Esoteric The Main Synchronicity Thread

[swilow]

As I've said before, there is no documted evidence that conciouness arises in the brain organ; some would suggest it is a frequency or 'field' that our brain is capable of receiving, given its physical and chemical makeup. Alter that, and the 'realities' that become perceivable extend beyond the normal spectrum.

 

[Jabberwocky]

What are you talking about, Willow? There's plenty of evidence that consciousness arises in the brain. How about all of the studies on exogenous administration of psychotropic substances as a necessary causal component in a chain of felt subjective shifts in consciousness? Or how about brain lesion studies?

You are on the lunatic fringe if you are claiming the seat of consciousness is not the brain.

Why should we accept this 'field-frequency' theory if it does not cohere with anything we know about neuropharmacology, neurophysiology, or neuropsychology?

I'm open to these types of ideas as long as we cash them out as metaphorical or explanatory for levels of the mind that are easier explained thus. But, lets not conflate the metaphysics though. Surely the mind supervenes on the brain.

Remember, just because something seems like it is the case to you (or anybody else) does not mean that it is. We are poor judges of our own unconscious aspects of consciousness.

 

[B9]

^^^ Neither, it's just a filter!

Agreed!

.........................................................................................................................................................
S_S

I think maybe willow is referring to something 'other' from which awareness of 'things' may spring, as opposed to actual consciousness itself.

Willow may well correct me on this !8(


In which case, yeah he's the lunatic fringe

 

[IGNVS]

from some perspective it would be both. think about how delusional people can get sometimes, i think that as that matrix grows stronger in your mind that more of those seeds grow into something that would kind of be making their minds create a diferent model of reality than is actualy existing, that their believing and adjusting and tweaking thier ogranism to.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

The pattern-forming tendency is an intrinsic function of the unconscious mind. When we allow it to impose itself on our perceptions we see relationships between things that are not apparent to others.

When a person is acutely paranoid they can fit every piece of sense data into their patterns. Thus, everything that happens can be seen as further evidence of 'a conspiracy against me'.

On the flip side....mystics from all times have experienced the entire phenomenal world as a radially symmetrical pattern, its centre coinciding with the centre of focused consciousness. But their experience is a positive one, a mirror image of negative paranoia. The two are complementary expressions of a single experience, that of the centre of a pattern.

I don't know if this gives 'meaning' to our lives. It certainly gives meaning to our interpretations of our lives.

 

[the phoenix]

Consciousness cannot be generated by the brain in a fundamental way in the sense that consciousness continues after physical death. This is confirmed when you begin to realize the extent of metaphysical life in the universe.

But, this is a troubling topic because surely things are synchronized in reality, there are patterns in reality if there is no pattern-perciever....at least to some extent, no?

No, because this difference is relative, and the difference between Self and Other is also relative. This leads to much greater axiomatic complexity of a dynamic nature.

 

[swilow]

What are you talking about, Willow? There's plenty of evidence that consciousness arises in the brain. How about all of the studies on exogenous administration of psychotropic substances as a necessary causal component in a chain of felt subjective shifts in consciousness? Or how about brain lesion studies?

Perhaps these such things merely change the ability of the brain to 'receive' what we call conciousness. You speak as the brain as a generator, whereas I like to think of it as a receiver. Albert Hoffman has many great things to say about this.

You are on the lunatic fringe if you are claiming the seat of consciousness is not the brain.

Conciousness is experienced because we have a brain, but that doesn't mean the brain cause conciousness- it seems to allow us to experience it. Consider the idea of plant spirits; they have no brain, yet are considered sensient. But thankyou for the lunatic compliment. The brain doesn't house the mind- it flows through it like elctricity, and we catch some parts of it and say we're that.

Why should we accept this 'field-frequency' theory if it does not cohere with anything we know about neuropharmacology, neurophysiology, or neuropsychology?

But synchronicity, coincidence, telepathy, telekineseis, the collective unconcious etc are not explained by a brainm shut up and alone in a head...
And what do we know? Not much. A lot of neurological data is theoretical. Anyway, explain such things as the quantum collapse- how does a consciousness housed only in the brain afect external events before they have occurred?

I'm open to these types of ideas as long as we cash them out as metaphorical or explanatory for levels of the mind that are easier explained thus. But, lets not conflate the metaphysics though. Surely the mind supervenes on the brain.

Sometimes you get so wordy I'm just lost. In your view, everything is reduced to matter, materialism. Science rejects theroies that cant be empirically measured- thus the ideas of quantume realms, field of conciousness and such are dismissed. If someting cannot be seen, described, quanitfied it is not real. Now, you can see the connection between brain changes (drugs, lesions, trauma) and changes in perception, thus assuming that the brain is responsible for such changes. Which is totally correct. What is an assumption is that the brain is iteself generating the changes, not receiving different incoming data- ie. a new/different realm of conciousness.

Once you have what can only be described as supernatural, poltergeistic or extra-sensory experiences its hard to think of conciousness as a weird by-proudct of circuits and synapses.

Remember, just because something seems like it is the case to you (or anybody else) does not mean that it is. We are poor judges of our own unconscious aspects of consciousness.

I can say my conciousness appears to be contained in my brain, but I can't say thats where its created. I don't think anyone could. I know my radio doesn't generate the tunes, it receives them via antenae. Who knows, humans could be the same? Either way, I'm not going to close my mind (our mind, the mind, mind-at-large what have you). Its fun to think of these things.... the world is boring otherwise

 

[nbsp]

interesting posts willow. I've given a lot of thought to this whole brain-receiving-consciousness idea; I never realized it was an actual school of thought.

I'm inclined to agree the brain is simply an "engine" on which "consciousness" runs; perhaps only one of many possible alternatives. When it comes down to it, all our awarenesses are simply data: certainly not explained by modern science, perhaps not at all definable by traditional means, but still based on some sort of physical or mathematical constant; still theoretically duplicable or transmittable. However, none of this really says anything about where our consciousness originates, or even what it is.

I'm actually starting to believe more and more it doesn't even exist. But that's an entirely different discussion!

 

[fastandbulbous]

Consciousness cannot be generated by the brain in a fundamental way in the sense that consciousness continues after physical death.

Does it? Who says it does?

 

[swilow]

When it comes down to it, all our awarenesses are simply data: certainly not explained by modern science, perhaps not at all definable by traditional means, but still based on some sort of physical or mathematical constant; still theoretically duplicable or transmittable. However, none of this really says anything about where our consciousness originates, or even what it is.[size]

I would say that our conciousness is the awareness of that sensory data as sensory data. Humnas have the animal brain, but the ability to analyse and be aware of the animal brain or the senses. As yet science hasn't found a good location within the brain structure as to where this "I" that stands behind everything i do is. That clear voice that nothing can really change; the observer.

 

[cognosis]

Chaos does not mean disorder though. Chaotic systems are highly volatile interactions that are incorrectly considered incomprehensible where the initial conditions and all the factors *are not/can not be* taken into account. It does not mean the system is random or chance. Chaos is beautiful hyperlogic. Think about the relationship between Newtonian and Quantum physics. Newtons physics is relative, pertaining to the macro_molar perspective humans on plant earth have. Quantum physics is more about how universal particles move about.

 

[fastandbulbous]

I would say that our conciousness is the awareness of that sensory data as sensory data. Humnas have the animal brain, but the ability to analyse and be aware of the animal brain or the senses. As yet science hasn't found a good location within the brain structure as to where this "I" that stands behind everything i do is. That clear voice that nothing can really change; the observer.

.

While not pinning it down to one place, it's definitely dependant on the brain as if you damage selected areas (not intentionally, but with observations of poor buggers who've had a stroke or other neurological condition), the conciousness/awareness is altered in some pretty bizzare ways. There's a book called 'Phantoms in the brain' by VS Ramachandran that investigates structure to function relationship with regard to conciousness ans it's a bloody interesting read if you're interested in such things

 

[Jabberwocky]

Willow, why should consciousness exist outside and apart from the brain? Look at it from an evolutionary perspective: consciousness was 'selected for' simply as a monitoring device on one's body and external reality. Consciousness is a biological process just like digestion. I think its telling that we're not discussing the mysteries of digestion* (perhaps the stomach-digestion problem) and whether or not digestion could exist without stomachs (or similar devices).

*John Searle's example

 

[IGNVS]

because technicaly the whole earth is just a digestive process from another perspective. its consciousness as understood and expereinced by humans that were talking about though. and if we are talking about our physical life right now as we exist it is the brain that receives and generates (more like fills in the parts that get filtered) OUR consciousness. as far as im aware the extent of that filter would be dependent on the organ of the organism, where one could be more or less concsious than another.

unless we have diferent definitions of consciousness. if you could give me a definition it may clear things up.

 

[B9]

[S_S ]why should consciousness exist outside and apart from the brain?

Why should it not ?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Oh, IGNVS! Very cruel asking someone to define consciousness. Here's my take...

Consciousness is a biological process.

It is a higher order property (ie not found intrinsically in any one component of the physical structure) that emerges from certain organization(s) of natural-physical matter (neurons). Here is where the comparison to digestion is helpful. Digestion 'emerges' from a certain organization of stomach tissues and cellular constructions, it is higher-order in the sense that (like consciousness) it cannot be reduced to these individual components. This sets the stage for an anti-reductionist view of consciouness.

It has been 'selected for' through evolution as a monitoring device on the homeostasis of the organism and functions as a manipulator (both consciously and unconsciously) of bodily states as well as other conscious states.

Consciousness is first-person (subjective) and is not exhausted by third-person (objective) data.

Anybody care to add anything to our definition or dispute anything? Something needs to be said toward the neo-cortical activity of human consciousness.

 

[IGNVS]

like synchronicity of matter. out of the infinate posibilities and as far as we know infinate time, those specific tissue cells, while posibly unaware of their greater function have been catagorized into meaning by the higher organism of which they belong.

"consciousness is first person and is not exhuasted by third person objective data."

what would you say about a collective consciousness then? and a body of conscousness to which we may belong but are not fully aware of?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hey Dude - you're all over the place! I can't handle you!

Define consciousness! Define collective consciousness! Jeez! Easy buddy, easy! 8(

What do you think about collective consciousness? While I believe it is conceptually possible (that two distinct entities inhabit one consciousness), I don't think what we call collective consciousness is really that phenomenon (I think that phenomenon may very likely not be naturally possible - ie possible in this actual world).

I think collective consciousness has more to do with the sharing of 'memes' as well as similar conditioning in the society we are all embedded in. I use it metaphorically for two purposes (one it is a fascinating concept even if its only a conceptual possibility and two it is a handy shorthand to get at this archetypical thought constructions we all share from episodes of, say, Full House and Simpsons).

Your turn! I wuv you wittle IGVNS.

 

[secretagents]

Collective consciousness is just the common awareness/perception of certain subjects/concepts by a certain group of sentient entities IMO. Nothing special or difficult to grasp.

And consciousness is simply the capability of being aware. That's all very simple.

I have edited it lots of times, lol.

 

[psood0nym]

Consciousness is a biological process.

It is a higher order property (ie not found intrinsically in any one component of the physical structure) that emerges from certain organization(s) of natural-physical matter (neurons). Here is where the comparison to digestion is helpful. Digestion 'emerges' from a certain organization of stomach tissues and cellular constructions, it is higher-order in the sense that (like consciousness) it cannot be reduced to these individual components. This sets the stage for an anti-reductionist view of consciouness.

It has been 'selected for' through evolution as a monitoring device on the homeostasis of the organism and functions as a manipulator (both consciously and unconsciously) of bodily states as well as other conscious states.

Consciousness is first-person (subjective) and is not exhausted by third-person (objective) data.

Anybody care to add anything to our definition or dispute anything? Something needs to be said toward the neo-cortical activity of human consciousness.

What is your take on zombies or the Mary Problem? I've never understood why we must experience anything to do things like "learn" to avoid injury etc., and thus to survive. A robot can be programmed to do these things, and I suspect it experiences nothing. After all, simple analogue computers exist whose full workings are visible for inspection, and we can see how, at base, they're not that much different than damn dominoes. It's obvious that their output behavior looks intelligent, but also obvious there is no experience in the fall of dominoes. A computer can beat the best human players of chess, but it doesn't play chess like humans (and humans don't play chess the way it does (trillion chess-positions a minute anyone?)) or understand the spirit of the rules. It's just an extremely complex compiler mechanistically following intricate instructions. We can follow human-written instructions mechanistically off a sheet and start arranging unrecognized ideograms into sequential orders without any understanding emerging about what we're doing, even if later a Chinese reader comes in and congratulates us on writing a great joke (Searl). Or, human beings could arrange themselves into communications networks exactly modeling the neural firing sequences of pain the way a computer might, without that network actually experiencing pain (Chinese Nation). Though some think the network would.

I understand how my shirt emerges from cotton, or how in stereochemistry chemical properties emerge irreducibly not from the substance of their constituents but from the immaterial spatial relationships those constituents hold to one another. But while material description does not exhaust the description of properties emerging from spatial relationships, third-person data still does. This is why I'm a little confused by the analogy you make between the digestive system and the mind: because the digestive system's kind of emergence isn't a problem in the same way the mind's is. To go back to stereochemistry, unlike the physical and mental, it's clear that substance and spatial relation aren't two distinct ontological categories.

That the brain is intrinsic to mental interaction with the physical world is obvious, but Intentionality, the fact that mental events are always about something, and physical events never are, is a huge chasm that in my opinion couldn't distinguish between the two more deeply or decisively. "Aboutness" is fantastically different than "thingness". Epiphenomenalism seems like something from nothing. That the mental can fundamentally emerge meaninglessly from the physical just because purely physical, non-experiential components are arranged complexly in certain ways--despite its being the predominant view among scientists--seems like dogmatic and magical thinking to me that falls far short of what our intuitions tell us. Notice the austere distinction between fundamental intuitions about ourselves and our frequently wrong intuitions about the physical world. As a matter of simple epistemic privilege these latter intuitions are the one's frequently displaced by scientific description and not the former.

Science is an amazing social practice/method that is constantly bringing more under it's methods of understanding. But these methods and ways of understanding are themselves paradigmatic, and an overly broad faith in and application of these paradigms remains because they've been so successful, and will continue to be, in describing the physical world. It's a success that is in retrospect not that surprising, and everyone wants to be on the winning team. Yet despite all its progress in so many other areas and its penetration into psychology and the workings of the brain, we're no closer than the Greeks were in answering the hard how and why questions of consciousness. And it's also not that clear why a neurochemist or a physicist trained to think within the paradigm should have great insight into qualia or Intentionality anymore than a Hollywood starlet should have into conservation or politics either. Maybe this is all just a coincidence and a matter of giving it more time, but then again maybe science's current modes of conception simply can't be mapped onto these more incorrigible problems.