What is consciousness?

I think the term conciousness offers hope to people who are afraid of death, in religion its a forgone conclusion your conciousness goes to heaven or hell or is reincarnated, much the same for atheists who like to think that a conciousness exists but perhaps we can download it onto a laptop. Our fear of the unknown leads us into this belief.

 

Hemispherectomy is a very rare surgical procedure where one cerebral hemisphere (half of the brain) is removed or disabled. This procedure is used to treat a variety of seizure disorders where the source of the epilepsy is localized to a broad area of a single hemisphere of the brain, among other disorders. It is solely reserved for extreme cases in which the seizures have not responded to medications and other less invasive surgeries. Hemispherectomy is considered the most invasive surgical operation in use today, although not the most dangerous.

Regardless of which half of the brain that is removed, the patient regains consciousness in that half and is self aware. What if, hypothetically you put the other half in a skull and a working body. Who would it be when it regained consciousness? A new person? The same person? Some things can't be explained.

 

This link is a .com and isn't considered anything credible. The book though i don't know..

Well this is why I started this thread. I wanted everyone's opinions! There is no universal agreement about it.

What about hypnosis? Is that an altered state of consciousness..hmm

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/soul-after-death-hameroff-penrose_n_2034711.html

 

totally interesting. Nice find! morgan freeman is the man hah

 

Yeah he is. There's this too:

http://www.examiner.com/article/scientist-suggests-that-plant-is-self-aware

What I wonder is, every time one object exists in relation to another, if it becomes self-aware somehow. It would have a new "identity" so to speak. Maybe we're just really complex self-aware.

 

The brain exhibits plasticity meaning it has an ability to adjust to and grow new neuronal connections that can compensate for areas that may not be working efficiently . Many of these extreme measures such as hemispherectomy tend to be mostly only successful in children as their brains have a greater degree of plasticity than adult brains do. Hemispherectomy is not without its downfalls either such as restricted movement, affecting language capabilities and affecting eyesight.

The hypothetical hemisphere tranplant issue is interesting. Id speculate the person would still feel like 'themself' but how that would effect cognitive functioning, motor coordination, memory etc. I can't even imagine. It makes me ponder about individuals with Multiple Personality disorders but I don't this hypothetical scenario would effectively work the same.

 

I like what you have written, its an interesting concept and something that we may find out about in years to come, its a bit like an Earthworm, you chop it in half and both halves grow and live independently, as of yet we cant tell if an Earthworm has a conscience. If it had, does the conscience split or does one half actually grow a new conscience, jeez! its driving me nutz....

 

Google is your friend. Science has a great deal to say about consciousness. I can easily find more for you when you get through that 1500 or so scientific papers.

 

...which is not to say that there aren't other interesting ways to think about or explore consciousness that are not scientific. I'm sure there are. Just don't confuse the two. If you want to make a hypothesis, test it, falsify it or not, publish it in a peer reviewed journal, then call it science. Otherwise, do something else, call it something else and it may or may not add to the meanings we attach to things like consciousness.

 

scale of consciousness 1 to 100=inanimate-0. sentience-1 to ??, depending on particular species limitations and circumstances, which can only be partially determined thus far by those that can ask the question. There cannot be 100 at this time.

 

Raga Mala...oooohhh is this some kind of word salad I haven't tried yet? Hot dayum! Pass the balsamic dressing!

Science and spirituality should never become one. It would be the worst possible thing that could happen to either way of thinking about the world. They are fundamentally incompatible. If science ever "gets over its physical-materialist obsession" it will no longer be science. It will be mumbo-jumbo and when people come to us to cure their diseases or improve their technology we'll be sure to shake the rattles extra hard, mumble some spooky words and turn around in a circle three times, prescribe a noni juice enema and send you home. Don't forget to pay your bill on the way out.

I'm not trying to say that there aren't other ways to interpret and psychologically or emotionally experience nature that enhance our collective existence but blurring the two would make both utter nonsense. I am also not saying that scientists can't have a spiritual life apart from their doing of science.

 

A complete understanding of the Universe will have to involve both. There are things science as yet cannot investigate because they are subjective. Science says phenomena within the realm of subjective experience are not real. In so doing, it cuts us off from understanding the ontological (rather than material-causal) nature of those phenomena.

So long as science tries to lay claim to the only legitimate path for understanding reality, it is incomplete.

You seem to confuse my idea of consciousness-disciplines (which I suppose only compasses certain forms of spirituality, to be fair) with mere witchcraft.

I am fairly certain of my belief in this area but I also find it hard to put into words and useless to argue, so I won't make any further attempt to respond to your argument. Rebut away.

 

Funny, I just typed something very similar in a private message and then this is what I read next :sunny:

I agree, dispelling subjective experience completely is moronic - it is fundamental to our experience - it IS our experience.

Sure - details can change - it's not the most intricate details that should be focused on - to begin with at least.

Look at the fundamental ideas behind the experiences. There are major significant patterns in the experiences of millions for which there are multiple possible explanations.

Subjective experience is relevant and needs to be focused on to understand the nature of consciousness.

 

The building blocks for science grew out of Western Philosophy (perhaps even predates that) so an inextricable union of ontological explanations with material explanations is already long gone.

Because of sciences adaptability, its likely to venture outside the western domain and provide reasoning, explanation, and perhaps validation of eastern and other viewpoints as well. But I can't see science becoming confined by spirituality.

Subjectivity is a large part of science already... One of the most basic approaches to a scientific study is Group A receives a treatment, Group B receives a placebo, let's have the groups report their subjective experiences to discover the effectiveness of treatment. I'm sure some of you talking subjective experience is in regards to more metaphysical concepts, or perhaps in my example having the focus on why one who recieves the placebo may 'falsely' feel effects.

I think the ineptness of spirituality in many regards to satisfy subjective experience is another reason many sought looking for alternative explanations. 'Going with God' or relatable viewpoints only goes so far and becomes unsatisfactory when one's arm gets sliced off in war and becomes gangreous or mothers pass while giving birth.

 

Sure, but lets keep them of separate ways of understanding. I can sit outside on a clear starry night and gaze at the sky in wonder, let my imagination go, dream and simply experience the beauty of it all. It enhances my experience of the universe. My understanding of the physics involved is a very different way of thinking about it and would be compromised if I allowed my subjective experience of it to inform my scientific method of gaining understanding about how it really works.

Absolutely. There are some things that science adds very little to and should not even attempt to investigate other than perhaps for the sake of curiosity. My appreciation of a wonderful painting, for example, is an interaction between my mind and emotions - an experience I do not care to analyze and don't require scientific answers for regardless of whether someone managed to squeeze the grant money tree to study why we like certain color combinations, forms, etc.

 

That is what I would refer to as a clinical trial that would be the final part of a scientific study, and yes, I agree that it is the subjective part, though it doesn't always have to be. The more objective science has been done long before group A and B receive a treatment or placebo and report how they feel. It is a small part of science, not a large part and is only done when the effect of some treatment can't be measured in some more objective way. There are many more studies (even clinical ones) that don't have to resort to that kind of subjective support. Sometimes we develop a treatment and just measure the result of it when it is physically possible and ethical.

 

I guess consciousness is one of those things where scientists can come up with pretty good explanations of the mechanism through which consciousness arises but not have much to say (nor should it) about the individual experience of consciousness and the meanings it generates for any particular person.

 

I agree due to the value that we place on human experience but do you think it would be fair game and worthwhile to try it on an animal, lets say a mouse if we could develop ways to sort of transcribe their experience of consciousness and generated meanings?

 

Consciousness is just an expansion of knowledge and information, continually surprising the True Creator itself.