To be aware or not to be aware. That is the question.

See on Scoop.itCONSCIOUSNESSISALL

 

Awareness, a retake on consciousness is about how to control our mind and focus it not only in material chores and ordinary task but in our transcendental universal dimension developed in our life.

Rafael Ortega‘s insight:

To be aware or not to be aware. That is the question.  Transcendental Consciousness is the awareness  of silent source of all thoughts, activities and behaviour. A pure transcendental liaison into our self and all, permeating and fusioning with the universe, brahman. Transcendental awareness, is defined as the capacity to identify transcendent,  dimensions of the self.  It is the unified field of consciousness, the origine, manifestation of all the laws of nature, God. Regular experience of Transcendental Consciousness can give a greater dimension and happiness , growing  towards enlightenment.
Transcendental consciousness is a relative state and only can be totally  reached in the measure of our dedication. Yoga, Patanjali yoga is one of its paths.  We work  over the SELF,  over the mind, over our bodies, uniting the all and your spirit, which suppose an state of pure silence and a source of illumination and peace.
When you change the normal waking state of consciousness field on a regular basis, your daily life becomes infused with joy, peace and Transcendental Consciousness.

IS A DIVINE COMPONENT THE GOD SPOT AND INNER LIGHT FOUND IN  EVERY-MAN AND WOMAN BUT ASLEEP AND IS COVERED UP BY THE WIDE VARIETY OF LIFELONG  PROGRAMMING OF THE MUNDANE CONTAINER OF CONSCIOUSNESS MOSTLY, EXISTENT IN MEMORY OF ALL THE IMPRESSIONS ABSORBED IN THE "PAST",  EARTHLY,  SOFT MACHINE AND  NATURE IYSELF..INCLUDING TRAUMATIC EVENTS THAT WOUND AND SCAR THE PERSON ALSO IN MEMORY BUT USUALLY STORED IN THE "UNCONSCIOUS", OFTEN PROVOKING "DENIAL" IN  THE INDIVIDUAL, THE BLINDNESS AND DEAFNESS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

This gap is what the American philosopher David Chalmers calls ‘the hard problem’. Victorian thinkers called it the ‘great chasm’ or the ‘fathomless abyss’. It is a modern version of the ancient mind-body problem – but it seems to get worse, not better, the more we learn about the brain. Neuroscience is rapidly explaining how brains discriminate colours, solve problems and organise actions – but the hard problem remains. The objective world out there, and the subjective experiences in here, seem to be totally different kinds of thing. Asking how one produces the other seems to be a nonsense.

In the 1989 International Dictionary of Psychology Stuart Sutherland wrote “Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it.” In the subsequent decade there was an explosion of research and theorising on consciousness and some of it is worth reading. This much has been achieved – that people generally now agree that when we talk about consciousness, or the problems of consciousness, we are talking about subjectivity. Work on memory and learning, perception or emotions, may be relevant but is only about consciousness if we are concerned with subjective experiences. Beyond that the agreement is less secure.

What makes consciousness such a special and intractable problem? The answer is that whichever way you look at it, the dualism trap seems to be waiting. If you think that mind is something different from matter then you have problems (as Descartes did) with how the two different worlds interact. If you deny a separate mind and stick to only physical brains and neurons then you deny your own subjective experience. If you accept that there is subjective experience, and that there are also physical brains that cause that experience then you have to bridge the ‘explanatory gap’, or what William James called the ‘fathomless abyss’ or the “‘chasm’ between the inner and the outer worlds” (James 1890, i. 146).

David Chalmers Scientific American Dec 1995

The "easy" problems of consciousness, Chalmers pointed out, include those of explaining the following phenomena:

    the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
    the integration of information by a cognitive system
    the reportability of mental states
    the ability of a system to access its own internal states
    the focus of attention
    the deliberate control of behavior
    the difference between wakefulness and sleep

Conscious experience is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. There is nothing we know about more directly than consciousness, but it is exraordinarily hard to reconcile it with everything else we know. Why does it exist? What does it do? How could it possibly arise from neural processes m the brain? These questions are among the most intriguing in all of science. From an objective viewpoint, the brain is relatively comprehensible. When you look at this page, there is a whir of processing: photons strike your retm, electrical signals are passed up your optic nerve and between different areas of your brain, and eventually you might respond with a smile, a perplexed frown or a remark. But there is also a subjective aspect. When you look at the page, you are conscious of it, directly experiencing the images and words as part of your private, mental life. You have had impressions of colored flowers and vibrant sky. At the same time, you may be feeling some emotions and forming some thoughts. Together such experiences make up consciousness: the subjective, inner life of the niind. For many years, consciousness was shunned by researchers studying the brain and the niind. The prevailing trouble was that science, which depends on objectivity could not accommodate something as subjective as consciousness. The behaviorist movement in psychology dominant earlier in this century, concentrated on extemal behavior and disallowed any talk of internal mental processes. Later, the rise of cognitive science focused attention on processes inside the head. Still, consciousness remained off-limits, fit only for late-night discussion over drinks. over the past several years, however, an increasing number of neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers have been rejecting the idea that consciousness cannot be studied and are attempting to delve into its secrets.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/brainp/hard/hard.htm

http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html

In short, the center’s mission is to reopen an avenue of inquiry that has, since the era of philosopher/psychologist William James, been more or less taboo for serious researchers. Questions include:

    What is the true nature of this gloriously buzzing, glowing, shimmering, and ever-shifting something going on inside our heads?
    Does consciousness reside wholly in the brain and its processes? Or is there something more involved?
    Is consciousness a unified experience, or only seemingly whole?
     And why do we experience the world as we do – why does the color red, for example, which is apparently just a particular frequency of vibration on the electromagnetic spectrum, possess the subjective qualities that it does for us? Why, for example, do we hear sounds, instead of experiencing a disturbance of the atmosphere as some other sensation, or none at all?

Although James delighted in exploring consciousness, chiefly his own, and is generally considered to be the father of modern psychology, this aspect of mankind’s study of the mind was quickly abandoned shortly after the turn of the 20th century.

What is the true nature of this gloriously buzzing, glowing, shimmering, and ever-shifting something going on inside our heads?

There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain.

Whether the ultimate nature of experience lies within the processes of the brain itself, outside of those confines, or somewhere in between, is currently the subject of much debate.

The problem that may not be so easily answered, however, is a real mind-bender:

"The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience," Chalmers wrote. "When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion; and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience."

Whether the ultimate nature of experience lies within the processes of the brain itself, outside of those confines, or somewhere in between, is currently the subject of much debate.

One of the most intriguing theories comes from Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose and UA Medical Center anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, who is also an associate director of the consciousness center. The Penrose-Hameroff model postulates a so-called Platonic Realm at the Planck’s Scale, the unimaginably small scale at which physical reality loses its apparent seamlessness and becomes "granular."

Penrose and Hameroff have theorized the raw qualia of experience – the ultimate nature of the color red, for example, which our brains perhaps only imperfectly interpret – reside in this ultra-tiny, ultra-fast, and yet all-pervasive (and currently only theoretical) gap in our reality. Our brains access this realm – named for the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who postulated a world inhabited by ideals – through a series of rapid-fire quantum mechanical interactions, they speculate.

Many researchers in the artificial intelligence community, on the other hand, believe the ultimate nature of consciousness resides in algorithms, those calculational programs by which computers do their work. If an algorithm for human consciousness exists, those who take the extreme view of this position speculate it may reside in the actual formula itself, the numbers as it were, and not necessarily in its interaction with the brain.

In this scenario, a robot running the human consciousness algorithm would be no less conscious than a human brain running the same program. Penrose and Hameroff, on the other hand, argue the human brain’s alleged deep connection to nature on the quantum level may preclude machines from ever achieving consciousness as we know it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s