Comment by gneognostic on November 7, 2009 at 10:25pm

That's an excellent question. One might say, it's THE question. The micro-level question "is there a mind and a free will?" has a fascinating symmetry with the macro level question "is there a god independent from the universe?" There was a discussion about it on this site with some interesting responses, here.

http://www.redefinegod.com/forum/topics/philosophy-of-mind-and-the

Some would say there is no consciousness, just an illusion of consciousness (epiphenomenology). Others would say consciousness is separate from the body (dualism). Some say that there is no difference, just different levels of description (searle's fractal theory of mind). A few think that it's the body that's an illusion, and spirit, consciousness, mind, are the only thing that is real.

For me, mind is body and body is mind. "I" exist between my skin, it's my home. When my body breaks down, my consciousness will cease, and my atoms will go on to the next adventure, perhaps as grass or insects or birds.

I disagree with the quote you posted, because it seems to be ignorant of neurobiology. it's clear that our personal awareness (the input our brain receives) is confined to the information from our central and peripheral nervous system - our senses. No, we don't have a direct awareness of how our circulatory or digestive system works, because we don't have a nervous system that furnishes us with that information. mainly, our "consciousness of" is directed at the outside world

Comment by James S Saint on November 7, 2009 at 10:48pm

Consciousness is a subject that I find mishandled in both the materialist world as well as the non-materialist world. The real truth lay between, just as there must be a middle ground between a mind and a brain.

Consciousness is really only a name we have given to "awareness" and/or "abstract thinking", depending on who you are talking to. The question of whether conscious thoughts are connected to the material world is most definitely determinable.

ALL thought is based on "relevance". ALL distinction between all things is the result of "relevant difference". Thus literally every thought you have and have ever had is based on instinctive discernment of relevance. Evolution theory would confer, but mere logic is sufficient.

What determines relevance is a matter of how much something can effect you. Your perceptions are designed so as to ascertain potential effect. Those sensors are designed to distinguish greater and lesser effect and that is what the conscious mind uses to identify "objects".

An object, once identified, is categorized into relevance groupings and given the "abstract" label to identify that group. The abstract label merely points out the exact relevance of concern and is not an object of reality, but rather a category of concern in which similar real objects are classified.

In conscious abstract thinking, those labels become the objects of thought. You speak of a square, but a real perfect square cannot exist in the universe. But you can use the concept of a perfect square so as to estimate more complex concerns associated with real "almost square" objects.

So yes, conscious thought is definitely tide to the material world, yet is a part of the "divine realm" at the same time (abstracts are of the divine realm, not the physical realm).

This same issue rises when discussing "free-will" and how it is both free and not free at the same time.

Comment by gneognostic on November 7, 2009 at 11:55pm

james, you make the most sense to me when you're talking plato - about abstract labels (platonic forms), and the "divine realm". so to you, human consciousness is the ability to perceive forms, the bridge between the dual worlds.

My take on form is that it is a human projection - it doesn't seem to exist apart from human minds, so it's probably a feature of our cognitive structure. It's based in matter, but it gives matter context and self awareness (we are the universe looking at itself). Thus my philosophy is not dualistic like yours and platos, nor monist like the materialists or the idealists, but non-dualist. form and matter are interdependent, two sides of the same coin.

Comment by James S Saint on November 8, 2009 at 3:55am

gneognostic ,

Well, I understand what you are saying, but how do you deal with "perfect concepts" like a perfect square that cannot exist in the physical. It is a concept that our mind grasps (not creates). Or the more importantly, the principles, they are they real? Do they exist? They seems to have effect, yet are merely laws. Do government's laws exist in the physical?

I can never see a perfect square nor a principle. I can only see the aftermath of such things acting upon the physical universe.

I seriously don't think that such issues are of serious concern, but when asked, I like to have a rational answer. ]:o)

Comment