I'm right, you're wrong

[Human]

I've had this itch lately that I've wanted to scratch. So I'm going to scratch it now by setting some things straight.

Frankly, I think that when most people talk about "consciousness" they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. And that's putting it lightly. So it's time to stop beating around the bush and set things as succinctly as possible.

Consciousness may or may not be a semantics issue. But I suspect that it's likely that it is just an issue of word choice.

Consciousness in Humans
After devouring about a hundred [very diverse] books on anything having to do with human nature as it IS (not as we like it to be), it's not difficult to reconcile spirituality with other aspects of our reality.

The problem is that some people can't see the forest for the trees. To understand reality, you must be willing to see the big picture. The big picture often consists of conflicting viewpoints. To reconcile these viewpoints, you must keep cultivating an open-mind. Reading 400 books on spirituality does not necessarily afford you with the big picture. Traveling extensively in one country does not mean that you see the big picture. You must truly surender yourself to reality as it is, not as you like it to be.

Consciousness is the result of the human brain. Consciousness is a construct that helps us not only survive, but also thrive. We're conscious of our consciousness. Thus we are able to override our very own genetic inclinations. All of this is thanks to a new wonderful tool we have called the prefrontal cortex. Consciousness affords us with the ability of self-reflection. This gives us the ability to analyze why we do what we do. We think about thinking. For what purpose? So that we can grow and thrive.

This is a choice. If you do not believe in the value of self-reflection, you are very likely to live your life based on your own genetic inclinations given to you by your parents. You are more likely to accept beliefs that have been set in your mind from your society. You merely go with the flow.

Consciousness allows you to take a bird's-eye view of yourself to the best of your ability. You simply can't be conscious of some things. This is why, as you grow older, you become more and more conscious of your very own nature. The reason is that as time goes on, your context of reality expands and your brain is able to detect patterns.

Consider the possibility that there are currently many natural patterns of which you are completely unconscious of. These patterns do not need anyone's consciousness to function. They are simply following the...

Natural Law
This is the "higher order" of things. The higher order does not need consciousness to operate. It just is.
A ball rolling down a hill does not need to be conscious in order to initiate rolling. It follows a natural law.

Most people think that this natural law is "consciousness." I think this is where we get into the semantics trouble. Realize that things simply work due to the relationship they have amongst themselves. There doesn't need to be any consciousness present, but merely certain properties of matter:

YouTube - Cool Chemical Reaction.wmv

Everything is a chain reaction. Cause/effect/cause/effect/cause/effect ad infinitum.

Remember when I said that humans have the unique ability to self-reflect? We can do this to a limited degree. Wherever we cannot assign specific explanations, we turn to mysticism. It is our desire to understand that drives this. We turn "spiritual." We start believing that, in this complex world, we have a choice. We are able to reflect on the complexity of the world. It boggles our MIND. We cannot account for all the cause/effect relationships. So we start rationalizing and projecting explanations that give us the illusion of understanding.

I wrote this post with no judgment either way. Everything that happens, happens for very specific reasons. And ultimately it is a relief, because humans are designed to be able to pursue this path of growth. It is in our genes. In fact mother nature has tried hard not to make us hard-wired. This higher-order, over millions of years, has engineered us to such a degree that we have a VERY keen sense of what is REALLY valuable to us, and what isn't. All thanks to consciousness.

At this point I also hope you see the irony and humor in the title of this thread. It isn't about being right or wrong. In the larger picture, it's irrelevant.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Human

Consciousness is the result of the human brain.

Good luck proving that

Originally Posted by Human

Everything is a chain reaction. Cause/effect/cause/effect/cause/effect ad infinitum.

If cause and effect is the rule of the universe, then where did it all come from?

Even Stephen Hawking has said that the universe could have only come out of something "infinite" that cannot be explained by science.

Sounds to me like believing in cause and effect has a limit.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Human

At this point I also hope you see the irony and humor in the title of this thread. It isn't about being right or wrong. In the larger picture, it's irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant based on your beliefs on the matter which have colored your perception to be that way. Don't make the mistake of assuming you see the world "as it is". There is no hard and fast "as it is". It is a collection of perception, and nothing more. You can't jump outside your own experience and experience "true objectivity". I'm sorry, but the "big picture" is a lie.

You think the brain generates perception, but it too is a perceived object. Let me ask you a question: if you dissect a dream brain in a dream world, what does it tell you about the world? What does it tell you about consciousness? It will only tell you how you believe that construct affects your perception.

Originally Posted by Human

Consciousness is the result of the human brain.

How do you explain documented cases of individuals who reported NDE's or conscious out of body experiences during times when the electrical activity in their brains was zero? Or are you just going to ignore such cases in favor of what you have come to believe about the nature of consciousness? I mean that's one of the heralding examples of NDE research, have you never read of such examples?

Or what about hauntings? I have seen cases of hauntings where the entities causing the so called poltergeist phenomena displayed some undoubtedly conscious and deliberate expressions (like daring the ghost to move an object and said object actually moving afterwords).

They didn't exactly have a brain either...

Your big picture doesn't seem so big to me anymore.....

[Human]

The error from your foundational perspective is that you mention "near-death" experience is not the quality of having "total-death."

The foundational error is saying "near-death." If it is not REAL death, then it isn't death at all, is it? And if it is, how can death spring back to life for the same body? It can't. If the body is at its core 100% gone, done, dead, not much can be done.

This is why doctors know when to stop trying to revive people. They know when they're dead, and when there's a chance.

Neurologists have studied the so called near-death experiences. They agree that the experience is real.

If you agree with the *experience*, you pretty much have to agree that it has a neurological basis. (Yes, even with the lack of oxygen or limited brain activity.)

Don't take my word for it (From Neurologist Dr. Kevin Nelson):

“Part of our ‘fight or flight’ reflexes to keep us alive includes the switch into the REM state of consciousness,” he said.

During REM sleep, there is increased brain activity and visual stimulation. Intense dreaming occurs as a result.

And the bright light so many people claim to see?

“The activation of the visual system caused by REM is causing the bright lights,” Nelson said.

And the tunnel people speak of, he says, is lack of blood flow to the eye. “The eye, the retina of the eye, is one of the most exquisitely sensitive tissues to a loss of blood flow. So when blood flow does not reach the eye, vision fails, and darkness ensues from the periphery to the center. And that is very likely causing the tunnel effect.”

Nelson is doing studies now to prove that the same effect results from fainting.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Human

I've had this itch lately that I've wanted to scratch. So I'm going to scratch it now by setting some things straight.

Feel better now?

[Human]

Naw, I've got many itches.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Human

The error from your foundational perspective is that you mention "near-death" experience is not the quality of having "total-death."

The foundational error is saying "near-death." If it is not REAL death, then it isn't death at all, is it? And if it is, how can death spring back to life for the same body? It can't. If the body is at its core 100% gone, done, dead, not much can be done.

"Real death"? That is just an arbitrary definition and is not of interest to what I'm talking about. What is of interest is the fact that we have people allegedly having experiences when the device that allegedly is the cause of experience (the brain) is not functioning. Don't you find that the slightest bit interesting?

Originally Posted by Human

Neurologists have studied the so called near-death experiences. They agree that the experience is real.

Many do agree it's real, and not just as a brain generated experience. There are many neurologists who have become quite emphatic supporters of the continuance after bodily death theory. I highly recommend the book "lessons from the light" by kenneth ring. He has all sorts of interesting examples, like people who "saw" despite being blind their whole lives, and people seeing things clearly outside of the range of their bodily senses (like a shoe on top of the hospital). And of course, people who reported experiencing things during times when their brain activity was flat lined.

Originally Posted by Human

If you agree with the *experience*, you pretty much have to agree that it has a neurological basis. (Yes, even with the lack of oxygen or limited brain activity.)

Say what???

How does that follow?

Why should I believe it has a neurological basis? First I raised the scenario of people who have experiences despite having zero electrical brain activity and you say it has to have a neurological basis? How is that exactly? I would only have to agree it has a neurological basis if I believed it had a neurological basis. You can't use elements of the reality in question to justify the reality in question. It's like saying the bible is true because the bible says its true. It really doesn't get you anywhere but a big giant circle.

[Human]

Let's agree to disagree and end the discussion as it is.

To be more blunt, I think that the notion of consciousness after death is bunk and the idea itself is a construct of the mind. That's my opinion.

It makes no sense to me and I doubt it ever will. I've been probably more open minded than I should have been and still there is nothing to support the notion and the exaggerated claims people make of consciousness.

When all is said and done, there are certain consistencies in logic that I tend to follow.

[modernthing]

Random thought, not seeking to argue but rather to give "food for thought"

Only referring to science to explain everything, and especially "Consciousness", is reducing life and the living down to a bunch of atoms forming a "big animal" with innate behaviour... Not that it's not true, because those things are, indeed, but it only focuses on ONE aspect of life and of reality, not the whole.

People seem to forget, most of the time, that science is not about exactitude but about hypothesises which change with time and experience (just like "right and wrong", look at what science believed in the Middle Ages...). Many of the theories about our world are still yet to be totally proven... Like I have said before in other threads, our models change with our technologies, we revoke them all the time when new discoveries are made. Nothing is set in stone.

A lot is still unknown and remains to be explained. No one has a whole truth, we only see glimpses of it.

Why is there such a need to try and explain everything, and especially consciousness. Sure we can make our own opinion (which is our personal "truth") but can we simply not live with the beauty of a mystery ??

Who is right is not the question here, it shouldn't be a debate. We all live and evolve around our truth and it works for us.
What may be true and working for Human may and certainly won't be working for me.
Though I thank you, Human, nonetheless, for sharing your interesting views and thoughts

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Human

If you agree with the *experience*, you pretty much have to agree that it has a neurological basis. (Yes, even with the lack of oxygen or limited brain activity.)

I don't know how you can say this considering how many scientists do not agree.

Bruce Greyson, M.D. and Professor of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia, disagrees with Nelson:

Data arguing against the contribution of REM intrusion to NDE include many features, such as fear, typical in sleep paralysis but rare in NDE, and the occurrence of typical NDE under general anesthesia and other drugs that inhibit REM.

Finally, a correlation between REM intrusion and NDE would not establish that REM intrusion contributes to NDE. This study did not explore REM intrusion that had occurred prior to the NDE. It is equally plausible that NDE enhances subsequent REM intrusion. REM intrusion is increased in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and PTSD symptoms are increased following NDE.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Human

Let's agree to disagree and end the discussion as it is.

To be more blunt, I think that the notion of consciousness after death is bunk and the idea itself is a construct of the mind. That's my opinion.

It makes no sense to me and I doubt it ever will. I've been probably more open minded than I should have been and still there is nothing to support the notion and the exaggerated claims people make of consciousness.

When all is said and done, there are certain consistencies in logic that I tend to follow.

Ok then. To echo Angela, feel better? Here’s hoping you do! There's nothing more comfortable than a made up mind! Well... I hear those snuggies are super comfortable as well as ridiculous looking. But that's another thread entirely.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Human

Frankly, I think that when most people talk about "consciousness" they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. And that's putting it lightly. So it's time to stop beating around the bush and set things as succinctly as possible.

It is your experience then that others are not able to explain what they mean by consciousness to you.

Consciousness in Humans
After devouring about a hundred [very diverse] books on anything having to do with human nature as it IS (not as we like it to be), it's not difficult to reconcile spirituality with other aspects of our reality.

The problem is that some people can't see the forest for the trees. To understand reality, you must be willing to see the big picture. The big picture often consists of conflicting viewpoints. To reconcile these viewpoints, you must keep cultivating an open-mind. Reading 400 books on spirituality does not necessarily afford you with the big picture. Traveling extensively in one country does not mean that you see the big picture. You must truly surender yourself to reality as it is, not as you like it to be.

When one does this surrendering you speak of, what becomes their experience? Wouldn't this be the going with the flow you mention later?

Consciousness is the result of the human brain. Consciousness is a construct that helps us not only survive, but also thrive. We're conscious of our consciousness.

So you like to define consciousness in terms of being conscious of it. That there would be no consciousness unless there was the ability to know one is conscious(?). So then what is consciousness by itself without the ability to be conscious of it?

Thus we are able to override our very own genetic inclinations. All of this is thanks to a new wonderful tool we have called the prefrontal cortex.

Because we know we are conscious, you say we can override our genetics. cool.

Consciousness affords us with the ability of self-reflection. This gives us the ability to analyze why we do what we do. We think about thinking. For what purpose? So that we can grow and thrive.

thinking about thinking is still thinking. being conscious of consciousness is still consciousness.

This is a choice. If you do not believe in the value of self-reflection, you are very likely to live your life based on your own genetic inclinations given to you by your parents. You are more likely to accept beliefs that have been set in your mind from your society. You merely go with the flow.

so what's the difference in going with the flow versus surrendering that you mentioned earlier? Is surrendering just like this going with the flow? If you look at reality (your genes) and wish it to be different, wouldn't that be self-reflection of not looking at the reality as it is right now and believing there's something that can change, as in not surrendering to your genes?

Consider the possibility that there are currently many natural patterns of which you are completely unconscious of. These patterns do not need anyone's consciousness to function. They are simply following the...

what if there is intelligence of a different kind in all the natural patterns? There are tons of things that happen in our very bodies that are unconscious to our thinking mental ability - does that mean that our beating heart is not part of consciousness? Do you like to think your heart is just a machine without any consciousness to it? Just because we can't directly will it to do something different (for the most part), doesn't mean there's no consciousness to it. Subconsciousness is still a type of consciousness, in other words. Intelligence. imho.

Natural Law
This is the "higher order" of things. The higher order does not need consciousness to operate. It just is.
A ball rolling down a hill does not need to be conscious in order to initiate rolling. It follows a natural law.

Most people think that this natural law is "consciousness." I think this is where we get into the semantics trouble. Realize that things simply work due to the relationship they have amongst themselves. There doesn't need to be any consciousness present, but merely certain properties of matter:

YouTube - Cool Chemical Reaction.wmv

what made the properties of matter behave a certain way? Isn't there great intelligence in the laws of physics? Why would a rock not have any consciousness of it's own kind that is to behave a certain way? If there was no consciousness present, the rock wouldn't even exist or be witnessed to exist.

Everything is a chain reaction. Cause/effect/cause/effect/cause/effect ad infinitum.

even our brains?

I wrote this post with no judgment either way. Everything that happens, happens for very specific reasons. And ultimately it is a relief, because humans are designed to be able to pursue this path of growth. It is in our genes. In fact mother nature has tried hard not to make us hard-wired. This higher-order, over millions of years, has engineered us to such a degree that we have a VERY keen sense of what is REALLY valuable to us, and what isn't. All thanks to consciousness.

I'm not sure what the judgment either way would have been if you did have a judgment.

What are the two sides to this debate that you seem to have no judgment about?

Are you trying to say everything is a chain reaction, except for consciousness? Or that consciousness can change the chain reactions? I am not really sure what all you are getting at, sorry.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Human

Let's agree to disagree and end the discussion as it is.

To be more blunt, I think that the notion of consciousness after death is bunk and the idea itself is a construct of the mind. That's my opinion.

It makes no sense to me and I doubt it ever will. I've been probably more open minded than I should have been and still there is nothing to support the notion and the exaggerated claims people make of consciousness.

When all is said and done, there are certain consistencies in logic that I tend to follow.

all you needed to say right there.

[rei]

Originally Posted by valis

all you needed to say right there.

yes, but i think Human believes since his opinion is backed by science - or, more accurately, backed by the science he chooses to accept, even when other scientific evidence suggests this perspective is not as solid and broadly applicable as he thinks - he thinks it is more right than a different perspective that is either backed by what qualifies as evidence to an individual, or backed/informed by additional scientific understanding he chooses not to look at.

this talk about genes is interesting. not sure i have ever heard someone say reality is based on our genes. yet, recent discoveries in the field known as epigenetics suggest our genetic situation isn't set in stone as we've been taught. those who accept the possibilities that epigenetics point to are, oddly enough, also often prone to consider consciousness as something generated by more than the brain.

so, this raises an interesting almost-contradiction. he thinks it's limiting to view consciousness as more than a side effect of the brain, because he doesn't think self-reflection is possible otherwise - at least, that's the impression i've gotten. and yet, epigenetics suggests we're not doomed to inevitably experience certain genetic effects - belief affects, quite strongly, whether a gene pattern will be expressed or not. so, it's fascinating to me to see how all these ideas come into play, since many who have become familiar with consciousness-based applications of epigenetics are likely to think consciousness is more than what the brain creates.

frankly, i am wondering if Human is afraid to consider the validity of the alternative. i am wondering if he likes the safety and comfort of thinking his consciousness and self-awareness are merely the side effect of anatomy and physiology. Human, what is it about this other perspective that makes you uncomfortable enough that you feel compelled to say it's wrong - and simultaneously to shut down the debate when you're given valid evidence that your own perspective may not be backed by ALL the science? i don't expect you to accept a different perspective, but i often find it interesting to learn the reason a person is not content to allow others to believe as they choose - i find this interesting because it requires expending additional effort to go through all the trouble of typing a post like your OP. i'm not sure i understand the motivation to go through that trouble unless you view this other perspective threatening in some way.

oh, this other perspective is not really religion either. most of the folks in these forums that i have talked with who accept or understand the notion that consciousness is more than a creation of the brain aren't religious. they tend to be too evolved and too conscious to settle for religion, preferring instead to explore such things for themselves.

[Melchior]

Hey Human, I thought I tried explaining things to you here. Hopefully I'm one of the people who knows what I'm talking about, or at least getting there. I have some nitpicks with what you've said though, so you might disagree.

In any case, with all those books you've read, I'm wondering if you might like to contribute to this thread. At present though, it's about 4 full pages of wall of text.

[Human]

In a way I regret having opened this can of worms. But overall I considered it a healthy discussion rather than anything negative.

I appreciate the opinions and discussion thus far, but it's also unfortunate that I probably (well, not probably, but definitely) won't be able to keep going with the discussion due to a stiff academic schedule. (I was on Spring Break when I registered and started posting on this forum. Soooooo.... back to academia )

That said, I think the most important final words that can be said is to live in the present moment and don't take it for granted.

Opinions haven't been changed at all, and I didn't set out to change anyone's opinions. I merely came on here as a way to self-express my own view no matter how limited it may appear to you, believe me, by my own standards it is quite incomplete as well.

I've read everyone's post and considered it. I just can't have the time to respond in detail that is satisfactory to you OR to me. So it's not worth it. Half-done exchanges lead to a discussion that's three time as long.

[Melchior]

Yeah? What are you studying?

[dannielo]

"Never believe anything too much, because there will be always a situation where it's not true."

Don't know who said that.

[valis]

Originally Posted by rei

yes, but i think Human believes since his opinion is backed by science - or, more accurately, backed by the science he chooses to accept

bingo..........straight on.........