Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Wayne92587 · Post by **Wayne92587** » February 24th, 2019, 12:12 pm

Jan Sand; I also have a firm grip on my Imagination.

When a person has a grip on his or her Imagination, Consciousness becomes the
Gate-Way unto the Universe. The two must issue forth having two names, as the One that has a dual quality. Like the Christ Man, he and she will not be fulfilled until they walk the Earth having both a Spiritual and a Physical, Empirical Body.

The person that becomes all-knowing, God Like, becomes a Know it all; whatever comes to mind becomes a Reality.

Any thought that comes to mind that can not pass the Reality test, Absolutely Bad Knowledge has a dual quality; Absolutely Bad Knowledge, mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, having a dual quality, is known to be "The Knowledge of Good and Evil, to be the downfall of Mankind, he and she.

Born of the Imagination, the Rational Mind, Knowledge that has no Empirical Value is a Rationalization, Guileful, deceptive, Evil, will cause you to speak with a
forked Tongue, to be two-faced, talk out of both sides of your mouth.

The Imagination can take you to Heaven or send you to Hell.

Jan Sand · Post by **Jan Sand** » February 24th, 2019, 12:40 pm

Frankly, I am very uneasy with all this talk of a grip on the universe. I am well aware that this almost microscopic flake of dust we call the planet Earth is hardly anything much too notice in the galaxy, not to speak of the universe. Perhaps humans qualify in the same way that the green bacteria qualifies on a piece of Roquefort cheese. We are all terribly ignorant as to what the tiny bit of the universe we occupy is all about so my imagination is quite tied to our itsy bitsy hunk of the universe. We cannot even understand what rats talk about and they are a lot closer to us than the rest of the universe and a rather close relative.

Chili · Post by **Chili** » March 10th, 2019, 2:22 pm

Scientifically, the major question is reductionism. Is what the brain does more than the sum of its parts? At a particular location in the brain, are physics & chemistry sufficient to determine how one arrangement leads to the next - like dominoes falling ? Or at a particular synapse is something happening more than the simple model of particle forces there would indicate?

Jan Sand · Post by **Jan Sand** » March 10th, 2019, 2:48 pm

Since the brain is made up of living cells which interact well below conscious levels to pursue similarities of perception with feedback loops involving emotions and other areas of physiological dynamics, I doubt the possibility of locating how consciousness manufactures itself out of the myriad of dynamic interconnections of, not onle the brain itself, but also the total body nervous complex.

Chili · Post by **Chili** » March 11th, 2019, 1:52 pm

The brain's cells interact well below conscious levels. Is this completely modeled and understood by physics? Once you introduce the word "pursue" it seems like these cells have conscious agency. To suggest that consciousness "manufactures itself" ... can you name any other examples of something which "manufactures itself" ?

Jan Sand · Post by **Jan Sand** » March 11th, 2019, 2:04 pm

Ask any egg of any living creature to describe what it is doing and the answer is always manufacturing itself.

Chili · Post by **Chili** » March 11th, 2019, 2:33 pm

This characterization is very much in the eye of the beholder. That exists at time B was "manufactured" by the processes at time A. Was it intentional? Did the entity at B intentionally cause itself to come into being at time A ?

Jan Sand · Post by **Jan Sand** » March 11th, 2019, 2:45 pm

An egg which is designed by the trial and success of protoplasm disciplines purely by its structure has never been found to act beyond the material processes donated by its structure. As far as observation can reveal, there are no other processes,

Wayne92587 · Post by **Wayne92587** » March 30th, 2019, 9:41 pm

Consciousness is a state mind where one has his or her head on straight.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » July 15th, 2019, 10:35 pm

I have to chime in here. Interesting discussion. I've read all the authors listed in the original post. I was bitterly disappointed by them. All their ideas are dead ends. They all obstinately reject any suggestion of immaterial aspect of mind. They blow smoke to confuse the issue.
There are plenty of other theories of how consciousness arises. I'm looking into them.

Consul · Post by **Consul** » July 16th, 2019, 8:57 pm

Glenn wrote: ↑July 15th, 2019, 10:35 pmI have to chime in here. Interesting discussion. I've read all the authors listed in the original post. I was bitterly disappointed by them. All their ideas are dead ends. They all obstinately reject any suggestion of immaterial aspect of mind. They blow smoke to confuse the issue. There are plenty of other theories of how consciousness arises. I'm looking into them.

Any examples?

BigBango · Post by **BigBango** » July 17th, 2019, 2:18 am

Consul wrote: ↑July 16th, 2019, 8:57 pm
Glenn wrote: ↑July 15th, 2019, 10:35 pmI have to chime in here. Interesting discussion. I've read all the authors listed in the original post. I was bitterly disappointed by them. All their ideas are dead ends. They all obstinately reject any suggestion of immaterial aspect of mind. They blow smoke to confuse the issue. There are plenty of other theories of how consciousness arises. I'm looking into them.
Any examples?

Glenn, you certainly have not read Tamminen. I think he has posted in this thread. I do not agree with him on many issues but he has established the transcendental existence of consciousness as a primary ontological truth that expands Descartes' "I think therefore I am" into "I think of myself as an object therefore I am". With that sweeping insight he establishes the fact that consciousness does not arise from matter but matter does not even exist without it being observed by consciousness.

The conclusion is that consciousness does not evolve from matter but is present from the beginning.

I agree with that assertion and therefore we need not look for "theories of how consciousness arises". Our task is to look for the ways in which consciousness imbeds itself into our physical reality. The creation of a cell is the work of "consciousness" and serves to be a bottom line home for a consciousness that wants to have some casual efficacy over our physical reality.

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » July 17th, 2019, 7:30 pm

Consul wrote: ↑July 16th, 2019, 8:57 pm
Glenn wrote: ↑July 15th, 2019, 10:35 pmI have to chime in here. Interesting discussion. I've read all the authors listed in the original post. I was bitterly disappointed by them. All their ideas are dead ends. They all obstinately reject any suggestion of immaterial aspect of mind. They blow smoke to confuse the issue. There are plenty of other theories of how consciousness arises. I'm looking into them.
Any examples?

Rupert Sheldrake and morphic fields

(running for cover)

Consul · Post by **Consul** » July 18th, 2019, 8:36 pm

Glenn wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 7:30 pmRupert Sheldrake and morphic fields

Oh, yuck!

Glenn wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 7:30 pm(running for cover)

You should be, because Sheldrake is a pseudoscientific snake-oil salesman.

Consul · Post by **Consul** » July 18th, 2019, 8:43 pm

BigBango wrote: ↑July 17th, 2019, 2:18 amThe conclusion is that consciousness does not evolve from matter but is present from the beginning.

…in which case conscious (experiencing, sensing, feeling) beings must have been present from the beginning. How credible is that in the light of our scientific knowledge of the world (especially when those conscious beings are nonliving beings)?!