Has entropy been measured for consciousness?
-
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!
Who Am I? Again
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Has entropy been measured for consciousness?
gnostic
The Lost One
That’s not how consciousness work.
You cannot compare a human brain to sugar and consciousness to sweetness, because they are nothing alike.
It is a very lousy example.
How about providing a real life example that have relevancy to what is consciousness, how it work, and why do you think consciousness exist externally from the brain?
No. I am talking of the moment. What in the moment is "I am" -- the subject and what is "I am xyz" -- where 'xyz' is composite of insentient objects.
(I know that this enquiry will seem impossible, or childish, or ..... to most. But a few will see that the subject and objects are distinguishable. But the subject, not being any object cannot be grasped or measured.)
Last edited:
Lousy? Well. Please moderate your language.
What does property of a thing mean? If consciousness is the property of body or brain, then a dead body or a dead brain should be able to shout "I want to live".
If consciousness is product of body, then how will it know the body? How does consciousness keep track of bodily and mental changes? How the "I" awareness persists through states of deep sleep, eat, dream and waking? Can the product of body know the states of the mind/body?
The "I am" consciousness must be distinct from the objects and their changing states.
Last edited:
hey Atanu,
In the moment is `I am` as the subject to the action to be insentient-inaminate-lifeless-inorganic-inert-insensate-unconscious-comatose-agnosticized-desensitized-numb-stupefied-knocked out-passed out-blacked out-dead to the world-out-out cold-out for the count-out of it-spark out, or one of these examples.
Your right...you didn't say dead...but comatose is pretty close.
Reading this again, erasing all the variances, I see no purpose of the thread !
I do see a rendering of the possibility of being in a situation of a `now` format. "I am temperate".
But, `now` doesn't really exist does it ? How long does the `I` last ? Or the `am`? But the `xyz` exists??
That spells a possibility of a futuristic happening, but `now` can't even exist then, can it ?
So...there's never a `I am` or a `xyz` to investigate, is there, so we'll never be what we want to be.
I can only wish that there is a heaven out there somewhere, but I doubt it, Nirvana will be a better bet !
Gee... I'm getting lost in my own circularity...see you all in the Cosmos !
NuffStuff
In the moment is `I am` as the subject to the action to be insentient-inaminate-lifeless-inorganic-inert-insensate-unconscious-comatose-agnosticized-desensitized-numb-stupefied-knocked out-passed out-blacked out-dead to the world-out-out cold-out for the count-out of it-spark out, or one of these examples.
Your right...you didn't say dead...but comatose is pretty close.
Reading this again, erasing all the variances, I see no purpose of the thread !
I do see a rendering of the possibility of being in a situation of a `now` format. "I am temperate".
But, `now` doesn't really exist does it ? How long does the `I` last ? Or the `am`? But the `xyz` exists??
That spells a possibility of a futuristic happening, but `now` can't even exist then, can it ?
So...there's never a `I am` or a `xyz` to investigate, is there, so we'll never be what we want to be.
I can only wish that there is a heaven out there somewhere, but I doubt it, Nirvana will be a better bet !
Gee... I'm getting lost in my own circularity...see you all in the Cosmos !
NuffStuff
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I do tend to go on a bit. The jellyfish has only 302 interconnected neurons(humans have 10's of Billions). It doesn't have a brain, therefore it is not cognizant in the human sense of the word. But it is aware of danger. It can make decisions and basic predictions. It is aware when it is damaged. It can also sleep, which has made us rethink our ideas about the brains involvement in controlling sleep. It just might be a function of the neural network itself, and not the brain at all. Jellyfish Don't Have Brains, But They Do Sleep
So, in the sense that they understand that they exist, and can still accomplish basic consciousness(without a brain), Yes they are cognizant. But in the sense that they are aware that they are jellyfish, and can maintain any internal dialogue(language), No they are not cognizant.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
In a sense Yes.
https://physicsworld.com/a/consciousness-is-tied-to-entropy-say-researchers/
This unique theory suggests that consciousness is a byproduct of entropy Consciousness and Entropy | Scientific and Medical Network
https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/brain/john neurophysics consciousness.pdf
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
That is a silly question and you know it. Okay, what is existence-consciousness? Can you show it to me?
Atanu and Milt asking simular questions involving the brain, awareness, mind, and cognizance.
Are they all involved with each other ? And to what extent ?
How does one `show` the mind, or any form of consciousness ?
How do we gauge the complex interplexes of the `circuits` occupying the brain ?
What chemicals are released that `flex` the potasium and sodium plasmas in place ?
Where is the memory that is needed to exercize the neurons that inform us of these actions.
Ahh...how do we look at these complexes, how do we see them,
what is mind, and consiousness ?
Are they all involved with each other ? And to what extent ?
How does one `show` the mind, or any form of consciousness ?
How do we gauge the complex interplexes of the `circuits` occupying the brain ?
What chemicals are released that `flex` the potasium and sodium plasmas in place ?
Where is the memory that is needed to exercize the neurons that inform us of these actions.
Ahh...how do we look at these complexes, how do we see them,
what is mind, and consiousness ?
Yes. Foundation of of every thought-action is the existent-conscious being.
You may be correct from your POV. I will restate the purpose and then you may re-examine.
I will repeat. This is not a debate thread. The purpose of the thread is to examine or re-examine components of "I am xyz" awareness.
The "I am" is the conscious-existent part and 'xyz' is the composite of objects, which Buddhists call 'khanda' and Hindus the 'body-mind-intellect' (BMI) complex.
Some can be settled in their view (like you three seem to be) that the composite of objects 'xyz' (BMI or the khanda-s) is creator of consciousness "I am". In that case, "I am" is subject to vagaries of 'xyz'. This thread is not for you.
OTOH, I put this subject in 'Science and Religion' stream very consciously.
"I am", the SUBJECT, is beyond empirical-objective scientific investigation. Scientific methods can only examine the world of objects. When it studies 'self' or 'consciousness', it does from a third party POV. Consciousness as the subject cannot be studied.
How do we study the very "I am" that is the core of me? What are the Hindu or Buddhist methods?
I repeat. This thread is not for those who are settled in their view that in "I am xyz", the 'xyz' is the creator of "I am". Let them just ruminate on whether objects create the subject?
Last edited:
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
so you want those participating in the thread to assume the stuff you say is correct, then?
If you believe that objects that you see or know are the creators of your consciousness, of the conscious self that sees, then I do not wish to argue.
Is it unreasonable?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
If you believe that objects that you see or know are the creators of your consciousness, of the conscious self that sees, then I do not wish to argue.
Is it unreasonable?
I do not believe objects I see create my consciousness. Is that really what you meant to ask? I never expressed or implied that. I don't know what you mean by "the conscious self that sees".
You said you did not want participants to debate any of the stuff you are writing. I was asking if you were expecting everyone to simply accept what your are saying is correct?
Then what you believe? Why do you not state clearly how you differ from OP? A civil discussion without resorting to insulting language will be welcome.
Surely not. A civil discussion is always welcome. But if someone strongly believes that one's selfhood-intelligence (the subject) itself is born of objects then the discussion may remain futile.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Sounds fair to me. My biggest issue is that you use terms that need tight definitions, such as selfhood-intellegence, and the others I have alredy requested a definition of. Can you clearely define them and provide sn example?
I believe that consciousness is the product of a living brain and nervous system. I have not seen or heard of any instances where consciousness exists absentof a mind. If you have examples of such which are supported by empirical evidence, I would love to hear about them. If this is merely a philosophicsl discussion, I will leave you to it.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
I think that ""I am xyz", the 'xyz' is the creator of "I am", sums up the entirety of your circular logic. Creating your own "word salad of labels"(foreign or domestic), will never replace rational and verifiable evidence/facts. Eventually all arguments that are NOT supported by any objective or verifiable evidence, will fail. They will becomes only a self-serving gap-filling exercise in reasoning, based entirely upon ignorance or personal beliefs. You could be absolutely correct in your core beliefs. But since your entire argument is based on the un-falsifiability of those beliefs, you are just avoiding scientific scrutiny. Science does not work very well in the world of conceptualized mental absolutes. But this doesn't mean that you are wrong. But it does mean that you are being just as inexorable and biased, in the same way that you accuse others of being. The difference is, that we do not make the claims that you make. The claims that we make, can be easily supported with evidence and fallacy-free logic. When politicians use "nonsense language", by using terms like, "national security", "in the best interest of society", "national debt", :"manifest destiny", "public/national interests", or "public health", they are purposely trying to supplant public ignorance with ambiguity and equivocation. To anyone "outside the choir", your terms are very ambiguous, and can mean anything or nothing at all.
Maybe you should have stated in your OP that your thread is NOT open to debate. Or, did you mean that only those that agree with you need bother to respond? A good measure of the validity of the truth, is it's ability to convince others that do not share your beliefs. If you are only looking for positive reinforcements, validation, and acceptance, then why not call self-serving confirmation bias exactly what it is? If you are NOT debating, then you are just proselytizing/preaching your metaphysical views. This is not allowed on this forum.