Does consciousness play any causal role?

[Gambit]

Does consciousness play any causal role? If so, what role does it play?

According to (atheist) Susan Blackmore, consciousness does not play any causal role. It's simply an epiphenomenon. Here's her argument in a nutshell.

The driving force behind everything that happens is replicator power. Genes fight it out to get into the next generation, and in the process biological design comes about. Memes fight it out to get passed on into another brain or book or object, and in the process cultural and mental design comes about. There is no need for any other source of design power. There is no need to call on the creative 'power of consciousness', for consciousness has no power. There is no need to invent the idea of free will. Free will, like the self who 'has' it, is an illusion. Terrifying as this thought seems, I suggest it is true. (source: pg. 236, "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore)

 

[Native]

According to (atheist) Susan Blackmore, consciousness does not play any causal role.

By your very request here, Susan Blackmore is contradicted. She have just caused you to ask

 

[Gambit]

By your very request here, Susan Blackmore is contradicted. She have just caused you to ask

Memetic selection does not require any conscious direction for the very same reason that genetic selection does not.

 

[George-ananda]

Her position makes sense if one takes a materialistic view of life and consciousness. I do not hold a materialist view as a result of my study of beyond the normal (paranormal) phenomena and the teaching of many eastern spiritual masters.

My studies have led me to the exact opposite conclusion; Consciousness is non-physical and all things happen only because of Consciousness/God/Brahman. The universe itself is just the play/drama of Consciousness/God/Brahman. This infinite One consciousness is finitely expressed in our finite brains.

 

[Gambit]

Her position makes sense if one takes a materialistic view of life and consciousness. I do not hold a materialist view as a result of my study of beyond the normal (paranormal) phenomena and the teaching of many eastern spiritual masters.

I'm not sure she is a materialist. Susan Blackmore appears to have Buddhist influences. (The belief that the self is purely illusory is one of the hallmarks of Buddhism.)

 

[George-ananda]

I'm not sure she is a materialist. Susan Blackmore appears to have Buddhist influences. (The belief that the self is purely illusory is one of the hallmarks of Buddhism.)

I am aware of her and would classify her as a 'materialist' (although I am not an expert on her). I have learned, particularly on RF, that materialists that want to hold on to some kind of spirituality often declare Buddhism but it is a Buddhism different from the traditional ones in involving no individual rebirth/reincarnation. There is nothing in that type of Buddhism that is not compatible with materialism.

 

[Gambit]

I am aware of her and would classify her as a 'materialist' (although I am not an expert on her). I have learned, particularly on RF, that materialists that want to hold on to some kind of spirituality often declare Buddhism but it is a Buddhism different from the traditional ones in involving no individual rebirth/reincarnation. There is nothing in that type of Buddhism that is not compatible with materialism.

Traditional Buddhism subscribes to the doctrine of "no self" (anatta). So, there is nothing she is promoting that conflicts with Buddhism (at least on this score).

 

[Jumi]

Depends, our consciousness is less involved in decision making than we'd like. Often selection or a decision has already been made, before a decision comes to our conscious awareness that we observe. That doesn't mean that we aren't capable of conscious action, it's just not as common as we can see if learn certain meditations or learn through current scientific studies on how decisions are done.

Example: An addict can consciously resist his desire yet succumb to it regularly. Getting out of an addiction is possible with right mindset and tools.

 

[George-ananda]

Traditional Buddhism subscribes to the doctrine of "no self" (anatta). So, there is nothing she is promoting that conflicts with Buddhism (at least on this score).

Anatta concept also exists in Advaita. There is no permanent individual self but this does not preclude the existence of impermanent relative selves; bodies and impermanent souls that exist until liberation Nirvana/Moksha. Without some such concepts, what is there to be re-born in traditional Buddhist teaching. Traditional Buddhism includes elements (left unclear) that are outside materialism.

 

[buddhist]

Consicousness, and its resultant attachments, are the source and cause for all things in samsara, in Buddhism.

Genes, memes, etc. are the product of consciousness. Without consciousness, everything ceases to exist.

 

[buddhist]

... Consciousness is non-physical and all things happen only because of Consciousness/God/Brahman. The universe itself is just the play/drama of Consciousness/God/Brahman. This infinite One consciousness is finitely expressed in our finite brains.

I agree. In a sense, however, I believe that it can be said that we are both 1. part of the All (or, as you put it "Consciousness/God/Brahman"), and that 2. the All exists in whole in our individual consciousness.

 

[Gambit]

Depends, our consciousness is less involved in decision making than we'd like. Often selection or a decision has already been made, before a decision comes to our conscious awareness that we observe. That doesn't mean that we aren't capable of conscious action, it's just not as common as we can see if learn certain meditations or learn through current scientific studies on how decisions are done.

Example: An addict can consciously resist his desire yet succumb to it regularly. Getting out of an addiction is possible with right mindset and tools.

So, you believe in free will?

 

[Gambit]

Anatta concept also exists in Advaita. There is no permanent individual self but this does not preclude the existence of impermanent relative selves; bodies and impermanent souls that exist until liberation Nirvana/Moksha. Without some such concepts, what is there to be re-born in traditional Buddhist teaching. Traditional Buddhism includes elements (left unclear) that are outside materialism.

So, you believe in personal free will?

 

[Gambit]

Consicousness, and its resultant attachments, are the source and cause for all things in samsara, in Buddhism.

Genes, memes, etc. are the product of consciousness. Without consciousness, everything ceases to exist.

What about an individual consciousness (as opposed to a collective consciousness)?

 

[George-ananda]

I agree. In a sense, however, I believe that it can be said that we are both 1. part of the All (or, as you put it "Consciousness/God/Brahman"), and that 2. the All exists in whole in our individual consciousness.

I agree with point 1. I am not so sure about point 2. Does your individual consciousness experience what I experience?

 

[George-ananda]

So, you believe in personal free will?

I believe in relative free will on our plane of action (the physical). But ultimately there is only One free will and that is God/Brahman, the author of the play/drama. But we are that author once we realize it.

 

[Gambit]

I agree. In a sense, however, I believe that it can be said that we are both 1. part of the All (or, as you put it "Consciousness/God/Brahman"), and that 2. the All exists in whole in our individual consciousness.

So, you believe each part contains the whole?

 

[Gambit]

I believe in relative free will on our plane of action (the physical). But ultimately there is only One free will and that is God/Brahman, the author of the play/drama. But we are that author once we realize it.

So, you believe "relative free will" is actually illusory?

 

[buddhist]

What about an individual consciousness (as opposed to a collective consciousness)?

So, you believe each part contains the whole?

Absolutely, just like a fragment of a hologram contains information regarding the whole, albeit in a degraded form.

 

[George-ananda]

So, you believe "relative free will" is actually illusory?

From the Ultimate perspective, Yes individual free will is illusory. But until we attain ultimate perspective, it seems real to us. The usual western free will debate is based on atheistic or dualistic (God and creation are two) concepts. In the usual western debate I would prefer to take the 'free will' side as we have a soul which does not operate deterministically as does physical matter.