Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2015 - 08:10pm PT
|
A simple way to answer the question is to say that consciousness is what goes away when you go under general anesthesia. As with most simple statements there are exceptions, but often enough under general anesthesia, heartbeat, breathing, digestion, kidney filtration, and a host of other biological activities continue more or less as usual while consciousness is notably absent.
When we look we find that under general anesthesia pain receptors and other sensory receptors still react to stimulation and that an electric shock to a motor nerve will make a muscle twitch, but a normally painful input does not cause a reaction. Somewhere between sensory nerves and motor output the normal chain of events leading from sensation to action fails to work as usual.
Reaction to pain is part of rough-and-ready medical assessment of a patient's level of consciousness, after, for example, a blow to the head.
Under light general anesthesia some level of consciousness may remain. Under too deep general anesthesia there is risk of death.
Other biological activities can be affected by general anesthesia but not usually to the extent that consciousness is.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2015 - 08:19pm PT
|
^^^ There you go. No more woo needed. Define consciousness by its absence.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2015 - 08:23pm PT
|
while consciousness is notably absent.
Nope
Consciousness is the source of life itself.
When consciousness is absent there is no life period .....
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 09:52am PT
|
Opening of the blood–brain barrier during isoflurane anaesthesia
European Journal of Neuroscience
Volume 28, Issue 7
October 2008
Page 1329
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06443.x/full
Andy’s interesting post caused me to intuit that anaesthesia quite probably involves changes in the Blood Brain Barrier. The above is a very interesting article.
Now as the brain is an extended network I would not suppose the neuronal activity associated with consciousness is localized, it is true that the BBB in different locations are affected differently by anaesthesia. Presuming the brain activity we call consciousness has high sensitivity to anaesthesia we may get spatial information from knowing where the BBB is most rapidly opened. The DC shift in EEG discussed in the article might be a good metric for use in tracking loss of consciousness.
Further, if we presume our experience is only a neuronal output then that output could conceivably be nulled if anaesthesia nulls the associated input. If that is the case we would expect to see neuronal noise.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 10:22am PT
|
BRIEF RECAP
So Cintune said that an empty set still constitutes an object in a conversation that I raised when I replied to Ed’s comment who said that claiming a thing is either everything or nothing. (“Everything” is what I, indeed, claimed that is consciousness as mind.) To wit, to Cintune, I said that if an empty set is indeed an object, then he could say what consciousness is. Jgill next wrote that removing “mind” from a dictionary would reveal consciousness somehow, and MH2 then wrote that consciousness is what is left when all biological functions are eliminated. At this point, jgill seems to have agreed: i.e., consciousness is an absence. Werner last showed up and said (somewhat correctly, I think) that consciousness is life, Q.E.D.
It occurs to me that people may be thinking that Largo, I, WB, PSP, etc. are just making this stuff up creatively, fictionally, as some kind of mental gymnastics to befuddle the local mathematicians, engineers, common-sense men /women, and rational philosophers. However, these conundrums / paradoxes / notions of weirdness / incomprehensibilities being pointed to here have been repeatedly been pointed to in the same ways by sages all over the world almost since the beginning of recorded history. One can change the names, the times, the language, and even the artifacts and yet hear the same message. (See, Perennial Philosophy.) There is only one reality.
As a form of evidence, here is Ksemaraji’s commentary on the Spandakarikas, which is a 10th-century commentary on the Siva-sutras of Kasmir Saivism (text of the ninth verse, section III, Vibhuti Spanda):
TEXT
Where does transcendental awareness arise? It arises from the Spanda-principle [think, “throb of life”] in which the difference of knowledge and its object has disappeared, in which the entire multitude of thought constructs has been suddenly swallowed up on account of the cessation of the object of thought which is due to the swell of deeper consciousness radiating from excessive concentration on that thought.
This is an efflorescence of that bliss of consciousness. It has to be realized. Since [this realization] cannot be grasped objectively as “this,” one has to observe it, within oneself by approaching it in the form of I-consciousness [seeing consciousness as IT is] with an awareness completely free of all artificial effort. It must be recognized in the form of of extraordinary bliss.
(Ksemarali’s exposition of the above text)
First, . . . when the mind is completely engrossed in one thought, it is completely stilled, it is restricted from indulging in another thought. It is at such a moment that the met-empirical Self reveals itself. Mind is the slayer of the Real. When the slayer is slain, then the Real reveals itself.
Second, one has to be on one’s guard when grasping the Real. If he wants to know it as an object, he will fail miserably, for it is the Eternal Subject which can never be reduced to an object. . . . Since the metaphysical Self cannot be objectified, there has to be an effortless awareness of it as I-consciousness shorn of all its external trappings.
Third . . . Ramakantha says [in arguing against Buddhist’s ideas] . . . [if belief in a] first thought is the cause of the rise of the next, [that for a brief moment] there is nothing intervening between the two which apart for the two thoughts may be the cause of the second thought . . . . [Hence] there can be no relation of cause and effect between the first and the second thought without a third to relate the two as cause and effect. That which relates the previous and the latter as cause and effect, that which is the undeniable relater of the two experiences, that is the pure consciousness that pervades both the thoughts, the fount and origin of everything, that is the Self.
It is the Self which is everything, internally perceived and externally perceived. There is no thing which is not Siva.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 10:47am PT
|
I don't believe anyone here is saying there isn't a base/root/source/foundational scope to consciousness within ourselves, though I'm personally saying there is only so much we can 'know' about it through meditation beyond experiencing it regardless of whether that is for glimpses or extended sessions.
While those experiences are fabulous, where I object is the idea promulgated by Largo and others here is that constitutes a form of 'research' or 'exploration' in the sense that there is much in the way of research or exploratory information to be had or taken away from those experiences about that foundational scope of consciousness. Great to visit, but you aren't staying there long and there are no postcards to be had from that particular edge.
What I further reject is the notion those experiences say anything in support a belief in any form of panpsychism (even if Largo is simply loathe to say the word).
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 11:51am PT
|
HealJe said " I'm personally saying there is only so much we can 'know' about it through meditation beyond experiencing it regardless of whether that is for glimpses or extended sessions.
While those experiences are fabulous, where I object is the idea promulgated by Largo and others here is that constitutes a form of 'research' or 'exploration' in the sense that there is much in the way of research or exploratory information to be had or taken away from those experiences about that foundational scope of consciousness. Great to visit, but you aren't staying there long and there are no postcards to be had from that particular edge."
One question then would be; what is it to "know" about things? You can know all about rock climbing from a history and kinesiology point of view; from that view you could say you actually know more about how a climber climbs then he or she does even though they do the climbing and you the kinesiologist have never climbed. You understand the how the muscles work and bones and angles etc.. Is that really knowing?
IMO meditation is a technique that allows you to see/observe and to experience our dualistic relationship with everything and what the effects of that are (if you are paying attention to the effects.) It is a very simple method to experience both sides of the dualistic self ( a method that allows you to let go of the small self).
It is very subtle though and can easily be misinterpreted as a self improvement technique mostly because if you haven't experienced letting go of the self then everything is about the self.
It is a hard comparison with physics and math because to study them is to do them ; although I guess there are different levels of doing and studying (physics and math).
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 11:56am PT
|
Therefore nothing exists.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 12:14pm PT
|
One question then would be; what is it to "know" about things? You can know all about rock climbing from a history and kinesiology point of view; from that view you could say you actually know more about how a climber climbs then he or she does even though they do the climbing and you the kinesiologist have never climbed. You understand the how the muscles work and bones and angles etc.. Is that really knowing?
I'm not the one positing there is much to "know" about consciousness in terms of 'research' or 'exploration' from the practice of meditation. But neither I nor they are speaking about knowing via second-hand observation.
IMO meditation is a technique that allows you to see/observe and to experience our dualistic relationship with everything and what the effects of that are (if you are paying attention to the effects.) It is a very simple method to experience both sides of the dualistic self ( a method that allows you to let go of the small self).
Hmmm, experience, sure. The 'effects' of that experience I consider quite apart from learning something about the essential nature of consciousness.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 12:55pm PT
|
Healje said "Hmmm, experience, sure. The 'effects' of that experience I consider quite apart from learning something about the essential nature of consciousness."
When I say paying attention to the effects of experiencing the dualistic nature I am talking about being mindful outside the meditation space. Paying attention to what "I" am actually doing moment to moment. It is quite humbling I get to see how big of an ass***8 I can be.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 01:11pm PT
|
If I have taken anything away from these discussions it is an understanding similar to healeyje's as far as an outsider looking in. While books like the Tao of Physics seemed to be an opening in the 1960's, it seems that most scientists at least, have moved on. I'm not convinced that healeyje's view is correct any more than my own view based on personal exerience, but at least I can understand his argument and see it could be valid. That, plus my own experience is one of the reasons I feel uncomfortable with the emphasis on this thread of Zen's concept of emptiness and the attempts to equate it to current cosmology. It may be correct or none of us may have a correct view of our universe, macrocosmic and microcosmic at this time. If science has a role to play in meditation at this time, it would seem to be in measuring the effects produced by meditation.
Because my training is different, I would not advertise meditation as an understanding of external reality, but rather of inner reality from a subjective point of view. More importantly, I see meditation as a method of making us happier, more creative, and more functional human beings, a way to reprogram the mind/brain. Perhaps if it is reprogrammed enough, it becomes empty as Zen describes, but I haven't experienced that state on any sustained basis.
I also know, since jgill asked, that theistic religions see fullness, love, and joy where Zen people see emptiness, so there appears to be more than one end state depending on your expectations.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 01:29pm PT
|
When consciousness is absent there is no life period .....
Couldn't it just be playing hooky?
When I am absent from my house I usually expect to return to it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 01:41pm PT
|
I don't know that I'm espousing a 'view' so much as stating my own experiences and what I feel they do and do not support in the way of what we can know of ourselves and our world through our experiences with meditation. I do tend to question what I consider grand and expansive claims, however.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 18, 2015 - 02:15pm PT
|
While those experiences are fabulous, where I object is the idea promulgated by Largo and others here is that constitutes a form of 'research' or 'exploration' in the sense that there is much in the way of research or exploratory information to be had or taken away from those experiences about that foundational scope of consciousness.
Of course what is being said here is that introspection does not disclose objective information about the physical stuff Healje considers to the the "foundational scope" of consciousnss - i.e., what Healje believes "sources' consciousness. In other words, in Healyje's experience, the experiential adventures cannot disclose real knowledge, which is discursive fruit, and therefore introspection is really just good for tripping out.
Of course Healje never bothered to bone up on what Chalmers calls objective functioning, as opposed to consciousness itself, and so once again the two get conflatged.
If Healje was in a class, they'd give him the standard exercise to try and describe the difference between an object, and consciousness itself. NOT simply say yes, there IS a difference, but to explore what that difference actually is. Guaranteed to shift his understanding per the "foundational scope" of the whole shebang.
Perhaps Healje might benefit from some personal instruction from an expert like Madame Petuna, pictured below.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 02:19pm PT
|
Oh pleeaasseee master! Do describe consciousness for us! I mean, here we are 7500 posts later and you still haven't reported back a single damn thing...
P.S. I will hand it to you as a good disciple; Chalmers doesn't have the balls either. None dare call it 'panpsychism'. But then again, maybe hedging your intellectual bets is just good academic politics.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 18, 2015 - 03:33pm PT
|
Healje, who cares about philosophical terms?
Fact is, no matter how much you learn about the "foundational scope" of consciousness, it would only tell you about objective functioning, and nothing about consciousness itself. Your belief is that since you understand that consciousness is made or created by the brain, the brain holds the clues per what consciousness IS. Where else would a body look? Ed indeed came from his parents, but how about asking ED what he is all about? Or at least spend some time observing Ed, as opposed to his parents.
Sentience starts where objective functioning leaves off.
Material/reducionist logic works great for objects, which rarely if ever betray phenomenon greater than their material parts. Ergo why I challenged you to tell us the difference between an object and consciousness - because it makes this last item clear if you can stay with the process.
When you say, "Tell us what consciousness is?" do you not want a quantification, a map, a physical encapsulation, a computation that you can program into a computer, a working, data processing configuration in real scientific language, a genuine description of a thing, an object, a "real" phenomenon? In other words, "any damn THING."
What do you imagine the words mean, "sentience is not a thing."
JL
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 03:47pm PT
|
When consciousness is absent there is no life period . What about when intelligence is absent?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 04:01pm PT
|
Not at all.
And Chalmer's nonreductive functionalist attempts to claim a novelty for consciousness on par with time, space, matter and motion is fraught with problems. Those problems reveal themselves when he can't seem to truly separate from the physical so instead attempts to inextricably bind the physical and the phenomenal. At that point he's somewhat hoisted on his own petard in that he then runs smack into a problem of scale, i.e. at what scale does this binding occur? He is also unavoidably bound to panpsychism as well because any physical object which contains information - by his own claims and logic - must have phenomenal properties.
But then sure, let's dispense with 'philosophical terms'; which would you like to use instead? Do you have any terms which don't lurch about quite so metaphysically? Because if not you might as well stick with panpsychism.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2015 - 07:24pm PT
|
Sentience starts where objective functioning leaves off (JL)
Or "no-thing" starts where . . . these little word games lead "nowhere". To attempt to place fundamental aspects of sentience or consciousness squarely in the realm of a peculiar mental state, euphemistically called "Big Fat Zen Zero" by cintune, is entirely specious since you cannot come to grips with functional definitions or axioms for your arguments. By default you throw these vague conceptual entities into the meditative miasma: BFZZ.
From the very outset of this thread I have suspected JL (and cohorts) of attempting to create a weird equivalence between completing a graduate research degree and sitting for twenty years in an ashram. The evolution of this thread has seen attempt after attempt to justify this notion by numerous references to the "subjective" vs the "objective" and how different approaches - discursive vs meditation - yield information somehow "equivalent" in "value".
I've no doubt that the BFZZ is a powerful experience - as was mine in the art of dreaming long ago - but that in itself does not imply what one achieves is a glimpse of ultimate reality or is in any way of great importance. Startling epiphanies enforced by the guidance of Zen masters (themselves proselytized by previous generations) and reinforced by considerable time sitting create a powerful tendency to "believe" and to convince others of the enormous implications of those beliefs. Viz, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" and "objects are not really solid" and "without an observer, objects do not exist", etc.
As for meditation expunging the "I" and allowing you to re-enter the normal world capable of understanding how your actions and decisions are the result of this "I" running out of control, well, that I am sure can be accomplished by psychoanalysis or simply serious self-reflection in a much shorter time span. But for some Zen may be the best approach.
I'm trying to recall if I've ever known a paragon of Zen virtue in this last regard, but I must run in different social circles.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!