Neuroscience and the self

[gibran2]

Then you assume that there is some body/soul-dualism that requires that our consciousness in its totality is not a part of the physical world. What you have in this proposition is the requirement of some non-physical soul.

I don’t think it’s as simple as you’re trying to make it. One of the underlying assumptions in any dualistic argument is that both elements of the dichotomy exist. You’re assuming that physical reality exists as something physical and then you proceed from there.

We have no evidence that the physical world exists at all. We have subjective experiences, and we create a plausible explanation for these experiences, namely that there is an external, physical reality. Another plausible explanation is that everything resides in consciousness. If that’s the case, then there is no duality.

 

[Citta]

I am going crazy about all of these wildly speculative metaphysical considerations, to be honest. I don't know how to discuss this anymore because it's getting pretty absurd and pointless to me, and I don't think they make any difference because we simply can't ever know. I will see if I have the time and the inspiration to get back and continue with you guys, but right now I need some time off to just flow a bit.

 

[gibran2]

I am going crazy about all of these wildly speculative metaphysical considerations, to be honest. I don't know how to discuss this anymore because it's getting pretty absurd and pointless to me, and I don't think they make any difference because we simply can't ever know. I will see if I have the time and the inspiration to get back and continue with you guys, but right now I need some time off to just flow a bit.

:d

 

[Citta]

I am going crazy about all of these wildly speculative metaphysical considerations, to be honest. I don't know how to discuss this anymore because it's getting pretty absurd and pointless to me, and I don't think they make any difference because we simply can't ever know. I will see if I have the time and the inspiration to get back and continue with you guys, but right now I need some time off to just flow a bit.

:d

Lol:shock:

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I am going crazy about all of these wildly speculative metaphysical considerations, to be honest. I don't know how to discuss this anymore because it's getting pretty absurd and pointless to me, and I don't think they make any difference because we simply can't ever know. I will see if I have the time and the inspiration to get back and continue with you guys, but right now I need some time off to just flow a bit.

:d

Lol:shock:

:lol:

I think it's good to remember what I said earlier (echoing gibran)...with things like our understanding of reality requiring an observer or the improbability of hyperspace:

I don't think this does anything per se...but I think it's a valid caution in the vein gibran presents it.

Understanding that we need an observer to comment on this experience with reality doesn't change scientific laws...it should just remind us that as far as we know, no one can step outside of this reality to ascertain a truly objective point of view...or to put it another way, there are things we simply can't ever know.

 

[Citta]

Allright, I wanna get back and explore this some more. We have such a nice thread going =)

So, SnozzleBerry and gibran2, I would say that it some form of solipsism you are leaning against? Not the traditional solipsism, as you don't seem to reject the idea that other people have minds and consciousness. Nevertheless, it is a form of solipsism, perhaps a more universal (?) one that posits that consciousness is all there is. I like this idea on a philosophical, spiritual and meaphysical basis, but there are some serious problems with it that I certainly can't explain. Perhaps you can help - here are some of the problems:

1) How is it possible? What are the mechanisms? How can consciousness originate without matter?
2) How can evolution, the history of the universe and the universe before consciousness arrived be explained? Why is there evidence for the universe existing for about 13.7 billion years? Where was consciousness in these gaps?
3) Why is our reality so "limited" in the sense that it has all of these laws, all of its consistencies? Why can't we control it with our minds, why can't we communicate with eacother with our minds only etc?
4) Why have we evolved eyes and senses? What is it that our sense organs get stimulated by if it is not something external?
5) How can objective measurements and events be explained? What about subjective events?
6) What about hallucinations and delusions?
7) What does the link between body and mind mean?
8. Why is there no evidence to support the primacy of consciousness?
9) Why can we formulate a precise explanatory model of the universe without ANY reference to consciousness? This clearly implies that consciousness wasn't needed before, now or after in our universe.
10) Ever lost consciousness before while fainting or otherwise? How can one lose consciousness if consciousness is all there is?
11) What about coma, persistent vegetative states and other neurological defects?
12) Is a rock conscious?
13) Why do species evolve to adapt to their environments, if there is no such thing as an environment?

Now, you might reply, for example to the question of evidence for the primacy of consciousness with something like "you have no evidence for the primacy of matter either", but I urge you not to use this argument right now as it is hardly an answer to the original question. Try to answer these questions without getting back at that, because I am really interested in what you really think about it, and how you may explain some of it.

 

[gibran2]

These are interesting questions. I’m not sure there are many answers, but good questions nevertheless. I’ll try to clarify my ideas a bit:

First of all, the point I’m usually trying to make is that there’s no way to prove existence. This is not the same as denying existence. I guess if I had to sum up my position, I’d consider myself to be an “existential agnostic mysterian” . We simply don’t know and can’t know the true nature of existence. Our senses, physical laws as revealed by science, and mystical experiences induced by drugs or other means, all tell us something about the nature of existence, but the picture they provide may be very incomplete. We simply don’t know.

The reason I make this point at all is because materialists (and others) often demand proof when someone claims that “hyperspace” is a real place with an independent existence. It should be clear to all that such claims can’t be proven. I will then usually go on to say that we can’t even prove that “consensus reality” is a real place with an independent existence, and then an argument ensues.

We shouldn’t be making claims about existence, and when some of us do, others of us shouldn’t be demanding proof – since those who are demanding proof of an existence they doubt have no proof of the existence they are certain exists!

The reason I lean toward “the primacy of consciousness” paradigm is simple: I know that I’m conscious. Or more precisely, I know that consciousness exists. (I don’t know that “I” exist – self may very well be just another illusion.) Consciousness is the only certainty we have.

“The Primacy of Consciousness” paradigm does not suggest that the universe doesn’t exist. It says that the universe is created by consciousness or made of consciousness or in some other way physical reality springs forth from consciousness.

So to generally answer some of your questions:

>> “How can consciousness originate without matter?” is as unanswerable as “How could matter come into existence without consciousness?”

>> There is less evidence to support the primacy of matter paradigm than there is to support the primacy of consciousness paradigm. You ask “Why can we formulate a precise explanatory model of the universe without ANY reference to consciousness?” and I say to you that, without consciousness, there would be no explanatory model of the universe and no awareness of the universe. Consciousness is a prerequisite to the formulation of a model of the universe that doesn’t reference consciousness.

>> The physical universe exists. There is no doubt about it. The question isn’t does it exist, but rather what is the nature of its existence and the relationship between it and consciousness.

>> Physical laws in the universe exist because consciousness itself behaves lawfully.

>> The physical universe and our physical bodies are all manifestations and expressions of consciousness. The “mechanisms” of this manifesting aren’t known and probably can’t be known.

>> I can’t explain why the universe is here any more than a materialist can.

>> From a subjective point of view, it is impossible to lose consciousness. To be aware of unconsciousness implies that one would be consciously aware of their own lack of consciousness – this is a logical contradiction. I know I have been unconscious in my life (including every night during periods of sleep), but I have never experienced unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is a state that cannot be subjectively experienced. My subjective experience tells me that I have always been conscious (different states of consciousness, but always conscious).

>> To know if a rock is conscious, you’d have to become a conscious rock. I gave a funny answer, but the question is actually interesting, especially if we rephrase it to ask “Are other people conscious?” How could we prove this?

 

[polytrip]

Depending on how you define 'matter' i think one could fairly easily make the case that the existence of counsciousness implies the existence of matter.

At the very least you could say that counsciousness exists out of bits of information that can be manipulated, that can interact.

All information is in itself meaningless. It becomes meaningfull only when it comes into contact with something that can translate it's structure into content, something that can 'read it's code'.

So the stuff counsciousness exists of must be able to interact with other stuff and eventually all this stuff must be able to interact with what we perceive as 'the material world'.

In order to interact with the material world, something must at least share some of the properties of all that we consider to belong to that realm: if mass is to be moved by something, newtonian laws require this thing to have a specific amount of energy in a specific relation to the amount of mass and the amount of motion.

Now gibran2 will say that all this does not proof anything because all 'matter' involved in this proces could be imaginary.
But i would say that this point only proves that we have no clear definition of the word 'matter'.
Matter is only a word we use for the stuff everything is made off. If the world would be imaginary, than it would probably be a different kind of stuff than if it where real.

But there is a relationship between this 'stuff' and our concept of matter and this relation requires counsciousness to have properties that make it tangible in some way. Whether it's tangible because it's something purely material in the worldly sense or whether it's a more eatheric sort of tangibility remains a mystery ofcourse. But what matters is that it's tangible to us: there could be no reality where it's not tangible to us in some way, so there could be no description of any possible reality that makes sense within our reality, where it lacks tangibility. This means that in the context of this consensusreality, wich we cannot escape during our lifetime's, counsciousness will always have a material dimension.

Point is that if there is another reality, we can only speculate about it from within this reality we inhabit, meaning any speculation must translate into something that makes sense within our world.
That could still mean there is something way beyond this world. The only thing is that when we speak of 'the truth', we mean the truth here. The truth here could be a surface that hides something entirely different than we think, nevertheless, it would translate into something that we would still call the truth.

If something can only translate into X, in this dimension and not into anything else, than it would be true to speak of X, even if X is not realy true inside of that other realm because if we would translate it back to that other realm, then what we call X, would translate back into 'not X'.

 

[gibran2]

Point is that if there is another reality, we can only speculate about it from within this reality we inhabit, meaning any speculation must translate into something that makes sense within our world.
That could still mean there is something way beyond this world. The only thing is that when we speak of 'the truth', we mean the truth here. The truth here could be a surface that hides something entirely different than we think, nevertheless, it would translate into something that we would still call the truth.

If something can only translate into X, in this dimension and not into anything else, than it would be true to speak of X, even if X is not realy true inside of that other realm because if we would translate it back to that other realm, then what we call X, would translate back into 'not X'.

I remember reading an article a few years back in the form of a dialog between two climatologists or something. They were discussing weather simulation algorithms/software, and how the algorithms are getting better and better at modeling/predicting the weather. But then one pointed out that no matter how good the model becomes, it will still be a model – it will never actually be “weather”.

After reading this, I imagined even more sophisticated algorithms that included little people that went about their business, and regardless of how we view the weather simulation, the little people in it will still open their umbrellas when it starts to rain, and if they don’t, they’ll get wet.

So reality is relative to those experiencing it – what is real to us may not seem at all real to someone looking in from the “outside”. Not unlike how we look at our own dreams.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Everything is context.

Like information being meaningless without translation and translation implies context.

Every interaction, every state, is a context, and there are contexts within contexts within contexts.

There are even context simulators with their own simulated contexts within contexts within contexts.

But it is always now, and now is relative to self, if anything the perception of self might be interpreted as a personification of the perception of now in terms of the senses. Making self to be as a concept the identification of perception as meaning that a perceiver exists. We interpret sensory information through correlating it with the memory of previous sensory information and somehow interpret this to be sentience.

Self is a particulate, being defined largely by boundary interpretations, be they physical or psychological. It is the perception of the distinction of experience, of the novelty of individual perception that allows us to self identify, but in the same way it is the perception of the commonality of experience that allows us to share a group identify as well.

A lot of self is found in how we 'think', we say "I and me" and somehow think of them both as references and identities, when they are more likely the former and not the latter.

In some contexts self does exist, the body exists so far as we can tell, as a distinct thing, all of the parts of the body are distinct. But in some contexts the parts of the body are collective and constitute a single thing. We can focus upon the difference or the sameness, but not at the same time, it is a lot like not being able to measure velocity and position at the same time. However what we may be incapable of experiencing is that difference and sameness are inseparable and neither can exist without the other. Because we can only measure and experience one at a time we view them as mutually exclusive, and they are in a cognitive sense and in a sensory sense, but much like velocity and position the patterns that we interpret and thus symbolize through translation as mutually exclusive and distinct; co-occur in a testable and mutually dependent manner.

The implication is that self only exists in specific contexts. In terms of neuroscience it can be correlated with brain activity though it remains to be seen if that correlation equates to causation.

Self is likely then a symbol of a pattern that can be measured in multiple ways, but each measurement is a context and only one context may be given attention at a time. Self is unlikely to exist in an ultimate sense and is more a tool of language than an objective thing.

At least that is my opinion

 

[DMT Psychonaut]

Wow, so I just recently read through this thread, and it's probably my favorite up until now! I'm suprised I missed this because I always look forward to reading these kinds of threads, I find them entertaining and this was quite an enjoyable read.

I have to say ever since I came to the Nexus I've been introduced to many new ideas and modes of thought.
For some reason, what's intrested me the most since I've come here (besides DMT) is the primacy of consciousness. It's just a concept that strongly appeals to me and I didn't know anything about it until it was introduced to me here.

I guess I'm just facinated by the alternative perspectives on reality or the nature of reality. Probably because it's something most people take for granted and often don't even question but it's a topic that comes up here at the Nexus quite often and I guess that is due to the nature of this community's hobbies :surprised
It seems to be the nature of psychedelics to allow different modes of thought, causing the user to inevitably fathom the unlimited potential and infinite possibilities of existence.

Even though my first experience with the primacy of consciouness was inroduced to me here, I pretty much jumped on the bandwagon right away without even knowing much about it; maybe I'm gullible and susceptible to certain ideas , or maybe Gibran2 makes some pretty damn compelling arguments in favor of :d


I'm not saying it's something I 100% believe now, and that's likely because everyday that I wake up I find a seemingly materialistic existence staring me in the face, so it's kinda hard to shake.

However, I now often think to myself, "There are conscious expereinces and that is all that is certain" and it's not something I do because I'd prefere to beleive in the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of matter. I do it because I find that this staunch agnosticicm allows me to start with a simple basis allowing for a greater capacity to attain knowledge. It leaves me ever thirsty to seek the "self" that identifies with the experience and to seek the experiences, which may or may not be objectively independent of that "self".

I really enjoyed how this thread turned out (although due to the title I was hoping it would focus more on consciousness and the self but it mostly revolved around the topic of reality). As usual Gibran2 was the contender of consciousness and Citta made quite a majestic materialist :lol: Both parties made valid points and fueled each other's opposition to keep the thread interesting and throughout the duration it would change from vehement seriousness to commical relief. Also most threads like this end up the same, where each party gets stuck on

"you can't prove your's" and
"Well you can't prove your's"
... so let's agree to disagree.

But out of all the threads so far I feel like this one was one of the best resolutions, Where Citta, with respects to welcoming ideas and a sincere curiosity, asked some valid questions, and Gibran2 responded with equally respectful and humble answers. Post 66 and 67 summed it up well.

Very Nice gents 8)

Most of the time, I've only followed these threads because I've felt I couldn't really contribute anything, but I've expanded my knowledge quite a bit in the past couple of months, and I have a better understanding of how this works, so let's see if I can stirr up something :twisted: (for the sake of expanding consciousness and understanding)

I want to start out by painting a picture.

To my understanding this is the generally accepted models for a material universe. (feel free to add to the picture if anything is missing)

The big bang theory suggest that roughly 13.7 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence from "nothing" or at least the singularity.

Astrophysics tells us that over the course of billions of years gravity formed gallexies, stars and planets. Current observations show that dark energy, an undetectible force, is pushing apart the universe at an accelerating rate.
Also velocities recorded for the visible matter of gallexies don't have the gravity to account for their formation. This suggest that their is some invisible matter that can't be detected. So astrophysics tells us we have a very small peice of the puzzle when we're only dealing with 4%

Quantum physics then tells us that all of that 4% we're dealing with is made up of atoms. These atoms are made up of other sub-atomic particles and the atom is basically 99% empty space.

So from a materialistic standpoint our entire universe is 4% made up of 1% of something?:shock:

Throughout the entire history of materialism,scientist have consistently broken down matter into smaller and smaller peices, just to find smaller peices. Each time we reach a roadblock, until an advancement in technology allows us to once again break matter down to discover yet another piece, could this go on forever? From my understanding string theory proposes at the most fundamental level of matter particles are created from loops of energy called strings that vibrate at different frequencies to produce different sub-atomic particles.

Is it reasonable guess that technological advances would allow us to eventually break down matter to be able to detect strings?
Another possibility is that the law's of physics would limit technological advancement before such discoveries could be achieved.

My question to materialist is: Why is it so difficult to let go of that 1% of something that makes up 4% of everything???:lol:

What's it "matter" to ya? (Pun intended) :lol:



Also I'd like to add to this thread by posting two lectures on consciousness, one demonstrating a materialistic view and one demonstrating a metaphysical view.

Comments, critiques, and questions on the vidoes to add to the content of this thread would be great!




The Magic of Consciousness (Materialist)

The Primacy of Consciousness (Metaphysical)

 

[nen888]

..i've only just come to this thread, so just a couple of comments relating to the OP..

Citta wrote:

...implies...brainfunctioning creates abnormal states of consciousness, and not some magical access to trancendental realms.

are these 'abnormal' states? DMT is so widely distributed and accessible in nature that the states almost seem a 'set-up' by a higher level 'extelligent' system..they could also be similar to artistic/mathematical creative states experienced less often by most people..perhaps 'extra-normal'..

more importantly, often the states provide psychological, aesthetic and other information which make them, to many, more than just 'states' of observation, but useful tools..

also, just because stimulating a part of the brain or neuron creates a similar state does not prove that the information is in the brain, or cell, nor that the states are identical..

it is because many of these states seem beyond the body-self that the term 'transpersonal' was coined..there are 'non-material' 'objects' upon which enough people can agree that we may call them objective..where do numbers reside? yet we can collectively experience them in the mind..

until some neuroscientist shows me where all this information is stored and read from, it all seems quite transcendental to me..
like, what is Pi..? where is it..?
.