Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What is consciousness?
DaftChris
Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
Is it a literal part of our physical being or is it an intangible/metaphysical part of our existence?
What are some good books and videos from both sides of the matter? Sorry if this has been discussed before (and as it is a Buddhist website, I'm almost 100% sure that it has).
What are some good books and videos from both sides of the matter? Sorry if this has been discussed before (and as it is a Buddhist website, I'm almost 100% sure that it has).
0
Comments
Although, I'm sure other people are going to make it more complicated and romanticize is.
Many blessings,
KwanKev
I did a quick Google search of Amit. Apparently he has a degree in [theoretical nuclear] physics. He was part of the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know" which is widely known for distorting facts. The film has been criticized for both misrepresenting science and containing pseudoscience and has been described as quantum mysticism. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, Amit claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Sounds kind of like Deepak Chopra.
"Arya Nagarjuna:
38. When eye and form assume their right relation,
Appearances appear without a blur.
Since these neither arise nor cease,
They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.
39. When sound and ear assume their right relation,
A consciousness free of thought occurs.
These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics,
But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually.
40. Dependent upon the nose and an odor, one smells.
And as with the example of form there is neither arising nor cessation,
But in dependence upon the nose-consciousness’s experience,
The dharmadhatu is thought to be smell.
41. The tongue’s nature is emptiness.
The sphere of taste is voidness as well.
These are in essence the dharmadhatu
And are not the causes of the taste consciousness.
42. The pure body’s essence,
The characteristics of the object touched,
The tactile consciousness free of conditions—
These are called the dharmadhatu.
43. The phenomena that appear to the mental consciousness, the chief of them all,
Are conceptualized and then superimposed.
When this activity is abandoned, phenomena’s lack of self-essence is known.
Knowing this, meditate on the dharmadhatu.
44. And so is all that is seen or heard or smelled,
Tasted, touched, and imagined,
When yogis [and yoginis]* understand these in this manner,
All their wonderful qualities are brought to consummation.
45. Perception’s doors in eyes and ears and nose,
In tongue and body and the mental gate—
All these six are utterly pure.
These consciousnesses’ purity itself is suchness’ defining characteristic."
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/12/dependent-arising-of-consciousness.html
And for what it's worth, I think that movie is fantastic. Richard Feynman himself said "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." And Niels Bohr said "Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it." Given those quotes by 2 of the most highly esteemed physicists of the last century, I think it would be hard to argue what the true nature of quantum mechanics is.
That being said, there was a fair amount of hokey stuff in the movie too, particularly all of the info from and interviews with JZ Knight, and the whole "Ramtha channeling" bizzle. And yes, if you look at the movie from a purely scientific standpoint, it falls short. I like it simply because it presents some new ideas, new viewpoints, and new ways of looking at things. And not all of the ideas expressed in the movie are incorrect. I did a significant amount of studying of quantum physics after seeing the movie and was surprised to find out just how weird it really is.
When it comes to a question such as the one posed - one that no one can answer definitely - I think it best to keep an open mind. That's what works best for me anyway. The day I can say that I've got it all figured out is the day I am the most deluded. And the day I listen to what everyone else says before invesigating myself is the day I stop learning.
Many Blessings,
KwanKev
However it is not a 'part', because the different kinds of consciousness are not continuous. Consciousness comes and goes all the time, it is very impermanent. Often this is why it is called a stream of consciousness. Like a stream or river is not made of the same water all the time, consciousness is also not made of a fixed entity, so not a 'part'.
It is physical? No. I think no-one can deny that, because nobody can show or measure a piece of consciousness.
However, is it caused by the physical? Opinions vary, but in my (and the traditional Buddhist) view, no. This stream can go on after we die.
It is challenging defining it into either camp - one one level it works to say it must be a part of our physical being (at least on some level as it is expressed physically) and simultaneously metaphysical as it is in essence greater than the sum of its physical parts - until we better understand 'reality' we have little hope of understanding how we and our ideas fit into that reality...
I'm not aware of the Dhamma providing understanding of whether super-strings exist or what a 12 dimension space means in reality or even whether singularity is a maths error or not - nor have I first hand reached a level of understanding that would be anywhere close to providing me with confidence in my own understanding to expound a reasonable answer to daftchris' post...
A. Goswamy has written some fascinating books. Since all of this is still theoretical, I'd say his theories are as good as any on the subject.
I kid, I kid! To me consciousness is what makes you, you. Your heart, soul, whatever you call it. It is your though processes as well as your emotions.
They even have a wikipedia article on it: "Quantum Mysticism." It's under the category "Pseudoscientific concepts" on the right.
It is not by any means an accepted theory among the majority of quantum physicists. Kind of like alternative medicine, or auras.
You missed the video by one of the leading scientists in the field that someone posted a week or two ago. See "Peter Russell: The Primacy of Consciousness", under "Advanced Ideas".
(This skepticism is coming from the man who went wormhole-crazy just a few days ago...)
Where it comes from to me is it either is a part of the makeup of the universe like matter and energy only more fundamental or it is a product of the brain. If it is a product of the brain then since the brain can probably be aware of what consciousness experiences then that knowledge could be used by the brain for further decision making thus having downward causality, which is a problem for reductionism. The claim that our inner experience is an illusion, to me, is an extraordinary claim and as such demands extraordinary proof.
Personally I think consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe. I think quantum mechanics shows some of this. I think meditative investigation into our subjective experience shows us this.
The mechanism for wave/particle duality and an observation collapsing the wave function in QM isn't understood. The two explanations that I've heard are either the universe splits off into alternate universes for each possibility. Meaning that for every particle in the universe at every moment ( many single moments in each second ) a different universe is created exponentially. That explanation maintains an essentially materialist universe. The other explanation is that consciousness is a part of reality. So a gobzillion universes being created each moment and a gobzillion more universes from each one of those a gobzillion times over or there is an immaterial conscious aspect to reality. This sounds like a good place to summon Occum's Razor.
If people want to know what the Buddhist ideas of consciousness are I would suggest reading the scriptures rather than watching videos from scientists or pondering quantum mechanics. The Buddha figured out this consciousness thing a long time ago
The Dhamma has more information on consciousness than most people can handle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijnana The Buddha has answered this question, in excruciating detail. So much so that it's kinda difficult to read and understand all of it.
But obviously an inert wood can't see, the sand don't hear. That is why apart from matter, other mental factors like attention and previous moments of cognizance are necessary for the arising of the present consciousness.
Therefore matter can be conventionally distinguished from the other aggregates. There are five aggregates of each conventionally labelled sentient being: matter, feelings, perception, volition, and consciousness. Matter is rupa or physical form, the rest of the four belong to nama which means name or mental phenomena/mind.
All this quantum stuff, turbo strings and all may be interesting, but even if it proves to be right, it will just remain an idea in our head and it won't get us closer to peacefulness. And right now, it is in my eyes really a pseudo science, at least it is not supported by the majority of the scientific community.
The analytical philosophy behind consciousness being separate from the body is the following:
1. Dependant arising says that a result must be similar to the cause. For example if you plant peas, you will get a pea plant; not an orange tree.
2. Our bodies consist of earth, wind, liquid and fire (material form, gas and heat); which are nothing like 'clear and aware'. A lump of steak is not 'clear and aware' is it? Therefore, consciousness cannot be the result of material form, since the result (consciousness) is not like the cause (material).
3. The main cause of consciousness is a previous moment of consciousness, therefore consciousness must be eternal.
I'm pretty sure the above is a correct and condensed version of consciousness from the Madyamika perspective.
Please correct me if I'm wrong though.