Where do you think we came from? - Page 103

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

great post V!

i think the mistake we make is in thinking that things are separate. We're already finding however that there's no clear separation between brain and its functioning on one hand and body on the other- our thoughts seemingly are happening over the entire body. Similarly, it is possible that thoughts too don't necessarily happen in one body. They are probably happening 'all over', in the entire field around 'us'. I think we probably have one consciousness expressing itself through different brains. It would explain the personal reality we individually experience and might simultaneously explain how particles far away can instantly 'interact'- spooky interactions at a distance...

Originally posted by: _Angie_

The key belongs to the lock, right ? So if the key's with you the lock's got to be with you too 😛 hmm...but its not just one lock but seven ! So the challenge is one key, seven locks with separate passwords, all seven to be kept open simultaneously 😛 if you are one good hacker you could do without the passwords I guess . So get set going...to Moksha...where else? Bon Voyage !😆

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

K, Vintu, Angie & Birdie, great posts and yet human consciousness stands a great mystery along with origin of the universe, the origin of life, the mysteries of time, space, gravity and so many ...

And I still wonder how anesthesia is capable of temporary banishing the human consciousness...

We are walking, talking, sleeping, thinking and writing all in a Dream. So how can we wake up from this dream ?😆 Let us dream on and on land on and on ...

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

And I still wonder how anesthesia is capable of temporary banishing the human consciousness...

A very valid observation and the same can be said of life as well.

Hypothetically speaking, if we manage to snuff the life out of every living being, could the universe be then considered as devoid of life? Devoid of consciousness? Logically, we already established that the answer to that type of a question would be unknown (N/A) since no one would left to verify the evidence, but what can we infer nevertheless and would that inference be based on factual information?

We don't yet have factual information on how life or consciousness began. Was it purely chemical or wwere there any hidden variables we are unaware of? If purely chemical, how is that we are still unsuccessful in a) creating life from scratch b) pinpointing the seat of cognition

Like I said, in one of earlier posts, we don't know how many grains are there in a heap of sand. Because, our heap is based on vague predicates. That's the Sorites paradox. What you consider a heap, if I take out one grain of sand out of that heap, would it still remain a heap? How about if I take out two grains of sand? How about 20?

Reason I brought up Sorites paradox is because consciousness is defined on vague predicates as well. How many neurons would it take to generate consciousness?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

A very valid observation and the same can be said of life as well.

Hypothetically speaking, if we manage to snuff the life out of every living being, could the universe be then considered as devoid of life? Devoid of consciousness? Logically, we already established that the answer to that type of a question would be unknown (N/A) since no one would left to verify the evidence, but what can we infer nevertheless and would that inference be based on factual information?

We don't yet have factual information on how life or consciousness began. Was it purely chemical or wwere there any hidden variables we are unaware of? If purely chemical, how is that we are still unsuccessful in a) creating life from scratch b) pinpointing the seat of cognition

Like I said, in one of earlier posts, we don't know how many grains are there in a heap of sand. Because, our heap is based on vague predicates. That's the Sorites paradox. What you consider a heap, if I take out one grain of sand out of that heap, would it still remain a heap? How about if I take out two grains of sand? How about 20?

Reason I brought up Sorites paradox is because consciousness is defined on vague predicates as well. How many neurons would it take to generate consciousness?

Shouldn't you first define the heap before you start taking grain of sand out of it? So let's say a heap consist of 100 grains of sand anything below that would not be a heap. I believe there should be some fix boundary for measurements and then you can question what happens if you remove all the sand out of the heap...

I understand your point and it's almost like asking how many biochemical molecules do you need to create life?

And I don't think consciousness is solemnly based on count of neurons but rather on how the neural elements are arranged and how these elements integrate with sensor and motor data.

Btw, do you believe consciousness can split?

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

Shouldn't you first define the heap before you start taking grain of sand out of it? So let's say a heap consist of 100 grains of sand anything below that would not be a heap. I believe there should be some fix boundary for measurements and then you can question what happens if you remove all the sand out of the heap...

I understand your point and it's almost like asking how many biochemical molecules do you need to create life?

And I don't think consciousness is solemnly based on count of neurons but rather on how the neural elements are arranged and how these elements integrate with sensor and motor data.

Btw, do you believe consciousness can split?

True, we should define heap just as we should define consciousness.

Heap is an abstract concept. We can arrive at a consensus easily on what a heap is and later on adhere to that consensus. Unlike Heap, Consciousness is not an abstract concept, even though we don't have a rigorous definition of it. For instance, we know quality, we just can't quantify it in order for everyone to agree with it. Because, quality is subjective. What is quality music to you is not to me and vice-versa. In that sense, even though we "know" what is quality music, it is hard to come to a consensus unlike the case of heap which is just a plural.

Heap exists. We know what makes a heap, provided we agree to it first hand. You say 100 grains, I say 100 grains, it is 100 grains.

Quality exists. We don't know what gives rise to that. You say 10 million neurons and their synaptic connections in this, this and that area of the brain are giving rise to the mind, show me the proof. I say 20 million neurons and their synaptic connections in this, this and that area of the brain are giving rise to the mind, I need to show the proof.

(sorry, I didn't get the last question)

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

True, we should define heap just as we should define consciousness.

Heap is an abstract concept. We can arrive at a consensus easily on what a heap is and later on adhere to that consensus. Unlike Heap, Consciousness is not an abstract concept, even though we don't have a rigorous definition of it. For instance, we know quality, we just can't quantify it in order for everyone to agree with it. Because, quality is subjective.

Quality exists. We don't know what gives rise to that. You say 10 million neurons and their synaptic connections in this, this and that area of the brain are giving rise to the mind, show me the proof. I say 20 million neurons and their synaptic connections in this, this and that area of the brain are giving rise to the mind, I need to show the proof.

(sorry, I didn't get the last question)

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Right ...and the only relation that the conscious organism like Viruses have with neurons is their ability to trace that ...to infect more cells riding em as their transport mechanism...I guess we are again discussing the consciousness on the human level...In it's most elevated form that is ..The feeling of self that I guess which the micro organism lacks..

And since you rightly described consciousness as the quality ( That can't be quantified ) we must associate that with the concept of energy ...cause as a pre requisite for moving the stimuli signals ( Electrochemical ) a certain force must be required which translates into energy as the displacement occurs ...So I guess, the consciousness as in self awareness can't be, unless there is adequate amount of energy to catalyze such movements ( Of neurons etc ) ...It's like any other machine that requires a source of energy to make it's engines rumble ..That occult energy I guess is far more conscious than our conscious feelings ..and it stimulates all life😊

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that there can't be any consciousness absent motion? Hmm...

Thinking to myself here, was/is there any space/time in the known universe, where/when there was/is no motion? Everything we know came into being at infinitely hot and infinitely dense singularity. Infinitely hot indicates that whatever it was, it was in one crazry motion because without motion, there is no heat.

To be conscious, motion is necessary as otherwise signalling (electrochemical being one such) is not possible.

So, let's make it our own little rule: consciousness needs motion.

Now, we also mentioned earlier that motion needs a frame of reference. Ergo, consciousness needs a frame of reference.

We do know that there is no absolute frame of reference. So, consciousness too is relative. Which might explain the "elevated" forms such as humans and the no-so-elevated forms such as unicellular organisms or viruses (or heck even rocks)

But everything in the universe is considered to be in motion because of the lack of absolute motion concept.

So, is it a stretch to say that everything in the universe is conscious because there is motion and there exists signalling (as proven by entanglement) even though we are still not knowledgeable about how the said signalling is happening?

Just some random rambling at the end of a tough workday :)

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Hahaha ...😆 ...Duds !! ...You know very well that I have only the key ..But I haven't got a whiff of where the heck have ya been hiding the lock ..😆 <<< Uncertainty coming into play again ...You just wanna frustrate me so that I finally decide to break open the door and find the cops on the other side of that waiting for me with the hand cuffs ...😆 ..Now I understand why you said its gonna be a one way journey ...to the slammer ..named ' Moksha' ..The 'Moksha Cell' I mean ... <<<< 😆

Vintu...😛