The Big Brain: Our Soul Factory (points, humans, life, self)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Orestes

No sir, I would assume you'd grant that a fair response would require some time. I've read and re-read your synthesis (up to a certain point) several times. I've also had to do some subsequent reading to flesh out my understanding and establish a starting-point perspective on a few things.

The threads i've 'played' in haven't been too taxing on my time. They've not required any corollary research. It's not hard to pop in and out during the day for those. I promised to be fair, and am a man of my word. I'm also up to an extremely large document at this point. My working document is 40+ pages as of right now (your synthesis with my notes).

Honestly, once I get to the point I'm comfortable, I'm going to have to pick a single starting discussion point, from which, to resume. I have a good place in mind and will see if I can put together a succinct post about it soon.

Bear with me, and please do feel free to chastise me about it as the mood hits.

Yo Orestes . . . how's it going???

[Orestes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Yo Orestes . . . how's it going???

Hey Mystic, it isn't. I'm swamped. I just had a minute during lunch to pass through. Between Thanksgiving, training two new hires, a Disney vacation this Wednesday and then the mess I will return to just in time for two holiday weeks..... I'm barely keeping up. I haven't had time to ponder much, other than how much I need a beer... or five.

Bright side, I'm not gone, and neither is this thread. I know it'll be here when things slow enough to discuss things, rather than trying to hit and run .

Just a note before i'm off to scarf down some horrible drive-thru before my office is re-invaded;

I had thought I would be able to convey this sooner, but the material world has taken priority, . I don't want to allow more time to pass without at least making this point. Up to a certain point in the synthesis, I can't say I find anything "offensive" to my intellect. Mind you, I think there's a large leap from 'fact to faith' at a certain stage. I won't claim to understand how a person who commands such an arsenal of understanding can allow themselves to move to your faith perspective. It seems that you make some reasonable hypotheses that later becomes accepted as premises for your "faith hypothesis". However, I must confess; contrary to my earlier expectations, I didn't find anything that made me feel as though you are some kind of "kook" . I find your thoughts on a possible consciousness 'field' intriguing and discussable. I look forward to when things slow down enough that I can engage in a discussion about it all with you.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Orestes

Hey Mystic, it isn't. I'm swamped. I just had a minute during lunch to pass through. Between Thanksgiving, training two new hires, a Disney vacation this Wednesday and then the mess I will return to just in time for two holiday weeks..... I'm barely keeping up. I haven't had time to ponder much, other than how much I need a beer... or five.

Bright side, I'm not gone, and neither is this thread. I know it'll be here when things slow enough to discuss things, rather than trying to hit and run .

No problem . . . just couldn't resist tweaking your chain a bit. Enjoy the holidays . . . I always do. It is my absolute favorite time of the year.

Just a note before i'm off to scarf down some horrible drive-thru before my office is re-invaded;

I had thought I would be able to convey this sooner, but the material world has taken priority, . I don't want to allow more time to pass without at least making this point. Up to a certain point in the synthesis, I can't say I find anything "offensive" to my intellect. Mind you, I think there's a large leap from 'fact to faith' at a certain stage. I won't claim to understand how a person who commands such an arsenal of understanding can allow themselves to move to your faith perspective. It seems that you make some reasonable hypotheses that later becomes accepted as premises for your "faith hypothesis".

The missing ingredient is the personal meditation experience that abolished my atheism. I had to rethink everything starting from an undeniable (to me) knowledge that God does exist. I had to eliminate ALL the utter absurdities that religions believed (because most are simply indefensible), reduce the speculations, legends, myths, philosophies to the supportable, remain within the constraints of extant science and rebuild my understanding from there . . . a variant of the Sherlock Holmes paradigm about "eliminating all the explanations and whatever remains . . ."

However, I must confess; contrary to my earlier expectations, I didn't find anything that made me feel as though you are some kind of "kook" . I find your thoughts on a possible consciousness 'field' intriguing and discussable. I look forward to when things slow down enough that I can engage in a discussion about it all with you.

I look forward to it. I appreciate your candor and open-mindedness. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year . . . in case we don't talk again till after the holidays.

[MysticPhD]

Yo . . . Gaylenwoof . . . you've been very silent since your self-confident proclamations in this post. What's up?

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
It seems like a lot of people are accepting dualism and/or theism, then claiming that science and/or philosophy support their position. So let's be clear: In the realms of science and professional philosophy, mind/matter dualism/theism are not very popular. And there are good reasons for this.

Prior to studying philosophy, most people start out as dualists, then end up rejecting mind/matter dualism once they realize that they just can't honestly find any rational justification for it. (BTW, you can be a dualist without being a theist, but my comments here will generally apply to both.) The basic problem is that dualism is, in essence, a form of intellectual surrender. We all know that reason eventually has to surrender to "faith" (by "faith," here, I just mean the acceptance of logical "givens" or "brute facts" or "fundamental mysteries"), but the mission of philosophy is explore the power of rationality to the farthest possible extreme. We will never know what the limits of rational explanation might be if we give up too soon. Most philosophers see dualists and theists as people "who have given up too soon."

Those who use euphemisms for our ignorance are the ones who have given up too soon, Gaylenwoof.

. . .

I could say more about this if people are interested, but my main point at the moment is just this: You really do not need to accept theism in order to explain the nature of mind and world. In fact, by touting theism, you give up on rational explanation and simply fall back on mythology. I'm not saying that I, or any other non-theists, have a complete, perfect theory to offer, but I am saying this: If you choose theism, then please have enough intellectual honesty (within yourself and with others) to acknowledge that you are not offering a rational explanation of anything – you are giving up on rational explanation and taking a leap of pure faith.

I have focused on rational explanations . . . it is you and your compatriots who keep injecting the mythological aspects into the discussion to distract from your inability to counter my rationale. I await your "more to say about this."

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Yo . . . Gaylenwoof . . . you've been very silent since your self-confident proclamations in this post. What's up?
Those who use euphemisms for our ignorance are the ones who have given up too soon, Gaylenwoof.I have focused on rational explanations . . . it is you and your compatriots who keep injecting the mythological aspects into the discussion to distract from your inability to counter my rationale. I await your "more to say about this."

I'm not sure which specific points you want me to address that I have not yet tackled, but I will take this opportunity to consolidate several key concepts that I have dealt with in various threads (we've been all over the map with this!)

Theism: When I talk about "theism" I am specifically referring to the concept of a conscious, Intelligent Designer/Creator who created the world for a purpose. This concept of "God" is what I say we do not need for the purposes of scientific explanation. In other words, we do not have to accept intelligence or self-awareness as primordial or fundamental brute facts.

Emergence: If I am correct in saying that intelligence/self-awareness is not fundamental, then one goal of science must be to explain how intelligence/self-awareness can be derived from whatever it is that we posit as being fundamental. The term "emergence" is simply a broad, catch-all term to get at the idea that some higher-level phenomena arises from some fundamental elements. It leads us to posit the question "how do we get from here to there?" (The term 'emergence' is not a "euphemism" for anything, it is simply points to the idea that something "comes from" something else.)

The fundamental elements: I cannot offer a comprehensive, precise account of exactly what the fundamental elements are (that would require a fully adequate theory of mind, which I do not have), but I've been offering a general framework for thinking about them. The general concept I'm working with is something I refer to as a "qualitative chaos" and the fundamental elements are (according to me) "qualia." (singular = "quale")

Conscious experience: I've been arguing that consciousness is a form of experience, but it is not the only form. Most experiences are unconscious. Consciousness is an extremely high-level form of experience, and it relatively rare. The difference between conscious and unconscious experience is not a matter of "difference in essence" but something more like a "difference in perspective." All experience – whether conscious or not – is composed of qualia. Conscious experience is a form of experience in which the constituent qualia are organized in a certain way (e.g., categorizing, self-referential, self/world-modeling, etc.), such that it gives rise to a "phenomenal self" – a feeling of a "center" of experience that persists through a series of experiences.

Self: As a holistic qualitative pattern, a self is "real" and it can have affects on the real world (it can even affect its own constituent elements to some extent via top-down feedback), but a self is never fundamental; it always emergent. The self could be thought of as a "center" of experience in some loose phenomenological sense, but in a strict ontological sense I would say that there is never any "center" or "point source" of any experience. (Compare to cosmology where it is said that the spatial "center" of the universe is "nowhere" or "everywhere" depending on how you think about it, because from any given point, the entire universe seems to be expanding outward from that point. The "center" every experience, no matter how simple or seemingly insignificant it may be, is the whole World. Every part of Reality "contains" the Whole in some sense.)

Qualia: A quale is not "in the head" nor is it "outside the head." The ontologically essential nature of a quale is not "in" space or time, although any given actual qualitative moment can be thought of as having a spatio-temporal "address" in the sense that any given moment of actualization is associated with a particular "brain" in a particular environment. Self-awareness, intelligence, and everything else that "really exists" in the World (such as physical objects) are all fundamentally composed of self-organizing qualia.

[Orestes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Yo Orestes . . . how's it going???

Still trying.... It's been months, I hope you're doing well.

I'm still trying to find time to spend on this topic. The Feds passed a series of new regulations last year that have had me swamped... but it seems it might finally be easing up a little. I'm not complaining, all the overtime has enabled us to build a house!

I've found I have a little time here and there to pass through and read during the day, now if I can just find some time in the evening to figure out specifically where I left off in your synthesis...

It might be easier to just pick back up a discussion here and see where it leads. I'll have to re-read the thread first (which is still much easier than the 40+ pages of synthesis and notes that are tucked away in my nightstand )

[Orestes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The mind is the "in-process" product (our consciousness) and the soul is the "inventory" (unconscious).

Could I get your input on the following? It's an attempt at a "jump-off" point to pick back up discussion.

In very succinct form :

If i've gained an adequate understanding of your position(s), you believe that there is a "rebirth" (or transition) at death, such that the "soul" becomes the entity. You seem to believe that the functionality of the material elements of consciousness are replaced (or moved, abandoned, etc.) at death, such that the material aspects are no longer necessary to the "soul" entity. If I understand correctly, at that time, there would be a completed assembly of a "soul" entity built upon "in-process" input from the material world. It would require no further material input to shape/sustain it, since it is a "vibratory energy inventory" that would not be subject to a degradation due to transfer of energy. That "vibratory energy inventory" would be a soul, and since nothing is "compatible" to accept a transfer of energy from that soul, it would remain as created/composed eternally.

Am I on the right track?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Orestes

Could I get your input on the following? It's an attempt at a "jump-off" point to pick back up discussion.
In very succinct form :
If i've gained an adequate understanding of your position(s), you believe that there is a "rebirth" (or transition) at death, such that the "soul" becomes the entity. You seem to believe that the functionality of the material elements of consciousness are replaced (or moved, abandoned, etc.) at death, such that the material aspects are no longer necessary to the "soul" entity. If I understand correctly, at that time, there would be a completed assembly of a "soul" entity built upon "in-process" input from the material world. It would require no further material input to shape/sustain it, since it is a "vibratory energy inventory" that would not be subject to a degradation due to transfer of energy. That "vibratory energy inventory" would be a soul, and since nothing is "compatible" to accept a transfer of energy from that soul, it would remain as created/composed eternally.
Am I on the right track?

Good to hear from you again, Orestes. You are on the right track . . . but our physical life really is directly analogous to a "spiritual pregnancy" gestating our "spiritual lifeform" (Soul). The end result (vibratory energy inventory) really is a new form of life . . . not a stagnant collection of the prior experiences that produced it.

The "womb existence" is a sub-light and material one . . . but our ultimate rebirth existence is a light-squared (pure energy) one. Our physicality and materiality bias precludes us from seeing that our consciousness is substance also . . . but at a higher level of being. Our attachment to and involvement with the in-process ("gestation") state is what creates all the confusion.

[Orestes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Good to hear from you again, Orestes. You are on the right track . . . but our physical life really is directly analogous to a "spiritual pregnancy" gestating our "spiritual lifeform" (Soul). The end result (vibratory energy inventory) really is a new form of life . . . not a stagnant collection of the prior experiences that produced it.

The "womb existence" is a sub-light and material one . . . but our ultimate rebirth existence is a light-squared (pure energy) one. Our physicality and materiality bias precludes us from seeing that our consciousness is substance also . . . but at a higher level of being. Our attachment to and involvement with the in-process ("gestation") state is what creates all the confusion.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe this new "spiritual lifeform" retains some kind of attributes that would make it distinguishable from others? Even if there is some kind of energy transformation toward a 'higher level of being' upon 'disconnect' from the material world, this would seem, to me, to be an attempt to anthopomorphize this as a "new entity". It seems more likely to me, that if consciousness is dependent on an energy that is at a 'higher level of becoming', that energy ceases to be consciousness at the point which it moves beyond the state that is compatible with consciousness. It just becomes energy; not "Orestes energy" or "MysticPhD energy", just energy. I believe the same to be true of the material components of consciousness. When they are no longer compatible with consciousness, they are no longer consciousness. Upon decomposition, our material all returns to "dirt"; not "Orestes dirt" or "MysticPhD dirt", just dirt.

This reflects on one of my prior points about equilibrium. Perhaps an equilibrium between material at different 'levels of becoming' might produce consciousness. But, take away one of the reactants and... well I'm confident that you see where i'm going.

Of course, my comments seem to beg a response that consciousness as we know it does, in fact, cease. And, the new 'level of becoming' is a new form of (higher level) consciousness. Well, perhaps that might be an interesting idea, but it would be nothing more than that; an idea (and a pretty abstract one at that).

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Orestes

If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe this new "spiritual lifeform" retains some kind of attributes that would make it distinguishable from others? Even if there is some kind of energy transformation toward a 'higher level of being' upon 'disconnect' from the material world, this would seem, to me, to be an attempt to anthopomorphize this as a "new entity". It seems more likely to me, that if consciousness is dependent on an energy that is at a 'higher level of becoming', that energy ceases to be consciousness at the point which it moves beyond the state that is compatible with consciousness. It just becomes energy; not "Orestes energy" or "MysticPhD energy", just energy. I believe the same to be true of the material components of consciousness. When they are no longer compatible with consciousness, they are no longer consciousness. Upon decomposition, our material all returns to "dirt"; not "Orestes dirt" or "MysticPhD dirt", just dirt.

Looks like you got derailed from the right track, Orestes. This is the materialist trap . . . you cannot conceive of consciousness as a distinct form of life energy because it seems insubstantial and transitory (fleeting thoughts) . . . like fire. As far as we know fire does not retain any recognizable coherence once radiated as light and infra-red. But that is not true of consciousness since its coherence and distinct "form" is what constitutes it. That is what we recognize it as . . . Orestes consciousness or Mystic consciousness. It cannot lose the attributes that constitute and define its very existence.

The "fire" of our consciousness only "seems" to depart from our sub-light material existence . . . but it remains interactive with our in-process consciousness that produces it. Our brain does retain a material "record" of all the in-process components that go to make-up its ultimate "character" and influence its future character. That record is what enables our true self to communicate with this level of being during the in-process state. Our true self exists beyond our time line and is what accounts for the appearance of the future influencing the past in neuroscience experiments.

This reflects on one of my prior points about equilibrium. Perhaps an equilibrium between material at different 'levels of becoming' might produce consciousness. But, take away one of the reactants and... well I'm confident that you see where i'm going.
Of course, my comments seem to beg a response that consciousness as we know it does, in fact, cease. And, the new 'level of becoming' is a new form of (higher level) consciousness. Well, perhaps that might be an interesting idea, but it would be nothing more than that; an idea (and a pretty abstract one at that).

Not so abstract as all that, Orestes. I imagine every mother experiences this kind of wonder at the new life in her womb being both a part of her . . . yet actually becoming a separate life at birth. Your bias is strong and your concrete thinking makes it difficult to even contemplate what I know to be reality. What I encountered was a oneness comprised of multiplicity. I used the analogy of an enormous "crowd" in chorus doing the "wave". . . but I suppose "heavenly host" would do equally well. Our individuality is not lost. It is essential.