Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?
11 posts • Page 1 of 1
It can when you chose not to trust something called Intuition, which is transmitted from this thing called the One, or the Source that encompasses all existence, and so instead follow external beings and external forces manipulating your senses to find happiness. You can also over think about things, and even repeat the things that you're thinking about which creates a paradigm.jackles wrote:does the brain put limits on a limitless consciousness.
I know by intuition guiding me that we are all One, which I used to guide me in answering really deep questions. In other words, I'm "looking within" myself, to see what I think of things. I come to the conclusion that "we are all one" from connecting certain metaphysical truths and deducing them to create that One Truth,Arising_uk wrote:Big talk. Give us an example in your life where you implement what you claim?
Paradigm, my wonderful friend...Arising_uk wrote:Did you mean paradigm or paradox?
Jackles;jackles wrote:does the brain put limits on a limitless consciousness.
That is a really interesting question. I think that the brain has to put limits on our consciousness.
Of course a lot of people will not see it that way because they believe that consciousness comes from the brain, so there would be no consciousness at all without the brain. But that does not change the fact that you are conscious of different things than I am conscious of; our perspectives and focuses limit out consciousness to our individual selves. So yes, our brains do limit consciousness.
The real question here is, "Is consciousness limitless?"
yes its as if theres a consciousness that is god which creates every thing. moves everything in existance including the brain.when jesus spoke he was that origonal consciousness using a brain to explain the situation consciousness faces whilst conected to an event by a brain.buddism is almost the same with the object of trying to reach consciousness by closing down thought.its my opinion that consciousness began the universe event.consciousness then expiriences the event via the brain.so we have a sizelike local brain which expiriences event location in a nonlocal consciousness which is a part of god.in other words consciousness does not move as being a part of an unmoving god.
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:21 pm
- Location: Heckville, Dorado; Republic of Lostanglia
Consciousness is an umbrella word that subsumes a horde of diverse psychological concepts. Without an OP being more specific, just about any topic about the term is doomed to consist of arbitrary assumptions / misunderstandings [i.e., others' personal preferences for a selection within that wide category]. For instance: If you intended something here similar to Huxley's analogy of the brain as a reducing valve (quote at bottom), and if Huxley literally meant nothing more than "blind" information patterns being involved [which he probably didn't], then that would still pretty much be compatible with the experience-less cosmos of conventional materialism (mechanistic interactions happening in the dark). Before you're a fetus or after you're dead, there is not even nothingness, a lack of experience, which is also as the world in general is.jackles wrote:does the brain put limits on a limitless consciousness.
IMO, there would be no evidence of information processing or the assorted "easy problems" of consciousness that cognitive science deals with, IF minus the manifested content of extrospection and introspection (visual events, auditory events, tactile events, etc). Even private linguistic thoughts and public aware-like body behaviors would simply be more occurrences in an empty blankness that might or might not be transpiring when they do not appear or lack presentation as any mode whatsoever. Thus, for me the default meaning of "consciousness" is the bedrock of experience, when somebody simply throws the former out there without indicating a narrower component of that broad concept.
It would seem rather silly to suggest that brainless rocks and lakes and cyclones have cognition, memory and thoughts -- that they are identifying and understanding the information or environmental energies they absorb. It would seem equally silly to suggest that they have native templates for guiding the assembly of organized images and other sensations from those received influences. So outright panpsychism (in the sense of full-blown minds being everywhere) is out of the question in the context of methodological naturalism. At best there might be panexperientialism - random or disorganized phenomenal events (qualitative noise) that outrun the cognitive operations of brains / computers.
But in terms of transcendent metaphysical speculation, one might propose that the sensible world's rule-following actions / structure - the nomological character of the universe - is caused by the original [prior to neurobiology], non-spatial, purely intellectual version of mind (as a non-corporeal principle / power). Which would be overarching and prior to its product. But there's no iron-clad evidence to be had for such an abstract supermind if it does not permit itself to be represented as a concrete or empirical object in its own creation. (Just as you would hardly observe the old "law of gravity" reclining as a discrete physical object in a lounge chair on the planet Rigel-7, smoking blenchweed and surrounded by harem girls). Plus, if that supermind happened to be just Platonic intellect and governance alone (noumenal, devoid of experiences), then it would no more have manifested evidence [for itself] of its own effective existence than its product of a physical universe did before organisms with brains evolved. The inferior, latter beings would ironically be the only items that did feature exhibited "proof" of themselves.
Tom Wolfe wrote:[Aldous Huxley] compared the brain to a 'reducing valve'. In ordinary perception, the senses send an overwhelming flood of information to the brain, which the brain then filters down to a trickle it can manage for the purpose of survival in a highly competitive world. Man has become so rational, so utilitarian, that the trickle becomes most pale and thin. It is efficient, for mere survival, but it screens out the most wondrous part of man's potential experience without his even knowing it. We're shut off from our own world.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests