Thousands of experiments confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes produce subjective experiences. The fact that neuroscientists are not in agreement over which physicalist theory best accounts for mind does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness creates matter holds equal standing. In defense, Chopra sent me a 2008 paper published in Mind and Matter by University of California, Irvine, cognitive scientist Donald D. Hoffman: Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem. Conscious realism asserts that the objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents. Consciousness is fundamental to the cosmos and gives rise to particles and fields. It is not a latecomer in the evolutionary history of the universe, arising from complex interactions of unconscious matter and fields, Hoffman writes. Consciousness is first; matter and fields depend on it for their very existence.
Where is the evidence for consciousness being fundamental to the cosmos? Here Hoffman turns to how human observers construct the visual shapes, colors, textures and motions of objects. Our senses do not construct an approximation of physical reality in our brain, he argues, but instead operate more like a graphical user interface system that bears little to no resemblance to what actually goes on inside the computer. In Hoffman's view, our senses operate to construct reality, not to reconstruct it. Further, it does not require the hypothesis of independently existing physical objects. Of course, there's lots missing in Hoffman's view and the standard view is RP's. No one denies that consciousness is a hard problem. But before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let's give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. I am, therefore I think. Humans can seem so trivial to me I can think real consciousness doesn't bother with us! On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:21:44 AM UTC, archytas wrote: > > We can ask whether this brain creates or receives RP. I'm on the brain > mechanism end of consciousness, but everything can be seen as an address in > space-time and in relation to the rest of the 'map'. There's an attempt at > this here: > https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/rise_of_info.pdf > > Consciousness can be removed by a non-fatal blow to the head as well as > death - though it may return in the former. One wonders, in conservation > law terms, what it changes to, where it goes ... the hard drive comes back > when you switch it on again and address it unless fried. If we could > transfer brains like hearts and livers ... or mind to non-brain substrate > and discover 'Fred' was still 'Fred' - would we consider consciousness > different then? > > On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:56:20 AM UTC, RP Singh wrote: >> >> For consciousness a sense is necessary and that can be called an >> elementary sort of brain. >> >> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:50 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> There are organising processes long before brains in evolution RP - >>> these might be conscious. I'm 90% sure brains produce mind and the process >>> is mechanistic and copyable. Hard to say at the moment how close >>> scientists are to substrate independent mind and uploading human mind to >>> such. One can imagine a society in which life builds itself - I suspect >>> reflecting back from this much we regard as human would look very >>> mechanistic rather than mystic. Imagine a society with no childbirth - >>> what would gender be, sex, family, economics, politics and other prize >>> elements of libidinal literature? >>> >>> >>> On Monday, December 22, 2014 2:44:44 AM UTC, RP Singh wrote: >>>> >>>> Consciousness is in the brain , which is an integral part of the body. >>>> When we are brain- dead there is no consciousness. AS for the universal >>>> Consciousness there is no such thing , rather there is the universal >>>> unconsciousness , a state from which everything evolves >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "In the field of consciousness research—and also in physics and >>>>> astronomy—we are breaking past the cause-and-effect, mechanistic way of >>>>> interpreting things. In the biological sciences, there is a vitalism >>>>> coming >>>>> in that goes much further toward positing a common universal >>>>> consciousness >>>>> of which our brain is simply an organ. Consciousness does not come from >>>>> the >>>>> brain. The brain is an organ of consciousness. It focuses consciousness >>>>> and >>>>> pulls it in and directs it through a time and space field. But the >>>>> antecedent of that is the universal consciousness of which we are all >>>>> just >>>>> a part." >>>>> >>>>> Joseph Campbell in Mythic World's, Modern Words, p. 286 >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:46:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I should say that my relationship with Hautes Etudes Commericiales >>>>>> was not good. The place was founded by Napoleon. Key learning on the >>>>>> short course is: >>>>>> >>>>>> Who is the individual >>>>>> How to engage? >>>>>> How to resist? >>>>>> How to rearrange? >>>>>> Why management matters >>>>>> >>>>>> One wonders how our smartest need to be taught this as adults, often >>>>>> 24 plus at HEC, and how schools produce us in the mystical state of not >>>>>> knowing our arses from our elbows. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, December 21, 2014 5:33:19 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed Molly - I can only critique your model out of respect for it >>>>>>> not demanding gullible followership. This film - a rather juvenile one >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> inspired by Chris Hedge's 'Death of the Liberal Class' does hint at >>>>>>> some of >>>>>>> the structural problems - https://www.youtube.com/watc >>>>>>> h?v=hH6UynI5m7Y - it is Facilitaresque in some ways. Tony might >>>>>>> inject more humour in the bleakness and maybe more striking images. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There remains the issue of mass forgetting and propaganda in the >>>>>>> current moment. The CEO of Apple has found it easy enough to come out >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> gay, but seems to have no conception of his oppression of others in the >>>>>>> black heart pursuit of profit. How has he come to that point? How is >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> dirty-hands claque applauding current vile CEO behaviour created and >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> role does this play in scrutiny of the moment? Does the construction >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the moment bear any relation of the construction of other moments? >>>>>>> Does >>>>>>> self matter at all if it is so malleable by 'outside structuration' - >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> often seems the case, say, in the prevention and destruction of worker >>>>>>> solidarity by sensitivity-trained CEOs. Hitler granted German unions a >>>>>>> May >>>>>>> Day holiday and parade, then closed them down forever the day after. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> 'great self' working by beggaring all neighbours to weakness is surely >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> our quest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.coursera.org/course/orgology = We are in constant >>>>>>> relationship with many organizations. Our world is submitted to regular >>>>>>> changes as organizations evolve, come and go. Understanding your >>>>>>> memberships and attachments to organizations will help you act on your >>>>>>> world. You'll learn how to evaluate the influence of organizations >>>>>>> around >>>>>>> you and how to transform your relationships to reach a stronger >>>>>>> coherence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know I would feel better in a course Molly was organising - but >>>>>>> this is partly because I would not be the same person in such a group >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> the one with an itchy trigger finger in respect of politicians and the >>>>>>> overseers of Chinese labour making i-Phones. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 21, 2014 4:10:54 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not sure that we need to rely so much on our historical >>>>>>>> autobiography as current noetic make-up. In as much as everything we >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> ever experienced leads us to this moment, maybe, but it is recognition >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> this moment that lends our view. I also see no need to exclude other >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> self, as it is through relatedness comes understanding of both in an >>>>>>>> inclusive, not exclusive model. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:31:23 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As humans, we are intrigued by who we are and how we differ from >>>>>>>>> other creatures of evolution. Among the capacities thought to be >>>>>>>>> uniquely >>>>>>>>> human are autonoetic consciousness, >>>>>>>>> the aspect of self-awareness that allows us to imagine our own >>>>>>>>> experiences in different places at other times, and theory of mind >>>>>>>>> (ToM), >>>>>>>>> which allows us to infer other people’s current >>>>>>>>> mental states. The idea that ToM is closely related to, and that >>>>>>>>> it may depend on, episodic memory and autonoetic consciousness seems >>>>>>>>> perfectly natural: that in order to imagine and make sense of other >>>>>>>>> people’s thoughts, feelings, intentions, and actions, we must rely on >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> autobiographical recollections. The ability to consciously recollect >>>>>>>>> past >>>>>>>>> personal happenings has been shown to be necessary for imagining >>>>>>>>> coherent >>>>>>>>> and detailed personal happenings in the future. Both episodic memory >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> ToM emerge close in time in ontogenetic development. The neural >>>>>>>>> substrate >>>>>>>>> on which the two abilities rely is in many ways strikingly similar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This might just accord with Molly's notions of self-development - >>>>>>>>> that one needs to get self right before making sense of or enjoying >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> world and understanding others and how we might choose to live. >>>>>>>>> Idealism >>>>>>>>> can turn in on itself, with the world seen as cynical and frustrating >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> ideals - mysticism looking like thousands of years of flowery failure >>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> people with time to think it up in personal situations of >>>>>>>>> exploitation of >>>>>>>>> sweat off others' backs. The grim Mike Leigh film 'Naked' makes such >>>>>>>>> points. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One might say that actually living and working alongside others is >>>>>>>>> better than making it all up mystically from self could be a better >>>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>> than introspection amongst other chattering class types. In respect >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> first paragraph above, I found a dire shortage of people who did have >>>>>>>>> accurate autobiography to work from. My own is particularly suspect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:33:27 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amsterdam politicians have been apt to talk of levelling the red >>>>>>>>>> lights and replacing them with a red carpet to the museums and >>>>>>>>>> theatre. I >>>>>>>>>> liked the piano barge. In another form of mysticism one can see >>>>>>>>>> what lies >>>>>>>>>> beneath. Der Wallen is a place to see trafficking and exploitation, >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> throw up. I did a coffee shop instead - walking red light districts >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> like unpaid overtime to me. Took the technicolour yawner on a tram >>>>>>>>>> to see >>>>>>>>>> some flower fields. Beauty is fine until you think of it as 'not >>>>>>>>>> ugly', >>>>>>>>>> thus making ugliness and disability some kind of sin. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Personally, I love mindful mindlessness as the basis of being >>>>>>>>>> able to do nothing. Tried it on this laptop the other day before >>>>>>>>>> effecting >>>>>>>>>> a cure with the soldering iron. Mysticism can be good, but also >>>>>>>>>> mystification. Angels and devils again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:27:49 PM UTC, Allan Heretic >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The museums of Amsterdam are great, somethings are good with >>>>>>>>>>> much that is os question. I do not like wandering around their >>>>>>>>>>> either. You >>>>>>>>>>> are right it is in the eye if the beholder. Greatfully it is out of >>>>>>>>>>> bicycling range Leiden is 10 km one way Den Haag (Den Hague) 10 km >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> different direction the difference between the two is Lieden is a >>>>>>>>>>> city >>>>>>>>>>> where as Den Haag is i oversize town and does not qualify as a city >>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>> dutch law. >>>>>>>>>>> Everything is a matter of perspective. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ~~ >>>>>>>>>>> لا القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد أو إيذاء الآخرين >>>>>>>>>>> Do not murder, rape, enslave or harm others >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: archytas <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:03 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Mysticism >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A guy I didn't like walked through Amsterdam's red light >>>>>>>>>>> district with me years ago. He threw up over the nearest canal >>>>>>>>>>> bridge. I >>>>>>>>>>> rather liked his mystic summary of the place. Reality, one >>>>>>>>>>> suspects, is >>>>>>>>>>> not in the eye of the beholder. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:10:24 PM UTC, Allan Heretic >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To quote >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "mysticism is the art of union with Reality." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The old story of Eyes and No-Eyes is really the story of the >>>>>>>>>>>> mystical and unmystical types. "No-Eyes" has fixed his attention >>>>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>>> fact that he is obliged to take a walk. For him the chief factor >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> existence is his own movement along the road; a movement which he >>>>>>>>>>>> intends >>>>>>>>>>>> to accomplish as efficiently and comfortably as he can. He asks >>>>>>>>>>>> not to know >>>>>>>>>>>> what may >>>>>>>>>>>> be on either side of the hedges. He ignores the caress of the >>>>>>>>>>>> wind until it threatens to remove his hat. He trudges along, >>>>>>>>>>>> steadily, >>>>>>>>>>>> diligently; avoiding the muddy pools, but oblivious of the >>>>>>>>>>>> light which they reflect. >>>>>>>>>>>> "Eyes" takes the walk too: and for him it is a perpetual >>>>>>>>>>>> revelation of beauty and wonder. The sunlight inebriates him, the >>>>>>>>>>>> winds >>>>>>>>>>>> delight him, the very effort of the journey is a joy. Magic >>>>>>>>>>>> presences >>>>>>>>>>>> throng the roadside, or cry salutations to him >>>>>>>>>>>> from the hidden fields. The rich world through which he moves >>>>>>>>>>>> lies in the fore-ground of his consciousness; and it gives up new >>>>>>>>>>>> secrets >>>>>>>>>>>> to him at every step. "No-Eyes," when told of his adventures >>>>>>>>>>>> adventures, >>>>>>>>>>>> usually refuses to believe that both have gone by the same road. >>>>>>>>>>>> He fancies >>>>>>>>>>>> that his companion has been floating about in the air, or beset by >>>>>>>>>>>> agreeable hallucinations. We shall never >>>>>>>>>>>> persuade him to the contrary unless we persuade him to look for >>>>>>>>>>>> himself." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ~~ >>>>>>>>>>>> لا القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد أو إيذاء الآخرين >>>>>>>>>>>> Do not murder, rape, enslave or harm others >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>>>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
