On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:00 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. No worries, glad to see you carried on. :) > > 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. I linked to the article on DiMethylTryptamine in a previous response. From your reply, I'm guessing you didn't read it? OBE's are easily duplicatable with the ingestion of DMT, including the feeling of leaving the body, being able to see yourself, traveling through a tunnel into the light, seeing angels or hell, etc. DMT is naturally produced in the body, and spikes in times of high stress, most notably, near death. In other words, from a scientific perspective, an OBE is an easily explained chemical phenomenon, and not your "consciousness" leaving your body. Here's those resources again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience#Biological_analysis_and_theories > > 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. Jim, what are you basing your calculations on? Here's an excellent article citing several studies by Merkle suggesting that our total lifetime memory usage is equivalent to less than a stick of RAM, while our actual storage capacity is somewhere around 10^13-15 bits. http://scienceblogs.com/twominds/2008/07/the_capacity_of_the_human_brai.php I'd love to have some idea of the methodology you've used to draw your conclusions, since you've based your ideas of extra physical consciousness on them; ideas which have no physical evidence or data to support them. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
