Why is this explanation for conciousness insufficient? It is self-contained.

[Mongu9719]

This explanation points to a materialistic origin of conciousness. The human mind creates a self model in its mind to remember previous experiences and then areas of the brain corresponding to that experience light up when the person encounters the same experience. Why is this self-model theory not adequate to explain conciousness?

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mongu9719

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

The human mind creates a self model in its mind to remember previous experiences and then areas of the brain corresponding to that experience light up when the person encounters the same experience.

Why is this self-model theory not adequate to explain conciousness?

Please tell me how that area of the brain "lighting up" is consciousness. 

Is consciousness the light? Is consciousness a neuron? Is a neurotransmitter consciousness? Exactly what physical component is consciousness?

[Mongu9719]

@Serotoninluv According to this theory, it is a self-model. Just as we have a self-model which remembers the physical location of our limbs, or the part of our brain which codes white light with brightness without colour. The brain creates a self-model of subjective internal experience. This explains why someone who has damage to a certain part of their brain, are not concious that a ball is being thrown at them yet they still dodge it. The brain recognises that there is a ball and the areas which process visual input light up, but because they have damage to the area of the brain which makes them aware of it, they have no idea that they even dodged it. If this area is damaged even further, it leads to a vegetative state. If the brain is capable of make internal models of external objects and is able to make a self-model of its own attention, then it is not a far stretch to say that it could make a self-model of its own internal experience. What remains to be understood is how these neurons responsible for conciousness compute information.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mongu9719

[Forestluv]

@Mongu9719 Yes, I understand the model and the association of material to consciousness. Yet the model above is a model relating material to consciousness. It does not explain what consciousness itself is. 

You said this was a materialistic model of consciousness. What I'm asking is what exactly is the material thing that is consciousness. Would you say that the material brain tissue itself is consciousness?

[Leo Gura]

Pure foolishness.

Where did the universe come from? What is existence? Why does it exist? How was it created? Why was it created?

[Mu_]

4 hours ago, Mongu9719 said:

This explanation points to a materialistic origin of conciousness. The human mind creates a self model in its mind to remember previous experiences and then areas of the brain corresponding to that experience light up when the person encounters the same experience. Why is this self-model theory not adequate to explain conciousness?

This is a very great, convincing and well thought out "theory", probably more able to be shown and demonstrated through external verifiable examples then most Spiritual Models.  However its important to honestly let in its still a "theory" or a "model" to try and describe what's experienced or experiencing and came about from the ability to process and experience itself (which the theory claims is the brain producing such experience).

So, funny enough, if you actually let in this theory 100% you'd come to something very near non-duality and surrender the belief of being someone individual.   If you took only brain being prime of whats consciousness and all preception, you'd arrive close to the conclusion that "you" aren't there and its only the brain producing consciousness and the "you" thinking its something doing something is the brain producing the illusion/experience.  So in a way, just relax, since your not there and its only the brain happening.   However, the theory wouldn't explain as Leo is pointing to and rightfully so perhaps that it doesn't explain where or how the brain happened to allow consciousness to happen or where anything came from, but then again no ones here talking or needing to come to that conclusion because the "Brain" hasn't or isn't doing that right now.......so again nothing to get stressed or tied up in, since its all brain and nothing could ever be not brain or a fault of some or something.  All goods and bads would just be brain happenings....

 

@Leo Gura @Serotoninluv

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mu_

[Mongu9719]

@Leo Gura why is it foolish? Wouldn’t it be necessary to understand all perspectives to get the most accurate picture. I’m not saying that this model is absolutely true but it is illuminating. Studying and understanding our neurophysiology gives us a deeper understanding of ourselves. We shouldn’t rule out any possibility even if it comes from a materialistic, reductionist viewpoint.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

You'd have to honestly come to the conclusion that "you" aren't there and its only the brain producing consciousness and the "you" thinking its something doing something is the brain producing the illusion/experience. 

Stating "the brain produces consciousness" doesn't explain the ISness of consciousness. If the brain produces consciousness, then that means the brain itself is not consciousness. To me, the doesn't do much to answer what consciousness itself actually is. This is a trap of being contracted within materialism. Yet I'm not taking the opposite of immaterialism. . . . Physical vs. Nonphysical is a duality that breaks down.

My question for someone that is a pure materialist would be: what material thing is actually consciousness? . . . Not what material thing is associated with consciousness or what material thing produces consciousness. Rather what material thing itself is consciousness?

[Mongu9719]

@Serotoninluv I would say that the brain creates the concious experience through self-modeling. Conciousness itself is the physical brain or you could say a property emerging out of the brain. I don’t actually believe this, I am just playing devils advocate to get a better understanding. 

[Mongu9719]

@Serotoninluv our “isness” is just an illusion created by the brain. Just like how our brain creates an internal-model  of “white-light” even though “white-light” is much more complex than our human brain can process. It is an outline, a rough estimate. That is what conciousness is to us. A rough model of our internal subjective experience which can be clinically demonstrated as is the case with patients that have brain damage, damaging their ability to be concious. Just as there are neural correlates for “white light” in the visual cortex, there are an entire arrangement of neurons which model conciousness in our brains. It is self-contained and self explanatory.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mongu9719

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Serotoninluv I would say that the brain creates the concious experience through self-modeling. Conciousness itself is the physical brain or you could say a property emerging out of the brain. 

I'm not asking what creates consciousness, I'm asking what consciousness itself actually is.

You say that "consciousness itself is the physical brain". Really? A physical brain itself is consciousness? Yet if you are conscious of your brain, how can that consciousness be the brain? What is conscious of the brain?

You say that consciousness is "a property emerging" out of the brain. Yet for a materialist, what material thing is that "property". The term "property" is vague. Show me the physical thing that is actually that "property".

As well, this is still a relatively basic exploration of a personal consciousness. It goes way beyond personal consciousness, including collective consciousness, infinite consciousness etc. 

7 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Serotoninluv our “isness” is just an illusion created by the brain. Just like how our brain creates an internal-model  of “white-light” even though “white-light” is much more complex than our human brain can process. It is an outline, a rough estimate. That is what conciousness is to us. A rough model of our internal subjective experience which can be clinically demonstrated as is the case with patients that have brain damage, damaging their ability to be concious.

I'm asking what material thing consciousness is.

You now say that consciousness is "an illusion" or "an outline". An "illusion" or "outline" is an idea. It is not a material thing. What material thing is an "illusion" / "outline". 

You say that consciousness is the physical brain and then say that consciousness is an illusion. That would mean that the physical brain is an illusion. . . 

[TheAvatarState]

1 hour ago, Mongu9719 said:

Why is this self-model theory not adequate to explain conciousness?

Because it is metaphysically inaccurate. Please watch Leo's video "Why brains do not exist." 

Another key piece of wisdom: just because a model is self-contained and consistent does not make it true. Consider the dream world. It feels real while you're in it. Consider any logical system ever created. And yet Kurt Godel proved, through his Godels Incompleteness theorem, that you cannot prove a system to be true within the system itself. You need a higher order logic, and that higher logic needs another, all the way to infinity. 

[Mongu9719]

@Serotoninluv hmm ok I think I understand now. A materialist can’t pinpoint what material aspect of the brain actually produces conciousness. They can point to neurons but that doesn’t actually explain anything, because regardless of how the brain is arranged, it still doesn’t explain the subjective experience of conciousness. Even if they can point to a specific arrangements of neurons and and all of the neurotransmitters involved, it would only explain the appearance of conciousness but not conciousness itself.  The only conclusion you can arrive at then is that any material explanation for conciousness is insufficient because it  leads to a strange loop or  “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” The main reason I posted this was so I could get a better understanding of  the materialist paradigm and think it through myself. Thanks for the response. This is really tricky for my mind to grasp but I think I understand it better now. 

[Forestluv]

@Mongu9719 One thing I find helpful is to take a meta-view. Rather than having to choose between material vs. immaterial - what if both are true? Why can't there be both material and immaterial? Why can't consciousness be composed of both material and immaterial?

[Mongu9719]

@Serotoninluv One has to arise from the other. According to Leo everything arises from conciousness. Pure software with no hardware. Perhaps what you are talking about dualism, which is different from materialism and nondualism.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Serotoninluv One has to arise from the other. According to Leo everything arises from conciousness. Pure software with no hardware. Perhaps what you are talking about dualism, which is different from materialism and nondualism.

There are different contexts of "consciousness". We could talk about personal consciousness, social consciousness, collective consciousness and absolute consciousness. We can create lots of distinctions between these categories, yet they are inter-related and would eventually collapse into One consciousness. Saying that everything is consciousness or that everything arises from consciousness would be the context of an absolute, universal consciousness. 

[Mongu9719]

@Serotoninluv so are you saying that there is a second-order level of conciousness which is material which is what this scientific explanation  is pointing to, and a first order which is immaterial which is what Leo is talking about? Ultimately both are part of the first order or absolute conciousness . Right?

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mongu9719

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Leo Gura why is it foolish? Wouldn’t it be necessary to understand all perspectives to get the most accurate picture.

Cetainly not.

Consciousness does not care about perspectives. It is Absolute. All perspectives are imaginary.

Quote

Studying and understanding our neurophysiology gives us a deeper understanding of ourselves.

No it doesn't. It drives you deeper into the hallucination. You will never get closer to realizing what consciousness is via science.

Quote

We shouldn’t rule out any possibility even if it comes from a materialistic, reductionist viewpoint.

Materialism is a fantasy.

Awakening is totally beyond any such nonsense.

- - - - -

You are consciousness. So the only way you can understand what consciousness is, is by becoming directly conscious of it. No other source can tell you what consciousness is. By looking for sources external to yourself you are forever dooming yourself never to awaken.

You can only awaken by realizing you are the ultimate source of truth.

[Mongu9719]

@Leo Gura My examination of different paradigms, my research, and my intellectualisation all distract me from becoming concious of conciousness. I can get lost in conceptualisation because the mind doesn’t want to turn inwards. Abandoning all concepts and ideas is necessary then to become concious of what conciousness is. This is what marks the transition from stage yellow to turquoise. As I long as I continue to distract myself on this forum by trying to understand awakening and conciousness the farther I get away from The Truth. The next step for me is to do the practices and stop distracting myself on this forum. 

[The Lucid Dreamer]

Trying to get at what consciousness using more contents of consciousness such as symbols and concepts is like trying to look into your own eyeball with the same eyeball or touching the tip of your finger with the tip of the same finger.  You cannot get at what consciousness is by using more contents within consciousness, because it itself is the substrate of all that content and symbolism you’re trying to use to explain it.  It is absolutely fundamental and prior to any concepts or explanation.