the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[Myriad]

I’m not going to bother defending Chopra...

Then, what hypothesis are you defending?

A hypothesis that is consistent with all observations and which partially explains them (e.g. that consciousness is a brain function carried out by complex but completely material neurochemical interactions, thus explaining e.g. the cognitive effects of drugs and mechanical brain damage) is better than one that does not (e.g. that consciousness is something else happening somewhere else by completely unknown means), but even that is better than no hypothesis at all.

 

[Darat]

Okay - I will ponder this. Thanks for clarifying.

You can also consider it from a different viewpoint. Given what we know about how the universe works (and I mean verified) there is no "room" for any interaction by an unknown force so any "transmission" has to be via known particle/field/energy interaction so we would be able to detect the transmission. Since we don't then we know this particular dualistic idea is definitely wrong. Just a few years ago we couldn't make such a declaration but knowledge as ever increases.

 

[Ladewig]

I haven't seen anyone who's defending the radio analogy address this question:

I am not defending it, but I can take some rather unsupported guesses.

They might think it is part of Intelligent Design, although I am unsure how many believe in an individual Designer with a specific intent and goal and how many think the universe itself is sort of its own designer.

They might think that no animals had it until some sort of "critical mass" moment in human history. The hundredth-monkey theory may still be popular among some people.

They might think that animals that they like (cats, dogs, dolphins, elephants, and other cute or pretty animals) have it, but spiders, snakes, hagfish, etc. do not.

They might think every animal has it. Perhaps it is akin to Sheldrake's morphic-field theory. Chopra is a supporter of Sheldrake.

I guess the only practical solution is to ask Chopra or people with his viewpoint.

 

[Navigator]

You can also consider it from a different viewpoint. Given what we know about how the universe works (and I mean verified) there is no "room" for any interaction by an unknown force so any "transmission" has to be via known particle/field/energy interaction so we would be able to detect the transmission. Since we don't then we know this particular dualistic idea is definitely wrong. Just a few years ago we couldn't make such a declaration but knowledge as ever increases.

On the surface this indeed sounds very reasonable.

But - like observing brain activity and not having any way to distinguish between any 'outside activity' (re the thread topic) influencing the brain, how are we able to do so with the universe? How are we to know that the universe as observed isn't the way it is because of some other 'outside' influence we are unable to detect?

The argument between those who believe one or the other seems to be about this. The correct answer looks to go something like "We don't know" which is true enough but there seems to be the incessant need to choose a side and thus the argument loses focus on the truth of the matter (we don't know) and instead focuses on things like "from what we do know it is very unlikely" or "It could be so I'll go with that"...it seems many are unable to accept that there are things we don't know and can't know and just get on with the things we do know.



So looking at it from the position you recommended of 'there is no room for this' due to the reasoning that one should be able to 'pick up the transmissions' fails to take into account that such argument is essentially forgetting the possibility that consciousness itself is what is being 'transmitted' and 'brains/bodies' are what are receiving and transmitting consciousness and consciousness is able to individualize into physical forms. IOW "The is no distinction in which to 'pick up'."

Such argument (for or against) is always going to be circular (going nowhere and contributing nothing) and pointless...other than perhaps for frivolous entertainment value.

(I remain unconvinced either way. - as per my post here)

 

[Navigator]

So the brain being a receiver was shown to not work simply by how we can blank out, have two completely different personalities through split brain studies and how we can pretty much change everything about your personality by damaging specific regions of your brain.

The response is that well..that is simplistic. There are 2 radios.

One that transmits to our brain and one that transmits back the damage. That is the only way to make sense of the data above.

So then what is the point. If they are identical why are two needed? Also how can that second brain up there survive the complete damage of the brain down here when it does not survive minor damage?

I'm sorry but the whole concept is stupid and explains nothing.

It could be that consciousness is different when inside of a biological instrument which can influence the way it behaves.
A human brain/body might limit the consciousnesses normal abilities because it is restrained within a biological form.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

…so he did...and I plan on ignoring him. Does this request somehow mean that suddenly what that poster said does not mean what that poster said?

Yes. It has never meant what you want it to mean, which is why you have to take it so far out of context that you can't even quote the complete sentence it resides in.

And context is important. For example:

How stupid of me.

Yes. Yes indeed.

 

[Navigator]

I haven't seen anyone who's defending the radio analogy address this question:

Trees (as one example) might be conscious. We don't know. They don't have brains so it might be that brains are not necessarily required in order for consciousness to experience through.

According to one theory there is some connection between trees through fungi in which they can communicate. The fungi acts as a kind of 'internet' in that regard.

Another theory is that the whole planet is one big conduit in which consciousness experiences through. (Experiences 'what'?...why 'being a planet' of course!)

Essentially (if true) this would amount to individualized consciousness not easily recognizing itself in other forms due to being 'messed up' and identifying with being the forms rather than the consciousness within the forms...

Another theory is that consciousness imbues the entire universe...it is easy enough to understand why consciousness with human form finds it difficult to comprehend let alone accept such a possibility.

If it were the case, there is room for great amusement in relation to the concept that consciousness can hide from its self using myriad form to do so.

'People' can be so deadly serious...

I find it funny...funny 'ha ha' and funny peculiar...

(I am not 'defending the radio analogy' but find the concept interesting enough to make comment)

 

[Myriad]

I am not defending it, but I can take some rather unsupported guesses.

They might think it is part of Intelligent Design, although I am unsure how many believe in an individual Designer with a specific intent and goal and how many think the universe itself is sort of its own designer.

They might think that no animals had it until some sort of "critical mass" moment in human history. The hundredth-monkey theory may still be popular among some people.

They might think that animals that they like (cats, dogs, dolphins, elephants, and other cute or pretty animals) have it, but spiders, snakes, hagfish, etc. do not.

They might think every animal has it. Perhaps it is akin to Sheldrake's morphic-field theory. Chopra is a supporter of Sheldrake.

I guess the only practical solution is to ask Chopra or people with his viewpoint.

Trees (as one example) might be conscious. We don't know. They don't have brains so it might be that brains are not necessarily required in order for consciousness to experience through.

According to one theory there is some connection between trees through fungi in which they can communicate. The fungi acts as a kind of 'internet' in that regard.

Another theory is that the whole planet is one big conduit in which consciousness experiences through. (Experiences 'what'?...why 'being a planet' of course!)

Essentially (if true) this would amount to individualized consciousness not easily recognizing itself in other forms due to being 'messed up' and identifying with being the forms rather than the consciousness within the forms...

Another theory is that consciousness imbues the entire universe...it is easy enough to understand why consciousness with human form finds it difficult to comprehend let alone accept such a possibility.

If it were the case, there is room for great amusement in relation to the concept that consciousness can hide from its self using myriad form to do so.

'People' can be so deadly serious...

I find it funny...funny 'ha ha' and funny peculiar...

(I am not 'defending the radio analogy' but find the concept interesting enough to make comment)

These are all possible notions, but I'd rather consider a particular alternative theory to weigh the evidence and parsimony against the materialistic view than waste my time trying to respond to diverging multiple choice possibilities that will invariably garner the response, "sorry, you picked the wrong one, making your response a straw man argument."

What is the superior alternate theory being put forward?

Navigator, is it also possible that redness imbues the entire universe, but only some things have the right properties to emit or reflect a preponderance of light in the 700 nm range so as to make their redness evident? Could such a claim actually mean anything?

 

[Belz...]

Trees (as one example) might be conscious. We don't know.

Rocks might be conscious. Atoms might have feelings. Fairies might exist.

We can dream up any scenario. This thread seems to be glorifying ignorance.

 

[Navigator]

Rocks might be conscious. Atoms might have feelings. Fairies might exist.

We can dream up any scenario. This thread seems to be glorifying ignorance.

Things are not always as they seem...

But really what I was saying is that consciousness is what is conscious. It is easier to detect in biological forms with brains but a rock is a rock and a human is a human and it is not so far fetched to contemplate that the whole planet might well be conscious.

We might not know how to demonstrate that it is - but some people simply look at it for what it is and from that position 'see' that it most likely is.

It is all 'atoms' anyhow - the 'feelings' might derive from the conscious part...

 

[Belz...]

Things are not always as they seem...

Meaningless tautology, often used to justify woo.

But really what I was saying is that consciousness is what is conscious.

Another useless tautology.

It is easier to detect in biological forms with brains but a rock is a rock and a human is a human and it is not so far fetched to contemplate that the whole planet might well be conscious.

Why? Consciousness is a set of behaviours that rocks and planets do not have.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator, is it also possible that redness imbues the entire universe, but only some things have the right properties to emit or reflect a preponderance of light in the 700 nm range so as to make their redness evident? Could such a claim actually mean anything?

Myriad - it is apparent that 'meaning' is in the eye of the beholder. What you and eye would rather do is simply an act of personal preference/desire.

'Redness' may be the product of consciousness.

Does the universe exist if there is nothing to say that it does? What is it that is able to say the universe exists?

As far as I can tell, consciousness alone is that which is able, not only to acknowledge its own existence, but the existence of this material universe it occupies as well.



(Like I said - it is funny.)

 

[Navigator]

Consciousness is a set of behaviours that rocks and planets do not have.

Nope.

Behavior is a bi-product of conscious decision, with extenuating circumstances such as the extent of an individuals ability to be self controlled...


Within biological critters consciousness behaves according to the abilities of said form coupled with the self identity that individual consciousness chooses to accept for itself (as itself).

If Earth (essentially a rock) were inhabited by consciousness then that consciousness would behave very differently than it would in human form, due to the nature of the form and the abilities of the form.

For example - the form is longer lasting than any biological form on its surface thus consciousness experiencing being the Earth would not be 'human' in how it experiences itself...but naturally would understand what it is like to be human...or a tree...etc...

 

[Navigator]

These are all possible notions, but I'd rather consider a particular alternative theory to weigh the evidence and parsimony against the materialistic view than waste my time trying to respond to diverging multiple choice possibilities that will invariably garner the response, "sorry, you picked the wrong one, making your response a straw man argument."

I can only say that the theory that all consciousness is essentially the same thing expressing through different form (and that it is able to appear 'different' through this process) is not 'diverging into multiple choice possibilities' but unifying the multiple choices already available into a more coherent possibility.

What is the superior alternate theory being put forward?

The most useful, I would suppose - but therein is the complication...different groups of humans have different agendas of which they find 'useful' (thus superior to other groups.) and thus the state of humanity at present is adequately explained.

 

[Belz...]

Behavior is a bi-product of conscious decision, with extenuating circumstances such as the extent of an individuals ability to be self controlled...

That is not a workable definition. Consciousness IS a behaviour.

If Earth (essentially a rock) were inhabited by consciousness then that consciousness would behave very differently than it would in human form, due to the nature of the form and the abilities of the form.

And if the moon were made of green cheese it would be very different form other natural sattelites.

 

[Navigator]

That is not a workable definition. Consciousness IS a behaviour.

Form allows for behavior. Consciousness determines how it might choose to behave through said form within the limitations of the form.

in the common understanding of the word "behaviour"...along the lines of "the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others." consciousness has a variety of choices in any given situation. It is not bound to express only in one way.

Behavior thus is a product of consciousness rather than what consciousness IS...

 

[Navigator]

And if the moon were made of green cheese it would be very different form other natural sattelites.

you have attempted through this expression to imply that anyone suggesting that the Earth might be conscious might as well suggest that the moon is made of green cheese, and you have failed due to the erroneousness of the attempted analogy.

The moon is provably not made of 'green cheese'...there is no way to prove the moon is made of green cheese

There is no way to prove the earth is not conscious...a conscious entity. there is no known way to prove that it is conscious either, so your response using the 'green cheese moon' as an analogy akin to someone suggesting the earth could be a conscious entity is faulty - a false dictum

I suggest that the better choice of behavior to adopt when you find yourself exposed to concepts you would rather not contemplate is to ignoer them altogether.

 

[LarryS]

I think we can all agree: We know that consciousness comes from the area or region of the brain, and the brain and perhaps an additional vital organ or two can sufficiently explain consciousness - - - how that happens on a biological/molecular level we know very little.
So the claim that consciousness is sourced from the brain has not become more clear then when it was first claimed 5000 years ago (or so)

and the moon is not made of green cheese.

 

[Belz...]

Form allows for behavior.

Another meaningless phrase.

Consciousness determines how it might choose to behave through said form within the limitations of the form.

You don't get to make up your own definition for words.

 

[Navigator]

Another meaningless phrase.

Let me explain then. Without form, behavior cannot be observed.

And.

What does the observing (in relation to human beings) is consciousness

You don't get to make up your own definition for words.

"Consciousness determines how it might choose to behave through said form within the limitations of the form."

Not sure where you see in this sentence that I have created my own definitions for words.