Question for Cris and James R.,if possible...

[Cris]

Canute,

It is profoundly unscientific.

Yes I know but I’m not arguing from a scientific perspective here merely common sense and a sense of perspective.

It's not at all obvious that the brain produces consciousness.

I disagree – what else is available to generate such a thing? It is a phenomenally complex and powerful organ and to then say that it doesn’t do very much is very short sighted.

There isn't even a plausible scientific hypothesis for how it could happen.

Doesn’t this simply reflect that we don’t know fully how the brain works yet?

You're entitled to speculate, but there's nothing obvious about your conclusion.

Of course it is obvious. A very complex organ sits in our skull that we don’t fully understand and if this doesn’t produce consciousness then what? What other organs even come close to providing such a feature? The Ancient Egyptians thought it was from the heart and they discarded the brain tissue during mummification. They were simply ignorant.

But to speculate that an entire immaterial realm must exist to provide consciousness is not only not obvious but a massive fantasy that has zero basis in observable reality.

Just because you cannot imagine that consciousness is more fundamental than brain doesn't mean that it isn't.

Why is that relevant? Why imagine anything else other than the brain as the source? Until we properly understand the brain there is little justification in giving credence to other fantasy baseless speculations.

You have to have some sort of evidence. So far there is none.

The brain exists, consciousness exists, where else is there to look that is more obvious?

In fact so far it has been impossible to decide even what sort of evidence might settle the matter.

But why look anywhere else other than the brain?

On top of that it is becoming clear, from the ongoing inability of researchers to hypothesise logically plausibly mechanisms, that the very idea that consciousness is just matter self-referencing is logically suspect.

And creating a fantasy of an immaterial realm is somehow less logically suspect?

All you are doing is stating that we don’t know how consciousness is caused and that we don’t fully understand how the brain operates. But to speculate that the brain is not the cause is a massively and unjustifiable speculation that goes far beyond my rather obvious speculation which is just a matter of joining up the dots.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Oh! Well that's that then!

Excellent. So I hope that means you will stop spouting soul gibberish.

If i was staring at a windmill on a beautifull summers day, would that image be in my brain if it was being scanned, mapped or monitored symultaneosly?
No?
So how come i am percieving this marvel, and know that my perception is real?

Why would that discredit your brain as the mechanism?

That is not consciousness, that is just a programe made by someone with consciousness.

Just imagine something 100,000 times more powerful. Which is what the brain is.

Because every precedent for bodily organs shows each organ providing a certain function, why would the brain be any different?

Huh!!!

I guess you have a liver, and kidneys, and lungs, and eyes, and a nose, and ears, and a heart, etc, etc, right? These all do certain things for you, why would the brain be any different?

I.e. there is no basis to support other speculations.

That is a seriously ignorant attitude.

Then give me evidence that supports another speculation for consciousness.

You only know you have a consciousness because you are conscious. If you were unconscious or dead, would you know you have consciousness?

We know consciousness exists because we have defined the observed phenomenon. It has nothing to do with whether I am alive, dead, conscious or unconscious.

The soul is the cause and the perception is the effect.

But a pointless and baseless assertion again.

For example if you observe a chicken egg and then look back later and see a broken egg and a baby chicken it is not reasonable to assume that the chicken arrived by spaceship from Mars.

What does that have to do with anything?

Brain, consciousness, join up the dots. I’m sure you can do that.

How so?

Because no other organ offers anything like the same potential as the brain for causing consciousness.

The idea of a soul originated from ancient and ignorant times when little to nothing was understood about human physiology.

Please specify.

See references to breath, ancient Egypt, and most religions.

What information would these so-called intelligent people and informed have at their disposal to justify this definite conclusion.

Common sense.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
Why would that discredit your brain as the mechanism?

Where in the brain would this mechanism be?

Just imagine something 100,000 times more powerful. Which is what the brain is.

It would mean the programme is 10,000 times faster. But a conscious living being would still be the cause.

These all do certain things for you, why would the brain be any different?

Who/what is the 'you' in this regard?

Then give me evidence that supports another speculation for consciousness.

B.G.2.13
dehino 'smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṃ yauvanaṃ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāpti
dhīras tatra na muhyati

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

We know consciousness exists because we have defined the observed phenomenon.

How?
Through being conscious?

It has nothing to do with whether I am alive, dead, conscious or unconscious.

So a dead man can still observe consciousness heh?
Well by your simplistic idea he must do because a dead man still has a brain.

Because no other organ offers anything like the same potential as the brain for causing consciousness.

How do you know consciousness is caused?
Or is just one of your desparate stabs at wrapping this thing up so we can move to the next stage of modernism?

Common sense.

Hope its not the same common sense that says a dead man with a brain can observe consciousness.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Why would that discredit your brain as the mechanism?

Where in the brain would this mechanism be?

Why does it matter? Where else could it be?

It would mean the programme is 10,000 times faster. But a conscious living being would still be the cause.

Or more complex. The issue here isn’t about computers but a sense of proportion of the power of the human brain. The analogy with computers is to try to show you the massive power that the brain contains.

Your tendency is to dismiss this massive power as being inappropriate as a vehicle for a consciousness. I do not see that conclusion as reasonable.

These all do certain things for you, why would the brain be any different?

Who/what is the 'you' in this regard?

That which you recognize as you.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

This is not evidence, just another baseless assertion.

We know consciousness exists because we have defined the observed phenomenon.

How?
Through being conscious?

No. Through language.

It has nothing to do with whether I am alive, dead, conscious or unconscious.

So a dead man can still observe consciousness heh?

Read my statement. It has nothing to with being dead, alive etc.

Well by your simplistic idea he must do because a dead man still has a brain.

We define a foot for example as having certain properties; we define consciousness as having particular properties. We know a foot exists because we have observed and defined it as such. We know consciousness exists also because we have observed and defined it as such.

This concept is not difficult. Why are you having problems?

Because no other organ offers anything like the same potential as the brain for causing consciousness.

How do you know consciousness is caused?

Because there is no basis or precedent to speculate otherwise. Everything human grew from conception, so there is every precedent to conclude that consciousness arose through the same process.

Or is just one of your desparate stabs at wrapping this thing up so we can move to the next stage of modernism?

More my attempt to make people discard outdated, ancient and ignorant and baseless concepts that have no place in our more enlightened times.

Hope its not the same common sense that says a dead man with a brain can observe consciousness.

You just need to focus more on what is being said rather than trying to avoid and twist the issues.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,Yes I know but I’m not arguing from a scientific perspective here merely common sense and a sense of perspective.

What I meant specifically was that you were not using common sense and a sense of perspective. You are just forming an opinion for temperamental reasons. I accept that you don't think you're doing that.

I disagree – what else is available to generate such a thing? It is a phenomenally complex and powerful organ and to then say that it doesn’t do very much is very short sighted.

So what gives rise to matter then? Turns out that it is just as difficult to explain as consciousness, more so in fact. (I'm certainly not suggesting that the brain doesn't do very much, very far from it.)

Doesn’t this simply reflect that we don’t know fully how the brain works yet?

That's a reasonable argument, but I don't feel that the evidence supports it. When it comes to matter we have strings and brains and big bangs and many dimensions etc etc. They may not be true theories but they are at least plausible as far as they go. When it comes to consciousness we don't have any theories, just assertions that it arises from matter.

The complete absence of any plausible (logically coherent) physicalist theories of consciousness, even after a few hundred years of scientific research, may be a coincidence, or just the result of absence of knowledge but I don't think so. I would argue that it is because there is no plausible physicalist explanation for it.

Of course it is obvious. A very complex organ sits in our skull that we don’t fully understand and if this doesn’t produce consciousness then what?

Then what? Then consciousness is ontologically prior to matter.

What other organs even come close to providing such a feature? The Ancient Egyptians thought it was from the heart and they discarded the brain tissue during mummification. They were simply ignorant.

So are we. The location of consciousness is still open to debate. By one current view, formally and publicly argued, we are conscious of pain at the location of the pain, not in our brains. The location of consciousness is a mystery. If it is non-physical then it can't have one in a normal sense.

But to speculate that an entire immaterial realm must exist to provide consciousness is not only not obvious but a massive fantasy that has zero basis in observable reality.

Well there's hardly likely to be direct observable evidence, and it's unfair to argue on that basis. (String theory suffers the same problem). However there is indirect evidence, masses of it in fact.

Why is that relevant? Why imagine anything else other than the brain as the source? Until we properly understand the brain there is little justification in giving credence to other fantasy baseless speculations.

It is not necessary to do decades of research to deduce that the hypothesis that consciousness is just matter self-referencing doesn't make sense. The fact that it doesn't is why the scientific study of the ontology of consciousness is completely stagnant at the moment.

The brain exists, consciousness exists, where else is there to look that is more obvious?

Every mystic and every introspective philosopher that has ever lived, as far as I know, has reached the opposite conclusion. They may be wrong of course, but they are not more stupid as people than you, and have good reasons for arguing differently.

But why look anywhere else other than the brain?

There's an awful lot been written in answer to that, much of it recent, since the debate is gathering pace. There are felt to be good reasons.

And creating a fantasy of an immaterial realm is somehow less logically suspect?

What fantasy? Are you saying that everything that exists is physical? The idea doesn't make sense.

All you are doing is stating that we don’t know how consciousness is caused and that we don’t fully understand how the brain operates.

I'm saying that, yes, but that's not all that I'm saying.

But to speculate that the brain is not the cause is a massively and unjustifiable speculation that goes far beyond my rather obvious speculation which is just a matter of joining up the dots. [/B]

I know that I'm not going to change your mind about this here. However you are being unfair. You have made up your mind without understanding the counterarguments.

It is not unjustifiable speculation, it's just that you haven't given this view as much attention as it deserves, and you therefore don't see the justification. However I agree that it's a matter of joining up the dots. This is why Buddhism is sometimes described as no more than enlightened common sense, a joining up of the dots.

PS. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I can't do that. However I don't think you've thought this through as fully as you believe you have, or that you're view is the more rational one to hold, (quite the opposite in fact).

 

[spookz]

ah
my fave poster in the whole wide world

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
Why does it matter? Where else could it be?

It could be anywhere, just because the brain is a complicated peice of machinary doesn't mean it is the the seat of consciousness.

The analogy with computers is to try to show you the massive power that the brain contains.

What does that have to do with it being the seat of consciousness?

Your tendency is to dismiss this massive power as being inappropriate as a vehicle for a consciousness. I do not see that conclusion as reasonable.

I'm not dismissing it, i'm merely asking you where in the brain consciousness is caused, as you seem very confident in your assertions

That which you recognize as you.

I don't recognise my brain as me. In fact i'd be surprised if anyone did.
Do you?

This is not evidence, just another baseless assertion.

Its not a basesless assertion, it is a fact at least in part.

No. Through language.

How is it we percieve and understand language if not through conscious awareness?

We know a foot exists because we have observed and defined it as such. We know consciousness exists also because we have observed and defined it as such.

It is not the categorizing patterns of behavior such as toe wiggling i am reffering to, but the actual subjective experience of conscious awareness. Can you explain to me how this has been scientifically observed, and where in the brain these 3 dimensional images and feelings we see and experience are?

A straight answer would suffice.

This concept is not difficult. Why are you having problems?

I'm not having problems at all, i would just like an answer to my questions. Is that so hard for you to do?

Everything human grew from conception, so there is every precedent to conclude that consciousness arose through the same process.

So your an expert on the origin of human experience now?

More my attempt to make people discard outdated, ancient and ignorant and baseless concepts that have no place in our more enlightened times.

Are you definately sure that those so-called ignorant and baseless concepts such as B.G. text in my last post, have absolutely no relevance to the individual human being?
If you are. Why?

You just need to focus more on what is being said rather than trying to avoid and twist the issues.

Then please say something worth focusing on.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Canute,

My approach now is just simply one of pragmatism. We have consciousness and we have a wonderfully complex organ we call the brain. I no longer have any problem putting them together. That the brain might make use of quantum effects doesn’t negate the brain being the cause of consciousness.

That we can’t yet accurately define the manifestation of consciousness should not be too bothersome since modern neuroscience is really only a few decades old and has never had the powerful computing and diagnostics tools that are now appearing.

PS. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I can't do that. However I don't think you've thought this through as fully as you believe you have, or that you're view is the more rational one to hold, (quite the opposite in fact).

Note that I am not arguing here from the perspective of a proof since I don’t think one is necessary, at least not for the details. But there have now been significant clinical tests that show that thoughts and emotions arise in the brain, the previous domain of the religious based soul, and that to speculate that there can be such a thing as an immaterial soul is just silly.

Put yourself in the place of someone who has never heard of the religious concept of a soul and then look at the simple facts of the issue. Nothing immaterial, in the religious sense, has ever been detected or observed, it is simply rank fantasy based entirely on ignorance of brain physiology. But the human mind (consciousness) is extremely real and so is the brain. Now achieve that sense of perspective of the sheer power of the brain, those 200 billion neurons where each acts like a tiny microprocessor and all are operating in parallel. Now imagine the trillions of dynamic synaptic connections occurring and the massive information matrices that are constantly being formed that we have termed neural networks.

Our current instrumentation and analytical devices are still far too gross to trace the subtleties of the mind and how it operates clearly. It is certainly not the case where we understand most of the brain and cannot see how consciousness arises but that we have only just begun our investigations. Why would you be surprised that we have yet to find an appropriate hypothesis when we have yet so little knowledge to help us?

Of course consciousness arises from the brain; there really can be no serious doubt. The issues I now see is how long before we fully understand how the brain operates so we can start duplicating those functions artificially.

Book reference - http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=AiCR_8

 

[John Doe]

You know consciousness exists, but can you show me what it is and where it resides, what it's made of?

Difficult questions. Consciousness almost certainly resides in (is generated by) neural activity within certain areas of biological brains. I have no idea what it is made of, but my best guess would be that it's a property of electromagnetic fields that are generated by, and can generate, neural activity. Just a guess.

 

[Cris]

Jan

It could be anywhere, just because the brain is a complicated peice of machinary doesn't mean it is the seat of consciousness.

Give an evidential example then of where consciousness might reside if it isn’t the brain.

What does that have to do with it being the seat of consciousness?

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the complexity of consciousness will very likely require something complex to hold it – like a brain that has the complexity similar to 10,000 super computers perhaps.

I'm not dismissing it, i'm merely asking you where in the brain consciousness is caused, as you seem very confident in your assertions.

Then I think you need to talk to a cognitive neuroscientist then or at least begin to follow the ongoing research in that arena. My assertions are based on the rather obvious existence of a complex organ and a personal consciousness where the two seem inextricably linked.

That which you recognize as you.

I don't recognise my brain as me.

But that is not what I said. That is what you expected me to say and you jumped the gun. But do a thought experiment – imagine losing all your limbs, and torso, and imagine only your head remained. Ignore the very probable psychological shock for this exercise and assume your head is being kept alive artificially. You should agree that you will still recognize yourself as you. Now remove your skull and eyes, ears, nose, etc until only your brain is left. While you cannot communicate with the outside world you would still be able to think and you would still have a consciousness, agreed? Now start removing parts of your brain. Very quickly your ability to think will disintegrate, your memories will begin to vanish, your abilities to imagine beautiful images will fade, and the ‘you’ will begin to disappear, and eventually when all your brain is gone ‘you’ will simply cease to exist.

If you feel strongly that I am wrong then I strongly invite you to try it for yourself.

Its not a basesless assertion, it is a fact at least in part.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

I see no facts here. Please indicate.

How is it we percieve and understand language if not through conscious awareness?

Your original quote –

You only know you have a consciousness because you are conscious. If you were unconscious or dead, would you know you have consciousness?

The last sentence seems to be bizarre and I don’t consider worthy of comment, it is simply silly.

My reply to the first part was to the effect that we have a consciousness because we have identified the phenomenon and have given it a name. I don’t see nay point in further elaboration. Your question seemed to have little relevance to the issues.

Can you explain to me how this has been scientifically observed, and where in the brain these 3 dimensional images and feelings we see and experience are?

Again you need to discuss this with a cognitive neuroscientist and follow that research.

A straight answer would suffice.

Done. My point I hope is clear. The brain is the very obvious extremely complex organ that has the potential to hold consciousness. There is no other even close plausible alternative.

The analogy is seeing a 50 ton boulder crush your car and then suggest that perhaps the car collapsed by itself spontaneously and the boulder had nothing to do with it.

Everything human grew from conception, so there is every precedent to conclude that consciousness arose through the same process.

So your an expert on the origin of human experience now?

Can you demonstrate any other plausible process?

Are you definately sure that those so-called ignorant and baseless concepts such as B.G. text in my last post, have absolutely no relevance to the individual human being?
If you are. Why?

Yes. They had no comprehension of the complexity of the human brain and its obvious power. The soul concept was devised in the absence of any knowledge of modern physiology. It is simply an ignorant fantasy and cannot be relevant to any human.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Cris
Of course consciousness arises from the brain; there really can be no serious doubt.

You are not ready to doubt then.!

The issues I now see is how long before we fully understand how the brain operates so we can start duplicating those functions artificially.

It is better to jump after confirming that there is water in the swimming pool.!

 

[Cris]

Everneo,

You are not ready to doubt then.!

Note that I said ‘no serious doubt’.

It is better to jump after confirming that there is water in the swimming pool.!

Obviously we can’t start producing artificial brain functions until we have more knowledge. So what’s your point?

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Cris
Obviously we can’t start producing artificial brain functions until we have more knowledge. So what’s your point?

The complete functions / nature of brain to be confirmed before trying to duplicate consciousness. Artificial brains sans consciousness is equivalent to swimming pool sans water. Or intelligent machines without consciousness.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,
My approach now is just simply one of pragmatism.

You have a very different definition of pragmatic than I do. From here (no offense, honest, just an opinion) it seems to be based on ignoring the facts of science and philosophy. I suppose that's a kind of pragmatism.

We have consciousness and we have a wonderfully complex organ we call the brain. I no longer have any problem putting them together.

I accept that.

That the brain might make use of quantum effects doesn’t negate the brain being the cause of consciousness.

I agree. The brain must make use of quantum effects, since all matter is founded on them.

That we can’t yet accurately define the manifestation of consciousness should not be too bothersome since modern neuroscience is really only a few decades old and has never had the powerful computing and diagnostics tools that are now appearing.

Another millenia of neuroscience won't alter the logic of the situation.

Note that I am not arguing here from the perspective of a proof since I don’t think one is necessary, at least not for the details.

Faith is sufficient then? Buddhists would argue that you should not rely on belief, it's too easy to believe any old thing.

But there have now been significant clinical tests that show that thoughts and emotions arise in the brain, the previous domain of the religious based soul, and that to speculate that there can be such a thing as an immaterial soul is just silly.

You give the strong impression that you did not study this subject before forming your opinions. Such speculations are not silly, even the scientific journals are full of them. There is a reason for this, namely that the physicalist explanation seems to have inevitable logical flaws. These may be overcome, but they haven't been yet.

Still, clearly thoughts and emotions arise in the brain. The question here is whether the underlying substance that allows us to be aware of those thoughts and emotions arises in the brain.

Put yourself in the place of someone who has never heard of the religious concept of a soul and then look at the simple facts of the issue.

My very method.

Nothing immaterial, in the religious sense, has ever been detected or observed, it is simply rank fantasy based entirely on ignorance of brain physiology.

I don't know what to say to that, it's perfectly obviously not true. Are you saying that experientia are physical?

But the human mind (consciousness) is extremely real and so is the brain.

Mind is a tricky word, since sometimes it is used to include consciousness, and sometimes it is used to refer to just the computational aspects of our thinking.

How do you reconcile your opinion that mind is real with the view that nothing is immaterial? Are you saying that neuroscience can investigate minds?

Now achieve that sense of perspective of the sheer power of the brain, those 200 billion neurons where each acts like a tiny microprocessor and all are operating in parallel. Now imagine the trillions of dynamic synaptic connections occurring and the massive information matrices that are constantly being formed that we have termed neural networks.

Fascinating, but not relevant. I'm not arguing that our brains are simple things.

Our current instrumentation and analytical devices are still far too gross to trace the subtleties of the mind and how it operates clearly.

That is a category error. Our instrumentation will never, ever detect minds. It is impossible a priori, in principle and ex hypothesis.

It is certainly not the case where we understand most of the brain and cannot see how consciousness arises but that we have only just begun our investigations. Why would you be surprised that we have yet to find an appropriate hypothesis when we have yet so little knowledge to help us?

I agree that it doesn't in itself prove anything. However even Democritus et al managed some plausible theories of matter based on logic. Nobody anywhere at any time has put forward a scientific hypothesis explaining how consiousness arises. The nearest I've come across is Dennett's 'heterophenomenalism', but nobody seems to think it makes sense.

The fact that we don't have a good scientific theory of consiousness is not too surprising. But the fact that we don't even have a bad one is.

Of course consciousness arises from the brain; there really can be no serious doubt. The issues I now see is how long before we fully understand how the brain operates so we can start duplicating those functions artificially.

You don't seem to be aware that even the most physicalist of scientific researchers don't make such unsupportable (and unprofessional) claims as this. It is pure speculation, and ignores the facts.

I'll check out the book reference.

PS - Hmm. It seems to be just an ad. for a book. This is the best single resource I know of http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
Give an evidential example then of where consciousness might reside if it isn’t the brain.

Can you give evidential example that consciousness resides in the brain?

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the complexity of consciousness will very likely require something complex to hold it – like a brain that has the complexity similar to 10,000 super computers perhaps.

Why?
Does consciousness have physical properties?

Then I think you need to talk to a cognitive neuroscientist

Why?
You're the one making the claim?

My assertions are based on the rather obvious existence of a complex organ and a personal consciousness where the two seem inextricably linked.

Everything in the human structure is linked. So what's your point?

imagine losing all your limbs, and torso, and imagine only your head remained. Ignore the very probable psychological shock for this exercise and assume your head is being kept alive artificially. You should agree that you will still recognize yourself as you.

Imagine you are dead, and your old body still has the brain and all other organs in tact. Would you still recognise yourself as you?

If you feel strongly that I am wrong then I strongly invite you to try it for yourself.

If you feel strongly that i am wrong, then i strongly invite you to try my above point for yourself.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

I see no facts here. Please indicate.

See a response i made to Canute a few posts back.

The last sentence seems to be bizarre and I don’t consider worthy of comment, it is simply silly.

You're right, it is silly. But that is something like what you are proposing.

Done. My point I hope is clear. The brain is the very obvious extremely complex organ that has the potential to hold consciousness. There is no other even close plausible alternative.

Please state what the physical properties of consciousness are (if there are any), otherwise you are just going round in circles like a dog chasing its tale.

Yes. They had no comprehension of the complexity of the human brain and its obvious power.

What if the brain is powered by the soul and as such the brain isn't such the wonderful instument you seem to think it is?
What use is a dead brain compared to an eternal soul?

concept was devised in the absence of any knowledge of modern physiology. It is simply an ignorant fantasy and cannot be relevant to any human.

To all theists:

Imagine the day when this mindset becomes the most powerful and dominating force on this planet.

Brrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for that dialogue Cris. Things are becoming clearer.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Canute, Jan,

If the brain isn’t the cause of consciousness do you have any plausible superior hypothesis?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Canute, Jan,

If the brain isn’t the cause of consciousness do you have any plausible superior hypothesis?

To be honest I haven't so much been arguing for a hypothesis as trying to point out the weakness of yours.

Still, I can see no logical answer to the undecidable questions of metaphysics other than that the non-dual view of reality is correct, and that consciousness is more fundamental than matter, (although that idea needs some unpacking). Please note the lack of reference or Gods or souls, too many misunderstandings arise from those words.

Unfortunately, for sound logical reasons, this is not a provable hypothesis, (in a sense it isn't even a hypothesis) so don't ask me to prove it, but I'm always happy to argue for it. It requires first-person validation (which I do not claim to have fully done). However it is an old, unrefuted and respectable position, one asserted repeatedly throughout recorded history by philosophers and mystics who explore the 'inward arrow' to find reality.

I can't see any other way of solving Chalmers' 'hard problem' or of avoiding scientific philospher Roger McGinns 'mysterianism' (which asserts that the consciousness/matter problem is by its logical nature not capable of a solution), or of explaining the utterly consistent experience of so many different people from so many cultures over such a long time period.

The hypothesis makes no appeal to faith, belief, traditional doctrine, inferrence, induction, orthodoxy, spirituality, mysticism, irrationality, or conjecture, (in a superficial sense anyway). However it does rest for its credibility on subjective experience. That is, an understanding of it, and thus of its rational credibility and truth, (if true it is) does seem to require some introspection, since an inner paradigm shift is involved.

It also does not contradict any observational or logically deduced evidence, in fact it explains it all very well. The problem is that finding out whether it is true or not is not simply matter of reading some expert or other. That isn't to say that it cannot be rationally known to be true, but it's very difficult to explain how, since this is only possible after something of a personal paradigm shift. It's a chicken and egg problem that totally prevents non-dual advocates from becoming successfully evangelical, more's the pity. I suppose Advaita Vedanta is about the nearest to an organised third-person presentation of the non-dual view, but there's a lot of ways of coming at it. You'll at least like the fact that there are no Gods (strictly speaking) and it is asserted that spirtual seekers are on the wrong track.

Canute

 

[Idle Mind]

Cris, have a boo at this site, and let me know if you can understand what they're talking about. It seems interesting, but it's a tad esoteric for me. If you can get anything meaningful out of it, I would love to hear about it.

http://www.hameroff.com/slide show/slideshow_intro.htm

Enjoy!

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Canute
I suppose Advaita Vedanta is about the nearest to an organised third-person presentation of the non-dual view, but there's a lot of ways of coming at it.

Most of the people see advaita philosphy as highly abstract and, as you said, there are ways to achieve that. finally it waters down to theology to channelize the mind. There is one example (rope & snake) which predates centuries before the famous vase and facial profile example that is used to describe wave-particle duality in QM. Neither the vase nor the facial profile but patches of ink. Neither the conventional God nor the soul/universe but the One. Pure monistic view. I have a gut feeling that Buddha indicates this as nirvana or liberation from bondage of illusions. And in a wide sense, other religions talking of this as communion of God head and souls/universe. Perhaps you might have a different view. I respect your view as well.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by everneo
Most of the people see advaita philosphy as highly abstract and, as you said, there are ways to achieve that. finally it waters down to theology to channelize the mind.

I don't know what you mean by 'abstract'. Advaita makes direct and clear claims about the natuire of reality. There is no theology involved at all, absolutely none.

There is one example (rope & snake) which predates centuries before the famous vase and facial profile example that is used to describe wave-particle duality in QM. Neither the vase nor the facial profile but patches of ink. Neither the conventional God nor the soul/universe but the One. Pure monistic view.

I'm not sure of exactly what you're saying here, but just in case you're suggesting it I should point out that Advaita, and Buddhism in general, is not a monist philosophy.

I have a gut feeling that Buddha indicates this as nirvana or liberation from bondage of illusions.

Not quite, for the reasons given.

And in a wide sense, other religions talking of this as communion of God head and souls/universe. Perhaps you might have a different view. I respect your view as well. [/B]

I agree that most religions point to the same truth, but don't agree it's what you say here. There are no gods in a non-dual view of reality, which is one reason why Christian mystics have always had trouble skirting heresy in their writings as they get close to reporting their main findings, sometimes only publishing after their death.

You don't need to respect my view, it's robust enough to withstand some disrespect, and if it isn't I'll dump it.