Consciousness: A Symptom of the Soul?

[Neemai]

Consciousness cannot be denied. A body without consciousness is a dead body. As soon as consciousness is removed from the body, the mouth will not speak, the eye will not see, nor the ears hear. A child can understand that. It is a fact that consciousness is absolutely necessary for the animation of the body, but what is this consciousness? Just as heat or smoke are symptoms of fire, so is consciousness a symptom of the soul? Is it infact, consciousness, that proves that the soul is present?

This body is not like a machine. When a part of a machine breaks down, it can be replaced, and the machine will work again, but when the body breaks down and consciousness leaves the body for a siginificant period of time, there is no possibility of our replacing the broken part and rejuvenating the consciousness.

Because we cannot perceive the soul by our gross senses, we may deny it. Actually there are so many things that are there which we cannot see. We cannot see air, radio waves, or sound, nor can we perceive minute bacteria with our blunt senses, but this does not mean they are not there. By the aid of the microscope and other instruments, many things can be perceived which had previously been denied by the imperfect senses. Just because the soul has not been perceived yet by senses or instruments, should we conclude that it is not there? Or can it be perceived by its symptoms and effects?


... Neemai

 

[Dondi]

What happens when we sleep? Are we still conscious? Maybe in our dreams, but for much of the night, we are oblivious to our surroundings and our senses, aren't we?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you Neemai for posing such a profound question. One that I have returned to many times down the years.

The body is a machine in many respects but differs in that its principle component -the brain- undergoes irreversible rapid decay after only a few short minutes of oxygen starvation. I think it now incontrovertible fact that the brain is the seat of conciousness. Conciousness seems to be held as a weak electrical field within the brain rather than written into the physical structure so that brain death effectively wipes clean or erases the program that is our individual personalities. Basicly as the field dissipates it is lost forever. The science fiction genre is rich in stories of how this field can be read and copied into computers and I think one day we will take this huge leap.

My next level of thought on this subject is how isolated are our individual fields. As you may or may not have gathered I am a weak advocate of Gaia Theory. Part of my thinking down these lines is that Earth has its own singular life force or field to which all of our individual fields are connected using the same type of weak electrical signal. That the super-organism Gaia is constantly collecting and processing all the information that all the individual organisms on earth gather through their lifetimes. So in a sense our conciousness is not altogether lost in brain death but rather assimilated into the conciousness of a much more expansive mind. I believe that a good theory for this universal sense of God that mankind has always had is our semi-concious awareness of this greater mind within which we live out our brief lives.

Gaia does not have a compassion for nor a desire to restore units that have become damaged and so there is no mechanism in place to restore conciousness once a field has dissipated. Gaia works on the principle of numbers and any individual is expendable and on death is recycled to create new units. What we call soul, as opposed to conciousness, is our sense of connection to the greater life force of Gaia. Or so I tend to think in my own thoughts.

Kind regards

Tao

 

[Ciel]

My next level of thought on this subject is how isolated are our individual fields. As you may or may not have gathered I am a weak advocate of Gaia Theory. Part of my thinking down these lines is that Earth has its own singular life force or field to which all of our individual fields are connected using the same type of weak electrical signal. That the super-organism Gaia is constantly collecting and processing all the information that all the individual organisms on earth gather through their lifetimes. So in a sense our conciousness is not altogether lost in brain death but rather assimilated into the conciousness of a much more expansive mind. I believe that a good theory for this universal sense of God that mankind has always had is our semi-concious awareness of this greater mind within which we live out our brief lives.

Tao,
It is even possible to see these fields with a trained eye. They are as a vast
hexagonal framework in ever changing colours. They stand alone as great networks stretching far and wide, they are also part of everything existing
on this planet in smaller scale. I only wish I could show you proof, I see your own observations very close to truth.

- c -

 

[Neemai]

Thankyou to everyone for sharing your thoughts.

What happens when we sleep? Are we still conscious? Maybe in our dreams, but for much of the night, we are oblivious to our surroundings and our senses, aren't we?

Hello Dondi, I was actually thinking this very thought a few hours ago after taking a short nap. Is it really that we are unconscious, or is it just that we don't remember what was going on when we were asleep? Upon waking suddenly I could remember that just moments ago I was thinking of something (when sleeping), but once physically awake all these thoughts practically vanished from my memory (although not enough to vanish completely)?

Conciousness seems to be held as a weak electrical field within the brain rather than written into the physical structure so that brain death effectively wipes clean or erases the program that is our individual personalities. Basicly as the field dissipates it is lost forever. The science fiction genre is rich in stories of how this field can be read and copied into computers and I think one day we will take this huge leap.

In reply to Tao - the problem I have with the science fiction stories is this:

If we take a calculator for example, not many of us would give the argument that a calculator is conscious? So if we have 20 calculators all rigged together then are they any more conscious? Now if we put many thousands of calculators together in a network (i.e a computer) then is it really any more conscious than the original calculator? Even if we get billions and billions of calculating devices, still does this equal consciousness?

On the flip side if we take a living being, then no matter how simple it may be then there is still some evidence of consciousness within it, which could not be fully simulated by a computer. For example if we look at an amoeba or bacteria and study it in depth - it is still making decisions, and moving around, performing some kind of reproduction, eating something, defending itself, and then ultimately dying. But I would argue that to an extent it is a 'something' experiencing the world through the body of an amoeba, not that the body is it's all in all?

The question seems to come down to this one - is consciousness a product of material elements, or is it something else entirely? If a computer could become "conscious" then the answer would be solved - but that would then mean that all living beings are really no more then complicated organic computers without any ability to make independent decisions (we all simply follow genetic programming and respond to external stimulae). A viewpoint I really wouldn't want ever to subscribe to?

My next level of thought on this subject is how isolated are our individual fields. As you may or may not have gathered I am a weak advocate of Gaia Theory.

I don't know very much of Gaia Theory, except for details picked up in popular culture. Would you say it was something similar to the concept of 'Brahman' in Hinduism, or is that an over-simple comparison? That's what sprang to mind when reading your description.


... Neemai

 

[LeoSalinas22]

my take is that the Spirit is stored in the brain and that the brain serves as an antennea of sorts to connect us to God. since we sleep our minds are more "open" to communication from and to God. that is why we dream. another thing that always gets me is how insects have a collective mind and always have one singular goal. then there are the antenaes themselves. what are they for? they don't have vocal cords so how the heck do they communicate? so to me an antenea is for the insect as a brain is to man. just my thoughts.

 

[Snoopy]

I've posted this link before, but it's relevant to the thread here, as it's about the nature of consciousness and our connection to each other...even after death...

A loopy way to look at life and love -Times Online


s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Ty Neemai

In reply to Tao - the problem I have with the science fiction stories is this:

If we take a calculator for example, not many of us would give the argument that a calculator is conscious? So if we have 20 calculators all rigged together then are they any more conscious? Now if we put many thousands of calculators together in a network (i.e a computer) then is it really any more conscious than the original calculator? Even if we get billions and billions of calculating devices, still does this equal consciousness?

On the flip side if we take a living being, then no matter how simple it may be then there is still some evidence of consciousness within it, which could not be fully simulated by a computer. For example if we look at an amoeba or bacteria and study it in depth - it is still making decisions, and moving around, performing some kind of reproduction, eating something, defending itself, and then ultimately dying. But I would argue that to an extent it is a 'something' experiencing the world through the body of an amoeba, not that the body is it's all in all?

The question seems to come down to this one - is consciousness a product of material elements, or is it something else entirely? If a computer could become "conscious" then the answer would be solved - but that would then mean that all living beings are really no more then complicated organic computers without any ability to make independent decisions (we all simply follow genetic programming and respond to external stimulae). A viewpoint I really wouldn't want ever to subscribe to?

The trouble with man, and especially his religions, is that they are all so chronically anthropocentric. Conciousness, intelligence, soul and divinity are all measured or defined by applying our experience to the universe. This is so egotistical. It is like nobody can accept that we only have a tiny bit part. We think therefore we must be important!! But that is just nonsense. In a sense yes we are just biological machines. But what is wrong with that? Could not God just be a creation machine? I do not need religion because I am entirely comfortable in the knowledge that I am totally insignificant, but no less insignificant than anything else. Religion almost invariably becomes a value scale, a way to seek elevation or be closer to the concept of a single creator. But truth is if there ever was a single creator the processes of natural delegation we can see as the laws of physics take us beyond "His" sight. We function as little cogs in the machine that are easily replaced when worn out. A function that is completely automated and we call reproduction. I think people seek to believe in some 'special relationship' because in some sense we all want to feel like it meant something. And it does. Its just that its not important as we would like it to be in our egotistical angst.

I don't know very much of Gaia Theory, except for details picked up in popular culture. Would you say it was something similar to the concept of 'Brahman' in Hinduism, or is that an over-simple comparison? That's what sprang to mind when reading your description.

... Neemai

No, Gaia is much more localised than Brahman. Brahman is much more closely associated to my thoughts on Zero Point Field ideas of which I am quite fond. If you wish you can see more on my thoughts on that subject in the science forum in the thread Zero Point Musings.

Regards

Tao

 

[Thomas]

Hi Neemai and all - wonderful thread.

Just as heat or smoke are symptoms of fire, so is consciousness a symptom of the soul? Is it infact, consciousness, that proves that the soul is present?

I think Aristotle (or Socrates) said 'the soul is all that it knows'.

I would say, provisionally, 'yes' — provisionally being that 'consciousness' does not define the soul nor, consequently, the human being.

This is an interesting moral point. The Catholic take on the refusal to accept abortion is that the argument is based on consciousness — and we say because the foetus is not conscious, that does not mean it is not a human being.

Likewise turning off respirators — because there is no sign of consciousness, that does not mean the person has ceased to be human.

Don't really want to pursue it, just threw it in there as a view.

+++

OK — Thomas in personal speculation mode now —
In the subtle realms, I once drew a 'hierarchy of ghosts' — some ghosts are not conscious, they exist as like 'recordings' that are embedded in the fabric of a place. Often the previous occupants of a building can be sensed long after they've physically gone (don't have to be dead, but it does alter things). They range from a 'sense of something' to 'did you see that?' — but they don't interact.

Friends of ours (very alternative) told us they privately thought we'd made a huge mistake when we bought our house because the previous occupants had been there over 25 years and there was a very dense and dull atmosphere they thought we couldn't shift ... we show'd em!

More 'souped up' forms can possess consciousness, ie they can see/sense you, and some can communicate ... this is what I personally call a 'presence'.

Are all angels conscious? I don't think so ... but the higher echelons are, and would have to be to act as messengers.

+++

Dondi:

When we sleep, consciousness enters a different mode. Parts of you remain conscious (your organs continue to function, hopefully!). But also it's a case of what you're conscious of — so parts of you that are conscious remain active, but even awake you're not aware of them ... complex thing, the human.

Tao —

So much to talk about there. And I agree, largely. I do wonder if 'person is above planet' in that the planet does not possess conscious person-hood (nor need she) so our experience goes into the pot, as it were, but not 'us' ...

I heard a prof. talking about Quantum Physics and the 'missing piece' of the jigsaw ... he seemed to think the answer would involve consciousness somewhere along the way.

Ciel —

I am not a see-er but a sense-er. In my Hermetic days I mixed with quite a few seers and could hold my own with them with descriptions of things I could not see but they could. (I even got a psychology description of why I'm like that.)

My aura 'wash and brush up' was, apparently, 'something you gotta see' — most people treat touching the aura like a religious experience. I regard it as perfectly natural, so used to go at it with vigour to energise the recipient, remembering that apparently flailing about in close proximity to someone new to all this nonsense can be a tad unnerving. But they did the trick, apparently.

The only time I've ever seen anything was in a very Catholic context ... and I subsequently discovered that others had seen the same thing as I. Life is full of surprises, isn't it?

+++

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao,
It is even possible to see these fields with a trained eye. They are as a vast
hexagonal framework in ever changing colours. They stand alone as great networks stretching far and wide, they are also part of everything existing
on this planet in smaller scale. I only wish I could show you proof, I see your own observations very close to truth.

- c -

Well I am reluctant to cite what I have seen under the influence of certain powerful alkaloids as proof but I have seen this framework of which you speak. I have also seen the auras of trees and sensed their ponderous awareness too. Let me say that I took these natural alkaloids in mushrooms at age 12 and 13, completely ignorant of the effects they would have and without any preconceptions of what I would experience. It would be another year before I first got drunk even. Maybe, when I stop to reflect, they had a profound influence in opening my mind to how limited our senses are, and of how much around us we simply never see. Even now I can see peoples auras at will, however I usually have this mode suppressed. And I am not entirely convinced it is not an artefact of biological vision. but I do not discount it as our individual field either. I have never made the attempt to study aura reading.
One thing I saw on some nature program many years ago was a visual interpretation of how cats see. This was almost identical to my alkaloid induced vision. And as I understand the science of it these alkaloids act to stop an information suppressant being produced in the brain, they allow our brains to see more. They do not work to create something that is not there. Sometimes, particularly on cold dark nights far from the energy field in a city, I can get the same vision without any substance. The gossamer fluorescence of ever changing patterns and colour are emitted especially well by plants of all kinds and even in pitch black allow me to follow a path. I have been in the city so long now i had almost forgotten.

Tao

 

[Snoopy]

In Buddhist terminology, consciousness is one of the five “aggregates”: form, feeling, perception, and volitional formation being the other four. (There are six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness.)

Soul, of course, doesn’t get a look in.

s.

 

[Ciel]

Thanks Tao,

Regarding auras, well I used to see many things, including holographic changing images, but these days I much prefer to see people as whole and complete to themselves. The hidden identity person thing created too many complications in relating. I now enjoy the company of others as human beings and to be in the moment without relating, just being, a turn around in simplicity, and maybe some consider I to be strange because they can't fathom me, just not complex enough....it seems that was all part of the great journey discovering the be all and end all, taking the world apart, disecting the ultimate and then once more to become whole again..... so many stories, it is a relief to once more be in the world and not feel so seperate.
Yet the beauty of more at ease phenomenon continues as a visual outward expression, and the wonder, yes the wonder.........and it is as though a new soul refound including a perspective of a greater world soul......
All too much for one small post..............

- c -

 

[Ciel]

In Buddhist terminology, consciousness is one of the five “aggregates”: form, feeling, perception, and volitional formation being the other four. (There are six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness.)

Soul, of course, doesn’t get a look in.

s.

Snoopy,

It's all soul.

- c -

 

[Ciel]

My aura 'wash and brush up' was, apparently, 'something you gotta see' — most people treat touching the aura like a religious experience. I regard it as perfectly natural, so used to go at it with vigour to energise the recipient, remembering that apparently flailing about in close proximity to someone new to all this nonsense can be a tad unnerving. But they did the trick, apparently.

Thomas,

You just know I would have run a mile.

- c -

 

[Eudaimonist]

Consciousness cannot be denied.

Agreed. Consciousness is axiomatic. I couldn't even reply to your post if I was not conscious of it.

A body without consciousness is a dead body.

I don't see why that should be. What about people in comas? They still have a "vegetative" life.

Just as heat or smoke are symptoms of fire, so is consciousness a symptom of the soul? Is it infact, consciousness, that proves that the soul is present?

Why doesn't the existence of consciousness show simply that consciousness exists. What benefit is there to introducing additional concepts such as "soul"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seattlegal]

What does everyone think about the role of conscience in connection to soul?

 

[soma]

I feel pure consciousness is the highest point of the soul. It is similar to a mountain peak that has been hidden in the clouds, but when the sun melts the clouds away, the mountaintop receives the full light of the sun. Love burns away ignorance and illuminates the mind with unity and the presence of a pure consciousness that gives rise to a mind that is capable of seeing a totally new dimension. On the mountain peak of the soul one can see a new horizon in the clear, upper, rarefied air of pure consciousness where one is able to guide the mind’s activities in a new direction that one has never before known. In this way God gives the spiritual mind new instincts to prepare it to move in a new spiritual consciousness.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Consciousness cannot be denied. A body without consciousness is a dead body. As soon as consciousness is removed from the body, the mouth will not speak, the eye will not see, nor the ears hear. A child can understand that. It is a fact that consciousness is absolutely necessary for the animation of the body, but what is this consciousness? Just as heat or smoke are symptoms of fire, so is consciousness a symptom of the soul? Is it infact, consciousness, that proves that the soul is present?

This body is not like a machine. When a part of a machine breaks down, it can be replaced, and the machine will work again, but when the body breaks down and consciousness leaves the body for a siginificant period of time, there is no possibility of our replacing the broken part and rejuvenating the consciousness.

Because we cannot perceive the soul by our gross senses, we may deny it. Actually there are so many things that are there which we cannot see. We cannot see air, radio waves, or sound, nor can we perceive minute bacteria with our blunt senses, but this does not mean they are not there. By the aid of the microscope and other instruments, many things can be perceived which had previously been denied by the imperfect senses. Just because the soul has not been perceived yet by senses or instruments, should we conclude that it is not there? Or can it be perceived by its symptoms and effects?


... Neemai

OK, so...what exactly is a soul? Is it a thing, or is it a purely conceptual vehicle? How do we know that the human body and it's organically constructed brain aren't a necessary component in creating consciousness? I mean, is consciousness just the radio signal, or is it the combination of signal and organic receptor in one symbiotic process?

Chris

 

[soma]

If everything is pure consciousness, collective unconscious, or God then a power super-imposes a force over some of the pure consciousness, but it doesn't have the power to change it. This force is what hides from the individual consciousness that which connects it to the Whole or the Father, the pure consciousness. This super-imposition of the particular over the universal is the birth of the individual soul. If you take a cup of water from the ocean, the water in the cup is the same as the water in the ocean. There is no difference. The ocean is God the Father, pure consciousness, the Holy Ghost creates the cup, the soul and the water in the cup is the Son, individual consciousness. I used the Trinity to try tod describe the abstract.

 

[Thomas]

If you take a cup of water from the ocean, the water in the cup is the same as the water in the ocean. There is no difference. The ocean is God the Father, pure consciousness, the Holy Ghost creates the cup, the soul and the water in the cup is the Son, individual consciousness. I used the Trinity to try tod describe the abstract.

Steady, that is an anthropomorphisation — it assumes that 'consciousness' is all that God is — it determines God according to a human standard.

The fault in the argument is that the water in the cup and the ocean are the same substance, with the same nature.

The same cannot be said of God and man, different substance, different nature.

Thomas