http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/2334/
Documentary: From Science to God
Moses Seenarine
Synopsis - Peter Russell starts with the “hard problem” of consciousness - why do we have an inner world of experience? Diving into his eye, and into his mind, we enter a surreal world in which we discover that all we ever know directly are the forms and images arising in the mind. But, he asks, where does consciousness itself come from? Has conventional science got it wrong? Peter explores the mystery of consciousness from two perspectives - the mystery of its origins from matter, and the mystery of the "I", the self. Shot in high-quality digital, this production utilizes animation and innovative post-production to create an exciting experience that takes the viewer to the heart of the emerging new paradigm on human consciousness.
Andrew
thanks for posting this. I'll add it to my psych student blog.
Denise
It caught my attention when Peter said "The next great frontier is not outerspace, it's innerspace". I like it. Thanks for sharing this documentary.
Monique
if I may....here's another good book about consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astonishing_Hypothesis
Moses Seenarine
Crick's controversial message, "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" [2] has caused some controversy over the physiological approach.
Monique
Well I'm not an educated woman and I don't know any of the hard sciences aside from the pop books i've read over the years, but i know enough to be satisfied with a vast assembly of nerve cells and their molecules as the foundation of my 'soul'....doesn't diminish the "me-ness" a'tall. Crick's outlook serves me, I'll take another helping of that meme.
At one point in time though, I had considered getting the book From Science to God. I've got his other book, very cool: The Global Brain Awakens.
Now I think I better actually look at the posted video before scribbling anymore....thanks Moses!
Andrew
What he's referring to seems to actually be more of an aspect of theory of mind. Also, he claims science says animals lack consciousness. This assertion is blatantly false. Science actually indicated various levels of consciousness in most all complex living organisms. Different animals, most noticeably chimpanzees, but perhaps others, also appear to have some levels of theory of mind as well.
There's a certain ego behind the idea that consciousness is all that unique, ours and at the center of things. He's preaching that because we don't know what gives rise to consciousness, then it must be a spiritual quality and he sort of over relies on social constructionist theory (which I do find quite a powerful one for describing a lot of human behaviour) in a way that would imply we are working diligently to deny a spiritual basis. I don't think that's quite the case of you look at the percentage of global religious belief. He also asserts that our primal need for happiness and and our consumerist tendencies is the result of denying our spiritual self, or the "real" nature of our consciousness, but this wouldn't pass the test of occam's razor, as evolutionary psychology offers a much more direct explanation of over consumption.
In the latter third he looks at meditation. The act of being in the present. This does bring about certain physiological changes, but there's no proven correlation of a spiritual change. As you sit still, focus on smooth, slow breathing, your heart beat slows down, neurons rest. This could be what we call "at peace," and is a phenomenal experience that is not diminished by being totally a chemical process....
We do have some great laboratory settings to investigate consciousness, and the exist in hospitals in almost every town around the world.
Ray Kurzweil recently discussed them in h+ Magazine. Anesthesiologists make people unconscious all the time. In studies of what happens to people when they go under, consciousness seems to correlate with gamma coherence; a certain synchrony between neurons that create gamma waves. Evidence shows that gamma coherence goes away with anesthesia and people enter the experience known as unconsciousness. Is that the whole story? Far from it. But it's an example of how the systems that give rise to consciousness can be explored and understood. At various points in human history it was thought that diseases were the work of devils and impure living. It was a great way to wash your hands of the sick and say they had it coming, but not much good for solving problems.
Finally, he states that science describes the world but doesn't give us meaning, it gives us technology, but not guidance in how to use it. He sums up by saying we should combine the knowledge of science with the wisdom of religion. I couldn't imagine a better way to stunt both of them. The goal of discovering the root of conscious, he seems to assert here, is not identifiable and thus a matter of faith so let's stop worrying about it and just accept we're all spiritual beings. But that's the opposite of what science does.
To me, science gives us a lot of meaning: a dedication to exploration, study and wonder about the nature of all that's around us being one. It also does give us ideas about how to live: Science says don't eat all that crap fast food, you might want to cut down on smoking and boozing it up night after night might not be a good idea. If you want to see the people who are sapping these sorts of ideas out of our culture you'd have to find the corporate lobbyists.
I think this and other sort of spiritual arguments like it make the false assertion that science claims to "know" the truth. That's actually what religion does. Science puts forth what is the most likely explanation and then peers debate the studies, attempt to repeat them and either refute them or build upon them if they can be repeated with the same results.
He says that underneath it all, religions are all basically the same. To me, this would really only be true from an atheistic point of view. At some point we do also need to take into account that religions do differ, sometimes in fundamental ways (hence: fundamentalists). It's great the the interfaith groups are getting together. It's certainly better than the classical way of working things out, but the reason they're doing it is to overcome the obstacles.
There are certain things people are fond of considering to be miraculous, and consciousness, literally who we are, is one of them. We don't know yet what ultimately infuses us with it, but the arguments for a physiological explanation have a lot more going from them. I don't think it makes the reality any less incredible.
Monique
yeah, what Andrew said
Andrew
I store it up for a bi-monthly vomit of text it seems.
Moses Seenarine
my consciousness generated the same thoughts on russell that andrew points out; individualism is an illusion :)
consciousness and unconsciousness are both the product of thought, which is accumulated experiences and memories; this accumulation has been going on in the specie for thousands of years, and is part of of conditioning; thought does have a material basis that crick points to, however, thoughts are mostly unnecessary and mainly serve to limit our perception of reality by keeping us trapped in ego, in the past, in our conditioning; so, rather that seeing and meeting life anew, we operate from the known
the interesting point for me is why are other animals not so trapped in their thoughts, how come they are so much more alive to the ever-changing present? is is because of our fear and desire to change the unknown future? perhaps it all began when we set ourselves apart from nature and sought to control the uncontrollable...
Monique
lol @ Andrew
Ernest Becker theory also states that another pretty big thing that sets us apart from animals is our awareness of the eventuality of death...creates all sorts of anxieties that we have to have to deal with...thus, ego is born...we set up all sorts of rituals and institutions to make us feel like we are more than mortal and so overcome death. Religion is the obvious answer. With that stuff, you supposedly, literally overcome death. Other stuff include sports where we beat out over the 'other', thus giving us a symbolic sense of immortality.
Animals cannot look into the future or grasp memory in the way that we do, so their reaction to death is in-the-moment; fight-flight. They're pretty much happy-go-lucky without this morbid foreknowledge. etc., etc.
Andrew
I would agree that there's some basis for that Monique. I don't recall who said it or the actual quote, but to paraphrase: denial is our natural state.
No comments:
Post a Comment