Definition of Consciousness

[MuDPhuD]

Brains are the thing to focus on in regard to how data is stored in regard to chemistry, which is a fundamental aspect of biological [life] forms.

Living structures able to store memory.

The memory of course is data. It is secondary to the point that memory can be stored, whatever the device. It is not so much what stores it as to what creates it and retrieves it.

Biology breaks down. As a storage device it has its limitations and if the pathways are damaged other pathways have to be built but eventually the gig is up and no retrieving can be done.

Now in terms of an individuate consciousness which experiences life from the perspective of being within human form, what it experiences creates the data which is stored in the brain it has the use of, and it [the individuate consciousness]alone is the only thing which can retrieve said data for itself/use.

The importance of this fact is worth the effort repeating.

In a physical universe it most obviously appears that devices are necessary for data storage, but this observation alone does not compel one conclude that other devices are not attached to that data or to the processes of individuate consciousness (your processes as an individual) that the data of your/my/our experience(s) is/are not able to be stored elsewhere or retrieved as is necessary.

The concept of 'the soul' has this attached to it.


If you trace back to the origin of the idea of the soul you will discover a time when being aware of the connection with that larger aspect of your total self was common place. It is now largely unknown but that does not signify it is a dead thing.

Furthermore the idea of the soul is not that you have one, but that the one has you.
You are its data gatherer.

Now call it what one will, it is able to be connected with and communicated with and through a variety of engaging processes, understood for what it is by its own explanation (as to what it is) independent of what you might otherwise think, have thought, or even that you resist thinking, or have never thought along such lines in relation to the idea of this thing sometimes called 'soul'.

All that is required is in order for it to communicate to you what it is, is your attentive focus and ability to at least meet it halfway in relation to the physical and how data is transferred.

I have heard such arguments before. There are many who want to believe that the soul, or consciousness, is not the brain. One way to make such a hypothesis fit with our modern understanding of the brain is to consider it the conduit, or as you say the "data gatherer" for the "soul".

Others here have already tried to dissuade you from this notion, and I will throw my 2 cents in as well.

Our experience consists of (off the top of my head):
1) sensations of the world around us,
2) memories of our past experiences,
3) feelings or emotions
4) thoughts, usually involving our primary language
5) imagination of possible events similar to those we have had
Please, anyone feel free to enumerate other components of our conscious experience which I have not included. I'd like to develop a comprehensive list.

All of these components can be shown to be directly dependent upon the activity of the brain. You already understand this regarding our sensory apparatus. Any damage to our sensory pathways removes that very specific sensation from our awareness. Blindness, deafness, and anosmia are quite common. In addition higher levels of perception may be disturbed by stokes in the neocortex and thalamus. A stroke victim may very specifically not recognizes "faces", or, may not recognize his/her own arm or leg, or may no longer attend to anything to their left or right. As you have said, this is all possibly consistent with the "brain as data gatherer for the independently existing soul" hypothesis. The results of brain stimulation, however, is more difficult to reconcile. When sensory areas of the brain are stimulated by microelectrodes in awake human patients, the conscious person has sensory experiences. In other words, artificially setting off a circuit of neurons firing in a network gives rise to sensory experience!

The same can be said for all the other components of conscious experience I have listed, memories can be eliminated be damage, or triggered by stimulation. Feelings can be triggered, including fear, anger, deja vu, and out of body experiences, by direct brain stimulation. People experience dreamy states and hallucinations based on brain damage, epileptic seizures, drugs, or direct brain stimulation.

My conclusion is that all of the components which make up "me", all my thoughts (language), memories, and feelings are all brain activity. There isn't any part of "me" which is not my brain. If my brain is a data gatherer, then what is gathering the data? It apparently has no thoughts, memorys, feelings, or sensations of its own, those are all in my brain. Whats left to be independently existing?

 

[MuDPhuD]

Ok! explain this. I was told by a voice in my head that I would win money on the lottery in 1998.

The was a long time ago. Memory is very unreliable after so long a time.

Earlier in the week I was worrying about not having enough money to buy christmas presents, and about not being able to buy a decent computer. At that moment a female voice spoke in my head, and said " help is coming from an unexpected source". That is all it said and I had never heard that voice before.

We all hear internal voices from time to time. Just ask Navigator.

Then later in the week I was picking the lottery numbers and I felt as if there was a presence with me that was guiding my hand to pick the numbers.

This is how you remember it after the fact. If you hadn't won, you would have forgotten all about it.

Then came the saturday draws and I picked up the ticket one hour before the draw and thought to myself. Maybe this ticket is worth a fortune, then I though no, and threw it down. At that moment the same female voice in my head said " You won".

Are you absolutely certain it was BEFORE the draw? That fact gives your story an air of the supernatural, but is really crucial, because if, even out of the corner of your eye you saw the winning numbers, or heard them, then your subconscious would have known the ticket was a winner, and cried out to you "You won". Remember, memory is notoriously unreliable especially after so great a time.

The voice had never spoken to me before and has never spoken to me since, but I did get a five number win which was enough money to pay my credit card and buy a good computer.
As far as I am concerned this is subjective personal experience I have had of telepathy from the spirit world, and the odds against it being a hallucination must be astronomical. Because I only ever heard that voice twice in my life and it told me I would win and I did.

I suppose you have never been more in need than at that time. How fortunate for you that the spirits could help.

The odds against winning are high enough so what are the odds a voice would tell you you won an hour before the draw on the only occasion that you did win?

How often did you play the lottery?

 

[Navigator]

...snip..

My conclusion is that all of the components which make up "me", all my thoughts (language), memories, and feelings are all brain activity. There isn't any part of "me" which is not my brain. If my brain is a data gatherer, then what is gathering the data? It apparently has no thoughts, memorys, feelings, or sensations of its own, those are all in my brain. Whats left to be independently existing?

Yes but you haven't factored into this that there is an aspect of the self which you are not aware of and it is possible for you to become aware of that and communicate with.

It has a different story to tell than what you have told.



Those questions you have asked can be answered.

 

[PixyMisa]

Belz, You can say I am just making stuff up, but I know I am not.

But, like everyone else who has ever made any claim relating to the existence of telepathy, you are unable to demonstrate this.

Real things have this habit of being demonstrable. Unreal things have the opposite tendency.

Neutrinos, for example, are incredibly hard to detect. A neutrino could pass through a light year of solid lead without noticing. But not only do we have no question at all that neutrinos exist, we know how many different types of neutrino there are and the properties of each type.

Compared to that, telepathy, were it real in the way that you and many others have suggested, would be as obvious as a slap in the face. But we detect absolutely no sign of it whatsoever.

For one thing: Lotteries run according to straightforward, easily calculated odds. If telepathy allowed people to beat those odds, it would show up immediately - more people would be winning than we calculated. When we look at the numbers, there is no sign of such an effect. None. Zero.

Of course, it's also impossible, contradicting everything we know about biology, chemistry, and physics, but it's more significant that there has never been a single piece of confirmable evidence that it has ever happened.

But the odds against winning five numbers are 55,490 to 1 against.

After the lottery has been drawn and you have five winning numbers, the odds are 1 to 1. This is, of course, true of any event that has already happened.

 

[PixyMisa]

If you trace back to the origin of the idea of the soul you will discover a time when being aware of the connection with that larger aspect of your total self was common place.

That belief was commonplace. That belief is still commonplace. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is true, ever was true, or could possibly be true.

 

[tsig]

Yes but you haven't factored into this that there is an aspect of the self which you are not aware of and it is possible for you to become aware of that and communicate with.

It has a different story to tell than what you have told.



Those questions you have asked can be answered.

He probably hasn't factored in that there are green dragons living in the sewers either.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator, yes I am male. I do not know what more details I can give about my experience of winning the lottery, as I said about all there is to say about it.
I believe the spirit world helped me when I was down, and they only gave me a five number win because it would be bad karma to give me six numbers as that would take a lot of money away from other people.
I think they did it partially so that I would get a computer to talk about this kind of stuff to people on the Internet, and partly as evidence to me that they were looking out for me.
The fact that I was given the numbers in advance of the lottery also implies that the spirit world can see into the future. I know that idea will not be acceptable to many people on this forum.

Yes I was thinking more about that myself. I see this as an indication not so much maybe of being able to foretell the future but being able to foretell the most likely future.
I see it like this:

Of course in regard to the the odds involved in your story, this suggests there is a lot of intelligence and insight involved with the foresight on the part of the 'spirit'.

 

[PixyMisa]

The fact that I was given the numbers in advance of the lottery also implies that the spirit world can see into the future. I know that idea will not be acceptable to many people on this forum.

It's not that the idea is somehow unacceptable, it's that it's completely unsupported by evidence.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Yes but you haven't factored into this that there is an aspect of the self which you are not aware of and it is possible for you to become aware of that and communicate with.

It has a different story to tell than what you have told.



Those questions you have asked can be answered.

So, you believe there is an "aspect of the self", which is none of those aspects I have listed, which communicates (how?) with you, and which exists independently of your brain.

If I suggest to you that you are imagining this "aspect", that what you are communicating with is your own subconscious, which is part of your own brain function, what evidence can you offer to distinguish my hypothesis from your own? So far in this thread I do not see any means of distinguishing between these two possibilities.

An entity with no content other than that contained in the human brain, no interaction with the world other than through the human brain, appears to reduce to... The human brain, nothing more.

 

[Scorpion]

MuDPhuD, Yes I am absolutely sure I was told I would win the lottery before the draw as I looked at the clock one hour before the live lottery draw on TV. It was then that a voice said "you won". I have done the lottery every week since it started and I still do, but the only time I heard that voice telling me I won, was when I did actually win.

 

[Belz...]

MuDPhuD, Yes I am absolutely sure I was told I would win the lottery before the draw as I looked at the clock one hour before the live lottery draw on TV. It was then that a voice said "you won". I have done the lottery every week since it started and I still do, but the only time I heard that voice telling me I won, was when I did actually win.

There's a part you're refusing to accept: human memory is notoriously unreliable. You have literally no way of knowing if your interpretation, after the fact, is playing tricks on you. That's why we test hypotheses in ways that help us to eliminate bias.

 

[Scorpion]

There's a part you're refusing to accept: human memory is notoriously unreliable. You have literally no way of knowing if your interpretation, after the fact, is playing tricks on you. That's why we test hypotheses in ways that help us to eliminate bias.

I do not think my memory is faulty on this, as I started telling people about it the following day after it happened, so it is not a distant half memory from 1998.

 

[Navigator]

I do not think my memory is faulty on this, as I started telling people about it the following day after it happened, so it is not a distant half memory from 1998.

This is correct.

I have had things happen to me subjectively which compelled me to rerun the memory of the event(s) almost on a daily basis, and some of those things happened 30 years and more ago.

So it is incorrect to argue that "There's a part you're refusing to accept: human memory is notoriously unreliable." in such cases.

 

[Navigator]

So, you believe there is an "aspect of the self", which is none of those aspects I have listed, which communicates (how?) with you, and which exists independently of your brain.

It is not that I 'believe' as much as it is that I know. As to 'how', there are many ways this is done but the scientific way is the way in which it can be confirmed, should the effort be made. To make the effort, one would have to suspend their beliefs either way and get about the task of discovering for oneself, as to how and in that process one will discover that this aspect of the self can speak for itself.

If I suggest to you that you are imagining this "aspect", that what you are communicating with is your own subconscious, which is part of your own brain function, what evidence can you offer to distinguish my hypothesis from your own? So far in this thread I do not see any means of distinguishing between these two possibilities.

It does not matter what we call it. I have referred to it as 'subconscious' myself. But what of that?
Whatever we might 'call' it, it is more than capable of explaining to you what it is and what it signifies in relation to you as you see yourself.

An entity with no content other than that contained in the human brain, no interaction with the world other than through the human brain, appears to reduce to... The human brain, nothing more.

Says you who has no idea really as to what it even really is, because you have never encountered it on the level I am speaking about.
All you see is a brain. All you have is your opinion of what it is, what is going on etc.
Not you alone of course but you are equally incorrect in the conclusions you have drawn, simply because you know of no way that this aspect can communicate with you and speak for itself.

Even that there is such a way, it is most likely you would not want to dedicate the time and effort necessary to find out what it has to say for itself and anything else it could provide in the way of data in relation to your subjective reality.

That is because the nature of smaller self (you) is that it wants to be in the drivers seat and any thought of there actually being a larger aspect of your self is seen to be a threat to that smaller self and its subjective position in the world of its experience.
This is even more the case when you (that smaller self) have aligned your beliefs to argue against any possibility that such a thing as this larger self actually exists.

One cannot approach the larger self with those kinds of attitudes and one will argue to ones dying day the none existence of such a thing, argument largely based upon ones subjective resistance to even going there to investigate the possibility.

Why?

Because if it is true, then most of your cherished beliefs crash and burn and turn to dust and irrelevance, so to go there is to risk losing all that security of knowledge which plays a big part in defining who you are in your own eyes, and in the eyes of your peers.

 

[dlorde]

I do not think my memory is faulty on this, as I started telling people about it the following day after it happened, so it is not a distant half memory from 1998.

This is correct.

I have had things happen to me subjectively which compelled me to rerun the memory of the event(s) almost on a daily basis, and some of those things happened 30 years and more ago.

So it is incorrect to argue that "There's a part you're refusing to accept: human memory is notoriously unreliable." in such cases.

It may be hard to accept, but available evidence suggests that the more often an episodic memory is recalled and recounted, the more distorted it becomes. Distortion often favours a preferred narrative (which may develop over time), and may involve temporal changes, merging with other memories, introduction of false memories, loss of significant information, etc.

This is something common to almost everyone (there are a few rare individuals with 'superior autobiographical memory' who recall accurate detail of their daily activities), so it happens to all of us. Human memory is notoriously unreliable.

 

[Belz...]

I do not think my memory is faulty on this

Well, that IS the problem with memory: it's the only data you have. That's why outside data is so important in science and skepticism.

So it is incorrect to argue that "There's a part you're refusing to accept: human memory is notoriously unreliable." in such cases.

It's not incorrect: human memory IS notoriously reliable. You are confusing the statistics with single data points.

 

[MuDPhuD]

It is not that I 'believe' as much as it is that I know. As to 'how', there are many ways this is done but the scientific way is the way in which it can be confirmed, should the effort be made. To make the effort, one would have to suspend their beliefs either way and get about the task of discovering for oneself, as to how and in that process one will discover that this aspect of the self can speak for itself.



It does not matter what we call it. I have referred to it as 'subconscious' myself. But what of that?
Whatever we might 'call' it, it is more than capable of explaining to you what it is and what it signifies in relation to you as you see yourself.




Says you who has no idea really as to what it even really is, because you have never encountered it on the level I am speaking about.
All you see is a brain. All you have is your opinion of what it is, what is going on etc.
Not you alone of course but you are equally incorrect in the conclusions you have drawn, simply because you know of no way that this aspect can communicate with you and speak for itself.

Even that there is such a way, it is most likely you would not want to dedicate the time and effort necessary to find out what it has to say for itself and anything else it could provide in the way of data in relation to your subjective reality.

That is because the nature of smaller self (you) is that it wants to be in the drivers seat and any thought of there actually being a larger aspect of your self is seen to be a threat to that smaller self and its subjective position in the world of its experience.
This is even more the case when you (that smaller self) have aligned your beliefs to argue against any possibility that such a thing as this larger self actually exists.

One cannot approach the larger self with those kinds of attitudes and one will argue to ones dying day the none existence of such a thing, argument largely based upon ones subjective resistance to even going there to investigate the possibility.

Why?

Because if it is true, then most of your cherished beliefs crash and burn and turn to dust and irrelevance, so to go there is to risk losing all that security of knowledge which plays a big part in defining who you are in your own eyes, and in the eyes of your peers.

So, to summarize, your firm knowledge that your subconscious mind, with which you communicate, is an entity apart from your brain is based on communications from your subconscious mind which tells you this is so. You believe this without any way to confirm whether it might be true or not. If you have some way to confirm this please be forthcoming as I would love to hear it. Otherwise I respectfully submit that you are fooling yourself.

We all communicate with our subconscious. Your supposition that no one who disagrees with you has spent time introspecting and "getting in contact with their inner selves" is presumptuous. I recognize my "inner self", the source of motivations, inspirations, and creative urges as my subconscious mind which arises from the activity of neural networks which comprise my cerebrum. This is what it tells me. I, however, recognize a large body of independent research which confirms what my subconscious says.

Listening to your inner voices, and getting to know your inner selves is a tricky business. Every religion in human history is based on spiritual communication with the subconscious realms, usually by select and trained individuals,. This type communication has resulted in myriad internally inconsistent, and mutually exclusive religious systems resulting in very little good, but certainly in widespread bloodshed between groups who's spirit worlds gave conflicting information.

I submit to you that subconscious, spiritual, or divine revelation is not a source of reliable information.

 

[MuDPhuD]

It is not that I 'believe' as much as it is that I know. As to 'how', there are many ways this is done but the scientific way is the way in which it can be confirmed, should the effort be made. To make the effort, one would have to suspend their beliefs either way and get about the task of discovering for oneself, as to how and in that process one will discover that this aspect of the self can speak for itself.



It does not matter what we call it. I have referred to it as 'subconscious' myself. But what of that?
Whatever we might 'call' it, it is more than capable of explaining to you what it is and what it signifies in relation to you as you see yourself.




Says you who has no idea really as to what it even really is, because you have never encountered it on the level I am speaking about.
All you see is a brain. All you have is your opinion of what it is, what is going on etc.
Not you alone of course but you are equally incorrect in the conclusions you have drawn, simply because you know of no way that this aspect can communicate with you and speak for itself.

Even that there is such a way, it is most likely you would not want to dedicate the time and effort necessary to find out what it has to say for itself and anything else it could provide in the way of data in relation to your subjective reality.

That is because the nature of smaller self (you) is that it wants to be in the drivers seat and any thought of there actually being a larger aspect of your self is seen to be a threat to that smaller self and its subjective position in the world of its experience.
This is even more the case when you (that smaller self) have aligned your beliefs to argue against any possibility that such a thing as this larger self actually exists.

One cannot approach the larger self with those kinds of attitudes and one will argue to ones dying day the none existence of such a thing, argument largely based upon ones subjective resistance to even going there to investigate the possibility.

Why?

Because if it is true, then most of your cherished beliefs crash and burn and turn to dust and irrelevance, so to go there is to risk losing all that security of knowledge which plays a big part in defining who you are in your own eyes, and in the eyes of your peers.

So, to summarize, your firm knowledge that your subconscious mind, with which you communicate, is an entity apart from your brain is based on communications from your subconscious mind which tells you this is so. You believe this without any way to confirm whether it might be true or not. If you have some way to confirm this please be forthcoming as I would love to hear it. Otherwise I respectfully submit that you are fooling yourself.

We all communicate with our subconscious. Your supposition that no one who disagrees with you has spent time introspecting and "getting in contact with their inner selves" is presumptuous. I recognize my "inner self", the source of motivations, inspirations, and creative urges as my subconscious mind which arises from the activity of neural networks which comprise my cerebrum. This is what it tells me. I, however, recognize a large body of independent research which confirms what my subconscious says.

Listening to your inner voices, and getting to know your inner selves is a tricky business. Every religion in human history is based on spiritual communication with the subconscious realms, usually by select and trained individuals,. This type communication has resulted in myriad internally inconsistent, and mutually exclusive religious systems resulting in very little good, but certainly in widespread bloodshed between groups who's spirit worlds gave conflicting information.

I submit to you that subconscious, spiritual, or divine revelation is not a source of reliable information.

 

[tsig]

MuDPhuD, Yes I am absolutely sure I was told I would win the lottery before the draw as I looked at the clock one hour before the live lottery draw on TV. It was then that a voice said "you won". I have done the lottery every week since it started and I still do, but the only time I heard that voice telling me I won, was when I did actually win.

What good did it do to know you'd win?

I'd be more impressed if the voice had given you the winning numbers.

 

[Belz...]

If one communicates with the subconscious, then it isn't subconscious.