a question for MisterJingo!

[Donal]

Hi MisterJingo, you seem like the forum skeptic on here    so i'd thought i'd ask a question:

People argue that evidence suggests suggests the brain is only associated with consciousness, and that scientists have not proved that the brain creates consciousnes. What is your point of view on this matter?

[MisterJingo]

People argue that evidence suggests suggests the brain is only associated with consciousness, and that scientists have not proved that the brain creates consciousnes. What is your point of view on this matter?

I don't think this question has any simple answers (yet). Science has made no claims as to knowing everything about the brain. But it has shown correlations between brain areas and actions and traits which we perceive to make us human.
For example (I'm referencing from memory, but searching google should bring journals up etc into these subjects), techniques such as Magnetoencephalography (MEG) can detect the magnetic field created by even a single neuron firing. This has greatly extended our knowledge of memory and such areas as why we can only focus on one task/object at a time (I'd have to look up the exact terms, but it is to do with an area of the brain where sensory input is filtered, only the strongest input is allowed through and the rest is discarded – which produces the effect of our selective attention).
Other areas such as the discovery that everyone experiences something which is known as synaesthesia show us how creativity and even language are produced. Synaesthesia is a condition where 'sufferers' have mixed sensory interpretation. So they see numbers, or taste colours and sounds etc. It now looks like everyone has this condition, and it is an integral part of what we term creativity (the ability to mix sensations – language shows many examples of this); it also seems play a major role of our interpretation of spatial and temporal phenomenon, ability to manipulate numbers (mathematics), and even interpretation of sound.
It seems each of the above actions are aided by internal constructs which some people are actually aware of (those who can see the numbers and sounds etc) where for the rest of us, it is a mainly unconscious action. Such as our manipulation of numbers seems to be aided by an internal spatial construction which represents numbers in (spatial) comparison to each other. You can see signs of this in people not consciously aware of synaesthesia when they are doing difficult sums and seeming to move their finger about as if pointing at things which aren't there.
Even such things as people talking and using their hands demonstrate how the area of the brain which controls speech sounds and hand movements are close together, so people speak and use their hands due to this proximity. Yet such things are seen as simply 'human nature'.
An area I'm not even going to go into (but feel free to research) is how even slight damage to the brain can cause profound changes in personality and consciousness (And these damaged areas produce the same or very similar impairments in all injured people – and some animals). This huge body of research shows just how large a part our brain plays in determining who and what we are.

My point of mentioning the above is that near everything which we perceive which makes us 'human' or aware has a direct correlation to areas or actions of the brain – and we have only really just started on our search for consciousness.

Does consciousness exist independent of the brain? I really don't know. If it does, would it have any form or action which we would even remotely attribute as sentiency? What I mean by this is let's suppose for a moment consciousness has a greater reality than being brain induced. Who's to say it simply isn't shaped by the brain, and once the brain has gone, the self-awareness it helped form through the action of the brain doesn't disappear too.
Apart for pure belief, we don't have answers to these questions. Some people might be happy and content to fill their life with belief (and to be honest, that's their own right), but I am not.

I know the arguments regarding consciousness creating the brain, or damage affecting personality / consciousness via agreements made by souls before 'incarnation'. But to be honest, this line of argument at best is philosophy. It's simply something we cannot know right now.

Science will continue to refine and develop our knowledge, and perhaps at some point in the future we will understand the mechanics of consciousness.

Something which I often wonder about is how much of our mystical experience is actually the malfunctioning of a brain being forced to undertake operations it has not evolved to process. By this I mean the brain has evolved over millennia to its current point. Now it seems to have the ability to reflect on itself and its own nature. Pointing a mirror at a mirror sees an infinity erupt into existence, spiralling away in an almost fractal pattern. What happens when the self-awareness attempts to reflect on itself?
I just think there are too many questions to settle on any definitive view of reality, although I would be happy to take a bet that no religious, spiritual or scientific view of reality is correct as yet. I think 'reality' will turn out to be infinitely deeper and more bizarre than we currently can imagine.
Science is often seen as a competing discipline to religion and/or occult practices. But science itself is a system borne from these very practices and their attempts to understand ourselves and the world. It seems that now science is giving us answers which do not match how we want reality to be, most discard it or look scornfully upon it.


I guess ultimately it comes down to what you want and where you want to go. Personally, I see it infinitely easier to cuddle into a nice cosy belief system full of love, higher-selves watching over us, souls creating consensus realities (explaining away everything) and angels and Gods watching our every step.
The only problem I have with such belief systems is that they are just that, based on belief. People will attest to having had experiences which correlate this, yet other people have had experiences which prove that the universe is run by golden salamanders and grinning clockwork elves. People are too willing to believe the nicest or easiest option without giving thought to other interpretations of experience. But even giving thought to other possible interpretations isn't going to give us solid answers yet, as we simply don't know everything.
I actually see it more open minded to be sceptical in these undertakings than latching on to archaic belief systems created by the mind of uneducated man trying to make sense of the flashing and rumbling sounds in the sky, or the belief systems of the latest guru who speaks to 'aliens' through channelling. But I am fully aware the too much scepticism is as bad as too much blind belief.
There is also the problem of how dramatically belief affects our interpretation of experience. Some would say belief action changes reality, but from all I have seen and experienced, belief seems to simply alter our perception of what has happened, rather than altering what has actually happened (but even this can have profound effects on ones life).
I'm not sceptical for the sake of it, I hold scepticism as I really feel we don't have the answers or knowledge to say one view is right over another.

[mactombs]

I'm not sceptical for the sake of it, I hold scepticism as I really feel we don't have the answers or knowledge to say one view is right over another.

It's fine not to know. Is it even possible to know the absolute truth? Are we all just brains in a jar? How can you ever scientifically prove anything absolutely? You can't. No one can.

From all the above, to conclude from that the brain is the source of thought is very unscientific. (I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm just making my point). Dawkins likes to push that everyone is the sum of their genes. But genes are not always expressed. We haven't begun to find out what factors make certain genes express themselves.

The only problem I have with such belief systems is that they are just that, based on belief.

And you propose that doubt in the absence of absolute truth is a means by which to live - like choosing to be parapolegic as a mode of transportation (from Life of Pie)? Every single person that ever lived, lived by their belief systems. Everyone has uncertainty, that's a given, but to live your life that way?

Well, I could be wrong, so instead of moving forward, I'm just going to sit on the fence and watch existence go by. (Yeah, I did that not too long ago - I never got anywhere).

So we all have uncertainty. Some add scepticism to it, and all they have is doubt. Others add hope to it, and they have faith ... and it's true, some add wishfulness or other things and they have delusion. But you can't be so afraid of being wrong that you're never anything at all.

[blade5x]

My thoughts

If the brain gets damaged, it cannot process information the concious is sending it, or mis-interperets it, thus the wrong or no physical action results from certain thought. Speaking of thoughts, where do they come from? Neurons firing electric signals... what caused the neurons to fire in the first place? Uh... yeah

Think of it like if you've ever been highly drunk. You're still concious of what your doing (unless you're really wasted), but you just can't help but to act stupid.

[MisterJingo]

It's fine not to know. Is it even possible to know the absolute truth? Are we all just brains in a jar? How can you ever scientifically prove anything absolutely? You can't. No one can.

I think there are different degrees of 'not knowing' though. If we are brains in a jar it really doesn't change anything. We can still research and discover the environment we find ourselves in, and from this, build models of our reality in the jar.
No one has ever said we can prove anything absolutely, but I see a big difference between hanging on to beliefs which are literally hundreds (even thousands) of year old and exploring reality using consistent, repeatable experiments which can be verified and reproduced independently by others.

From all the above, to conclude from that the brain is the source of thought is very unscientific. (I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm just making my point). Dawkins likes to push that everyone is the sum of their genes. But genes are not always expressed. We haven't begun to find out what factors make certain genes express themselves.

The above does not prove the brain is the source of thought, but it provides at least enough data to question what we think we know about reality. And to be honest, the theory we are souls in the astral experiencing a created shared experience to work off karmic debt and learn 'lessons' (even though we are everything, every possibility which is ever conceivable and the source) has nothing what-so-ever to back it up apart from strange experiences, experienced whilst a physical being in a physical reality and interpreted through beliefs.  The astral theory might be true, who knows? But right now there are other theories and possibilities which at least have more credence if not more weight.

I agree with you about Dawkins, as I mentioned in my previous post, too much scientism is as bad as too much blind belief. And as an aside, there are interesting developments in the genetic world which Dawkins didn't predict (multiple instances of the same gene and many people actually missing huge chunks of DNA).

And you propose that doubt in the absence of absolute truth is a means by which to live - like choosing to be parapolegic as a mode of transportation (from Life of Pie)? Every single person that ever lived, lived by their belief systems. Everyone has uncertainty, that's a given, but to live your life that way?

Well, I could be wrong, so instead of moving forward, I'm just going to sit on the fence and watch existence go by. (Yeah, I did that not too long ago - I never got anywhere).

I haven't suggested living life that way. I've suggested not tying oneself to a belief system absolutely whilst actively ignoring increasing evidence from others because the one you follow sounds 'nice'.
In all honestly, I would class the person who has one OBE and then buys into an entire theory of reality because his experiences match something some guru or author once said, as the person sitting on the fence as reality goes by.

So we all have uncertainty. Some add scepticism to it, and all they have is doubt. Others add hope to it, and they have faith ... and it's true, some add wishfulness or other things and they have delusion. But you can't be so afraid of being wrong that you're never anything at all.

I agree with this. But I would class the person willing to evolve and change as being the one who gives up fear in place of searching for truth (even if that truth is not what they would like to hear).
I guess I have never liked stagnation, and I have always favoured change. I used to be a fully paid up member of 'the truth'(tm) which involved akashic records, 7 planes, the physical, astral, mental planes etc. But as I have let go of more, experienced more, I guess I felt my old beliefs were stifling me and just felt wrong. So now I chose to explore reality with fewer preconceptions than I once held.

The whole point of this post is that there is enough out there, if you wish to look, to at least give one serious doubts about the standard astral model of creation. Its up to each of us to choose which path we wish to walk.

[MisterJingo]

If the brain gets damaged, it cannot process information the concious is sending it, or mis-interperets it, thus the wrong or no physical action results from certain thought.

And where is this consciousness seated? In what form does it exist? If it can interact with matter to control this meat puppet, what action does it take? And why has this energy form not yet been discovered? There seems an absolute abundance of it on our world alone – and it must leave traces by having such drastic effect on physical matter.

Speaking of thoughts, where do they come from? Neurons firing electric signals... what caused the neurons to fire in the first place? Uh... yeah  

Neurons fire due to chemical reactions in synapses and axioms, which are driven by chemical processes in your body . If you mean what actually causes them to fire, there could be many reasons, such as reaction to stimulus (from sensory organs). If one wishes to look at a bigger picture which encompasses time being the product of universal entropy, your neurons fire due to every action preceding it (causality), and leading all the way back to the big bang and beyond. But that is another topic.

[blade5x]

And where is this consciousness seated? In what form does it exist? If it can interact with matter to control this meat puppet, what action does it take? And why has this energy form not yet been discovered? There seems an absolute abundance of it on our world alone – and it must leave traces by having such drastic effect on physical matter.

I personally belive the conciousness cannot be discovered in the 3 Dimensional Plane we live in (4 if you count time). If AP is real, the conscience, which is able to go from anywhere back to the body in a split second would have to travel through some other dimension. String Theory may help soon, it states 11 dimensions exist

Also gravity leakage shows evidence of other dimensions, note that is something scientific, not based off spiritual stuff, but that's another topic

All in all, I actually believe if the physical existance as we know it can exist, than anything can exist. What makes the physical plane so special that it's the only thing that exists (that's my opinion). I just think because out brains are wired to only see the physical plane, but when we remove our conscience from this restriction, we can see into other planes.

[MisterJingo]

I personally belive the conciousness cannot be discovered in the 3 Dimensional Plane we live in (4 if you count time). If AP is real, the conscience, which is able to go from anywhere back to the body in a split second would have to travel through some other dimension. String Theory may help soon, it states 11 dimensions exist

String theory also suggests that a possible 10500 (ten raised to the power of five hundred) forms of universe could exist . But when it speaks of dimensions, it means dimensions in the form of our spatial and temporal dimensions rather than 'alternate realites'.

Also gravity leakage shows evidence of other dimensions, note that is something scientific, not based off spiritual stuff, but that's another topic

I know about this. It's more to do with branes possibly floating in an 11th dimensional space (each brane a universe), and the big bang being the collision of two branes, and gravity bleeding into our brane from the other – explaining gravities seeming weakness. But other theories suggest branes could be curved over in a 'U' shape, and gravity is felt from the opposite side – hence its weakness. Although with most of string theory, this is pure hypothesis with no supporting evidence yet (although it is all very interesting ).

All in all, I actually believe if the physical existance as we know it can exist, than anything can exist. What makes the physical plane so special that it's the only thing that exists (that's my opinion). I just think because out brains are wired to only see the physical plane, but when we remove our conscience from this restriction, we can see into other planes.

I agree our brains seem wired to see this reality (product of physical evolution?), but if other realities exist, and we can visit them with our consciousness, they must have some form of quantifiable existence. And the fact that consciousness can even interact with matter suggests there must be a detectable interaction going on i.e. if consciousness can interact with astral and matter, then there lies a pathway to prove the existence of the astral (if it exists external to the mind).

[mactombs]

I agree with this. But I would class the person willing to evolve and change as being the one who gives up fear in place of searching for truth (even if that truth is not what they would like to hear).

I agree. Stagnancy doesn't work. On the other hand, I don't think what you had to say about brains gave evidence of any kind that the mind is a product of the brain.

Let's say I just bought a new gaming computer. Someone who doesn't know about computers looks at it, plays some HL2, browses the internet, and fascinated, tries to figure out how it works. So they open it up. They discover all sorts of components. It looks like the network card does something while they're browsing the Internet. So the network card must be creating the internet. The video card and processor seem to be especially active playing HL2, so HL2 must have evolved over millions of years through random numbers created by the CPU and video card. What a marvelous device to have spontaneously come up with something as cool as HL2! This must be the case, because if I damage the video card, HL2 stops working.

I agree, though, that there's no reason to believe in angels and demons and negs and white light love ... Everyone has a model that works and they go with it. Like you said, it's important to be open to changes to the model if there's compelling reason to do so.

[MisterJingo]

I agree with this. But I would class the person willing to evolve and change as being the one who gives up fear in place of searching for truth (even if that truth is not what they would like to hear).

I agree. Stagnancy doesn't work. On the other hand, I don't think what I agree. Stagnancy doesn't work. On the other hand, I don't think what you had to say about brains gave evidence of any kind that the mind is a product of the brain.

I wasn't trying to prove the mind is a product of the brain, just that there are increasing discoveries which map what we perceive to be unique qualities of consciousness to areas and mechanisms of the brain. At the very least this suggests if consciousness exists independently of the brain, it has a drastically different form than that of what we experience in physical reality.
I only wrote a minute amount in little detail regarding recent discoveries of the brain and mind - as it is a huge area (and I'd have to do a bit of research to provide references etc). But I ask anyone who is seriously interested in all of this to research into it and be prepared have at least some of your preconceptions about the brain and mind brought into question.

Let's say I just bought a new gaming computer. Someone who doesn't know about computers looks at it, plays some HL2, browses the internet, and fascinated, tries to figure out how it works. So they open it up. They discover all sorts of components. It looks like the network card does something while they're browsing the Internet. So the network card must be creating the internet. The video card and processor seem to be especially active playing HL2, so HL2 must have evolved over millions of years through random numbers created by the CPU and video card. What a marvelous device to have spontaneously come up with something as cool as HL2! This must be the case, because if I damage the video card, HL2 stops working.

The problem with such analogies is that they if their scope is changed, so does the outcome of the analogy.
A similar example could be that someone is amazed at the seeming ability of the human eye to create pictures of the world. In (macabre) experiments they discover if they damage the eye, the world is no longer perceived and hence concludes the eye creates the picture (entirely ignoring the brain). This does not mean vision comes from the ether, it just means the person conducting the experiments limited their scope to the eye and nothing else.
But I do understand what you are saying .

I agree, though, that there's no reason to believe in angels and demons and negs and white light love ... Everyone has a model that works and they go with it. Like you said, it's important to be open to changes to the model if there's compelling reason to do so.

I don't have any problem with models which do contain those things as such. It's just from experience, if you question certain tenets of such philosophies you immediately (nearly always anyway) become closed minded and a sceptic in certain peoples eyes.
There just seems little room for growth or discovery as in such philosophies nothing can be known, even experiences differ from person to person doing the exact same thing – and so belief is the factor which ties it to the philosophy. I guess it's like ancient man drawing maps of what they believed the world looked like and modern man mapping the earth to millionths of an inch via satellites and showing us what it really does look like.

EDIT: I'd just like to add 'little room for growth' if one isn't open to other ideas, and open to the possibility of change.

I could be completely wrong in everything I currently think or say, but I'm willing to be open to that possibility, learn from it, and move forwards.

[mactombs]

In (macabre) experiments they discover if they damage the eye, the world is no longer perceived and hence concludes the eye creates the picture (entirely ignoring the brain).

The eye does, in a way, create the picture. One person who is near-sighted lives in a different world from someone who has binocular vision. The brain interprets it. There's no way to know for certain whether the world is objective or exists only as it is observed. I think this is going off point, though ... and I do agree that analogies have problems with their scope. "A wise saying proves nothing."

When I was referring to models, I didn't mean dogmatic belief in them. I meant functional models, that even though they may deal with angels or elementals, function as if the universe really works that way, although the reality is probably more complex and not literal. An example would be our models of atoms - atoms don't really look like planets with rings of particles, but the model makes understanding an atom's function easier.

[mactombs]

I was thinking some more, and I realized what a potential rich topic this evokes:

I wasn't trying to prove the mind is a product of the brain, just that there are increasing discoveries which map what we perceive to be unique qualities of consciousness to areas and mechanisms of the brain. At the very least this suggests if consciousness exists independently of the brain, it has a drastically different form than that of what we experience in physical reality.

I agree totally. There is no question in my mind that we would be completely different if we didn't have physical brains, and that one brain is going to give you a different experience than another. How much do our brains affect who we are?

I think it might be kind of like this (forgive me for using analogies again): there's a definite feeling for a personality behind the avatars mactombs, MistJingo, Jub-Jub, Nay, and so on - but even so, these impressions are not the people behind the avatars. It's impossible to get a full sense of a person because of the limitations of communication and forums and so forth.

Maybe our physical selves are like avatars - a kind of expression of a bigger self, albeit limited to the laws of this reality and a physical brain.

So what happens when we die? Does the mortal avatar die with the brain? Without a functioning brain to filter it, is reality just a dream? Or can we carry over the personality we have now.

Personally, I like to think that the person we are here gets copied, or duplicated on an immaterial, timeless level. This personality and its unique viewpoints continue on, exploring and observing reality in that personality's unique way. For instance, flying to the moon would be fantastic fun - but if I had no sense of gravity, physical density, no lifetime of looking up at the moon, etc., all this wouldn't have the same meaning or value. I like to think that's why we live this life, for a unique viewpoint, for a new way to explore all that is.

That's why I'm not as excited by Phasing as I am with astral projection with subtle bodies and vibrations and energy and flying - it strips away mortal conventions that I believe have value, even if they also are limiting. I find the thought of physically separating from my body, leaving it behind, more appealing than existing everywhere all at once and simply switching focus. It's not exactly an "enlightened" way to think ... but being honest, there are some ways of viewing reality that I simply prefer over other equally valid ways.

[MisterJingo]

I agree totally. There is no question in my mind that we would be completely different if we didn't have physical brains, and that one brain is going to give you a different experience than another. How much do our brains affect who we are?

If we take the brain to be an object which we receive and structure experience (information) through, then I think our brains make us totally what we are (please note I am not stating brains create consciousness here) – I'll explain what I mean below.

I think it might be kind of like this (forgive me for using analogies again): there's a definite feeling for a personality behind the avatars mactombs, MistJingo, Jub-Jub, Nay, and so on - but even so, these impressions are not the people behind the avatars. It's impossible to get a full sense of a person because of the limitations of communication and forums and so forth.

Maybe our physical selves are like avatars - a kind of expression of a bigger self, albeit limited to the laws of this reality and a physical brain.

My current understanding of this is that we are not just exactly the same on the most basic level, we are the same 'object'/'entity' (etc). This is much more than spouting slogans such as 'we are all one'; it's a realisation of the nature of self.
I'll try and describe what I currently believe as best I can. I think the spark which is self-awareness / sentiency / consciousness at the core of each of us is exactly the same. There is no difference between one instance of it and another. Difference (And perceived individuality) arise from the accumulation of experience, this in turn leads to the construction of ego and belief systems (which themselves colour the information received and creates greater variation). I really do believe that there is only one 'sort' of consciousness (although I feel an idea behind this, but I can't articulate it into words right now – it's to do with consciousness itself not being what we think it is), and each 'individual' has an instance of this. For programmers out there, it's like a class is called 'consciousness', and we each start as an instance of this class. To put it simply, everyone you ever meet is a possible variation of you, they are 'you' at their most basic level (and this goes for sentiency in animals too).

So what happens when we die? Does the mortal avatar die with the brain? Without a functioning brain to filter it, is reality just a dream? Or can we carry over the personality we have now.

Personally, I like to think that the person we are here gets copied, or duplicated on an immaterial, timeless level. This personality and its unique viewpoints continue on, exploring and observing reality in that personality's unique way. For instance, flying to the moon would be fantastic fun - but if I had no sense of gravity, physical density, no lifetime of looking up at the moon, etc., all this wouldn't have the same meaning or value. I like to think that's why we live this life, for a unique viewpoint, for a new way to explore all that is.

I can appreciate this, and follow it myself somewhat . Believe it or not, as little as five years a go I used to hold the view I would rather be labelled 'insane' and live in a world populated with fantastic ideas and creatures (even if they had no basis in reality) than live a mundane existence and do the 'human' thing.
I like to think the person goes on too (I think most people would ), but I haven't yet found a definitive answer to this question. This answer does not necessarily have to be undeniable objective proof, its just currently, I can see as many plausible reasons for why we don't survive death (including mechanisms for individual knowledge living on) as there are philosophies stating we do.

That's why I'm not as excited by Phasing as I am with astral projection with subtle bodies and vibrations and energy and flying - it strips away mortal conventions that I believe have value, even if they also are limiting. I find the thought of physically separating from my body, leaving it behind, more appealing than existing everywhere all at once and simply switching focus.

I actually favour the phasing viewpoint - although most of my OBEs follow the traditional 'vibrations and roll out of body' route (I actually see traditional OBE as a type of phasing into an environment 'close' to the physical universe (which is an astral zone)).
I think the concept of phasing seems to closely link in with my perception of self and the universe (and everything in between). I've experienced a lot (while in the AP and baseline) which make me appreciate the phasing view – the problem is most of it cannot be translated into words. Such as a recurring experience is seeing time in its entirety, which makes little literal sense, but it's like my perception zooms out to encompass all of time – which in turn seems to lay creation out (like a circle). The best way to attempt to describe this is being at the beginning and end simultaneously. The moment you experience it could be the second before the 'ultimate' end. Time shrinks to nothing. When baseline, it produces a very strange state of mind and it's a tactile feeling as well as mental. You might be questioning what this has to do with phasing, but it's like a progression of it. I can easily see I perhaps am not seeing everything , but the feeling and experiences evoked are pretty mind blowing.
Although at the end of the day, the phasing view is a belief system to be 'moved past' in the exploration of self/reality/creation/etc.

It's not exactly an "enlightened" way to think ... but being honest, there are some ways of viewing reality that I simply prefer over other equally valid ways.

I think it might be an enlightened way to think for the simple fact you can contemplate this and still follow the route you want - it's obviously something you want to do right now – and I see no problems with that – as long as you don't .