It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NewlyAwakened I've pondered the origins of consciousness for a long time.
For many years I was a hardcore materialist atheist, believing unconscious matter/energy to be the fundamental building blocks of reality. During this time, the biggest philosophical problem that I wrestled with was how raw conscious experience can arise from these unconscious, "dead" building-blocks.
There have been atheist authors who have tried to tackle this subject, often with some remarkable insight. My favorite was Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, where he attempts to use an inanimate, "nothing but matter and energy" worldview to explain conscious experience. He does about as good a job as I could ever imagine, and yet it still fell short. It still left me with questions and a feeling that he still didn't really "get it", and was perhaps trying too hard to ponder consciousness while maintaining a materialist worldview. I think it was this book that finally made me realize that there was something wrong with my fundamental worldview.
Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Oh, by the way, with regards to the consciousness of the "self":
The consciousness of the "self" is created by the 'movement' of self-reflection as a 'spatiality' or a 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists. The contents of the consciousness of the "self" are sensations, perceptions, emotions and such things as body memories (like learning how to ride a bike, drive a car, throw a football, type, etc.) and memories of all of these; as well as the writing of poetry, the lyrics of songs, and music; the drawing of pictures; choreography, etc. All of these things are produced by a "self". But this is also the consciousness that 'falls in love' and that becomes psychotic.
The consciousness of the 'thinker', then, is the consciousness that makes plans, balances a checkbook, reads or writes books on philosophy, science, politics, and religion, etc; makes scientific inventions, declares war, constructs buildings, etc. etc.
Mi cha el
Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy I must admit I am still confused on your separation between the "Self" and the "Thinker", how have you come to this conclusion and is there anyone else who has wrote about such an idea which may help me understand it better?
And are you saying there is a state of consciousness beyond these two? Is this what you mean when you say 3D Consciousness?
I believe we may be eluding to the same thing, although I am not sure I would separate the "self" and the "thinker", maybe or maybe not depending on what you mean.
One might say the "thinker" creates the "self" through thought, and the "self" is just a representation of that "thinker".
I also agree with your analysis that modern psychological science in a general establishment term wants no part in this discussion, although there are some who are willing to delve into such ideas, and I feel more and more will do so in the future as other areas of science such as; quantum physics, challenges their perception of reality.
Originally posted by Michael Cecil
In any case, for anyone following this thread, I sincerely hope that you can appreciate the quality of the discussion that is going on here. This is a discussion about consciousness which probably cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.
I certainly hope that more people become involved in the discussion.
The "self" and the duality was created by a reflex 'movement' of self-reflection which instantaneously, and prior to the emergence of thought at all, creates the "self"/"not self" as a 'space' or 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists.
Mi cha el
Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
Ok, thanks. I am still trying to piece together what you are saying, doesn't mean I think your wrong, but I just can't see it as you've described right now.
Again, is there anywhere or anyone else you can recommend to me that has spoken or wrote about these concepts in the way you are describing them? Maybe that will help.
See what you are saying seems to directly contradict Buddhist's understanding of the "self", which is the least argued or debated concept in Buddhist philosophy.
Also, as I stated previously, it contradicts my own understanding of the "self" which I derived from the cessation of thought through meditation, where there was only a simple state of "awareness" left and my "self" was non-existent, it was as if my being was completely one with my surroundings.
Now I am willing to keep an open mind and set aside this experience and my understanding of Buddhist philosophy to try and actualize what it is your saying. I am willing to accept, for the present moment,
the possibility that my understanding of Buddhist philosophy may have conditioned my mind into perceiving this experience as I did. However, for me to come to a conclusion, or as you stated observe this reality as you say you have, I will need to better understand what this concept or observation is, as my own observation has led me to a different conclusion.
Originally posted by RRokkyyNonDuality is discussed on the Net. Just not seriously on ATS. This is the first serious attempt at it that I have seen. In fact there is an ocean of non duality on the net and it would be easy to drown in it.
Now your second quote above is almost on the mark. Just eliminate the "was created" and replace it with,"is being created".
The Ego Self,or false self,creates its sense of separation which is Fear, in each moment, and not in the past.
Thus the True self is realized by this simple observation in each moment.
Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Come on, guys.
10 hours without a reply?
"Don't be such panzies. It's not that difficult. Even a woman can do it."
Her words.
Mi cha el
The Glorious Signs That May Surround the Sacrifice of Man In the seventh or ultimate stage of human life, and in the fourth or terminal stage of practice and Realization in the Way of Divine Ignorance, the individual body-mind is sacrificed into the absolute Intensity that is the Reality, Condition, Source, Destiny, and God of all beings and worlds. It is a matter of the direct Realization of unqualified, uncaused, nonobjective, nonsubjective Bliss, or Ecstasy. Associated with this Realization of Ecstatic Translation may be any number of otherwise apparent and secondary phenomena, which are glories of the mechanical body-mind. Such phenomena may generally be grouped into three categories: 1. phenomena of Transfiguration, or signs of the pervasion of body and mind by Transcendental Radiance; 2. phenomena of bodily and mental Transformation, including longevity, healing power, psychic capabilities, and other supernormal signs or abilities; 3. phenomena of literal bodily and mental Translation, or Dissolution in Radiant Bliss, primarily in the process of death. Such phenomena may be generated by Nature, in the given or "chance" circumstances of the individual's birth, and also by yogic or personal psycho-physical efforts of a secondary or mechanical kind. But the devotee in the Bliss of Divine Translation, or the perfect stage of the Way of Divine Ignorance, does not seek to create or generate any of these phenomena or their effects. Rather, if they appear, they do so quite spontaneously, in the case of the transcendental sacrifice of the individual, or the sacrifice of the stepped-down intensities of the independent body-mind. Thus, such signs or glories may appear in the case of devotees who are yielded to the Destiny that is Ecstasy, beyond all fascinations.
LifeIsEnergy: Again, is there anywhere or anyone else you can recommend to me that has spoken or wrote about these concepts in the way you are describing them? Maybe that will help.
Michael: No. No one else can help you with these things...
Michael: Many, many years ago, I started walking my wife down this path. Now she understands...
Michael: But, in more than 35 years of readings on this, I have never found anyone who approaches this subject in the way that I have; which means that it is my responsibility to explain it as best I can.
Michael: Just so: "concept of Buddhist philosophy". What I am talking about here is not a concept. It is an observation. From the perspective of a person in the train station...
Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
Few things I am sure we agree on is that this realization cannot come from an outside source, only from within, and humans and their science's must embrace this line of thinking or humanity is bound to fall into more and more chaos.
Originally posted by midicon
“When your nervous system reflexes with the 'movement' of self-reflection--this is something over which there can be no conscious control--that reflex creates a 'space' of consciousness within which your "self" exists.”
Now the first part of this i.e.… “When your nervous system reflexes with the 'movement' of self-reflection”. Is really just a statement, I mean, how does the nervous system reflex and what is the movement of reflection? And this ‘self’ that exists within this space of consciousness, do you mean our awareness of self? And is awareness of self not just consciousness anyway? It’s late maybe I’m confused…
Some questions, How do you know that self-awareness begins in this way?
If indeed it can never be observed happening?
Which part of the nervous system is concerned with facilitating this?
I mean, what is actually moving?
Does this mean that consciousness arises from the physical?
Or does the physical just create a ‘space’?
Is this reflex triggered by an electrical impulse?
I have read that a young baby has no concept of self and doesn’t differentiate between itself and the external world.
If this is so, then at what age do you think this ‘reflex movement’ begins?
I have also heard it said that a child or a fool is closer to god (for want of a better word), is this because they have less self awareness?
Where is this space of consciousness located?
How small can it be?
Is self-reflection primarily an instinctive self/non self without the conscious ‘I am’ realization?
Is ‘I am’ the product of the first identification of self awareness with thought?
Is it only when consciousness unconsciously identifies with thought that the false image of self is created?