I whole heartedly agree with, "an ultimately physical basis for consciousness". I see the 'extreme skepticism' as simply a point of view. It does not allow for the "physical basis" to extend the "consciousness" that is, in part, of the mind which is scientifically proven to be a generated energy field which reaches beyond the physical body. I believe this allows for the collective consciousness/ intelligence and *experiences* labeled soul and spirit, etc.
There is one thing that is 'absolutely' 'common' to all theories and beliefs of spiritual and things beyond our physical existence. They are presented from the 'ultimate physical base'. The beliefs do not exist without 'Life here and now'. Consciousness of the energy that composes our existence is based in Life here and now. Life IS here and now "*IS*" the ABSOLUTE. peace & Love On Jun 30, 4:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “I tend strongly to an ultimately physical basis for consciousness and > am extremely skeptical about terms such as collective consciousness, > soul, spirit, etc. in this area.” – fran > > So often I hear this view. There was a time when anything other than > the ‘obvious’ physical nature of the base of consciousness would have > seemed absurd to me. And, I’m sure this topic has been examined ad > nauseam. Yet, a short foray, taking a little time to look seems to be > called for. > > First, I claim absolutely no expertise here and in fact am looking for > insights. When I look for a physical basis of mind/consciousness, > while one can point to the brain, point to measuring devices finding > specific areas of the brain to cause similar reactions on such devices > along with an entire history of surgery, drug and other machinations > associated with it, when I simply move from macro to micro it no > longer appears. > > Of course, all this points out is that we, apprehending directly the > appearances of a physical universe at a specific scale, do in fact > attach our basis of reality upon it. And, there is nothing wrong with > doing so. It does seem inappropriate to make sweeping conclusions from > one level of observation though. > > Since ‘science’, in this case specifically trained humans with > specific instruments, can ‘see’, albeit not directly, a much larger as > well as a much much smaller scale, how does this fit into our sweeping > ontologies? For me, just one simple trip down the rabbit hole noticing > how our brain is in fact not only gray matter but cells and cells that > are made up of molicules…atoms etc. causes great pause. Defined at > ‘our’ level of observation, yes, one can say there is a lot of > ‘physical’ activity and that much of it has become familiar and > predictable. To ignore this is only ignorant. And, taking that one > simple step down the scale into, say an atomic level where the very > notion of ‘physical’ becomes unclear can be an eye opener. And we are > not talking about an excuse to reject physical bases for > consciousness, just explore the terrain a little more. > > So, since ‘we’ (some of us that is) have a fairly clear vision of how > things work at the sub atomic level, how does this affect our > considerations of how things work at our level? Need it? For some, no… > And, without even thinking about going down to the levels of strings > etc, what the majority of humans believe that things physical in fact > are just seems to melt away again. > > If others have ideas to add here, cool…I’m stopping here for now. > > On Jun 29, 3:15 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Nudged by you ladies out of solipsistic tendencies, I stand humbly > > corrected. The explosion into the interpersonal is like the Wizard of > > Oz switching from b/w to colour. Follow the yellow brick road ... > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRLjpXLEp1A > > > Francis > > > On 30 Jun., 00:03, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Assuming that you don't really mean mind means consciousness that is > > > not limited to the physical or chemical aspects of the human being but > > > that you wanted to create a bridge to Francis' mind doesn't stop me > > > from seeing that your hint at Francis that his model is lacking the > > > communicational dimension is correct. > > > > Francis, upgrade your IT model to an ICT model and your spherical > > > headaches will fall into its proper place. > > > > On 29 Jun., 14:59, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Bruce Lipton gives us a contemporary human model of communication > > > > between atom, gene, cell, body, brain, mind and back again. The mind > > > > meaning our consciousness that is not limited to the physical or > > > > chemical aspects of our being. He contends that 95% of our mind > > > > function and even behavior is originated in the subconscious or > > > > unconscious, only 5% coming from a conscious thought. He seems to > > > > include ego function in the 95% as it contains all of the pre- > > > > programmed tracts that draw our reactive behavior. I think that these > > > > percentages vary greatly between people and I wonder at the accuracy > > > > of his averages. But I like the model, as it gives mind the final > > > > contribution to any response, including back down to the cellular and > > > > molecular level in our bodies. Communication between all levels and > > > > coherence of the entire system are the keys to his model. > > > > > I agree with you Francis, in that even with "mind" there is a > > > > limitless dimensionality that his model does not give us. > > > > > On Jun 29, 8:31 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thinking about your posts, jim, and many other posts here, it struck > > > > > me how much the language and concepts dreiving from IT have effected > > > > > the way we see all sorts of things in the "wider" world. Indeed, I see > > > > > it in a lot of my own thinking and imagery too. We talk about > > > > > "hardwiring", software, operating systems, etc, in ways which would > > > > > have been incomprehensible to ourselves, say, forty years ago (apart > > > > > from a tiny minority). But it's thirty years now since Bob Geldoff > > > > > sang of "the silicon chip inside her head get[ting] switched to > > > > > overload." > > > > > > We should however be careful here. Just as an existential rational > > > > > caution is called for with regard to our inherent tendency to > > > > > anthropomorphise when thinking about the cosmos, so should we also be > > > > > careful of computomorphising when reflecting on the way we humans > > > > > work. Such thought models are just that - models. They help us > > > > > understand particular processes better but are not comprehensive and > > > > > can sometimes actually hinder us from seeing other aspects of the > > > > > whole. > > > > > > Unlike many others here, I tend strongly to an ultimately physical > > > > > basis for consciousness and am extremely sceptical about terms such as > > > > > collective consciousness, soul, spirit, etc. in this area. That said, > > > > > I am also very much aware of how little we know about the nuts and > > > > > bolts of how our consciousness actually works - even down to basic > > > > > divisions between feeling/emotion and reason and their continually > > > > > cascading interaction, not to mention the fundamentals of how our > > > > > sense of continuous "self" "exists" and functions. I think we need to > > > > > work with many different models (not always completely compatable with > > > > > each other) while always remembering that they are models. > > > > > > To move from an IT model to conclusions about consciousness existing > > > > > apart from the brain (on other planes, or such ideas) seems to me to > > > > > be a pretty large step. > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 27 Jun., 21:57, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Tinker - the views I expressed are more thoroughly developed in my > > > > > > book "Leap of Reason." (See p. 122+) It's available through Amazon. > > > > > > But to answer your question about how I can think the human brain > > > > > > can > > > > > > only remember at best a few days' experiences, consider the facts. > > > > > > The > > > > > > brain contains about 100 billion neurons, each with maybe an average > > > > > > of 10 synapses linking it to other neurons. Assume that the entire > > > > > > brain is solely devoted to memory. What does it have to store? > > > > > > Visual > > > > > > info, auditory info, smells and tastes, physical feelings, emotional > > > > > > feelings, location information, taught info. etc. > > > > > > Assume our field of view is maybe 3.3K pixels by 3.3K pixels > > > > > > (for > > > > > > a total of 10m pixels per field of view) with a visual B/W scale of > > > > > > 10 > > > > > > (let's keep it simple) and a color scale of 10 for each pixel > > > > > > giving a > > > > > > total visual field of info that must be stored of 1B. Next assume we > > > > > > can perceive 10 fields per second (again, to keep it simple). So to > > > > > > remember all this visual info for a 16 hour day (or about 60K fields > > > > > > per day) we need enough storage to hold 60T bits, And this is just > > > > > > the > > > > > > visual info we need to remember for one day. > > > > > > How might that info be stored? Assume that each synapse has > > > > > > "elements" capable of storing 10 bits of info, and that by some > > > > > > encoding or info storage capability we can reduce the 60T visual > > > > > > bits > > > > > > by 10, that means that we need the memory capacity to store 600B > > > > > > bits > > > > > > of info. But our entire brain only has about 1T storage "elements" > > > > > > So > > > > > > if the entire brain was devoted to memory, which it is not, and if > > > > > > all > > > > > > it stored was visual info (which is not the case) at best it might > > > > > > be > > > > > > able to store maybe 1.5 days worth of scenes. That's why I said that > > > > > > the human brain can only store at best a few days' memories. Of > > > > > > course > > > > > > we remember much more than that. Thus, I suggest that our memory is > > > > > > stored, not in our brain, but as part of our consciousness, or > > > > > > somewhere else (another plane?) accessible by our consciousness. > > > > > > What > > > > > > do you think? Jim > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:19 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > "It is that our physical brain does not have the > > > > > > > > > capacity to store more than a few days' memories" - Jim > > > > > > > > The physical brain is a complex computer that exceeds the > > > > > > > capabilities > > > > > > > of computer technology. How can you think it can only contain a > > > > > > > few > > > > > > > days of memory? > > > > > > > That's a pretty weak foundation for your memory storage on another > > > > > > > plane. > > > > > > > Maybe you're confused with the collective intelligence which does > > > > > > > store the cumulative knowledge of mankind. It is a real thing, the > > > > > > > source of insight, inspiration > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
