I believe that physical reality does not require consciousness. Things are real whether anyone knows it or not.
I believe that consciousness does not require physical reality, although most of our personal experience ties these together so it is easy to see why someone might insist on them being inseparable.
I believe that consciousness does not require physical reality, although most of our personal experience ties these together so it is easy to see why someone might insist on them being inseparable.
It exists in perpetuity whether we observe it or not. It is our observation of physical reality which gives it an identity we can understand, even though that understanding is changing all the time.
I belive meteor was a realty for dinosaurs while humans have an attraction for ethnocentism and is able to create realities that don t exist like religions or hazardous theories when he don t understand what he can percieve at his little scale.
Such topic shows about ethnocentrism...read Kant for instance about judgment faculties and limits...a good toolbox to avoid deliriums imho.
Such topic shows about ethnocentrism...read Kant for instance about judgment faculties and limits...a good toolbox to avoid deliriums imho.
Charles Darwin (member, not ‘the’....) has it right. The universe was most probably quite happy with itself doing its own thing, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, observers popped into existence and started staring at it and prodding and poking it to make themselves feel important and knowledgeable and validating it as their discovery, and declaring ‘well, if it wasn’t for us it wouldn’t exist, would it?
On the other hand, maybe the universe was quite forlorn and lonely and feeling a little dejected about all it’s fine displays of cosmology, physics and vastness not being noticed by anything or anyone. Maybe it’s delighted that, at long last, it can now show off all that it has on offer to its recently acquired observers!
It is for sure ‘the’ most important question in all history. ‘How and why did life emerge from the elements?
On the other hand, maybe the universe was quite forlorn and lonely and feeling a little dejected about all it’s fine displays of cosmology, physics and vastness not being noticed by anything or anyone. Maybe it’s delighted that, at long last, it can now show off all that it has on offer to its recently acquired observers!
It is for sure ‘the’ most important question in all history. ‘How and why did life emerge from the elements?
There are lots of living organisms that have no consciousness. Does the world not exist for them? They fully interact with the world, so it must exist.
Consciousness is a function of some physical organised 'thing' so requires a physical substrate I think.
Jan
The key word of course being "for" them. The world exists for them in the exact measure of their ability to perceive it as distinct from themselves.
To call on Kant once again, I think that it is indeed all we can know. However, belief (not necessarily of the religious kind) is another matter and that's why what DF96 expressed isn't unreasonable.
There are two specific areas of the human brain which have a very deterministic bearing on consciousness. Damage to these two areas causes the brain to go into deep coma. These areas are:
i) the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum
ii) "two areas in the cortex that were linked up to the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, and were most likely to play a role in regulating consciousness. One was in the left, ventral, anterior insula (AI), and the other was in the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC)."
Reference:
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontine_tegmentum
i) the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum
ii) "two areas in the cortex that were linked up to the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, and were most likely to play a role in regulating consciousness. One was in the left, ventral, anterior insula (AI), and the other was in the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC)."
Reference:
Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontine_tegmentum
I have wondered for a long time if consciousness extends beyond the skin, and if it does, where does it end, and if all living creatures have some form of consciousness, is there a collective consciousness? Do rocks or rivers or clouds have consciousness? And if all matter is made of energy, and energy is what powers consciousness, then is the universe itself made of consciousness? If I go out for a walk alone, why do I constantly feel that my surroundings are trying to tell me something?
tapestryofsound
tapestryofsound
Tofs, if you look at worldwide historical data of various inventions, timelines, date of patent applications etc. It can be difficult not to wonder if there is at least an collective subconsciousness.
There might be more to our "gut feeling" than we give it credit for, there are layers of tissue in our intestines that we do not understand completely, and the intestines are long enough to make a very effective antenna.
... Or perhaps the mountains and rocks made life to renew itself at a faster rate? Don't know if anyone here has read about Isaac Asimovs fictional Gaia, bedrock used to store vast amounts of data.
I know no boundaries for crazy theories.
Last edited:
The scientific method relies on gathering data in a well planned setup with the aim of avoiding confirmation bias. Once there is data, a hypothesis is formulated in an attempt to describe the data. A successful hypothesis is tested again in peer reviews, until in the end of the long process, a theory is proposed.
The question that is inevitable to ask is, what objective basis there is, if any at all, that consciousness can exist without a physical brain?
Speculations and opinions do not constitute science. Science requires data as the foremost prerequisite to formulate the starting point in the whole process, speculative hypothesising is useless.
The question that is inevitable to ask is, what objective basis there is, if any at all, that consciousness can exist without a physical brain?
Speculations and opinions do not constitute science. Science requires data as the foremost prerequisite to formulate the starting point in the whole process, speculative hypothesising is useless.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but not necessarily so. For all of our sophistication, we know very little and have forgotten even more about the world we live in. Before we learned how to read and write, we understood the world through oral history and storytelling. Now we have the Internet - a very poor substitute for actual knowledge.
Maybe you are right, but I still think it was a very stupid idea to cut down all the worlds forests, and an even more stupid idea to invent the steel axe. If we understood the significance of consciousness, we wouldn’t have ended up as we are now, alone and afraid of a universe that we believe to be indifferent to us.
Well, I refuse to accept that, I like my universe because it made me, as I am.
tapestryofsound
Some philosophers certainly do take the view that consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe.
According to this view the brain does not produce consciousness, but receives the fundamental consciousness that is all around us.
When out for a walk alone you must have a heightened ability to 'tune in' to the fundamental consciousness of the universe.
The only way to solve this very old fundamental question is through observation of what goes on in the human brain, and thankfully, advances in medical technology are providing new means to help neuroscientists delve deeper and deeper into this mystery. Understanding how the various aspects of consciousness are generated, will open many doors to treat sufferers of brain injury.
There is an experiment on a comatose patient who responded to stimulations of the cerebral contices. This patient has a damaged brain stem which is known to send a continuous stream of stimuli to the cortices. The injury prevented the brainstem from sending such stimuli. However, since this experiment was being done on a living patient, this experiment was halted due to ethical considerations.
There is an experiment on a comatose patient who responded to stimulations of the cerebral contices. This patient has a damaged brain stem which is known to send a continuous stream of stimuli to the cortices. The injury prevented the brainstem from sending such stimuli. However, since this experiment was being done on a living patient, this experiment was halted due to ethical considerations.
Last edited:
"conscious awareness" The words themselves can be used in a variety of ways. To talk about it we need to know what you think they mean otherwise we're all just putting our various brands of ready-made relish on a generic burger.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.