@AnduinX you can see Peake's video's on here. if we were in a simulation there would be glitches that give it away. Peake puts forward the idea that Deja vu is one such glitch and that we are remembering the future because we have been here before. You would be welcome to join his forum and his fb page. The idea that the brain is a transmitter is compelling and goes back a long way. It would explain much of the psi phenomena that reductionism cannot explain. The invitation to Tony's site is open
@taicleis oh wow really??? mind blowing! iv never heard that explanation before, its only the default perspective every single tool and fool on this planet has. What you call "atoms" has been proven to be nothing of the sort by quantum physics. Electrons arent even particles until the wave function is somehow, mysteriously collapsed
You're almost there, but you have it backwards. Consciousness is a result of matter.
We ARE one with the Universe, because we are made of it. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon - it is a name we give to a certain behavior that certain sets of atoms (making up a brain) perform.
So one could say that the Universe is conscious, because certain small regions of it are - those regions being us. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
@taicleis: Most people seldom remember their dreams at night when they wake up, but can this be taken as proof that they dreamed nothing? This is the kind of argument you assert when you claim a lack of consciousness when the filter is disabled. In short, absence of memory does not prove absence of experience.
When people dream, their eyes move this way and that, and there is a lot of brain activity observed.
It is not a question of absence of memory. It is a question of experience being demonstrable at all times that we actually have any evidence of it occurring. And it is.
@taicleis: You're missing the point of my argument. You stated "there are several things that violate the 'filter' view, such as a lack of consciousness when the 'filter' is disabled." My response is that it's impossible to know if lack of consciousness actually does occur when the brain is disabled. If somebody awakes after having an NDE and reports no experience, it does not mean they actually had no experience.
@taicleis: It's perfectly feasible that the brain actually blocked the experience from memory upon return. We see plenty of examples of the brain behaving this way. Besides dreams, it also has been known to happen as a stress response, or even following intense psychedelic trips.
See, if the 'experience' occurred outside of the brain, then it would have nothing to 'block'. Memories are made IN the brain. If the experience occurred outside of the brain, the brain would receive no information about it.
Consciousness carries with it no functionality; every process seen to occur within the brain is a product of other processes. While defining what it is to be conscious is still an open question, the 'steering' of the brain is not. It is self-driven.
@taicleis: “See, if the 'experience' occurred outside of the brain, then it would have nothing to 'block'.” I don’t follow your reasoning here. If consciousness were fundamental and separate from the brain, it does not mean that consciousness does not interact with the brain. Why should it be impossible for the brain to limit and direct aspects of conscious attention?
@taicleis: “Memories are made IN the brain. If the experience occurred outside of the brain, the brain would receive no information about it.” If the brain behaved as a filter, then it implies that it would have to be able to read, interact, and respond to consciousness. If the brain can interact, limit, and direct consciousness in this way, then why could the brain not do the same with memory?
It's not a question of whether it COULD. The fact is that the memory centers of the brain are mapped and can readily be associated with specific memories. what's more, damage to a particular memory pattern renders the 'consciousness' unable to remember that memory.
If consciousness were the source of memories, 'transmitting' them into the brain, then the memories could not be damaged without being put right back - but they aren't.
@taicleis: Again, if an area of the brain is associated with a specific kind of memory, that does not prove that the memory is itself physical as you seem to be implying. What it shows is that the structures of that part of the brain have a correlatory relationship with the memory. The filter model would say that those structures allow the memory to be experienced, rather than produce the memory.
@taicleis: "If consciousness were the source of memories, 'transmitting' them into the brain, then the memories could not be damaged without being put right back - but they aren't." The memories themselves are never damaged, what's damaged is the brain's ability to play them. If consciousness tried to ;play' the memory, the brain would no longer recognize it and would filter it out.
@taicleis: When it comes to memory, you could say that the brain structures involved are a kind of code that dictates what the filter allows to pass. If consciousness were not in the brain, then there would be a very good evolutionary reason for this. In the words of Cyril Burt: "... to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual"
@taicleis: Ex, if consciousness were not in the brain then who knows what kind of spectacular memories we would have with our unfiltered consciousness. Many of which would probably inhibit our ability to live as humans. A memory filter would be a necessity.
@AnduinX No memories are not made in the brain they are not even stored in the brain. All that happens is the brain tunes into the fields where memory is stored and retrieves the memory. Everything is information and you should check out the worker of researcher Anthony Peake because in his hypothesis we are in a simulation that keeps recurring that he dubs the Bohemianimax.
@whitenightf3: You're preaching to the choir here. The position I was putting forth was that the brain behaves like a filter, and that consciousness and memory are not anywhere in the brain. I'll check out Anthony Peake's work. The idea that we're in a kind of simulation is possible, but I'm not sure how one would come to know that we are 'repeating' the simulation while still in the simulation themself...
@taicleis: I would also argue that the only real evidence we have on the subject suggests the opposite, that consciousness does occur when the filter is down. I would highly suggest listening to Dr. Eben Alexander's skeptiko podcast.
I'm not missing your argument sir; I'm explaining why it's a copout.
When people dream - even if they later have no recollection of it - we are able to observe that there is indeed brain activity, and infer that they are dreaming. Today, we can even capture and recreate fuzzy images on a computer screen.
What you are positing is that even when no sign of cognizance is observed, it might still be there - but there is no precedent for this, no reason to assume it is true.
@taicleis: No, you're changing your argument here. What you first said is that unconsciousness when the filter was disabled violated the filter view. Violate implies that it logically proves the filter view false, which is a step above 'it should not be assumed'. Ex: I could say that the existence of god should not be assumed because of insufficient evidence, but I could not say that the existence of god has been proven false.
@taicleis: If your position is that the physicalist interpretation of consciousness is simpler (occam’s razor) and therefore the filter should not be assumed, then I would point out that while it may be simpler it explains less and must throw out more to survive as a model. The best model is the simplest one that explains the data fully. The latter part is where physicalism falls short. There are many phenomena that we have observed that violate mind=brain.
@taicleis: Such as severe hydrocephalus with normal or even above average cognition, terminal lucidity involving crippling brain damage, brainless organisms demonstrating learning capacity, and acquired savant syndrome. These things are simply classified as mysteries ‘to be solved later’ – AKA promissory materialism. Additionally there’s very strong anecdotal evidence against mind=brain that is simply thrown out, such as veridical perception during the NDE.
@AnduinX my personal belief is that people's repeated attempts to mystify consciousness and put it somewhere 'outside' of observable reality is wrong. People don't like the idea that they "are" their brains and bodies because they think this limits them. Instead, it's the most beautiful truth - the realization that we are one with the cosmos, a part of it. We are matter.
@taicleis: Sorry for the late reply. To me, physicalism seems bleak and without hope - it's nihilistic. I would argue that physicalism isn't even the best explanatory model of consciousness anymore. The filter view of the brain can offer an explanation for everything the physicalist model can and more. There are numerous things that seemingly violate mind=brain that we know of that the filter view has no problem accommodating.
Physicalism is far from bleak, in my view. The knowledge that we are MADE of the cosmos - that our truest nature is matter which has become self-aware - speaks to a deep connectedness with the Universe and a more substantial immortality than any 'soul' idea.
I am not aware of any violations of mind-brain equivalency, but there are several things that violate the 'filter' view, such as a lack of consciousness when the 'filter' is disabled. The 'viewer' vanishes.
@taicleis: I can bring up numerous examples that fly in the face of mind=brain. Normal cognition with severe hydrocephalus, terminal lucidity, single-celled organisms without synapses demonstrating learning ability, and veridical perception during NDEs to name a few.
@Maxaveli777 Prove that what we go to sleep we leave our body. If that were so, we wouldn't be able to monitor an MANIPULATE dream and brain activity - which we can. Look, if you are knocked unconscious and experience nothing - why would you assume that dying should be any different? You have no evidence to support that idea. You have only fantasy.
@taicleis: What happens when one is 'unconscious' is a black box, in the absence of memory, it cannot be known. When one states that nothing is experienced, that too is an unproven assertion. It is entirely possible that unconsciousness as we think of it does not exist at all - absence of memory does not prove absence of experience. Who is to say that when I'm 'unconscious' I am not having experience, which I simply don't remember?
@taicleis: My personal belief is the brain is a sort of reducing valve. Cyril Burt sums this view up well. "The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual"
@alliant Sorry, your attempt to fall back on mysticism and unprovables doesn't work. It is well-established by monitoring of brain activity that we all have dreamless sleep regularly. And the connection between being rendered unconscious and death is very clear - unconsciousness is suppressed brain functions. Death is complete suppression. An unplugged television set and one which is turned off both produce no image, because they are not functioning. A dead brain is an unconscious one.
@burgertron99 You just strengthened my point. Anasthetics can lower your level of consciousness, and other drugs affect the 'vibe' you experience. Do drugs interact with your 'timeless, ageless' consciousness? No. They interact with your brain. Chemically. Affect the brain, affect consciousness. If chemicals can manipulate consciousness, then consciousness is a physically-based phenomenon.
@taicleis and what if con-s works via brain. so it means they both depend on each other. Con-s is in our physical brain but it goes when this membrane gets older.
Being knocked unconscious or put under by anesthesia (or even just dreamless sleep) are all examples of what happens when your brain stops being conscious - you experience nothing. Not a disembodied, floating consciousness, not a blank emptiness while you wait for your brain to resume "reception" - just nothing. Not even the passage of time.
Your brain creates your consciousness. Turn off the brain, and you're gone - just like the way it was before you were born. Simple.
these "unconscious" states are only recognized as such upon waking up from them. secondly, how could we be sure we didn't dream all night and simply forget? we often can't recall an entire night of dream - yet when we were experiencing them they were very real to us. If you think this issue is "simple", I'm afraid you've forgotten how mysterious all of this is. have you had a "strong" psychedelic experience before?
I don't necessarily see the relation between sleeping states, anesthetic states ---> and death? These operate differently then the death of the organism. In both states, biochemical signals are being blocked. There is an action occuring for this lack of awareness. There isn't cellular death and organ failure in these states.
@taicleis well i don't agree with you. there are many arguments that support the premise of existence of smth. con-s just doesn't function in a situation u described because it's connected to physical body which works in da same way like radio set..It's ok when radio set works, signal's ok. when it's broken or smth is wrong with it doesn't work.When we go 2sleep we leave our body. sum people remember some don't. Brain works because of con-s. Brain isnt the latter.we never die n we r never born
@taicleis I do not agree. Anesthesia is like any other Drug. Such as illicit drugs that effect the brain and may change the vibe that it picks up. And I believe that an anesthesiaology that there are different levels of consciousness.
As soon as the conversation began with the word "T.V. Set" (or "homunculus" as some of you may prefer to call it), I knew right away it was gonna be dualistic in structure, which is an argument that you can always dispense with when talking about consciousness.
Clearly I didn't make my previous post clear enough. You have to be more specific in order for your ideas to be taken seriously. Hydrancephaly doesn't appear to be a word, and if you want to cite research, do it correctly: give me a whole citation. Furthermore, someone "functioning" without a brain is interesting, but says nothing about consicousness. Behavior and experience are two logically and empirically distinct phenomena. No one without a brain is conscious.
@hazmathew While I agree that we should cut him some slack, the more languages you speak, the better you're able to understand languages you know, as areas of the brain to do with languages are more stimulated. Just saying.
@natmanprime According to all the mystics and at least one Nobel Prize Winning physicist you are wrong.
In fact I am with Blackmore and Dennett in that free will is a illusion and no homounculus is in the brain.
So where and what is the decision maker? Cartesian Reductionism will never explain consciousness because their assumption it is in the brain is a unprovable dogma.
@natmanprime animism is very much alive what is dying slowly is Cartesian Materialism there is only one mind and that one Mind is intelligent and runs everything:
@whitenightf3 you haven't given me an argument. universal consciousness is an oxymoron. you're aware of a ball's surface. but not the inside. put a camera inside as well. but you cant see inside the material of the surface. put a tiny camera in there. you cant see inside the material in between the cameras. put another camera in. you cant see inside the fibres of the material. put another camera in . etc. eventually theres NO BALL see? you just sound religious
@natmanprime There is no argument like the ball you don't really exist I knew I would get you there. So well done that was easy, if all my clients were like you peace, tranquillity and heaven itself would be seen on the earth. :)
@natmanprime There is no argument like the ball you don't really exist I knew I would get you there. So well done that was easy, if all my clients were like you peace, tranquillity and heaven itself would be seen on the earth. :)
Aunque considero bellas las filosofías orientales, creo que Grof está fundamentalmente equivocado en sus posturas. Tiene derecho a sus propias opiniones, y derecho a equivocarse... dejémoslo ejercer ambos.
too many old acidheads are influenced by religion and biocentrism. They try to make the trip more than what it is, and try to explain the psychedelic experience by their own interpretation. Atheists have more fun on LSD.
Consciousness is one. The scientist, his equipment, the test subject, all are composed of the same energy, The Mother of All Things, The Tao. It must be experienced and then you realize it is vast and immeasurable.
Yes indeed. The amazing complexity of present day life, the diversification of the species were explained by Charles Darwin in his "Origin of the Species". The discovery of DNA and genes explains how life functions, replicates and indeed diversifies and evolves. There are true fundamental mysteries in nature which we are trying to discover, but conciousness is not one of them. To say that it is something that can never be understood is quite arrogant and misleading
I agree completely that it is arrogant to say that we will never understand consciousness, but consciousness IS still a mystery in the sense that we don't understand how the brain causes it (that's why we have people like this guy making all sorts of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about it). I do believe, however, that we eventually will discover the causal basis of consciousness, just like we have discovered the causal bases for heat, sound, solidity, and a range of other phenomena.
@BearsEatBeats914 He's a psychotherapist, don't confuse him with a scientist. He's not talking about an objective, scientific view on consciousness. he's solely talking about the subjective experience - what you can experience within yourself, without consulting a scientific paper or reading a blog article. In this regard, your own consciousness will always remain a mystery to yourself.
He's talking about consciousness, you are talking about human awareness. The assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the human brain isn't even necessary to understand how the brain works.
That being said, it makes much more sense to think of the brain as a switch that turns universal consciousness into human consciousness. This doesn't conflict with the current paradigm. The only reason materialists fight it is because it would prove the God hypothesis.
@circusOFprecision Though you may feel that there is an obvious distinction between consciousness and awareness, don't assume that everyone else knows what you mean by those terms. To be fair, I'll clarify my concept of consciousness and you can delineate the differences between the two if you so choose.
Consciousness - the state of a system in which that system is having experiences. Also, could refer to the related capacity.
I don't ascribe to epiphenominalism nor did I mention it above.
The distinction is not obvious, but it is there if you investigate. Consciousness doesn't require self reference in order to process information. Awareness is a hierarchy of informational processing within consciousness that is entangled (in an infinite loop) and gives rise to subject/object split awareness. At least this is how I have come to understand it. It's heavy stuff that requires a lot of contemplation.
@circusOFprecision Furthermore, the notion of so called universal consciousness is ill defined, and frankly, quite absurd. If that weren't bad enough, there's zero evidence to support its presence (both empirically and logically speaking). That's probably the main reason anyone would fight the idea (though I myself am not a materialist). And even it there is such a thing (which there isn't), it wouldn't prove anything about God.
Ok, it would give credence to the God hypothesis, not prove it. Quantum physics pretty much demands that for their to be an objective external world, there has to be some kind of fundamental consciousness. If that's true, shouldn't we be trying to figure it out instead of continuing to assume that the brain creates consciousness?
@circusOFprecision I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics, but I don't think many of the conclusions and interpretations people draw from it are necessarily warranted. I think people's interpretations of quantum mechanics confuse epistemology and ontology. Again, I admit my basic ignorance of this topic, but few people really understand quantum mechanics and relativity anyway. So, I think we should focus on the facts that we have at hand (cont).
I don't claim to understand it either, but the implications are rather mind blowing. Either we are seeing the limits of our brains ability to perceive, or reality at the fundamental level really is consciousness. I don't see any other way of looking at it...do you?
@circusOFprecision I think the former of your two options here is closer to the truth. Quantum mechanics does appear to place limits on our abilities to perceive and therefore to know reality, but it doesn't follow from there that there is no fundamental reality or that consciousness is universal. At least I don't see the connection.
@circusOFprecision Every mental state is correlated with some pattern of neural activity (though such patterns are a little bit different for everyone and don't constitute mentality; damage to the brain affects consciousness; altering chemical pathways affects conciousness; electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain affects consciousness. Though some folks may interpret these facts differently, most scientists think they point to a causal role of the brain in consciousness.
The nature of human consciousness/perceptual awareness is a full body phenomenon, and then some. Our consciousness has been shown to extend well beyond the body. That is the electromagnetic field aspect. It isn't just in the head. So does the brain really cause consciousness? The reality of the situation is more complex than that, but it is difficult to grasp.
@circusOFprecision In what way has our consciousness been shown to extend beyond the body? Sure, our body gives off an electromagnetic field, but so does everything. I'm not sure I see the connection between, but I am interested in hearing more.
From what I can tell, consciousness is situated in the brain. For instance, the postcentral gyrus is literally a topographical map of sensory neurons. So if you feel a pain "in your foot" the pain's actually in the somatasensory cortex.
@BearsEatBeats914 You won't find what you are looking for in controlled main stream science where they use the peer review process to stop anything that is going to upset the status quo.
Grof seems to be agreeing with Sheldrake, Lipton, Radin et al that Consciousness is not coming from the brain it is coming through it. Evidence for this is found in the medical literature where some people have been shown to be born with little brain structure, yet, still function consciously.
It makes no sense to even suggest that "consciousness is coming through the brain." That statement has zero substance. What COULD that even mean? We already know that the brain is causally responsible for the our capacity for conscious experience. It's not a correlation that a bullet going through your brain will concide with you dying, its an extraordinarily simple cause and effect relationship.
@BearsEatBeats914 what study if any have you done in this area? Go and google Dr Lorber and look at those cases in the medical literature where people born with extreme hydrancephaly have no brains but still function. These cases cannot be explained away by Cartesian Neurology, so they pretend they do not exist.
Grof is explaining to you that the brain is like a transmitter able to send and receive information. Which explains the Lorber anomaly and all PSI.
"A fundamental mystery that cannot be explained by anything else". The classical argument of the science bashers who desperately cling onto the falsehood that something, that either THEY cannot understand or that hasn't currently been fully explained by science, will NEVER be explained by science. Similar mysteries, like how did the amazing complexity of present day life come about, have relentlessly given way to expalantions through quite natural physical processes by science.
Similar mysteries, like how did the amazing complexity of present day life come about, have relentlessly given way to expalantions through quite natural physical processes by science.
That's why brain/mind scientists will never understand consciousness. But they sure will understand how the brain works, all the money, time and effort spent towards that end is crazy.
Consciousness isn't really totally understood scientifically yet, but I think the idea is to examine the evidence and develop hypothesizes to explain such evidence. In the case of consciousness there is sufficient evidence that the brain is correlated with some experiences within consciousness but theories that say the brain produces consciousness are just as theoretical as Grofs. Furthermore there is evidence that consciousness can exist outside the brain such as the cases of NDEs, OBEs,etc.
consciousness can definetly exist outside of the brain. one new theory i am learning is about how everything we perceive around us is just a vibration from the 5th dimension-this explains why forces are just "there" without an obvious purpose. they and the things around us (especially nature) exist in a much more simpler state in the 5th dimension, that is kind of relayed down to us in a way we cant understand. also BHRise check out some stuff on dmt and the pineal, i can see ull b interested.
to everyone else, especially if you have any research interest in the area around consciousness, neuroscience etc.
whitenightf3 1 month ago
@AnduinX you can see Peake's video's on here. if we were in a simulation there would be glitches that give it away. Peake puts forward the idea that Deja vu is one such glitch and that we are remembering the future because we have been here before. You would be welcome to join his forum and his fb page. The idea that the brain is a transmitter is compelling and goes back a long way. It would explain much of the psi phenomena that reductionism cannot explain. The invitation to Tony's site is open
whitenightf3 1 month ago
@taicleis oh wow really??? mind blowing! iv never heard that explanation before, its only the default perspective every single tool and fool on this planet has. What you call "atoms" has been proven to be nothing of the sort by quantum physics. Electrons arent even particles until the wave function is somehow, mysteriously collapsed
soldatheero 2 months ago
@taicleis I think we are still one of the universe because the universe is onsciousness. matter is a result of consciousness
soldatheero 4 months ago
@soldatheero
You're almost there, but you have it backwards. Consciousness is a result of matter.
We ARE one with the Universe, because we are made of it. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon - it is a name we give to a certain behavior that certain sets of atoms (making up a brain) perform.
So one could say that the Universe is conscious, because certain small regions of it are - those regions being us. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis: Most people seldom remember their dreams at night when they wake up, but can this be taken as proof that they dreamed nothing? This is the kind of argument you assert when you claim a lack of consciousness when the filter is disabled. In short, absence of memory does not prove absence of experience.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX
When people dream, their eyes move this way and that, and there is a lot of brain activity observed.
It is not a question of absence of memory. It is a question of experience being demonstrable at all times that we actually have any evidence of it occurring. And it is.
taicleis 2 months ago
Comment removed
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: You're missing the point of my argument. You stated "there are several things that violate the 'filter' view, such as a lack of consciousness when the 'filter' is disabled." My response is that it's impossible to know if lack of consciousness actually does occur when the brain is disabled. If somebody awakes after having an NDE and reports no experience, it does not mean they actually had no experience.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: It's perfectly feasible that the brain actually blocked the experience from memory upon return. We see plenty of examples of the brain behaving this way. Besides dreams, it also has been known to happen as a stress response, or even following intense psychedelic trips.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX
See, if the 'experience' occurred outside of the brain, then it would have nothing to 'block'. Memories are made IN the brain. If the experience occurred outside of the brain, the brain would receive no information about it.
Consciousness carries with it no functionality; every process seen to occur within the brain is a product of other processes. While defining what it is to be conscious is still an open question, the 'steering' of the brain is not. It is self-driven.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis: “See, if the 'experience' occurred outside of the brain, then it would have nothing to 'block'.” I don’t follow your reasoning here. If consciousness were fundamental and separate from the brain, it does not mean that consciousness does not interact with the brain. Why should it be impossible for the brain to limit and direct aspects of conscious attention?
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: “Memories are made IN the brain. If the experience occurred outside of the brain, the brain would receive no information about it.” If the brain behaved as a filter, then it implies that it would have to be able to read, interact, and respond to consciousness. If the brain can interact, limit, and direct consciousness in this way, then why could the brain not do the same with memory?
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX
It's not a question of whether it COULD. The fact is that the memory centers of the brain are mapped and can readily be associated with specific memories. what's more, damage to a particular memory pattern renders the 'consciousness' unable to remember that memory.
If consciousness were the source of memories, 'transmitting' them into the brain, then the memories could not be damaged without being put right back - but they aren't.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis: Again, if an area of the brain is associated with a specific kind of memory, that does not prove that the memory is itself physical as you seem to be implying. What it shows is that the structures of that part of the brain have a correlatory relationship with the memory. The filter model would say that those structures allow the memory to be experienced, rather than produce the memory.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: "If consciousness were the source of memories, 'transmitting' them into the brain, then the memories could not be damaged without being put right back - but they aren't." The memories themselves are never damaged, what's damaged is the brain's ability to play them. If consciousness tried to ;play' the memory, the brain would no longer recognize it and would filter it out.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: When it comes to memory, you could say that the brain structures involved are a kind of code that dictates what the filter allows to pass. If consciousness were not in the brain, then there would be a very good evolutionary reason for this. In the words of Cyril Burt: "... to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual"
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: Ex, if consciousness were not in the brain then who knows what kind of spectacular memories we would have with our unfiltered consciousness. Many of which would probably inhibit our ability to live as humans. A memory filter would be a necessity.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX No memories are not made in the brain they are not even stored in the brain. All that happens is the brain tunes into the fields where memory is stored and retrieves the memory. Everything is information and you should check out the worker of researcher Anthony Peake because in his hypothesis we are in a simulation that keeps recurring that he dubs the Bohemianimax.
whitenightf3 2 months ago
Comment removed
AnduinX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whitenightf3: You're preaching to the choir here. The position I was putting forth was that the brain behaves like a filter, and that consciousness and memory are not anywhere in the brain. I'll check out Anthony Peake's work. The idea that we're in a kind of simulation is possible, but I'm not sure how one would come to know that we are 'repeating' the simulation while still in the simulation themself...
AnduinX 1 month ago
@taicleis: I would also argue that the only real evidence we have on the subject suggests the opposite, that consciousness does occur when the filter is down. I would highly suggest listening to Dr. Eben Alexander's skeptiko podcast.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX
I'm not missing your argument sir; I'm explaining why it's a copout.
When people dream - even if they later have no recollection of it - we are able to observe that there is indeed brain activity, and infer that they are dreaming. Today, we can even capture and recreate fuzzy images on a computer screen.
What you are positing is that even when no sign of cognizance is observed, it might still be there - but there is no precedent for this, no reason to assume it is true.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis: No, you're changing your argument here. What you first said is that unconsciousness when the filter was disabled violated the filter view. Violate implies that it logically proves the filter view false, which is a step above 'it should not be assumed'. Ex: I could say that the existence of god should not be assumed because of insufficient evidence, but I could not say that the existence of god has been proven false.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: If your position is that the physicalist interpretation of consciousness is simpler (occam’s razor) and therefore the filter should not be assumed, then I would point out that while it may be simpler it explains less and must throw out more to survive as a model. The best model is the simplest one that explains the data fully. The latter part is where physicalism falls short. There are many phenomena that we have observed that violate mind=brain.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@taicleis: Such as severe hydrocephalus with normal or even above average cognition, terminal lucidity involving crippling brain damage, brainless organisms demonstrating learning capacity, and acquired savant syndrome. These things are simply classified as mysteries ‘to be solved later’ – AKA promissory materialism. Additionally there’s very strong anecdotal evidence against mind=brain that is simply thrown out, such as veridical perception during the NDE.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX my personal belief is that people's repeated attempts to mystify consciousness and put it somewhere 'outside' of observable reality is wrong. People don't like the idea that they "are" their brains and bodies because they think this limits them. Instead, it's the most beautiful truth - the realization that we are one with the cosmos, a part of it. We are matter.
taicleis 7 months ago
@taicleis: Sorry for the late reply. To me, physicalism seems bleak and without hope - it's nihilistic. I would argue that physicalism isn't even the best explanatory model of consciousness anymore. The filter view of the brain can offer an explanation for everything the physicalist model can and more. There are numerous things that seemingly violate mind=brain that we know of that the filter view has no problem accommodating.
AnduinX 2 months ago in playlist Consciousness
@AnduinX
Physicalism is far from bleak, in my view. The knowledge that we are MADE of the cosmos - that our truest nature is matter which has become self-aware - speaks to a deep connectedness with the Universe and a more substantial immortality than any 'soul' idea.
I am not aware of any violations of mind-brain equivalency, but there are several things that violate the 'filter' view, such as a lack of consciousness when the 'filter' is disabled. The 'viewer' vanishes.
taicleis 2 months ago
@taicleis: I can bring up numerous examples that fly in the face of mind=brain. Normal cognition with severe hydrocephalus, terminal lucidity, single-celled organisms without synapses demonstrating learning ability, and veridical perception during NDEs to name a few.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@Maxaveli777 Prove that what we go to sleep we leave our body. If that were so, we wouldn't be able to monitor an MANIPULATE dream and brain activity - which we can. Look, if you are knocked unconscious and experience nothing - why would you assume that dying should be any different? You have no evidence to support that idea. You have only fantasy.
taicleis 7 months ago
@taicleis: What happens when one is 'unconscious' is a black box, in the absence of memory, it cannot be known. When one states that nothing is experienced, that too is an unproven assertion. It is entirely possible that unconsciousness as we think of it does not exist at all - absence of memory does not prove absence of experience. Who is to say that when I'm 'unconscious' I am not having experience, which I simply don't remember?
AnduinX 7 months ago
@taicleis: My personal belief is the brain is a sort of reducing valve. Cyril Burt sums this view up well. "The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual"
AnduinX 7 months ago
@alliant Sorry, your attempt to fall back on mysticism and unprovables doesn't work. It is well-established by monitoring of brain activity that we all have dreamless sleep regularly. And the connection between being rendered unconscious and death is very clear - unconsciousness is suppressed brain functions. Death is complete suppression. An unplugged television set and one which is turned off both produce no image, because they are not functioning. A dead brain is an unconscious one.
taicleis 7 months ago
@burgertron99 You just strengthened my point. Anasthetics can lower your level of consciousness, and other drugs affect the 'vibe' you experience. Do drugs interact with your 'timeless, ageless' consciousness? No. They interact with your brain. Chemically. Affect the brain, affect consciousness. If chemicals can manipulate consciousness, then consciousness is a physically-based phenomenon.
taicleis 8 months ago
@taicleis and what if con-s works via brain. so it means they both depend on each other. Con-s is in our physical brain but it goes when this membrane gets older.
Maxaveli777 7 months ago
@Maxaveli777
Being knocked unconscious or put under by anesthesia (or even just dreamless sleep) are all examples of what happens when your brain stops being conscious - you experience nothing. Not a disembodied, floating consciousness, not a blank emptiness while you wait for your brain to resume "reception" - just nothing. Not even the passage of time.
Your brain creates your consciousness. Turn off the brain, and you're gone - just like the way it was before you were born. Simple.
taicleis 7 months ago
Comment removed
alliant 7 months ago
Comment removed
alliant 7 months ago
@taicleis
these "unconscious" states are only recognized as such upon waking up from them. secondly, how could we be sure we didn't dream all night and simply forget? we often can't recall an entire night of dream - yet when we were experiencing them they were very real to us. If you think this issue is "simple", I'm afraid you've forgotten how mysterious all of this is. have you had a "strong" psychedelic experience before?
alliant 7 months ago
@taicleis
I don't necessarily see the relation between sleeping states, anesthetic states ---> and death? These operate differently then the death of the organism. In both states, biochemical signals are being blocked. There is an action occuring for this lack of awareness. There isn't cellular death and organ failure in these states.
alliant 7 months ago
@taicleis well i don't agree with you. there are many arguments that support the premise of existence of smth. con-s just doesn't function in a situation u described because it's connected to physical body which works in da same way like radio set..It's ok when radio set works, signal's ok. when it's broken or smth is wrong with it doesn't work.When we go 2sleep we leave our body. sum people remember some don't. Brain works because of con-s. Brain isnt the latter.we never die n we r never born
Maxaveli777 7 months ago
Comment removed
dirtdemon6 8 months ago
The brain is not just a receiver. Consciousness originates in the brain. Otherwise anesthesia would not work.
taicleis 8 months ago
@taicleis I do not agree. Anesthesia is like any other Drug. Such as illicit drugs that effect the brain and may change the vibe that it picks up. And I believe that an anesthesiaology that there are different levels of consciousness.
burgertron99 8 months ago
Can someone please tell me how the whole interview is named, so i can find it.
EnergyOM 9 months ago
all they are simply saying is that death is nothing more then the birth of your next life.
Ssddftw 10 months ago
As soon as the conversation began with the word "T.V. Set" (or "homunculus" as some of you may prefer to call it), I knew right away it was gonna be dualistic in structure, which is an argument that you can always dispense with when talking about consciousness.
Scofield0085 1 year ago
Clearly I didn't make my previous post clear enough. You have to be more specific in order for your ideas to be taken seriously. Hydrancephaly doesn't appear to be a word, and if you want to cite research, do it correctly: give me a whole citation. Furthermore, someone "functioning" without a brain is interesting, but says nothing about consicousness. Behavior and experience are two logically and empirically distinct phenomena. No one without a brain is conscious.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
Very informative video.
HY34HU 1 year ago
oops he fucked it at the end "absolute consciousness" is not possible.
it depends on the duality of ignorance(or darkness) and perception(or light). It is the third point that understands both things.
death is the absence of darkness AND light.
That is the return to the absolute. (the Spaceless timeless absolute)
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime Cut him some slack. English is his fifth language.
hazmathew 1 year ago
@hazmathew well, it's what he said not the way he said it.
I'm sure he's very intelligent
He most likely knows alot more stuff than me.
natmanprime 1 year ago
@hazmathew While I agree that we should cut him some slack, the more languages you speak, the better you're able to understand languages you know, as areas of the brain to do with languages are more stimulated. Just saying.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@natmanprime It is for the Universal Mind and that is what he is alluding to.
whitenightf3 1 year ago
@whitenightf3 well, regardless of what you call it, there cannot be a universal awareness.
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime According to all the mystics and at least one Nobel Prize Winning physicist you are wrong.
In fact I am with Blackmore and Dennett in that free will is a illusion and no homounculus is in the brain.
So where and what is the decision maker? Cartesian Reductionism will never explain consciousness because their assumption it is in the brain is a unprovable dogma.
whitenightf3 1 year ago
@whitenightf3 chaos is true, and will is fate.
the decision maker is dead.
there is no universal consciousness, by it's nature.
the term is an oxymoron.
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime animism is very much alive what is dying slowly is Cartesian Materialism there is only one mind and that one Mind is intelligent and runs everything:
The total number of minds in the universe is One.
Erwin Schrodinger
whitenightf3 1 year ago
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime There is no argument like the ball you don't really exist I knew I would get you there. So well done that was easy, if all my clients were like you peace, tranquillity and heaven itself would be seen on the earth. :)
glossandcurls 1 year ago
@glossandcurls ok i don't know what you're rabbiting on about
it's really simple
awareness requires ignorance
that's it.
no ignorance=no awareness.
ok?
don't be frightened of that fact, just accept it.
natmanprime 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@natmanprime There is no argument like the ball you don't really exist I knew I would get you there. So well done that was easy, if all my clients were like you peace, tranquillity and heaven itself would be seen on the earth. :)
whitenightf3 1 year ago
Aunque considero bellas las filosofías orientales, creo que Grof está fundamentalmente equivocado en sus posturas. Tiene derecho a sus propias opiniones, y derecho a equivocarse... dejémoslo ejercer ambos.
thebeholder23 1 year ago
too many old acidheads are influenced by religion and biocentrism. They try to make the trip more than what it is, and try to explain the psychedelic experience by their own interpretation. Atheists have more fun on LSD.
bigtarrose 2 years ago
They might have more "fun" in the classic 'trip' sense (not just LSD but any psych), but it's definitely not more meaningful.
zeramski 2 years ago
though you have eaten all day long, see that not a grain of food has passed your lips. huang po
is there oneness or isn't there?
if oneness, then no causal agent, no doer, no thinker. all verbs are nouns. action appears but there is no actor.
name anything and it does not exist. thios becasue any 'thing' comes and goes. therefore no object exists.
then what does exist? waht exists is PRIOR to conceptualizatioin. i claim existence but cannot be idetified. witnessing but no witness.
swingtrade2 2 years ago
Consciousness is one. The scientist, his equipment, the test subject, all are composed of the same energy, The Mother of All Things, The Tao. It must be experienced and then you realize it is vast and immeasurable.
masterandyman 2 years ago
@masterandyman
This "mother of all things" has a nature, and a purpose, and we are in it. But there is truth beyond the light, the meaning behind the words.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Consciousness is an energy that the mind operates upon.
Ego filters in only our needs for us the "I" with the left brain.
The heart, feelings, are the needs for them as a part of the whole us.
smudge6699 2 years ago
Good analogy!
hermanessences 3 years ago
Yes indeed. The amazing complexity of present day life, the diversification of the species were explained by Charles Darwin in his "Origin of the Species". The discovery of DNA and genes explains how life functions, replicates and indeed diversifies and evolves. There are true fundamental mysteries in nature which we are trying to discover, but conciousness is not one of them. To say that it is something that can never be understood is quite arrogant and misleading
Richnz00 3 years ago
I agree completely that it is arrogant to say that we will never understand consciousness, but consciousness IS still a mystery in the sense that we don't understand how the brain causes it (that's why we have people like this guy making all sorts of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about it). I do believe, however, that we eventually will discover the causal basis of consciousness, just like we have discovered the causal bases for heat, sound, solidity, and a range of other phenomena.
BearsEatBeats914 2 years ago
@BearsEatBeats914 He's a psychotherapist, don't confuse him with a scientist. He's not talking about an objective, scientific view on consciousness. he's solely talking about the subjective experience - what you can experience within yourself, without consulting a scientific paper or reading a blog article. In this regard, your own consciousness will always remain a mystery to yourself.
paniq303 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914
He's talking about consciousness, you are talking about human awareness. The assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the human brain isn't even necessary to understand how the brain works.
That being said, it makes much more sense to think of the brain as a switch that turns universal consciousness into human consciousness. This doesn't conflict with the current paradigm. The only reason materialists fight it is because it would prove the God hypothesis.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Though you may feel that there is an obvious distinction between consciousness and awareness, don't assume that everyone else knows what you mean by those terms. To be fair, I'll clarify my concept of consciousness and you can delineate the differences between the two if you so choose.
Consciousness - the state of a system in which that system is having experiences. Also, could refer to the related capacity.
I don't ascribe to epiphenominalism nor did I mention it above.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914
The distinction is not obvious, but it is there if you investigate. Consciousness doesn't require self reference in order to process information. Awareness is a hierarchy of informational processing within consciousness that is entangled (in an infinite loop) and gives rise to subject/object split awareness. At least this is how I have come to understand it. It's heavy stuff that requires a lot of contemplation.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Furthermore, the notion of so called universal consciousness is ill defined, and frankly, quite absurd. If that weren't bad enough, there's zero evidence to support its presence (both empirically and logically speaking). That's probably the main reason anyone would fight the idea (though I myself am not a materialist). And even it there is such a thing (which there isn't), it wouldn't prove anything about God.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914
Ok, it would give credence to the God hypothesis, not prove it. Quantum physics pretty much demands that for their to be an objective external world, there has to be some kind of fundamental consciousness. If that's true, shouldn't we be trying to figure it out instead of continuing to assume that the brain creates consciousness?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics, but I don't think many of the conclusions and interpretations people draw from it are necessarily warranted. I think people's interpretations of quantum mechanics confuse epistemology and ontology. Again, I admit my basic ignorance of this topic, but few people really understand quantum mechanics and relativity anyway. So, I think we should focus on the facts that we have at hand (cont).
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914
I don't claim to understand it either, but the implications are rather mind blowing. Either we are seeing the limits of our brains ability to perceive, or reality at the fundamental level really is consciousness. I don't see any other way of looking at it...do you?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I think the former of your two options here is closer to the truth. Quantum mechanics does appear to place limits on our abilities to perceive and therefore to know reality, but it doesn't follow from there that there is no fundamental reality or that consciousness is universal. At least I don't see the connection.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Every mental state is correlated with some pattern of neural activity (though such patterns are a little bit different for everyone and don't constitute mentality; damage to the brain affects consciousness; altering chemical pathways affects conciousness; electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain affects consciousness. Though some folks may interpret these facts differently, most scientists think they point to a causal role of the brain in consciousness.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914
The nature of human consciousness/perceptual awareness is a full body phenomenon, and then some. Our consciousness has been shown to extend well beyond the body. That is the electromagnetic field aspect. It isn't just in the head. So does the brain really cause consciousness? The reality of the situation is more complex than that, but it is difficult to grasp.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision In what way has our consciousness been shown to extend beyond the body? Sure, our body gives off an electromagnetic field, but so does everything. I'm not sure I see the connection between, but I am interested in hearing more.
From what I can tell, consciousness is situated in the brain. For instance, the postcentral gyrus is literally a topographical map of sensory neurons. So if you feel a pain "in your foot" the pain's actually in the somatasensory cortex.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914 You won't find what you are looking for in controlled main stream science where they use the peer review process to stop anything that is going to upset the status quo.
Grof seems to be agreeing with Sheldrake, Lipton, Radin et al that Consciousness is not coming from the brain it is coming through it. Evidence for this is found in the medical literature where some people have been shown to be born with little brain structure, yet, still function consciously.
whitenightf3 1 year ago
@whitenightf3
It makes no sense to even suggest that "consciousness is coming through the brain." That statement has zero substance. What COULD that even mean? We already know that the brain is causally responsible for the our capacity for conscious experience. It's not a correlation that a bullet going through your brain will concide with you dying, its an extraordinarily simple cause and effect relationship.
BearsEatBeats914 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914 what study if any have you done in this area? Go and google Dr Lorber and look at those cases in the medical literature where people born with extreme hydrancephaly have no brains but still function. These cases cannot be explained away by Cartesian Neurology, so they pretend they do not exist.
Grof is explaining to you that the brain is like a transmitter able to send and receive information. Which explains the Lorber anomaly and all PSI.
whitenightf3 1 year ago
@BearsEatBeats914 Still when a bullet hits a TV or computer yes the experience of life stops but the signal's still there....
RamDeMan 1 year ago
"A fundamental mystery that cannot be explained by anything else". The classical argument of the science bashers who desperately cling onto the falsehood that something, that either THEY cannot understand or that hasn't currently been fully explained by science, will NEVER be explained by science. Similar mysteries, like how did the amazing complexity of present day life come about, have relentlessly given way to expalantions through quite natural physical processes by science.
Richnz00 3 years ago
Similar mysteries, like how did the amazing complexity of present day life come about, have relentlessly given way to expalantions through quite natural physical processes by science.
Have they?
iatemybabysitter 3 years ago
ok
im a better person
masacrist 4 years ago
Wrong! NC
humanist7117 4 years ago
What makes you so sure about that, oh humanist7117?
TheRaiRai 4 years ago
Not scientifically sustainable.
humanist7117 4 years ago
Only when thoroughly misunderstood. I cordially invite you to take some opportunity to analyze ego death first hand.
TheRaiRai 4 years ago
I have many times. Ego death is one of those many terms that had no meaning to brian/mind scientists. A pseudo-scientific term.
humanist7117 4 years ago
Wherever you go, ego!
Nahulanham 4 years ago
Great!
humanist7117 4 years ago
@humanist7117
That's why brain/mind scientists will never understand consciousness. But they sure will understand how the brain works, all the money, time and effort spent towards that end is crazy.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Consciousness isn't really totally understood scientifically yet, but I think the idea is to examine the evidence and develop hypothesizes to explain such evidence. In the case of consciousness there is sufficient evidence that the brain is correlated with some experiences within consciousness but theories that say the brain produces consciousness are just as theoretical as Grofs. Furthermore there is evidence that consciousness can exist outside the brain such as the cases of NDEs, OBEs,etc.
brotherhoodrise 3 years ago
You make a good point, brotherhoodrise. I believe the TV analogy is the best way to explain how consciousness works.
RavenXGhost 3 years ago
consciousness can definetly exist outside of the brain. one new theory i am learning is about how everything we perceive around us is just a vibration from the 5th dimension-this explains why forces are just "there" without an obvious purpose. they and the things around us (especially nature) exist in a much more simpler state in the 5th dimension, that is kind of relayed down to us in a way we cant understand. also BHRise check out some stuff on dmt and the pineal, i can see ull b interested.
jw22345 2 years ago