What is Death?

[SelfSim]

Fact. A drone can be controlled by a consciousness, in that case remote,

Fact: A drone is a product of consciousness in the first place (there is tonnes of objective evidence supporting this).
Its therefore unsurprising a drone peforms the functions consistent with an agent of the consciousness which produced it.
Your analogy fails because of the blatant falsity of: the same evidence exists in the case of (say) human consciousness.

That is an alternative picture of physical ( apparent ) consciusness to third parties, and actual consciousness which can only demonstrate presence through the hardwar and controlling centres , the brain .Which is presumed to filter consciousness not create it.

Who is presuming that the brain filters consciousness ... (ie: where is the evidence, or the test, for a filtering transfer function?)

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Which one physical or spiritual

 

[Mountainmike]

Fact: A drone is a product of consciousness in the first place (there is tonnes of objective evidence supporting this).
Its therefore unsurprising a drone peforms the functions consistent with an agent of the consciousness which produced it.
Your analogy fails because of the blatant falsity of: the same evidence exists in the case of (say) human consciousness.

Who is presuming that the brain filters consciousness ... (ie: where is the evidence, or the test, for a filtering transfer function?)

If you study the scientifuc literature you might find out why consciousness is not considered a process of the brain. I am not going to reproduce it all here.

Where is your evidence the brain produces consciousness? It’s an assumption, not a fact.
It was disputed long before the term NDE existed , based on brain test studies. .

Thereis Plenty of evidence of consciousness outside the body When the brain is not functioning.
they describe far greater clarity, so body consciousness is a filter for want of a word.

I have suggested two books by medical researchers at the forefront .Read them
. It’s how you know why they think what they do.

 

[SelfSim]

If you study the scientifuc literature you might find out why consciousness is not considered a process of the brain. I am not going to reproduce it all here.

And if you actually read my post, you would see how irrelevant your above response is.

I never claimed consciousness as being a function of the brain. That notion is superfluous to what I posted.

Where is your evidence the brain produces consciousness? It’s an assumption, not a fact.
It was disputed long before the term NDE existed , based on brain test studies. .

Irrelevant.

Thereis Plenty of evidence of consciousness outside the body When the brain is not functioning.
they describe far greater clarity, so body consciousness is a filter for want of a word.

And you call that an objective test? Hilarious!

I have suggested two books by medical researchers at the forefront .Read them
. It’s how you know why they think what they do.

I don't care about their opinions. Irrelevant.

 

[SelfSim]

Which one physical or spiritual

There are deep connections between consciousness and matter, (or 'the material').
'Spiritual' is concept. The only currently known way to realise 'spiritual', is by way of beliefs.

 

[dlamberth]

There are deep connections between consciousness and matter, (or 'the material').
'Spiritual' is concept. The only currently known way to realise 'spiritual', is by way of beliefs.

I don't believe that's totally true. I think one needs to also take into account the inner experiential awareness as a known way to realize "spiritual".

 

[SelfSim]

I don't believe that's totally true. I think one needs to also take into account the inner experiential awareness as a known way to realize "spiritual".

Ha! I was waiting for you to show up in this thread .. (meaning I'd value your inputs on this topic).

The problem with using the notion of inner experiences to realise objects, (spatially or in the material sense), is that it doesn't really produce any predictions that would provide any insights into what consciousness is. Thus, consciousness still persists as a ('hard') problem.

Currently, (as far as I'm aware), no viable theories to empirically test the validity of scientific ideas deriving from the philosophy of panpsychism have been proposed .. (unless you able to elaborate on this?) .. So by way of beliefs, is what remains.

 

[dlamberth]

Ha! I was waiting for you to show up in this thread .. (meaning I'd value your inputs on this topic).

The problem with using the notion of inner experiences to realise objects, (spatially or in the material sense), is that it doesn't really produce any predictions that would provide any insights into what consciousness is. Thus, consciousness still persists as a ('hard') problem.

Currently, (as far as I'm aware), no viable theories to empirically test the validity of scientific ideas deriving from the philosophy of panpsychism have been proposed .. (unless you able to elaborate on this?) .. So by way of beliefs, is what remains.

You and I have history with this dance.

I'm not at all interested in "what" consciousness is. Or even what spiritual is for that matter. I think any mental ideas of either leads to a dead end and is a waste of time, at least in the way I think about it. And that might explain why until now I've not engaged in this thread. What caused me to respond was when I read that "The only currently known way to realise 'spiritual', is by way of beliefs." And that's simply not true. There are other ways of realizing the spiritual other than "beliefs". The want to focus on beliefs only is looking through a very small window. Those ways to awareness of the spiritual, at least those trajectories that I'm involved with is thru consciousness. That has a way of opening a larger window into the picture. One can argue all they want about what consciousness or the spiritual is, but in my experience that has nothing to do with actually being consciously aware of the spiritual. That's a different kind of trajectory than trying to figure out what they are.

Taking the same trajectory but in a slightly different direction, I would think that we're all consciously aware of existence, yet for myself at least, I have no idea what existence "is". Yet here I am right in the middle of it.

As far as "panpsychism", any more just as I'm unable to limit the potential variety life forms, I'm also unable to limit the potential variety of consciousness. I've come to a place where to do so would be the same as limiting the creating force of the Cosmos. And I don't know how to do that.

 

[d taylor]

There are deep connections between consciousness and matter, (or 'the material').
'Spiritual' is concept. The only currently known way to realise 'spiritual', is by way of beliefs.

-
​

Well both involved separation physical separates the sou and spiritl from the body and spiritual separates a soul and spirit from God.

 

[dlamberth]

-
​

Well both involved separation physical separates the sou and spiritl from the body and spiritual separates a soul and spirit from God.

Your not going to like this.
There is no separation of the soul and spirit from the body. It all comes in one package. In the same way there is no separation from God. It's all one package.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not at all interested in "what" consciousness is. Or even what spiritual is for that matter. I think any mental ideas of either leads to a dead end and is a waste of time, at least in the way I think about it. And that might explain why until now I've not engaged in this thread. What caused me to respond was when I read that "The only currently known way to realise 'spiritual', is by way of beliefs." And that's simply not true. There are other ways of realizing the spiritual other than "beliefs". The want to focus on beliefs only is looking through a very small window. Those ways to awareness of the spiritual, at least those trajectories that I'm involved with is thru consciousness. That has a way of opening a larger window into the picture. One can argue all they want about what consciousness or the spiritual is, but in my experience that has nothing to do with actually being consciously aware of the spiritual. That's a different kind of trajectory than trying to figure out what they are.

Y'know what .. I think I'm aligned with several aspects of what you mention there .. like leaving questions about 'what consciousness is' in obeyance (and, I might add, perhaps looking at what consciousness does, instead).

On the issue of realising the spiritual without invoking untestable beliefs: If you claim there are no beliefs involved there and that 'being consciously aware of the spiritual' diverges from beliefs, then you must be able to defend that claim with at least some kind of distinction(s), or tests .. so what are they? (I'm intrigued).

Taking the same trajectory but in a slightly different direction, I would think that we're all consciously aware of existence, yet for myself at least, I have no idea what existence "is". Yet here I am right in the middle of it.

I'm very clear on 'what existence is'. My clarity is based on scientific thinking and its subsequent methodology .. there is no need to go further into all of that though (I/we've(?) done it all before).

As far as "panpsychism", any more just as I'm unable to limit the potential variety life forms, I'm also unable to limit the potential variety of consciousness. I've come to a place where to do so would be the same as limiting the creating force of the Cosmos. And I don't know how to do that.

Sounds like you might regard consciousness as a fundamental 'thing' then(?) .. which is an approach which tends to leave no room to derive or explain the features of consciousness, or to test features it might impart on some objects and not others. That's a tough position to hold when scientific thinkers are always looking for explanations with measurable consequences .. they typically aim to test out new hypotheses that might lead towards deeper explanations of physical reality, within the scientific worldview.

 

[dlamberth]

On the issue of realising the spiritual without invoking untestable beliefs: If you claim there are no beliefs involved there and that 'being consciously aware of the spiritual' diverges from beliefs, then you must be able to defend that claim with at least some kind of distinction(s), or tests .. so what are they? (I'm intrigued).

Just so that I'm understanding, when you bring in "beliefs", what beliefs are you talking about? I think if I have a better idea of that, I'll have a better idea on how to approach the rest of your post.

 

[SelfSim]

Just so that I'm understanding, when you bring in "beliefs", what beliefs are you talking about? I think if I have a better idea of that, I'll have a better idea on how to approach the rest of your post.

Well .. my general, testable definition for a belief is:

'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
(Ie: Objective tests, followed by the application of logic rules, is a necessary condition).

Let's start off with your use of the term of 'the spiritual'. Can you please explain what you mean by that term?

 

[Mountainmike]

And if you actually read my post, you would see how irrelevant your above response is.

I never claimed consciousness as being a function of the brain. That notion is superfluous to what I posted.

Irrelevant.

And you call that an objective test? Hilarious!

I don't care about their opinions. Irrelevant.

They are not “ opinions” , they are state of the art science research by qualified neurologists, brain surgeons, cardiologists, pychiatrists , emergency medics and many others, they present their research .
They know A LOT more than you Ever will.


If you want to contest it, at least first study it.
i have told you where to start looking.


Your posts are typical of Christian forums non scientists and their echo chamber here:
you have a world view, and you refuse to read any of the science that contests it.

I prefer science.

The question of death , is the question of “what is life” and the hard problem of “what is consciousness.” The questions are inseparable, they can only be answered together.

For those interested in knowing where the state of the art is, start with parnia “lucid dying” , and van lommel “consciousness beyond life”. They are a gateway to much other research.

 

[SelfSim]

.. I prefer science.

Then why do you recommend books written by people who are regarded as frequently indulging in pseudoscientific practices?
(See here and here).

For those interested in knowing where the state of the art is, start with parnia “lucid dying” , and van lommel “consciousness beyond life”. They are a gateway to much other research.

More like gateways to pure pseudoscience (see above links on Parnia's and Von Lommel's Wiki pages).

 

[Mountainmike]

Then why do you recommend books written by people who are regarded as frequently indulging in pseudoscientific practices?
(See here and here).

More like gateways to pure pseudoscience (see above links on Parnia's and Von Lommel's Wiki pages).

Read The research.
Which is also a survey of all other science.
Many hundreds of peer reviewed papers.
Longitudinal studies.

I get that atheist pseudoscientists don't like their worldview, so they poison wiki with their opinions.
That doesn’t make their scientific research pseudoscience, NOR does it make wiki science!

Seriously selfsim? I’m disappointed in you if you think wiki beats peer reviewed science

It goes a long way to explaining your worldview that you refuse to read science because it disagrees with you!
It makes you a scientific ostrich.

 

[RileyG]

The day they discover God by science, the world going about to end lol,
just read the bible.

How is that related to the topic?

 

[dlamberth]

Well .. my general, testable definition for a belief is:

'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
(Ie: Objective tests, followed by the application of logic rules, is a necessary condition).

That's a good working definition.

Let's start off with your use of the term of 'the spiritual'. Can you please explain what you mean by that term?

I'd rather start with conscious awareness, because that's where I feel it all starts. And really, I wouldn't know how to start there so on to your question. Very roughly, the way I experience it is that the spiritual is a type of experiential awareness that is beyond/outside (I don't know if that's the right wording) the physical realm.

The reason why I asked about "belief" is because what we mentally do with that inner spiritual experience can lead to "beliefs". I think that's the result of the need to put the experience into something a person can understand in this physical world. That includes myself. The trick is being aware that beliefs are just that...beliefs. And I know for a fact that my beliefs change. So I try very hard not to put my beliefs out there as truths. That we have consciousness I think is something we can agree as truth. Where our consciousness can take us is evidentially a different question.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd rather start with conscious awareness, because that's where I feel it all starts. And really, I wouldn't know how to start there so on to your question. Very roughly, the way I experience it is that the spiritual is a type of experiential awareness that is beyond/outside (I don't know if that's the right wording) the physical realm.

Thanks for responding .. (I'm still intrigued). I'll try to relate.
So, I regularly become consciously aware of a sensation (a craving). When that happens, I usually feel hungry .. I eat and that feeling goes away. Science's model for 'a sensation' there, is (roughly) defined by the process of gathering information about the surroundings through experiences called stimuli. It then gets into sensory organs, cells cranial nerves, etc. The model called transduction becomes the model for explaining the translation from stimulii into actions (like eating). Enzymes, proteins and ion channels, etc are also involved.

Now, I notice from your description you already had in place the model of an awareness that must be 'beyond/outside the physical realm'. So why that particular model? Is it, perhaps, an assumed, undistinguished one that was held as being 'true' before the actual onset of the experience?

The reason why I asked about "belief" is because what we mentally do with that inner spiritual experience can lead to "beliefs". I think that's the result of the need to put the experience into something a person can understand in this physical world. That includes myself. The trick is being aware that beliefs are just that...beliefs. And I know for a fact that my beliefs change. So I try very hard not to put my beliefs out there as truths. That we have consciousness I think is something we can agree as truth. Where our consciousness can take us is evidentially a different question.

Sure .. and beliefs can be instantaneous too .. sometimes it takes time for the 'higher' intellectual functions to catch up with them (like rationality and reason, etc). Sometimes that analytical reasoning never kicks in, so the remnant sort of becomes a familiar, undistinguished 'weird feeling' and then becomes a kind of automatic, defacto, 'frozen-in', model held in place by our conscious, aware minds.

This happens for me quite often in sports requiring instantaneous reactionary responses .. (like snow skiing .. which now represents to me, a reliving of those 'weird feelings'). It shows up in others' descriptions of what they're experiencing in eye-hand sports too .. like I've heard golfers talk about sensations which would otherwise necessitate 'insanely' precise instruments, with feedback, in order to replicate their achievements in some after-the-fact experimental set up .. but what they're really doing is exploring the 'weird feelings' and revelling in them .. (sometimes for their entire lifetimes!)

 

[dlamberth]

So, I regularly become consciously aware of a sensation (a craving). When that happens, I usually feel hungry .. I eat and that feeling goes away. Science's model for 'a sensation' there, is (roughly) defined by the process of gathering information about the surroundings through experiences called stimuli. It then gets into sensory organs, cells cranial nerves, etc. The model called transduction becomes the model for explaining the translation from stimulii into actions (like eating). Enzymes, proteins and ion channels, etc are also involved.

The sensations is one aspect of what we can be conscious of. And you have described the science behind those sensations. But it seems to me that the described model for sensation is something different than is the consciousness of those sensations.

Now, I notice from your description you already had in place the model of an awareness that must be 'beyond/outside the physical realm'. So why that particular model? Is it, perhaps, an assumed, undistinguished one that was held as being 'true' before the actual onset of the experience?

It's curious to me that you have been using the word "model". That comes from a science minded individual.
The way I look at is that consciousness is just a part of being a Human Being and I have no idea how to reduce Human consciousness into a model.

Sure .. and beliefs can be instantaneous too .. sometimes it takes time for the 'higher' intellectual functions to catch up with them (like rationality and reason, etc). Sometimes that analytical reasoning never kicks in, so the remnant sort of becomes a familiar, undistinguished 'weird feeling' and then becomes a kind of automatic, defacto, 'frozen-in', model held in place by our conscious, aware minds

That sounds pretty spiritual to me.

This happens for me quite often in sports requiring instantaneous reactionary responses .. (like snow skiing .. which now represents to me, a reliving of those 'weird feelings'). It shows up in others' descriptions of what they're experiencing in eye-hand sports too .. like I've heard golfers talk about sensations which would otherwise necessitate 'insanely' precise instruments, with feedback, in order to replicate their achievements in some after-the-fact experimental set up .. but what they're really doing is exploring the 'weird feelings' and revelling in them .. (sometimes for their entire lifetimes!)

That sounds like out of body experiences that effect the core of ones being that your pointing towards. To me that's totally a spiritually aware experience.