What is the meaning of life? (translation, believing, confess, theologians)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think consciousness is caused by the electro-chemical reactions in the brain.
But if you don't believe that the normal physical features in the brain give rise to consciousness, why do you think the EM field in the brain would give rise to consciousness? I can't think of any reason an EM field would lead to consciousness - at least any reason that is stronger than the electro-chemical reaction being the cause.
The electro-chemical reactions produce the components of consciousness which is reflected in the state of each neuron in the composite being in resonance. Since physical states of the neurons contain the information to be synthesized into each "lump of instantaneous awareness" . . . they cannot also contain the synthesis that is to be the result of the resonance (without changing the states that are to comprise the synthesis in the first instance). Capice' This is that "self-referential" problem you seem to brush under the intellectual table . . . that is answered by the formation within the resonance field (substrate within the universal field) of the synthesis that comprises the composite awareness.
Quote:
My second criticism with the field theories of consciousness is that the testing has almost universally shown them not to be true, at least that's what google told me. (I'm not an expert in that field).
But even if field theories were accurate, I don't agree that a consciousness found in the EM field would survive after the EM field was no longer active. The best we know would predict that it wouldn't.
This is not true . . . the TV broadcasts in the EM fields produced do not fail to survive the shutdown of the broadcast. They simply move beyond our current level of being/becoming and head toward Alpha Centauri and points beyond.
Quote:
I'm too tired to go on tonight, so I'm off to bed.
What happens to a radio or TV broadcast,Mystic, when no radio or TV is on?
It's there but doesn't get received, correct?
Taking for granted that you are totally correct in that our previous thoughts (energy created) is 'out there' why is it necessary to believe there is a 'receiver' (your god) accumulating them all?
Why can they not just be 'out there' the same as all the transmitted but unreceived radio and TV signals?
. . . we know it is a new form of energy because it interacts with the universe independently in ways no illusion or abstraction could possibly do. Anything that is interactive with the universe is comprised of some form of energy, period.
I'd like to push a bit deeper into this new form of energy "produced by the brain." I especially want to focus on the notion of a "form of energy." As usual, we are very close to being on the same page here. I would just emphasize that "production" is a rearranging into something new rather than the creation of something out of absolute nothingness (as you yourself often point out). But what exactly is the nature of this stuff that is rearranging? And how, exactly, does this rearranging consist of some new causal power? You call it "energy" - which is fine, but that's just assigning a term. It's a good term to assign, but I think we can go at least one step deeper than this.
My theory ties the concept of energy to the concept of qualia in such a way that "fundamental units of energy" and "fundamental units of experience" (aka "qualia") are essentially the one-and-same thing. The fundamental stuff of Reality is energetic (causal/dynamic) precisely because it is qualitative. To be a unit of change, or potential change, just is to be a unit of "feeling" or "potential feeling." Or to put it another way: If you were to ask why does energy "change" my answer would be, literally, because it feels like it. A unit of energy is what Whitehead calls a "vector," which is to say, it is a "to-from" or directional entity. So, in my theory: unit of energy = quale = vector but what really explains any of this is the feeling - or more specifically, the desire-like feeling, that is intrinsic to every unit of Being.
If you reduce any moment of Being down to its most fundamental units, you will not find micro-blobs of substance, but rather, you will find units of change (aka "energy" or "process" or a "vector") which is what it is because it is qualitative - more specifically, it is a moment of "existential discomfort" or "desire" that propels Being from one state to another. These units are not, in themselves, conscious, but they are the ultimate units of experience, and some (but not all) experiences are conscious.
For a moment to be conscious, a high-level of complexity is required. Consciousness requires a certain minimal level of self-reference, world-modeling, memory, and an ability to anticipate future events. Experiential moments of reality that do not meet these minimal required levels of complexity are unconscious experiences.
And, as I've been relentlessly emphasizing, the key to how it is possible for the fundamentally qualitative units of Reality to achieve the minimal levels of complexity needed for consciousness is nothing other than the intrinsicially interconnected nature of all qualia. We already understand the principles by which interconnected elements form patterns. This is where the brain plays its role. The physical brain just is what we experience (from a 3rd person point of view) as the complex organizing of fundamental qualia in such a way that the World Itself can consciously experience Itself from a given perspective.
This is not true . . . the TV broadcasts in the EM fields produced do not fail to survive the shutdown of the broadcast. They simply move beyond our current level of being/becoming and head toward Alpha Centauri and points beyond.
Here I think are our main points of disagreement:
(1) Even TV broadcast aren't infinite. What happens if something blocks the path?
(2) There's not much if any evidence that conscious thought behaves like a TV broadcast in the first place.
(3) Without a TV, the broadcast aren't intelligible or even useful - Consciousness is an ongoing process that requires constant manipulation and interaction by the brain. There is no evidence that I know of that would suggest that consciousness could be maintained absent a working brain. In fact, logic and practical experience both indicate that consciousness could not be maintained without a working brain.
Hello everyone. I am new to this forum. I came here because I enjoy discussing and debating philosophy, wisdom, and the like. I also wanted my first post to be good so here it goes.
What is the ultimate and absolute meaning of life?
That is an incredibly vague question but in different ways to look at it, there's:
1. to procreate and spawn
2. to love and experience
I prefer the latter as I am quite the hippie. And in other words, I believe the meaning of life is to travel, experience and not be held down by transient things that only offer a temporary high. I feel I am here to experience the power of music, to communicate with other vibrations in the world when I travel. To be self transcendent and harmonious with everything. Agape.
For a moment to be conscious, a high-level of complexity is required. Consciousness requires a certain minimal level of self-reference, world-modeling, memory, and an ability to anticipate future events. Experiential moments of reality that do not meet these minimal required levels of complexity are unconscious experiences.
And, as I've been relentlessly emphasizing, the key to how it is possible for the fundamentally qualitative units of Reality to achieve the minimal levels of complexity needed for consciousness is nothing other than the intrinsicially interconnected nature of all qualia. We already understand the principles by which interconnected elements form patterns. This is where the brain plays its role. The physical brain just is what we experience (from a 3rd person point of view) as the complex organizing of fundamental qualia in such a way that the World Itself can consciously experience Itself from a given perspective.
From the above, wouldn't you agree a working brain is necessary for that level of complexity?
For example, without an organizing brain, how would would one have access to memory or be able to world-model?
I think consciousness is an ongoing process that REQUIRES a working brain.* Which is a major point where Mystic and I disagree. If I'm correct, he believes consciousness can be maintained even absent a working brain.
*Although from a theoretical perspective, I acknowledge that a brain substitute could someday be developed.
This all depends on where.
Americans have simplified the meaning of life:
You're born, get a good education, accept Jesus, get a good job, get married, have kids, work, work, work, work, work, work (to accumulate as much materialism as possible), enjoy grandchildren, retire, and die and go to heaven. That's about it in America.
From the above, wouldn't you agree a working brain is necessary for that level of complexity?
For example, without an organizing brain, how would would one have access to memory or be able to world-model?
I think consciousness is an ongoing process that REQUIRES a working brain.* Which is a major point where Mystic and I disagree. If I'm correct, he believes consciousness can be maintained even absent a working brain.
*Although from a theoretical perspective, I acknowledge that a brain substitute could someday be developed.
Yes, I would say that a brain is a necessary requirement. I would add, however, that "brain" does not have to mean "human brain" nor does it have to mean "biological brain" (although given a fuller understanding of the processes, we might someday comes to the conclusion that it does have to be biological).
Also: I suspect that the brain has to be physical from our perspective, but I leave open the possibility that, given other dimensions, or some such possibility, there could be ways in which a brain might appear "non-physical" from our current perspective, and yet "real" in some sense. I doubt this is the case, but I'm open to the possibility. Or we might someday expand the concept of "physical" to include phenomena that our current physical theories would call "non-physical." (This would leave open the possibility of "disembodied spirits" - although the term "disembodied" would be relative to our current understanding; in reality they would still be highly complex embodied processes, but their bodily properties might include aspects of the physical that we do not yet know how to recognize as such.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
