What Is Consciousness?

[nailit]

A sort of carry over from my "question for naomi" thread.
Have been reading the tale end of that debate (with a lot of interest) between naomi and others regarding energy and whether it can survive death. It seems to me that at times there might be some conflict as to what we mean by 'energy'. If we replace the word energy with consciousness then the debate makes a bit more sense....to me anyhow. The question then becomes can consciousness survive (in whatever shape or form). It then begs the question,
what exactly is consciousness?
From everything ive read, it appears to be one of the big questions, as science , as yet, has no idea exactly what consciousness is or how it arises.
Just curious, how do we define consciousness and what is it?
Thanks

[naomi24]

Jim, //This probably means that the nature of electrons, among other known particles, is after all very relevant to the discussion.//

I’m sorely tempted to say ‘groan’, but I won’t.

//Anyone speculating on whether consciousness is a bnew form of energy should accept that this would imply that over time it will dissipate as heat and lose information and coherence. So at the very least that is not exactly the right way to think about it. //

No, they shouldn’t accept that because it’s not a ‘known’ and you don't know which is the 'right' way to think about it. Still, you are speculating, so I can’t complain. ;o)

[Old_Geezer]

If folk who claim to have been abducted by aliens return to us and tell us something they could not possibly have known through 'normal means' and which proves to be true then maybe we should take them seriously.

[jomifl]

/Until you know differently, you are not qualified to tell them they’re nuts./
Until they are able to demonstrate that what they think they see is other than a mental processing error then I think it is safe to assume that they are at least mistaken in their interpretation of what they ckaim to have experienced.
/No, once the 'socket' is switched off nothing more is produced, but that which has been produced still exists./
No evidence of that at all, it is an assuption too far on your part. You can have an eddy in a stream, once the stream has stopped flowing the eddy vanishes...forever.

[jim360]

Why groan? the argument deserves mkre than that. We can apparently see these things. That means photons. That means Quantum electrodynamics. That means current technology and physics will be very useful in understanding this. Groaning won't change that. Flat contradiction won't either.

[Khandro]

jomifl; //once the stream has stopped flowing the eddy vanishes...forever.//
Nothing is forever grasshopper :0)

[jomifl]

Khandro, /Nothing is forever grasshopper :0) /
did you mean to be that profound?

[Khandro]

^Well, take my standing wave, (of which you know). It is formed by an oblong rock lying across the river-bed, near my house. When the river is at its most usual height, about 2 to 3 feet, it exists due to the flow turning back on itself. When the level drops or rises it's no longer visible, but returns when the depth gets back to normal. Where was it, Isn't it, like your eddy, always potentially there?

[naomi24]

Jom, a mental processing error, if indeed every account can be attributed to that, is not necessarily a problem that requires the services of psychiatrist.

The eddy is a poor analogy. Of course the eddy vanishes forever once the stream stops flowing, but it doesn’t follow that the energy (there’s that word again!) involved vanishes forever.

Jim, //That means current technology and physics will be very useful in understanding this.//

I’ve been saying that all along – and I groan because your arguments are disjointed and inconsistent. I get the impression you’re bouncing off walls. You’ve jumped from //The question is really not if some form of "energy" can survive death -- I hinted earlier that the answer to this is "yes, but only in a trivial sense" but whether any coherent structure capable of carrying information can. And the evidence for the answer to that being "yes" also is currently scant or even non-existent.//

to:

//We can apparently see these things. That means photons. That means Quantum electrodynamics.//

Make your mind up.

[jim360]

If you think that those are two different statements then you're mistaken. They are two aspects of the same position.

[naomi24]

Really? And there's me thinking I'm pretty good at English.

[jomifl]

A couple of points Khandro, the first is that it could be argued that when the flow restarts a new standing wave develops or it could be argued that the same standing wave returns. If by 'standing wave' we mean the pattern then it is the same pattern as before given that the consituents of the standind wave are never the same.
Im not sure that you understand what a standing wave is when you use an expression like 'due to the flow turning back on itself'. Are you sure that that is what you meant?

[jim360]

Yes, really.

[jomifl]

Naomi, the eddy is in fact a good analogy, the energy of the flow sustains the eddy just as the chemical energy in the brain sustains the patterns of connections in the living cells of the brain. When the water stops flowing the eddy vanishes as there is no kinetic ernergy to sustain it. When brain cells die they cannot function as part of the network of connections so the network fails. The only difference between the two cases is that the eddy can be revived, but once the brain cells are dead they undergo irreversible changes which prevent their functioning.

[naomi24]

Jim, In that case you have a problem with your English.

Jom, No one has suggested that a dead brain continues to function.

[jim360]

That may be your opinion Naomi but I don't share it and nor do most people I talk with. Once again, keep opinions like that to yourself. I've asked that several times before, and you don't seem to pay any attention. Leave personal comments out of it.

[naomi24]

Oh, good grief!! Your posts read as two different statements saying two different things, and if you think they don't I suggest you read them again. Pick your bottom lip up!!

[jim360]

No, they don't read as two different things. If you like you could explain why you think they do, and I'd be happy to try to clarify, but my position throughout this thread hasn't changed.

[naomi24]

Jim, clearly my observations aren't well-received, so no, I wouldn't dream of it. You carry on.

[Hypognosis]

naomi
//
Jom, //Why would anybody consider that consciousness can exist without a living brain of some sort. //

Because people claim to see or experience things that they can only associate with the consciousness of someone who has died.
//

But everyone who dies leaves behind the memory of them in other people's brains. and the ghosts witnessed coincidentally are of deceased relatives on a vast majority of occasions.

Contrast this with experiencing dreams featuring people who, on waking, you have no idea of who they are, which I get a lot.

[jim360]

No I'm afraid they aren't well-received. But then my observations about you don't appear to be that well-received either. I think the fairest thing would be for me to stop making them also.