Chris - please excuse this tardy reply to your question. I am somewhat
new to these groups and only recently discovered the ability to
recover old threads and postings.
Yes, I do have some further thoughts.
First, if consciousness is a property of matter, albeit matter
organized in a particular way I guess you would assert, then when we
have an out of body experience how is it that our consciousness is
separate from our physical body? I do not mean (speaking from
experience) that our consciousness is both in our body and out of our
body, it is ONLY out of body - indeed, we can even 'see" our body if
we choose to do so while out of body. To me this indicates that
consciousness is not a property of matter, but rather a quality or
condition that can inhabit any bit or complexity of matter it might
choose.
Let me address another consideration you bring up - memory. Our
brain is far too small to store our memories. As I calculate it, even
assuming reasonable data compression techniques, we can at most store
in our physical brain a day or two of our experiences and thoughts. So
where is the rest? It must be out of body - and judging from my OOB
experience and all those I've read about, when OOB our consciousness
has our memories. From this I conclude that consciousness and memory
are on some other plane than the physical.
I wonder about the distinction you propose between active and
inert. I suppose a tree is inert. Seth, in one of the Jane Roberts'
books, tells about being a tree for a few centuries. In other words
his consciousness inhabited a tree. Many Japanese authors talk about
the spirit of a mountain, or lake or whatever - I guess those objects
are inert. From all this why not accept that consciousness can be in
everything - maybe not only in everything but also everywhere? Jim
On Aug 4, 6:43 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Any other thoughts on this, RetiredJim?
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Chris Jenkins
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Jim,
> > first, as mentioned in the article, there was a delineation made between
> > awake and self aware. In scientific and philosophical terms, we are speaking
> > of self awareness.
>
> > The rest of my answers are interspersed below.
>
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> >> Chris - Thanks for such a thorough discussion of consciousness. But I
> >> humbly submit that no one has any idea if or to what extent a rock or
> >> cloud is self-aware. Yet they are both a collection of atoms and
> >> molecules, and when compared to whatever might be next to them, they
> >> are organized and responsive to their environment.
>
> > The difference between active and inert is a good start. While a rock may
> > be "responsive to its environment" (in the loosest definition possible, in
> > that it will pass through various states of matter in response to
> > environmental changes), it will take no action representative of will. It is
> > inert. It cannot demonstrate choice or preference or memory. It is incapable
> > of sensing or storing data, and additionally incapable of acting on said
> > data. While it may be possible to imaginatively assign such a thing the
> > property of consciousness in some sort of universal fashion, there is no
> > scientific basis for such an assignation, simply because there is no
> > evidence to support such a hypothesis.
>
> >> (To assert that
> >> conscious is awake is circular, I believe.) So on what basis can you
> >> conclude that they are not conscious?
>
> > This is the important part here. I do not conclude they are NOT conscious.
> > I do NOT conclude they ARE conscious. Should such evidence present itself, I
> > will add that to my knowledge. Until such time, I have no reason to believe
> > such is true. I would not form an active disbelief which would put me in the
> > position of proving a negative...I'll leave Russell's Teapot to the
> > Fundamentalist Atheists. ;)
>
> >> You suggest that being conscious is being awake, as opposed to
> >> being asleep, and that being awake is a mental state.
>
> > No, actually, as stated in the Wiki entry, that's a colloquial usage.
>
> >> This in turn
> >> suggests to me that you think consciousness is a function of the
> >> brain, and resides there.
>
> > Yes. Scientifically, consciousness is a function rising from
> > the organization of sensory input, data storage, and complex data analysis,
> > all functions of the brain.
>
> >> But if you had ever had an out of body
> >> experience, as I have, you would know that what was out of your body
> >> was your consciousness. So to me while our consciousness may reside in
> >> our body for a time, it is not restricted to it. Jim
>
> > And if you had ever experimented with DiMethylTryptamine, like I have, you
> > would know that out of body experiences are also a function of the brain,
> > and can be created and experienced at will.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
>
> >> On Jul 24, 12:43 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Sure. To be clear, however, we'd have to start with a definition of
> >> > consciousness.
> >> > I think the Wiki entry on consciousness does a pretty fair attempt at a
> >> > clear definition of what we are talking about:
>
> >> > *Consciousness* is often used colloquially to describe being
> >> > awake<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake>
> >> > and aware <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware>—responsive<
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive>
> >> > to
> >> > the environment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)>,
> >> in
> >> > contrast to being asleep <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asleep> or in a
> >> > coma<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma>.
> >> > In philosophical and scientific discussion, however, the term is
> >> restricted
> >> > to the specific way in which humans are mentally aware in such a way
> >> that
> >> > they distinguish clearly between themselves (the thing being aware) and
> >> all
> >> > other things and events. A characteristic of consciousness is that it is
> >> > reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This
> >> > "self-awareness<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness>"
> >> > may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and
> >> > dreams.[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>
> >> > 1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>]<
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>
>
> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
>
> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness>
> >> > So, I would limit my assignation of things which could possess
> >> consciousness
> >> > by thinking about the function of consciousness, and deciding whether it
> >> is
> >> > reasonable, based on the structure and organization of that object, that
> >> it
> >> > was CAPABLE of such. If awareness is a function of sensory input (which
> >> > seems to be a truism, but perhaps you think differently), then by what
> >> > mechanism does a rock gather sensory data? Parse it? Store it? Analyze
> >> it?
>
> >> > I've found that those who think consciousness exists outside of this
> >> > paradigm often have a different definition of the word itself. Do you?
>
> >> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > > Chris - for openers let us agree that humans have the quality we are
> >> > > calling consciousness. Now, what is it about that quality that gives
> >> > > you reason to believe that it is limited in some way or fashion to
> >> > > some collection of species, rather that being present everywhere and
> >> > > in everything? You say your belief that consciousness is limited "has
> >> > > been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific process." Please
> >> > > explain. I hope you don't see this as just being argumentative. I
> >> > > would seriously welcome any light you can shed on this topic. Jim
>
> >> > > On Jul 24, 12:05 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > Because as an empiricist, I don't assign properties to something
> >> without
> >> > > > having an active reason to believe such is there, in the form of
> >> > > evidence. I
> >> > > > don't "limit" the possibilities of conscious; I merely limit my own
> >> > > belief
> >> > > > to that which has been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific
> >> > > process.
>
> >> > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]
>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > Chris - I guess limiting consciousness to some arbitrary
> >> organization
> >> > > > > of molecules, or to some set of such organizations, is about as
> >> > > > > arbitrary as not limiting it to anything but contending that it is
> >> > > > > everywhere and in everything (as well as in nothing - i.e; all of
> >> > > > > space). Why do you think it is limited? Jim
>
> >> > > > > On Jul 24, 11:20 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > Why would it seem that way to you? What seems conscious about a
> >> rock,
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > other inert matter?
> >> > > > > > I would extend consciousness to any form of "life" (whatever
> >> that may
> >> > > > > turn
> >> > > > > > out to mean), since as I've described, consciousness rises from
> >> > > > > > organization, a function of life.
>
> >> > > > > > I'm locked behind a somewhat restrictive firewall right now, but
> >> will
> >> > > > > > endeavor to provide you with some quality citation post haste.
> >> :)
>
> >> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM, retiredjim34 <
> >> [email protected]>
> >> > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > Chris - it seems to me that consciousness is present
> >> everywhere in
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > universe and in all matter, and eneryg too for that matter,
> >> not
> >> > > just
> >> > > > > > > is some arbitrary collection of species. I'd like a cite to
> >> the
> >> > > vast
> >> > > > > > > majority you reference. Jim
>
> >> > > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:50 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]
>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > Absolutely!
> >> > > > > > > > Consciousness is most likely (according to the vast majority
> >> of
> >> > > > > serious
> >> > > > > > > > research on the topic) a function of higher organization.
> >> You are
> >> > > > > correct
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > assign consciousness to monkeys, but to delineate levels of
> >> such.
>
> >> > > > > > > > Something to keep in mind here: It's a common misconception
> >> of
> >> > > those
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > attack evolution that we're stating "Humans are descended
> >> from
> >> > > > > chimps"
> >> > > > > > > (or
> >> > > > > > > > Orangutans, as the case may be). In actuality, we're noting
> >> > > common
> >> > > > > > > > ancestors. Could Chimpanzees or Orangutans eventually evolve
> >> into
> >> > > > > Homo
> >> > > > > > > > Sapiens? It's highly improbable.
>
> >> > > > > > > > So, back to your question...in our branch of development,
> >> more
> >> > > energy
> >> > > > > was
> >> > > > > > > > expended in prefrontal structure (i.e. the lobes, man.) This
> >> is
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > seat
> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > higher intellect, our personality, and likely, what we
> >> consider
> >> > > to be
> >> > > > > our
> >> > > > > > > > consciousness. The lesser apes? Not so much.
>
> >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, retiredjim34 <
> >> > > [email protected]
>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Chris - I understand what you are speaking of when you
> >> > > reference
> >> > > > > > > > > people or persons to be the physical human being. While
> >> this
> >> > > body
> >> > > > > may
> >> > > > > > > > > well be related to
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
