If conscious awareness is a byproduct of biochemical reactions does this mean that the concept of ‘I’ is nothing more than an illusion?
212801
What you are reffering to is the mind/body problem.\n\nThe question assumes that Consciousness is something that can be purely manifested in either physical matter or simulated in program, these kinds of statements dot not solve the mind-body problem.\n\nIf you consider the concept of a soul than this is a better model for consciousness. Otherwise one would be forced to except that nerve cells which are made up of atoms can possess an attribute known as consciousness. If that where the case then there is no reason as to why any other atoms can not possess a conscious. Since the laws of Physical state that one atom can not be no different to another atom. This would mean ultimately to except that we have a conscious, we would also have to except that any other objet can also have a consciousness (such as a rock, or toaster) but we now that is not true. Rocks do not feel love, hate or get angry.\n\nIn short, your computer can not have a consciousness, nor can it be “emulated” as it is not a physical phenomenon, rather the physical mind is merely the transmission medium between consciousness and the physical world.\n\nHope that helps\n\nAnhar Hussain Miah
664232
The concept (that's what this really is) of nothing - or "no thing" is easy to understand and explain its existence. Lets examine a few things to get a grasp of this.\n\nFor example, when there is a lack of water, we say that its state of being is dry, arid, etc. Simply because there is a lack of something doesn't mean it does not exist.\n\nMy second example is that of your self. If you are not in a specific location at a specific time, and I am a witness to that event - or lack thereof - does that mean you do not exist? Surely not.\n\nFinally, the concept of "no thing" goes one step further than the examples above, however it is important to remember that the state of being no thing is exactly that - a state of being. Can something that does not even exist have a state of being (or a state of not being in this case)? It must exist to have these attributes. Simply because some thing does not have tangibility in our physical realm does not mean it does not exist. In fact, I would argue that due to all of the things I've stated here, it is more likely that the things we can not see or grasp are more likely to be real in a truer sense than the things we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste everyday. Simply because it is a concept does not mean it can not exist.
32285
MEDITATION I.\n\nOF THE THINGS OF WHICH WE MAY DOUBT.\n\n\n1. SEVERAL years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences. But as this enterprise appeared to me to be one of great magnitude, I waited until I had attained an age so mature as to leave me no hope that at any stage of life more advanced I should be better able to execute my design. On this account, I have delayed so long that I should henceforth consider I was doing wrong were I still to consume in deliberation any of the time that now remains for action. To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions], and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions.[L][F]\n\n2. But, to this end, it will not be necessary for me to show that the wholeof these are false--a point, perhaps, which I shall never reach; but as even now my reason convinces me that I ought not the less carefully to withhold belief from what is not entirely certain and indubitable, than from what is manifestly false, it will be sufficient to justify the rejection of the whole if I shall find in each some ground for doubt. Nor for this purpose will it be necessary even to deal with each belief individually, which would be truly an endless labor; but, as the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice, I will at once approach the criticism of the principles on which all my former beliefs rested.[L][F]\n\n3. All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.[L][F]\n\n4. But it may be said, perhaps, that, although the senses occasionally mislead us respecting minute objects, and such as are so far removed from us as to be beyond the reach of close observation, there are yet many other of their informations (presentations), of the truth of which it is manifestly impossible to doubt; as for example, that I am in this place, seated by the fire, clothed in a winter dressing gown, that I hold in my hands this piece of paper, with other intimations of the same nature. But how could I deny that I possess these hands and this body, and withal escape being classed with persons in a state of insanity, whose brains are so disordered and clouded by dark bilious vapors as to cause them pertinaciously to assert that they are monarchs when they are in the greatest poverty; or clothed [in gold] and purple when destitute of any covering; or that their head is made of clay, their body of glass, or that they are gourds? I should certainly be not less insane than they, were I to regulate my procedure according to examples so extravagant.[L][F]\n\n5. Though this be true, I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently, I am in the habit of sleeping, and representing to myself in dreams those same things, or even sometimes others less probable, which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments. How often have I dreamt that I was in these familiar circumstances, that I was dressed, and occupied this place by the fire, when I was lying undressed in bed? At the present moment, however, I certainly look upon this paper with eyes wide awake; the head which I now move is not asleep; I e
332243
There is One consciousess whic has no beginning...no end..it remains there always.\n\nThis conciousness when manifests...the Time starts and Universe starts to emerge...personal god is also a manifestaion of that Supreme consciousness\n\nAll is That superme consciousness...all manifestations be it living beings or inert stones, are his manifestations...to take joy out of his manifestations..\n\nKnow that Truth...become that truth!!
125543
That's the Akashic model. It's a combination of spirtualism with genetic memory. Snakes for example are born knowing everything they need, how to feed, move, how to hiss and bite and the complex rituals of mating. Human babies know how to suckle for milk, and blind children smile when happy although they've never seen anyone do it and couldn't learn what it meant.\n\nThe Akashic model goes further and says that either \nA) all wealth of human knowledge is genetically imprinted at some level (you're DNA holds everything about life, health etc. while the atoms in your body are aware of the laws of physics, your mind knows social functions, conversation etc.) and through learning, viewing others, hearing explanations this knowledge is unlocked and brought forth into the conscious mind (the biological approach)\n\nB) All wealth of human knowledge throughout time is held on a different level of consciousness, or a different plane of existence that transcends time and space, and since every atom, every thing and every person in the universe are connected and react to each other (Butterfly effect) it is in theory possible to connect to this universal knowledge simply by one person at some point knowing what you want to know. (this goes into Metaphysics and spiritualism). They are referred to as the Akshic Records, and some beleive to become fully conscious of them is to reach Nirvana and Enlightenment
110518
I don't think people are lying awake worrying about it.  That's not something most people think about.  However, I would think that the initial response, if it were a reality, would be fear.  What motivates it?  Since we rely heavily on technology, what threat does it pose?  Even as I type this, I try ro refrain from saying "they" instead of "it" (they is typically used to describe an unknown group, as if they're forming alliances.)  When we think of awareness, we think of life.  Life consumes life for survival.  It is only natural that we'd fear it.\n\nHowever, I think we are far from achieving such a feat.  Defining awareness would prove just as difficult.
169551
I think you would get some better answers if this was asked in philosophy ;-)\nApart from that my first thought was; which reflex systems?\nAlso it don't make sense to me really.  Seems like some words are in the wrong place but then i am no good at proper philosophical lingo.\nIt's a two way sword, if you redefine mind from a scientific viewpoint you will need the evidence and then you end up in neurochemistry and what they call biological psychology.\nIf you redefine it from a philosophical viewpopint then it would come under philosophy of mind and have a look here what that is about: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/Metaphysics-and-Epistemology.
598361
I think you have it backwards.  The macrocosm reflects (to a degree), the microcosm.\n\nAt present, no-one knows if there are other universes.  My suspicion (not belief, just suspicion) is that everything that is possible is in some sense actual.  My other suspicion is that nothing is actual at all, so there is nothing to prevent the existence of everything.  Yes, that's a contradiction, but we're allowed to contemplate them once we step outside the bounds of what is knowable.
518818
The general name for drugs that have an effect on perception is PSYCHOTROPICS.\n\nThe main problem is that it's difficult to find out whether the drugs give "unusual perception and understanding", or just MAKE YOU THINK that this effect has happened.\n\nThe best example of this is alcohol, which gives a drinker the impression of sharper reflexes, greater awareness, better judgement and just generally MASSIVELY IMPROVED DRIVING SKILLS. In reality, these faculties are all suppressed by the alcohol.\n\nFor further information, see Aldous Huxley's book 'The Doors of Perception'. (same guy that wrote 'Brave New World')
145476
I have always been fascinated by the way that processing in the brain leads to the experience of the mind. An understanding of this relationship has eluded science throughout the ages and i wanted to be involved in trying to advance our understanding of the brain-mind relationship. I should add that some people believe there is no such thing as the mind and that all we should be trying to study is the physical processing performed by the brain.
28730
Consider yourself blessed that you are able to perceive such signs and find compassion for those who have yet to learn to do so. If you could prove something scientifically it would be a state of fact or otherwise it would be an opinion. The definition of a belief is that it cannot be proven. I propose you let those know about your religious experiances who want to listen to you about them. The others are not ready to do so and thus just let them be.
274100
It is not a fact and there is no proof of it. When it does happen there can be many explanations from hallucination to lack of oxygen to the brain. From a belief perspective that is another story and to each his own.
80157
Adaptations are hard-wired into our brains, and thus under some artificial manipulations can cause inappropriate interpretations of the visual scene. Or, as Purkinje put it: "Illusions of the senses tell us the truth about perception" (cited by Teuber, 1960).
117578
To put the question in an operational way, you should first define what you mean as "self-awareness".\nSuppose tomorrow I give you a machine that I claim is self-aware. How do you plan to decide whether the machine is truly self-aware or is a fake?\nAlan Turing, in his famous paper of 1950 (see reference), proposed a simple test to decide that. The Turing test is still a reference framework for the AI.\n\nIf you accept (as I do) the rationale of the Turing test, your question is now well-posed.\nSaid that, my personal opinion is that there is no specific reason why a machine cannot pass the Turing test. It's only matter of time. Remember, some decades ago, Chess playing was considered the hard frontier of AI. Today you can get free or low-cost programs capable to win over most human Chess Masters.
359684
Your beliefs are more important than the beliefs of people on this website.  \n\nYou may find this book helpful: "The Biology of Belief".  It is written by Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.  Dr. Lipton is a cell biologist and former professor at Stanford Medical School.\n\nHere is a quote from the cover: "Stunning new scientific discoveries about the biochemical effects of the brain's functioning show that all the cells of your body are affected by your thoughts.  The author, a renowned cell biologist, describes the precise molecular pathways through which this occurs."\n\nThe book is available at Amazon.com\n\nBest wishes and good luck.
28553
Perhaps, I have not communicated with a star or a grain of sand, but this might just be a communication problem.\nI am that I am.\nA catchy phrase.\nSelf awareness.  Being.  But are you so sure of the awareness of anything else?  Just because you have a point of view does not mean that you are separated from the Universe as a whole.  It just means that you have a point of perception, a sinularity of awareness.\nPerhaps the boundary between yourself and the rest of the Universe is a boundary that you imagined?  What if it is not real?  Then how about the dividing lines between mind and body and heart and any other constructs that you might have imagined as well?  And in addition, how about all those items "Out there" beyond your ego boundary that you might consider not you?  What if these are imagined as well?\nBy imagined, I do not wish to imply make-believe.  Just believe.  Perhaps the Universe is too big and complex to deal with, so our pitiful being slices it up in order to "make sense" out of that which is beyond our ability to understand.\nThis might put a whole new twist on the concept of objective reality.
672518
What exactly do you think a soul is?  What properties does it have?  What part of 'you' resides in the soul? \n\nIf it's postulated that consciousness, or awareness, or sense of self resides in the soul, it's difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the complete oblivion which accompanies general anaesthesia.  How could a straightforward chemical,  injected into the bloodstream, anaesthetise a soul so that it effectively ceases to exist during this time?  If consciousness, in the form of a soul, were some kind of supernatural faculty, it would seem implausible that it could be completely disabled by a chemical. \n\nHow about some of the other things which we regard as essential parts of what makes a person what they are?  How about love, compassion, reason, empathy, memory, conscious thought, character, 'spirituality' and so on? Well, there is really no plausible doubt that all these things are properties of the physical brain.  We can alter all of these properties very simply with alcohol or other drugs, and observe how they change in people who have suffered significant brain damage - Previously placid people become uncontrollably violent, intelligent people become imbeciles, and so on.  Stimulate the brain artificially, and the subject reports corresponding mental activity, e.g. 'religious experiences'.  We can see from brain research that all these things - thought, emotion, sensation, character traits and so on - are correlated with activity in the brain, and some things can be identified with specific areas of the brain. \n\nSo, if all these faculties and characteristics of what we regard as the 'person' reside in the physical brain, as seems to be undeniably the case, and they all cease when the person dies, then what is left to be attributed to a 'soul'?  As far as I can ascertain:  Nothing. If there is no part of us that can continue after death, then there is no 'afterlife'... and if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is null and void.