Truth Against the World

Saturday, January 1, 2011


I've stated that my belief about consciousness is that it has always existed. What exactly is consciousness to begin with? I've always had a hard time believing that it's nothing more than electrochemical impulses in the neurons making up our brain. If it were true that the brain was solely responsible for creating consciousness than there would be no reason why computers could not possess consciousness. It seems to me that if this were the case computers would have evolved to self awareness by now. Computer technology has become truly unbelievable just in the last ten years alone. The amount of information that can be stored in a millimeter of physical space is astounding. As unbelievable as computer technology has become it is still nowhere near possessing consciousness. The robots that we have made up to this point aren't very impressive. Of course we attempt to create the robots in a mechanistic way. Science looks at the human brain in a Newtonian determinism sort of way. As if we could just keep connecting "A" to "B" and eventually consciousness will emerge beneath the microscope. It's my belief that this will never happen because consciousness will not be found in an objective, provable, pointable kind of way. Consciousness can only ever be experienced but not proven scientifically. And it will certainly never be recreated by man in any way other than the old fashioned procreation.

I'm sure a brain scientist would disagree with me, but I'm also sure that in the end he would have nothing but theories. The idea that neurons are responsible for consciousness has always seemed ridiculous to me. But then what is the less ridiculous hypothesis to explain consciousness? The physical brain obviously has a very strong role in the manifestation of consciousness. I would never argue that. The science of the brain is pretty irrefutable where the emergence of consciousness is concerned. However, I only have an opinion on the matter and it's not based on any vast knowledge about brain chemistry, biology, or neuroscience. It's based solely on my opinion.

I liken the brain to a radio receiver/transmitter. It receives the signal of consciousness and converts it into a usable signal by our bodies. It also receives sensory information about our world as well as it controls all of the necessary functions of our bodies. The brain is the nexus between consciousness and our world. This makes sense to me. If consciousness has always existed and yet our physical bodies evolved from random atoms coalescing than is the fact that we possess consciousness random? If it's not random than it was intentional and so then where did the will come from? I have clearly stated that I do not believe in a God, or have I? I'm sure an Atheist would argue that my belief in consciousness being the alpha and omega is no different than believing in a creator God, and that Atheist would be correct in many important ways. I do not identify myself as an Atheist.

I believe that evolution happened and it was following the gentle manipulation of consciousness. I do not believe that consciousness has a will or is even aware of itself. I believe that it just is and so are we. Evolution is the process consciousness took on it's way to birth and self awareness. Evolution has not stopped occurring and the process has created more than human civilization is collectively aware of. I believe it's likely there are many more dimensions that consciousness itself participates in. Spiritual evolution is your hold on consciousness becoming aware of the different levels of awareness until the ultimate expanse is reached. Spiritual enlightenment would be the point where that expanse collapses in on itself and becomes infinitesimally small. Enlightenment is consciousness experiencing paradox. It's so full that it becomes empty. It's the experience of the big bang. There is no God...just isness.

Looking for the answer to why everything is is the contradiction that can never be explained. There is no answer to why we are! In fact attempting to answer this question was our original sin in my opinion. By attempting to answer the question of why, man has split into different factions. Religion was born from this futile attempt and then the different religions had to be defended by those who did not understand. I think there is some truth to the idea of original sin, but only a little. It seems violence is a necessary part of consciousness unfolding in life.

If violence is a necessary part of consciousness than why is it considered undesirable by man? Violence and compassion are on the opposite side of the morality spectrum but they are both necessary. Morality is dictated by whatever is good for life. If an act or process is not good for life than it is seen as negative or immoral. Killing another person is not good for life. Good health is necessary for long life and so anything promoting health is good. This is a very slippery slope. It could easily be used to justify eugenics and indeed has been. Assisting evolution by ridding the gene pool of undesirable genes. This is what Hitler attempted to do. The point is that it was not his decision to make. We don't know what evolution needs or wants because we can't possibly know what the next step is.

Sometimes death is good for life. In fact without death there can be no life. Ultimately this comes down to the nature of energy. Take the situation our planet is in now with regards to the human population. Seen from a strict ecological lens, good health for the inhabitants of the planet is going to require much death to occur. Without this death we will eventually all be miserable because there won't be enough resources to uphold good health for everybody. This fact does not make dropping a nuclear bomb on China and India morally correct. But why not? If morality is determined by what is good for life, and it can be agreed that death is necessary to cultivate good health, than it should be seen as good and even necessary to decrease our numbers to assist in this process. We all know that it is not good or desirable to commit genocide. However, the argument to commit genocide and eugenics in the name of assisting evolution is repulsive to those of us who possess a healthy psyche. Why?

Servicing healthy life is the pentacle of moral behavior. The quest to exhibit good and morally correct behavior seems to be a paradox. Yet the nature of consciousness itself is a paradox. I said that enlightenment was experiencing the point where fullness becomes emptiness. These ultimate paradoxes do not have logical answers. We intrinsically know what good behavior is. Our highest purpose as humans should be to safeguard the idea that cultivating healthy life is our purpose. We only need faith that this idea is correct.

1 comment:

John said...

Please check out these related references on the nature of Consciousness.
And why we urgently need to wake up if Civilization and Earth-kind altogether is even going to survive.

The politics that extends from the above.