Salyavin, I've been rereading your exchanges with Judy and others and attempting to follow the ideas with mixed success. I even read Chalmers! So I'm really glad you commented here because I am struggling with the whole thing despite my TM background. Anyway, I'm not even sure what to ask. Ok, you say an injection of ether takes awareness with it. Does this mean that ether or its lack is the fundamental truth of existence? Again, I'm not even sure what to ask so any feedback along those lines is also appreciated.
It sounds like you're saying that consciousness cannot exist without a functioning structure. Am I understanding that correctly? ________________________________ From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodle...@mail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Doc, I keep coming back to this. It seems to be the most basic truth, the only one we can know absolutely: awareness exists. I think a general anaesthetic is a damn fine way of demonstrating the biological nature of consciousness. Just a little bit of ether and things shut down, taking awareness with it. > ________________________________ > From: "doctordumbass@..." <doctordumbass@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel > Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S > > > >  > I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the > answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in > the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or > an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I > will probably never know the answer, absolutely. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "doctordumbass@" <doctordumbass@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel > > Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S > > > > > > > >  > > Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or > > awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, > > you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't > > necessary. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > > <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > complex and assume that it must have been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by something more complex. This was Darwins > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > genius > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as he showed it isn't the case where biology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But not where human consciousness is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a belief. And a strange one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for > > > > > > > > > > human > > > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which words did you not understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my > > > > > > > heartbeat. > > > > > > > > > > > > Non sequitur. > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > The heartbeat is a biological thing. > > > > > > > > > > And I guess the brain isn't...... > > > > > > > > You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain > > > > is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well > > > > not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is > > > > biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. > > > > > > That's really anything funny you know. > > > > > > To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. > > > Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability > > > for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict > > > how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains > > > were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't > > > rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, > > > they believe sorts of weird stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mystical types start from the wrong place. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant > > > > > > thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or > > > > > > believers in God who make the points I'm making. > > > > > > > > > > So? > > > > > > > > So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain > > > > consciousness without being a mystic, which means you > > > > can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a > > > > "mystical type" (if I even am). > > > > > > > > > > And where they start from is the fact that the biology of > > > > > > evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how > > > > > > > an alternative might fit in? > > > > > > > > > > > > An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing > > > > > > wrong with evolution as it is. > > > > > > > > > > Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? > > > > > > > > Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look > > > > elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why > > > > would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to > > > > all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, > > > > it's a flaw in our expectations. > > > > > > > > > PS I know what the "hard" problem is. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be > > > > some excuse for your inability to contribute anything > > > > thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, > > > > but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to "win" > > > > without having to do any work. > > > > > > Win what? > > > > > > > You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation > > > > if it doesn't interest you. > > > > > > I'm withdrawing because you haven't offered anything new yet. > > > We just go back to where we start. You won't get anywhere without > > > evidence that brains aren't capable of creating consciousness and > > > as every step in brain imaging and understanding gets us closer > > > to thoughts, how to measure them and where they come from, some > > > might say the mystics are in for a bit of a disappointment. Which > > > shouldn't be the case as learning stuff is worth it for its own > > > sake but a majority still believe in gods and afterlives so it's > > > going to be tricky to convince them and it's probably the sort > > > of thing that people will think they can take or leave and it > > > won't matter, and they'd be right in every practical way. > > > > > >
