Consciousness & evolution

[Outrider]

The spirit or Self is what perceives things and is the essence of our subjectivity./quote]

We already have a word for that - consciousness - why confuse the issue by adding terms with a lot of historically religious baggage?

O.

[Sriram]

The spirit or Self is what perceives things and is the essence of our subjectivity./quote]

We already have a word for that - consciousness - why confuse the issue by adding terms with a lot of historically religious baggage?

O.

You can call  it anything you want....no problem.

But consciousness is seen normally as some external quality ....in an objective sense. The Self is just .....the subjective self.....each of us.  It is a better way of identifying with it rather than see it as some external entity.  There is nothing religious about it...!

Essentially IMO...consciousness is an attribute or property of the Self. 

[Sriram]

A more fundamental definition of a self would be in terms of a unit of the cosmos that has a degree of persistence of inner homeostasis against external change.  In this sense for example, a biological cell would be a simple form of a self, having a membrane that preserves homeostasis inside whilst permitting exchange of energy and nutrients with the changing outside world.  Higher order instances of a self such as creatures with sophisticated sensory perception derive from simpler instances.

I don't know how you are using the term Self for a cell....!  Self is the essence of subjectivity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Tables and chairs (as all other objects) are just interactions between electron, quark and other fields. Tables do not really exist. Ask an electron...or even a virus!  It is a certain way of perceiving reality and the tricks that our mind plays on us that make tables and chairs solid objects.

It is certainly a matter of human perception that we describe something as 'a table' as that relates to its value to us as humans. But that doesn't mean that a table only exists due to human perception. A table exists as a material entity, in other words as a basic reality, regardless of human perception and that we describe it as such. 

Solidity is a perception not a basic reality.

Wrong - the notion that something is 'solid' (as opposed to liquid, gas etc) is a fundamental physical state, defined by physico-chemical laws. Something is a solid regardless of our perception of it. It is its fundamental physical state which makes it solid, not our perception of it. Solidity is a basic physical reality.

[ekim]

A more fundamental definition of a self would be in terms of a unit of the cosmos that has a degree of persistence of inner homeostasis against external change.  In this sense for example, a biological cell would be a simple form of a self, having a membrane that preserves homeostasis inside whilst permitting exchange of energy and nutrients with the changing outside world.  Higher order instances of a self such as creatures with sophisticated sensory perception derive from simpler instances.

You'll notice that Sriram used a capital 'S' in 'Self' which is often used to distinguish it from the small 's' 'self' which you have described.  As I see it, within those 'religions' which make that distinction it represent a formless essence which is beyond subjective and objective formal description. Those who seek that 'inner nature' do not seek it through discussion as this just promotes more subjective mental forms or concepts and imagery.   Conscious inner stillness is usually the way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Tables and chairs (as all other objects) are just interactions between electron, quark and other fields. Tables do not really exist. Ask an electron...or even a virus!

Your lazy thinking is letting you down again! Tables do “really exist”! So do llamas! So do you! All these things exist at certain levels of abstraction, but simultaneously exist at other levels of abstraction! You’re making the fallacy of false binaries here! Selecting which level of abstraction to pick (tabular, molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, informational, whatever) is basically arbitrary, but at the human sensory level of perception of course tables exist!   

(This inappropriate exclamation mark thing is getting boring by the way – shall we both drop it?)   

It is a certain way of perceiving reality and the tricks that our mind plays on us that make tables and chairs solid objects.  Solidity is a perception not a basic reality.

“Tricks” is dubious, and so is “a basic” (why pick one level of reality rather than another to arrive at what you consider basic?) but in any case no-one claimed otherwise (leaving aside for now your apparent misunderstanding of the word "solid"). Perhaps if you hadn’t just ignored the arguments I posted you wouldn’t have fallen on your face again?

Just a thought.

[Outrider]

You can call  it anything you want....no problem.

But consciousness is seen normally as some external quality ....in an objective sense. The Self is just .....the subjective self.....each of us.  It is a better way of identifying with it rather than see it as some external entity.  There is nothing religious about it...!

No, consciousness is the sense of self; consciousness is not something 'external', I'm not aware of anyone portraying a purely material view of reality who suggests that consciousness is somehow 'external'. Advocates of ideas like souls, spirits or universal consciousnesses do, and it's that confusion that I think is invited if you're referring to consciousness as a facet of an individual but using words like 'soul' or 'spirit'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,
 
Erm, without all that cosmological stuff there’d be no “we” to talk about these things.     

Shame then that when pressed on this, the response is ''The universe just is''?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Shame then that when pressed on this, the response is ''The universe just is''?

Yet another of your countless misrepresentations. The "brute fact" universe may be "just is" or may have a cause other than itself. For those who would assert the latter though, the burden of proof is on them to make a cogent argument to justify the claim - which is when you always run away scattering rhetorical fallacies behind you as you go. 

Oh, and your reply was a non sequitur in any case. Sriram was claiming that "the big bang, the singularity, black holes, dark energy etc. are of no significance to us at al". I was just correcting him on that.   

[Stranger]

Shame then that when pressed on this, the response is ''The universe just is''?

Actually the response generally is "we don't know". That it might "just be" is one of the options and a response to other people (like yourself) making specific claims about it.

[Enki]

You can call  it anything you want....no problem.

But consciousness is seen normally as some external quality ....in an objective sense. The Self is just .....the subjective self.....each of us.  It is a better way of identifying with it rather than see it as some external entity.  There is nothing religious about it...!

Essentially IMO...consciousness is an attribute or property of the Self.

Firstly, there is plenty of evidence that there is a state called consciousness(i.e. the mind's awareness of the world, which may or may not include awareness of itself)

Secondly, all the evidence suggests that the state of consciousness is limited to the neural processes within the organism which produces it. Hence it is a subjective state, not an objective state.

Thirdly, the sense of self is just the way that a human being describes his/her awareness of the state of himself/herself.

Fourthly, there is no evidence that Self is an actual entity, whether that be in  either a subjective or objective setting. Rather than consciousness being an attribute or property of something distinct which you seem to be calling 'Self', it is much more likely that the sense of 'Self' is a product of the self awareness aspect of consciousness which human beings display.

If the brain is impaired, then there is a risk of the mind being impaired, and, as it has been shown in numerous instances, this can lead to an alteration or, in the case of traumatic injury, even the disappearance of this sense of 'Self' completely with the accompanying loss of awareness. Of course, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but, unless this 'formless essence' of Self, (as Ekim describes it) has hard evidence to support it, then, like the smoking correlation with lung cancer, I'll go with the correlation until that day arrives.
 

[Sriram]

It is certainly a matter of human perception that we describe something as 'a table' as that relates to its value to us as humans. But that doesn't mean that a table only exists due to human perception. A table exists as a material entity, in other words as a basic reality, regardless of human perception and that we describe it as such. 
Wrong - the notion that something is 'solid' (as opposed to liquid, gas etc) is a fundamental physical state, defined by physico-chemical laws. Something is a solid regardless of our perception of it. It is its fundamental physical state which makes it solid, not our perception of it. Solidity is a basic physical reality.

You are not getting the point. Regardless of how we perceive a table, the fact remains that it is largely empty space and consists of elementary particles which are probably fields of some kind.  This is not some philosophical speculative idea. It is a fact. 

Reality eludes us and we only see what we are capable of seeing. Rather as Donald Hoffman says, we see only what is necessary for us at our level. Reality is hidden from us because it is not necessary for us to see. 

[Sriram]

No, consciousness is the sense of self; consciousness is not something 'external', I'm not aware of anyone portraying a purely material view of reality who suggests that consciousness is somehow 'external'. Advocates of ideas like souls, spirits or universal consciousnesses do, and it's that confusion that I think is invited if you're referring to consciousness as a facet of an individual but using words like 'soul' or 'spirit'.

O.

When I said 'external', I meant external to our Self. Not necessarily external in a physical sense.   Consciousness IMO, is an attribute of the Self that we really are. It is not different from me or you.   

'Self' is the term used in Hindu philosophy to refer to what is traditionally called the soul.  It helps in identifying with it as different from identifying with the body and treating the soul as external.  Some people say... 'when I die, the soul departs.'    I would rather say...'when the body dies, I depart'.

 

[Sriram]

Firstly, there is plenty of evidence that there is a state called consciousness(i.e. the mind's awareness of the world, which may or may not include awareness of itself)

Secondly, all the evidence suggests that the state of consciousness is limited to the neural processes within the organism which produces it. Hence it is a subjective state, not an objective state.

Thirdly, the sense of self is just the way that a human being describes his/her awareness of the state of himself/herself.

Fourthly, there is no evidence that Self is an actual entity, whether that be in  either a subjective or objective setting. Rather than consciousness being an attribute or property of something distinct which you seem to be calling 'Self', it is much more likely that the sense of 'Self' is a product of the self awareness aspect of consciousness which human beings display.

If the brain is impaired, then there is a risk of the mind being impaired, and, as it has been shown in numerous instances, this can lead to an alteration or, in the case of traumatic injury, even the disappearance of this sense of 'Self' completely with the accompanying loss of awareness. Of course, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but, unless this 'formless essence' of Self, (as Ekim describes it) has hard evidence to support it, then, like the smoking correlation with lung cancer, I'll go with the correlation until that day arrives.
 

There is enough evidence (NDE's) of the Self or soul being different from the body. There is also enough evidence of consciousness and mind being present even after brain injury or even in the near absence of a brain.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125

[Outrider]

When I said 'external', I meant external to our Self. Not necessarily external in a physical sense.

That's presuming a duality that isn't supported by the evidence - we are the physical, our sense of self is determined by the activity in our brains which is defined by the physical structure and interconnect nature of the various neurons in there.

Consciousness IMO, is an attribute of the Self that we really are. It is not different from me or you.

Consciousness IS the self.   

'Self' is the term used in Hindu philosophy to refer to what is traditionally called the soul.  It helps in identifying with it as different from identifying with the body and treating the soul as external.  Some people say... 'when I die, the soul departs.'    I would rather say...'when the body dies, I depart'.

I'm not anywhere close to an expert on Hindu philosophy, so I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting, but that still sounds like it's trying to differentiate between a physical body and an 'other' source for the consciousness/self complex. If it can 'depart' it's separate - I would rather say that when my body dies, I die with it, or perhaps that when my body dies that pattern of activity within in that characterises me stops.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are not getting the point. Regardless of how we perceive a table, the fact remains that it is largely empty space and consists of elementary particles which are probably fields of some kind.  This is not some philosophical speculative idea. It is a fact. 

Reality eludes us and we only see what we are capable of seeing. Rather as Donald Hoffman says, we see only what is necessary for us at our level. Reality is hidden from us because it is not necessary for us to see.

Sorry Sriram, it is you that doesn't get it.

You seem completely incapable of seeing things except through the incredibly narrow prism of human perception. Unless you are able to do so then you will never understand the 'big picture' in cosmic terms. Let's not forget that humans aren't necessary for the universe to exist and indeed did not exist for the vast, vast majority of cosmic time. Hence seeing everything through the prism of human perception cannot be the correct approach to understand the universe.

That you describe the table as 'empty space' again shows your ignorance. In terms of fundamental physical laws what you describe as empty space is not that at all, as it is defined by energetics and fields (as you vaguely acknowledge) - it is those physical properties which are defining and create what we might perceive as a solid object. However the perception is irrelevant - those physical properties remain the same regardless of how that object is perceived, or indeed whether it is perceived at all. It is those physical laws and properties that are important in cosmic terms not some narrow parochial perception of an object by one species of life living on one planet in the universe in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.

[Sriram]

That's presuming a duality that isn't supported by the evidence - we are the physical, our sense of self is determined by the activity in our brains which is defined by the physical structure and interconnect nature of the various neurons in there.

Consciousness IS the self.   

I'm not anywhere close to an expert on Hindu philosophy, so I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting, but that still sounds like it's trying to differentiate between a physical body and an 'other' source for the consciousness/self complex. If it can 'depart' it's separate - I would rather say that when my body dies, I die with it, or perhaps that when my body dies that pattern of activity within in that characterises me stops.

O.

Yes...the Self is seen as separate from the body and mind. The body-mind is a complex network of energies that house or connect to the Self (soul). When we die, the Self departs leaving behind the body. The mind deteriorates.

Consciousness which is a property of the Self...remains with the Self.   

[Sriram]

Sorry Sriram, it is you that doesn't get it.

You seem completely incapable of seeing things except through the incredibly narrow prism of human perception. Unless you are able to do so then you will never understand the 'big picture' in cosmic terms. Let's not forget that humans aren't necessary for the universe to exist and indeed did not exist for the vast, vast majority of cosmic time. Hence seeing everything through the prism of human perception cannot be the correct approach to understand the universe.

That you describe the table as 'empty space' again shows your ignorance. In terms of fundamental physical laws what you describe as empty space is not that at all, as it is defined by energetics and fields (as you vaguely acknowledge) - it is those physical properties which are defining and create what we might perceive as a solid object. However the perception is irrelevant - those physical properties remain the same regardless of how that object is perceived, or indeed whether it is perceived at all. It is those physical laws and properties that are important in cosmic terms not some narrow parochial perception of an object by one species of life living on one planet in the universe in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.

How do we know that the table remains as it is when a human (or animal) does not see it?   Will it remain a table for something as small as an electron? No!

The electron or even a virus or bacteria will see the world very differently from us.  It is only our classical level of perception given our brain and senses that makes the world what it is. With very different type of senses and a very different mind and brain....how we will perceive the world we cannot say.

Reality appears different at different levels and scales. Our reality gets created in our mind/body and is true only at our scale. It is not really out there. 

[Outrider]

Yes...the Self is seen as separate from the body and mind. The body-mind is a complex network of energies that house or connect to the Self (soul). When we die, the Self departs leaving behind the body. The mind deteriorates.

Consciousness which is a property of the Self...remains with the Self.   

It comes down, again, to the fact that I don't see anyone providing any evidence for:
 - something 'else' interacting with the body
 - anything in the observed activity that can't be rationally explained by physical activity
 - any activity that appears to be spontaneous which could be said to be a result of this intangible 'soul' interaction.

In the absence of a need to explain something currently not explained and the absence of any evidence of something else, I don't see any validity to the claim of a 'bigger picture'.

O.

[Stranger]

How do we know that the table remains as it is when a human (or animal) does not see it?

Evidence.

Will it remain a table for something as small as an electron? No!

Of course a table (the physical object, not the concept) exists for everything. The descriptions at different levels does nothing at all to change the fact that it is a physical collection of matter in its solid state.

The electron or even a virus or bacteria will see the world very differently from us.

We have no reason to think that they see the world at all (have an experience of it), but of course an electron can still interact with the object that is a table (or a tiny part of it) and a virus may well survive on its surface.

It is only our classical level of perception given our brain and senses that makes the world what it is.

Except that (as you keep pointing out) we are able to access far more and different views of the world using technology. We have gone way beyond just what our unaided senses can tell us (which is why your blind person analogy is such a joke).

You keep citing our (extended) perception and understanding or the world to try to claim that our perception is subjective or flawed. You really should think a bit more about what you're actually saying.

[Stranger]

Yes...the Self is seen as separate from the body and mind. The body-mind is a complex network of energies that house or connect to the Self (soul). When we die, the Self departs leaving behind the body. The mind deteriorates.

Consciousness which is a property of the Self...remains with the Self.   

Baseless superstition. 

And nothing is a "network of energies". Energy isn't a thing, it's a property of things.

[Roses]

The mind is generated by the brain which is part of the body once the body dies so does the mind, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[ProfessorDavey]

How do we know that the table remains as it is when a human (or animal) does not see it?

But calling it a 'table' is already anthropocentric as it has no relevant beyond humans. Hence it isn't a table but a material entity. And yes it does remain as such whether or not we are looking at it, as we can demonstrate easily through objective scientific measurement should we wish to do.   

Will it remain a table for something as small as an electron? No!

It will remain a material entity and although the level of interaction between the electron and a human will be different (as a human and an electron are different) both are governed by exactly the same fundamental physical properties and laws.

The electron or even a virus or bacteria will see the world very differently from us.

Achingly anthropomorphic bollox - a virus or an electron doesn't not 'see the world' at all - you are imposing human-based attributes on them. They may interact with the table (or rather the material entity) but they do not 'see it'. And those interactions are entirely consistent with the basic physical properties of that material entity - so their interactions may be different but the material entity is exactly the same. 

It is only our classical level of perception given our brain and senses that makes the world what it is. With very different type of senses and a very different mind and brain....how we will perceive the world we cannot say.

Human-centric central

Reality appears different at different levels and scales. Our reality gets created in our mind/body and is true only at our scale. It is not really out there.

Non-sense - our perception of reality may change, but that doesn't mean that reality alters - the table (or rather the material entity) remains the table (or material entity) regardless of how we perceive it. It is really out there, regardless of whether we look at it or not.

[Sriram]

But calling it a 'table' is already anthropocentric as it has no relevant beyond humans. Hence it isn't a table but a material entity. And yes it does remain as such whether or not we are looking at it, as we can demonstrate easily through objective scientific measurement should we wish to do.   
It will remain a material entity and although the level of interaction between the electron and a human will be different (as a human and an electron are different) both are governed by exactly the same fundamental physical properties and laws.
Achingly anthropomorphic bollox - a virus or an electron doesn't not 'see the world' at all - you are imposing human-based attributes on them. They may interact with the table (or rather the material entity) but they do not 'see it'. And those interactions are entirely consistent with the basic physical properties of that material entity - so their interactions may be different but the material entity is exactly the same. 
Human-centric central
Non-sense - our perception of reality may change, but that doesn't mean that reality alters - the table (or rather the material entity) remains the table (or material entity) regardless of how we perceive it. It is really out there, regardless of whether we look at it or not.

What do you think of the issue connected to the question....'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound?'

[ProfessorDavey]

What do you think of the issue connected to the question....'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound?'

Of course it does ... and it is pretty easy to demonstrate this, for example by using sound monitoring equipment.

And in a similar context, but more relevant to the discussion in cosmic terms, how about the birth and death of stars. Well we can see this happening with the technology we have to hand. Yet we know that the information takes millions of years to reach us so this happened when no human was watching and indeed in many cases before humans even existed. But we can be pretty confident that these things happened regardless of the fact that no-one was around at the time to see it.