Consciousness

gemcgrew

Senior Member
I recall a dream (but have forgotten the particulars) in which the "I" in the dream was asked a riddle by another in the dream. I was stumped...but when the answer was given I was surprised at how trenchant was the response.
Do you remember how it made you feel?
 

gemcgrew

Senior Member
I may have shared this before. A friend of my wife started to tell us about a dream she had recently. I recognized it immediately as my own dream. When I stopped her and began telling the dream, she thought that I was just playing off of her initial words.

I brought pencil and paper and asked her to draw a map showing details. I went into the other room and drew the identical map. She was more surprised than I was.

We both had the same dream.
 

Israel

Senior Member
Do you remember how it made you feel?
Yes. In the dream it seemed normal...this "other" fellow was pretty clever in his answer. But I awoke astounded considering the seeming ramifications.
 
Who says that?

In formulating your response, was thought prior to consciousness or awareness?
Without any research into it, my initial answer would be that if I am alive I am conscious and aware.
 

Israel

Senior Member
I think you passed the "mirror test". :D
I had to look that up.
Is it this?

The mirror test, sometimes called the mark test or the mirror self-recognition test (MSR), is a behavioural technique developed in 1970 by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. as an attempt to determine whether a non-human animal possesses the ability of visual self-recognition.


If it is that, a test designed by man to determine self recognition amongst "non humans" (with some passing the test) the limits of that test remain something conceived and bordered by the mind of man. (in other words it is man saying "let me see if any possess what I know of self consciousness"...which limits are subject to what man sees himself as possessing)

Nevertheless, is it wrong to then extrapolate that "recognition of self" therefore includes the inherent (whether it be inherent might be arguable by the "outside" influence in the making of the mark) ability to recognize not self? That the being recognizes the mirror image as "not self", not mistaking the mark placed there as upon a something else, but instead looks to itself for what the image displays?

This too, has significant ramifications in consciousness as to a certain mark left toward an initial discerning for a being. What that being is, as opposed to what it is not.


Do you remember this childhood riddle? (I think it's a variant on the two kids who fell down the chimney)
Two boys were having fun in the school playground at lunchtime. The school bell rang, signalling that lunchime was over. As they turned to head back to class, a gust of wind scooped up some dirt off the ground and blew it right in their face. When the wind stopped, one boy's face was covered with dirt, while the other boy's face was perfectly clean. But it was the boy with the clean face who rushed to the washroom to wash his face, while the boy with the dirty face went straight to class.

Assuming both children had equally good hygiene habits, can you explain this strange behavior?
 
Last edited:
What do you think happens to a person's brain when they die? What goes missing to make them dead? It would seem like all the ingredients are still there 30 seconds after death.

Do we know the main ingredient that keeps us alive?
what goes missing is the electrical charges created in and used by the brain. It's just like an unplugged toaster. The toaster is functionally sound, but without the electricity flowing it's not "alive" so to speak.
 
Thread starter #30

ambush80

Senior Member
what goes missing is the electrical charges created in and used by the brain. It's just like an unplugged toaster. The toaster is functionally sound, but without the electricity flowing it's not "alive" so to speak.
Not quite. When the electricity in people goes off something happens to telemeres that's so far un-reversable. They degrade and can't be repaired.....yet.

Then what? What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death? Is this something we should try to accomplish? I say absolutely yes. What would be the theological implications of this technology for believers? Anyone?
 

gemcgrew

Senior Member
Not quite. When the electricity in people goes off something happens to telemeres that's so far un-reversable. They degrade and can't be repaired.....yet.

Then what? What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death? Is this something we should try to accomplish? I say absolutely yes. What would be the theological implications of this technology for believers? Anyone?
None.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Not quite. When the electricity in people goes off something happens to telemeres that's so far un-reversable. They degrade and can't be repaired.....yet.

Then what? What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death? Is this something we should try to accomplish? I say absolutely yes. What would be the theological implications of this technology for believers? Anyone?
What happens when we can reverse or permanently stave off death? Is this something we should try to accomplish? I say absolutely yes.
That's interesting to think about but its got a lot of angles to consider.
First, we already more or less do that - patient flat lines, slap the paddles on him/her and get the heart going again.
But what does reverse/stave off death actually mean?
Permanent coma?
Bed ridden forever?
I cant help but think about in terms of like taking a 50 year old truck and rebuilding the engine.
Sure now the engine works again but the rest of the parts are still 50 years old and rusting/rotting away.
Not to mention, and this sounds awful cold but its worth considering, but who and how do we take care of a society full of people who are alive but cant work and all the other implications of reversing/staving off death.
We already warehouse the elderly, sick etc etc.
Now multiply that by XXXXX.
Who gets the stave off death shot/procedure? Those that can afford it? Those that are deemed "worth living longer"?
Huge, gigantic, massive can of worms.....
 
Thread starter #34

ambush80

Senior Member
That's interesting to think about but its got a lot of angles to consider.
First, we already more or less do that - patient flat lines, slap the paddles on him/her and get the heart going again.
But what does reverse/stave off death actually mean?
Permanent coma?
Bed ridden forever?
I cant help but think about in terms of like taking a 50 year old truck and rebuilding the engine.
Sure now the engine works again but the rest of the parts are still 50 years old and rusting/rotting away.
Not to mention, and this sounds awful cold but its worth considering, but who and how do we take care of a society full of people who are alive but cant work and all the other implications of reversing/staving off death.
We already warehouse the elderly, sick etc etc.
Now multiply that by XXXXX.
Who gets the stave off death shot/procedure? Those that can afford it? Those that are deemed "worth living longer"?
Huge, gigantic, massive can of worms.....
When the tech comes online they will theoretically be able to repair any damage, perhaps reverse aging. Some people involved in the applicable fields think that the first person to live to 1,000 is already alive. Say a 2 year old today lives to be 80. By that time they learn extend life to 150. During that next 70 years they figure out how to extend life to 400. And on and on.

Of course the rich will be the first to get the treatments.
 
Thread starter #36

ambush80

Senior Member
I do not think science is a thing in itself. If it were to be, it should stop killing people first.
I suppose I meant science as a pursuit performed by scientists.

Some scientific discoveries are used to kill people, others are used to cure people. Do you think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to find a cure for death?
 

gemcgrew

Senior Member
I suppose I meant science as a pursuit performed by scientists.

Some scientific discoveries are used to kill people, others are used to cure people. Do you think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to find a cure for death?
It is underway as we speak. I just don't expect much from science, other than for it to continue to claim too much for itself. It is inherent in its flaws. As you pointed out, science is humans.

The cure for death is an issue for the unbeliever. A believer knows that he lives as long as Christ lives.
 

Israel

Senior Member
That's interesting to think about but its got a lot of angles to consider.
First, we already more or less do that - patient flat lines, slap the paddles on him/her and get the heart going again.
But what does reverse/stave off death actually mean?
Permanent coma?
Bed ridden forever?
I cant help but think about in terms of like taking a 50 year old truck and rebuilding the engine.
Sure now the engine works again but the rest of the parts are still 50 years old and rusting/rotting away.
Not to mention, and this sounds awful cold but its worth considering, but who and how do we take care of a society full of people who are alive but cant work and all the other implications of reversing/staving off death.
We already warehouse the elderly, sick etc etc.
Now multiply that by XXXXX.
Who gets the stave off death shot/procedure? Those that can afford it? Those that are deemed "worth living longer"?
Huge, gigantic, massive can of worms.....
Yes.

With more cans found in every can opened.
 
It is underway as we speak. I just don't expect much from science, other than for it to continue to claim too much for itself. It is inherent in its flaws. As you pointed out, science is humans.

The cure for death is an issue for the unbeliever. A believer knows that he lives as long as Christ lives.
The Bible was written by man. It has the same flaws that man has made everywhere else. In fact it has more flaws because from the time that it was written until now man has been able to better understand many of the things that were explained in the bible.
The believer uses the same man made writings as the non believer. The major difference is that while one side forbids/denies change the other is always looking to improve through change.
 
Top