Consciousness: Is it seperate from the human body?

[Hezekiah]

Lately I've been fascinated with the idea of consciousness. I've been reading a bit on quantum physics, and have come to the idea that the conscious state of mind is completely seperate from the brain.

Perhaps you should have been reading a bit on biology, or nueroscience?

1) I feel as though I am not my body. For instance, if I cut my own hand off, my hand is no longer me, I'm still in the larger portion of my own body (of course I know that's mainly because my brain is still communicating with the rest of my body).

Sure, "mind/self/etc" does not arise from and is not contained within your hands.

2) It takes the brain roughly 80 milliseconds to process new stimulus, including getting that information to the brain via the nervous system. Which introduces the idea that time may not exist if it is all according to how fast the brain can process whats going on.

Your clock speed...lol, if you'll excuse me, has -everything- to do with your biologic machinery. This does not introduce the idea that time does not exist (and who the hell says that time is "according to how fast the brain can" - anything?), it explains why we do not perceive events that occur more quickly than this "in the present". There's a lag. Further, you're going to have to drop the 80 milliseconds bit as evidence for this claim - if time does not exist. 80 what again?

3) Finally, there are all types of optical, tactile and auditory illusions that can play tricks on the brain. We can only perceive our world through our senses, even certain animals can percieve colors invisible to the naked eye. Which, too me, all says that the brain is a magnificent instrument, but is not perfect. And instruments aren't autonomous.

Your "naked eye" is not arranged in the same way that those creatures "naked eye" is arranged. The differences in your equipment -with reference only to the eye...no involvement from your brain- explains the difference in perception. The brain is, however, a magnificent but imperfect organ for many reasons -just not this one. I suppose that such a notion would probably lead to us having reason to doubt anything that was the -product- of that organ.....(or would it )?

But, to address the very last bit. Who says instruments aren't autonomous? Does light -stop- filtering through a telescope just because no ones using it? It busily does -precisely what it's structure does- regardless of whether or not "someone" is "using" it.

You're no fun lol. But in all seriousness, you bring up some good points. However, optical illusions aside, it still doesn't account for tactile illusions, auditory illusions, or even in extreme cases, hallucinations. But the fact that we can understand these as being illusions, despite the brain being convinced that the illusion is exactly what is happening, suggests that there some sort of dissociation between the brain and the "mind".

[Jenny A]

You're no fun lol. But in all seriousness, you bring up some good points. However, optical illusions aside, it still doesn't account for tactile illusions, auditory illusions, or even in extreme cases, hallucinations. But the fact that we can understand these as being illusions, despite the brain being convinced that the illusion is exactly what is happening, suggests that there some sort of dissociation between the brain and the "mind".

No, it is what you call the mind that is both fooled, and in some cases knows it is being fulled. Your mind isn't a straight forward stream of rational thought. All kinds of things are going on in there at the same time.

The ability for your mind to see print and to read it are quite different and you can lose the ability to "read" all symbolic shapes without losing your ability to recognize objects is quite possible as is the reverse. That is there are people who can no longer interpret vision as objects like trees and people but who can read just fine.

But it's all happening in your brain. And injury to the brain can affect all or any of it including your sense of self.

I suggest you look into Oliver Sacks many good books on neurology. V.S. Ramachandran is good too.

---

Anyway, as I said we cannot conceptualize the oneness, if you want to debate it, then you win, for me there is no debating the essence of what everything is, it cannot be known through the mere mind, I have experienced it in my own awareness, or enlightenment, its all I know, its all I need to know.

I'm sure you have had experiences that led you to this conclusion. I just think, since they don't lead to anything demonstrable, that you are exploring your own brain, not the cosmos.


Fritjof Capra is a mystic with a science background. So? He hasn't convinced anyone scientifically.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're no fun lol. But in all seriousness, you bring up some good points. However, optical illusions aside, it still doesn't account for tactile illusions, auditory illusions, or even in extreme cases, hallucinations.

What doesn't account for tactile "illusions", auditory "illusions" or hallucination. At some level everything you touch, hear or see could be described in the language of illusion. It's all abstraction.

If you're hallucinating, the brain is simply convinced that it's "seeing" something. Whether or not you believe your eyes(ears, fingers) is another issue.

But the fact that we can understand these as being illusions, despite the brain being convinced that the illusion is exactly what is happening

Why should this suggest a disassociation between brain and mind? Does it have any choice? lol. It's stuck inside a dark, sound dampening, shock resistance case- utterly reliant upon your sensory apparatus for any information from "outside" - even the notion that there is an "outside".

[psychoslice]

You're no fun lol. But in all seriousness, you bring up some good points. However, optical illusions aside, it still doesn't account for tactile illusions, auditory illusions, or even in extreme cases, hallucinations. But the fact that we can understand these as being illusions, despite the brain being convinced that the illusion is exactly what is happening, suggests that there some sort of dissociation between the brain and the "mind".

No, it is what you call the mind that is both fooled, and in some cases knows it is being fulled. Your mind isn't a straight forward stream of rational thought. All kinds of things are going on in there at the same time.

The ability for your mind to see print and to read it are quite different and you can lose the ability to "read" all symbolic shapes without losing your ability to recognize objects is quite possible as is the reverse. That is there are people who can no longer interpret vision as objects like trees and people but who can read just fine.

But it's all happening in your brain. And injury to the brain can affect all or any of it including your sense of self.

I suggest you look into Oliver Sacks many good books on neurology. V.S. Ramachandran is good too.

---

Anyway, as I said we cannot conceptualize the oneness, if you want to debate it, then you win, for me there is no debating the essence of what everything is, it cannot be known through the mere mind, I have experienced it in my own awareness, or enlightenment, its all I know, its all I need to know.

I'm sure you have had experiences that led you to this conclusion. I just think, since they don't lead to anything demonstrable, that you are exploring your own brain, not the cosmos.


Fritjof Capra is a mystic with a science background. So? He hasn't convinced anyone scientifically.

I fully realize that I cannot give you proof, and that wasn't my intentions, I was only sharing my own experience. I also understand an atheist will never believe what I have said, the trouble with many atheist that they throw the baby out with the bath water.

Their minds are very clinical, not open and ready to receive something they may have no idea of, their too full of themselves for anything other than what they are full off already, to receive anything that may question what they already believe.

This Cosmos is something we will never fully know, this is where the mystery is found, in realizing that we will never fully understand it. I'm not saying we should believe in anything that is told to us, but when we lose the humility of knowing that the universe is one big mystery, and that we will never know fully the mystery, we become again full of ourselves, or cup is too full to receive anything else, this is the new religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Slice....you're going to have to demonstrate that there is a baby in the tub to begin with - before that metaphor applies.

[psychoslice]

Slice....you're going to have to demonstrate that there is a baby in the tub to begin with - before that metaphor applies.

Yea your right, but I was more or less talking about the mystery's of life. What I have shared I knew very well it wouldn't come over very well on an atheist forum, this is why I don't say much about it. Atheist need evidence. Even if I talked about the beauty of love, an atheist would degrade that to a mere emotion caused by chemicals in the body......do you see what I mean ?.

---

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. --Albert Einstein

[Jenny A]

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. --Albert Einstein

Spoken by an atheist scientist. I am in awe of nature myself. No doubt increased study would increase the awe. I know increased observation for the purpose of painting does. But awe does not imply that the mysterious is explained by woo.

[psychoslice]

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. --Albert Einstein

Spoken by an atheist scientist. I am in awe of nature myself. No doubt increased study would increase the awe. I know increased observation for the purpose of painting does. But awe does not imply that the mysterious is explained by woo.

How do you know, do you know all that is mysterious ?.

[Jenny A]

How do you know, do you know all that is mysterious ?.

It's a nonsensical question because I never suggested I did. I find somethings mysterious. Undoubtedly there's more mysterious things out there. But mysterious just means things we (or I in my specific case) can't explain.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yea your right, but I was more or less talking about the mystery's of life. What I have shared I knew very well it wouldn't come over very well on an atheist forum, this is why I don't say much about it. Atheist need evidence. Even if I talked about the beauty of love, an atheist would degrade that to a mere emotion caused by chemicals in the body......do you see what I mean ?.

"Mere", you say? Your "mere" is just as wondrous to me as an explanation of "magic" would be to a believer of magic. It's an awfully momentous "mere" in my opinion.

You understand that, right? That the feeling of awe is not restricted to those who say "abracadabra".

Secondly, when you talk about the "beauty of love", you'll find me in agreement....but that doesn't mean that I have to refer to magic to establish it's beauty, or that magic is required, or even mystery. There are many non-magical, completely explicable things which I find to be beautiful. I think that printed circuit boards are more beautiful than any painting I've ever seen - and yes..even more beautiful than what -some people- call "love" (there are some fucking sickos in the world man.......).