Consciousness: Is it seperate from the human body?

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't have to fully understand something, for example, to make a list of things it is not. You may not fully know what the engine block of your car in comprised of, what alloys go into it's construction...but you do "fully know" that paper is not the answer to that question.

I mean, assuming full knowledge will ever be within our grasp is one -hell- of an assumption, but the assumption that might be inferred from the other remark you made, "in this life" is what? That we may know it in the next? You'd have to make the exact same assumption as in the first case (that full knowledge is possible)...and then add another, that there was some other place or time where we would even be present to "know it".

So yes, even assuming both are delusional, one is at least 1 notch less delusional than the other.
(and you can approach this from the POV of saying that perhaps the brain as a tool cannot know everything - but some other tool, not in evidence, assumed to exist, can - for some unknown reason, also not in evidence, and assumed)

[Hezekiah]

It may indeed be that the "exterior world" is very different from our sense maps/pictures/data - but it would be difficult to explain our success as a species (and more generally the success of other species which we view as their "outsiders" using similar equipment) - were this the case.

if the case is that the only tools we have to understand the unvierse with are several pounds of meat we call a brain, is it better to think that we can fully understand the universe by these means, or to think that we are more than our brains?

I fail to see how those are even opposing choices referent to some singular question? Is it better to what, with what, and what does this have to do with..well...anything? We -are- "more" than our brains. It's the total package. You don't point at a pair of axles with wheels attached and call them a BMW, right? "More" doesn't imply any sort of floating consciousness. It would be pointless to attempt to explain some aspect of consciousness without referencing everything that goes into it, because the limitations and ability of each component part are going to give us the tech specs for whatever we're referencing. "Touch" isn;t "just" the impulse in your brain, it has to do with the thickness of your skin, it's pliability, the way it interacts with objects of differing compositions...hell, even temperature (notice that a metal pole which is precisely the same temperature as the air outside will "feel" colder - that's not just a "software" bug or brain related..it's a kink of the supporting hardware as well).

I guess I'm not being entirely clear with my terminology about what I'm trying to ask. I know that we are literally "more" than our brains. And I'm not advocating that you, how you say, "point at a pair of axles with wheels attached and call them a BMW". I'm not pointing at the brain and calling it a human being, but rather the opposite. I'm point at the brain and saying it's not the entire human being. I'm asking if it is more reasonable to rest in the idea that our bodies are sufficient enough to unlock all the secrets of the universe or, to rest in what I see as an equally outlandish idea of our bodies are not fit to find all the answers in this life.

EDIT: BUT you answered my question before I could post this haha.

[The Grand Nudger]

The notion isn't beyond the pale, left to itself. It's only the assumption made afterwards. Our brains really aren't that good at handling data beyond a certain point - or outside of a certain range. You could look at all the mechanical instrumentation we have as a way to shore that up when we recognize the shortcoming or wish to perceive something beyond our native abilities, "aftermarket modification" you might call it. Nevertheless, there is a point beyond which even those instruments fail, and It's difficult to conceive of any singular instrument (or even a collection of them) that would be capable of handling something so vast as "full knowledge". That's my opinion on the subject (but I'm using my meat processor to attempt to conceive of instrumentation...so perhaps even here this is a limit of that piece of equipment and not a limitation of any possible instrumentation. Perhaps a different sort of "consiousness" with a different range of processing parameters could design such instrumentation - even a translation standard so that we may use it (but here again...I don't know, it's beyond me to know - though there is at least -some- reason to entertain the notion).

[The Grand Nudger]

As an addendum - imagine that we built such a piece of equipment. No matter what the means of it's being able to peer into the abyss is, it will have to send signals, communicate with it's parts, or with us. Imagine that it's capable of sending a signal as fast as the speed of light. The distance the signal has to travel would put one very important limitation on the assembly. It would not be able to grant us "full knowledge" -in- the present moment, -of- the present moment...and I think that this ability would have to be included as a component of "full knowledge". If the assembly was infinitely small, no travel distance (and ignoring the speed of our own signals..because in this case the machine would be able to give us the knowledge even if we weren't capable of receiving it) - then maybe..maybe, but even here the distance from an event to the apparatus would have to be nil. A piece of equipment that is simultaneously everywhere, and infinitely small.

So there's one reason that building such instrumentation may actually be fundamentally impossible.

[Hezekiah]

The notion isn't beyond the pale, left to itself. It's only the assumption made afterwards. Our brains really aren't that good at handling data beyond a certain point - or outside of a certain range. You could look at all the mechanical instrumentation we have as a way to shore that up when we recognize the shortcoming or wish to perceive something beyond our native abilities, "aftermarket modification" you might call it. Nevertheless, there is a point beyond which even those instruments fail, and It's difficult to conceive of any singular instrument (or even a collection of them) that would be capable of handling something so vast as "full knowledge". That's my opinion on the subject (but I'm using my meat processor to attempt to conceive of instrumentation...so perhaps even here this is a limit of that piece of equipment and not a limitation of any possible instrumentation. Perhaps a different sort of "consiousness" with a different range of processing parameters could design such instrumentation - even a translation standard so that we may use it (but here again...I don't know, it's beyond me to know - though there is at least -some- reason to entertain the notion).

All in all its a difficult idea to entertain because you're using the very instrument in question to understand things beyond that instrument!
It is quite the vicious cycle once you think about. Literally. Once you think about it, in some way, you're making an error. Although I agree, there is SOME reason to entertain the notion.

Also, thank you for this very enlightening discussion. I can always rely on people here in this forum to bring my feet back to the ground when thinking of such things

[The Grand Nudger]

-and lo the pale spectre of solipsism doth rear it's ugly head, and the people trembled, and they were afraid....

[onebluethinker]

Who knows how time really works, or what the true nature of the universe is? What I can say, though, is that consciousness absolutely exists within our minds. It's ridiculous to suggest that our thoughts are located anywhere outside of the place where they are created by electrical impulses. I also have no idea where this "ocean" and "consciousness after death" crap is coming from. Humans are arrangements of regular old atoms that are linked inextricably to their physical bodies. We're simple accidents, but beautiful ones at that.

[Brakeman]

The notion isn't beyond the pale, left to itself. It's only the assumption made afterwards. ..

All in all its a difficult idea to entertain because you're using the very instrument in question to understand things beyond that instrument!
It is quite the vicious cycle once you think about. Literally. Once you think about it, in some way, you're making an error.

I wouldn't listen to Rhythm! He probably thinks one could describe accurately the state they live in without having been to all other states. I bet he couldn't see that if you measured a pair of calipers with a pair of calipers that it would instantly give erroneous data as well.

Learning about the brain with the brain ... like that would work!

[Surgenator]

Learning about the brain with the brain ... like that would work!

Like we have another choice to pick from.

[Jenny A]

First of all, if you are going to quote, me attribute me.

Sorry, friend. Didn't mean to anonymously quote you there. I'm still getting used to the tools in this messaging box lol.

---No problem you seem to have it figured out now.

---

Seriously, there is no way to prove that the world we perceive is the actual world. But everyone except those who are insane acts as if it were absolutely the real world. This is a good example of the value of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation with fewest assumptions is most likely correct. Although we don't see the world in all possible ways (we can't see radio waves, ultraviolet, etc. or see all of the world at once, or even all of it from earth) it introduces unnecessary complication to assume the we world perceive as filtered through are brains is an illusion even if we can speculate that there are parts of it we can't see as demonstrated by what we can additionally perceive through the use of tools.


You lost me here. The fact that we can't perceive it all through our senses as interpreted by our brains in no way suggests we are more than our brains. It simply shows that we are limited. We certainly don't understand the universe now. Thinking we are more than our brains won't help in that endeavor. Delusion is never helpful to understanding..

This is in some ways the great atheist/theist divide. I see no reason for assuming that because the universe vast and mysterious, that I and/or a god must be vast and mysterious.

---

By that question I meant to draw attention to whether it is more delusional to assume that one day mankind will fully know all the secrets the universe holds, or that man will never know in this life?

I'm sure no single man will ever fully know the secrets to the universe, ever. Life is too short, and as far as we know there is only one short life apiece. I doubt mankind will ever fully figure it out either, but that's a little less delusional I guess.

And as you said before, "Thinking we are more than our brains won't help in that endeavor. Delusion is never helpful to understanding.." But I feel as though both sides are equally delusional in that case. Thinking that we will one day fully understand everything about this life, and thinking we will become more than everything in this life.

I never suggested we will one day fully understand everything about this life. I'm not sure where that idea comes from. I am, however, comfortable with not knowing everything about the universe or even the planet earth. More knowledge would be interesting and probably useful. But not knowing, doesn't cause me to look for magical or godly causes.

I agree, it's the great divide among us. And I can completely understand why you choose not to believe that I and/or god must be vast if the universe is. But on the flip side I also understand why some would believe that was indeed the case too.

Why for example, anyone believe a fish is vast because it lives in a vast ocean. Vast things are made of small pieces, but that doesn't make the pieces large. So no, I have no idea why anyone would think the vastness of the universe would make people in that vastness, vast.

God is a hypothesis I haven't found any evidence for. Adding him only complicates the vastness of the universe.