It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On Transcending the Human Body: Hopefully a Philosophical Disscussion

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   


Cosmology
Uniting Space, Time, Matter, Motion & Universe

From the Metaphysics of Space and Time
(Particles & Continous Spherical Fields in Space-Time)
To the Metaphysics of Space and Motion
(Matter as Spherical Waves in Continuous Space)


Source




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

A most interesting question about what it means to be human, especially when one considers Anna and Data as described in the videos as well as the replacement of body parts by mechanical devises (transhumanism?). We consider the brain to be the centre of mindfulness, whether we are talking of fellow humans or the animal kingdom (generally). I wonder if the only reason for including those two might be that both animals and humans actually seem to make choices and act on them.

Consciousness is a sticky mess when we attempt to define it and the collective unconscious is pretty much as indefinite as the measure of the universe. Don't even try to define primal instincts. I believe, in all my readings of the philosophers, one book stands out most of all as being relevant to the opening post: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious by CG Jung. It does covers quite a bit of what your OP is about.

It is mainly thought that the collective unconscious transfers information through birth, but I wonder if Anna's unconscious might have gained some canine intelligence through her time with the dogs... in other words, her instincts changed by her cohabitation with dogs and also that her world view (consciousness) certainly was. By the same token, how much of our unconsciousness developed in our formative years due to the environment we were raised in? Freud certainly felt our earliest experiences shaped our personality (for better or for worse).

Did she receive milk from a pregnant dog and gain something non-human through that? The video does not mention it, but if she had been abandoned to the kennel at a very early infancy stage, it is likely. What effect would that have on her mind?

On the interaction between the mind and the physical body, one only has to look at how debilitating anorexia can be and how invigorating (or scary - LOL) falling in love is.


edit on 5/1/16 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs




Then how do you explain gravity as a physical thing?


I don't. Wish I had a better answer.



You can notice things that have no physical nature because they cause the physical things around you to react. Consciousness is quite perceivable, even you have said that you perceive that you are conscious. As a materialist, you seem to find that things which we can not perceive but effect reality are just caused by physical process and I understand that, but why can you not see what I am saying.

As consciousness has perceivable effects it is a process that we can label as a philosophical phenomenon.


Is consciousness (still quite unsure what, if anything, that is) the phenomenological effect or the cause of these phenomenological effects? From my view that consciousness is a misnomer for a poorly understood biology (a biology becoming more and more understood over time), the body is both.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

Thanks for the wonderful reply!



I wonder if the only reason for including those two might be that both animals and humans actually seem to make choices and act on them.


The reason for including the Anna video was to support this idea. Humans are just a type or category of animal.



The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious by CG Jung. It does covers quite a bit of what your OP is about.


I have read his book and it has influenced me greatly. But I do disagree with Jung's idea that humans are conscious in a complete way at birth. Psychologist and sociologist of today seem to think that personality and intellect are still developing until the age of 5 or 6, and I think this process can be explained via a pervasive non-local mindfulness field(a non-scientific term, but I am not sure what else to call it cause I don't really want to use collected unconsciousness).




By the same token, how much of our unconsciousness developed in our formative years due to the environment we were raised in?


All of it, and that is why Anna was never able to learn speech at a functional level or proper social interactions. I agree with Locke that as far as information of the external we are a blank slate. Now, I will not go so far as to say that minds have no thoughts at birth, but as far as a fully formed personal consciousness, I have my doubts.




Did she receive milk from a pregnant dog and gain something non-human through that? The video does not mention it, but if she had been abandoned to the kennel at a very early infancy stage, it is likely. What effect would that have on her mind?


If I remember my sociology class correctly then she was not abandoned. Her parents actually raised her as a dog, keeping her in a kennel with their other dogs. I am not sure if anyone but her parents know what early life for her was like. Being treated as a dog and living with dogs during her formative years definitely programmed her consciousness to be a dog.

I like to think that humans are just biological quantum computers that learn from the communication between personal experience and reason found in a connection to the pervasive mindfulness.






posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Is consciousness (still quite unsure what, if anything, that is) the phenomenological effect or the cause of these phenomenological effects?


You ask the absolutely best questions. Though we do not see eye to eye some of the time, I have enjoyed our discussions and find them informative and challenging. Thanks

Now to the question:

Consciousness is the phenomenological effect, which is caused by the body/mind sending experiences to a field of thought. I know my Idea of a "field of thought" does not hold any real scientific basis, but I think consciousness is a quantum phenomenological effect of a bodies interaction with the quantum world around it.




If Schroedinger evolution were the only way that matter waves could change, we would have some difficulty connecting matter waves with our ordinary experience. Matter waves typically are spread over many positions and are superpositions of many momenta. Yet when we measure them, we always find just one value for position or momentum.
Link

Our brain is not a fixed system, this was proven by the successful surgeries by Dr. Ben Carson, where he removed half a child's brain, yet the children grew up practically normal. Neurons throughout the body pick up information from external experience, and I do think that consciousness is an effect of experience, but once well defined I feel consciousness will not be limited to the body that it arose to awareness through. Neurons, which are made of matter, experience things which act as a measurement effect and thus become whole giving one the sense of self, but I think that is an illusion.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I mentioned the question of "ensouling" a machine earlier - as in giving life to a machine. That may seem off topic but worth considering.

How does this all evolve ?

1. God creates man in his image
2. Man creates machines in man's image
3. What does the machine create ?

This ensouling of a machine/object can be found in many folk tales. For example, Pinocchio or the Wizard of Oz. Even in your example of Data. It is as if it already exists in the collective unconscious.

The first thing to make it appear sentient is if the machine/creation has the survival instinct. Pickard , in you example, does not make this an argument. Yet it would have been a good argument.

A survival instinct would indicate the existence of an ego (An animal instinct though). But if a machine can reach the animal level , you are already half-way to make it human.

The problem arises when the machine wants to perpetuate itself. Then we could get the scenario as per the movie Terminator or Matrix.

Reminds me so much of Hazel O'connor's song in the film Breaking Glass











edit on 5-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

And in relation what exactly happens when inanimate matter such as carbon and in relation to its wave function?

Becomes animated as the result of conditions inherent to its structure?

In observed nature things become imprinted all the time and despite time they are recorded like in the case of fossils.

Perhaps in relation consciousness is imprinted as well.


edit on 5-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Imprinted kinda works, but it will limit the idea that consciousness can transcend once imprinted. I like the word entangled, this implies that there is non-local communication between the carbon atom and the quantum thought field. Much like a magnetic field will affect the flow and spin of an electron.

For me, it will take more experiments and a greater understanding of the quantum world to see if my ideas have any validity or if Les is right and consciousness is just a process of the physical body.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

For me the issue is whether consciousness is transcendent of its particle aspect. And it seems that in matter of fact, matter is transcendent in respect to information with respect to interconnectedness.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Would you teleport yourself to another location fully knowing that your body will be destroyed in the process but there will be an exact copy of your body on another location? To make matters worse, what if the teleporter malfunctions and you're still there but there is an exact copy of you on another location. Who then is that copy? There have been a several episodes of Star Trek on that dilemma.

Are the original Star Trek crew dead since they first stepped in the teleporters? Mind blown.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

That actually would not be relevant its more along the lines of access to the waveform of the Universe.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

It's actually pretty relevant.

In OP:


Now, I am a dualist. I think the consciousness is separate from the body it seems attached to.

If you make an exact copy of your own body (as in 100% copy, mind and body and everything) then to a materialist you would also be that body.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I am saying that a body is still a body to its possessor even in wave-form.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Yeah. I am just trying to say that your consciousness is something that is independent of your body. My example of Star Trek teleportation shows that.

Personal identity
Ship of Theseus
edit on 1/5/2016 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Quantum teleportation in theory would require matter to be placed is the location of arrival in order to send only information to the destination.

Star Trek type transportation is more akin to diminishing the particle aspect of a subject and relocating that pattern to
another location.


I disagree that consciousness is separate from the body however I keep an open mind.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Give Clif Highs little bloop theory of the universe a look. All about corresponding iterations, with the conglomeration of matter only being a function of locality. Gives a believable reasoning for input as well.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   


Introductory Quotes to David Bohm's Holographic Universe

It is proposed that the widespread and pervasive distinctions between people (race, nation, family, profession, etc., etc.) which are now preventing mankind from working together for the common good, and indeed, even for survival, have one of the key factors of their origin in a kind of thought that treats things as inherently divided, disconnected, and "broken up" into yet smaller constituent parts. Each part is considered to be essentially independent and self-existent.
(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order)

The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

We are a part of Nature as a whole whose order we follow. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673)


Source



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

1st: TGN is my absolutely favorite ST and I am jaded to all the rest so I won't respond to that last question on OST.... haha.

2nd: I know of the two episodes you refer to... Realm of Fear where Lt. Barclay has a fear of transportation cause he knows that your physical body is destroyed by the process of transportation. I have also read Michio Kaku's discussion of this in his book Physics of the Impossible. The other is the Riker clone creation episode, where his somewhat evil doppelganger is created because he does not get destroyed in the process of teleportation. I also wondered if they were both Riker or was the original Riker just the original Riker and the new one(Thomas) was born the moment of transportation?

Mind-body duality was explored many times during TGN; you give another great supporting example for the potential of plausible dualist theories. I myself think Thomas was born the moment of teleportation and because of the method of his birth, he was able to skip the formative years and quickly gain an independent consciousness from Riker. The episode also seems to offer this interpretation too, though that is not really proof or anything.

I do wonder how materialist would explain the twins episode of TGN, perhaps they two could except that Thomas was born at the moment of transportation and immediately became sentient and independent.






posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

The collective unconscious is definitely real--it's the library of all records/Akashic records. We also have information in our DNA. The only things that have collective consciousness would be things like the spirits of mushrooms and the fallen angels and stuff like that--since they're immaterial that makes sense that that's how it would work.

We are not our bodies.

We are souls.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

No. Nothing can transcend the aether since it is what we all are. That is how it is interconnected. Everything is energy. It's simple



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join