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.

[Goat]

Dualists, you need to provide SOMETHING, not an over-extended argument from ignorance.

I have provided you arguments for property dualism, and you haven't even attempted to answer them, which seems to be due to your obvious lack of counter-arguments. Conceivability argument, indivisibility argument and so forth all aim to prove that the mind is not a physical property. Please take your time and respond to these, instead of yelling about random nonexistent fallacies, and then we can continue.

What you haven't done is shown that the MIND is anything more than actions of neurons going off in the brain .. in very complicated patterns. That is what you have to do.

[Divine Insight]

What you haven't done is shown that the MIND is anything more than actions of neurons going off in the brain .. in very complicated patterns. That is what you have to do.

I would agree that a Dualist would need to show some kind of duality.

Fortunately as a Holistic philosopher I do not need to demonstrate dualism.

[Ooberman]

What you haven't done is shown that the MIND is anything more than actions of neurons going off in the brain .. in very complicated patterns. That is what you have to do.

I would agree that a Dualist would need to show some kind of duality.

Fortunately as a Holistic philosopher I do not need to demonstrate dualism.

That's a horrible cop out.


Hmm... As a materialist, I don't need to demonstrate anything either....

Are we done here?

[Divine Insight]

What you haven't done is shown that the MIND is anything more than actions of neurons going off in the brain .. in very complicated patterns. That is what you have to do.

I would agree that a Dualist would need to show some kind of duality.

Fortunately as a Holistic philosopher I do not need to demonstrate dualism.

That's a horrible cop out.


Hmm... As a materialist, I don't need to demonstrate anything either....

Are we done here?

Why would you say that's a "cop-out"?

Just because I don't need to demonstrate dualism?

Why should I need to demonstrate dualism when that's not the model I'm proposing?

If I need to demonstrate anything I need to demonstrate holism.

And that is actually more in line with the science of Quantum Mechanics.

We already have some experimental evidence of holism. (i.e. experimentally verified entanglement or Spooky Action at a Distance)

John Stewart Bell has already proven via his famous mathematical theorem called "Bells Theorem" that any explanation of quantum mechanics is going to necessarily require non-locality. (i.e. holism).

And notice too that Bell's Theorem is a mathematical theorem it's not just a theory. A theorem is an accepted mathematical truth.

So I can appeal to both the experimental physics of quantum entanglement and the mathematical theorem of Bell's Theorem in my claim that holism has already been well-established via orthodox scientific and mathematical methods.

So where is there any cop-out here?

I'm standing on rock solid scientific and mathematical ground.

[instantc]

Dualists, you need to provide SOMETHING, not an over-extended argument from ignorance.

I have provided you arguments for property dualism, and you haven't even attempted to answer them, which seems to be due to your obvious lack of counter-arguments. Conceivability argument, indivisibility argument and so forth all aim to prove that the mind is not a physical property. Please take your time and respond to these, instead of yelling about random nonexistent fallacies, and then we can continue.

What you haven't done is shown that the MIND is anything more than actions of neurons going off in the brain .. in very complicated patterns. That is what you have to do.

I cannot believe that you are on a debate forum. This is like showing photos to a blind kid, seriously.

Lets pick one of the many arguments that you have ignored and examine it closer.

1. Physical entities can be divided in parts
2. Consciousness cannot be divided in parts.
3. Consciousness is not a physical property of the brain

Now, you can probably understand that the conclusion follows from the premises. Which premise do you challenge and why?

Once you have attempted at this, we can move to more profound arguments that I have already laid down in this thread. Perhaps after that we can even watch you trying to justify the claims you have made. Can you do it? Can you read the argument? Can you respond to it? Can you?

[micatala]

Jesus! Come one, dude. Let's not turn this into a laughing stock of conversations.

Moderator Comment

This would be considered against the rule on profanity.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

What you haven't done is shown that the MIND is anything more than actions of neurons going off in the brain .. in very complicated patterns. That is what you have to do.

I would agree that a Dualist would need to show some kind of duality.

Fortunately as a Holistic philosopher I do not need to demonstrate dualism.

That's a horrible cop out.


Hmm... As a materialist, I don't need to demonstrate anything either....

Are we done here?

Why would you say that's a "cop-out"?

Just because I don't need to demonstrate dualism?

Why should I need to demonstrate dualism when that's not the model I'm proposing?

If I need to demonstrate anything I need to demonstrate holism.

And that is actually more in line with the science of Quantum Mechanics.

We already have some experimental evidence of holism. (i.e. experimentally verified entanglement or Spooky Action at a Distance)

John Stewart Bell has already proven via his famous mathematical theorem called "Bells Theorem" that any explanation of quantum mechanics is going to necessarily require non-locality. (i.e. holism).

And notice too that Bell's Theorem is a mathematical theorem it's not just a theory. A theorem is an accepted mathematical truth.

So I can appeal to both the experimental physics of quantum entanglement and the mathematical theorem of Bell's Theorem in my claim that holism has already been well-established via orthodox scientific and mathematical methods.

So where is there any cop-out here?

I'm standing on rock solid scientific and mathematical ground.

We have some evidence for 'spook action at a distance'. Let's see you provide evidence that QM effects have anything to do with consciousness.

Victor Stenger says

The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world

[Divine Insight]

Victor Stenger says

The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world

I actually agree with what Victor Stenger says here. But look at what he is specifically addressing:

"But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation." - Stenger

I agree, and I make no attempt to claim that any single conscious point of view could radically change the state of reality. So those kinds of claims have nothing to do with my philosophy.

"The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. " - Stenger

I agree. That's true. But I'm not claiming that all of reality is "just all in our heads". That's not the philosophy that I'm proposing, and so it is incorrect to push those kinds of claims onto me.

"The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world" - Stenger

But what myth is he talking about? It seems that he has already accepted some specific myths. Myths that may not even remotely be compatible with the philosophy of many mystical views.

I think the views of Stenger are valid views with respect to some philosophies that are being spouted. But clearly not all of them.

I do not believe that I (as an individual entity) am creating the entirety of the universe via my own personal thoughts. Clearly there is something far greater going on. I can see this. But there are mystical philosophies that address these issues.

For one thing, in order for Stenger's views of "New Age Philosophies" to be right it would necessarily need to be solipsism. There would need to be only one conscious being who is actually aware, and everything else would need to be a manifestation of the thoughts of that single conscious perspective.

So truly Stenger's objections apply solely to solipsism. Once a person allows that there are many different conscious perspectives occurring simultaneously then Stenger's views cannot be applied. In other words, his understanding of "New Age Philosophies" is simply incorrect. Although in truth, he may indeed have a correct understanding of some of them. But then those particular philosophies are more than likely wrong.

The rational mystic must necessarily recognize that we are all merely each a facet of this quantum mind (if that's what you want to call it). We are not the totality of it. One single person cannot just randomly decide how the universe should be. Because their consciousness is not the total consciousness of reality.

A story from the Bible is kind of interesting to bring up here. Is this a fable, or is there some sort of truth to it? I have no clue, but I find it rather interesting.

In the bible humans are preparing to build a tower to heaven. Supposedly at that time all humans spoke the same language. And what does this Bible have to say about this?

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do

I always find this story rather fascinating because it actually hits on a point that the mystics hold to be true. No single individual could change reality in dramatic ways because they are not creating reality alone. They can only change reality in ways that are subtle enough to remain in agreement with how everyone else is creating reality in the collective consciousnesses.

But here, even in the Bible we see a passage where an author recognizes that to truly change the fundamental basis of reality would indeed require the collective consciousness of everyone. And thus, supposedly to avoid this from happening, the main source of all consciousness (i.e. God if you will) made sure that this wouldn't happen.

Now I'm not saying that I believe this biblical story to be true. But I think it touches on a fundamental point. Individual conscious perspectives can't just radically change the whole of conscious reality. To do that would required the whole of the collective consciousness of reality. But individual conscious perspectives can only control their own participation in reality.

So it's far more complicated than Stenger allows for.

Stenger is treating it like a big YES or NO. We are either quantum consciousness in its entirety and thus we should have the POWER of GOD, or there is no such thing and we must just be an emergent property of otherwise consciously inert matter.

I don't think it's as simple as Stenger demands. There could be other explanations as well.

[Goat]

Victor Stenger says

The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world

I actually agree with what Victor Stenger says here. But look at what he is specifically addressing:

"But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation." - Stenger

I agree, and I make no attempt to claim that any single conscious point of view could radically change the state of reality. So those kinds of claims have nothing to do with my philosophy.

"The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. " - Stenger

I agree. That's true. But I'm not claiming that all of reality is "just all in our heads". That's not the philosophy that I'm proposing, and so it is incorrect to push those kinds of claims onto me.

"The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world" - Stenger

But what myth is he talking about? It seems that he has already accepted some specific myths. Myths that may not even remotely be compatible with the philosophy of many mystical views.

I think the views of Stenger are valid views with respect to some philosophies that are being spouted. But clearly not all of them.

I do not believe that I (as an individual entity) am creating the entirety of the universe via my own personal thoughts. Clearly there is something far greater going on. I can see this. But there are mystical philosophies that address these issues.

For one thing, in order for Stenger's views of "New Age Philosophies" to be right it would necessarily need to be solipsism. There would need to be only one conscious being who is actually aware, and everything else would need to be a manifestation of the thoughts of that single conscious perspective.

So truly Stenger's objections apply solely to solipsism. Once a person allows that there are many different conscious perspectives occurring simultaneously then Stenger's views cannot be applied. In other words, his understanding of "New Age Philosophies" is simply incorrect. Although in truth, he may indeed have a correct understanding of some of them. But then those particular philosophies are more than likely wrong.

The rational mystic must necessarily recognize that we are all merely each a facet of this quantum mind (if that's what you want to call it). We are not the totality of it. One single person cannot just randomly decide how the universe should be. Because their consciousness is not the total consciousness of reality.

A story from the Bible is kind of interesting to bring up here. Is this a fable, or is there some sort of truth to it? I have no clue, but I find it rather interesting.

In the bible humans are preparing to build a tower to heaven. Supposedly at that time all humans spoke the same language. And what does this Bible have to say about this?

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do

I always find this story rather fascinating because it actually hits on a point that the mystics hold to be true. No single individual could change reality in dramatic ways because they are not creating reality alone. They can only change reality in ways that are subtle enough to remain in agreement with how everyone else is creating reality in the collective consciousnesses.

But here, even in the Bible we see a passage where an author recognizes that to truly change the fundamental basis of reality would indeed require the collective consciousness of everyone. And thus, supposedly to avoid this from happening, the main source of all consciousness (i.e. God if you will) made sure that this wouldn't happen.

Now I'm not saying that I believe this biblical story to be true. But I think it touches on a fundamental point. Individual conscious perspectives can't just radically change the whole of conscious reality. To do that would required the whole of the collective consciousness of reality. But individual conscious perspectives can only control their own participation in reality.

So it's far more complicated than Stenger allows for.

Stenger is treating it like a big YES or NO. We are either quantum consciousness in its entirety and thus we should have the POWER of GOD, or there is no such thing and we must just be an emergent property of otherwise consciously inert matter.

I don't think it's as simple as Stenger demands. There could be other explanations as well.

Well, you might not think so.. and, it might not be.

But, right now, the state of the evidence for quantum effects being needed for consciousness is non existent.

There are people who say that a lot of Penroses idea of quantum mechanics has evidence against it

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/quantum.pdf

[bernee51]

Victor Stenger says

The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world

I actually agree with what Victor Stenger says here. But look at what he is specifically addressing:

"But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation." - Stenger

I agree, and I make no attempt to claim that any single conscious point of view could radically change the state of reality. So those kinds of claims have nothing to do with my philosophy.

"The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. " - Stenger

I agree. That's true. But I'm not claiming that all of reality is "just all in our heads". That's not the philosophy that I'm proposing, and so it is incorrect to push those kinds of claims onto me.

While this conversation has move on since I was last engaged there seems to be a bit of wheel spinning happening.

On the one hand you previously seemed of the opinion that the idea of a separate self was illusory, the separate self being a result of relationship with the universe, and now claiming that we don’t make our own reality.

It is clear that we do…to her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an ascetic a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

"The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world" - Stenger

But what myth is he talking about? It seems that he has already accepted some specific myths. Myths that may not even remotely be compatible with the philosophy of many mystical views.

I think the views of Stenger are valid views with respect to some philosophies that are being spouted. But clearly not all of them.

I do not believe that I (as an individual entity) am creating the entirety of the universe via my own personal thoughts. Clearly there is something far greater going on. I can see this. But there are mystical philosophies that address these issues.

For one thing, in order for Stenger's views of "New Age Philosophies" to be right it would necessarily need to be solipsism. There would need to be only one conscious being who is actually aware, and everything else would need to be a manifestation of the thoughts of that single conscious perspective.

So truly Stenger's objections apply solely to solipsism. Once a person allows that there are many different conscious perspectives occurring simultaneously then Stenger's views cannot be applied. In other words, his understanding of "New Age Philosophies" is simply incorrect. Although in truth, he may indeed have a correct understanding of some of them. But then those particular philosophies are more than likely wrong.

The rational mystic must necessarily recognize that we are all merely each a facet of this quantum mind (if that's what you want to call it). We are not the totality of it. One single person cannot just randomly decide how the universe should be. Because their consciousness is not the total consciousness of reality.

You revert to the idea of a quantum mind, some universal consciousness of which we individuals are a manifestation…the Brahman/Atman situation.

On what basis?

A story from the Bible is kind of interesting to bring up here. Is this a fable, or is there some sort of truth to it? I have no clue, but I find it rather interesting.

In the bible humans are preparing to build a tower to heaven. Supposedly at that time all humans spoke the same language. And what does this Bible have to say about this?

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do

I always find this story rather fascinating because it actually hits on a point that the mystics hold to be true. No single individual could change reality in dramatic ways because they are not creating reality alone. They can only change reality in ways that are subtle enough to remain in agreement with how everyone else is creating reality in the collective consciousnesses.

But here, even in the Bible we see a passage where an author recognizes that to truly change the fundamental basis of reality would indeed require the collective consciousness of everyone. And thus, supposedly to avoid this from happening, the main source of all consciousness (i.e. God if you will) made sure that this wouldn't happen.

Now I'm not saying that I believe this biblical story to be true. But I think it touches on a fundamental point. Individual conscious perspectives can't just radically change the whole of conscious reality. To do that would required the whole of the collective consciousness of reality. But individual conscious perspectives can only control their own participation in reality.

So it's far more complicated than Stenger allows for.

Stenger is treating it like a big YES or NO. We are either quantum consciousness in its entirety and thus we should have the POWER of GOD, or there is no such thing and we must just be an emergent property of otherwise consciously inert matter.

I don't think it's as simple as Stenger demands. There could be other explanations as well.

I too get warning bells going off when I see a yes/no option…it smells of a false dilemma…I am interested in the other explanations.

And I go for the simplest. The universe is emergent. Evolution, across al levels of existence, over deep time has led to the inevitable emergence of consciousness through a process of coherence and complexification.

At the base of ‘reality’ have sub-atomic particles which, as they pop in and out of existence, cohere and complexify into atoms and molecules, and so ‘up’ through the layers of existence the bottom up approach.

You seem to be claiming a top down approach. There is an ‘awareness’, some, yourself included perhaps, call ‘god’, from which all or ‘reality’ has manifested.

Until the three sources of knowledge available to me point me in another direction…and they may well do…I will hold with, and can only hold with, my original interpretation. We are biological creatures who have evolved in consciousness to a level of self-reflection. Not only do we know things but we know that we know.

Other than that, all thoughts, ideas, concepts, beliefs etc, including the idea of a separate self, are, and can only be mental constructs.

That we cannot yet explain how these sub-atomic particles emerge into a being that can “See Red� is no reason to assume “Seeing Red� is the result of some ‘universal awareness’ on which all else is dependent.