• 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!

Every time someone goes screaming "materialism" I like to have a chuckle

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Subjectivity is only meaningless to a robot. Or its some sort of a trick.

Your own Personal experience and personal feelings dont mean anything to you? Come and go like the wind i suppose.
Signifying nothing to you or anybody else.

I highly doubt that.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=sub....69i57j0l5.11662j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
subjectivity - noun
  1. the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
    "he is the first to acknowledge the subjectivity of memories"
    • the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
None more welcome!
A 'brain state' refers to the condition of the brain ─ the particular interrelationship of its physical functions ─ at a particular moment or period. Consciousness, it seems clear to me, must arise from particular functions of the brain which produce it. It seems less likely to me that one single function does the job. (I've also mentioned I think the nonconscious brain does nearly all the work, even when we're wakeful and alert.)

I'm aware of at least two approaches to consciousness in research. One walks directly up to the question by enquiring into how exactly anaesthesia works ─ the direct biochemically caused cessation of consciousness in a restorable, non-damaging way. The other is theories of what consciousness is for, that's to say, when we consciously address matters we're considering, and when we simply do them with the nonconscious brain (like driving while you're talking to your passenger). I think I've mentioned Global Workspace as the leading hypothesis ─ it has some experimental confirmation by now, and last time I looked it had no strong rivals.

Thank you. I respect your your patience and nice manners.:) Pranam.

But, I must repeat I see no connection between all these 'bio-elecro-chemical schemes' and the actual taste of mango that I enjoy and the experience of bliss of non dual unsullied "I am" awareness of deep sleep (unconscious) and of meditation (conscious). Everyone has experience of bliss and rejuvenation of deep sleep. But no one ever gives a thought as to why? Science of objects neither provide explanation for the subjective experience of depression-pain that the whole world suffers from nor it provides the means for overcoming the angst and hopelessness.

So are the brain states of one same thing? If as I think they're plural then they combine to produce the range of phenomena we experience as consciousness, which can mean simply awake (if I recall aright, you think sleep is a conscious state, which I don't), or (being awake) aware, or mulling, or concentrating, or debating with oneself, or as the case may be.

No, not like states of water: more like different orchestrations of various brain functions.

You recall correctly. I was seeing a TED talk by Antonio Damasio. He defines consciousness as that which comes up when one wakes from deep dreamless sleep.

We OTOH, say that that is waking of the ego-mind. Consciousness-awareness, which we define as the competence for discernment is fundamental to existence and is unborn and never absent. That is what we are. On waking up, we say that we did not know anything in sleep -- and that is knowing.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Not yet. But I suspect that one day we will be able to.
Ciao
- viole

That is odd you know. The "I am" is closer than the experience of an apple in your hand. Yet, you say "Not Yet". We do not the truth of "I am" but we seem to know that we will the "I am" in future. Does anyone see the irony?:)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thank you. I respect your your patience and nice manners.:) Pranam.

But, I must repeat I see no connection between all these 'bio-elecro-chemical schemes' and the actual taste of mango that I enjoy
The taste of mango is the brain's interpretation of the neural signals from the taste buds, very usually together with input from the olfactory sensors. The response has evolved so as to reward eating useful food and deter eating harmful food (but it evolved before there were supermarkets). In a near analogy, the color red is the brain's interpretation of those neural signals from the optic nerve which are generated by light in about the 740-620 nm range.
and the experience of bliss of non dual unsullied "I am" awareness of deep sleep (unconscious) and of meditation (conscious).
Perhaps it's that healthy sleep is deepest when all the components are working in best harmony?
Science of objects neither provide explanation for the subjective experience of depression-pain that the whole world suffers from nor it provides the means for overcoming the angst and hopelessness.
There's quite a bit of biochemical literature on depression. One noted example is the role of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which increase the available serotonin in the synapse by slowing down the reuptake part of the cycle. The increased serotonin reduces depression and anxiety, though of course, like all psych medicines, they work extremely well for some people and not so well for others. All these researches are steps on our path to understanding.
You recall correctly. I was seeing a TED talk by Antonio Damasio. He defines consciousness as that which comes up when one wakes from deep dreamless sleep.
That consciousness is non-sleep seems an odd and unhelpful definition to me. And not all unconsciousness is sleep ─ there's also trauma, anesthesia, catatonia caused by infection &c. (My sister-in-law, with a PhD in Biochemistry, once commended Damasio to me, and despite a few interesting ideas I found him hard reading.)
We OTOH, say that that is waking of the ego-mind. Consciousness-awareness, which we define as the competence for discernment
Hmm ─ that's not bad. It might be setting the bar a bit higher than I would, but the central notion is attractive.
is fundamental to existence and is unborn and never absent.
If that's true then it should be verifiable by our brain researches, no? Has that been done?
That is what we are. On waking up, we say that we did not know anything in sleep -- and that is knowing.
I don't understand the significance of knowing that we've been asleep.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It is knowing that I did not not know anything.
That while I was asleep I was in a state of not knowing? That when I woke up I knew I'd been in that state? Or that the realization that we have brain states during which knowing is not one of our facilities means we have no other kind of brain states? What, exactly?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The taste of mango is the brain's interpretation of the neural signals from the taste buds, very usually together with input from the olfactory sensors. The response has evolved so as to reward eating useful food and deter eating harmful food (but it evolved before there were supermarkets). In a near analogy, the color red is the brain's interpretation of those neural signals from the optic nerve which are generated by light in about the 740-620 nm range.
Perhaps it's that healthy sleep is deepest when all the components are working in best harmony?
There's quite a bit of biochemical literature on depression. One noted example is the role of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which increase the available serotonin in the synapse by slowing down the reuptake part of the cycle. The increased serotonin reduces depression and anxiety, though of course, like all psych medicines, they work extremely well for some people and not so well for others. All these researches are steps on our path to understanding.
That consciousness is non-sleep seems an odd and unhelpful definition to me. And not all unconsciousness is sleep ─ there's also trauma, anesthesia, catatonia caused by infection &c. (My sister-in-law, with a PhD in Biochemistry, once commended Damasio to me, and despite a few interesting ideas I found him hard reading.)
Hmm ─ that's not bad. It might be setting the bar a bit higher than I would, but the central notion is attractive.

If that's true then it should be verifiable by our brain researches, no? Has that been done?
I don't understand the significance of knowing that we've been asleep.

As said earlier, nothing in these electro-chemical details indicate how chemicals are equal to the way we feel different experiences.

That while I was asleep I was in a state of not knowing? ...

Approximately so. One knows that one was not aware of 'space-time-objects', which come up in dream. The "I am" is the connection. In vedantic view, 'space-time-objects', is mind comprising the I sense, memories, and intellect. These three are supported by the power of cognition, which is potential in deep sleep state but is not known, as if, because of lack of any partition.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
If that's true then it should be verifiable by our brain researches, no? Has that been done?

Tell me how you can study the source of your own "I am" awareness? I raised this question in another thread.

The Essential Nature of the Sciences
...
But in order not to avoid answering you, I offer the following. Although, Advaita is not panpsychism, you may wish to read the following links. You may agree that the concept that consciousness is fundamental aspect of existence-nature is being investigated.

Panpsychism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science? | Matloff | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9572/1/Shan_Gao_-_A_quantum_argument_for_panpsychism_2013.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0952813X.2012.654930
...

As said above, advaita is not panpsychism. Advaita does not say that "I am" (the conscious subject-seer) and the stone (the unconscious object-the seen) are both conscious. Advaita differs from pansychism in very fundamental way. An approximate metaphor for the advaitic understanding is: a fixed unchanging screen (consciousness) and the moving pictures on the screen (mind-manifested world).
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As said earlier, nothing in these electro-chemical details indicate how chemicals are equal to the way we feel different experiences.
Let me ask this:
Do you think the first living thing, the first self-replicating cell was conscious?
If so, in what sense?
If not, do you see a continuous evolution from protolife to humans?
If so, do you think that somewhere in the evolutionary path from protolife to humans, something happened at some point that differentiated our ancestors from the biochemistry that had preceded it so that consciousness was a new capacity from a source external to those ancestors?
If so, what was it?
If not, where did consciousness come from?
Approximately so. One knows that one was not aware of 'space-time-objects', which come up in dream.
Do you mean, while we're asleep we're not consciously aware of the object of reality around us? We can in general be woken by uncomfortable changed in our sleeping environment, noise, heat, cold, water, shaking &c, so some level of filtering of sensory input continues, though (at least in my terms) not at the level of consciousness. Am I right that you mention dreams by way of contrast?
The "I am" is the connection. In vedantic view, 'space-time-objects', is mind comprising the I sense, memories, and intellect. These three are supported by the power of cognition, which is potential in deep sleep state but is not known, as if, because of lack of any partition.
I'd say that a conscious state is incompatible with a deep sleep state, ie that to be conscious you must cease to be in the deep sleep state.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I'd say that a conscious state is incompatible with a deep sleep state, ie that to be conscious you must cease to be in the deep sleep state.

I will come back to your questions later, if we can get rid of the gap in understanding of what the vedantic position entails. The highlighted portion is exactly what Damasio says.

But I have already said that 'an ego-mind being conscious of self and its objects' and 'competence for discernment' are not same. The latter is 'CONSCIOUSNESS' or 'AWARENESS' from the vedantic perspective that I am pursuing here.

In deep sleep, there is 'competence for discernment' in fullness but there being no ego-intellect there is no knowing, as if.

This point is crucial.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
As said earlier, nothing in these electro-chemical details indicate how chemicals are equal to the way we feel different experiences.

Contemporary research on the electro-chemical basis for 'the way we feel different experiences' has goone far beyond your simplistic rejection.

I may cite references to to support a more current view of the science behind this.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
In fact, it is so close, it is in the brain. And no transmission is required at all.

I see several assumptions made here that I find to be quite unlikely.

1. That awareness is a singular thing. I see it as much more likely to be a collection of interconnected processes.

You have pointed out an aspect that cannot be explained by 'machine view' of consciousness. We perceive smell, taste, sound, vision and thought all together, in a unified way.

2. That the circuitry that determines 'I am' will forever be out of reach of our measurements. Again, I find it likely that we will uncover several different aspects that fall under this heading of 'I am' with it only being an illusion that they are a unity.

3. We can certainly measure various degrees of consciousness through a variety of means.

4. The focus on subjectivity, to me, seems like a serious red-herring. A detector doesn't detect itself directly, but that doesn't mean it isn't material. There are many things we don't know about how the brain works, but all available evidence is that it can and does manage all the aspects of consciousness.

5. How can I know if I am conscious in the same way you are? I *think* I am conscious, but it seems from what you and others describe, my experiences may be different in kind from yours. maybe even to the place that what I 'experience' isn't really 'experience' from your point of view. How can I know?

6. To me, subjectivity is the least important part of discovering how reality works. OK, so such and such happened to me. That is a single event that may or may not give any hint about more general truths. It's on the order of saying that detector picked up red light. Without context and a physical background, that isn't very meaningful as far as i can see.

All other knowing comes after "I am" awareness. So, naturally, it should come first on the list of 'to be known'.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You have pointed out an aspect that cannot be explained by 'machine view' of consciousness. We perceive smell, taste, sound, vision and thought all together, in a unified way.

We smell, taste, sound? (hear), vision (see), and think through physicical biological organs, and bring them together by a biological organ the brain, It can be explained by a biological view of consciousness, including 'I am' awareness. You need get up to present knowledge of biological sciences.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You have pointed out an aspect that cannot be explained by 'machine view' of consciousness. We perceive smell, taste, sound, vision and thought all together, in a unified way.

And we perceive many things that are contrary to the reality. There are even situations where we perceive things that just aren't there:

Time-traveling illusion tricks the brain: How the brain retroactively makes sense of rapid auditory and visual sensory stimulation

In this, we 'fill in' perceptions that we *expect* to be there. This shows there is much more to what the brain does here than simple direct processing. it also goes back and revises *before* we actually perceive things. This is related to the *illusion* of unity of perception.


All other knowing comes after "I am" awareness. So, naturally, it should come first on the list of 'to be known'.

I see the 'I am' as one aspect of a larger issue of how the brain processes information and makes it available for our use to plan, think, etc. it is how we get this *illusion* of unity in spite of the reality of being separate, independent processes.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Except that with TVs and radios, we have *other* methods of receiving the transmissions and those transmissions leave *physical* evidence of their existence. In the case of consciousness, there is no independent evidence for a transmission. In fact, the evidence points to the brain being *where* consciousness occurs and the processes in thebrain being the explanation for the observed mental activities.

In a transmission, we have a single receiver that responds to variations in the signal. That is NOT what happens in the brain. Instead, we have different locations in the brain that mediate different aspects of mental events. This is not at all like a receiver and is more of an example of a computer operating on sensory and stored information (memory!).

In many ways, the transmitter 'explanation' seems like a smokescreen thrown up without any evidence to deny the simpler explanation of a material basis for consciousness. It is like denying that there is gravity and, instead, there are little gnomes that push us down to the earth in exactly the way gravity would.

It may be simpler explanation but the evidence is not conclusive.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It may be simpler explanation but the evidence is not conclusive.

No evidence can be *absolutely* conclusive. But, it is far and away better than any of the alternatives in terms of consistency with what we know.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It may be simpler explanation but the evidence is not conclusive.

It is best to simply to the lowest common denominator that the mind and consciousness simply exist. The only known objective evidence is the relationship to the brain.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I see the 'I am' as one aspect of a larger issue of how the brain processes information and makes it available for our use to plan, think, etc. it is how we get this *illusion* of unity in spite of the reality of being separate, independent processes

(I took time to answer this, hoping that the self that is me may change meanwhile. )

Jokes aside. In the sentence, "....brain processes information and makes it available for our use...", is 'our' an illusory entity? I respond to you and you respond to me. Is there no continuity that keeps record of all the changes etc?


And we perceive many things that are contrary to the reality. There are even situations where we perceive things that just aren't there:

Time-traveling illusion tricks the brain: How the brain retroactively makes sense of rapid auditory and visual sensory stimulation

In this, we 'fill in' perceptions that we *expect* to be there. This shows there is much more to what the brain does here than simple direct processing. it also goes back and revises *before* we actually perceive things. This is related to the *illusion* of unity of perception.

Right. "Time-traveling illusion tricks the brain....". But who knows the illusion? Who knows the trick? If you are an illusion then you are being self contradictory. How can an illusion know and pronounce truth?

Those who have studied Buddhism superficially talk like this. If 'anatta' (illusion of self) is the fundamental truth, then there cannot be any knower/knowledge whatsoever. So, eventually, one must grant that 'awareness - competence to discern' is the fundamental property of existence. Else knowledge is impossible, science is impossible.

The subject "I am" is conscious. It cannot be the unconscious object. The unconscious object cannot be the subject.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
(I took time to answer this, hoping that the self that is me may change meanwhile. )

Jokes aside. In the sentence, "....brain processes information and makes it available for our use...", is 'our' an illusory entity? I respond to you and you respond to me. Is there no continuity that keeps record of all the changes etc?

Yes, the continuity of memory and the way that the brain creates an illusion of unity by re-writing.

Right. "Time-traveling illusion tricks the brain....". But who knows the illusion? Who knows the trick? If you are an illusion then you are being self contradictory. How can an illusion know and pronounce truth?

Parts of the process 'determine the truth' and make that information available to the other parts.

Those who have studied Buddhism superficially talk like this. If 'anatta' (illusion of self) is the fundamental truth, then there cannot be any knower/knowledge whatsoever. So, eventually, one must grant that 'awareness - competence to discern' is the fundamental property of existence. Else knowledge is impossible, science is impossible.

The subject "I am" is conscious. It cannot be the unconscious object. The unconscious object cannot be the subject.

I see consciousness as, at most, necessary for *knowledge*. But that is fundamentally different than *existence*. So, I disagree that discernment is fundamental to existence. It is only required for our understanding, which is a very minor part of existence.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
The taste of mango is the brain's interpretation of the neural signals from the taste buds, very usually together with input from the olfactory sensors. The response has evolved so as to reward eating useful food and deter eating harmful food (but it evolved before there were supermarkets). In a near analogy, the color red is the brain's interpretation of those neural signals from the optic nerve which are generated by light in about the 740-620 nm range.
Don't you think that this leaves a complete mystery as to why the activity of neurons gives rise to experience (assuming that it does)? There seems to be no connection at all.
 
Top