Thread: Age and Lucidity

Have been thinking more about that video interview with cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is that if consciousness, as opposed to matter, is the fundamental basis of reality, then why does the nature and even existence of consciousness appear to be so dependent on matter? For example, if we ingest certain material substances, such as alcohol or cannabis, it directly impacts our conscious experience in obvious ways. Other material substances, such as certain general anesthetics, can even cause our consciousness to completely disappear, at least temporarily. And physical measurements (EEGs, etc.) of our brain activity directly correlate strongly with the nature or even presence or absence of our consciousness. It seems far more plausible to assume that matter existing in space and time is the fundamental basis of reality and that consciousness is dependent on matter. That is, different configurations of matter produce different forms of consciousness, including the absence of consciousness. How do you think Hoffman would respond to this line of reasoning?

The other thing that doesn't make sense to me is his claim that we can't know anything at all about reality. That doesn't seem plausible, given the vast knowledge we've accumulated over the centuries regarding how reality behaves. Specifically, the laws of physics. It's true that we don't know everything about reality, but we know enough to have developed advanced technologies that work extremely well. If we didn't really know anything about reality, how could we possibly make working automobiles, aircraft, spacecraft, communication systems, computers, and so forth? It seems far more plausible and useful to assume that we really do know quite a bit about reality, to the point where we can describe how it behaves mathematically in minute detail, as well as to control how it behaves in sophisticated and useful ways.

Yeah....that piece really does leave one pondering. I actually watched it again today to try to wrap my head around his concepts. It really is a good mental exercise.

Originally Posted by Zthread

How do you think Hoffman would respond to this line of reasoning?

As far as consciousness being dependent on matter.....is it really? Perhaps consciousness itself exists within us in a primordial state and we are merely changing our perception of it through these physical means.

I think we can know reality, as he depicts it, but to do so we may need to transcend our graspings and aversions to somehow see everything in that fleeting first moment of pure perception that exists, once again, in that primordial state.

Originally Posted by lenscaper

Yeah....that piece really does leave one pondering. I actually watched it again today to try to wrap my head around his concepts. It really is a good mental exercise.

Yes, it really is!

Originally Posted by lenscaper

As far as consciousness being dependent on matter.....is it really? Perhaps consciousness itself exists within us in a primordial state and we are merely changing our perception of it through these physical means.

Perhaps that's true, but what's the evidence for it? All the evidence I've ever seen indicates to me that matter trumps consciousness. That is matter can alter or even destroy consciousness, but consciousness can't alter matter in any way. At least I've never observed consciousness altering matter. If I have a bottle of whiskey on my desk, I can't use my consciousness to alter that bottle of whiskey in any way. I can leave the room so that I can no longer see the bottle, and I may even forget it's there, but it'll still be there when I get back into the room, assuming no physical (i.e., matter-based) incident has destroyed it or moved it somewhere else. If I drink some whiskey from the bottle, on the other hand, it will alter my consciousness. It may even cause my consciousness to temporarily stop existing, if I drink enough of it. That is, it could cause me to black out. And if I drink way too much of it, it may even permanently destroy my consciousness (i.e., kill me). So it seems most plausible that from a metaphysical standpoint matter is primary and consciousness is secondary.

Originally Posted by lenscaper

I think we can know reality, as he depicts it, but to do so we may need to transcend our graspings and aversions to somehow see everything in that fleeting first moment of pure perception that exists, once again, in that primordial state.

So, through various consciousness-enhancing practices, such as meditation? And lucid dreaming!

Originally Posted by Zthread

All the evidence I've ever seen indicates to me that matter trumps consciousness. That is matter can alter or even destroy consciousness, but consciousness can't alter matter in any way.

That whiskey bottle is just an empty vessel really....in its essence. It has no substantive nature (to me) until I ascribe that nature to it through my desire to drink from it. My consciousness makes the whiskey bottle real....to me. When I leave the room and stop thinking about it, that bottle ceases to exist...for me. In fact, if I direct all of my consciousness at that spot on the wall behind the bottle......it ceases to exist right there in front of me......for me. Now if you come into the room and pour yourself a drink while I am fully involved with that spot on the wall....the whiskey bottle takes on substance for you....but not for me.

All that sounds pretty good after writing it......I'll be pondering it all day and see if anything sticks.

I think we have a great deal to still discover about human consciousness as we continue to evolve as a species.

So, through various consciousness-enhancing practices, such as meditation? And lucid dreaming!

Definitely!!!! I see lucid dreaming as an incredibly powerful tool in the quest to become fully realized beings....our true selves.