board77

The ancient Egyptians thought consciousness resided in the heart. They could not figure out why the skull was full of that custardy grey stuff.

Just sayin'.

Well, I'm sure the Egyptians knew a little bit about the brain. They did perform the occasional successful brain surgery, from what one of my professors told me.

Farawen wrote:

What's that book called, Maria?

I just started it, and haven't even gotten past the introduction yet. I'm not sure of the title....

*runs off to look at amazon purchase record*


Ah, yes... Distant Mental Influence: Its Contributions to Science, Healing, and Human Interactions (Studies in Consciousness) by William Braud.

A few months ago, I'd grown tired of lack of information about psychic phenomenon and had gone through the amazon lists on the subject and ordered several books that said there was rigorous laboratory proof of what they claimed. I read a few of the books, then got sidetracked by some fiction, and am just now getting back to the subject.

Believing that consciousness is not confined to a skull is what they are heading towards with the statement I paraphrased, I'm sure. And after what I read about remote viewing in other books, I'm inclined to agree.

I just found an interesting and long article called The Problem of Consciousness by John Searle. He makes a lot of sense about what consciousness is and all. Here's a snippet out of the middle of it, the whole thing is too long to cut and paste:

Quote:

There are many examples in nature where a higher level feature of a system is caused by lower level elements of that system, even though the feature is a feature of the system made up of those elements. Think of the liquidity of water or the transparency of glass or the solidity of a table, for example. Of course, like all analogies these analogies are imperfect and inadequate in various ways. But the important thing that I am trying to get across is this: there is no metaphysical obstacle, no logical obstacle, to claiming that the relationship between brain and consciousness is one of causation and at the same time claiming that consciousness is just a feature of the brain. Lower level elements of a system can cause higher level features of that system, even though those features are features of a system made up of the lower level elements. Notice, for example, that just as one cannot reach into a glass of water and pick out a molecule and say `This one is wet', so, one cannot point to a single synapse or neuron in the brain and say `This one is thinking about my grandmother'. As far as we know anything about it, thoughts about grandmothers occur at a much higher level than that of the single neuron or synapse, just as liquidity occurs at a much higher level than that of single molecules.

So, consciousness is the big picture of all those neurons firing. Maybe? A higher level function of the brain that no one can measure or detect yet.....

That I could agree with Maria.

I'm just trying to understand what he's saying, I don't particularly agree with it. I like the higher self theory better. I think perhaps souls are able to interact with matter by using neural tissue in some way. Take away too much neural tissue and the soul can't get a grip on the body and can't use it anymore.

Perhaps consciousness is a localized phenomenon caused by the interaction of the higher self upon the physical matter, and perhaps dreams are partial rememberances of what the soul was up to while that particular body was asleep....

that lightly touches what I would agree with, Maria

I`m inclined to argue that consciousness is a result of a synergy effect between the neuron pathways, thus very down to earth physical elements and energy of universe/ individuals soul, completely not down to earth and phyiscal....

I would also argue that the "mind"- didn`t say brain, mind you.... is the main obstacle in development of consciousness, extending it beyond the agreed upon framework of "reality"...

I am currently in the process of contemplating things mentioned in "What the bleep do we know?!" mouvie....it`s all so terribly sensible, I sincerely recommend it

I'm of the completely uneducated and uninformed opinion that consciousness is the sum of the neurons in the brain. It has a physical basis. This does not, to my mind at least, make the existence of a soul impossible or unimportant.

I sometimes wonder what exactly defines consciousness and why it is we believe that no other species is at our level. What is our basis for that? Other animals are so different from us, would we recognize, say, a dolphin culture for what it was if we saw it? And would the dolphins recognize a human culture for what it was if they saw it? The greatest strength and greatest weakness of science is we can only draw our conclusions from what we can empirically observe. So if the observation is not made, or not correctly made (and this has been biting me in the ass almost daily this month) you will draw the wrong conclusion. Fortunately, there's people like thesis advisors and peer reviewers to keep things kind of in line, but if the whole paradigm is wrong, we're screwed.

moonfariegalena wrote:

it`s about time we switch to personal responsibilty, make it about the individual, not in an egoistical sense...but in a sense of recognizing there is nothing that must be done, nothing that we must be...how about each individual finds the courage to face the choices presented, makes decisions and acts on them, and then takes responsibility for his/her actions and decisions
wouldn`t that be wonderfully refreshing?

Refreshing? Yes. But scary. Very scary. I try to be conscious of most of the choices I make, and abide by the consequences - I made the decision, and now I have to live with what that decision brings. But, even though we can always choose, sometimes the alternatives are just so terrible that we can't even bring ourselves to face them, and, in doing so, deny ourselves the choice. And then, when confronted with the consequences, we say "I had no choice..." It's a lie, but we tell it because we're not brave enough to face the truth.

It also kinda sucks that we humans are social critters, and as such are faced with what our herd expects of us. Going your own way can cost you your herd, and that's a hard thing for a lot of people to live with. I always feel kinda bad when it turns out that I'm not the person someone else wanted me to be, or thought I was. Even though it's really their problem - I am what I am - I still feel bad.

Riverthalos wrote:

I sometimes wonder what exactly defines consciousness and why it is we believe that no other species is at our level. What is our basis for that? Other animals are so different from us, would we recognize, say, a dolphin culture for what it was if we saw it? And would the dolphins recognize a human culture for what it was if they saw it? The greatest strength and greatest weakness of science is we can only draw our conclusions from what we can empirically observe. So if the observation is not made, or not correctly made (and this has been biting me in the ass almost daily this month) you will draw the wrong conclusion. Fortunately, there's people like thesis advisors and peer reviewers to keep things kind of in line, but if the whole paradigm is wrong, we're screwed.

well, I would actually say that dolphins for one, are animals with a highly developed consciousness

and on the outskirts, the science is developing more and more, and "proving" daily what just a few years ago would have been considered outrageous spiritual bollocks...
River, I highly recommend "what the bleep do we know"...it`s basically a documentary with compiled interviews with mostly scientists- I think I once refered to the movie as "quantum physcics with a cheeky spiritual twist"
....it sounds like you might be genuinely intrigued

Riverthalos wrote:

moonfariegalena wrote:

it`s about time we switch to personal responsibilty, make it about the individual, not in an egoistical sense...but in a sense of recognizing there is nothing that must be done, nothing that we must be...how about each individual finds the courage to face the choices presented, makes decisions and acts on them, and then takes responsibility for his/her actions and decisions
wouldn`t that be wonderfully refreshing?

Refreshing? Yes. But scary. Very scary. I try to be conscious of most of the choices I make, and abide by the consequences - I made the decision, and now I have to live with what that decision brings. But, even though we can always choose, sometimes the alternatives are just so terrible that we can't even bring ourselves to face them, and, in doing so, deny ourselves the choice. And then, when confronted with the consequences, we say "I had no choice..." It's a lie, but we tell it because we're not brave enough to face the truth.

It also kinda sucks that we humans are social critters, and as such are faced with what our herd expects of us. Going your own way can cost you your herd, and that's a hard thing for a lot of people to live with. I always feel kinda bad when it turns out that I'm not the person someone else wanted me to be, or thought I was. Even though it's really their problem - I am what I am - I still feel bad.

Scary? I honestly, find it more scary- the idea of obliviously zombieing ones way through life, under the excuse that one doesn`t have a choice....
you, generic you, create your daily reality, it`s only a question whether you are consciouss of that fact or not....

your second paragraph is really what we all have to overcome, release the fear.....I baffled with that for the most part of my life- believe me, once you release *that* fear, or better said start living despite of it...you realise that you aren`t as "alone" as you thought you would be.....you`re in bliss all the time- even when you are not