Consciousness

[Guest guest]

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