Post by ambermoran0720 on Feb 3, 2015 5:24:06 GMT
Explain the Virtual Theory of Consciousness.
The virtual simulation theory of consciousness basically states that our “reality” isn’t really our reality at all. “The Disneyland of Consciousness” gives several examples of how what we think we see isn’t really what we see but is instead tricks of the mind. “...Because of its inclusivity and insular ingenuity, it [consciousness] has an inherent tendency to believe its own machinations as exterior to itself…” (Is The Universe an App?”). The films and the readings affirm that consciousness seems to have evolved to virtually simulate reality and allow for multiple scenarios of a given situation. Whereas the virtual simulation theory of consciousness would make sense on its own it seems that according to Philosophy and “The Cerebral Mirage”, the conscious and the soul are interchangeable. According to Dictionary.com, consciousness is a state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings; its a person’s personal perceptions whereas the soul is defined as the immaterial part of the human being or their moral sense of identity. I don’t know that I’m fully convinced that these two elements of the human persona are in fact interchangeable. Patricia Churchland herself stated that in her conference with the Dalai Lama (who himself didn’t contradict the facts of scientific explanations) that discovering how the brain works is not going to tell us what sort of moral system is most appropriate for us. One has nothing to do with the other. Just as science has its absolute truths as to how we function physiologically and biologically there has to be an absolute truth with regard to our morality. Where does a sense of morality come from if not from within our soul? “A Glorious Piece of Meat” explains how everything we do is modulated by our brain. It also makes the statement that we’re not totally sure if we think thoughts or just direct them. But even if we only direct them wouldn’t that give to reason that we still have to have some compass to guide our direction? Where does that come from? If we are “neurons first” then we are already aware but if we believe that we are “aware first” how do we know we’re truly aware if our awareness ceases if we’re “clubbed over the head?”....This seems to be a contradiction to what was said in “Cerebral Mirage” about NDE’s being a survival mechanism. If we cease to be aware when we die then how can we hallucinate a NDE?
How Does the Brain Trick Us and For What Benefit is it For Our Genetic Survival?
Consciousness as a virtual simulator has benefited our genetic survival in that it allows us to create various scenarios and thus responses to all kinds of situations. The older student in “Is The Universe an App?” stated that “Too much reality and we become catatonic, too much fantasy and we become schizophrenic.” Its interesting how the consciousness “knows” to bring balance. It has allowed our predecessors to survive because, according to the readings, those that formed the ability to “day dream” so to speak, acquired the ability to imagine that something as innocent as wind blowing through grasses might be something harmful therefore creating a more cautious persona as opposed to others who didn’t develop this ability and saw the wind blowing through grass as just that with no potential for danger, therefore resulting in their demise because there actually was danger. In this light, I find the need to question the assumption that not all people have this definition of consciousness. People who are mentally ill/handicapped or incapacitated must be void of it because of their state. So if they have no consciousness (where philosophy interchanges its definition with that of a soul), then are we to assume that their being is just the result of an awful mutation and that aside from human kindness, if there were no human kindness, they would just become extinct as a result of them being the less “fit?” How do we know what their level of awareness is? What of the people who are aware but can’t seem to communicate?
The virtual simulation theory of consciousness basically states that our “reality” isn’t really our reality at all. “The Disneyland of Consciousness” gives several examples of how what we think we see isn’t really what we see but is instead tricks of the mind. “...Because of its inclusivity and insular ingenuity, it [consciousness] has an inherent tendency to believe its own machinations as exterior to itself…” (Is The Universe an App?”). The films and the readings affirm that consciousness seems to have evolved to virtually simulate reality and allow for multiple scenarios of a given situation. Whereas the virtual simulation theory of consciousness would make sense on its own it seems that according to Philosophy and “The Cerebral Mirage”, the conscious and the soul are interchangeable. According to Dictionary.com, consciousness is a state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings; its a person’s personal perceptions whereas the soul is defined as the immaterial part of the human being or their moral sense of identity. I don’t know that I’m fully convinced that these two elements of the human persona are in fact interchangeable. Patricia Churchland herself stated that in her conference with the Dalai Lama (who himself didn’t contradict the facts of scientific explanations) that discovering how the brain works is not going to tell us what sort of moral system is most appropriate for us. One has nothing to do with the other. Just as science has its absolute truths as to how we function physiologically and biologically there has to be an absolute truth with regard to our morality. Where does a sense of morality come from if not from within our soul? “A Glorious Piece of Meat” explains how everything we do is modulated by our brain. It also makes the statement that we’re not totally sure if we think thoughts or just direct them. But even if we only direct them wouldn’t that give to reason that we still have to have some compass to guide our direction? Where does that come from? If we are “neurons first” then we are already aware but if we believe that we are “aware first” how do we know we’re truly aware if our awareness ceases if we’re “clubbed over the head?”....This seems to be a contradiction to what was said in “Cerebral Mirage” about NDE’s being a survival mechanism. If we cease to be aware when we die then how can we hallucinate a NDE?
How Does the Brain Trick Us and For What Benefit is it For Our Genetic Survival?
Consciousness as a virtual simulator has benefited our genetic survival in that it allows us to create various scenarios and thus responses to all kinds of situations. The older student in “Is The Universe an App?” stated that “Too much reality and we become catatonic, too much fantasy and we become schizophrenic.” Its interesting how the consciousness “knows” to bring balance. It has allowed our predecessors to survive because, according to the readings, those that formed the ability to “day dream” so to speak, acquired the ability to imagine that something as innocent as wind blowing through grasses might be something harmful therefore creating a more cautious persona as opposed to others who didn’t develop this ability and saw the wind blowing through grass as just that with no potential for danger, therefore resulting in their demise because there actually was danger. In this light, I find the need to question the assumption that not all people have this definition of consciousness. People who are mentally ill/handicapped or incapacitated must be void of it because of their state. So if they have no consciousness (where philosophy interchanges its definition with that of a soul), then are we to assume that their being is just the result of an awful mutation and that aside from human kindness, if there were no human kindness, they would just become extinct as a result of them being the less “fit?” How do we know what their level of awareness is? What of the people who are aware but can’t seem to communicate?