Reincarnation and conciousness: Scientific perspective

[panic in paradise]

I'll just leave this here.

As i've said, science can often be a lot more interesting and mysterious than anything supernatural

well, truth is stranger then fiction,
but whats so super about what is natural?
(w/o a flare of imagination)

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Why are we all so certain that conciousness isn't machinelike? Especially when we're not even sure what consciousness is, or even whether it is at all?

When steam engines were cutting edge technologies, people imagined the mind to work similarly to a steam engine. There is a long tradition of likening the mind to a machine, typically the most cutting edge machines out there at the time. It's always possible that our machinecraft is progressing in a direction that's getting closer and closer to approximating the structure and function of the human mind. But just as likely not.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

i'm not really sure why we're not just exceptionally complex organic machines, is there any evidence otherwise? but this may be because i see a dichotomy- us = machines = physicalism vs us != machines = something supernatural about us.

I see this dichotomy in this debate too, and I don't like it. It irks me how trying to cut through this dichotomy and show how it doesn't necessarily hold true gets me labeled an obscurantist. It irks me how philosophy of mind has become a game where you're not really welcome if you're not pro-physicalism a priori.

 

[MattPsy]

Yes, I'm aware of the steam engine argument, but it would appear that computation really is the ground floor as it were as its the only description of reality we've found that maps directly onto both math and physics, which are both, needless to say, spectacularly successful in a way no other fields can really match. (See: information theory as it pertains to entropy, and related topics)
Is there anything more pure than math and logic?

I don't think it's any accident at all that the more complicated our machines become the less inclined we are to think of them as machines. It would seem that we name something a machine when we can clearly see how it works. The more layers of abstraction between hardware and the top level of software, the more magical it seems. This is probably even more extreme when dealing with systems with architecture where there is no (or little) identifiable levels of organisation, when they are level-crossing hierarchies - strange loops.

 

[panic in paradise]

the point of yoga is to find a balance between the mind and body, to attain a greater awareness of consciousness. not to think you are then able to exclude information, as seems convenient, but to be open to your surroundings and info being taken in.


Kundalini, is so fundamental, that it is what inspired the Rx logo
i never believed in Reincarnation until a few months ago actually, after awakening my kundalini-energy, wittingly finally...

Kurt Kreuzer of the University of California, Berkeley says: "Even in the best of circumstances, the joy associated with the awakening of kundalini is likely to be attended with a certain amount of anxiety as kundalini wrests control from the ego and unconscious contents spill over into consciousness." At worst, kundalini awakening can push people into psychotic episodes characterized by visual and auditory hallucinations and bizarre behavior, he admits, and some victims "remain tormented for a lifetime." Teachers should be experienced enough to guide students through such crises and, when necessary, help find therapeutic interventions, he said.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/385844-what-are-the-dangers-of-kundalini-yoga/#ixzz1hgXNwwdc

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Hmm... that's an interesting way to think of it. When it gets down to it, can a mathematical equation like 1+1=2 be considered in essence a very, very simple machine? If an inclined plane is a very simple machine, wouldn't an algebraic function be one too?

I really do think all of physical reality as we know it might boil down to pure information. I know the consensus in chemistry is that subatomic particles that make up atoms are best conceived of as units of information, rather than as forms. Or rather, at that level, form and information cease to have any distinction.

 

[MattPsy]

Absolutely they are. The class for these operations is cellular automata. (on this note, the laws of physics themselves might very well be thought of like cell-rules for automata; perhaps this is what quantum uncertainty actually arises from - without knowing the full state of the system we might simply be working on insufficient information to see true determinism - then again, maybe not! I'm very interested to see what theoretical physics tells us over the next few decades!)

Your second point: Indeed,this is what I meant, mostly, when I said "map onto"; organisation of matter and information have pkenty in common. For example, a state of infinite entropy is where a description of the state cannot be compressed at all - there is no more succinct way of expressing its state because it it completely random, containing no pattern at all. And then math contains features like this, like pi, and other irrational numbers, where the full set can never be fully expanded because it is defined recursively. You'll note these are heavily computation-related terms . (forgive me if you already know this stuff! I just find it interesting.)

 

[B9]

but there is a difference between conscious and self conscious

Depends on what you mean by that.

If consciousness occupies all matter then I think the difference you refer to is a matter of the capability of more "complex" natural systems to focus on the physical world. Animals are predominantly focussed on this realm of existence but if consciousness occupies say earth or water then it would lack the systems we use to make sense of the world.
That doesn't mean it lacks self consciousness, it just cannot perform any action in our timeframe which would ever be given the title of conscious action.
Action is not necessarily required for consciousness.
I think it's a matter of interpretation, obviously some people believe consciousness magically springs only from complex natural systems - measurably I'd agree - but I believe that consciousness is universal.

Of course your post may have been ambiguous in which case well done & Merry Christmas

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

I can see religious adherents saying thast the universe is pure information and the processor is the mind of the gods. I dont claim to be versed in any of these computational models however the fact that atoms are comprised almosty entirely of empty space and an infitie refression of sub atomic particles supports the idea that the universe is fundamentally information.
Consciousness suggests that rather than being pure information we ourselves generate informaiton - do we not construct reality ourselves rather than reality being a fixed constant?

 

[B9]

I think reality is an ever changing constant ( how wonderful is that ?), our attempts to make sense of reality are snapshots in time both in a scientific sense & a psychological sense IMO.