|
Of course not! The fact that we have no proof one way would hardly
suggest that the other way is correct. That doesn't logically follow. However,
what it does do is leave open the possibility: Because there is no proof that
consciousness cannot persist beyond the context by which it was formed, it
remains possible that it does persist, in some form or other, as a cohesive
system. That is the only point I was making. I don't necessarily believe that it
does, frankly. But I see the possibility.
One example of a complex system maintaining its cohesion even after
detached from the context in which it formed would be a hurricane. In fact, a
lot of weather systems would fit that description.
Judith
Certainly we
have no proof that consciousness does not have that unique ability to persist
when separated from the context of its material substrate. But that, in
itself, does not logically lend any credence to the notion that it does have
that ability.
There is nothing
in what we do know about the qualities of consciousness that provide
any kind of evidence, or even suggestion, that consciousness can persist as
mentioned above. What precendents are you referring to? To my knowledge,
any complex systems which persist in different environments do so by
continuing their organization within their original material
substrate (basis); the organization of the system does not persist apart
from that.
To me, there is
also the basic question of whether "consciousness" is, in fact, anything more
than the behaviors associated with some system type(s). If so,
then it would not make sense for behaviors to persist apart from the
underlying causal system which generates them.
I leave it as an
open possibility that consciousness might be able to persist beyond bodily
embodiment. I simply see no evidence to support or even suggest it is the
case.
Regards,
Tim
Yes, but Tim, do we have proof that "the particular complex
system we call consciousness" DOESN'T have a unique ability "to persist when
separated from the context of its material substrate", as you put it? In
many ways, it behaves differently than other matter-based complex
systems do, so far as we are able to tell. There's a lot of room in
there for scientifically rigorous discovery that has nothing to do with
mysticism.
If you proceed from what we do know about human consciousness:
that it is unique in reality as far as we can discern, then why is it such a
leap to consider the possibility that it can retain its cohesion or achieve
some sort of metamorphosis that allows it to maintain its cohesion once
detached from the matter that gave rise to it? There are precedents for
complex systems that maintain cohesion after
disconnecting from the context which created the systems in the first place.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:03
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Death and
experience
My question
is: out of all the myriad complex systems in nature, on what
basis should we suspect that the particular complex system we call
"consciousness" has any unique ability to persist when separated from the
context of its material substrate?
As much as I
would dearly wish it to be so, I see no reason besides such wishes
that we have to suppose that consciousness occupies this unique
status.
Perhaps,
though, this is where we make the transition from scientific knowledge to
another form of knowledge: mysticism, which RR discussed in
the manuscript "The Limits of the Limits of Science".
Regards,
Tim
I just noticed that I neglected to include the note at the
end of the last post, on death and consciousness...
What I had intended to discuss was related to the fact that
one of my father's favorite things to do was point out what "nobody
knows" in many our various discussions. All my life, he did that;
talking in great depth about what some of the beliefs are and the
controversies, but pointing out not only what isn't known but how it
effects other things we THINK we know. There is often a domino effect
similar to what he discovered when he retraced the steps leading to the
current reductionist approach in mainstream science, only to discover
that some of those steps were poorly thought out.
Many of our discussions involved human
physiology. My father talked about the fact that human
bodies are able to perceive the proximity of other
human bodies in ways not related to our conscious perceptions. He cited
as one proof of this the well-documented fact that adult women living
together will entrain their menstrual cycles. "Nobody knows how that
happens," he said. He further said he had never heard
of anyone trying to study the phenomenon, not even in
Obstetrics or Gynecology. I asked why, and he said he presumed that
nobody thought it important enough to study. However, he pointed
out that the mechanism at work behind it could be very important,
indeed. How does one human body "read" another? How does it detect
something as subtle as an internal model (an anticipatory model,
incidentally) that controls timing of a menstrual cycle-- or
perhaps even just the timing of the menstrual cycle itself? Even more
fantastic, how and why does one body make changes in its own cycle
to begin to achieve simultaneity?! How many steps are there to achiving
a synchronous cycle? (I can attest to the fact that it really
does happen, from personal experience throughout my life.) Another
aspect to the phenomenon is that one woman's cycle seems to be "chosen"
as the dominant one, and her's doesn't deviate. Instead, all the others
will alter to match hers. So, how is this subtle but crucial complex
information being communicated, back and forth???? It is not connected
to volition. It is a completely independent mechanism from the conscious
mind! If medical science can answer these questions, it will be a
breakthrough on all kinds of other things that have so far eluded
researchers.
The reason I think this pertains to the question about
consciousness and whether the organization of that particular complex
system can persist after the death of a human being's body is
because the above example is a glimpse at the kinds of
things that we don't know about something so familiar as our own
bodies and minds. I can certainly be accused of watching too much Star
Trek in my life, but the fact that the example mentioned is not even
being studied raises huge credibility issues for me with regards to how
medical science approaches learning about human physiology. It doesn't
sound all that farfetched that there may be life forms that live off
ambient energy the way plants use sunlight to make sugar. If
consciousness is a stable complex system that only requires energy to
maintain its cohesion, then the metamorphosis from using visceral
sources to ambient sources isn't out of the realm of possibility to
me.
If it IS possible, then what sort of existence would that
be like? My only certainty on that subject is that it would be very
different from what life, as we experience it, is like. So much of our
knowledge of the universe is bounded by what our human perceptions are
capable of perceiving-- and how our senses perceive it.
Judith
|