Consciousness

[DragonFly]

When anesthesia chemicals are applied to the brain’s nerve cells and their microtubules structure, the ongoing process of consciousness of witnessing what the brain is doing is totally inhibited and halted. It happens, as sure as anything, when done right. The inescapable conclusion is that the process of consciousness is chemical; there’s no real decent way to neglect or get around this. When the anesthesia is taken off, then consciousness returns. It’s not that it ran and hid in the closet and then returned when the coast was clear.

I call consciousness—it being the brain’s perception of itself—the sixth sense. This consciousness process extends all the way to the nerve spindles of the body, allowing one to actionize before committing to actually moving. It is also useful for learning, it then being used intensely until the actions become more automatic. Of course, it’s greatest use is so we can know what we’re doing, thinking, or feeling. Some have latched on only to the word ‘consciousness’ itself, as if no brain or body is required to support it. Anyway, we have localized the phenomena to the brain.

Consciousness from the neurological states that correlate to it arrives 200-300 milliseconds after the subconscious brain has completed its analysis, for this takes time, and so consciousness is the last to ‘know’ of the result, so there is no ‘consciousness being first and making all else’.

[iolo]

When anesthesia chemicals are applied to the brain’s nerve cells and their microtubules structure, the ongoing process of consciousness of witnessing what the brain is doing is totally inhibited and halted. It happens, as sure as anything, when done right. The inescapable conclusion is that the process of consciousness is chemical; there’s no real decent way to neglect or get around this. When the anesthesia is taken off, then consciousness returns. It’s not that it ran and hid in the closet and then returned when the coast was clear.

I call consciousness—it being the brain’s perception of itself—the sixth sense. This consciousness process extends all the way to the nerve spindles of the body, allowing one to actionize before committing to actually moving. It is also useful for learning, it then being used intensely until the actions become more automatic. Of course, it’s greatest use is so we can know what we’re doing, thinking, or feeling. Some have latched on only to the word ‘consciousness’ itself, as if no brain or body is required to support it. Anyway, we have localized the phenomena to the brain.

Consciousness from the neurological states that correlate to it arrives 200-300 milliseconds after the subconscious brain has completed its analysis, for this takes time, and so consciousness is the last to ‘know’ of the result, so there is no ‘consciousness being first and making all else’.

Essentially it's a sort of cancer, making the annihilation of the species inevitable by destroying 'natural' reactions.

[grandpa]

Essentially it's a sort of cancer, making the annihilation of
the species inevitable by destroying 'natural' reactions.

I wouldn't say human "consciousness" equals "annihilation."

It has, under the right conditions, let to major issues.
There's the view that "self-defensive measures" do not "justify, in pursuit of an anti-genocide
regime, interfering in the internal affairs of these beset states where the
question of genocide is not at issue. The aim...is not to disarm the state;
rather it is to empower states and the principal agents of the international
community–the great powers–to end genocide and to insulate their own
politics and differences from its infection. The claim is narrow in its
proposed application yet universal in its reach, viz., to oblige the big powers
to end genocide as an acceptable solution to conflicts between peoples and
states."
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bits...pdf?sequence=1

That's right, fruther empowering "big powers" will supposedly prevent genocide.
Then there's our ecological niche.

Still, I hesitate to blame consciousness in general for this. I would rather narrow it down.

Grandpa h.

[iolo]

I wouldn't say human "consciousness" equals "annihilation."

It has, under the right conditions, let to major issues.
There's the view that "self-defensive measures" do not "justify, in pursuit of an anti-genocide
regime, interfering in the internal affairs of these beset states where the
question of genocide is not at issue. The aim...is not to disarm the state;
rather it is to empower states and the principal agents of the international
community–the great powers–to end genocide and to insulate their own
politics and differences from its infection. The claim is narrow in its
proposed application yet universal in its reach, viz., to oblige the big powers
to end genocide as an acceptable solution to conflicts between peoples and
states."
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bits...pdf?sequence=1

That's right, fruther empowering "big powers" will supposedly prevent genocide.
Then there's our ecological niche.

Still, I hesitate to blame consciousness in general for this. I would rather narrow it down.

Grandpa h.

It has meant incredibly swift progress, but, I think, rather in the same way we could move much faster without brakes. Animal instincts were a very inadequate survival-tactic, I know, but they did mean that a species, by and large, would only destroy itself. To build up the fumbling intellectual notions of primitives like - for instance - an individual and continuous 'self' based on intermittent self-awareness - into realities means that people will often believe, amongst other dubious things, that one of these imagined 'selves' is more important than the continuation of the universe, while at the same time developing the means of universal destruction. That's what I find myself feeling at the moment, whatever. Perhaps I'm just getting old!

[DragonFly]

Consciousness is the 'it' of our inner reality as expressed from the correlated 'bits' of the neurological, for the 'bits' must come first. Still, it is as if the same information has two forms, as water turning into wine, unless the firing of the neurons across the synapses of the 'bits' is the 'it', the wine being the same as the water.

[DragonFly]

THE SPREAD OF CONSCIOUSNESS

As for mind (and consciousness), which are really just extensions of the brain, and it is spread all over the body, such as even to all of the nerve spindles, a way of actionizing without having to commit to any movement (reports still come up the spine to the brain, of the scenarios), and, of course, that trying to talk about the ‘mind’ being separate from the body-brain in any way makes no real sense, except in some language shortcuts such as “What’s on your mind?”, this being really saying about that which surfaced in the more global/higher part of the brain at this instant or moment (usually a very few things at any given instant), from that repertoire that is your self, this being what you have amounted to from memories, instincts, experiences, learnings, and all that.

Interestingly enough, though, the common usage of ‘I’ seems to refer more to the conscious sensation, rather than the ongoing self part of the brain, which is mostly hidden in its subconscious analysis, this analysis even being rather done and finished, well before the results reach our consciousness, a few hundred milliseconds later. This gets back to almost having to hear what we are saying or writing to know the full depth of what we think. It’s not that we would want to see the neurons firing away and calculating, for that might make little sense, nor even the rest of the 95% that the brain does without it ever reaching consciousness. Walt Whitman had a good description of the body-brain-mind-being-the-same.

[grandpa]

It has meant incredibly swift progress, but, I think, rather
in the same way we could move much faster without
brakes.
Animal instincts were a very inadequate survival-tactic, I know,
but they did mean that a species, by and large,
would only destroy itself.

Intelligence is really a relative thing. A lot of great historic thinkers, for example, were idiotic in certain ways. The main problem is when someone discovers THE WAY and considers any other way to be absolutely, 100% wrong. That's basically a formula for disaster every time.
I'm generalizing, of course, but I know that to be a fact in most cases, simply because it's expected that we omit all contrary views altogether. And, because the other views disappear or are relegated to footnotes, there's an instant illusion that "we" truly are right.

And yes, I could be talking partly about views like my own. Anarchism has, in many respects, been
brought back and published about more in recent years. Occupy and, to a lesser extent, the Tea Party movement, have components of it. Still, there are few if any other people in this thread who actually have read works by anarchists (I myself hesitate to say "I'm an anarchist," simply because I dislike labels -- but it's the closest thing to what my views are).

There are other typically neglected views, too, but I'm typing about what I know about.

Grandpa h.

[iolo]

We had an anarchist club I started in school and we used to get 'Freedom', but it was a long time ago. I've read Kropotkin and that Italian anarchist whose name escapes me, and the bloke who kept our village garage was in touch with a Glasgow anarchist who ran his own paper too. Takes me back. I'm in touch (through language classes) with a current anarchist who runs his own magazine, but that one seems to me a bit sort-of-too-respectable.

[grandpa]

THE SPREAD OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
As for mind (and consciousness), which are really just extensions
of the brain, and it is spread all over the
body, such as even to all of the nerve spindles,
a way of actionizing without having to commit to any
movement (reports still come up the spine to the brain,
of the scenarios), and, of course, that trying to talk
about the ‘mind’ being separate from the body-brain in
any way makes no real sense, except in some language
shortcuts such as “What’s on your mind?”, this being really
saying about that which surfaced in the more global/higher
part of the brain at this instant or moment (usually
a very few things at any given instant), from that
repertoire that is your self, this being what you have
amounted to from memories, instincts, experiences, learnings, and all that.

A very long sentence in a thread about consciousness.

I'll add some fuel to the fire, I guess.

1. I've always been interested in how brain chemistry, and therefore behavior, can be changed through eating.

2. Then there's this:
"Spindle cells may help people register the general appropriateness of
transactions or
events, he said. They are a teaching system that takes output from social
emotion circuits — I feel good about this, I don't feel good about that — and
sends it all over the cortex for further action to occur.
Spindle cells are not present at birth..."
Humanity? Maybe It's in the Wiring - New York Times

And, despite other differences of opinion (differences in consciousness), most of us can find common ground.
For example, I basically agree with the following:
"In order to build loving relationships, brothers and sisters, we
need a certain role. One more thing is, don't complain without suggesting a
solution. I believe that true love can be built with loving relationships."
Rev. In Hoi Lee - The 1.5 Generation

3. You can have understanding, but rarely has anyone handed it to you. Just about every view has an alternative, and you have to assess which aspect is more secure and why, if you want a practical approach to an issue at hand. Otherwise you could never say "That makes no sense." This can be a frustrating challenge to our own views, which is why many don't try to understand different views very much. It's similar to how one rarely enjoys both the journey and the drive back as well.

Similarly, anything close to being temporally simultaneous in the brain risks confusion. I think that's why, over time, we've wanted it so language could be expedited. English? Not so much in the normal sense, if you look at how language is leaning. There's an increasing amount of quasi-universal symbolism in communication, so I think standard English is breaking down in many ways -- sort of like Pidgin English in, say, Nigeria. Technology seems to be assisting in this breakdown. I'm not saying English will disappear or anything drastic, but it's changing as consciousness morphs with technology and language is expedited. Words are increasingly self-referential parodies.

Hopefully this wasn't all just psycho-babble. It made some sense to me.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

We had an anarchist club I started in school and
we used to get 'Freedom', but it was a long
time ago.
I've read Kropotkin and that Italian anarchist whose name escapes
me, and the bloke who kept our village garage was
in touch with a Glasgow anarchist who ran his own
paper too.

You know what's wonderful, though? Purveyors of the status quo inevitably discover how lonely multiplicity can be. Sad how some would rather attend a UFO conference than just talk to each other normally about how they're getting screwed by the system. Anything but reality, except as the very last resort.

Grandpa h.