RELIGION, BELIEVES AND CONCIOUSNESS

Neo-Buddhism does not believe in the existence of God in the sense of a person, a man with a long beard who is waiting for us in heaven (The article on epistemology, goes deeper in on this subject). This opens the question: "what is the nature of consciousness?". Is consciousness the proof for the existence of the spirit, and if spirits exists, then is there also a super-spirit ?

Man has consciousness. Descartes has proven that man exists and that men has consciousness at the same time, with his statement "I think, therefore I am". I would like to explain his reasoning in the following manner: I know I think, because I can think that I am. Thus it cannot be that I don't exist, because then, who would be thinking this? Because I'm at this moment thinking about this, I have to be an existing entity! No escape is possible from this reasoning.

Descartes has proven the existence of the person thinking this, and everyone reading or hearing this statement, has prove of his own existence. It is only through the consciousness that we have this prove. So the statement implicitly proves the existence of our consciousness.

When Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", there is some entity who is aware of this thought. This entity is defined as "Me" or "I". The fact that this entity is aware, is a special quality. Our feeling of identity is based on the awareness we have of our own thoughts and feelings. I define consciousness as this awareness: the awareness of our own thoughts and feelings.

I'm conscious of my existence. I can even picture myself. Not believing in the existence of stand-alone spirits, like a spirit wandering around in my brain, I regard this phenomenon as a miracle. With a stand-alone spirit I mean a non-material unit that can think and make decisions. A lot of people, even atheists, believe in the existence of stand-alone spirits. According to the believers in such a stand-alone spirit, there would be a stand-alone spirit in our brains, and this stand-alone spirit would be the entity that thinks. Our brains would only be a tool, to be able to make calculations and to control the body, etc. The stand-alone spirit does not need the brains and will continue living after death of the material body (therefore I call it a stand-alone spirit).

If this would be the case however, than it wouldn't be explainable that alcohol and drugs do not only affect our movements and our calculations, but also affect our complete thinking and our decision making process; our whole will can be influenced by drugs and alcohol. Drunks have an other mind-set during their drunkenness than during the time that they are sober. When the brain is altered by alcohol or drugs, or a stroke of the brains, then this alters our mind. The best explanation for that is that our thinking, our mind and our decision process, come forth from our material brains (which can be affected by alcohol and drugs). No spirit would be needed to explain the existence of the mind, for it is a special quality of the brain to think. The spirit and the material aspect of the brain are two properties of the same thing.

This leads to the question how it can be explained that we have consciousness. Suppose we hold on to a strictly material view on reality. Everything that exists, exists of dead material without consciousness. Then how would it be possible that our brains would exist only of dead material, and still the wholeness of this brain would have consciousness? Some people explain this by means of exchange of information. When there would be a sufficient amount of information exchange in a system, with a lot of feedback-processes that measure and manage the information, consciousness would somehow come to existence in a system build up from dead material. A complex computer could have a consciousness, when complex enough.

Suppose however, that only a certain amount of information exchange would be sufficient to explain consciousness, and a sufficient complex computer could develop a consciousness. A computer is only a system of electronics. Ones and zeros, which are currents and non-currents, are passed on in a complex way, and this is how the whole computer works. Now we could make the same system manually (free after John Searle's "Chinese Room" argument). Suppose we have an enormous amount of people, passing each other notes, on which a one is written, or a zero. We give rules to the people, how to respond when given a paper with a one, or how to respond on a zero. The response can be passing a zero or passing a one. In this way we could build exactly the same information system as a computer. Of course we would need more people than there are available on this earth. But this is only an experiment for the mind, and not to be put to practice. Now suppose that a computer could be complex enough to develop consciousness. Than it would also be theoretically possible that a large group of people passing each other notes, could collectively develop a consciousness. A person could come into existence, just from the scraps of paper notes passed along - if it would be true that the amount of information exchange could explain consciousness.

But how could something like an AMOUNT of information exchange explain consciousness? How would consciousness come to existence from a certain AMOUNT of feedback processes? Why, when there is a certain amount of exchange of zeros and ones, would the system be suddenly aware of its own thoughts ? I would say that an essential explanation is needed, more so than a quantitative explanation. I would say that the quantitative explanation is no explanation at all, that when adding one extra note, or one extra chip to a certain unconscious information system, consciousness would suddenly some to existence.

There are people who hold that there is a qualitative explanation: that a system gets aware of it own thoughts if the system can picture itself. But what is picturing itself? There are copying machines that show a picture of itself in the display when the paper is stuck somewhere in the machine, so that the user can open the copying machine and remove the stuck piece of paper. Would that mean that specifically this feature would make the difference for the copying machine being conscious? I wouldn't think so.

There is not an essential difference between my coffee mug, the light switch, the copying machine, my computer and my brains. They all exist of matter. The conclusion that remains is simple, but will probably sound weird for lots of people (although in some Buddhist circles this is part of their believes).

This conclusion is that every thing, every object has its own soul already. An own, but maybe very basic and very simple form of consciousness. A simple form of awareness. It is not that only the smallest quantity, like a proton or an electron would have this consciousness. More so every system would have its own consciousness already.  So this is explicitly a holistic point of view, in which a group or a lump of matter can be a coherent system on itself, and be an entity with a simple consciousness. Parts of this whole, can be entities on itself, and can have a consciousness independent of the consciousness of the whole. So consciousnesses can overlap each other, can have parts that have a consciousness of their own, and the whole could even be conscious of the consciousnesses of its parts (but could also not be conscious of the consciousness of a certain part, depending whether or not the information concerned is shared). A system is a collection of matter that forms an information exchanging collective of particles. The idea is that such a collective system consisting of matter does always have awareness of the information exchange within this system. In fact matter is nothing but information. All the particles exists of smaller particles etc. Until there is, on the lowest level only some abstract information about quantum states that could be called an electron or a quark. There is on this lowest level only information about the behaviour of the quantum states, giving some information to us - and together building up a system which could be an object or an electric current for example. So every object is an information system.

Every system could be defined as a unit on basis of information exchange. The system is conscious of the information involved. A marble for instance, exists of particles. These particles have the tendency to attract each other, to move towards each other if possible. This force of nature is know as gravity: particles of which matter exists want to be close to one another, they have a tendency to move to one another when possible, in short: they attract each other. This is the reason that we are standing on the earth, and that when we jump, we return to the earth. But it is also the reason that the marble stays a marble, instead of falling apart: the particles want to stay against each other, they attract each other. The marble as a whole, has a very simple consciousness of its coherention as a marble. It is an extremely simple consciousness, namely only the awareness of this simple fact. The marble has a will of its own, that is formed by the laws of nature. The will is that the particles should stick together, so that the marble will exist, and gravity has its way. This all changes when the marble is broken in two. Both halves from that moment on, will have their primitive consciousness in this respect, and for a fraction of time they will miss half of their system. We shouldn't have high expectations of this consciousness. It is no self-consciousness. It is only a primitive awareness of the system as a certain whole, of gravity forming the matter exactly to a whole marble.

The brains (of the humans, and on a lower level the brains of animals as well) do form a very special system consisting of matter. This system has the same awareness that every other system has. But because of its complexity it is a very high consciousness, a self-consciousness, that can picture its own self-consciousness.

This brings us back to the "computer" existing of a large group of people passing each other notes. Also this "computer" thus would have consciousness indeed (while no-one of the people passing notes would notice that). This is because this "computer" would be a system too. But it is not the AMOUNT of information that explains its consciousness. The consciousness is there already because it is a system. The amount and the complexity of information exchange only explains the level, the profoundness of the consciousness. Be aware though that the brains have, in contradiction to a computer, special biological  properties on a biochemical level, which makes the coherention of the brains, the characteristics of the system, still fundamentally different from a computer.

So if a group of people passes notes, and this forms a collective consciousness, does that imply that all groups do have a collective consciousness? In the example of the "human computer", existing of people passing each other notes, the collective consciousness of the group is not aware of the minds and thoughts of the people passing each other notes. This information is not shared with this information process, because this information cannot be derived from the notes that are passed. Only if that what goes on in all these brains, would be shared with the whole group, only than collective consciousness by the group of the individual minds would be possible. And this is normally not the case. In our own brains, we are conscious of a great deal of all of the processes that are going on in all of the subsystems of our brains. This makes that our brains are an individual as a unit, while in the "human computer" all of these individuals do not form a collective individual together.

The collective consciousness of a group of people will, according to this theory, exist indeed. It will however normally be a rather primitive consciousness, because the information exchange will be poor in comparison to what is going on in our brains. In the example above, with the "human computer" the level of information exchange was actually still pretty high. But in reality the information exchange among a group of people will be on a pretty low level. Therefore we must not overestimate the collective consciousness (although in psycho-therapy groups maybe we could bring this to a higher level). But the group does not have the advanced information exchanges to have self-consciousness as a group like the individual does, and therefore we cannot see the collective as an individual. Human cooperation is better explained by the whole of individual actions and individual behavior, and a variety of social processes. These social processes are more of the level of identifying with a group, differentiating from other group members, leadership, etc. Therefore you cannot think of the collective as having a high form of consciousness. Therefore you can not speak of the existence of a collective will, or a collective goal of for instance Nazi Germany. Since a group does not have a level of information exchange to be regarded as an individual, a group has only a collective goal if there is unanimity among all of the individual members. The universe as a whole has a system, with her laws of nature and cause-and-effect-chains. It would be wiser to think of the universe as a system, than as a person.

Consciousness is thus explained by the awareness of the system of itself, being aware of the information processes. Since the systems can overlap each other, this also goes for the consciousnesses. When there is a certain change to the system, like a stroke, the system misses suddenly a part of the information processes. But the remaining matter is still aware of the remaining information processes. Therefore this is to be interpreted as a system experiencing a change (a change of loss). In fact particles are added to our brains and separated from our brains all off the time. It can not be that our consciousness is defined by an exact collective of particles, because the group of particles is constantly changing. The consciousness is defined by the information consciousness system, that consists of a constantly changing group of particles. A stroke is a more radical change to the system as usual. But it is in fact still the same system, though changed. Therefore it is in principle the same consciousness. This doesn't mean that the identity is always the same after a major change in a system. The system for instance can be so radical that you die, for instance.

When the brain would be cut in two and both halves would maintain functioning however, both systems would from that moment on be aware only of their own half. Both systems would experience a change of loss, a big loss of the other half. Probably both halves would not have the original feeling of identity.

But how do I know that the awareness is bound to the system? Could it not be space coordinates instead? I wouldn't say so. When there are a lot of people standing in a strait line around the world, exactly in line with the direction of the rotation of the earth, and we assume that everyone has the same length and shape, than my brain will be in the place of your space coordinates in a second, and the next second in the space coordinates of still someone else. But all of these people are not experiencing this as a change of their personality. This is because of the brains, being material objects, did move along with the rotation of the earth. So it must be the matter that is having the awareness of thoughts, rather than the space coordinates.

Earlier I also argued that it is also not the matter as such, since the group of particles is constantly changing. So I would say it is only the information processing structure that is aware of itself, being a certain structure, regardless of the matter that it is build from. Suppose that somehow you would be brainwashed, and after the brainwash your brain-structure would be exactly like mine. And suppose that also all of my memories would be inserted somehow in your brain. And then we meet, and you are sitting opposed to me in a chair. Now suppose that I have a fly on my nose, that I'm not aware of. And you haven't a fly on your nose. Then we are thinking different things. You're thoughts are processing the view of the fly, sitting on my nose - while I at the same time am thinking something else instead. At that moment I do not know what you are thinking. I'm not aware of your thoughts, only of my own. If you now would have a stroke, it would not affect my consciousness (until I notice that you are being unwell). If you now would get drunk while I drink nothing, I wouldn't get drunk because of your conscious getting drunk. The simple fact is that, although we have the same brain structure and memories, I wouldn't be aware of your thoughts and feelings.

If somewhere on this planet someone would start thinking like me and would have my memories, I wouldn't be aware of that, because no information about it is passed on to me. I would have my awareness of my thoughts. He would have his awareness of his thoughts. If I would be shot dead now, it is not so that suddenly my awareness of my thoughts, would somehow be transferred from me to that other person somewhere on this planet who has the same brain structure and memories. He has only his own awareness of his thoughts, and mine simply stop because the thoughts stop as a result of being shot dead. But on the other hand the particles in my brain are constantly changing. It is the system that is conscious and not the exact group of particles. So if after for instance 5 years all of the particles of my brain would be replaced I would be still the same system with the same consciousness. But if this process doesn't take 5 years but 1 second instead, I don't think that that would make a difference. We have also established that the space coordinates are not relevant. So there comes a person into existence somewhere on this planet with exactly my brain structure and memories, so with the exact same information system (an exact copy of me), this person would be me just like I still would be me when all of my particles would be replaced. But since neither of both persons (the original and the copy) is aware of the other, they are from that moment on two separate systems. In fact I can be continued in the future in 2 of more systems instead of one. But from that very moment on both systems have a different experience. For instance the fly sitting on the nose of not. So then the systems go their own way to be separate systems and separate consciousness.

The same goes when someone would be beamed down with a device like in Star Track (if this once would become possible).

        

Someone disappears in the space ship, and a body with the same structure is build up on the planet, made from matter over there. But this is exactly the same case, as if the source-person wasn't deleted. Someone else with the same structure and memories is build on the planet. And if the person remaining in the spaceship is not deleted, then this person still has his own awareness, while on the planet there is a copy that grows another awareness. Deleting the source-person doesn't transfer this awareness down to the planet. The person on the planet will directly grow another awareness than the clone staying aboard the spaceship. So if the original is deleted after 5 minutes instead of directly this would be murder. If he would be deleted directly the person would just continue on another place. The question is how long the time has to be to make the delete action a murder.

And last but not least the question how free will is possible. Is matter determined by cause and effect, and if so, is this also true for the brains? I would say that every system has its own consciousness and his own will. We know the will of nature as the laws of nature. Thus, also the brains, build up from matter, do have a will. This will is build up from information processes, which follow the laws of nature. These information processes are the result of millions of years of evolution, the signals and hormones during the pregnancy of the mother, the upbringing and education, the chemical influences of eating and drinking, idea's that either on purpose or accidently have entered the mind, etc. The brains have an internal information process, that goes far beyond only responding to the stimuli of the current environment. Input in your mind, that entered your brains 20 years ago, could possibly lead to sudden action now. This is comparable with chaos theory, in which a movement of a butterfly in the middle ages could cause a revolution in the present, because of a chain of deterministic events that follow from each other. The whole of this picture explains why people can be impulsive, and in comparable situations behave radically different. They react accordingly with their complex will, and are not determined by the environment of THAT MOMENT.

But on a much more complex level there is determination, since everything that happens, has a cause. This cause can be a rational, or irrational thought for instance. But we do not have the mental capability to see the whole picture of this complex determination. A lot of times we are even not capable to predict ourselves.

All of this boils down to a picture in which we have an independent will, not determent by the current environment. In this sense there is free will. The will is free to make a choice, independent of the current environment. But this choice is caused by other choices, thoughts and feelings, and so on and so on. So the structure of my mind leads to a certain choice, and if it was possible to follow every stream of information in my brains, my choice could have been predicted (if it would be possible to follow all of this information, which actually could not be the case). This also leads to the illusion that our choices would be free of causes (the classical definition of free will). Because our brains can in the information process suddenly reach a conclusion that it is best to do something else as earlier planned. You could for instance try to prove that you have free will and jump from a bridge. But it is just an information process in your brain, that under influence of this discussion comes up with an action to prove free will. The action is however a result of the information process going on in the brain, and is not free of causes at all. Also this action is determined by the whole chaos of processes going on.

It is not so that if you decide not to do anything anymore, that the determination would take care that your life would go on as it went before. Instead, if the chain of thoughts in your brain leads you to the choice of not doing anything anymore, then this will also be the result - and nothing would happen (except that you would get hungry, thirsty, sleepy, and if you persistent in doing nothing you would fall down and drop dead).

I think that the best way to understand the human will, is to see it as a learning process. The human mind will always do whatever it thinks is the best decision given the circumstances. But whatever the mind thinks is the best decision, depends on what the mind has learned. This shows the determination already. If I'm sick, I decide to go to the doctor. The reason is because I have learned so. But maybe my Jack drinks a cup of herbal tea when he is sick, because Jack has learned so. Because we have learned different things, we have different ideas of what is the best to do. And thus we come to different decisions.

Next to what we have learned, also the chemical processes in my brains have an influence. If I decide to smoke a cigarette, I could decide so because I think that I this will satisfy a very strong drive in me. I know it is bad for me, but nevertheless I value satisfying this strong need I have for a cigarette higher for this moment. So the question is what learning processes and chemical processes lead to my decisions. I can learn things that are right, but I can also learn things that are wrong. I could have learned the wrong theory that if I concentrate very hard, I can read your mind. So this could lead me to the decision to go trying that. I can  also learn that free will doesn't exist, and this could lead me wrongly to the conclusion that it doesn't matter anymore what I do – because everything is determined. This could lead me to the decision of not doing anything anymore. I have learned that doing anything doesn't make any sense, and so the best decision is doing nothing. But I could also learn that working on reaching my goals will make me happy. So instead of doing nothing, this could lead me to the conclusion that I SHOULD do something. The things that I learn are also a matter of cause and effect. And the things you learned can also determine how open you are to learn more. The more right things you learn, that better your decisions will be.

You can also be held responsible for your decisions, because it are the chains of thought in your mind that determine your choices. Because of the awareness of your responsibility, your conscience will affect your behavior, and you might decide (which means that a mind process would respond to certain stimuli of both inside and outside the brain) to act morally. The idea of responsibility causes moral behaviour, because the brain is a learning entity. The brain learns from information processed in the brain, acts on certain stimuli that changes the processes going on. This learning leads to possible adaption of the behaviour. The concept of responsibility leads to the conclusion that immoral behaviour can lead to unhappiness  - because for instance by being put in jail or because for instance by experiencing that people are starting to dislike you. The concept of responsibility alters your thought and makes your mind processes to follow a moral route. Since this learning facility is present in the human mind, the idea of responsibility is also justified. Because the information you can learn can actually change your behaviour, the information processing in your brain and the way you learn and think actually causes certain behaviour. There is no concept of a causeless free will needed to hold a person responsible for his actions. Surely there are people with learning problems in this area, and some psychologists could argue that some murderers are not responsible for their actions for they are mentally disturbed. It could be that a system of law would choose to make a distinction between responsible and irresponsible persons (which I don't think is wise, because then who decides who is a person with responsibility and therefore enjoys human rights and who isn't responsible and therefore could be place under supervision? I think this is a very dangerous path that could easily be misused to lock people away for opportunistic reasons - like dissidents for example). It is crucial for the experience of happiness that our minds can and should have, that we do not cause harm and suffering to each other. And therefore a society should hold people responsible for their own actions. People then learn to behave morally. Holding people responsible for their actions is not only a matter of law. More important is the state of mind of being responsible, in Buddhism called Karma.

This whole article is not a defense of predestination. Predestination suggests the existence of a super-being, who has been the engineer of the predestination. And this is what Neo-Buddhism does not believe (see epistemology).