• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What are we?

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The following is an interview of Kaku.

http://www.biographile.com/the-future-of-the-mind-a-qa-with-theoretical-physicist-michio-kaku/29039/

I reproduce below a portion from the interview. Most important point pertinent to this thread is Kaku's statement ".....and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist."

BIOG: One of my favorite subjects -- quantum consciousness -- appears at the end of your book. Could you briefly explain the concept and expound on how it’s tied to theoretical physics?

MK: In my book, I give an entirely new definition of consciousness which describes the consciousness of animals and human alike. My theory is testable, reproducible, falsifiable, and even measurable. This definition in particular focuses on the consciousness of animals and humans. However, there is also another type of consciousness, which is sometimes called cosmic consciousness, which goes to the heart of the quantum theory (my specialty). It is so sensitive that even Nobel Laureates today are not in uniform agreement. Basically, the quantum theory (which I teach to our grad students, and which is the most successful physical theory of all time) says that you have make an observation to determine the state of any object (e.g., atoms, electrons, laser beams). Before you observe something, it exists in a never-never-land world, being neither here nor there. (For example, this means that a cat in a closed box is neither dead nor alive in this nether state, before it is observed.) But once you make an observation, you know precisely the state of the cat (e.g., it is alive.) So, in some sense, an observation was necessary for the cat to exist. But observations imply consciousness. Only conscious beings can make an observation. Hence, it seems that consciousness is more fundamental that reality, and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist. The greatest minds of science have struggled with this question, without a final resolution. But in my book, I give you a critique of the various bizarre solutions that have been proposed. As J.B.S. Haldane once said, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
http://www.closertotruth.com/series/arguments-agnosticism#video-3077

In the page linked above there are interviews with eminent people on "Arguments for Agnosticism". I have seen the interview with Leonard Susskind in full.

In essence he says the following:

1. He has no doubt that God, if there is one, does not intervene in nature, wherein physical laws always decide the outcomes.
2. He however thinks that in respect of the questions regarding the origin, cause and the very finely tuned nature of the universe, science is not even able to frame the right questions. On this aspect he is a confirmed agnostic.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
That would be a good question if it would be the other way around. Precisely because the physical brain is the source of "will-consciousness", we die, when this physical structure collapses.

If brain is the sole source of will-awareness, why should a dead body not be conscious, since the physical brain still exists? And why should the brain not will to live? Why the firing stops.

"Tricks" remain undefined here.

Yes.

What is this "I"?

Who's asking?

If there is no reason to suppose his beliefs are true, this also applies to his statement that it is "unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter". He refuted his own argument. How the hell did this quote became known?

You may kindly read it again. Haldane said:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
There is a great resistance in many to even consider that awareness can be anything but a localised product of physical brains. Traditionally these so-called rational people have abused those who have suggested otherwise. Below, however, we may see how Kaku explains the phenomenon of Deja Vu.

 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
"What we are – what each of us is, what you are, what I am – is approximately a hundred trillion little cellular robots. That’s what we are made of. No other ingredients at all.” Daniel Dennet.

"Consciousness is just a bunch of tricks in the brain” Daniel Dennet
Materialism, in a nutshell.

“The problem is free will is just a non-starter, philosophically and scientifically. Unlike many other illusions, there is no way you can describe the universe so as to make sense of this notion of free will.” Sam Harris
A hero in a half-shell.

“I want to sit down to write, but then I want something else – to exercise, perhaps. Which impulse will win? […] What finally causes the balance to swing? I cannot know subjectively – but I can be sure that electrochemical events in my brain decide the matter. […] Therefore, I can take no credit for the fact that I got to the end of this paragraph.” Sam Harris, Free Will and the Reality of Love, 2013

(OMG. He is sure that electrochemical events will decide the matter. Yet it seems that electrochemical events in Sam's little brain have decided in favour of making Sam so sure.

Now, I am sure that at least some Sam supporter/s will be angry at me, impelled by electrochemical events in their small brains).

...........

Or pleased. :)

It's not about which divisions of reality control us (e.g. my [insert measure here] is bigger than yours) but about measures, like more or less control.

So. Our choices and decisions, can only be produced by some piece of machinery following physical laws. One's mind must be reducible to these particle interactions occurring within one's brain. Hence mind can be nothing but the brain, clearly defined, firmly located, and imprisoned as long as the brain lives.

I cannot however understand two things in this scheme.

1. How these greats know beyond the brain's tricks? Is Dennet then a God that he somehow escaped the tricks and came to know the truth objectively?

(Buddha and Shankara also taught us that the mind-senses play trickery with us. But they taught that to know the trickery as trickery one has to obtain support of the unborn mind that remains timelessly undefiled by its objects.)

2. If the physical brain is the source of our "Will-Consciousness", then why it allows itself to die? It can will "I will to live on". Why it dies so timidly (or violently) and fails to exhibit signs of consciousness when the life breath leaves a body?

(The alternative understanding is this. The body is not the "I" consciousness, which is immortal and transcends all forms).

So then. This is a board sort of thing. All are invited to fill the infinite board with their opinions and thoughts.


1. is obvious, and its rhetoric serves it well.

But 2. That's what we call a horse of another colour. In other words, the connection between free will and allowing the natural order of things hasn't been clarified.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
To this board, I add the view of J. B. S. Haldane, a Marxist-Atheist, a recipient of Darwin and Darwin Wallace medals, a noted evolutionist, propounder of 'Primordial Soup' theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane
  • "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."[61]
Haldane, J.B.S., Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
It seems to me the answer is simple: the "motions" that are imposed on "atoms" are no less mental processes meant to capture a way the world is.
 

Banjankri

Active Member
If brain is the sole source of will-awareness, why should a dead body not be conscious, since the physical brain still exists? And why should the brain not will to live? Why the firing stops.
Broken computer physically exists. Even when it's not broken, it needs power to function. When it comes to the brain and consciousness, if awareness does not come from the brain, why a hammer hit makes people unconscious?
Who's asking?
You question implies the answer.
You may kindly read it again.
Would be better if you could show me what you think was wrong in my view.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Broken computer physically exists. Even when it's not broken, it needs power to function. When it comes to the brain and consciousness, if awareness does not come from the brain, why a hammer hit makes people unconscious?

Yes. What is the power in brain? If brain is its own power source then it would not switch itself off.

You question implies the answer.

Yes.

Would be better if you could show me what you think was wrong in my view.

I will try but I do not know whether I will succeed or not. Approximately what Haldane is trying to say is that characters of a novel cannot know the author of the novel. An intelligence created out of unknown reactions cannot objectively unravel those unknown mechanisms. Such so-called intelligence can only do what it is programmed to do.
 

Banjankri

Active Member
Yes. What is the power in brain? If brain is its own power source then it would not switch itself off.
I think that it's not necessary to go into the details about how body generates energy. Those processes are well explained by biological studies. Try not to breath, and see where you awareness go.
Lately, I was interested in both, the subject of energy in the body, and brain functioning on the lowest level. I was surprised how well we have it described.

If you know who is asking, maybe you know what he is?
An intelligence created out of unknown reactions cannot objectively unravel those unknown mechanisms
The good news is, it's happening over and over again. It's not stuck in the past.
Such so-called intelligence can only do what it is programmed to do.
I wouldn't say, that intelligence is programmed. I would say it's programmable.
Because we see both intelligent people, and those for whom nature was less generous in this matter, it is not one and the same intelligence. Thus, it cannot be designed. Or, maybe you meant something different by intelligence?
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I think that it's not necessary to go into the details about how body generates energy. Those processes are well explained by biological studies. Try not to breath, and see where you awareness go.
Lately, I was interested in both, the subject of energy in the body, and brain functioning on the lowest level. I was surprised how well we have it described.


If you know who is asking, maybe you know what he is?

The good news is, it's happening over and over again. It's not stuck in the past.

I wouldn't say, that intelligence is programmed. I would say it's programmable.
Because we see both intelligent people, and those for whom nature was less generous in this matter, it is not one and the same intelligence. Thus, it cannot be designed. Or, maybe you meant something different by intelligence?

Well. Now, I do not understand a thing of what you say. Let it go.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Just to comment on the Sam Harris quote on free will: he's right, we have no evidence to suggest that anything like free will exists. That doesn't contradict Advaita. In fact, in my opinion, it agrees with it - the I-I only watches events unfold, so free will isn't a thing, because free will is of the mind.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Just to comment on the Sam Harris quote on free will: he's right, we have no evidence to suggest that anything like free will exists. That doesn't contradict Advaita. In fact, in my opinion, it agrees with it - the I-I only watches events unfold, so free will isn't a thing, because free will is of the mind.

But Harris will not in the first place agree to the I-I watching the movie. For the I-I that is a non doer, both free will and determination are meaningless.

So, it is not same as the sense of Harris.
 
Top