls are red. Does it follow that all of the balls are red? Of course not, but that's what you've just done here.
also, if we look at this form an evolutionary prospective we see it makes far more sense to assume consciousness as fundamental. if conciousness is simply produced by the brain then why wouldnt it simply be "along for the ride"? how would it double back and affect the behavior of an organism?
Who says it does? The question of free will has plagued philosophers for ages, we really don;t have an answer for it.
if the brain works like a computer what is the need for consciousness at all? it could run perfectly well mechanically and indeed what possible advantage could consciousness provide? are you suggesting that at some point because of some random genetic mutation an organism was sunddenly born with experience over its insentient brothers and sisters? absurd.
You're right, that is quite absurd. Good thing it wasn;t me who said that or I might be a little embarassed right now. After what was probably lots of mutations over many years, the human brain eventually got wired in such a way that it looped back on itself. Maybe this was an accident, maybe it wasn;t. But it certainly led to many evolutionary advantages. The author of your article touched on them. We became aware of our own thoughts and developed language. We were able to communicate with one another. we developed morals.
would an unconsciouss universe exist? if so how and where would it exist?

does the brain exist in the mind?
what do you mean how? look at the universe a few billion years after the big bang. there was no life, was the universe concious then? Asking where the universe is located is a ridiculous question.

does the brain exist in the mind? ummmmm, i guess everything that we percieve is only what the mind tells us, so if you're asking it in that sense than yes.
 
elemenohpee said:
its a lot different from a religious belief. Religon=no evidence, faith. This on the other hand has lots of evidence to back it up. Why when we look at brain scans can we actually watch changes as they relate to the concious experience? Why if your visual cortex gets damaged can you not see? I could go on and on. If the brains purpose is not conciousness then what is it there for? It seems an awfully complicated machine to just control breathing and other essential funtions. There are core regions of our brain that do this, and they are actually essentially the same as a reptile's brain. further evidence agaisnt the authors claim that reptiles are concious.http://i.bluelight.ru/l/misc/spacer.gif
.

ok, i said i didn't want to argue this anymore but i will respond just to let you know you didn't understand me. i clearly stated changes in the brains would still affect consciouss experience if consciousness was fundamental. thus they cannot be interpreted as evidence in favor of your specific theory of consciousness. that would be like saying einstein relativity is wrong because of newton's laws of motion. and when did i say the brain was only their to control breathing? i said it directed consciousness. you've demonstrated a very low understanding of what i said.

because all the evidence points to it?

as i explained, there is no evidence that points to it over the other theories.

We don;t know yet. That in itself proves nothing tho.

it proves your theory is not a complete explanation and relies on major and umfounded assumptions. why should i accept your assumption that specific arragements of matter would cause consciouss experience? this is THE question that must be explained by a theory of consciousness. if you don't even know this yet what good is your theory?

I'm well aware of Occams razor. You need to assume that conciousness permeates the universe. I need to assume that certain arrangements of matter lead to conciousness. How is mine any more complicated than yours? Add into the mix that tons of evidence points to my views, while there is jack shit to show for yours. I didn;t pull my view out of my ass, I looked at scientific studies that point to it. all you have is Tim Leary on acid. by the way, Tim Leary is a crackpot, don;t put too much stock in what he says.

because your theory requires more extraordinary assumptions. i only need one assumption, namely that consciousness exists. you need to assume first that matter exists and then that it somehow creates conscousness. also it is YOUR OPINION that tim leary was a crackpot, not objective fact ( i do happen to agree with you but he did have some good ideas). i only named him to prove that a materialist can be completely transformed in their worldview by a consciouss expeirence. i also named shulgin. there are countless more people. now you can keep saying that your ideas has tons of evidence to support it, yet whrere is that evidence? you haven't provided ANY. as i explained all the "evidence" you mentioned would also be tryue under other theories. you didn't read the links i posted.

You're right, that is quite absurd. Good thing it wasn;t me who said that or I might be a little embarassed right now. After what was probably lots of mutations over many years, the human brain eventually got wired in such a way that it looped back on itself. Maybe this was an accident, maybe it wasn;t. But it certainly led to many evolutionary advantages. The author of your article touched on them. We became aware of our own thoughts and developed language. We were able to communicate with one another. we developed morals.

so youre claiming the brain suddenly became a consciouss mind? how and when did that happen? what advantage was there?

what do you mean how? look at the universe a few billion years after the big bang. there was no life, was the universe concious then? Asking where the universe is located is a ridiculous question.
hat the mind tells us, so if you're asking it in that sense than yes.

why is it a rediculous question?


forget the first article and read the links i posted for you. there is a liot of interesting research going on in the field of consciousness right now. if you can read those links and understand the problems they are discussing then reply to them. their arguments are much more clearly stated then mine. i want you to repsond to those articles and not simply my posts because i am not going to take the time to type out whats in those articles for you.

but anyway, i say we just agree to dissagree because i cant prove my positon and you cant prove yours. we are not to going to reach any definite answer by arguing here so its really not worth my time.
 
Last edited:
It would take too much time to go through and deconstruct those entire webpages, I'll do the first parts of them in hopes that you get the idea. From http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html
An approach to the mind-body problem based on physical laws has been advocated by several thinkers. Quantum Theory has been particularly intriguing for scientists eager to provide a physical explanation of consciousness.

Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter
completely baseless. Please show me a journal article.
(the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all),
we haven;t looked at anythign that would explain in any way how conciousness would be possible, we don;t understand it at all. how would studying the structure of the brain make us understand less?
which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material.
how? he doesn;t explain this at all.
Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable...
Hit the nail on the head. glad he correctly diagnosed this one so I didn;t have to. Although how is quantum mechanics magic?
On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations.
Not on the scale of neurons. quantum mechanics ony comes into play at distances shorter than an atom. That's like saying that we can't model the path of a thrown ball without taking into account quantum effects.
First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller.
Again, not at the quantum scale.
What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation.
No, no its not.
No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine.

The true pioneer of this field is the biologist Alfred Lotka, who in 1924, when Quantum Theory had barely been born, proposed that the mind controls the brain by modulating the quantum jumps that would otherwise lead to a completely random existence.
The mind controling the brain? So if the mind is the conscious part and the brain is merely matter, why does the brain need to exist? This statement is confusing.
The first detailed quantum model of consciousness was probably the American physicist Evan Walker's synaptic tunneling model (1970), in which electrons can "tunnel" between adjacent neurons, thereby creating a virtual neural network overlapping the real one. It is this virtual nervous system that produces consciousness and that can direct the behavior of the real nervous system. The real nervous system operates by means of synaptic messages. The virtual one operates by means of the quantum effect of tunneling (particles passing through an energy barrier that classically they should not be able to climb). The real one is driven by classical laws, the virtual one by quantum laws. Consciousness is therefore driven by quantum laws, even if the brain's behavior can be described by classical laws.
I'd like to see the journal he published this in. any jack off can come up with a theory. If it can stand up to peer-review then I'll pay attention.

and the question is ridiculous because physical space only exists in the universe. to ask where the universe exists, it doesn;t make any sense.
 
Top