Disembodied origin

So, the way science now thinks about consciousness is: it’s a ‘model’ of the mechanical attention our brains pay to stimuli of varying importance. Our impressions of ‘consciousness’ are mental images of the currently most-emphasized neuronal responses, the same way our impressions of the color ‘green’ are mental images of neuronal pattern responses to particular wavelengths of light.

Our self-impressions are fictitious, because our mental images don’t really embody anything – they’re simply oscillating electronic sequences. Our impression of existence is the sensory experience of interpreting messages no longer attached to the real world. ‘We’ are an interpretation of data from sources no longer operating. We can’t see beyond the data. We can’t tell how we came to exist.

But we are efficacious. We can do. That is, even though ‘we’ are only imaginary, we’re quite able to manipulate the real after the fashion of our ‘intentions.’ That is, the software (if we are software) assumes an existence all ‘our’ own. And  that existence supercedes, in both power and capability, its disembodied origin.

Perhaps we originated in God. Science believes we originate in our own flesh. But we ourselves can’t know. While our bodies sustain the flashing display which ignites into our perception of being, and science can determine those physics as precisely as it can define how much food a body needs to eat, Science disappears into the same sourceless inaccessibility that God does – when we contemplate what we ourselves might be.

Comments are closed.