The Consciousness Wars

Apparently everyone missed the part where I said "fine, replace the left brain vs. right brain with Esotericism vs. Rationalism...as it is the same discussion."

I also went on to say that the left-brain, right-brain thing could still be talked about as a metaphor and still be a valid symbolic conversation.

The ones who are obsessing over this issue are simply illustrating the obsession with analysis and logic highlighted in the article, and missing the crux of what the article is about.

 

How can the right side let us recognize a particular shape and form as a spoon if it can't give us the word for spoon? It recognizes a shape and form, but this shape and form is purely conceptual. Together the hemispheres work to make sense of the world we live in: This shape and form is associated with a spoon. We can then use it to eat or gouge out people's eyeballs. But are we getting anywhere nearer the truth of reality by this combination of forces?

As an example of what I mean, I could build a machine that squirts water into a balloon. Would that machine really be purposeful or useful? Is the brain? Or is it the case that when we label concepts we are actually getting further from the truth?

 

Pfft, and she calls herself a neuroscientist? What a crock of shit. It's well known by now the brain simply does not work that way. She would just as likely have had the same experiences had the stroke damaged the right side of her brain. And then she wants to delve into the spiritual and ascribe that to a hemisphere? ( I watched part of that Ted talk lecture, fucking puuleease!)


I'm not even going to touch your anecdotal faith healing story wolf. I'm done here

 

First you're trying to argue that there is no personality-dominants, but now you're trying to say that one part of the brain doesn't have certain functions that the other side does, and yet you are saying that they are different as part of your argument.

The fact is, one side has certain functions, the other has other functions. We are all born with the same structures to our brains, and yet we all have different ways that we use the brain. So to suggest that someone doesn't use one aspect more than another person is ridiculous.

 

That's how it goes when forbidden . Do not touch . What child shall fear the butterfly
who comes and there is a touch , and even a word ?

 

The problem is that on the surface it's inconsistent, if esotericism also suggests consciousness is not produced in the brain, and nowhere in the article you posted is the brain hemisphere idea a suggested metaphor, this may be one of the reasons why Esotericism got superseded.

If you think it is metaphor, than I can see how that can be compatible with your other views but seems rather shakey, in terms of logic and worldview to arbitrarily choose what is and isn't seen as metaphor.

 

In no way does a certain part of the brain attributing to certain ways of looking at things have anything to do with the brain actually producing that consciousness.

 

If consciousness is awareness and this scope of awareness can be attributed to one particular brain hemisphere, then the brain absolutely has something to do with a way of this conscious awareness and looking at things.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the brain is creating Consciousness itself. The brain is simply expressing the Consciousness in a certain way in that part of the brain.

 

I don't understand what you mean, it seems you have some overarching concept of "Consciousness" that is vague and/or ill-defined to me.

 

This is another debate between two essentially equal sides. Both of these two sides wish to compartmentalize knowledge for the sake of not having to face the humbling facts of reality, that are even more humbling due to many modern people's alienation from their roots. Both of these sides feed off each other, appreciating the illusion that the two hardly-opposing sides are actually in opposition and encompass the only side to the subject matter.

Science is function based, meaning it doesn't explain anything in the terms that more spiritually minded people would wish. Rootless, fantastical spirituality which includes that of Christianity and many new-age spiritualties, is the supposed opposing side to the simple lack of it, which is the more fanatical of the scientific attitudes. For one of science to suggest that nothing can be explained, shows him to have a void persona - to be an actual honest nihilist. For one of science to suggest that scientific explanations can take the place of spiritual ones is a more duplicitous nihilist, just as those who believe in fantasy spiritualties are duplicitous nihilists.

 

Does anyone have a clear grasp of how to define Consciousness? Not really. I personally feel that Consciousness expresses itself via the instrument of the brain. Just because the right-brain is more creative even hypothetically, doesn't really mean proof that the brain creates Consciousness. There has to be some department that is reserved for creativity in the brain, whether the right-brain, left-brain argument is valid or not.

The article may use this as a map of analogy, but the real argument is about Rationalism/Realism/Materialism vs. Esotericism/Hermeticism.

 

Consciousness is the ability to internally represent external patterns.

 

It goes without saying that we all embrace Rationalism to an extent, by how much we are all on the internet, which requires a consistent approach in logic to have discussions such as this.

 

Yeah, and what's your point? The article is about how Rationalism has unhealthily dominated culture and collective consciousness for 400 years, not how we should completely obliterate Rationalism. Read the article, maybe?

 

I disagree that rationalism has unhealthily dominated our culture. It hasn't been dominating spiritual people. It really isn't of the nature of spiritual people to dominate or be dominated. So this whole issue of dominance seems to miss the point to me. Dominance and subjugation are of the rational side, and to be bitter about them is to betray your spiritual side.

Rationalism is just like an angry boss who walks into the wrong office and begins barking out orders. The boss is oblivious, and the workers laugh at him.

 

Well we can agree to disagree here. I feel that a lot of the problems in society stem from the obsession with Rationality and Materialism.

 

There wasn't any underlying point then what I explicitly mentioned. :unsure: I guess if I am trying to elaborate that there is nuances in these things which pitting them against one another is Not Productive in the least.

 

I would agree. They should work together, though this has not been the case. Hermeticism/Esotericism isn't even viewed by the majority of people to be valid, real, etc., and many are even unaware of its existence, as it is not taught in modern education (though, this was not always the case). This is because of the Consciousness Wars being talked about in the article. Science has done a solid job attempting to eliminate Esotericism in the last few centuries, but has never been 100 percent successful.

There is an interesting and definite triangle interplay between Science, Esotericism, and Religion. They all have slightly different opinions about the others, but I can say that Science's agenda has been to lump Esotericism in with Religion as heretical nonsense superstition in the Age of Reason of the last few hundred years.

 

Yeah, where do they get these people right? Neuroanatomist? What kind of a made up title is that? It doesn't even sound scientific. And what is this about her publishing peer reviewed papers? Who cares what her peers think, right? Oh---and she is real sneaky about that religion---you have to read almost that whole book---stroke of genius before she starts sneaking that in...

I mainly mentioned her name so that if you have a stroke, that you can personally request that none of her research, papers, and suggestions goes into the care the doctors provide you.

And what about all that entanglement B.S., right? I mean, who cares that what most people don't understand is that the spins of the two entangled particles are opposite, and that it is a reversal, opposite the other particle, which brings into question the actual impact of the measuring device on the particle, because after all pseudo-science is pseudo-science. If there was real science behind it then obviously real laboratories would spend real time and money studying it----instead all these airy fairy pseudo-science types make up laboratories where this phoney baloney mumbo jumbo research takes place. For example, who ever heard of Bell Laboratories------sounds made up to me, right?

If we don't keep our minds closed to all this spooky science, it will never progress forward, right? Closed minds-----that's the key.

On a more serious note---yes what I shared is anecdotal----I will tell my stepdaughter that she is nothing more than an anecdote. But you don't know me, and you know none of the people I write about. If you wanted something documented, there are some here and there. If you google Wallace Black Elk, Rockefeller healing, you may find a news story from the Rocky Mountain News or Denver Post---It was done at Denver General Hospital---one of the children of the Rockefellers was diagnosed with a fatal incurable illness----they had Wallace heal it. Albert Einstein called Wallace the only true teacher he ever knew. There is a book by a doctor who worked for Indian Health Services and documented Native healings----the book is The Dancing Healers------but then he was Jewish and predisposed to religion anyway----so once again, what kind of credentials could he possibly have...

The people that I know that have been healed don't really care what you think, so we can leace it at that.




It doesn't really matter----If you get seriously ill with cancer, for example, you are certainly welcome to fill your body with poisons at a huge monetary cost. I believe that part of the success of the Native healing is belief, so you might as well not even waste your time.