A state beyond consciousness?

[Rhythman]

I started reading "I am That" about a year ago. At first the concepts seemed foreign, but as Steven Wolinski pointed out, his words are like a virus that when caught will destroy every concept and idea that stand in the way of experiencing his teachings.

Maharaj recommended to brood over his words and try to determine what sort of state would result in him saying what he said.

It's one thing to experience the state he describes "beyond consciousness", it is another thing to have the devotion to stay there as he did.

Rhythman

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

The distinction might be useful, but it is not real. You can not negate one without negating the other. To say all is inside actually diminishes the meaning of the word "inside." It is no longer useful or meaningful.

You're right.

There is no inside, either. The concept is not useful or meaningful, with respect to SR.

As has been pointed out above, there simply Is.

But there is no necessity to use reality, when explaining things. Reality, after all, is subjective. Is it not?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Reality, after all, is subjective. Is it not?

Well no, it's not. As you just pointed out someone else pointing out, reality is. Our perception is subjective.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Well no, it's not. As you just pointed out someone else pointing out, reality is. Our perception is subjective.

Exactly.

Subjective Reality is a misnomer. What it really means is ‘My personal experience of, and my interpretation of, what I perceive to be reality’.

The argument seems to boil down to:

Is my perception and 'reality' (always) one and the same thing?

Or

Am I perceiving something which exists independently of my perception, i.e. does there exist a reality ‘outside’ of my perception?

Does a chair I am looking at, of a certain shape, design and colour only exist in my mind, as that is my interpretation of it?

What is its true reality? The further scientists look into it, the more empty space they find.

This raises other questions (some of which have been discussed previously), such as:

Is consciousness the same as perception?
Is 'reality' contained within consciousness?
If I cease to perceive, do I cease to exist?
If I cease to perceive, does ‘reality’ cease to exist?

Can we ever directly know 'reality' or can we only, at best, give an interpretation or viewpoint of it?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Exactly.

Subjective Reality is a misnomer. What it really means is ‘My personal experience of, and my interpretation of, what I perceive to be reality’.

The argument seems to boil down to:

Is my perception and 'reality' (always) one and the same thing?

Or

Am I perceiving something which exists independently of my perception, i.e. does there exist a reality ‘outside’ of my perception?

Does a chair I am looking at, of a certain shape, design and colour only exist in my mind, as that is my interpretation of it?

What is its true reality? The further scientists look into it, the more empty space they find.

This raises other questions (some of which have been discussed previously), such as:

Is consciousness the same as perception?
Is 'reality' contained within consciousness?
If I cease to perceive, do I cease to exist?
If I cease to perceive, does ‘reality’ cease to exist?

Can we ever directly know 'reality' or can we only, at best, give an interpretation or viewpoint of it?

Who is this "I" you speak of?

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Who is this "I" you speak of?

I believe this is the big question. Some folks who speak of enlightenment from a perspective of, supposedly, being there, tell us that which we believe we are is not what we are. Therefore when we experience ourselves as what we truly are -- which is generally defined as the experience of being enlightened -- it is a view of 'Self' from an entirely different perspective.

Sri Nisargadatti said that his guru spoke of the path to enlightenment as a path of getting to know one's self as it truly is, not as we believe it to be. Nisargadatti (sp?) said he followed this input, and his path to enlightenment was one of simply studying and getting to know himself without any preconceptions.

There are others who speak of this path. The awareness watching awareness method (several resources are listed in the spiritual resources section of this forum) says that if you let everything else go, and just spend as much time as possible as your awareness, watching your own awareness, your avenue of awareness will expand into enlightenment, which is a totally different perspective on what you are.

Rather interesting reading. Even ACIM says that the big question is that of what is the 'Self'?

Just some information that might be helpful. Blessings from Belle,

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Who is this "I" you speak of?

Good question. One attempted answer is that it is the idea of self which currently seems to be communicating through this medium.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Good question. One attempted answer is that it is the idea of self which currently seems to be communicating through this medium.

Well, my intent in asking that was to point out that you're not talking about the Subjective Reality as described by Pavlina. SR requires an extinction of the ego, and characterizing any question from the point of view of an individual among many is already a misinterpretation of the SR perspective.

If you want to call it something else, then be my guest. I would suggest solipsism.

Misnomer "Subjective Reality" might be, but as long as that's the label we're using, then that's what we're using. (And I fully agree it's a misnomer.)

[cadmar]

You shouldn't use "mind". Everything is outside the brain. The brain, the neurons, becomes activated into patterns. Just like the Christmas lights. To me, this means that all words are "dead" like a typed word on a page or on the monitor screen. So the words are activated from the energy. This means that there is no need for a "knower" to know both sides of the question: the question and answer. For example, say a room full of file cabinets and inside each cabinet are many drawers and inside each drawer are many folders and inside each folders are many letters, etc. If the person in the room is the "knower" that person must "know" the question and then the "answer" as to where to place the answer in the appropriate file cabinet/drawer/folder.

If the brain uses only the energy from the pattern, then the energy will directly produce the right "answer". Thus, so far there is no need for someone to be the "knower" , the "mind".

Now, chemical release causes energy patterns in the brain. These chemical releases give us the inner feelings and desires. These also have the energy to produce the patterns. Do you wonder that your thoughts always talk aboaut your desires/wants (caused by these chemical releases).

If you stare at something and there is no desire then there will be no chemical release and therefore no thoughts or neuron patterns.

So what reads these neuron patterns? It has been shown that the inner voice also works the same muscles as when one is speaking, just that not as noticeable. The inner voice triggers the same muscles as if one speaks outloud.

When these patterns are excited. Also, the sound labels are also excited (which we call words) and are connected to the voice muscle system.

[schola]

It's easy to get caught up in semantics games when it comes to discussing the spiritual world.

I think his definition of consciousness is different than the one used by say, Eckhart Tolle.

He is referring to consciousness in the every day tradition sense, i.e. waking consciousness.

Whereas Eckhart Tolle uses consciousness to describe the all encompassing awareness that pervades everything.

In your post, Maharaj mentions "awareness" later on, and that seems to be the word he prefers to use to describe consciousness.

Going off your post, it doesn't sound like he is claiming anything different, just different word choice. But I am not really familiar with Maharaj.

[cadmar]

To understand "awareness" and "consciousness", I think, you must come to terms the mechanical principles of the brain: patterns of neurons. If one can describe the functions then "awareness" and "consciousness" will not be a problem of semantics.

[PerDev]

Can consciousness be fully understood by mind ?

As mind is part of it - Can part of something understood the whole?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by cadmar

You shouldn't use "mind".

Why not?

Originally Posted by cadmar

Now, chemical release causes energy patterns in the brain. These chemical releases give us the inner feelings and desires. These also have the energy to produce the patterns. Do you wonder that your thoughts always talk aboaut your desires/wants (caused by these chemical releases).

If you stare at something and there is no desire then there will be no chemical release and therefore no thoughts or neuron patterns.

Not so. All sensory input triggers neural activity. It's irrelevant whether or not that input equates to a desire; neural activity still occurs. Whether or not that we attend to that input depends on either top-down or bottom-up attentional processes, the former being the result of conscious processes (e.g., watching the car weaving across the lane in front of yours), and the latter unconcious (e.g., the horn of the car which almost hit you because both you and the car in front of you just ran a red light).

So it's not accurate to say "neuron patterns" only result from desire, though they can.

Originally Posted by cadmar

So what reads these neuron patterns? It has been shown that the inner voice also works the same muscles as when one is speaking, just that not as noticeable. The inner voice triggers the same muscles as if one speaks outloud.

When these patterns are excited. Also, the sound labels are also excited (which we call words) and are connected to the voice muscle system.

You're focussing exclusively on verbal thought. There's a lot of mental activity which in non-verbal, not to mention unconscious.

Also, it's misleading to say the inner voice "reads these neuron patterns". The "inner voice" is the result of particular patterns of neural activity (specifically in the language and auditory processing areas of the brain in the temporal lobe).

Originally Posted by PerDev

Can consciousness be fully understood by mind ?

As mind is part of it - Can part of something understood the whole?

As cadmar mentioned, consciousness can be described in relation to activity within the brain. In that regard consciousness could be fully understood because consciousness is part of the mind, not vice-versa.

Of course if you define consciousness as being more than neural activity, then perhaps not, though no one has yet been able to identify consciousness either as neural activity or as something immaterial. So the real answer is: maybe.

Originally Posted by cadmar

If one can describe the functions then "awareness" and "consciousness" will not be a problem of semantics.

That's big "if"!

[cadmar]

Mark is right that all sensory inputs triggers neural activities. As one can not stop the senses, even when one closes one eyes, the input continues, but it is black instead. Thoughts are not produced by these neural activites as the recent discoveries suggests that there is no one control center in the brain that it is a function of over 16 areas. The "thought" patterns are only interested in certain patterns, ie. the theatre in the brain.

I'm suggesting from all the literature that I've read, that since these neural patterns (which takes about 1/4 of a second from the outside sensory trigger to become a thought (consciousness) are finite. By finite, the sensory energy makes a pattern. The energy does not continue. I compared this to the river overflowing its bank. Just enough water to make a pattern and runs out of water/energy. If this is the case in the brain that the patterns are finite, then one pattern can not make another pattern. Something else is going on. In one study, the neurosurgeon, while his patient's brain is open during surgery, used his electrical sensor pen and stimulated a part of the brain. The patient immediately replied that a memory was triggered. The theory of a grandmother cell went out the window (that all knowledge is located at one neuron) but is recognized our knowledge comes from patterns in the brain.

When thought is not activated, there is this "awareness" from all the biological sensors happening constantly. Your focus is no longer on the thoughts but of other inputs.

Chemical release can be desires, when the release is strong. We have these chemical releases all the time, we just become used to them.

What controls these chemical releases? The patterns of the neurons are read by what? I don't want to use mind or consicousness. I want to keep it to this mechanical version. I'm not interested in if the sensory inputs are imaginary or a delusion.

Insight is the connection of two unconnected patters and the feeling of awe comes from the emotional state of a problem needing to be solved. Scientist can not find the location of insight into the brain because in my model, insight is a process.

I think consciousness is the same. This sense of a controller inside the brain (the ability to direct, focus and action comes out of the chemical release.

Unconsciousness does not help this mechanical version. Unconsciousness is a fudge number. We use that when our models don't fit the data.

If we can find consciousness this way, then there is no need for other subjective interpretation.

I think that we can if we go deeper into this "chemical release" which is a reaction as does all other physical objects: a reaction to an earlier cause as input.

What do you think?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by cadmar

I'm suggesting from all the literature that I've read, that since these neural patterns (which takes about 1/4 of a second from the outside sensory trigger to become a thought (consciousness) are finite. By finite, the sensory energy makes a pattern. The energy does not continue. I compared this to the river overflowing its bank. Just enough water to make a pattern and runs out of water/energy. If this is the case in the brain that the patterns are finite, then one pattern can not make another pattern.

It's more complicated than that. "patterns" do influence each other and do cause one pattern to fire in response to another. Likewise one large pattern can be the sum of many smaller patterns. So yes, the "patterns" are finite, in the same way the possible arrangements of grains of sand on a beach are finite...

Originally Posted by cadmar

Something else is going on. In one study, the neurosurgeon, while his patient's brain is open during surgery, used his electrical sensor pen and stimulated a part of the brain. The patient immediately replied that a memory was triggered. The theory of a grandmother cell went out the window (that all knowledge is located at one neuron) but is recognized our knowledge comes from patterns in the brain.

While it is true that the "grandmother cell theory" has been disproven, that example actually supports the theory because it demonstrates the experience of a particular memory in response to localised stimulation. That example doesn't rule out the possibility that one cell contained the memory, and any other activated cells canceled each other out so that the subject only reported one memory. Of course there's more to that and similar experiments which does show that that's not how it works. I'm just pointing out that your account of the experiment doesn't lead to the conclusion that the theory is wrong.

Originally Posted by cadmar

I don't want to use mind or consicousness. I want to keep it to this mechanical version.

Then you can't account for personal, subjective experience. And well, you can't avoid it, since this thread is explictly concerned with consciousness. Besides, mental activity (everything that goes on in the mind) is able to be described in terms of neural activity so there need not be any problem with a "mechanical" description which agrees with the accompanying account of mental processes. Not all mental activity can be described that way, and not in exhaustive detail, but enough so that it is possible and reasonable to refer to both mind and brain as one.

Originally Posted by cadmar

Insight is the connection of two unconnected patters and the feeling of awe comes from the emotional state of a problem needing to be solved. Scientist can not find the location of insight into the brain because in my model, insight is a process.

I think consciousness is the same. This sense of a controller inside the brain (the ability to direct, focus and action comes out of the chemical release.

I agree that consciousness is a process (or a collection of processes), however many of the neural correlates of those processes have been identified, so it's invalid to say scientists can't find it, though it is valid to say they won't find it in one specific location (although the prefrontal cortex is central to consciousness (in terms of awareness) and the brain stem and nearby regions are central to consciousness (in terms of physiological alertness)).

Originally Posted by cadmar

Unconsciousness does not help this mechanical version. Unconsciousness is a fudge number. We use that when our models don't fit the data.

What do you mean? How do you define unconsciousness? The standard definition refers to things we are not aware of at the present moment. It has nothing to do with a "fudge number" or data that's unaccounted for. In terms of neural activity, that which is unconscious is any activity which is not associated with subjective mental experience.

Originally Posted by cadmar

If we can find consciousness this way, then there is no need for other subjective interpretation.

I think that we can if we go deeper into this "chemical release" which is a reaction as does all other physical objects: a reaction to an earlier cause as input.

What do you think?

I don't understand, what do you mean? There is *always* a need for subjective interpretation, because there is subjective experience. And even if it is possible, we're a very long way away from being able to account for subjective experience through descriptions of patterns of chemical and electrical signals (not the least of which is because everyone's brains are different, so very similar experiences would be encoded in different ways. What one "pattern" means to one person will be different for another.)

[cadmar]

The neural patterns are finite. To mean that means the pattern does not change, does not move. It is like a still picture. We get the sense of many thoughts like a flip book with each page being slightly altered from the preceeding pages. This gives the impression of movement.

As the neural patterns are finite, then, the patterns do not influence others. They are in fact dead to each other. Then, it does not make any difference to the patterns, or words, or thoughts, as they are all the same biological functions, dead to each other.

The grandmother cell used to be a theory that memory is physical with a physical location. Now, it is an energy. The amount of energy, even if it takes up only one cell, determines the thought.

The brain stem and other nearby regions are central in the way, as I see it, to provide sufficient energy for the brain to function. I compare it to the light bulb. It needs a source for the light to be turned on.

Unconscious, to me, is the patterns not becoming "thought", ie. aware through words.

Subjective experiences are all the same as we all have the same physical makeup. That is, the brain and the source of energy is constant from body to body, brain to brain. What has become individualized is the experiences we all have and the values we place on these experiences. Thus, to me, all patterns will be the same, but the combinations of the patterns are different due to our values and experiences.

What I find interesting is that all "thoughts" are connected to sound/labels (which we call words). They are the same sound/labels we use when we are talking. I believe that to the brain, it does not matter if the sound/labels are vocalized (being actually spoken)or not.

Also, discoveries have shown that the brain uses "feedback loops". I remebered watching my children learning to walk. The feedback loops were tremendous. Now, I do it without realizing the childhood difficulties. But, that learning process of "feedback loops" gave me the ability to walk, crawl, move, balance, etc.

Connecting one finite pattern to another, I think is quite straightforward. By using feedback loops, the energy released by the brain, attaches to the already finite pattern.

This adding on creates the continum of a thought. The feedback loop continues if the connections are "confusing" that the combined patterns do not complete some experiences/pattern.

For example, since the brain connects the neural patterns with the sound/labels. This makes me, from my "inner ear" listens to the patterns. Of course, I have the options to use any sound/label to any patterns. Otherwise, we would all have the same word for "tree", down through the ages and across cultures.

In this sense, the "reading" of the brain patterns, is the "inner ear". Just like if I was speaking to you and you are hearing me. Are you my conscious? At Ted.com, listen to Dr. Jill Bolte-Taylor who gave a talk on how she survived a stroke: the left and right side of the brain. When she thought she was talking, only garble words came out. This connection to the sound/label was temporary disconnected. It's quite an interesting video!!

Conscipousness, to me, is the inner ear. And, no "knower" is required as the sound/labels bring up sufficient information to explain what the patterns are. All my thoughts, ideas, have some physical element, connection to it. It makes sense, ie. it fits into other experiences. You remember that we as humans are separated by not more than 6/7 degrees. I think that any thought/pattern in the brain is within 3-4 degrees of separation as patterns overlap each other.

What adds the energy to the patterns of neurons? I call it chemical release. Too much chemical release we call it desires/wants. Learning to read, is based on an action that requires wants/desires, therefore, chemcial release. Feedback loops are required for this operation.

What do you think on this? I gave you a lot to look at??

What connects

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by cadmar

The neural patterns are finite. To mean that means the pattern does not change, does not move.

Ahh, you mean permanent? "finite" refers to quantity, and bounds or limits. If you're talking about not changing, then a more appropriate word would be permanent.

Originally Posted by cadmar

As the neural patterns are finite, then, the patterns do not influence others.

The influence and interaction I'm referring to is the activation of one pattern in response to the activation of another. In more precise terms, the excitation and inhibition of connected neurons. The excitatory/inhibitory configuration of networks of neurons directly influences the patterns of activity which occur in the network.

As an example, within the Basal Ganglia in a network of brain regions which is involved in movements. The network is set up in such a way that there are two pathways which signals can take, depending on where signals enter. One pathway is excitatory, which means signals coming in to the network result in more activity at the output of the network. The other pathway is inhibitory, resulting in less activity at the output. Thus a two pathways within the one network produce patterns of activity which lead to opposing outputs; it's not correct to say patterns don't influence each other otherwise the activity would always be the same.

Further, they do change each other. This is the concept of neural plasticity. What it means is that some neural connections do change over time, and thus the patterns do change. We've observed these changes most clearly in the hippocampus. We've also observed changes as a result of cell death, and those changes have been observed throughout the brain. So it's not true that patterns don't change; they do, when the cells involved change.

Originally Posted by cadmar

The grandmother cell used to be a theory that memory is physical with a physical location. Now, it is an energy. The amount of energy, even if it takes up only one cell, determines the thought.

That conclusion doesn't follow from the observations. It is true that energy is required to invoke a thought (or memory), however the cells in which that energy flows are also required. There is no evidence that I know of of one without the other. There is also no evidence that I know of that different amounts of energy in one cell will result in different thoughts. Different degrees of attention devoted to the thought, perhaps, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality. Do you have any evidence that supports your understanding?

Also, what is energy? Energy as described in scientific terms is a physical property. In neurological terms it's chemical and electrical, both of which are physical.

Originally Posted by cadmar

The brain stem and other nearby regions are central in the way, as I see it, to provide sufficient energy for the brain to function. I compare it to the light bulb. It needs a source for the light to be turned on.

The light bulb analogy isn't quite appropriate, because the energy source which powers our brain cells is glucose, and our blood supplies that glucose, and the blood flows through a complex system of arteries. The brain stem has nothing to do with that.

What the brain stem region (specifically the myelencephalon, more specifically the reticular formation) seems to do is manage the levels of arousal in various areas of the brain. Those various areas then take up more blood, consume more glucose, and use up more energy.

Originally Posted by cadmar

Unconscious, to me, is the patterns not becoming "thought", ie. aware through words.

How is that a "fudge"?

Originally Posted by cadmar

Subjective experiences are all the same as we all have the same physical makeup. That is, the brain and the source of energy is constant from body to body, brain to brain. What has become individualized is the experiences we all have and the values we place on these experiences. Thus, to me, all patterns will be the same, but the combinations of the patterns are different due to our values and experiences.

I think you may have taken the mechanical approach a little too far here. The issue is that there are so many factors involved at every level from molecular interactions up to communication of subjective experience, and as you get further and further away from the molecular level the lines which differentiate between distinct subjective experiences become blurred such that by the time that experience is communicated, two seemingly identical descriptions of an experience could match to extremely different patterns of activity at the molecular level. So while all humans have the same neural substrate, and all neural processes operate according to the same principles, the way that substrate and those processes interact in response to the environment does result in very different neural structure (i.e., patterns), even when the experiences are seemingly identical.

This is illustrated by the varying degrees of lateralisation of various functions which still allow people to exhibit similar behaviours. For example most of my language functions might be controlled by the left part of my brain, while for someone else their right hemisphere might be dominant. Yet despite that difference it's entirely possible that our language abilities would be similar.

An even more telling example is that of patients with severe (but progressive) hydrocephalus. There are some rare patients whose ventricles are so enlarged that most of the content of their skull is cerebrospinal fluid, while their brain matter was squeezed into the remaining space during development. Yet their behaviour might be indistinquishable from an average person without the condition. Clearly the "patterns" that person developed could not be the same as someone with a brain which developed normally.

Originally Posted by cadmar

What I find interesting is that all "thoughts" are connected to sound/labels (which we call words). They are the same sound/labels we use when we are talking. I believe that to the brain, it does not matter if the sound/labels are vocalized (being actually spoken)or not.

I agree. Verbalised thought is definitely not the sum of mental activity. I know of one person who suffers from epilepsy who has progressive seizures which, at their worst, shuts down his language abilities. He can't read or write or speak. Yet even in this state it's possible for him to check into a hotel, go to a restaurant, order food, realise he ordered something he didn't like yet decide to finish it anyway because he was too miserable to persist in trying to communicate, then make his way to his room to sleep. All by miming, guesturing and a shared understanding of what the specific situations and roles of people involved implied. There is no way all of those complex activities could be accomplised without some form of thought.

Originally Posted by cadmar

Connecting one finite pattern to another, I think is quite straightforward. By using feedback loops, the energy released by the brain, attaches to the already finite pattern.

This implies that all patterns are formed during development and their connection is all that's necessary to allow all the complex behaviour we're capable of as adults. This again belies evidence provided by hippocampal neurogenesis, not to mention raising the problem of what makes a permanent pattern if two patterns can be connected by the same neural components which form each previous pattern. What makes a pattern then? More than one neuron? No single neuron can be considered permanent because, at least up until around the age of 20-25, our brains are still undergoing the process of development which began before birth. So if a neuron can't be considered permanent until initial development stops, and neurogenesis and cell death rules out any further kind of permanence, how could energy patterns be considered permanent?

Perhaps only in respect to the lifetime of the cell in comparison to the lifetime of the individual, and only after taking into account the changes which deny absolute permanance even within that limited timeframe. And even then there's no guarantee; scientists used to think that once a brain cell was fully formed, that's how it stayed until it died, or you did, and that was the case for every single brain cell. That theory has been refuted.

Originally Posted by cadmar

This adding on creates the continum of a thought. The feedback loop continues if the connections are "confusing" that the combined patterns do not complete some experiences/pattern.

I agree, though I think "confusing" is limiting; there are many things which might influence the strengthening of a particular 'pattern', e.g., attention, repetition, meaning...

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by cadmar

For example, since the brain connects the neural patterns with the sound/labels. This makes me, from my "inner ear" listens to the patterns. Of course, I have the options to use any sound/label to any patterns. Otherwise, we would all have the same word for "tree", down through the ages and across cultures.

In this sense, the "reading" of the brain patterns, is the "inner ear".

Right. Verbalised thought. In more technical terms, phonological expression of an associated semantic meaning.

Originally Posted by cadmar

At Ted.com, listen to Dr. Jill Bolte-Taylor who gave a talk on how she survived a stroke: the left and right side of the brain. When she thought she was talking, only garble words came out. This connection to the sound/label was temporary disconnected. It's quite an interesting video!!

Yup I've seen it. Fascinating stuff! The broad term for that sort of symptom is aphasia. Some kinds prevent you knowing what specific word to use to refer to something, even though you know what that thing is. Another stops you from understanding words or saying them unprompted, but still allow you to repeat words back to someone!

Originally Posted by cadmar

Conscipousness, to me, is the inner ear. And, no "knower" is required as the sound/labels bring up sufficient information to explain what the patterns are. All my thoughts, ideas, have some physical element, connection to it. It makes sense, ie. it fits into other experiences.

I agree, though as I've mentioned before, thought is not limited to the verbal form. Likewise the "inner ear" is not just an ear, but an eye, nose, tongue, etc. Even an introspective sense which is not linked to any external sense.

Originally Posted by cadmar

What adds the energy to the patterns of neurons? I call it chemical release.

True, though you also have to consider why those chemicals caused the release. And at what point the chemical release becomes an electrical signal. And what form does the signal take. And what happens to the chemicals afterwards.

Originally Posted by cadmar

Too much chemical release we call it desires/wants.

Could you explain? I don't think desires/wants can be summarised as "too much chemical release".

Originally Posted by cadmar

Learning to read, is based on an action that requires wants/desires, therefore, chemcial release. Feedback loops are required for this operation.

This is an oversimplification which reduces to "chemical release requires more chemical release which requires chemical release." It doesn't explain anything.

Originally Posted by cadmar

What do you think on this? I gave you a lot to look at??

Back at you

Something else to consider. The topic of this thread is "beyond consciousness". While that's a relatively esoteric and vaguely defined concept, it is possible to approach it from a less purely spiritual perspective. "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience" is a good place to start. It describes a process of honing one's mental activity to the point where one can predictably and reliably create the experiences which often evoke the kind of contemplations Maharaj expresses, but it does so in a much more pragmatic and accessible way. YMMV

[cadmar]

I would like to get into beyond consciousness. First, we must understand what I am trying to say.

Indeed severe hydrocephalus does demonstrate that it is not the physical cell (neurons) but the brain's ability to capture energy. That is process of the brain's plasticity: the ability of the neuron being injured, replaced, that this energy is not impeded. During brain injuries, the pathways are blocked or inhibited. The energy then finds alternative routes. Take the example of the water overflowing the river's bank. Under the same amount of energy and amount of flow, it will create the same pattern. However, it there is placed a rock, the energy is not absorbed must go around the rock. This, causing a different pattern, and depending, where the rock is placed, the amount of the pattern's change from the original. This is quite common when a person's limb had been amputated. Other parts of the body energies overflow into that area.

The excitatory/inhabitory configuration of networks of neurons demonstrate that under the same conditions (ie. same enrgy and same input), it will create the same patterns.

Different amount of energy flow will result in different thoughts. Take the spectrum of colours. As the brain physical structure is so sensitive to the smallest amount of change, it can produce different patterns from the colour red from the colour green. Otherwise, everything will be the same. Chalk and a white pencil have so many common characteristics, but both have different energy coming into the brain, creating different patterns.

The enrgy source of the physical cell is glucose and also for the glial cells. This keeps the neurons functioning. I'm talking about the energy going through the cells, activating the neurons for that brief moment. I don't think microtubes have any functions in consciousness, only in the ability of capturing energy and releasing it.

The energy is dissipated, I belief through the glial cells. Otherwise, over time, the brain will overheat. I never came across such an event. The amount of energy is of course very small.

Verbalised thought does not depend only on the oral but also the other senses. The ability of the brain to connect brain patterns to output (sounds, touch, etc.) is what makes the feedback loop so crucial.

The chemical release is a loosely term to demonstrate that since the brain patterns are finite (that under the same amount of energy and input will create the same pattern) and the energy is captured completely, like a still photograph, and does not keep continuing. This then suggest that another component is used inside the brain to make other patterns.

The process, using chemical release, self-corrects itself and there is no need for a "knower" or "controller" Like Balgian in Men in Black, the little green alien inside the man's skull controlling all his actions.

We are so conditioned in placing words as so important (academics, technology, etc.) that we forget that this is only a simple process using feedback loops. This is like everythime a certain pattern is excited in the brain a certain sound-label is connected and we get enough information to what it is. This will always, to the brain, be 100% correct. This is like holding up a picture of a dog everytime this pattern is excited.

All our thoughts are related to an earlier thought. You walk past a car and you are reminded about something you need to do with your car, or to go somewhere.

Beyond consciousness is the ability to have the chemical release stop itself, not thought trying to stop chemical release. That is why the desire to meditate only produces a desire which in turns produces a chemical release which produces more thought patterns. This goes on indefinitely.

What do you think?

[Dannyboy1]

Are you thinking only of this moment? Are you here fully focused? Or are you thinking of breakfast, having to go to the bathroom, things you need to get done? Then you are not here - now - conscious. Anything that pulls you away from now - this moment - now this moment - now this moment.... is a burden. What are you feeling now? What do you see, feel, hear, smell, observe... The observer to the now is consciousness. Are you here now? Stay here, and you are alive, go elsewhere from the now and you are in a coma.

[cadmar]

Consciousness is always on-going and in the now, even though what you are focusing on is on past experiences or future anticipation/worries. To think of this moment will be having a brain that has no chemical releases. In my model, these chemical releases (call them desires/wants or what ever terms you like) create patterns in the brain. If you are in a sensory deprivation chamber in which without twitching a finger, your brain will have hardly any outside inputs (sesory patterns). Then it will be obvious the thoughts (brain patterns) made by the chemical releases. Dreams are also a function of these chemical releases. These chemical releases take away the brain being sensitive to "that" which is not caused by sensors and chemical releases. I call this the energy of life. To get an idea of this, go to Ted.com and see David Bolinsky's 3 minute computer animation of "Inside a Cell". This had taken him 3 years to do a 3 minute clip and it's very insightful into the life of the cell.

I think it is quite straightforward in reducing these chemical releases that thought is not the way to go as thought is a product of these chemical releases. The chemical releases can only be reduced by itself. By it breaking itself down. That is, not to open the gate and be released.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by cadmar

Consciousness is always on-going and in the now, even though what you are focusing on is on past experiences or future anticipation/worries. To think of this moment will be having a brain that has no chemical releases. In my model, these chemical releases (call them desires/wants or what ever terms you like) create patterns in the brain. If you are in a sensory deprivation chamber in which without twitching a finger, your brain will have hardly any outside inputs (sesory patterns). Then it will be obvious the thoughts (brain patterns) made by the chemical releases. Dreams are also a function of these chemical releases. These chemical releases take away the brain being sensitive to "that" which is not caused by sensors and chemical releases. I call this the energy of life. To get an idea of this, go to Ted.com and see David Bolinsky's 3 minute computer animation of "Inside a Cell". This had taken him 3 years to do a 3 minute clip and it's very insightful into the life of the cell.

I think it is quite straightforward in reducing these chemical releases that thought is not the way to go as thought is a product of these chemical releases. The chemical releases can only be reduced by itself. By it breaking itself down. That is, not to open the gate and be released.

Conciousness is the absence of thought? Something above thought? If so, is there even a word that can describe it? Is it a feeling? It must be something. The only alternative is nothing.

[cadmar]

No. Consciousness is thought. To put it into my model, which I find it helpful to understand, consciousness is the brain's patterns of neurons turned on and is connected with sound/labels (words). Of course, there are brain patterns that we do not connect with sound/labels (words). We use our wants/desires (chemical releases) to put value on these patterns. These values then put the focus of our attention on.

Awareness is the biological ability of our brain and all the body's senses not connected to these sound-labels (words). I see it as staring. When you catch yourself staring, automatically by catching is a change of a situation wich is caused by chemical releases (desires/wants).

Nothing does not really describe what is going on. I look at nothing as "no thing", or, no brain patterns connected to sound labels. This is a state of being.

To get to this state, besides going in a sensory deprivation chamber, is to look at these chemical releases. For example, when you spilled milk, your reactions will be immediate due to the chemical release of the importance of the milk or the amount of work to clean it up. This chemical release is true and reflects past experiences and social upbringing. If you look at this spilt milk and notice that your reaction does not change the spilt milk. Then, that chemcial release has been altered.

I hope this answers it that consciousness is all those brain patterns connected to sound labels and its chemical releases.

[cadmar]

"I am that", to me suggests what remains when there are no brain patterns connected to sound-labels (words) and the chemical releases which triggers these brain patterns. I find this is a clearer concept than using words, no matter how poetic they sound. Also, by taking this mechanical approach to words, I look at all words, to the brain, are the same, just a different pattern. This demonstrates to me that all words are the same, ie. god, love, evil, etc. Only when we add values to them (chemical release) do we make the words different from others in the form of our focus and attention.

Then, beliefs follow the same logic. Having a belief is only a formation of words. We give any beliefs its purpose when we add chemical release to them. So having a belief or a belief that I don't have a belief, is the same.

Also, the power of prayer is no different than saying a sentence or a silly nursery rhyme. Again, we give its importance through the chemical release, our learnt emotional responses.

If I see this clearly through my model, then I'm not imprisioned by them and nor do I care if people have such beliefs as I see only their chemical releases that they have learnt and experienced. To these people, to them, their beliefs and values are true as they have experienced them. Any arguments through words will be pointless. Just ask any convert the reason for their conversion and it will always be, from my experience, from some emotional (chemical release) crisis. So, for them to see this whole process, in my opinion, they must understand this whole mechanical process of chemical releases and its triggering brain patterns.