Hypothesis for consciousness apart from the physical body

[SeaPriestess]

Is there one?

Why not?

I would think some radical off the wall brainiac genius scientist of some sort would at least come up with something.

Anyone?

[Swami]

[Replying to post 47 by TSGracchus]
Dr. Wallace is not a neuroscientist but his cross-cultural 'field research' makes him a valuable resource for consciousness studies. In my last thread I pointed out how Western scientists, who are mostly materialist, have all but failed to explain the origin and nature of consciousness. It only makes sense to utilize other means, like meditative experience, to gain information on the matter.

I also looked up Dr. Sapolsky but I couldn't find his view on the specific topic of consciousness. The YouTube videos you linked to were broad in topic. The two videos I found on neuroscience had substitute or assistant professors filling in for Dr. Sapolski.

What are his views on the origins and nature of consciousness? Does he integrate any of the Eastern practices and thinking on consciousness? Depending on your answer to the 2nd question, I most likely will not be interested because I've given up on Western scientists unless they're willing to integrate Eastern thinking into their approach. It will take 'field research' to know the origins and nature of consciousness and of that of the Universe, as well.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 50 by Razorsedge]

Razorsedge: "Dr. Wallace is not a neuroscientist but his cross-cultural 'field research' makes him a valuable resource for consciousness studies."

He is just as valuable a resource as L. Ron Hubbard, or M'gobo the witch doctor.

Razorsedge: "In my last thread I pointed out how Western scientists, who are mostly materialist, have all but failed to explain the origin and nature of consciousness."

And yet, referred to an explanation of the origin and nature of consciousness, you ignore it.

Razorsedge: "It only makes sense to utilize other means, like meditative experience, to gain information on the matter.'

So you think that flipping coins and checking the I Ching, or laying out Tarot cards, or astrology will substitute for science?

Razorsedge: "II also looked up Dr. Sapolsky but I couldn't find his view on the specific topic of consciousness. The YouTube videos you linked to were broad in topic. The two videos I found on neuroscience had substitute or assistant professors filling in for Dr. Sapolski."

I posted link to Dr. Sapolsky's online lectures. The course has no pre-requisites. The very first lecture lays out what is to be covered.

Razorsedge: "What are his views on the origins and nature of consciousness?"

You can read any of his four books, or sit through his lectures if you want his views. I strongly suspect you don't really care. You are not going to discover what science has discovered about consciousness without discarding presuppositions and superstitions, and you are not about to do that. It would take too much effort to actually learn.

The lectures, or especially his book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst would answer the questions you have raised. Of course he doesn't address "consciousness" in terms you are comfortable with. He talks about responses to external and internal stimuli. That stimulus-response feedback is "consciousness".

Science is not sound bites, and cannot be effective communicated by tweets or even by postings in on-line forums. You have to cover some ground to reach the frontiers. You are not going to make the journey by canting mantras, you have to get off your "intellectual basis" and actually make the journey before you can step into new territory.

Razorsedge: "Does he integrate any of the Eastern practices and thinking on consciousness? Depending on your answer to the 2nd question, I most likely will not be interested because I've given up on Western scientists unless they're willing to integrate Eastern thinking into their approach."

You might as well say that you won't accept science unless it considers the inspection of goat entrails. By the way, science is not "western" or "eastern". It is just science.

Razorsedge: "It will take 'field research' to know the origins and nature of consciousness and of that of the Universe, as well."

I think you would find, if you had not already determined not to look, that Dr. Sapolsky has done extensive field research and I don't mean he has sat in some temple contemplating his navel. Meditation can calm the mind. But it has not produced scientific discovery.

But, by all means, ignore or discard the findings of "Western science" and consult the lint in your navel for answers.



.

[SeaPriestess]

Oh my, it's going to take a while to read through all of this but I will get to it eventually. Thanks for all the input!!

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 38 by William]

But if you can train your brain to trigger things like OOBEs then that doesn't really prove .... Hmmmm, maybe it does....

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 39 by TSGracchus]

LOL, agreed. I don't tweet, btw. I just know that the super genius can explain something complex in compelling, simple terms. But I do like to read and I am a "Dummie"

[SeaPriestess]

William and TSG...

Whether it can be chemically induced or brain trained induced still doesn't "prove" or disprove that it can exist outside the body once you're dead. Let's assume it is indeed true. How the heck could we ever monitor it or be aware of it's existence once the body is dead in the ground? However, I can see where the experience of an OOBE would be very powerful in influencing a belief. It doesn't really seem at all illogical to me. The living beings aren't able to scientifically track and monitor a disembodied consciousness, scientifically. So, we just can't know right now.

:nerd2:

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 49 by myth-one.com]

Well, our physical body requires sleep so our consciousness gets turned off to where we don't remember things. Even though you don't remember anything and time stood still for you during the procedure, you still had consciousness in the fact it was "alive" as opposed to brain "dead". Again, (I said in another post here), because we could never monitor a disembodied (from a dead body) consciousness, there really is no way to test it scientifically, therefore, no way to create a viable hypothesis. However, I'm still not satisfied with the idea that you cannot create a possible scientific idea apart from a hypothesis. In other words, I still hold to a suspect idea but don't know how to give it any scientific basis. Doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical just because there is no scientific basis. I'll call it more of a philosophy. Plenty of logical philosophy out there. Probably the best scientific basis would be NDEs and OOBEs if there were one, at this point in time.

[William]

[Replying to post 55 by SeaPriestess]

Hi SeaPriestess - please give my regards to poseidon.

Whether it can be chemically induced or brain trained induced still doesn't "prove" or disprove that it can exist outside the body once you're dead.

It would be interesting to see if scientists eventually create androids which are sentient because their brains won't be influenced by chemicals but they may very well still be able to train those brains to have alternate experiences, which would at least remove the theory that chemicals are the reason why individuals have such experiences.

Those who have experienced OOBEs/NDEs all seem to have the same underlying reactions. They no longer fear death as an unknown thing and they are more positive about life on earth and less focused on just materialism.

My understanding/theory of 'where individuate consciousness goes' during these experiences and ultimately when the body finally karks it, is back to where it originated (locally speaking) in the MIND of the Planet Entity.

It is from this mind that all human inspiration and overall directive, sense of purpose etc, derives.

It isn't a case of saying 'show me this mind' as if consciousness can be examined as a physical thing, under the microscope. One has to examine the physical reality we are experiencing in order to get some kind of appreciation as to how consciousness works in relation to this physical reality.

In this, the claim is that the earth is a living self aware entity in which we are - as individuate consciousnesses - all aspects of that one entity. Form has been provided for experience and hands on data gathering.

How can the claim be easily shown most likely the best to adopt as true? There is no easy way to do so. All one can do is start with the premise and then observe the physical for any clues that the premise may indeed be correct.

This is what you are doing when you say;

Let's assume it is indeed true.

then you add...

How the heck could we ever monitor it or be aware of it's existence once the body is dead in the ground?

Consciousness only reveals its existence through examination of the interaction between it and the physical. But it always knows that it exists.

If one takes the idea "our bodies are created in the image of the creator" what image is this referring to? A physical one or one of consciousness or perhaps an equilibrium of both?

We can see that the earths form is not like the human form, so that would add more weight to the idea of consciousness being that 'image'.

Nonetheless, the form of the planet still may hold clues.

If we look at the way we reverse engineer the separating of the earths plates and get an image of Pangaea / Gondwana do you see what I see therein?

What is seen there is an image of a fetus in a womb.



We also have the actual western/eastern mindsets which mirror the human brain - the left and right hemispheres, and the way these do things differently, but how they also have to work in congruent in order to maximize creativity and logic and overall understanding. Too much of one or the other isn't helpful.

So the practice of OOBE, and other - largely eastern - practices can help the individual to appreciate the wider reality which exists.

Getting back to 'brains and chemicals and androids' we can understand the planet itself as acting as a super-brain for the conscious creative entity occupying and utilizing it - of which we are intimately connected with - even if, as individuals, we are not aware of this connection.
In that sense it would be more a 'machine brain' rather than a fatty meaty one which humans have, but still capably of expressing sentience and creativity through.

However, I can see where the experience of an OOBE would be very powerful in influencing a belief. It doesn't really seem at all illogical to me. The living beings aren't able to scientifically track and monitor a disembodied consciousness, scientifically. So, we just can't know right now.

In all cases, consciousness can only experience subjectively through things. It is consciousness which determines what is real and what is not. I think the only thing which is real is actually consciousness itself and that everything is a kind of simulation created by - in the mind of - consciousness.

Those who develop ways in which to experience OOBEs can indeed 'know right now'at least in relation to their subjective experience. The scientific method cannot go there, but that in itself does not mean these places don't exist or actually be consciously experienced.

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 57 by William]

Agreed and I will chew on this for a while. Thank you

[Divine Insight]

So the practice of OOBE, and other - largely eastern - practices can help the individual to appreciate the wider reality which exists.

Isn't there a very rational and reasonable objection to these types of claims?

In all the centuries that people have been making these kinds of claims no one has ever been able to produce any credible compelling evidence that this is even possible.

It's one thing to claim to have an OOBE, it's quite another to be able to back up those claims with any credible evidence.

For example, let's say that someone claims to have mastered OOBE and can perform OOBE at will. If that's true then they should be able to have an OOBE and obtain information from an event far removed from their physical body, then return and report those observations. Those observation can then be tested to see if they are an accurate description of what happened at this other location removed from the body.

Thus far no credible evidence has ever been provided to demonstrate this ability.

Therefore why should anyone who is interested in verifiable truth bother with these claims that clearly cannot be supported with evidence that would be extremely easy to produce if the claims were indeed true?

If people could master the "magical" or "supernatural" or even "natural" ability to consciously visit places without taking their physical body with them, then they could spy on others and know what other people are doing without physically having to actually go to that location to view and listen to them.

There is simply no evidence that anyone has ever actually been able to do this type of thing.

So it's a claim that could be demonstrated if true. But since it has never been demonstrated to be true for thousands of years, isn't it safe to say that the claim simply has no merit?

Sure, people may have imagined in their minds that they have left their body and gone somewhere far beyond their body, but if they cannot produce evidence for having done that, then why should we believe it to be anything other than pure imagination. Nothing more than perhaps a lucid dream within their own mind.

We can certainly grant them this. No need to suggest that they are lying. They probably are having vivid imagination in their mind that may seem quite lucid to them. But if they can't come back from those experiences with evidence that they have actually visited a location far removed from their body, then there's just no evidence to support the idea that this is anything other than a figment of their own imagination.

There's just no credible evidence that anyone has ever done this. It's that simple.