It would be great to attribute our consciousness to our brain, however its not logical when you think about it. Most people (including myself) believe and are taught that over billions of years, matter formed cells that eventually evolved to form a nervous system, brain, and consciousness. But supposedly, as you dig down to the atomic and subatomic realms, matter can't really exist without a conscious observer. It can only exist, and act, as energy. Energy and Mater interact in completely different ways. Our current understanding of Biology couldn't even begin to imagine a strictly energy based organism. This only leaves the possibility that somehow our consciousness is not matter based, but has existed as long as matter has its self, billions of year longer than living cells have, and even longer before the development of the first 'brain'. So why does our brain activity correspond so much with our thoughts, movements, and senses? The only reason I could think of could be explained, although bizarrely, like this: Imagine observing a working mars rover. You would notice that it was intelligent, it thought, analyzed things, and could respond to you. If you didn't know anything about mars rovers or robots, you would assume it was a conscious being. When you ran testing on this rover, you would identify the processor and antenna as a central hub for calculations, processing of data, and controlling movement. The rovers do many calculations and processes without mission control, just like our brains run process we aren't and don't need to be aware of. Understandably, you might assume all this activity was where the consciousness was based, where it was located. If you destroyed it, it would stop reacting, if you stimulated it, it would react. However, what your not aware of is the communication link between the rover and NASAs MissionControl. You would have no way of knowing that the real conscious entity controlling and experiencing the rover, was no where near by. Have we just forgotten, over time, the link between our consciousness and our body? are our bodies just our souls rovers? am i too stoned ? Happy Toking!
McKenna talked about this in similar terminology, as did Leary and I'm sure others. The basic idea is that consciousness is not something we created with our biological matter (the brain), but rather something we are merely tuning into. It will all be fun and games when upon death you wake up in a pod and realize your whole "life" was nothing but a 10 minute simulation and you're back to your "real life" in the year 5000
The only way this hypothesis could hold up is if time wasnt real. History must have been created when "researched" by consciousness -yuri
For those who say that consciousness is more than just brain activity, the burden of proof is on you. You can try to come up with a philosophical argument.. but you probably won't actually say anything that hasn't been said throughout the generations of humanity that this has been a question of. Same with the whole 'matter can't exist without a conscious observer' statement.. but the thing is, how you going to prove it? You're creating a claim that isn't falsifiable.. cause in order to prove it, you have to observe it and that right there would mess it up.
But when you die, you will possibly not be a conscious observer but matter would still exists since other people are observing ....again though this could vary depending on what you believe I guess
I often argue with my brain, sometimes I think we have to manually control our brains, which leads me to think there are parasites trying to remote operate our actions lol! I think the brain us like firewood, and the fire is our consciousness. Makes no sense.
Just for the record. I don't profess to know anything about whether or not we are just tuned into consciousness. It's just a theory I've heard others offer and I find interesting to ponder about. It holds some merit as there are points for it, but I also see the validity of points against it. There are views I hold my ground on. This isn't one of them.
Consciousness is a topic that neuroscientists and psychologists don't fully understand. However, there is much reason to believe it is the product of our nervous system and brain. Take the senses, for example, which are very well understood. All of the sensory input, whether it be from sight, sound, touch, leads to the brain where it is processed. This processed information then becomes available to our conscious minds. How might this information reach our conscious mind, if not by a direct chemical/physical link? There is no other known way for the brain to transmit such information. And why were we not conscious before we were born? The fact that we weren't conscious before birth is further reason to believe that the body creates the conscious mind. I don't claim to know exactly how our consciousness comes about, or whether it will ever be completely understood. Maybe we will forever remain stuck in Plato's cave? But I still believe the evidence strongly suggests it to be a creation of our brains and nervous system.
But processed information is meaningless without a conscious observer. A simple analogy would be a video game, does the virtual world exist if a conscious observer isnt present? Assume your computer is processing the game data but your monitor is off. If you say it exists then who does it exist to, itself? Or how can a collection of unconscious particles create consciousness? How can the effect have properties that are absent in the cause? Perhaps you were conscious before birth but you were completely in the moment without the ability to retain memories and construct reality? I am not sure where i stand on this topic, but i would probably tend toward the brain being a result of consciousness not the other way around.
So if a small rock falls near me from the top of a cliff, it didn't begin falling until I became cognizant of it? Why cant 'matter exist without a conscious Observer'?
I was going to make a general response to this thread, and still will, but when re-reading this part of your OP it reminded me of something. I once had an unmentionable experience where I 'broke through.' This experience was prior to me really getting into spirituality, which perhaps was some of the source of the fear, but also could have been a contributing factor to the interest which developed. The experience terrified me as it happened, but looking back, especially after having developed and pursued spiritual and philosophic interests, the content was very interesting. Basically, the experience was that I felt I knew for 100% fact, not just thought, that my entire life had been something like a dream, or a hallucination. And now I was waking up to the true reality. And the true reality, was that I was essentially a molecule in this sort of massive 'person.' So I had no free will whatsoever, I really didn't even do anything. All I ever did was go along with what this 'person' did. Not even go along with, was just a part of it. Like when I move my arm, all the molecules in my arm just go with it. That was the true reality, my individual life was an illusory fabrication. Very scary at the time, But very interesting to look back on. And what you say here just totally evoked that memory. Seemed like a very good alternate way of looking at the idea presented in that experience.
I'm not gonna necessarily claim that matter has no existence without observation. Or that consciousness cannot arise as a bi-product of matter. I'm not denying these assertions either, just looking at it from a different angle. First of all, let's look into what we even mean when we say something 'exists.' What is the thing that we say has objective, physical existence? It is any number of qualities defined by our sensory apparatus'. Perhaps given meaning and conceptual structure by our minds. Qualities as defined by sensory equipment only have existence relative to the sensory equipment which registers these qualities. People like to speak disparagingly of those who see quasi-mystical interpretations of quantum theory, in elaborations of the two-slit experiment, the many-worlds interpretation, wave-particle duality, and such. But what I am saying here is part of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is the mainstream, less 'out there' interpretation. The parameters of the experiment, and the equipment you use, defines the nature of what will be observed. So, to speak at all of the existence or non-existence of 'things' is ultimately idealistic and not reality-based, whichever position you speak of. Because whatever idea you have of a thing's existence, can only be of a nature which was pre-given for you to register in your sensory and neurological equipment. Thus we can say that any quality which you may attribute to an object can only be said to exist in relation to those structures. Yet this says nothing of the absolute existence of an object. In fact, to even speak of such a thing is meaningless. Does what exist? Absolute being is a great illusion we create through semantics. There are only qualities of existence, and those qualities can only exist where the capacity for their recognition exists.
Do you believe that something can come from nothing? Or is it 'nihil fit ex nihilo' ('nothing comes from nothing'), for you (as it is for Spinoza)?
Is this an interrogation? I believe some atomic particles to be responsible for generating consciousness
Lol, no; why do you say that? But I'm pretty sure that a coherent philosophical dialogue requires questions and answer, in order to be of any intelligible value. I believe some atomic particles to be responsible for generating consciousness That doesn't answer my question, but tiptoes around it. Are atomic particles themselves, per se, apperceptive?