Individual Consciousness is perceived due to constraits of Space and Time .
It is no wonder that children with accumulation of thought processes fully operational,that is they feel the thoughts-not think the thoughts,are able to instinctively perceive others’ emotions and Thought processes.
For that matter even adults can perceive the same if they try not to think while perceiving and pay attention to what we normally call as ‘gut feeling’
care should be exercised to determine whether it is really agut feeling or a prejudiced one.
The feeling/impression one gets immediately without an iota of conscious deliberation is the ‘gut feeling’.
Story:
Babies as young as seven months old may be able to take into account the thoughts and beliefs of other people, according to a paper published today inScience1. Called ‘theory of mind’, this ability is central to human cooperation.
The finding provides evidence for the earliest awareness in infants so far of others’ perspectives, says lead author Ágnes Kovács, a developmental psychologist at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest. The research team made the discovery by measuring a simple behaviour — how long infants stare at a scene — in experiments that did not require infants to explicitly assess others’ thoughts or predict their actions.
Although many past studies have suggested that the ability to infer another person’s viewpoint does not arise until the age of four, scientists demonstrated in 2005 and 2007, respectively, that 15- and 13-month-old infants can, in some situations, comprehend the beliefs of others2,3.
The Physiological /Neurological explanation of consciousness is nothing more than that has been stated in philosophy, adding strength to the ditctum’The more you seem to know the less you know’.
The problems cited in the article are the questions raised in Philosophy and answers have been attempted.
We have sense organs,eyes,ears,nose,tongue and skin.
We also have five organs of awareness(loose translation of Gnana,which really means Knowledge), namely the sense of seeing ( as distinct from eyes),hearing,smelling,tasting and touching.
We also have mind which is the activity of the brain,
Intellect which distinguishes between correct and the incorrect , between Right and Wrong.
We also have Chitta that guides Intellect.
Beyond is ‘ I’ or Ahankaara..
Self or Atman is the embodiment of Being, Chitt and Bliss.
The Universal Chit is present is present in every being and is reflected as individual Chit in the individual because we are conditioned by Space and Time.
Rene Descates calls it proof for the existence of the Self.
Spinoza calls is Substance, defining it as’ that which does not need the existence of anything or which does not need the conception of anything else in order to be conceived’
Mimasa of Indian Philosophy calls it the Karma or action reaction cycle and Kant as categorical Imperative.
Consciousness is an attribute of Reality;Reality is not conditioned by it.
The difference between Mind and Matter is one of degree not of kind.All things are made up of vibrations,lesser the vibrations grosser the object becomes; greater , it becomes subtle or mind.( Miamsa and Buddhism)
Story:
The young women had survived the car crash, after a fashion. In the five months since parts of her brain had been crushed, she could open her eyes but didn’t respond to sights, sounds or jabs. In the jargon of neurology, she was judged to be in a persistent vegetative state. In crueler everyday language, she was a vegetable.
So picture the astonishment of British and Belgian scientists as they scanned her brain using a kind of MRI that detects blood flow to active parts of the brain. When they recited sentences, the parts involved in language lit up. When they asked her to imagine visiting the rooms of her house, the parts involved in navigating space and recognizing places ramped up. And when they asked her to imagine playing tennis, the regions that trigger motion joined in. Indeed, her scans were barely different from those of healthy volunteers. The woman, it appears, had glimmerings of consciousness.
Try to comprehend what it is like to be that woman. Do you appreciate the words and caresses of your distraught family while racked with frustration at your inability to reassure them that they are getting through? Or do you drift in a haze, springing to life with a concrete thought when a voice prods you, only to slip back into blankness? If we could experience this existence, would we prefer it to death? And if these questions have answers, would they change our policies toward unresponsive patients–making the Terri Schiavo case look like child’s play?
The report of this unusual case last September was just the latest shock from a bracing new field, the science of consciousness. Questions once confined to theological speculations and late-night dorm-room bull sessions are now at the forefront of cognitive neuroscience. With some problems, a modicum of consensus has taken shape. With others, the puzzlement is so deep that they may never be resolved. Some of our deepest convictions about what it means to be human have been shaken.
Religious beliefs are unfalsifiable?
So are axioms in Science-three angles of a triangle is equivalent to 180 degrees,law of Causality/uniformity of nature..
What is evidence? Evidence is a set of facts perceived by the individual conditioned by law of causality and Uniformity of nature which is not correct.
Evidence as message-What exactly are you looking for?
Universe itself is a message.
Human mind sees evolution and links?
Tell me, what is your mind? And what is Universal intention and how does one know it, much less to say it has none.
Let us first define mind, then proceed further.
There is no such thing as Super natural as every thing is Natural.
Every thing we think and do is natural and you can not call something as Super Natural because you can not explain by Laws known to you.
You can not trust senses for they lie and change;you can not trust others.But you can not deny you doubt.Cogito Ergo, Sum ,I think, there fore I am (Rene Descartes)
The Universal principle which is being erroneously called God does not go about proclaiming its omniscience and Omnipotence.It has more important work(if it has any intentions) to do rather than proving itself to us.In what way do we arrogate ourselves that we are worth being noticed?
Things happen in the world.it is us who try to link them hence there is no question of any necessity to prophesy.
Probably this piece has been written based on The Bible without referring to Philosophical treatises of the West and religious systems of the East.
Name of Bhagavad Gita has been mentioned.By the very expectation of the Gita it is evident the author has not studied it.
While dealing with abstract subjects, it is better to study and the write.Philosophy is not pulp fiction or gossip writing.
for details one may read the sacred texts like Bhagavad Gita /Upanishads if one wants to be enlightened. Or the least one can read my blogs filed under Indian philosophy/Religion/Hinduism.
If one looks for tautology and intellectual masturbation -well, there is nothing to say. http://www.alternet.org/story/147424/6_(unlikely)_developments_that_could_convince_this_atheist_to_believe_in_god
There is no such thing as Blind Faith.There is nothing like Rational Faith and Blind Faith.
Faith is what you experience and not what you think.
You feel the presence of Love,God, not think of them.
Faith is of the heart not of the Head.
Couple of points.
1.Before trying to dissect the concept of GOD and trying to rationalise either to prove or disprove,first define ‘Mind’-then define thoughts.So far no body has defined mind but still use the term frequently as if it is the highest authority.
Mind is not seen ,heard,smelt,felt,or tasted( the five senses);yet you say it exists.One might say it is because of the results,namely coordination of sense organs.This again is an assumption and not proven.
You may also map the brain ,scan it, but still you can not say what the mind is.Can you declare that mind is not operative when brain is in coma?You do no know,that is the answer.
2.How does one explain consciousness?Psychologists have a funny term’Unconscious’.If you are not conscious how come you know it?Again the result of consciousness is seen in day to day life.That is, you infer.
Are all inferences correct?
In logic, you take a particular instance,refer it to general statement,then arrive at a final statement.To explain;
All men are mortal.
X is a Man.
Therefore X is mortal.
Seems correct-Is it ?
Before saying all men are mortal you should have verified all men living,dead and those who are yet to be born, know that those who are born die and then say all are mortal.
Is this the case?
We have not verified each case and also it is impossible to check each case.
We do what we call an inductive leap and say and all are mortal.
When your basic assumption itself is open to question/is wrong ,what about your conclusions?
Nor are the senses reliable.
You dip your hand in warm water and then keep it in cold water.Is the water cold
immediately?
If I am going to believe only what I am going to perceive by myself I will be a doodering idiot.I have not been to moon.I have heard of it.I believe it.What if people have have lied?
Testimony is also open to question.
If I were to follow what others tell me , then who has informed the first person on earth a thing is what it is?For example,I call rose a rose because it has been named thus.Who has informed the first human being thus?
Again what is a thing we see or hear?
I call rose a rose,because of certain qualities.say clolor,smell.If any thing smeels like rose shal I call it a rose.No.It may be a perfume.If it is because of color, there are many roses of the same color, but still we call a rose a rose.You strip a thing of its qualities;what does remain?
Take a Man.Can you tell me what is common between yourself at 3 yrs and you at present and in between?
I am totally different from what I was at various stages of my life when compared my present state.My physical details have changed,out look has changed.Yet I call myself the same.
What is it by which I call ‘I’?
These things call for introspection by the individual and no amount of writing shall solve the issue.
Introspect and you shall know what you are.
Both Theism and Atheism are set of principles that appeal to different groups.Let each believe what they want.
What you want is not in Books;it is within you.
Find it, for when you are about to die all this dissertations will be of no use, for that matter when you lie naked on the surgeon’s table for a procedure, these things will not help.
Find the Truth in you.
(By writing some controversial books ,people make money, Period.
Story: A new book points out that the ancient Christians — and even early Americans — did not share the blind faith of today’s fundamentalists.
If you open Karen Armstrong’s new book, The Case for God, expecting to find a list of mysterious cures, scientific curiosities, or certified miracles all pointing toward the physical presence of a divine influence in the world, you will be sorely disappointed. Armstrong has no interest in, and is in fact completely antithetical to, trying to prove God’s existence. Despite this, her book is positioned — both in marketing and from its opening pages — as a direct challenge to books like Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, and Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. How can you make a defense of God if you’ve no interest in the existence of God? Quite well, actually, and if you do it as sharply as Armstrong, you can make hundreds of pages of what is basically theological analysis both entertaining and informative.
Armstrong argues for an idea very similar to the “non-overlapping magisteria” that were put forward by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (and in fact, Gould gets several nice mentions in The Case for God). She refers frequently to the idea that, in the past, people tended to break arguments into two groups for which she uses the Greek terms logos and mythos. Logos reflects practical, immediate reasoning — how do we build that aqueduct, what can we make from this wood, which crop would grow best in that field? Mythos is more aimed at the why — what does it mean that my friend has died, how can I recapture the joy I felt in a moment of pure experience, how can I find meaning and peace among the world’s noise and violence? This sort of approach could easily fall into a gooey cheer for “being spiritual,” but Armstrong is not talking about having a nice little breathing session now and then. She focuses on the 3000 year history of monotheism and the great effort that was put into building flexible, thoughtful religions, on how those religions continue to have a meaningful role in the life of millions, and how the recent history of those religions has led to unfortunate developments that are unique over those three millennia.
You must be logged in to post a comment.