Consciousness is an attribute of life and vanishes on death. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > -- --- 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.
