.

Dear Peter Sellick,

.

You wrote :

« … there exists an unbridgeable gap between matter and consciousness. »

As I see no reason to doubt that you dispose of consciousness, may I ask how you managed to bridge the unbridgeable gap ?

Perhaps you meant to say that there is an unbridgeable gap in your knowledge of how consciousness is produced from matter. If so, the unbridgeable gap you mention is, in fact, what you consider to be your own, personal, irremediable ignorance.

Allow me to suggest that for consciousness to be produced from matter, there would need to be a transfer of data, probably with the help of some form of energy. You mention matter and consciousness but neither data nor energy. Though matter and energy are closely related they are not exactly the same. If there is any work to be done, such as the transfer of data, I imagine, perhaps naively, that it’s energy that does the job, not matter.

However, if it is of any comfort to you, I, personally, do not think you are irremediably ignorant. In its simplest form, consciousness may be defined as awareness. As I am sure you are aware, even some automobiles, today, are equipped with radar systems which allow them to detect (or become “aware” of) obstacles while maneuvering to park, and alert the driver to their presence. According to the definition, that is a very basic form or consciousness.

All life forms, perhaps even from single cells to the most complex structures, appear to be similarly equipped with consciousness according to this definition. It is called the instinct of survival with, perhaps, even an element of free will (choice) thrown in as well :

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/cambrian.html

I find it quite magical. Unlike yourself, however, I do not exclude the possibility that science may come up with a valid explanation of this particular phenomenon one of these days.

I agree with Pericles: much of what you present here as hard fact seems to me to be more of the order of your personal religious conviction – or desire.

.

I must agree with Banjo:

What we are aware (conscious) of in the world and perhaps even how our body/mind reacts to this stimuli could well be a physical thing.

If that indeed is the case, then render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, then consciousness is just a material thing and as unimportant as the rest of the material world.

Religion often rejects and struggles with this idea because it is dangerous, because it could be interpreted as: "well, since all is material anyway, since even my behaviour is a result of some chemical/electric reactions in the brain, then I am not responsible for whatever this brain does".

Firstly however, beware because it was not (yet, perhaps) shown that this is completely the case!

More importantly, you ARE responsible for being associated with this body/mind. If this brain is indeed completely electro-mechanical as speculated, influenced by nothing else, and it does evil, then what have YOU got to do with it? Then you should keep away from the temptation of being conscious through this straying body/mind - or else don't complain when being charged with its sins!

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away [Matthew 5:29]. If consciousness causes you to stumble, then it is better for you to go unconscious.

Just because it is a "mystery" today, Sells, doesn't mean that you can provide any explanation you like to fill in the gaps.

>>I will stick with "no way". The distinction is between the brain and the mind. Although the two are related in some mysterious fashion...<<

As you try to do here...

>>...they are realities that will never overlay each other, simply because consciousness cannot be reduced to brain mechanisms<<

That is simply your opinion, using the evidence - or more precisely, the lack of evidence - available to you.

That you then parlay this missing information into a proposition that it is religion that fills the space, is unhelpful.

Dear Pericles,

A distinction must be made between the contents of consciousness and the fact of YOU being conscious.

We know that the contents can be manipulated (though we aren't sure to what extent): a drug can make one see the world in vivid colours while another drug can make one see it all dull. An electrode here can make one feel happy while an electrode there can make one feel sad. A device could be attached to the brain which would make one join Doctors Without Borders, while another device could be attached which would make one join ISIL.

However, what has this do to with the fact that YOU are conscious of all these effects?

Had you left the body and stopped being conscious through it (and please don't tell me it's impossible - we all do it when the body dies just as we all once started being conscious through our bodies around the time of their birth), whoever is conducting these experiments, would still observe the same results: the verbal recounting about the looks and colours of the world would still convey the same; the face would still be smiling or downcast respectively; and that human body would still join Doctors-Without-Borders or ISIL respectively. There is however no objective way you could ever tell whether *someone* is still "home" to experience the above.

<<That you then parlay this missing information into a proposition that it is religion that fills the space, is unhelpful.>>

Religion is not about a pie in the sky, or some deity which created this world and is pulling its ropes - these things I leave to science. Religion is about knowing yourself, because once you do, you realise that you have no limits, that you were never born, never die and are not subject to time or space, that there is nothing besides you. In other words, that YOU are God.

I'm not sure why, Yuyutsu.

>>Dear Pericles, A distinction must be made between the contents of consciousness and the fact of YOU being conscious.<<

Why must we make such a distinction - what is your rationale for doing so?

Furthermore, in order to make such a distinction, you need to be able to distinguish between the two states. How would you describe the difference? The "me" is completely contained within those electrical impulses, and nowhere else. If you like, they are "my" electrical impulses.

And their existence as electrical impulses, and the way they interact with each other and are modified by my senses from time to time, does not make them somehow amoral, or disconnected from all the other activities that are managed by the brain.

Yuyutsu,

"....In other words, that YOU are God."

Who, according to you, doesn't exist....

Even as a concept?