• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

How do YOU define consciousness?

Forums New posts
Consciousness is the state of being aware of ones self and environment, and the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that this state as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex normally functioning processor/sensor system. In humans this system consists of our brains and bodies, our bodies carrying our sensors and processors together as an integrated self-regulating, maintaining, and reproducing organism. In further discussion I'll refer to this simply as the brain/body system, and the presumption will be that it is normal and healthy. The presumption can also be made that the production of consciousness is not limited to biological constructs and could conceivably be attained by technology.

The article that is linked to above gets into the role of quantum level processes in brain function, and gets dangerously close to Quantum Mysticism. It raises a lot of interesting questions, but ultimately it still reinforces the idea that it's the brain/body system that is responsible for producing consciousness. I often use the light bulb analogy. If our brain is the light bulb, then our consciousness is the light. Consciousness is often equated with the concept of spirit, which in major forms of expression is often associated with light. In the light bulb analogy we also have the situation where the light is distinctly separate from the bulb itself, existing at some extended distance from it, and yet still inextricably linked to it while the bulb is in operation. This is analogous to the concept of duality, which I argue is inescapable, though not fully represented by any single philosophical model.
 
Last edited:
The Mind-Body problem is still a pretty big deal with philosophers. I think Kant has taken some stabs at it. Maybe Schophenhauer, I don't remember. I know Sartre' has a book on consciousness and the ego which covers this extensively.
 
No one honestly understands the answer to this question. It's beyond HUGE. Personally, I don't think consciousness is within us at all. I believe that we are cognitively "plugged" into the field of consciousness. This most likely comes from listening to too much Gary Newman, but hey, what can I say?
 
Jeff Davis said:
No one honestly understands the answer to this question. It's beyond HUGE.
Click to expand...
I think the complexity has been exaggerated so often that the notion of incomprehensibility has become an accepted belief. I lean more toward Kurzweil's view in his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines". If we allow it to happen, it's just a matter of time before someone puts the right parts and programming together, and after that it's only a matter of time before our own consciousness pales in comparison to that of machines. It's probably the most frightening of possible futures, while at the same time holding the most promise.
Personally, I don't think consciousness is within us at all. I believe that we are cognitively "plugged" into the field of consciousness. This most likely comes from listening to too much Gary Newman, but hey, what can I say?
Click to expand...
Are you sure you don't mean Gary Numan? Because listening to too much of that could conceivably have unforeseen consequences ;) .
 
ufology said:
I think the complexity has been exaggerated so often that the notion of incomprehensibility has become an accepted belief. I lean more toward Kurzweil's view in his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines". If we allow it to happen, it's just a matter of time before someone puts the right parts and programming together, and after that it's only a matter of time before our own consciousness pales in comparison to that of machines. It's probably the most frightening of possible futures, while at the same time holding the most promise.

Are you sure you don't mean Gary Numan? Because listening to too much of that could conceivably have unforeseen consequences ;) .
Click to expand...

...ah so true, *(insert oops here!), and an exhausting affair this week has been! Thanks and my apologies to Gary Numan who's Tubeway Army records were a direct influence on my ever twisted younger days. The whole "plugged into consciousness" school of thought brought two simultaneous Numan tunes to mind. Both of which I am truly enamored by. Are friends Electric, and the incredible, Me! I Disconnect From You. Some of Numan's newer discs have been just excellent as well. But, incredibly dark. I like that from time to time.

On the former, I am certain in a "lets explore consciousness" fashion sense, you are very correct, unfortunately. It's almost a clear reflection of the ever present, stigmatic social entropy process in full bloom, but I'm not going there now. However, parting company with a biased, unqualified, or possibly even a "spiritually enlightened pathway", the realm of consciousness is assuredly being addressed in what are far and away respectable channels of research based testing and institutional interest.

As a lay person myself that really enjoys exploring in hypothetical speculative thought, the notions of theoretical consciousness modeling, much like I do UFOs, but not nearly for as long, I recommend the fascinatingly consistent Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point. I would genuinely love to have Gene and Chris interview Alex with respect to his cutting edge cannon of interests which he articulates pretty darn well.

*(just not the one that this forum currently offers cause it looks like some gal that's getting her skirt up on a windy day!)

Kurzweil: Over Rated. Pappy Created. Genius/Somewhat. Big Buzz Daddy Right Now, red (sic) the headlines. I'm thinking you could reverse that initial descriptive order and almost see the prophetic entropy in action. Oh, I forgot to tell you, I'm feeling a little dark today. :rolleyes:

But, it's all good. I like Ray for entirely different reasons than those brought to mind by the S word. He understands the relevant value of supplemental nutrition. I believe he's whipped the big C several times now. To me, that makes him a hero, and me possibly an idiot.
 
Jeff Davis said:
... But, it's all good. I like Ray for entirely different reasons than those brought to mind by the S word. He understands the relevant value of supplemental nutrition. I believe he's whipped the big C several times now. To me, that makes him a hero, and me possibly an idiot.
Click to expand...
You're obviously no idiot, that's for sure, and it's true that Kurzweil is a bit overrated, but less overrated on his book content than on his presentations, which IMO tend to drag. Last time I saw a video with him it looked like he'd made a serious comeback in his health. His hair even looked like it was coming back! So I'll try to remember to take my supplements more regularly :) .
 
MikeMic said:
The Mind-Body problem is still a pretty big deal with philosophers. I think Kant has taken some stabs at it. Maybe Schophenhauer, I don't remember. I know Sartre' has a book on consciousness and the ego which covers this extensively.
Click to expand...
Indeed. There are those who would like to do away with dualism altogether. Why do you think it bothers them so much?
 
ufology said:
Here's a link to someone else who is peripherally interested in UFOs and has put a lot of thought into his armchair philosophy:
Comments anyone?
Click to expand...

Bruce is an amazing man in my humble little opinion. :rolleyes: Certainly THEE man that got me considering Quantum Mechanics and just so many over the top cutting edge scientific goodness. I aspire to the likes of the big D.

Haven't read him in ages however and appreciate the reminder as I'm long overdue! Hence my interest in matters Paracast, which frankly IMO, is more a relative indicator of the PC's unbiased globular investigative approach to the paranormal, rather than one that formerly provided a mere grain of sand on the beach of the paranormal by comparison. But honestly, I couldn't give any other low profile, high stature, speculative and non dismissively skeptical friend of the paranormal based perspective in question, a higher recommendation.

In fact, I would go as far as to state that I am thankful for his influence on my speculative thoughts. Good guy and smarter than he ought to be. :D
 
Last edited:
Found this a interesting subject regards define consciousness and the interaction of electrons within the brain. What does our mind pick up on other folks waves of fear , desire and joyfulness just like in the animal kingdom. Does it leave a footprint of consciousness for others to pick and does it infect of thoughts towards others for example while I visited a friend who is very ill and dyeing in a elderly home and notice the feeling of sadness and then joyfulness when looking at some folks who are spending last few months. Does our brain pick up on high energy of mass death and fear. Dying is not a scary thing one person told me but leaving folks behind is more hard who was very ill. He said the visitors of loved ones who had died before and were coming to see him and others. I spoke to a nurse who said this was a common thing which was not regular spoken but they never ridicule by those in charge. This begs question why does some parts of society ridicule some aspects of the theory consciousness and even it part in the paranormal? but when folks are dyeing it seems to be more tolerated ?? Also consciousness is it in charge or the results of other mechanisms around the body?
 
Last edited:
blowfish said:
Also consciousness is it in charge or the results of other mechanisms around the body?
Click to expand...
A very good question. If we accept that consciousness = conscious awareness of ourselves and our surroundings, then it turns out that virtually all our decisions are made before we become conscious of them. This has been proven through brain scans. It's also perfectly logical. Individual thoughts require the reaction of millions of neurons, and that doesn't happen simultaneously. It all starts somewhere with just a very few and then branches out rapidly and at some point is complex enough to generate the moment of awareness we interpret as thought and consciousness. Prior to that we're not aware of what is taking place. So in a sense, we're not consciously making any decisions. They're all reflections of subconscious processes that give the illusion that we're in charge of making conscious decisions. It's a very convincing illusion mind you. So convincing that most people either refuse to believe it, or simply ignore it.
 
Most philosophical problems have a way of looping back around to the mind-body problem. The process by which consciousness is created and maintained may be better understood over time. But I doubt it can ever be resolved in a complete reductionist way. We may eventually know a great deal about the mechanistic process by which we are conscious (quantum is a wildcard here) and not answer the question consciousness asks itself as to "how is it that I am conscious?"

There is also the much discussed issue of whether consciousness is substrate dependent. I think it's quite tempting to analogize the human brain as a binary computer, in which case consciousness and self-awareness are theoretically reducible to complex algorithms. About this, I am also doubtful. But the bottom line is that we just don't know. If nothing else, the quest for AI and an understanding of self-awareness in humans have increasingly come to see consciousness as something inextricably entwined and dependent upon a real-time external reality. The hypothesized locus of self-awareness has shifted somewhat over the years (as imaging techniques have improved) from residing solely in higher centers of the brain, to a less localized kind of feedback loop between the lowest and highest centers of the brain. In other words, a constant interplay between body and mind.

I could be totally full of it on this matter. But I can't help but think of the universe as conscious and our individuated self-awareness as analogous to temporary eddies in a much larger stream. And this idea is probably as old as consciousness itself.
----
ADD: Stuart Hameroff is an interesting person, BTW. Pulling up one of his video presentations is quite worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
... I could be totally full of it on this matter. But I can't help but think of the universe as conscious and our individuated self-awareness as analogous to temporary eddies in a much larger stream. And this idea is probably as old as consciousness itself.
Click to expand...

That was an excellent post. Also the universe is conscious and we're the proof. On the scale of the universe however, I'm skeptical about it being a conscious entity unto itself. I think if it were the case that the realm itself was an independent consciousness, then we'd see unmistakable evidence of it. Instead, the best explanation so far IMO for the existence of our realm is that it's little more than a vastly powerful processing system that has no more consciousness than a calculator. I think that consciousness requires more than sheer processing power. In fact I suspect that processing power is probably overrated and that as you suggested, it's the right combination of looping sensory input intelligent analysis and action in real-time that gives rise to consciousness.
 
Last edited:
If I am understanding him correctly, what Boomerang stated at the end of his excellent post, posits the notion that there may be an interactive two party relationship between individuated awareness, and a field of reference in which the prior is integrally localized. The relationship resulting in a temporary material/physical experience co-dependent on one another. Is this correct?
 
Jeff Davis said:
If I am understanding him correctly, what Boomerang stated at the end of his excellent post, posits the notion that there may be an interactive two party relationship between individuated awareness, and a field of reference in which the prior is integrally localized. The relationship resulting in a temporary material/physical experience co-dependent on one another. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
It's probably better for Boomer ( @boomerang ) to answer that one, as I suspect he meant something similar but not quite like that.
 
Jeff Davis said:
If I am understanding him correctly, what Boomerang stated at the end of his excellent post, posits the notion that there may be an interactive two party relationship between individuated awareness, and a field of reference in which the prior is integrally localized. The relationship resulting in a temporary material/physical experience co-dependent on one another. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

JD, I think you actually stated the hypothesis in clearer language than I did. I picture it as a kind of resonance between mind (actuated information) and matter. And, as ufology suggests, this would by implication make the universe itself conscious.

One of the big gun physicists (Bohr, Wheeler?) said that a human being is just an atom's way of looking at itself. It makes a kind of fuzzy sense.
 
boomerang said:
JD, I think you actually stated the hypothesis in clearer language than I did. I picture it as a kind of resonance between mind (actuated information) and matter. And, as ufology suggests, this would by implication make the universe itself conscious.

*One of the big gun physicists (Bohr, Wheeler?) said that a human being is just an atom's way of looking at itself. It makes a kind of fuzzy sense.
Click to expand...

This is VERY similar to what I imagine the case to be. Because consciousness seems to constructively interact with atomic materials based on human observation, our visitors in the UFOs may not be subject to the same material relationship constraints that we ourselves are. Another furthered hypothesis would be that their technology allows them to artificially interact with this environment's native consciousness/material entrainment construct whereby they navigate our indigenous environment via a technological facilitation that adaptively translates the material/consciousness interfacial relationship of our environment in order for their UFOs to navigate within.

*Yes, I have attempted in times past to state that same thing by using a ridiculous vampire analogy. In short, atom's have no reflection unless we are there to observe as much.
 
Jeff Davis said:
This is VERY similar to what I imagine the case to be. Because consciousness seems to constructively interact with atomic materials based on human observation, our visitors in the UFOs may not be subject to the same material relationship constraints that we ourselves are ... *Yes, I have attempted in times past to state that same thing by using a ridiculous vampire analogy. In short, atom's have no reflection unless we are there to observe as much.
Click to expand...
What you are talking about with respect to observation doesn't actually have anything to do with consciousness. It's the introduction of a measuring system that affects the experiment, which is to be expected, especially when dealing with individual quanta ( duh ).
 
Back
Top