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.
Originally posted by zatara
Like many other people these days I am between jobs and must I keep myself busy. Well...that is not the problem there are not many moments that I feel bored and that is what my worry is about.
What is there to do on the other side. There is no internet, is there a science or art to study? I do not feel like communicating with other souls all the time...if you know what I mean. Anybody an idea what is going on and what there is to keep someone busy?
Originally posted by Neo__
It's interesting to note that surgeons sometimes don't know if an operation was successful until the person "returns to consciousness". Where is the consciousness returning from? The answer to this seems to lie outside of conventional science. The brain appears to be but the physical organ that consciousness uses.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by Neo__
It's interesting to note that surgeons sometimes don't know if an operation was successful until the person "returns to consciousness". Where is the consciousness returning from? The answer to this seems to lie outside of conventional science. The brain appears to be but the physical organ that consciousness uses.
It's interesting to note that IT engineers sometimes don't know if a repair was sucessful until the computer 'reboots'. Where is the functionality of the computer returning from? The answer seems to lie outside conventional science. The computer appears to be the physical device that functionality uses.
Originally posted by Neo__
I don't believe for a second that human consciousness can be compared to running of a computer or a car or anything mechanical.
Awareness is much more complex and much more mysterious than the workings of a computer.
Awareness is sacred should be treated as such.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by Neo__
I don't believe for a second that human consciousness can be compared to running of a computer or a car or anything mechanical.
Why not?
Awareness is much more complex and much more mysterious than the workings of a computer.
A difference of degree does not imply a difference in kind.
Awareness is sacred and should be treated as such.
Why do you say it is sacred? It's as common as dirt.
Originally posted by Neo__
I don't believe that awareness is a physical process.
Awareness is not as common as dirt, as you suggest. I don't know many clumps of dirt that can dream of philosophy and quantum physics.
Patients have been declared clinically dead and then brought back to life.
A mothers awareness of their child in danger, sometimes hundreds of miles apart, is usually put down to some uncanny "intuition" or coincidence. This is awareness outside of the brain.
Awareness is potentially the most powerful "thing" in universe. The brain is the physical computer, but without awareness it can't do very much but keep the body alive. It's awareness that defines us as individuals and expands with experience. It's awareness that gives us appreciation for music, art, science, philosophy. The brain is the mechanism that brings the physical world to the soul, another word for awareness. Awareness is found in the body, in the mind and in the spirit, (another word for energy).
The awareness of soul permits the real Self to first become aware of and then eventually to a realization of Its own image in body, mind and spirit.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Neo__
There are hints now. Foo fooed away by those so inclined to do so as Asty so aptly illustrates.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Neo__
A star for your excellent post, Neo_. It's reassuring to know that there are people on this forum for whom an argument does not always have to be a quarrel.
To address just one point you made: scientists, and therefore science, often do rely on intuition. There are numerous classic stories of the intuitive leaps that carried famous men of science from a series of apparently unrelated facts to a great discovery. In science, however, intuition on its own does not suffice to establish truth; once it has been arrived at by intuition it must be rationally explained and shown by experiment post hoc. This sets truth free, so to speak, by placing it on the firmer footing of evidence.
Your own standpoint is an ancient one with a noble tradition. It arises from the belief that truth is best discerned by reasoning from abstract first principles, regarding physical evidence as suspect because it is derived from a flawed, less-than-ideal world. It goes back at least as far as Socrates. I cleave to the newer empiricist position, but I am certainly not unfamiliar with the elder tradition, nor do I wish to deride those who follow it.
[edit on 16/1/10 by Astyanax]
Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67
I have a sinking feeling we go for a long spin wash cycle then get hung up to dry, then we are assigned a newer model and then we get sent back into the meaty game with all the other meaties...
Rinse and repeat until we get “it."