On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

This topic is an offshoot from another thread which was on another topic altogether.

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

I wouldn't pass judgements. My biggest question is why you have a brain type that is willing to jump into the unknown with some assurance, while I seem to have a brain type that doesn't. If I don't know, I leave it at not knowing.

I don't think it comes down to just the brain alone. I think there are many other factors involved. Clearly even from a secular point of view it is recognize that the brain "evolves" as we grow as individuals based much on how we experience life, etc.

For example the very concept of the "unknown" may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. I mean, sure we could get out a dictionary and look up the term, but that really wouldn't help much because what you believe you know and what I believe I know are going to clearly be two different things. Especially considering my last sentence of the above paragraph. Our knowledge and beliefs evolve in our own brains based upon our own experiences, which clearly are not going to be the same experiences.

Consciousness: I don't know of any scientist that makes his or her living studying it who declares they know what it is.

This is true, but there may be quite a few scientists who feel like Daniel Dennett. Even though he is just a philosopher.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

End of copy and paste

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

[bernee51]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

I am a little pushed for time so cannot answer in depth....however I found Nicholas Humphrey's books Seeing Red and Soul Dust bring some clarity around the issue.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

I am a little pushed for time so cannot answer in depth....however I found Nicholas Humphrey's books Seeing Red and Soul Dust bring some clarity around the issue.

He has his Soul Dust lecture on a youtube video. I watched that and find it to be lacking. He's doing the same thing that Dennett does. He keeps talking about how the physical brain possesses information and presents it to you, in a way that seem convincing.

But neither of these gentlemen have ever address who this you is that the brain is presenting information to. What is is that is being "tricked" by the brain into believing that it is having an experience?

In fact, what sense does it even make to speak about a brain "tricking" someone into having an experience if there is no one at home to be "tricked".

There has to be something that is being "tricked".

This goes back to my earlier question in the OP. What is being "tricked" into believing that it has consciousness? Matter and energy? Electromagnetic fields? Some abstract notion of a "complex emergent property"?

What is being tricked into believing that is having an experience?

And what sense does it even make to say that something is being "tricked" into having an experience?

Surely if there is something that can be "tricked", then that something is the root of conscious awareness to begin with.

These theories that something is being "tricked" into believing that it is having an experience makes no sense to me.

It seems to me that there would need to be something that is capable of having an experience even before such a thing could be "tricked".

So these kinds of arguments (which are becoming quite popular among secularists) seem to all boil down to the same fundamental flaw. They all require that something that can have an experience is being "tricked" into believing that it is having an experience.

That seems mighty circular to me.

This is almost no different from saying that there must be a God to explain how something came to be in the first place without having to explain where God came from.

All they are doing is proclaiming that something that is capable of having an experience is being tricked into believing that it is having an experience.

What?

How is that an explanation for consciousness?

It's a totally circular explanation.

I just don't see where these guys have explained how conscious experience works at all. All they seem to be doing is explaining how a brain works.

One thing they don't seem to realize is that even mystics accept that we have brains and that we are indeed experiencing this incarnation through these brains. So all the science they are proclaiming about the brain is not impressive to the mystic. We already accept all of that. There's nothing knew there.

The question the mystic is asking is "Who is this YOU that these guys are claiming is being tricked into thinking that it is having an experience?"

And they don't seem to be any closer to answering this question then the ancient mystics were thousands of years ago. All this mechanism of how the brain works doesn't shed any light at all on the ancient question of what exactly is it that having an experience.

It seems to boil down to three secular possibilities.

1. Matter/energy is having an experience.

2. Electromagnetism or electromagnetic fields are having an experience.

3. An abstract notion of an emergent property of complexity is having an experience.

I find all three of these to be quite strange.

The first two suggest to me that the thing that is actually having an experience may very well be nature herself (i.e. the very energy that we are made of)

Actually 1 and 2 are basically the same thing. Energy is having an experience. And that pretty much boils down to pantheism. That's a mystical philosophy.

Or #3 is true (which seems to be more akin to pure secularism). If #3 is true, then when we die our conscious awareness dies too because it was never anything more than an abstract emergent property of complexity.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that an abstract emergent property could have an experience. But I don't entirely rule this out. It just seems quite bizarre to me.

The idea that energy itself is some sort of "higher being" that is actually having this experience, seems to almost make more "secular" sense to me. Even though this idea is actually mysticism (i.e. it gives the entity of consciousness an eternal vessel in which to reside) That vessel being energy itself, whatever the heck energy is.

Energy would then be the "entity" that we call "God" in a pantheistic sense.

Of course if we truly are just an emergent property of complexity that is having an experience, then obviously when our brain dies the complexity ceases to exist and thus so does the thing that was having the experience.

The only problem I have with this is that the thing that had an "experience" was never anything more than an abstract notion of an emergent property of complexity. That's a pretty weird thing to assign the ability to have an experience to I think.

How could an abstract property of complexity have an experience?

Now you may ask, "Well how could energy have an experience?"

It's true that I can't answer that question either. But at least energy could be seen as an actual entity. Perhaps it's an entity that is so weird by our standards that we can't understand how it works. But it would still be an entity that could have an experience.

I just don't see how an emergent property could have an experience. That's a pretty fleeting abstract idea there.

The idea that energy incarnates as physical brains, experiences what they do, and then goes off to do other things, makes at least some sense.

Although, in the end, I confess that no matter what the truth might be reality is weirder than weird.

I just don't see where an idea of an abstract emergent property having an experience has much of a leg up on energy having an experience.

Seems to me that one is just as good of a guess as the other. In fact, I confess, that, for me, the idea that energy is some sort of "entity" capable of having an experience actually seems to make more sense. Especially in light of QM where there may be information existing on a level beneath what we currently think of as the physical world. In other words, "energy" could be the substance of some sort of quantum mind.

So that's one reason I lean in that direction.

I don't deny that brains may very well be incarnated physical object through which energy is having incarnated experiences. And because of this, all this information on how brains work simply isn't impressive. Of course they work that way. What would we expect? That's perfectly natural.

These videos wouldn't surprise a mystic at all. A mystic would simply say, "Of course that's how a brain works, whoever claimed any different?"

The mystic doesn't deny the physical incarnation. And they have always recognized the difference between "mind" and "brain". For them "mind" refers to the one who is having an experience.

All these guys are doing is explaining how brains work. But that's not impressive. That's a given for the mystics.

They aren't explaining what it is that is having a conscious experience.

Who is the YOU that these guys keep saying is being "tricked" into believing that it is having an experience? And does that even make any sense?

[bernee51]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]



Apologies again for not addressing in detail your very extensive post.

I would like to look at option 3 (albeit briefly)


3. An abstract notion of an emergent property of complexity is having an experience.

Are you are familiar with the Law of Complexity/Consciousness

Here Teilhard de Chardin suggests, in I think The Future of Man), the tendency of matter to become more complex over time and at the same time to become more conscious.

From google

Matter complexified from inanimate matter, to plant life, to animal-life, to human-life. Or, from the geosphere, to the biosphere, to the noosphere (of which humans represented, because of their possession of a consciousness which reflects upon themselves). As evolution rises through the geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere, matter continues to rise in a continual increase of both complexity and consciousness.

He said: "The more complex a being is, so our Scale of Complexity tells us, the more it is centered upon itself and therefore the more aware does it become. In other words, the higher the degree of complexity in a living creature, the higher its consciousness; and vice versa. The two properties vary in parallel and simultaneously. If we depict them in diagrammatic form, they are equivalent and interchangeable."

--Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man, p. 111

What is the 'truth' behind the fact that we have an experience? I have no idea. Besides 'truth is a pathless land'.

What I do use the three sources of knowledge to build a worldview which, for me, leads in the direction of 'skilful' behaviour (to use a Buddhist term). Or in a yogic sense, one that best expresses the eight limbs of yoga.

This, for me, means advaita.

However, all I can really know, my bottom line, is that we are biological creatures who have evolved in consciousness to a point that facilitates self-reflectivity (we can ask 'Who am I?"). All else, all thought, beleifs, ideas, theories etc, up to and including our sense of an individual self, are and can only be mental constructs.

Of course, with this ability to ask "who am I?" also comes the idea of 'the other'. The idea of t'the other' led to 'the golden rule' and ultimately to the concepts of some 'great Other' aka god.

[Divine Insight]

This, for me, means advaita.

However, all I can really know, my bottom line, is that we are biological creatures who have evolved in consciousness to a point that facilitates self-reflectivity (we can ask 'Who am I?"). All else, all thought, beleifs, ideas, theories etc, up to and including our sense of an individual self, are and can only be mental constructs.

Of course, with this ability to ask "who am I?" also comes the idea of 'the other'. The idea of t'the other' led to 'the golden rule' and ultimately to the concepts of some 'great Other' aka god.

I find the views you express to be rather strange coming from someone who professes to have some understanding of Buddhism.

You talk about the question "Who am I?" and suggest that with this also comes the idea of "The Other".

But is that really true? From my understanding of the teachings of Buddhism it seems to me that you haven't yet truly answered the the question. In other words, you seem to think that the answer to the questions "Who am I?" is the ego.

Now I don't mean this in any derogatory sense. That's not how it is intended in Buddhism. The ego simply refers to the perspective of viewing ones self as a completely isolated individual. In other words, it is to view yourself basically as the sum total experience of an individual person who has had individual experiences and is indeed separate from all else (thus creating a need to even think in terms of "The Other")

But a Buddha Mystic Master would say, "No, that's not the answer." You haven't meditated on this deeply enough if you think that's the answer.

Now having said this I would like to go back to what you spoke of in term of the geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere. I tend to agree that there are different levels of conscious awareness.

We tend to think of the geosphere as being totally unaware of anything at all. However, the mere fact that it is on your list of levels of consciousness implies that it certainly should be included as a level of consciousness. I too believe that it should be on the list. I believe that it may very well be that matter and energy are conscious at some fundamental level. In fact, this very notion is the foundation of much of the spiritual notions of philosophies such as Taoism and Wicca. This is seen the foundational source of the power of "magick" in Wicca for many Wiccans. They view nature herself (i.e. matter/energy) as having a conscious essence that can be communed with on a conscious psychic level.

However, let's not get side-tracked on that ideal. I was merely commenting on the potential consciousnesses of the geosphere there. And since you already have it on your list, I also wanted to acknowledge that I accept this being on the list as well.

But now let's move up to the next level of consciousness (on your list), the biosphere. That is a very wide-range of consciousness as it ranges from bacteria that can't have much more consciousness than inanimate stones, to plants, and then animals where we see a very wide range of various levels of consciousness, to and even including humans. Even though we also place ourselves in a Higher category that we have invented that you are calling the noosphere.

However, the noonsphere is actually defined as the sphere of human thought.

This is no doubt a totally human-centric and therefore arrogant concept to begin with on the part of humans. We invented the term and defined it to suit our needs. Or I guess I should say that Vladimir Vernadsky invented this term.

Actually the noosphere is defined as the collective Human consciousness. But is that truly the next level up? I do not agree that this level of consciousness should necessarily be associate solely with humans. It may be true that at the moment humans are the only beings we know of that have this level of consciousness, but is it truly unique to humans only in terms of reality, or the universe as a whole?

What is the concept that we are truly attempting to get at? It's clearly self-awareness. It's our ability to reflect back upon our own conscious experience and recognize clearly that we are observing our own behavior. And with this new level of conscious awareness also comes an ability to think abstractly which is both marvelously wonderful, and simultaneously laden with extreme perils of genuine ignorance. By that, I simply mean that with our ability to think abstractly also comes the ability to imagine all sorts of abstract ideas that really have very little or nothing at all to do with reality.

So there is a huge danger that comes with abstraction in terms of potentially blinding us to truth.

The the concept of a noosphere is itself such an abstract concept. But as defined (i.e. as the sphere of human thought) does it truly have any value? I suggest not.

What is far more likely to be a concept of truth is simply the concept of an ability to become self-reflecting and with that the ability to think abstractly. In other words, I hold that any conscious being that attains this level of conscious awareness has reached this level we are currently calling the "noosphere". In other words, it's ill-defined to even define it as the sphere of "human thought".

Although, I guess on planet Earth that does make some sense since humans appear to be the only creatures that have obtained this level of consciousness thus far. My only point here is that to define it as "Human Thought" is to miss the point when what it really has to do with is the ability to clearly self-reflect and think abstractly. That is the paramount difference in this level of consciousnesses from all the others that we may simply lump into the lower bin of "biosphere consciousness".

Now the question comes up. Are these three levels of conscious the end of the line? Or are there higher levels yet?

If there are higher levels then how many are there? Can consciousness grow without bound? Are there infinitely many levels of consciousnesses, and if so, what could they be?

Here's what we have thus far (by the model that we are discussing):

Geosphere consciousness - The consciousness innate to matter and energy.
(This is a topic worthy of focusing on in and of itself, as it can actually be quite interesting, and not nearly as mundane as some people might think)


Biosphere consciousness - The consciousness of biological life.
(This is also topic worthy of focusing on in and of itself, as it can also be quite interesting, and there are clearly many different sub-levels or milestones that can be recognized and sub-categorized within this realm.)

Noosphere consciousness - The consciousness of self-reflection and abstraction.
(This is of course, the state of human consciousness as we typically think of it.)

What would be the next major step up?

Well, one possible next definition could be the ability to recognize that the Noosphere consciousness was really quite limited on self-reflection and that once a creature gets over itself it begins to realize that its actually nothing more than a part of that original geosphere consciousness that has simply grown to become far more aware of what's going on on a larger scale.

In other words, it's a move away from self-reflection to the realization that there is no individual self at all. All that exists is the geosphere that resides in many different aspects, one of which is in creatures like humans that have reached the Noosphere level of consciousness.

The Buddhist call this level of consciousness "The Enlightenment". And for them it is the ultimately level of consciousness that can be attained within this incarnation of matter/energy.

Whether their model is true or not is anyone's guess. But I think this is a good model for their philosophy. Once you read the Enlightenment Consciousness, you are prepared to move beyond the physical incarnation of consciousness to some imagined higher spiritual level of consciousness. This of course will require your physical death to take place ultimately.

Where there is any truth to this ideology or not is, like I say, anyone's guess.

I might also add that this is not the line of thinking of all forms of Buddhism. On the contrary there are many different imagined scenarios.

Here are what I believe to be the main three philosophy of various versions of Buddhism.

They all seem to have the same foundational idea that you move through the realms of consciousness via a system of "Karma". In other words, your next conscious incarnation will be determined by the actions of your current incarnation.

(Note: Some forms of Buddhism don't even go that far and are actually atheistic believing that karma only applies to this lifetime alone, and once it's over it's over. But I think most forms of Buddhism are more mystical in their nature)

So here are what I see as the top three ideas:

1. You simply work through these levels of conscious incarnation endlessly. You move up and down the ladder of consciousness, returning to life over and over again in various stages. But again, your actions determine the quality of life you will enjoy or not enjoy in your next incarnation. Coming back as a maggot in a pile of dung may not seem very inviting to a human. But in truth, existing as a maggot in a pile of dung could potentially be the most blissful form of existence for all we know. So we really need to suspend judgement on what we might think would be moving "up or down" in terms of reincarnation.

2. You continually move up the latter of consciousness with every new incarnation. Your lives will still be enjoyable or not enjoyable depending on your past actions (your karma from previous incarnations). When you finally reach the highest level of consciousness you reach nirvana and are finally snuffed out entirely so you don't need to do this anymore. This may seem really weird, but in this form of Buddhism the idea is to get out of life as life is nothing more than an endless cycle of suffering.

3. This is basically the same as #2 with the exception that when you finally reach the highest level of consciousness in the physical plane, you move up to some higher plane (not unlike the Christian idea of Heaven). In this scenario Nirvana is actually thought of as being like Heaven. It's a place you strive to move toward.

And Nirvana itself may have many levels. Just like Christianity originally had "Seven Heavens" and even purgatory, etc.

So there's lots of different ways of viewing it. I think #3 is probably the most popular form of Buddhism. Although there are atheistic versions of it as well. For example, many people say that Zen Buddhism is basically just glorified atheism.

All of the above was just a rambling to produce the following possible continuations of your list of consciousness.

1. Geosphere
2. Biosphere
3. Noosphere (self-reflection abstraction)
4. Enlightenment (realization that you're not the self you thought you were in #3)
5. Spiritual ( moving forward from physical reincarnation altogether to some imagined "heavenly nirvana" where reality is based on pure consciousness without the geosphere being required at all.)

Are there even higher levels of existence or consciousness beyond #5?

Who knows? That's far beyond our ability to even guess at. We're still guessing whether or not #5 has any potential reality.

[bernee51]

This, for me, means advaita.

However, all I can really know, my bottom line, is that we are biological creatures who have evolved in consciousness to a point that facilitates self-reflectivity (we can ask 'Who am I?"). All else, all thought, beleifs, ideas, theories etc, up to and including our sense of an individual self, are and can only be mental constructs.

Of course, with this ability to ask "who am I?" also comes the idea of 'the other'. The idea of t'the other' led to 'the golden rule' and ultimately to the concepts of some 'great Other' aka god.

I find the views you express to be rather strange coming from someone who professes to have some understanding of Buddhism.

You talk about the question "Who am I?" and suggest that with this also comes the idea of "The Other".

But is that really true? From my understanding of the teachings of Buddhism it seems to me that you haven't yet truly answered the the question. In other words, you seem to think that the answer to the questions "Who am I?" is the ego.

Now I don't mean this in any derogatory sense. That's not how it is intended in Buddhism. The ego simply refers to the perspective of viewing ones self as a completely isolated individual. In other words, it is to view yourself basically as the sum total experience of an individual person who has had individual experiences and is indeed separate from all else (thus creating a need to even think in terms of "The Other")

But a Buddha Mystic Master would say, "No, that's not the answer." You haven't meditated on this deeply enough if you think that's the answer .

Thank you again for you well thought out post. I will do my best over the next day or so to digest it and comment where I can. In the meantime I want to address the first part.

The answer to the question 'who am I?' is another question. From where does this I thought arise? When we 'became' homo sapiens and awareness arose the very first thought, the primeval thought, was 'I'. The purpose of the question 'who am I?' is to bring a response of 'where does the sense of I come from?' This is self-realisation.


Ramana describes self realisation as follows:

In a pinhole camera, when the hole is small you see shapes and colours. When the hole is made big the images disappear and all one sees is light. Similarly when the mind is small and narrow it is full of shapes and words. When it broadens it sees pure light. When the box is destroyed altogether only light remains.


Are you familiar with the writings of Alan Watts?

[Divine Insight]

Are you familiar with the writings of Alan Watts?

Yeah, back in the 70's I think I read every book he wrote possible even twice. I very much enjoyed his books. I bought them all as small paperback and kept them on a self which was quite a large self. I must have had about 25 books. I'm not sure how many he wrote.

The extreme irony is that in one of those books he was suggesting not to cling to things and so I gave all those books away. I'm actually sad that I did that. I would mind reading through them again to day just for the enjoyment of bringing back all those memories. Not memories just from the books, but my lifestyle back then was very much back-to-nature and so reading those books again would bring all of that nostalgia back.

Ironically Buddhism teaches not to "live in the past". Yet from a very practical point of view, sometimes It nice to reminisce over times during our lives that were truly enjoyable, and those were some of the most enjoyable times of my life.

I don't feel the same way about the mystical philosophies as you do evidently.

You say:

The answer to the question 'who am I?' is another question. From where does this I thought arise? When we 'became' homo sapiens and awareness arose the very first thought, the primeval thought, was 'I'. The purpose of the question 'who am I?' is to bring a response of 'where does the sense of I come from?' This is self-realisation.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the teachers of Buddhism. I think different people come away from it with different ideas, and these even includes those who have become known as "Masters". All the "Masters" don't agree. Just like all Catholic Popes don't agree on what Christianity is all about, etc.

We are all humans, and that includes the Buddhist Masters.

In fact, Siddhartha himself taught not to accept other people's conclusions. You must find your own.

I'm not so sure there is one single conclusion that is right for everyone. I think people often get too hung up on the idea that there is "One Absolute Truth" out there that we are all seeking.

None the less, the idea you offered put forth by Ramana doesn't seem to be compatible with the idea you just put forth above about "self-realization" as a primordial "I". That idea almost sounds like you are just seeking a more solid technical foundation for the 'ego' (or the individual self).

You quote Ramana as saying:

Ramana describes self realisation as follows:

In a pinhole camera, when the hole is small you see shapes and colours. When the hole is made big the images disappear and all one sees is light. Similarly when the mind is small and narrow it is full of shapes and words. When it broadens it sees pure light. When the box is destroyed altogether only light remains.

I would argue that this idea that the "box" is destroyed altogether and only the light remains, is the realization that the primordial I is not in the box at all, but is rather the whole of everything. It is the light itself.

And that's a good analogy because what is light but vibrating energy. And that's what everything is made of. That is our true nature. We are the energy that is vibrating. We are "waves" on a sea of consciousness. The ego is a wave, the mystic self is the ocean.

In fact, I'm certain that Allan Watts used that analogy several times, as no doubt many mystics have.

~~~~

In an effort to bring this back to the concept of Consciousness. This would be like saying that a "brain" is a certain configuration though which energy is having an experience. (The brain is the wave, or also the FORM).

But the thing that is having the experience is the ocean. (That's the energy that is currently taking the FORM of standing wave patterns that constitute a physically manifest brain).

So the brain is certainly not redundant. It is indeed a physical manifestation (i.e. a very specific standing wave pattern of energy). And because of this it certainly has meaning, and it exists as a form to be sure.

But is the form the foundation of the experience? Is the FORM having the experience? Or is the thing that is taking that form (i.e. energy) having the experience?

This is obviously a quite profound question. Even secularists can't say that energy does not exist, or is not part of the brain. Clearly even science tells us that the brain is standing wave patters of energy (that's all that atoms are). Atoms are standing waves of energy.

So a brain is indeed a standing wave of energy.

So what is having an experience? The standing waves? Or the energy that is the standing waves?

If the standing waves are having the experience that's the "emergent property of complexity" idea in full bloom. But then it's still pretty weird that standing waves could have an experience.

If the thing that is waving is having the experience (i.e. energy), that's mystical Pantheism.

If some individual soul is having an experience, and some external jealous God is standing by ready to slap it upside the head when it does something wrong, then that's Hebrew Mythology.

Sorry, I just had to toss in that last scenario just because a lot of people actually believe that's the truth of reality.

[bernee51]

None the less, the idea you offered put forth by Ramana doesn't seem to be compatible with the idea you just put forth above about "self-realization" as a primordial "I". That idea almost sounds like you are just seeking a more solid technical foundation for the 'ego' (or the individual self).

Either I am not explaining myself very well or you are reading everything I write through a lens of preconception.

The 'primordial I' is an illusion...a manifestation on awareness.

All that exists is awareness.

[Divine Insight]

None the less, the idea you offered put forth by Ramana doesn't seem to be compatible with the idea you just put forth above about "self-realization" as a primordial "I". That idea almost sounds like you are just seeking a more solid technical foundation for the 'ego' (or the individual self).

Either I am not explaining myself very well or you are reading everything I write through a lens of preconception.

The 'primordial I' is an illusion...a manifestation on awareness.

All that exists is awareness.

But that answer alone is not necessarily a mystical or Buddhist answer.

That answer could in fact be interpreted as being entirely secular.

In other words, awareness is nothing more than a temporary condition due to the actual physical formation of an actual physical existence that somehow exists separate from awareness.

If that's true, then the statement "All that exists is awareness" is in a very real sense a false statement itself. In other words, there would need to be a physical secular universe that "exists" even when there is no awareness, and awareness would simply be a manifestation (or emergent effect) of that preexisting physical awareness.

I'm sure that some forms of Buddhism to take that view. Especially some of the more modern forms such as Zen Buddhism.

However, I don't believe that this was the intent or idea behind the original Indian Buddhism popularized by Siddhartha Gautama.

Those forms of Buddhism were far more mystical. In other words, yes, they would say that "awareness is all that exists" in a sense, but they would say this to such a profound sense to mean that "Life is but a dream". In other words, awareness (or mind) is actually behind even the illusion of physical reality.

And it was the belief that we are his primordial mind or "dreamer". Rather than to suggest that awareness is simply all that exists "on top of" a physical reality.

The difference being clear. If awareness is an emergent property of an actual physical universe then basically secularism is true. When that awareness ceases to exist that's that. It was indeed an "Ego". In other words, it was indeed a totally individual and separate awareness separate from all other awareness, and it came into existence, lived for a short period of time and died out.

That's a very atheistic view of Buddhism. Certainly not a view that most mystics take. I think most mystics see the conscious awareness as something that is eternal, or at the very least, mystical and existing beyond the physical. It's the physical world they see as being the ultimate illusion arising from a cosmic consciousness.

So if we take the idea that "Awareness is all that exists" then it's the physical world that is the illusion of awareness, not the other way around.

Turning it around the other way, begs the question, "What is it that is experiencing this awareness".

Awareness cannot be experiencing itself. That's totally circular. That's as much of a phantom as to claim that an abstract notion of an emergent property can have an experience.

The other way around offers something a bit more "tangible" (at least if a person can imagine a cosmic mind).

A cosmic mind that is dreaming up physical reality, can experience the whole thing. And then there exists an foundational entity that is having an experience.

For me personally, the idea of a cosmic mind is not all that difficult to imagine, even on scientific grounds. Especially with observations in quantum physics and the nature of what appears to be "physical reality". From a purely scientific point of view it appears more to me like physical reality may be nothing more than the manifestation of thought forms of some underlying "Quantum Mind" if you will.

The other way around suggest that a "Basically Inert" physical universe, creates "awareness through forms". But then what is it that is aware? The forms?

And how could forms in an otherwise "Basically Inert" physical universe experience anything?

And where did that "Basically Inert" stuff come from to begin with?

In other words, the purely secular picture quickly deteriorates into being just as profoundly absurd and "mystical" as the mystical picture.

For me the idea that there exist some sort of strange primordial "mind" that is dreaming up this whole thing seems actually more plausible than the idea that inert stuff just happens to exist and accidentally coalesce into forms that can somehow mysteriously "have an experience".

So I'm not so sure what it even means when you say, "All that exists is awareness".

For me, that's not a satisfying answer. Sounds more like some kind of "Deepity" that doesn't really mean anything but sounds deep in some strange way, without really making any actual sense.

[Ooberman]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I have seen a number of Dennett videos and really think they are great. He's a wonderful educator.

However, two points:

1. I am not qualified to assess whether he really knows what he is talking about, which makes any criticism or praise worthless in the larger discussion.
2. The questions we may have: how would we go about choosing which expert is wupposed to answer them if we aren't experts?

He is, apparently, an expert and has vetted - I assume - all his info.

What could we possibly add to the debate? Find people who disagree, like Sheldrake, and claim Sheldrake is an expert? I couldn't even begin to fathom why someone would do that.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

Sure. The brain, the chemicals, the cells of our body, etc. Everything local to us, and perhaps the magnetic field we inhabit.

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

Because the brain isn't matter and energy. It's MADE of matter and energy. Matter and energy can't win the Indianapolis 500, except in the form of a car.

How it became that way? No one knows. But mysterious origins doesn't mean it has a mysterious way of working.

I'm at a loss as to your big question?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I think I just answered it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

Sure, and I haven't been convinced by the alternatives to his general position.

Where does that leave us?

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

Why would you presume that wouldn't be? What evidence, other than a question of the unknown, do you have?

That's what I'm not getting.

I hear allusions to "something else" but why? Why not simply presume the brain and spinal cord - our material body - is all there is for us?

Why is this a problem?

It seems to me that it's like someone saying "I see the dice roll, but I can't help but wonder what else is to it? Why can't science answer this vague question I have about that dice roll? Science can't explain the feeling I have about that dice roll, so there must be something to my feeling..."

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

We can't know a lot of things, but we can pretty much know. I don't think there is a huge problem.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

I don't see why anyone would go to these lengths to avoid what seems rather obvious. The brain is the mind, or however you want to say it.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

And unless you point to peer-reviewed studies that talk about what you are alluding to, I will continue to not understand.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

...........

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Us: our brain, spinal cord, cells, body, etc.

Energy and matter?

Ultimately, but this is a rather odd way to reduce it.

Electromagnetic fields?

Some, sure.

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

It's one explanation that doesn't require any leap into alternate theories of physics.

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

Stranger than what? That we are ACTUALLY bodiless beings floating around in some stranger world?

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

It appears to be of your own making.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

Us: brain, spinal cord, cells, etc.

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

This is an extended argument from Incredulity. I'm having trouble undertanding your objection beyond "I don't get it, so how could it be true?"

If we proved God and the supernatural existed, and Idealism was true, couldn't we say the exact same thing?

"I don't get it, how coud it be true? WE know our consciousness is this "other thing" but what is actually having the experinece? How does it work? etc..."


I am not trying to be flippant with my answers, I really don't see why someone creates mysteries from the unknown, unless they intend to study those things seriously.

It appears the people who DO study those things seriously are not bothered by the questions you are posing.

Why is this? This is the mystery I'd like answered, I suppose. Why doesn't the majority of the scientific community regularly announce it's utter astonishment that our scientific theories seem to be completely wrong and we are lost?

After all, this appears to be what you are suggesting - that all the research into the brain and how we can regulate it with drugs, etc. - the bulk of the scientific knowledge base - is just a great big guess.

I give these people more credit, I suppose. Their results seem to indicate they know what they are doing.


Let me ask you, why can't you just say "Gee, I don't know, and any wonder I have about the issue is probably unfounded since I am not an expert on the subject?"


You don't need to come to a conclusion, but you could accept, provisionally, that the majority of relevant scientists are correct in not worry about your worries.

If, in the future, they prove you were right, you can pull out a big "I told ya so."


I just, honestly, don't get the mystery you are talking about. I'll repeat the dice example:

The dice roll a 7.

"But there is something more to that roll! Can't you sense it? It seems to be a big mystery about that roll. Why now? Why a 7? What does it mean?"

It seems we can create these kinds of questions about anything.

But what's the point?

What do you gain by asking the questions you have? Will you be able to hack the Mind? Will you really get an answer? I just don't see it.

So, it's not that we can't be curious - but if we are, take it seriously and study it - professionally, or with the same level of rigor.

So, unless you can really clarify what you mean, I'm afraid I simply don't understand the question. What do you mean "If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?"

I don't know why "the clothes" can't be the answer?

What do you know that I don't?