There is much there that suggests having a soul, one that proceeds post mortem. There have been some toss abouts in here concerning it's existence. However when considering consciousness I seem to believe we all have a soul, some very old with accumulated memory/knowledge and some very new, people without a clue. Einsteins seems to have denied the existence of a soul but it was certainly a Socratic view and that of many others that followed, maybe Jung's shadow concept could reveal something in line. Memory, regardless of storage location, isn't worth anything without the ability to recall. I've often wondered similarly if when I'm struggling to recall something that comes to mind later on, if the lapse had something to do with the transmission of memory from elsewhere, hence the phrase "It will come to me in a minute". Is it like making a phone call when all the lines are busy? This would of course pertain to long term memory, not sensory or short term. I think memory and a non physical attribute view might trigger some debate.
On Sep 6, 6:02 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > You say that what currently interests you is memory. If by that you > mean the human memory,it interests me too. > I assume you have some background in computer memories and data > storage. If you do, or even if you do not, consider this - 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? > Could it be stored elsewhere in the body? If it were, then > loosing that part of the body would degrade our memory. But such a > loss has never been reported as far as I know. So our memory must be > stored 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 plane other > than the physical. > You say in another post that evidence is what counts. I'd very > much appreciate your looking into the memory capacity of the human > brain, and reading your conclusions. Is the human memory another > example (or evidence) of a non-physical attribute of our self? Jim > > On Sep 5, 8:29 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That most of our knowledge is in memory at any particular time is a > > given. What is perhaps surprising, however, is the degree to which > > even our current conscious knowledge typically depends on memory. > > Look at the sky and come to believe that the sunset is beautiful. This > > is a newly formed belief about an event currently taking place (not I > > can assure you round here - we haven't seen the sky for some time). > > The justification of a current event is no doubt dependent on other > > beliefs that you hold. For example, if you didn't at least tacitly > > believe that you were looking west or that it is evening and not > > morning, the belief wouldn't be justified (I assume that the > > phenomenology of sunsets and sunrises is indistinguishable). Now I am > > not, however, supposing that all knowledge of the external world is > > inferential. Your belief that the sky is red might well be > > epistemically basic. Nor am I insisting that your sunset belief is > > psychologically inferential. My only claim here is that many > > relatively simple beliefs we form about the external world typically > > depend for their justification on background beliefs; and background > > beliefs are memory beliefs. Virtually all of what we know (or are > > justified in believing) at any given time resides in memory. > > > Theories of consciousness are generally: > > Metaphysical theories of consciousness - either - > > Dualist theories or > > Physicalist theories. > > There are many variants of these. > > > There are a number of specific theories of consciousness I am aware > > of, generally - > > Higher-order theories > > Representational theories > > Cognitive theories > > Neural theories > > Quantum theories > > Nonphysical theories. > > > I am yet to spot any practical work in this field that might help us > > move on as a society. Davies, M. and Humphreys, G. 1993. > > Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays. Oxford: > > Blackwell might help if you want the punishment! > > > What currently interests me is memory and why we have so little > > justified knowing consciously involved in the current consciousness of > > a decision (or at least its rationalisation). You could get the drift > > from this: > > > Me: Why are we at war in Afghanistan Prime Minister? > > PM: To keep the streets of London safe my boy. > > Me: I'm older than you, you patronising dirt bag, but leaving that > > aside, it makes no sense to me to go an kill Afghans to keep the > > streets of London safe. > > PM: This is my profound judgement on the matter. > > Me: When I am profound I can usually demonstrate my evidence to > > others, why can't you? > > PM: You have to trust me. Matters of national security are involved. > > Me: As when we and the French got the Israelis to invade Egypt so we > > could take over the whole middle east in a policing action in 1956 you > > mean? Or as in the secret war we fought in Indonesia for 20 years? > > Or as in pretending Iraq was full of WMDs? Or as in bumping off one > > of our own scientists? Or as in the way you have set up all kinds of > > bodies to find the positive and shut out real criticism across the > > board? If we are winning this war why are we now blowing up our > > precious helicopters so regularly? > > PM: You should be proud to be British. Afghanistan was responsible > > for 9/11. > > Me: They were mostly Saudi. > > > It would go on and on. What is this consciousness they can control? > > > On 5 Sep, 15:50, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The ultimate sum of the universe is often held to be zero. One also > > > has the statistical zero of the vacuum hinting at massive energies > > > 'elsewhere'. I share Justin's reservations about Dennet. In the > > > detail of phenomenology (something most of us could get into) there is > > > attention to 'the things themselves' (and in marxism too - > > > methodologically). Science is phenomenological in my view, yet very > > > few scientists are aware of the detailed explanations of what they > > > do. One can do a lot of poking about as a technician without ever > > > understanding what any of it means beyond the monthly pay cheque > > > continuing to arrive. The old arguments are whether what we call > > > consciousness is an emergent property of enough complexity in the > > > organisation we call life, or sneaks in from another world (however we > > > want to put this). Physics has lots of stuff being borrowed and lent > > > to 'other worlds' these days. > > > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > > > > Actually they do not. > > > > > They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness being > > > > manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation of ones > > > > brain. > > > > > But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer (or two), > > > > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will know. But > > > > even without the mind altering chemicals you need only understand the > > > > laws of perspective and observe the fact that the point of view of > > > > your consciousness is from your body. A little anatomy and you have > > > > the role of the brain. This was known for a long time. Look at the > > > > anatomy of the senses all of them tied by little wire-like structures > > > > called nerves with signals on them the interruption of which > > > > terminates the conscious experience of the connected transducing > > > > sensor. Otherwise why wouldn't we believe that destroying ones eye > > > > would cause deafness instead of blindness. > > > > > None of that is even one shred of evidence for your mind being your > > > > body... or, if you prefer to use that language... and say that your > > > > mind is your body ... then you must be willing to reform the current > > > > meaning of the phrase "your body" and therefore the meaning in physics > > > > of matter ultimately needs to be reformed to include consciousness > > > > unless you agree that "your body" is not material. Something has to > > > > give somewhere. Either your mind is not your body, or your mind is > > > > your body. If your mind is your body then either your body is physical > > > > (made of matter) or it is not. If it is made of matter and your mind > > > > is your body then matter is conscious and the laws of physics need to > > > > incorporate that into their descriptions. Otherwise, if your body is > > > > not solely material but your mind is still your body then there is > > > > something non-material in your body that is your mind. Or else you can > > > > say your mind is not your body and your body is material which is the > > > > current method I think. > > > > > Consciousness cannot properly be described as a "property" of matter > > > > as it is not something essential but has an existential role for the > > > > one who is conscious. It appears to be associated with specific > > > > structural arrangements of matter and not the individual components > > > > and dependent on the movement of the mechanism as well as its shape. > > > > However, neurology has not yet nailed down the specifics completely > > > > but is making fast progress. It will be very interesting when > > > > neurology leads to technology and will be a major ethical challenge. > > > > > What we know is that the arrangement of matter in the form of a > > > > neurology results in reports of consciousness from others and an > > > > experience of our own consciousness. This can be deduced from very > > > > simple evidence independent of modern neurology which is currently > > > > engaged in flushing out the details of the relationship. > > > > > No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and > > > > what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning > > > > what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed > > > > phenomenological descriptions of experience. This was what Husserl > > > > wanted to do about hundred years ago. It will take a little more time > > > > for the likes of Dennet to catch up. > > > > > Perhaps then, we can even get a read on some of the problems like > > > > Synchronicity and get a serious look at it scientifically. Perhaps > > > > not. I suspect that our current world view will be very nearly > > > > completely eliminated by the progress and the surety with which the > > > > simple assumptions of our current thought are held will one day be > > > > seen as, if not an unexplainable superstition or ignorance, like we > > > > consider those who killed in Greece over arguments about whether the > > > > number 0 existed, or else as a kind of > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
