Awareness vs. Brain

This is the place to post whatever questions you have related to the teachings of Eckhart Tolle. The rest of us will do whatever we can to help you achieve a better understanding :)

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby Mushinsan » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:21 am

Sorry for the confusion, I am by no means recommending that challenge, that was what I needed. That was my proof. Yours could be in just realizing that if you realize your thinking, that is awareness. But you cant think awareness.
Mushinsan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby Glycine » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:22 pm

You are right, Mushinsan - Thank you for your posts.
From what I remember, Eckhart basically awakened when this thought came to his mind: "I cannot live with myself".
For me, this is just word-play/semantics or cross-talk between two brain regions.
But for Eckhart, this showed the presence of two entities: consciousness and ego. This phrase literally woke him up. Others have awaken when their master showed them his finger. Others when they saw Buddha holding a flower.
There are many triggers out there, we just need to be open to them (or be present enough to see them).
Glycine
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:42 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby zoom » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:12 am

Not sure Glycine is still around on the board...

I actually have the exact same issue that my ego mind believes consciousness is the product of our brain.

Why not part of our brain's function is just a acting like a supervisor to monitor all the other brain functions? Just like the task manager in a muti-thread computer system. To know the existing itself is the very basic survival function.

The OBE or NDE might still be the brain's imagination, just like when people are high. If not, how would we approve it's happening w/o brain?

Well, this seems to me the only issue left and once it's being addressed, I will be totally free!! Although I dont think this is easy to convince myself:) I believe most of people will encounter this basic question when approaching universal consciousness.

Could anyone provide a scientific evidence?

Thanks,
Zoom
User avatar
zoom
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:31 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby epiphany55 » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:50 am

Even if conscious awareness is created by the brain, saying "I am awareness" is not the same as saying "I am the brain".

To me, saying "I am awareness" is just a more succinct way of saying "If I can say I'm anything, I am awareness".

It is actually not that important where awareness comes from in terms of understanding who/what you are. You may be created by the brain, but that doesn't mean you ARE the brain. There is a difference between something emerging from somewhere and that something BEING something. The latter is in no way dependent on knowing the location of the former "somewhere".

Don't let anyone tell you that you have to accept a particular belief about where awareness comes from in order to BE that awareness. Debates about where it comes from are just for fun :)
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby Sighclone » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:22 pm

Zoom -

The brain is definitely in the loop. Here is a good starting point for understanding the "default mode network" vs. the "task mode network."

http://www.happinessbeyondthought.blogs ... t-and.html

and this one:

http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot. ... cally.html

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby zoom » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:55 am

epiphany55 wrote:It is actually not that important where awareness comes from in terms of understanding who/what you are.


It does bother me a lot, as it's the fundamental of all these non-duality teaching. I read a lot of explanation and watched most of the related videos, but none of them convinced me.

Many referred to the OBE or NDE, but scientists had explained those experiences were just from brain activities, fantasy imagination.

It's importation, because it will determine whether consciousness is temporary or infinite, if "I" am permanent, and if "I" was born and will die.

Thanks,
Zoom
User avatar
zoom
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:31 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby epiphany55 » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:22 am

zoom wrote:
epiphany55 wrote:It is actually not that important where awareness comes from in terms of understanding who/what you are.


It does bother me a lot, as it's the fundamental of all these non-duality teaching. I read a lot of explanation and watched most of the related videos, but none of them convinced me.

Many referred to the OBE or NDE, but scientists had explained those experiences were just from brain activities, fantasy imagination.

It's importation, because it will determine whether consciousness is temporary or infinite, if "I" am permanent, and if "I" was born and will die.


Is it important in this moment though?

What surprises me is, to the contrary, how many spiritual teachers/authors avoid directly mentioning anything overly contentious about where exactly awareness comes from. Mooji, Gangaji, Adyashanti... the great bulk of their work is on the here and now, not speculations of a conscious after life. I think this is purposeful, because they realise that to say "this is what happens after you die" is in the realm of pure speculation, whether you've had an NDE or not (I've explained in other threads why NDE's are not proof of an afterlife). I think it would turn their message into a religion in the same way the noble message inherent in Buddhism was (in my opinion) tarnished by its unsubstantiated yet insistent claims of reincarnation, hell and karma.

In fact (and this was a point I was quite stubborn about in another thread!), Tolle's mentions of the actual source of awareness can be reduced to a few select quotes from his plethora of work. It simply isn't important to the greater work of knowing what it is.

When we focus on the here and now, whether we are experiencing consciousness within a mortal body or floating around in an eternal, non-physical dimension... it's the same experiencer and the same subjective awareness that creates the basis of "I".
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby Rob X » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:57 pm

zoom wrote:Could anyone provide a scientific evidence?

No.

But I would suggest not pinning your freedom on solving this one.

A statement like 'we are awareness' is not problematic if the word awareness is used as a placeholder for something inexplicable - something beyond the formulas of human cognition.

If we use the word to mean something akin to this intimate, self-reflective, perception of the world (how most people think of it) then we will encounter many contradictions and difficulties.

But anyway, best keep in mind that no matter how convincing and sophisticated our realisations and understandings are, they remain relative truths and are therefore just more of the mysterious passing show.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby Enlightened2B » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:32 am

zoom wrote:
Many referred to the OBE or NDE, but scientists had explained those experiences were just from brain activities, fantasy imagination.


Do you believe everything a scientist says as truth? There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that has explained NDE/OBE physically speaking. Mainstream science has attempted to explain it within the parameters of its own limited biased research, but has failed to answer an incredible amount of unanswerable questions because its own research into NDE's is itself flawed by its own unconscious bias.

You're looking for concrete physical answers, which you will never find in this lifetime, which is only the mind wanting assurance of an answer and that's what the mind does.

Here's what I would advise to you. Do your own research in the study of NDE/OBE's and such and start looking at some of the more OPEN MINDED scientists who have acknowledged that NDE/OBE's are indeed a lot more than merely just imagination.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:35 am

Many referred to the OBE or NDE, but scientists had explained those experiences were just from brain activities, fantasy imagination.


Scientists had also explained that 'flat line' was the end of resonant physical life energy - they've now found a deeper level - Nu Complexes. ..... oops!! :oops:

The things of experiential awareness and consciousness that have not been proven as 'brain activities or fantasy imagination' still exist beyond the capacity of some streams of current sciences to explain. Physics for instance has proven that energy does not 'die', it just changes form. This somehow gets ignored by some in neuroscience fields.

Science works within the limitations of the imagination and the agreed testing paradigms applied and makes findings of three possible answers about elements in a subject - those proven true, those proven false or those not proven.

Those who ignore the properties of the 'not proven' are adding limitations that are not necessary and making baseless statements of claim of proven true or proven false (on both sides of the argument I might add).

Many of the supposedly 'proven' attributes referred to above were labelled as proven in the face of not having enough evidence to make a finding of 'proven' either true or false, and an unwillingness to sit with the so-called 'bastard verdict' of 'not proven'.

The 'not proven' attributes and qualities of awareness and accurate information relaying outside known cognitive-physical capacities of the brain still exist and are still unanswered because of the limitations in the testing & the finding, not because or any limitation in the actual experience, but in being able to cognify it and describe it, define and label it within given fields of investigation.

So in a way, because folks thought 'flat line' was the end, anything outside of flat line was ignored and thought to be not true, not possible and explained away. Now it cannot be ignored. So too will it be as we widen the parameters of investigation into what is consciousness.

I totally respect the likes of psychiatrist Dr Bruce Greyson for this truly scientific application in his work, and his willingness to test his & others' theories even outside of his own field of expertise and partner with the likes of neuroscientists, engineers and physicists to more widely apply and test theories as they've been thrown up for consideration. He has spent his life honestly and openly, and to my mind 'truly scientifically', fearlessly and without bias testing and putting things into the categories of proven true beyond doubt, proven not true beyond doubt and acknowledging that they still have buckets of 'not proven' elements across the variety of fields.

So, the above quote is misguided at best and deserves a rethink.


It's importation, because it will determine whether consciousness is temporary or infinite, if "I" am permanent, and if "I" was born and will die.


The only importance is that you have been given a gift of known limited awareness, capacity and finiteness in terms of time in this experience of physical life in all its gory glory. What you do with it in any and every moment creates the experience of it. This moment is pregnant with possibility and is the only one that you can fully experience in presence, or not.. and no choice is wrong, it just brings a different experience.

This you can know, without doubt. What will you do with that knowledge?
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby zoom » Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:52 am

Thanks all for your advice!

I agree with what epiphany55 suggested: focus on here and now.

But I dont understand why all of these spirit teachers unanimously consent to the concept of one universal consciousness, although the statement is so controversial that our ordinary folks will lose faith in their teachings.

Mr Tolle has several videos in youtube for this specific topic, such as 'Death and the Eternal', 'What happens at the time of death'.

Rupert Spira also had a writing 'Is Awareness in the Brain' in his website.

But again, none of these explanations convince me.

I think the statement is very religious and attractive, because all the universal questions will get easily answered based on it, especially it explicitly implies 'I will not die'. It's like 'If you believe in God, you will go to heaven".

Scientist has approved that Infant is only perceptive, but doesn't have self-awareness. Self-awareness is developed afterwards.

Regarding the NDE/OBE's, I believe in the mainstream science. There are always some believers, just like ghost chasing.

Thanks,
Zoom
User avatar
zoom
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:31 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:49 am

zoom wrote:Regarding the NDE/OBE's, I believe in the mainstream science.

Just like everyone else, you make your choice, you get your resulting experience. If you believe there is nothing to NDE's, you will experience life as if it were true regardless of anyone else's direct experience. It matters not whether there is truth in them, your belief will create a perception of falsehood and it will likely remain obscure. It matters little in the long run. The truth of the matter remains what it is. It's all good.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:13 am

Regarding the NDE/OBE's, I believe in the mainstream science.


Define 'mainstream'?

Is the acceptance that energy changes form and density in combination with other elements and environments not mainstream chemistry & physics?

Is a peer reviewed and accepted psychiatrist suddenly not mainstream when their testing of parameters of psychosis and hallucination is inconsistent with actual experience? Is an eminent neuroscientist's calls to widen the investigative arena of consciousness somehow inconsistent with 'mainstream' science?

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.


It was once considered 'mainstream' to think the world was flat. New information altered that myth.
It was once considered 'mainstream' that certain medical conditions were hallucinatory. New information altered those myths.
It was once considered 'mainstream' that life ended with 'flat line'. New data from the 'Nu Complexes' studies have altered (& been 'mainstream' peer reviewed and accepted)

The 'line' of which can be studied or observed is not written in stone within some imaginary parameter of what is and can be considered 'mainstream'.

We will each absorb and interpret information according to our awareness, capacity & willingness. To suggest that knowledge is finite and all that is understood now is all that will ever be understood, is folly at best.

Leave room to grow.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby zoom » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:33 am

Thanks again, much appreciated all your inputs. It seems my little ego needs time to do more research.

For Now, this is not important!

Thanks,
Zoom
User avatar
zoom
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:31 pm

Re: Awareness vs. Brain

Postby tomtom1 » Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:30 am

zoom wrote:Thanks all for your advice!

I agree with what epiphany55 suggested: focus on here and now.

But I dont understand why all of these spirit teachers unanimously consent to the concept of one universal consciousness, although the statement is so controversial that our ordinary folks will lose faith in their teachings.

Mr Tolle has several videos in youtube for this specific topic, such as 'Death and the Eternal', 'What happens at the time of death'.

Rupert Spira also had a writing 'Is Awareness in the Brain' in his website.

But again, none of these explanations convince me.

I think the statement is very religious and attractive, because all the universal questions will get easily answered based on it, especially it explicitly implies 'I will not die'. It's like 'If you believe in God, you will go to heaven".

Scientist has approved that Infant is only perceptive, but doesn't have self-awareness. Self-awareness is developed afterwards.

Regarding the NDE/OBE's, I believe in the mainstream science. There are always some believers, just like ghost chasing.

Thanks,
Zoom


These teachers are not asking for you to be convinced or to believe what they are saying. The genuine ones only talk from their own standpoint now and just want you to look for yourself.
The fact is scientists can observe all sorts of effects going on in the brain and relate them to various phenomena BUT not one of them can explain how Conciousness is created by the brain. In fact most of them just ignore the question. How can a brain create conciousness? Something which is fundamentally mad of the same stuff as the chair your sitting on!
tomtom1
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:05 am

Previous

Return to Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest