Searching for GOD...

[ekim]

This describes something that feels totally unlike my experience.

I think most people would agree with you.  Mystics tend to use methods which promote inner stillness rather than mental agitation and the end result defies description.  They might say, perhaps, that deep dreamless sleep is unconsciousness and deep dreamless meditation is consciousness.

[Enki]

A mystic might rephrase what you say as follows.  There is consciousness and there are objects of consciousness created as thought forms, mental images, emotional states, bodily sensations.  Consciousness can identify with those forms, states and images and call it 'me' or 'my self' so that when there is a disconnection, 'me' seems to disappear. Images arise during dream sleep and, if remembered, the mind reestablishes the connection and a 'me' is formed again.  In deep dreamless sleep, the connection of consciousness with mental formative processes is temporarily broken and the mind cannot form a 'me'.  Bottom line, as consciousness, I am not a thing, I am not an event, I am not a rolling process and when the processes stop, 'I' am still being.

It seems to me that this mystic of yours is starting with the idea that that there is a something called consciousness which is entirely separate from the human mind, a statement which has no evidence whatever to commend it, and therefore is simply an assertion or conjecture on his part. To try to fit his conjecture into the rather obvious experience we all have of consciousness as appertaining to our minds, he tries to get over this by creating the idea that this disembodied 'consciousness' needs some sort of a linkage to thought processes, emotional and bodily sensations and experiences, which creates the feeling of a 'me' being involved. Again, this mystic of yours seems to think that in deep sleep the connection between this 'consciousness' and mental processes is broken. He has to explain it this way because he has already decided that such a thing as 'consciousness' actually exists in some way. There is no way that he could suggest that in deep sleep, consciousness simply evaporates, because that would go against his original assertion. And he seems to finish with a strong declaration of his original assertion. When all processes stop, consciousness, in some way, soldiers on.

Unfortunately, if you start with an assertion, then everything has to be forced to fit in with it, to keep the assertion going.

On the other hand the overwhelming evidence is that consciousness is a product of the physical workings of each individual mind. There is plenty of evidence that damaged minds present altered views of consciousness and  when a mind dies there is zero evidence that consciousness lives on for that individual.

Finally, apart from any evidence(or lack of it)  your mystic's view of consciousness, as NS suggested, doesn't seem to fit my experience at all, so, I'll leave it to you to support him, I'll pass.

[ekim]

It seems to me that this mystic of yours is starting with the idea that that there is a something called consciousness which is entirely separate from the human mind, a statement which has no evidence whatever to commend it, and therefore is simply an assertion or conjecture on his part. To try to fit his conjecture into the rather obvious experience we all have of consciousness as appertaining to our minds, he tries to get over this by creating the idea that this disembodied 'consciousness' needs some sort of a linkage to thought processes, emotional and bodily sensations and experiences, which creates the feeling of a 'me' being involved. Again, this mystic of yours seems to think that in deep sleep the connection between this 'consciousness' and mental processes is broken. He has to explain it this way because he has already decided that such a thing as 'consciousness' actually exists in some way. There is no way that he could suggest that in deep sleep, consciousness simply evaporates, because that would go against his original assertion. And he seems to finish with a strong declaration of his original assertion. When all processes stop, consciousness, in some way, soldiers on.

Unfortunately, if you start with an assertion, then everything has to be forced to fit in with it, to keep the assertion going.

On the other hand the overwhelming evidence is that consciousness is a product of the physical workings of each individual mind. There is plenty of evidence that damaged minds present altered views of consciousness and  when a mind dies there is zero evidence that consciousness lives on for that individual.

Finally, apart from any evidence(or lack of it)  your mystic's view of consciousness, as NS suggested, doesn't seem to fit my experience at all, so, I'll leave it to you to support him, I'll pass.

I don't have a mystic but many of the mystics that I have looked into have been more concerned with suspending ideas, thoughts, concepts etc rather than starting with them and trying to justify them.  It tends to be an inner experience of the 'I' consciousness in its pristine state and how to free it from its attachments to bodily sensations and mental forms and forces, which they explore.  As it is virtually impossible to describe an inner experience or to present it as evidence, they are forced to use analogies to give some indication to others who might be interested.  From the perspective of 'deep dreamless meditation', which was possibly attained by consciously detaching from the variety of thought forms, then the analogy might be represented by 'deep dreamless sleep detached from mental activities' but with consciousness.  I doubt whether many mystics would be concerned to present 'consciousness' as a 'thing' that exists but more as a state of being to sustain, as it is often portrayed as a source of bliss, joy, peace, harmony, well being, etc.  As regards the assertion that 'that consciousness is a product of the physical workings of each individual mind' therefore 'damaged minds present altered views of consciousness', the mystic might view it as 'seeing through a glass darkly i.e. it is not 'consciousness that is at fault but the medium through which it passes e.g. an agitated mind, an inflated ego.  As regards your last sentence, the mystic would probably understand the experience you share with NS and realise how difficult it would be to introduce you to an alternative experience and would likewise 'pass'. 

[Alan Burns]

We already have enough evidence though.  This 'single entity or perception' evaporates every time we go to sleep.  It starts up again when we wake.  When in a deep sleep , I have no sense of being 'me'.  Occasionally we dream, and in dreams quite often there is a 'me', a subject within the dream, experiencing events, but when the dream finishes, the 'me' disappears again.  Dreaming, being a form of consciousness that occurs in sleep, shows that your single entity of perception of a product, or aspect, of consciousness.  Bottom line, as a subject of experience, I am not a thing, I am an event, I am a rolling process, and when the process stops, I stop.

When I am in a deep sleep. I have no perceived memory of being "me".  But memory cells and their functionality are part of the physical brain.  The entity of perception which is "me" can only perceive memory when these cells are active.

In your previous descriptions of consciousness, you try to equate it with information flow through our brain cells.  But information flow alone is not consciousness.  Consciousness is perception of information - not the information itself.  The difficulty in trying to define conscious awareness in purely material terms lies in the logical impossibility of a single entity of awareness being many discrete material reactions.

[Sebastian Toe]

When I am in a deep sleep. I have no perceived memory of being "me".  But memory cells and their functionality are part of the physical brain.  The entity of perception which is "me" can only perceive memory when these cells are active.

So when those physical cells cease to function upon death, what possible means will your single entity of perception have of to identify itself as "you"?

[Stranger]

The difficulty in trying to define conscious awareness in purely material terms lies in the logical impossibility of a single entity of awareness being many discrete material reactions.

How are you exactly defining this "single entity of awareness" (so a logical argument can be applied to it) and what about it is logically impossible in terms of "many discrete material reactions"?

People have actually said why your view is logically impossible and you've never been able to provide the hint of a counterargument, now you're claiming logical impossibility for something else, without providing the hint of an argument.

Do you even understand what is meant by "logically impossible" (because it doesn't mean incredulity)?

[SusanDoris]

On the subject of those who self-identify as  mystics, a term which can mean whatever the user of it thinks it means, or those who are deferred to as such by those who wish there to be a genuine one!, I think it is a term that should be seen for the pretentious term it is. They seem to think they, I,.e. those who claim to be mystics,  know, or have access to, feelings, emotional states, or something which those who are, shall we say, a tad sceptical, do not. No objective evidence is ever offered for this.

Perhaps it is a lack of colnfidence, or self-esteem, or believing they havefound a way to turn the world into a better place, etc etc, but it never leads to some logical conclusion. Unless of  course someone can come up with objective evidence to the contrary.

I have just come back from walking 2.6 miles (pausing more often than I used to!) to the cliff top, where the sun is sparkling on the sea, The Needles is visible on the horizon, and people are sitting at tables in the garden of the café there. Seems to me that that is far more conducive to well-being than trying to get to a supposed mystic core somewhere.

I came home by taxi, but it was so nice to be able to do what I did.

[Alan Burns]

So when those physical cells cease to function upon death, what possible means will your single entity of perception have of to identify itself as "you"?

When the machine ceases to function, the controller will still exist.

[Gordon]

When the machine ceases to function, the controller will still exist.

Not if the machine and the controller are one in the same.

[torridon]

When I am in a deep sleep. I have no perceived memory of being "me".  But memory cells and their functionality are part of the physical brain.  The entity of perception which is "me" can only perceive memory when these cells are active.

In your previous descriptions of consciousness, you try to equate it with information flow through our brain cells.  But information flow alone is not consciousness.  Consciousness is perception of information - not the information itself.  The difficulty in trying to define conscious awareness in purely material terms lies in the logical impossibility of a single entity of awareness being many discrete material reactions.

Everything is information flow, ultimately.  Consciousness is a very very particular form of information flow procured by brains. When you go to sleep, the information flows do not stop, the sleeping brain is still highly active.  The difference is in the degree and quality of cross brain information integration. There is a name for this coefficient of integration - phi - and it can be used to gain a more accurate measure of the degree of consciousness than we have access to in the past.

[Sebastian Toe]

When the machine ceases to function, the controller will still exist.

That was already implied in my question.
Did you read the question?
Do you need it explained to you for you to reply, appropriately?

[ekim]

On the subject of those who self-identify as  mystics, a term which can mean whatever the user of it thinks it means, or those who are deferred to as such by those who wish there to be a genuine one!, I think it is a term that should be seen for the pretentious term it is. They seem to think they, I,.e. those who claim to be mystics,  know, or have access to, feelings, emotional states, or something which those who are, shall we say, a tad sceptical, do not. No objective evidence is ever offered for this.

Perhaps it is a lack of colnfidence, or self-esteem, or believing they havefound a way to turn the world into a better place, etc etc, but it never leads to some logical conclusion. Unless of  course someone can come up with objective evidence to the contrary.

I have just come back from walking 2.6 miles (pausing more often than I used to!) to the cliff top, where the sun is sparkling on the sea, The Needles is visible on the horizon, and people are sitting at tables in the garden of the café there. Seems to me that that is far more conducive to well-being than trying to get to a supposed mystic core somewhere.

I came home by taxi, but it was so nice to be able to do what I did.

I am not sure that a person would self identify as a mystic.  It is usually a term applied by others to somebody who has been initiated into a life of contemplation and self surrender.  I tend to use the term because I can't think of another term (apart from heretic, I suppose) to distinguish the individual approach from the doctrinal.  I would be inclined to place Jesus into the category of Jewish mystic who suffered from deviating from Jewish orthodoxy.  The inner core you mention is said to be the source of that 'heavenly' state of bliss/joy etc which is always present and available to access and doesn't rely upon external stimulus, like from a scenic view.  As regards objective evidence, I doubt whether there is any, just as the well being you experienced on your walk would be difficult to present as objective evidence.

[Alan Burns]

Everything is information flow, ultimately.

Information is not information until it is perceived.

[SusanDoris]

I am not sure that a person would self identify as a mystic.

Well, I suppose that is true! After all, no-one can know the term even exists without hearing about it  from others' words- and believing there is something in it, without checking thoroughly.

It is usually a term applied by others to somebody who has been initiated

An interesting word to use. What is initiation exacly? One person talks to another in persuasive language about 100% subjective ideas and the recipient can then choose to believe the person and the idea that there is something mystic in which to be initiated, or, preferably as far as I'm concerned, they can decide to spend time endeavouring to remove or lower stresses in their lives by using the brain/mind they are going to be using to accept the entirely subjective ideas anyway. In other words, they are going off on a detour and accepting it as fact, instead of using it as a way to gain useful knowledge.  The problem arises, I think, when they start to think that it is not entirely a human idea, developed, magnified, distorted, but also entirely controllable* by their human minds.   

into a life of contemplation and self surrender.   

Why would anyone benefit from such a 'surrender'? To believe that it is not entirely one's mind that is doing all this is to chase a shadow that leads nowhere.

I tend to use the term because I can't think of another term (apart from heretic, I suppose) to distinguish the individual approach from the doctrinal.  I would be inclined to place Jesus into the category of Jewish mystic who suffered from deviating from Jewish orthodoxy.

If Jesus was a real individual - and I have no reason to suppose otherwise - then he was a person steepped in the beliefs of his time without the wealth of objective information we have today. He was possibly anintelligent counsellor using the knowledge available to him. 

The inner core you mention is said to be the source of that 'heavenly' state of bliss/joy etc which is always present and available to access and doesn't rely upon external stimulus, like from a scenic view.  As regards objective evidence, I doubt whether there is any, just as the well being you experienced on your walk would be difficult to present as objective evidence.

Agreed, but for me the most important thing is that I do not misinterpret it as having some non-human, non-naturally evolved aspect of me.
The other important point is that whatever I think, I am not trying to persuade others to accept it as true on no evidence. If I had been attached to some electronic devices, no doubt they could have recorded some chemical responses in my brain or something!
*I should not have put 'entirely controllable'!! I should have said understood and managed, or something similar, but it will be too complicated to trt
y and change it now!

[torridon]

Information is not information until it is perceived.

That is using a rather narrow, everyday sense of the word information.  Do you think that all the information in my local library is not information until someone is looking at it ?  Is the transmission of characteristics from parent to child through reproduction not an information flow ?  Your visual perception of the screen in front of you now is the flowing of information in the more fundamental sense through primary visual cortex.  That is perception in action, we don't have a secondary system of perception to perceive the perception, that model of perception implies an infinite regress.

[Gordon]

Information is not information until it is perceived.

This is desperate stuff, Alan.

[ekim]

(1)An interesting word to use. What is initiation exacly? One person talks to another in persuasive language about 100% subjective ideas and the recipient can then choose to believe the person and the idea that there is something mystic in which to be initiated, or, preferably as far as I'm concerned, they can decide to spend time endeavouring to remove or lower stresses in their lives by using the brain/mind they are going to be using to accept the entirely subjective ideas anyway. In other words, they are going off on a detour and accepting it as fact, instead of using it as a way to gain useful knowledge.  The problem arises, I think, when they start to think that it is not entirely a human idea, developed, magnified, distorted, but also entirely controllable* by their human minds.   
(2) Why would anyone benefit from such a 'surrender'? To believe that it is not entirely one's mind that is doing all this is to chase a shadow that leads nowhere.

(1) I would say that initiation is generally about starting on a course of practices in order to explore a possibility or realise a potential.  It should be free from persuasion but one should realise that, as in all walks of life, there are persuaders who seek to manipulate and control others.  As regards 'using the brain to gain useful information', one could do both e.g. being initiated into the practice of tap dancing doesn't prevent a person using their brain to gather useful information, unless, of course, addiction sets in, which is another condition to be wary of.

(2) Self surrender is seen as an antidote to such states as selfishness, being self absorbed, self deluded, self seeking, self righteous, self important, self centred, all the conditions which exist in nationalism, racism, religions, politics.  To the egotistical it would either be seen as a nonsense or a threat.

[Sebastian Toe]

When the machine ceases to function, the controller will still exist.

Like, say a helicopter controller at 5000ft and the helicopter ceases to function?

[Alan Burns]

That is using a rather narrow, everyday sense of the word information.  Do you think that all the information in my local library is not information until someone is looking at it ?  Is the transmission of characteristics from parent to child through reproduction not an information flow ?  Your visual perception of the screen in front of you now is the flowing of information in the more fundamental sense through primary visual cortex.  That is perception in action, we don't have a secondary system of perception to perceive the perception, that model of perception implies an infinite regress.

In nature, the books comprise just ink stains on paper and the computer screen comprises pixels emitting differing wavelengths of radiation.  They are just an intermediary means of intentionally conveying information with purpose and meaning from one conscious entity to another.  The information exists in the minds of the conveyor and receiver, not in the material entities.

And what of the incredible amount of information perceived in human DNA?  Is is evidence of consciously intended purpose and meaning coming from the conveyor of such information?  Or is it just a consequence of unintended, purposeless reactions in material elements? 

[torridon]

In nature, the books comprise just ink stains on paper and the computer screen comprises pixels emitting differing wavelengths of radiation.  They are just an intermediary means of intentionally conveying information with purpose and meaning from one conscious entity to another.  The information exists in the minds of the conveyor and receiver, not in the material entities.

That is still using a rather narrow, everyday sense of the word information.  Information transmission from conscious entity to conscious entity is just one example of what is meant by 'information'.  You don't need to be a conscious entity to send and receive information; plants for example use chemical signalling to communicate with each other.

[torridon]

And what of the incredible amount of information perceived in human DNA?  Is is evidence of consciously intended purpose and meaning coming from the conveyor of such information?  Or is it just a consequence of unintended, purposeless reactions in material elements?

There's probably less information in human DNA than you might think.  According to the BBC Futures page below, I have 800Mb of information in my DNA, somewhat less than a small USB stick.  Indeed, humans are not exceptional in these terms, there are plants that have bigger genomes than us.  So, no, in those terms human are not remarkable.  If you want to claim purpose in that, the burden is on you to justify it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/the-making-of-me-and-you

[wigginhall]

Yes, I thought that onions have about 12 times as much DNA as humans.  Well, God has special plans for them - soup!

[ekim]

There's probably less information in human DNA than you might think.  According to the BBC Futures page below, I have 800Mb of information in my DNA, somewhat less than a small USB stick.  Indeed, humans are not exceptional in these terms, there are plants that have bigger genomes than us.  So, no, in those terms human are not remarkable.  If you want to claim purpose in that, the burden is on you to justify it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/the-making-of-me-and-you

Here is another view on DNA storage: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0c3j766/click-storing-data-in-dna

[Alan Burns]

There's probably less information in human DNA than you might think.  According to the BBC Futures page below, I have 800Mb of information in my DNA, somewhat less than a small USB stick.  Indeed, humans are not exceptional in these terms, there are plants that have bigger genomes than us.  So, no, in those terms human are not remarkable.  If you want to claim purpose in that, the burden is on you to justify it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/the-making-of-me-and-you

You can't trivialise the content of DNA.
It contains all the information needed to build and maintain a complete human being.
And it is considerably smaller than your USB stick!

[Alan Burns]

That is still using a rather narrow, everyday sense of the word information.  Information transmission from conscious entity to conscious entity is just one example of what is meant by 'information'.  You don't need to be a conscious entity to send and receive information; plants for example use chemical signalling to communicate with each other.

Outside human awareness, there can be no perceived purpose or meaning in material elements.  They just exist as a consequence of unintended physical reactions.  Human perception is essential to recognise intended purpose and meaning in an otherwise purposeless, meaningless, unintended universe. 

The fact that we can recognise and conceive of information and its purpose is evidence that we comprise more than an unintended blip on the long journey to total entropy in a material universe.