Why dualism?

[IanS]

Comparing the unlimited nature of space to awareness (and only appearing to be parceled) is used as an analogy.
To somehow extend to blood or cheese sorta blows.
I am simply asking if awareness could (like space) could be unlimited and only appears to be parceled?

Well it is "far fetched" because there is no known reason, or any known way, nor any evidence, to say that what we call "conciousness" is in any way "like outer space".

And why do you think human awareness is "unlimited"? It's very clearly restricted by the very significant limits of our sensory system.

But just because conciousness seems "a bit mysterious", and space also seems "a bit mysterious", that's no sort of reason for thinking they might therefore be the same sort of thing!

(To me) it is not a far-fetched question because while the contents of my mind are limited and bound; the awareness that knows my experiences is contiguous and continuous, it's the same today at age 62 as when I was 5 or 45, the same when I'm experiencing pleasantries or unpleasantries, awake or dreaming, drunk or lucid, etc. Awareness also has no boundary or edge - only the contents of awareness are changing, bound and limited.

Well again - your awareness, and your possible experiences, what you can or cannot be "concious" of, very clearly is all limited by your fairly crude human sensory system.

But the bottom line through all of this is, as many here have already shown, there is actually no evidence of any human conciousness in the absence of a working brain. No such evidence at all. None!

And on the contrary, all the evidence from genuine modern objective scientific studies, shows that (as Novella put it) "the mind, is the brain". There's no evidence for any other conclusion.

As I ventured to suggest above - there is also probably no reason why any educated people in the 21st century would ever think that so-called "conciousness" should exist outside of the human body after death, unless they are already persuaded towards such thoughts by a preconceived belief in ideas about a spirit world, life after death, invisible disembodied souls & ghosts etc.

 

[Myriad]

Comparing the unlimited nature of space to awareness (and only appearing to be parceled) is used as an analogy.
To somehow extend to blood or cheese sorta blows.
I am simply asking if awareness could (like space) could be unlimited and only appears to be parceled?
(To me) it is not a far-fetched question because while the contents of my mind are limited and bound; the awareness that knows my experiences is contiguous and continuous, it's the same today at age 62 as when I was 5 or 45, the same when I'm experiencing pleasantries or unpleasantries, awake or dreaming, drunk or lucid, etc. Awareness also has no boundary or edge - only the contents of awareness are changing, bound and limited.

It could be unlimited and only appear to be parceled. Indeed, for millennia that was the prevailing belief.

But all the investigative evidence is against it.

The key difference is, when someone is parceled inside walls, and the confining walls become damaged, their experiences become less limited and bound.

When someone's brain becomes damaged, their experiences become more limited and bound.

That's not consistent with what confining walls do.

You will probably not accept this observation as valid. You may instead cite rare occurrences that appear to be counterexamples, such as NDEs or shaky narratives of past life memories.

But spend some time—and I mean, significant portions of your life—with stroke victims or Alzheimer's patients or, as in my experiences, the developmentally/intellectually disabled, and you will not see liberated spirits peering through the growing gaps in their mortal containment in eager anticipation of the wider awareness waiting outside. You will see human beings heroically coping with more limits, greater confinement, a diminished or eroding existence.

When you really know what tearing half the pages out does to a book, the notion that burning the whole book will somehow liberate it from the confining limits of text fails to ring with evident truth.

 

[LarryS]

Well that's the last time I ever employ an analogy on this forum.

 

[LarryS]

I don't have to cite rare and spectacular experiences - when the day to day mundane will suffice. Pick up any object, a pencil or bar of bronze will do - notice that you are having an experience of that object, and, notice there is an awareness that knows that experience.
My interest is not with that experience of that object, but with the awareness that knows that experience.
The experience of that object is limited and bound - but the awareness that knows that experience, is the same awareness at this moment, as it is when you pick up the next object. Its the same awareness, the same knowing - it's the same awareness that experienced objects when you were 5 years old, when you are dreaming, when you are in love - and its the same awareness that will know tomorrow's cup of coffee. This awareness knows no boundary or edge.
Did you pick up an object?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't have to cite rare and spectacular experiences - when the day to day mundane will suffice. Pick up any object, a pencil or bar of bronze will do - notice that you are having an experience of that object, and, notice there is an awareness that knows that experience.
My interest is not with that experience of that object, but with the awareness that knows that experience.
The experience of that object is limited and bound - but the awareness that knows that experience, is the same awareness at this moment, as it is when you pick up the next object. Its the same awareness, the same knowing - it's the same awareness that experienced objects when you were 5 years old, when you are dreaming, when you are in love - and its the same awareness that will know tomorrow's cup of coffee. This awareness knows no boundary or edge.
Did you pick up an object?

Well that's some fine word salad there. Deepak Chopra would be pround.

 

[Minoosh]

The alleles that predispose people for believing in ghosts may be the same alleles that predispose people for believing in gods. I suspect the belief in ghosts came before the belief in gods.

Definitely there's a genetic component IMO. My mother and I have very similar belief system, although we were raised very differently. The belief that ancestors create cohesion in a group could very well have given small human societies a survival edge.

 

[IanS]

I don't have to cite rare and spectacular experiences - when the day to day mundane will suffice. Pick up any object, a pencil or bar of bronze will do - notice that you are having an experience of that object, and, notice there is an awareness that knows that experience.
My interest is not with that experience of that object, but with the awareness that knows that experience.
The experience of that object is limited and bound - but the awareness that knows that experience, is the same awareness at this moment, as it is when you pick up the next object. Its the same awareness, the same knowing - it's the same awareness that experienced objects when you were 5 years old, when you are dreaming, when you are in love - and its the same awareness that will know tomorrow's cup of coffee. This awareness knows no boundary or edge.
Did you pick up an object?

You are fooling yourself with your own purposeful, deliberate and selective choice of words.

You are talking about "awareness" (which is actually what the word "conciousness" means), and talking about it "knowing" things, e.g. you say "This awareness knows ..." and you say "the awareness that knows that experience, is ....", as if to automatically imply that the so called awareness "conciousness" is itself an intelligent "knowing" force that is independent of the physical brain.

Your awareness conciousness is not "unbounded" as you keep trying to claim. But on the contrary, as I just pointed out to you - your awareness is very clearly "bound by" i.e. restricted to things which your human sensory system can detect ... and your sensory system (which is certainly only a physical system of cells and chemical reactions), is most definitely bound by the limits of what your eyes can visually detect, what your hearing can detect etc.

What you are trying to do, is to claim some sort of separate spiritual existence for a disembodied conciousness (awareness). But there is absolutely zero evidence for any such thing. In contrast all genuine studies show that so-called "conciousness" is something which is created by the chemical and physical response system of the brain.

 

[Myriad]

I don't have to cite rare and spectacular experiences - when the day to day mundane will suffice. Pick up any object, a pencil or bar of bronze will do - notice that you are having an experience of that object, and, notice there is an awareness that knows that experience.
My interest is not with that experience of that object, but with the awareness that knows that experience.
The experience of that object is limited and bound - but the awareness that knows that experience, is the same awareness at this moment, as it is when you pick up the next object. Its the same awareness, the same knowing - it's the same awareness that experienced objects when you were 5 years old, when you are dreaming, when you are in love - and its the same awareness that will know tomorrow's cup of coffee. This awareness knows no boundary or edge.

Are you claiming that this awareness happened without neural activity of your brain?

If not, then it in no way addresses the controversy at hand, which is about what phenomena this awareness arises from (e.g. brain functioning versus universal implicit consciousness).

If so, then all the research findings so far strongly suggest that you are mistaken. Disease or damage to the brain clearly does impose boundaries and edges on awareness. If you've had a stroke and no longer remember the objects (or anything else) you experienced when you were five years old, where has that supposedly unbounded awareness gone?

 

[annnnoid]

You are fooling yourself with your own purposeful, deliberate and selective choice of words.

You are talking about "awareness" (which is actually what the word "conciousness" means), and talking about it "knowing" things, e.g. you say "This awareness knows ..." and you say "the awareness that knows that experience, is ....", as if to automatically imply that the so called awareness "conciousness" is itself an intelligent "knowing" force that is independent of the physical brain.

As usual…it’s blindingly obvious who it is who’s fooling themself!

...so where has it been established that ‘awareness’ means ‘consciousness’!?!?! The actual fact (since you still seem to have no problem re-arranging them in any way you see fit) is that there does not exist anything remotely resembling an empirical definition for or description of EITHER of those words.

…but hey…why should a few inconvenient facts get in the way of yet another steaming pile of garbage!

Your awareness conciousness is not "unbounded" as you keep trying to claim. But on the contrary, as I just pointed out to you - your awareness is very clearly "bound by" i.e. restricted to things which your human sensory system can detect ... and your sensory system (which is certainly only a physical system of cells and chemical reactions), is most definitely bound by the limits of what your eyes can visually detect, what your hearing can detect etc.

More unqualified garbage. People engage in all manner of subjective activity which requires no sensory input what-so-ever.

…ever heard of dreams?

...apparently not…and there are lots of other examples. Why don’t you make an effort and try and imagine what they are.

What you are trying to do, is to claim some sort of separate spiritual existence for a disembodied conciousness (awareness). But there is absolutely zero evidence for any such thing. In contrast all genuine studies show that so-called "conciousness" is something which is created by the chemical and physical response system of the brain.

…there’s lots of evidence. Just how many times is it necessary to point this out!!!!

…and just how many times is it necessary to point out that just because science cannot empirically adjudicate a phenomenon does not mean that it does not exist!

Science cannot empirically adjudicate YOU…so shall we conclude that you do not exist!


As for your earlier dump from ‘Consciousness and the Brain’…I’ll get to it when I have time. Suffice it to say that it’s trivially easy to pound universe size holes in it. No doubt you haven’t a clue where they are…that’s simply because you prefer to look for what you want to find. It’s called bias.

Are you claiming that this awareness happened without neural activity of your brain?

If not, then it in no way addresses the controversy at hand, which is about what phenomena this awareness arises from (e.g. brain functioning versus universal implicit consciousness).

If so, then all the research findings so far strongly suggest that you are mistaken. Disease or damage to the brain clearly does impose boundaries and edges on awareness. If you've had a stroke and no longer remember the objects (or anything else) you experienced when you were five years old, where has that supposedly unbounded awareness gone?

…and given that no one has the faintest clue what ‘consciousness’ is, if it is a ‘thing’, and / or how it is even created…it is quite reasonable to conclude that your so-called ‘research findings’ are…at best…at a very rudimentary stage of development.

Shall I go on…yeah, why not. There does not exist any variety of science that can even begin to empirically adjudicate subjective experience. Nor does there exist anything remotely resembling an empirical or definitive theory of cognition / mind. Most of those posting here probably haven’t a clue what that even means or what the significance of it is.

…do you?

How about a few other inconvenient facts. Modularity of mind. Ever heard of that? Not even remotely an established theory. Neural scanning…why don’t you folks take some time and look at what is going on. Resolution issues…just for example. Cognitive events can occur over milliseconds…or days. Temporal resolution in fMRI typically bottoms out at about 1sec (many neural events occur over milliseconds)….and there are countless practical issues that make long-term scanning all-but useless. Spatial resolution goes down to about 1mm cubed. Anyone have the faintest idea how many neurons / synapses / glial cells occur inside a cubic millimeter (IOW…how many potentially relevant events).

Millions…billions.

…so tell me again how a cognitive event can be ‘exactly duplicated’ when that degree of uncertainty is involved! Or how we have the capacity to explicitly and definitively adjudicate neural activity.

Beyond stupid!

 

[LarryS]

Are you claiming that this awareness happened without neural activity of your brain?

If not, then it in no way addresses the controversy at hand, which is about what phenomena this awareness arises from (e.g. brain functioning versus universal implicit consciousness).

If so, then all the research findings so far strongly suggest that you are mistaken. Disease or damage to the brain clearly does impose boundaries and edges on awareness. If you've had a stroke and no longer remember the objects (or anything else) you experienced when you were five years old, where has that supposedly unbounded awareness gone?

I am not sure if awareness happens because of neural activity or not - research seems the demonstrate the contents of the mind are. Re your stroke question - awareness happens in the present moment, remembering objects are the contents of the mind, which are seemingly effected by brain activity.
As you can gather, I am making a distinction between awareness and the contents of the mind . . . and from this point on, I'll use the term 'consciousness' to mean the awareness of an object(s), being aware of the contents of the mind.

 

[wea]

Beyond stupid!

don't beat yourself up; try again, you'll get it right maybe

 

[IanS]

Are you claiming that this awareness happened without neural activity of your brain?

If not, then it in no way addresses the controversy at hand, which is about what phenomena this awareness arises from (e.g. brain functioning versus universal implicit consciousness).

If so, then all the research findings so far strongly suggest that you are mistaken. Disease or damage to the brain clearly does impose boundaries and edges on awareness. If you've had a stroke and no longer remember the objects (or anything else) you experienced when you were five years old, where has that supposedly unbounded awareness gone?

I am not sure if awareness happens because of neural activity or not - research seems the demonstrate the contents of the mind are. Re your stroke question - awareness happens in the present moment, remembering objects are the contents of the mind, which are seemingly effected by brain activity.

Larry; it's hard to know what you meant to say there. Because the English does not really make sense. However, if you mean to say that you doubt that what is called "awareness", i.e. human "conciousness", is actually the result of chemical processes in the brain, then the evidence says that you are wrong to doubt that. Because the genuine published science shows that what we call "conciousness" (or "awareness", if you prefer that word), most definitely is the result of chemical and/or electrical/physical responses in the cells that make-up the human brain. And you can confirm that for yourself by reading all the references, books, and research papers that I just cited and linked several times in the posts above.

As you can gather, I am making a distinction between awareness and the contents of the mind . . . and from this point on, I'll use the term 'consciousness' to mean the awareness of an object(s), being aware of the contents of the mind.

If by that highlighted sentence you again mean to say that the "mind" is something different from, and independent of, the physical structure that we call the human brain, then that is again precisely the issue that I just addressed above (and which we keep addressing here over & over again in almost every post). In which respect, to repeat yet again - "the genuine published science shows that what we call "conciousness" (or "awareness", if you prefer that word), most definitely is the result of chemical and/or electrical/physical responses in the cells that make-up the human brain. And you can confirm that for yourself by reading all the references, books, and research papers that I just cited and linked several times in the posts above"

 

[LarryS]

Larry; it's hard to know what you meant to say there. Because the English does not really make sense. . . ...Because the genuine published science shows that what we call "conciousness" (or "awareness", if you prefer that word), most definitely is the result of chemical and/or electrical/physical [/I]

Since we are speaking of words, could you explain what you mean by "physical" - and could you please reify "physical" in a meaningful way?

 

[IanS]

Since we are speaking of words, could you explain what you mean by "physical" - and could you please reify "physical" in a meaningful way?

Well you can just look in any dictionary, eg -

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

 

[JoeMorgue]

Since we are speaking of words, could you explain what you mean by "physical" - and could you please reify "physical" in a meaningful way?

If I throw it at you and you duck, it's probably physical.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

If I throw it at you and you duck, it's probably physical.

Let us say that I like you. I can't throw like at you, so that I like you, is not physical.
Notice what I done, I found something humans do, but can't be thrown and by your argument it is not physical.

What is physical?

 

[Donn]

Let us say that I like you. I can't throw like at you, so that I like you, is not physical.

Yes it is. It's <somehow> encoded into the matter of the brain; however briefly.



You can throw "like" by winking and smiling. Well, it's your game.

Physical is matter — however fractal and weird it gets.

 

[LarryS]

Now, can you prove the "physical" exists?

 

[LarryS]

If I throw it at you and you duck, it's probably physical.

No because you also duck in your dreams when there clearly is nothing thrown at you - - - this only demonstrates that conscious events have consequences.

 

[marplots]

Now, can you prove the "physical" exists?

That is an extremely odd question. I can't make sense of it at all.