I also can't really figure what Deepak Chopra is trying to say with this analogy.
But, essentially, he and his neuroscientist co-author, are trying to propose the case for a return to Idealism - the philosophical position that consciousness is inherent and everything else, including matter, appears within it.
Appears within it as in 'is emergent of it.' No I didn't get that the article was saying that (although there is no reason for me to doubt that he leans toward that belief) but I did get that the underlying observation was that how a thing is observed is not necessarily how that thing actually
is.
Well, the Great Illusion, to term it thus, is that someone is experiencing consciousness. In the grip of this illusion the mind of course assumes that it is witnessing consciousness, but cannot experience subconsciousness.
How can 'someone' experience 'consciousness?'
If it is the brain experiencing consciousness then the better term to use would be 'something' is experiencing consciousness.
Otherwise - it is consciousness experiencing what it thinks of itself.
If the grip of the Great Illusion should slacken, then one new perspective that inevitably emerges is that it might be that the whole brain, or whole body, is actually conscious. It is simply that those other loops of consciousness are functionally disconnected from the one being labelled "me."
But this suggests that TGI is more along the lines of 'I am the brain' which might extend to 'I am the whole body' if the grip of TGI slackened.
Which leads me to think of the possibility that if the grip of TGI was fully released [death of the form] and the 'me' found itself to still 'be', then I would realize just what an illusion it was that I had experienced as 'a human being'.
But the one thing that would remain constant in that conceptual example is consciousness itself. The illusion therefore would not be consciousness but how consciousness 'thinks' of itself in relation to its situation.
At a functional level, it is clear that certain higher order brain functions seem to require actual consciousness. They can't take place in the dark, so to speak. Grasping higher levels of meaning, performing math which requires 2 or more separate operations, this kind of thing.
Sure. But it is still not known to what degree that the sub is involved with the surface consciousness.
Some problems which when awake are hard to work out but the experience of dreams help the surface consciousness find solutions. [As one example.]
However, it is quite possible that these only require consciousness because consciousness facilitates inter-brain communication.
Sharing maps. You are suggesting that consciousness became necessary because other brains existed in other bodies ...therefore... if this were not the case, consciousness would not have needed to be invented by the brain in order to accommodate the situation.
In addition consciousness allows processing to continue for longer. Subconscious processing typically lasts for only as long as action potentials remain at a neural level, so I understand.
But it is still unknown just how much sub is involved with surface processing.
Well, it would be great for materialists if we could actually find a "place in the brain" where consciousness takes place. We haven't done so and from what I understand it seems highly unlikely this is going to happen.
Materialists don't need to find an actual place in the brain where consciousness takes place in order to believe they are their brains, but if there were such a place it would be blatantly obvious by now - one would think so anyway.
It is enough that they can take advantage of the fact that consciousness at least is exhibited through the human population and it is easy enough to develop authoritative sounding theories which are given the green light by the materialist consensus in order to keep those populations following their lead, malleable to suggestion for the sake of directing the energy those populations have into something materialists can use to their immediate and long term advantage.
Science, culture, religion, gender, etc...politically motivated for materialist purposes. Authoritative leadership utilizing the material available...
The brain processes multiple strands of information concurrently. Certain brain modules monitor all this processing and decide which streams of information are important. Those deemed to be so can be broadcast around the brain, and it is this act of broadcasting that appears to be conscious. And this seems to be as close as anyone can get to determining just what consciousness is, at a neural, functional level.
Certain brain modules decide? Isn't the act of decision something consciousness [sub/surface] does?
Something thus 'appears to be conscious' but what is observing this process and deciding it only 'appears to be conscious' but isn't really conscious at all?
As far as I am aware, the
only thing that can decide anything,
is consciousness, therefore your statement is basically saying that consciousness acknowledges itself and then decides that it doesn't really exist at all. That its acknowledgment of self is an illusion.
[seems like the kind of thing a magic snake in a garden would say.]
As a tool for political purpose, such a concept would be very handy...like the saint in relation to the sinner only in this case, the more intelligent in relation to the less intelligent.
This is why Dan Dennett famously termed consciousness "fame in the brain." The multiple contestants (processing streams) on Brain's Got Talent get assigned value according to their social usefulness, and the winner gets to be propagated all over the place, gets to go viral.
This is all [of course] an act of consciousness. The brain is an organ and isn't conscious without consciousness and cannot 'pick' anything until it is conscious, so therefore it has to first become conscious in order to start playing this game with itself - a game which amounts to choosing what identity it wants to for itself...based on personal preferences which apparently are influence by the environment it is within (the *jar* being the the human body) and how it can use that body to not only survive but do so as comfortably as possible, even using other brains in bodies to achieve this.
Yay 'the winner'.
For sure... the brain will reinforce whatever beliefs it needs to help it best accomplish its tasks.
But you know that when I used the term 'ghost in the machine' I was referring to consciousness in relation to it not being an emergent property of the brain.
So your propensity to turn that back into an expression uttered through the belief that you are the brain shows that you like to argue from the position of belief...as verified in the next sentence...
Personally, I always liked Materialism because it suits my temperament. I'm practical. I used to work in construction. I like things to be nice and solid. So mostly I'm a Materialist, as this perspective appeals to my sense of values.
But then there is another side where I like to challenge the status quo, so it's good to sometimes be an Idealist also.
I think we can both agree that when it comes to belief, you will side with the materialists.
For me - I don't self identify with either to the point where belief becomes the focus and underlying motive of any argument...both idealism and materialism are complimentary when viewed without belief systems being involved.
The brain will merrily reinforce whichever belief it feels best suits its illusory sense of personal selfhood. Until sufficient evidence comes along to sway the see-saw one way or the other. And that hasn't remotely happened yet.
Actually consciousness doesn't need belief in order to have a sense of self-hood. It is by its very nature, a 'self' already. Belief just adds unnecessary conflict to that sense of self in relation to other individuals and the environment in general.
Your belief that personal self-hood is an illusion the brain merrily reinforces may in itself be the very thing used for the purpose of surviving and attaining and maintaining the particular lifestyle you are experiencing.
