Chris - challenging, but I will try and respond.
About DMT - you are quite right. I had not read the sites you
attached. I now have. I find it very interesting that DMT is compared
to psilocybin, which happens to be a drug I've taken (in a controlled
medical experiment). It produced an effect not at all like my OOB
experience. With the drug, amazing visual effects, happiness, a depth
of feeling induced by music that I had not experienced before, and a
lingering certainty that all was here to enjoy. My OOB experience, on
the other hand, was a transferrence of my consciousness from my body
to the far upper corner of the room. I could still see my body, and I
could see out a window, but I was very scared. (I was only 12 at the
time.) I had no idea what was happening. I wanted to be back in my
body, and in the next instant I was. So with the drug it was a very
mellow prolonged bliss; the OOB experience was nothing like that.
About human memory - some of the stuff in what you cite is really
ridiculous. Remembering 2 bites per second. Anyone knows that they
remember far more than that. Just remembering what is in the next room
requires, I'd guess, something like maybe 6 megabites or more (if the
visual field is about 3KB by 2KB and you just remember one visual
field that's 6MB, and this doesn't even begin to take into account the
grey scale and color requirements). Of course we remember far more
than what is in the next room - most of us remember where we've been
over the last week or more, the geography of our envirnonment, who
we've seen and spoken to, what we heard, smelled,and sensed in other
ways, etc. There are people who remember everything from their
earliest years (in one who I know it may be due to her Prager-Willi's
syndrome). If you calculate the memory requirements for even one day,
I estimate them to be about 500 trillion bits of info. The human brain
has about 100 billion neurons, each with about 10 synapses (yes, I
know some estimate more, but some estimate less - this figure probably
is in the ballpark), Assuming that ALL those neurons are devoted to
memory, and that we use some sort of data compression technique,(say
10 to 1) then we could store in our memory about 1/50th of what we
had experienced in a day. (500T divided by 10T).Obviously we with even
a normal memory remember far more than that. So I conclude that our
memories are stored on some other level than in our head. And since
during my OOB experience, I could remember who I was, what I looked
like, where I was etc. I conclude that our memories are centered
somewhere else much like our consciousness. Thinking that they are all
in our head is, to me, much like concluding that all the TV programs
are stored in our TV set. Anyway that is how I reached the conclusions
I stated. Jim
On Aug 7, 12:21 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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_analysi...
>
>
>
> > 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_br...
>
> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
