Man vs. Consciousness

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

I've argued that "consciousness" requires the whole body (and its position in the universe), therefore when we speak of consciousness, we are speaking of the whole body. Why don't we ditch consciousness and speak about the body.

So by the same token that you demote/disqualify/classify consciousness, you would also ditch things like the mind and/or emotion.

I don't have an idea of consciousness, I don't think there is such a thing to contemplate. When I use the term "consciousness" I actually mean the organism. I will contemplate the organism.

So again, Man(organism) is Consciousness. Or, fill in the blank for consciousness

It's still the body being aware.

So the mind is the body? Or what do you refer to as your mind, since it's not a tangible thing (like consciousness).

You would have to concede that you possess a sense of being, if you are to understand what I was asking. And I would assume you know what I'm talking about. Everything that makes you you (thoughts, experiences etc), is your being. So then- What is this notion of being that we as humans possess? For instance- when you find yourself in an unsavory situation- and you ask yourself " Why me?", that's what I'm getting at. Why (am I) me? And not you or that squirrel over there? Could this sense of being just as easily been someone or something else? What determines when and how we experience and what/who we experience as?

I don't think that's an answerable question, or the question is the answer.

Would you say it's a fair question? (Unfortunately for me, the question itself is not the answer.)

Do you have a sense/awareness of your own being? I imagine you do. Your life (experiences and all) is yours and nobody else's, at this time and no other time (that we can tell). To dismiss the question of what determines this time and place of our individual existence is akin to dismissing the very sense of what it means to be.

It's all I keep coming back to. I wonder why this question is never broached or taken seriously, unless I'm incorrect in what I'm asking, or I have a completely misguided notion of what this "sense of being" is, or how it's derived.

Absolutely. If there was no superstition growing around the idea, it wouldn't have crossed my mind. Although, I have actually spent much time studying philosophy of mind, and the hard problem of consciousness is a heated topic in that arena right now.

So would it be fair to say that your problem is not necessarily with the concept of consciousness itself, but more with the folks who are using our lack of understanding of what it is as a way to invoke some level of mysticism or spirituality?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


So consciousness is; interactions between electrons and substances/chemicals...but what isnt? ( which is a very interesting point in and of itself, the idea of 'interactions'. the thing is a series of interactions, is a molecule a thing, or 'interacting atoms'? Is an atom a thing, or interacting subatomic particles? Is a car a thing, or interacting parts? Is a human a thing, or interacting parts? How to grasp the existence of something that is only constantly transitory)...(another part of this, is the result of interaction, immaterial, if consciousness is not itself atoms, or molecules or electrons, but it is inbetween these, it is the affect of those items interacting. I guess this is similar to the idea of radiation (funny enough, I think has to do with consciousness,, the firing of synapses billions a second, creating 'brain waves') and how we can store information in radiation (radio waves, wi fi), so it could be that consciousness is output and input, of information, stored symbolically in patterns, that is sent and interpreted by mechanisms of the brain, and so 'consciousness' would be the process of information coming into the brain, information being sent around the brain, and 'some aspect of the brain' having control of this information, the ability to view this information, some part which soaks up the information and reads it, is the part of consciousness. There has to be one part of the brain, where the source of your awareness resides, where you see and create your thoughts, and receive information from the external world through your eyes, you dont project vision out into the world, the world projects its vision inside of you, and you view it inside of you, to paraphrase itsnowagain, Where is the you that is viewing what you view, and what is the you, that is doing the viewing?

The question then is, how come, and how do, certain configurations and interactions of materials, allow 'consciousness/being/awareness/identity/ to exist? What is special about the configuration and interaction of materiel that is said to possess consciousness compared to chemicals and electrons and materials that are said to not possess consciousness?

Try to think about how you think. Try to think about how you conjure images and words and concepts in your head, and see them, and play with them, and project them. Try to imagine a system that allows that phenomenon to occur, and you will then understand why consciousness is so elusive, special, and at this point unknown.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

The problem is, every time you add the suffix "ness" you are making a noun out of an adjective. Or in other words, making a something out of nothing. I don't think what you describe can be circumscribed by your words.

You have to understand that there are no things, or nouns. Things are not eternal, all things at one time were not what they now are, and in time will be different. So we biasedly because of our entrapment in a specific rate of time, call an object a thing, because we exist with it during a period time it is a specific thing. This is how I imagine, the same manner consciousness is discussed. Consciousness is not a thing, as music is not a thing. It is dynamic. A song exists, a song is a thing, but a song exists in time, and is constantly changing. Same with consciousness. It is a process, an event, a continual, occurrence, but the totality of those descriptions = that which is consciousness, as the totality of played notes in a certain successive order is a song.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Try to watch the tv if it has no screen - you can't.
The pictures have to appear on something.
Consciousness is the screen. When the pictures appear on the screen the screen is not noticed but is constantly present. The screen is primary.

...Ehhh, no. In that analogy, the act of projection is the act of consciousness. The screen itself is the mind. The electronics doing the projecting are the brain. The projection is the thoughts or the sensory input that's being observed, the screen is doing the observing, and the electronics running that projection are the tool by which the observation is happening.

I see where you're trying to go with this - we are awareness. No, we are not awareness. Awareness is a part of what we are, but only in so far as a cake is an egg. There's egg in the cake, but the egg, in the process of making the cake, lost its identity to create an evolved identity. It's an evolved amalgamation, a form of synergy. The product of the whole becomes something bigger and better than just the collection of components.

Consciousness is one crucial part of that process, but it is NOT the process, nor is it the product. There's only so many ways I can explain this.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

You can only know how it is where you are.
I cannot prove how it is here.

You've proven you like to run from your thoughts. That's not how it is here.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


LM first you come with a hot topic saying you are ignorant, then a complete turn around and YOU have a definition, then you want the word consciousness with its multiple and varied proposed definitions struck off.

All the fuss trying to add definitions (and re define) consciousness which, without knowing, would make todays scientism look unknowledgeable about something they know is, but without seeing and proving it feel they are still in ignorance. Ergo our understanding of consciousness is taken out of the "too hard" basket and more definitions with other important key concepts left undefined (such as YOU) are added. Even without understanding physical science has not denied consciousness, that is just your personal idea.
You think you know everything and so the unknown can't/doesn't exist.

reply to post by BDBinc


I don't understand what is frustrating you...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


There is only the screen. In deep sleep there are no things appearing on the screen and on waking there is light appearing on the screen - the light moves on the face of the screen and consciousness can then be deceived into believing in other.
All appears on the screen and is never anything other than the screen.

The screen constantly looks different but it is always just the screen.
This is always this but this always appears different.

It seems like the original article is talking about consciousness as the vessel of our morality, not as our awareness, which I always thought of as a Freud concept, rather than a Kant concept. I would agree that this consciousness does not exist. Our morality is a construct of our beliefs, based on our experiences and our culture, more than anything.

While people have many different perspectives of just about any topic, I think people in general recognize consciousness as "A State or Awareness"

It's like desktop space on the computer, or cache memory. It is not the total sum of everything going on in our minds, but only the higher processes that allow us to function. We don't think about all the mechanics involved in a simple mechanism like walking. Our conscious mind isn't telling each individual muscle to do what it is supposed to do, we just think about what direction we want to take, and made sure we don't trip on something.

This aspect of our existence clearly does exist. It is not a simple concept, but a worthy concept, certainly not something that should be explained from some religious perspective.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I think that consciousness is being aware that you're being aware of your own existence BEFORE you attempt to slice and dice reality, both innerently and transcendantly, to what usually amounts to it's lowest common demonimator, at best and at worst, nothing even remotely resembling the truth and reality as it really is. Prior to choice and judgement as a simple awareness of simply being aware that you are indeed alive, it's a non-locallized phenomenon of limitless possibility and unending being (eternal life), even yes a spacious firmament of love and freedom (new pasture) for the human spirit to freely fly.. and in so doing come to know it's true nature that while he/she is a created being nevertheless we share in koinonia or a shared intimate participatory communion, with life as it is, and with God as the spirit of truth and life, in partnership and we ourselves are the stones in a great temple (with God making his home with us) who's completion still has yet to be realized. Thus we are called to do, nothing specific per se, but to be true to our truest and most authentic self who's value cannot be assessed because we cannot stand apart from ourselves and subjectively assign a value, or, usually if not almost always, it's lowest possibly common denominator, at best! Not standing in the sacred ground of all being and becoming that is the holy of holies wherein we are freed at last in the truth that sets us free, namely that we are part of the timeless, spacelesss, and neverending TRUTH and Spirit that is God himself, like a very old chip off a very old old block let's put it that way, but as a homecoming not unlike that of the Prodigal Son!

In my case, definitely like the Prodigal Son. Sometimes I think that Jesus told that parable with me, specifically, in mind and that it's about me.

So I can't be Jesus no worries there. That said, there's no amount of Christ capable of ruining a perfectly good personality.

Best regards,

NAM

The "prblem" however with this all-or-nothing proposition being made and extended to us by life itself is that it is what's true, and WE were false and absurd and ridiculous by any comparison or stretch of the imagination, so it's very very humorous, even if at the expense of all our own folly. But that's ok once you realize or re-realize yourself and your true spiritual (and psychological) nature [without ever forgetting again] as a sacred being of incalculable valuation even as a variable of a supreme value (life itself), once this is fully "grokked" and accepted - then, and only then at that final turning point the great lesson is learned in the epiphany of ecstatic humor where it could be said that the manuire of our lives was absolutely essential for the sweet smell of the rose which is our true life as it was meant to be lived and experienced and enjoyed, not an inner life or an outer life but a real life. Consciousness is life telling us to "get a life".

Humor, the humor of understanding, is both the true nature of consciousness, and the final "ah ha" of any good and reasonable philosophy, as a cosmic joke of sorts told through us, with us, and for us, you see. It can't be told in fact without us, nor without all our prior ignorance and absurdity and the more the better as a final contrast by which to compare and distinguish as we march straight into the new creation, laughing our asses off the whole way, but for all the RIGHT reasons this time 'round. That's precious, and hilarious!

The joke, WAS on "me"!


But that's ok because I've realized this while still on the way and thus while still given the opportunity and the supreme priveledge, to share it with others, and because the content of each of our own personal spiritual and psychological experience, the "punch line" and precisely what makes it funny is absolutely unique to each person.

It grieves us however and thus grieves the spirit, just how stupid and ignorant we really were, which is why I say that the epiphany of consciousness brings with it first tears of sorrow and regret while at the same time offering the very hand that wipes away those tears from our eyes, and helps us get back up from the heap we'd crumbled into until we simply collapse back into another one this time in tears of hilarity, and STILL the hand is THERE, as needed, and then you encounter the living God as the greatest comedian the universe has ever known telling a joke capable of saving the whole world, except for those who simply cannot and who refuse at any cost whatever, even at the cost of truth and reality itself to get it because it's to a very large degree at the expense of everything that wasn't real or authentic or true.

True consciousness as the awareness of being alive, prior to judgement, or after if the verdict is forgiveness.. is humorous, kind, gentle, loving, merciful, tender, and again very funny, liberating, and joyful even to the nth degree.

We were our own worst enemies. We were absurd.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Consciousness - the state of possessing the active ability to pay attention.

I see no problem with it personally, although I would rather see "consciousness" stricken from the dictionaries. We'd have to go down some long difficult philosophical roads to discuss "states", and whether man can be in more states than one, but it does seem intuitive that man does pay attention. I would have to think a while if it is an ability or not, and if it is active or passive ability, and that it is an ability that can be possessed or maybe only manifested.

Very difficult topic. I would refuse to define it myself.

So essentially you are now advocating the burning of books

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


The last recourse of an atheist is to deny free will, then consciousness, until the human being is reduced to a thing of no significance. If needed he would deny his own existence rather than face the idea of a spiritual reality. It's very funny.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Well yeah its kind of funny until someone mentions removing things from history. I mean if one feels that something should be stricken from dictionaries like the concept of consciousness?

That implies the burning of books and the eventual removal of the word from even the dictionary. So that one day children will be born and develop without any cognizance of consciousness (hypothetically speaking).

Sounds like something that might have occurred in history and it seems that LM has made apparent that is ok to repeat history and again.

In my experience people who have dementia can be very funny and by all means such a comment can fall into such a category.

I am saying it is possible LM really feels that way, in which case

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


The very idea that consciousness should be stricken from the dictionary and the history books because of an materialist atheist bias, is about the funniest thing really that a human being could demand, when you REALLY think about it all the way through..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


For me the idea that we should remove the word "consciousness" from the dictionary is not funny.

'Man' is a concept arising in consciousness.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You are wrong, arising in wrongness

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You are wrong, arising in wrongness

Can you say how I am wrong or am I just supposed to believe you?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Dont believe me, but dont lie to me and yourself if I am able to prove you wrong.

'"Man' is a concept arising in consciousness."

DUH. But where I claim you are wrong, is if by this statement you meant to discredit an objective existence of 'man'. If that was not your motive, then we have nothing to discuss, you pointed out something very obvious. "Concepts are created in consciousness". Man, as in, your body, exists outside of consciousness. The concept of man is secondary to the existence of man. Man exists, and then people can create concepts about man, some are opinion and some can be objective fact, "man is good!", "man is bad!" , these are concepts that would arise in consciousness but are meaningless, because they are general and objectively difficult to prove. "That man has black hair!", is a concept about man that is objectively verifiable and arises in consciousness like all though and man made concepts.

I really dont know if I will ever speak to you again, you put way to little effort into thinking, you allready have all your answers, they = nothing, you dont have to say or do anything, because nothing is real or existing to you, there is no meaning. The laziness contained in your respsones and thought contained in those responses is repulsive. When discussing truths, ideas, ideals, thoughts, concepts 'being mysterious' is not helpful, you have to be able to see that it is you stroking your ego, when you have a concept of yourself as a brilliant mastermind mystic who can release quips of elusive wisdom at will.