[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Consciousness and death



John M.
 
This was something I discussed with my father, and something I have thought about a lot since he died. His opinion was non-commital except to point out that there are more things that science doesn't know about reality than things science DOES know. He believed that there are many aspects to living systems and complexity in general that science hasn't even detected yet, much less tried to study. Consciousness was one of those areas that science can't seem to even define and hasn't found any explanation for that he felt was reasonable. He believed consciousness is an emergent property of complexity in the brain, that is also a new complex system. He said that while consciousness is generated by the mind, which is generated by the brain which is generated by the body, etc; it is a cohesive complex system that has its own complexity-derived stability and energy patterns. He also said that there may be all sorts of dimensions that we are either not aware of or only barely aware of on non-conscious levels that we co-exist in, which current technologies don't reveal and no one is looking at them. [See note on this at the end of this message]
 
My own thoughts on this subject are that we cannot rule out the possibility that a complex system based on energy, such as consciousness, might react quite differently to the loss of what gave rise to it (like the death of the body) than other aspects of life. Energy has all sorts of behaviors that aren't always matter-based. Furthermore, energy changes form like a chameleon changes color. My ultimate hope is that consciousness may be the only part of a human life that is capable of continuing on in some form. I don't think it's the ghost and Mrs Muir kind of thing, alas. But I do think that the cohesiveness of that peculiar form of energy may simply transition from what depends on a visceral source to something that exists in some other way in the universe. One of the rules I've observed in the universe is that recycling is key! Nothing is ever wasted and whenever there are losses, there are also gains. I think emergent properties from complexity have unique behaviors that we are only beginning to take a look at.
 
Judith
 
----- Original Message -----
From: John M
To: ***
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Mycoplasma information?

Did RR develop a conclusion of death? Lately a friend wrote an article about "soul, that remains after death" (not a religious theory, he is an astronomer and did not identify an 'eternal soul') just the accumulated experience bothered him - as energy - how and where can it go when a person dies?
I have a different opinion (as always<G>) about the phenomenon of living, we call: dying. The living structure functions in its adjusted complexity, certain secondary failures are repaired, yet when some substantial component gets busted, the complexity does not function together anymore. Everything is there - almost - just some essential factor stepped out. Now the experience: it is not some sort of 'mental energy' as the reductionistic science imagines which can be accounted for in some 'equilibrium' inventory. It is a process of 'experiencing' in the atemporal mindfunction and the act of 'remembering' is not to scratch out a stored contraption which represents the past event, rather a 'second look' at it within the ever changing conditions of the world (and the brain). This accounts for 'forgetfulness' and 'shaping' of memories, unknown in computers, where the memory is frozen into matter. Erazing such frozen memory IS an energy-application, while the "inability to take a second look" is not.
 
I wonder how Rosen adjusted the idea of 'death'? also I would appreciate opinions to the question.  Please do not include the eternal soul which goes into heaven and plays the harp: it can be very boring after the first 30,000 years playing the same hymns.
 
Apologizing for the moribund question
 
John M