Guest guest Posted February 1, 2000 Report Share Posted February 1, 2000 I have taken the liberty of sending the following posting from another list. The following long text is from Ron who comes from a science background and is not too happy with the idea of consciousness as being anything special or the SELF to be a meaningful term. His arguments are very interesting as they certainly make us think, sit up and take notice. Please do not feel offended by his forceful arguments. He is trying to put across his points of views - and as you will see he has strong views on this matter. It will be interesting to see how the members of this list react to his strong views on the matter of the SELF. This are not my views nor do I agree with many points Ron is making here but his approach is very forceful and interesting hence I am sending this text to the list......................jay Quoting 'Ron' "But what are we really? Systems within systems. Systems have a cycle. They are born, and they die. If I am nothing more then all else, (that is to say, energy/matter,) and if there is no other substance, then it is likely that what we call our individual consciousness is only temporary. Again, what I mean is our individuality or "self". We eat and what we eat is what we are made of. New cells are born and the old die. They are replaced by the food we eat. So in essence, our make up is constantly reincarnating. So if all the atoms of our body dispurse and join others to create other systems, then what is left of this "I" if there is no other "divine" and seperate substance which makes up individual consciousness? In other words there is either a soul, or there is not. A soul is a seperate entity and seperate from energy/matter. There is no evidence that anything is seperate from energy/matter and quite to the contrary. So I don't believe in a soul as it would be the same as taking rumour as fact. Therefore I can only assume that what we know to exist, (which is energy/matter) is capable of producing all we see around us, all we experience etc. In other words. life is inherent in energy matter. Love is inherent in it too as is the quest for understanding and knowledge. So when my parts disapate completely from eachother, what is left of self? Not a thing. But I still exist because all that I was still exists, because what I am (Energy/matter) can not be destroyed nor created, only transformed through interaction with other energy/matter. Consciousness as I know it is gone too. It is held together within the system through memory. Without a brain there is no memory. A person dreamlessly asleep is not conscious, neither is one in coma or under anastetic. So consciousness is not eternal but a byproduct of a certain level or configuration of complexity. It is the direct result of the organ we call brain. That central command processor that has done it's job so well in keeping the society of cells together, alive and in meeting all thier needs, that it now believes it is itself the most important bit of the equasion. Most brains do not allow themselves to believe this, of course. They hang on to building a reality to such an extent that they don't even give up at the point of death. Here, the brain makes a last ditch attempt at making sense of the world and serviving. It often produces visions of gods or a heaven for those who have near death experiences and happen to be religious. Dr Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada has developed a techneque of stimulating the brain with electro magnetic pulses. He has found the "religious" center of the brain and can make you see god if you like and are so inclined. , let you talk to aliens, old freinds you haven't seen for years, or any number of experiences your mind is predisposed to. All of that with a magic pencil. So, no brain, no consciousness as we know it, because there is no memory to draw on. Consciousness is therefore transient and certain requirements applie to it's coming about. Awarness, on the other hand, is perhaps inherent in energy/matter on a much wider level then consciousness is. Awarness is none judgmental. It can do nothing and it can decide nothing on it's own. It reacts structurally. It can be linked with instinctive reaction. Conscious things act with a certain deliberatness that awarness can not achieve. Consciousness is by definition judgmental. But because of that it can and does react deliberately. What are we humans? We are our needs. They drive us. Our consciousness is based on finding solutions to needs. We need to eat. We need shelter. Why? We need to find a place to go to the washroom. We need to love and be loved. So need drives us. Is that any different from the needs other non conscious things have? Well if we look at the atom, it wants something. It has a need. It's need in scientific terms, is it's closest form of inertia or balance. It will do what ever it can to achieve the resolution to that need. If a stray electron gets caught, it puts the atom out of balance. The atom must react. What does it do? It shares the electron with another atom and in so doing creates a whole new substance. Eventually, all this interaction between atoms creates blue prints for balanced systems. Eventually the blue prints themselves become the main focus, just as the brain does later on up the line. These blue prints are of course "patterns". Genes are such patterns. But patterns are everywhere. Theft is a pattern. Love is a pattern. Going to the store is a pattern. Everything we do follows patterns. It has to, there is no other way to do things except by the patterns. You have to crack an egg to make an omlette, it is as simple as that. Those patterns are the "laws" of physics. So we get to the fact that everything all the way up and down the line from human to atom acts pretty much the same way. The atom has needs and it instinctively does what it has to do to fulfill those needs, as do we. Cells, molicules, etc ,all do the same in thier oown way and in their own layer. The atom, of course, is made of smaller bits, smaller systems all "joining" in order to fulfill their conglomerate, individual needs. The needs of one trigger the needs of the other. The whole effects the parts as much as the parts effect the whole. The over all system then is made of the subsystems. That then translates into the Pantheist view that all is god. But this over all system is no more in control of the subsystems then the subsystems are purposfully in control of the whole. So it comes down to how much free will consciousness actually allows. It turns out to be very little if any at all. We are driven to do out of need just as all else is. We do not create first causes, we live chains of cause and effect. That is what we react to and we react according to our conditioning and our specific make up. Is there really a difference between reacting deliberately or reacting instinctively? In the final analysis there probably isn't any at all. None that is, except in the form of subjective perception." Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2000 Report Share Posted February 1, 2000 At 03:33 PM 2/1/00 -0000, Vivekananda Centre wrote: >"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda > >I have taken the liberty of sending the following posting from another list. .... >This are not my views nor do I agree with many points Ron is making here but >his approach is very forceful and interesting hence I am sending this text >to the list......................jay Namaste Jay, The viewpoint that Ron articulates is called scientific materialism, i.e., the view that consciousness is an epiphenomenon or emergent characteristic of brain activity. This view is being discarded by many scientists as quantum mechanics research continues. Perhaps Ron can look into some recent consciousness-oriented science writing if he has not done so already. Two books come to mind immediately, and there are more: THE SELF-AWARE UNIVERSE by Amit Goswami is one from a Vedantic-like perspective, and CHOOSING REALITY by B. Alan Williams is one from a Buddist Madhyamika Perspective. OM! --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2000 Report Share Posted February 1, 2000 yup--greg you've answered it---devendra ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.