2
   

The Problem of Consciousness

 
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:17 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;87486 wrote:
So apparently the physical body has learned to create consciousness as well? At this point I'm afraid I'm going to need to know which came first? The physical body or the consciousness, since they are, as you say, one and the same. Or did they just happen simultaneously?


In my own thought experiment, using ideas that I collected from many places including my own observations and experiences, I imagined consciousness, which is most ethereal, turning in on itself (as a baby might look in a womb), and slowing spiraling into itself more and more. As it spirals in, it becomes more dense, more compress, more energetic, and ultimately more physical.

You can start with some very long string and start it spiraling into itself. Denser and denser and denser. Soon, you hav something very hard, like a baseball, even though it started off very light and flexible. So, spiraling motion is the key. Very similar to the Taiji symbol which I often use to demonstrate spiraling as the fundamental motion of nature.

Of course, you can go in both directions. Mass == > Energy. Bohm's quantum force field might be very analogous to consciousness, since at this time it is just an idea and cannot be measured.

TickTockMan;87486 wrote:
How can we be sure that we're not projecting rather than observing? Kind of like when people project, or assign, human emotions and motivations to animals?


Projection is exactly the process. We project onto others what is ourselves. If we listen to the way we criticize others, we learn a lot about ourselves. Observe some of the members on the forum. Observe how they criticize others. Does it not sound a lot like them. Projection is a beautiful mirror that nature provides to learn about who we are.

TickTockMan;87486 wrote:
Who, or what, is providing these clues? And why just clues? Is some force beyond our comprehension just playing games with us?


I think this is a very interesting and astute observation. I actually think that all of life may be about playing games with each other, beginning when we play peek-a-boo when we are babies, then hide-and-seek when we are children, and then maybe science or philosophical exploration when we are adults. A very interesting game.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-01-2009 at 09:20 PM ----------

jeeprs;87513 wrote:
Here is the source of that story. It is actually highly relevant to this thread. It is all about metaphysical disputes:


Yes. Thanks for the link. I like the story. It is about learning to see things, to share things, and understand that we are all telling our stories from a different perspective. Life can be fun.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-01-2009 at 09:23 PM ----------

Kielicious;87534 wrote:
and why would ONLY a brain be what I am talking about.....

if you lose an arm can you still be a conscious observer? Yes.

if you lose everthing but your head can you still function as a 'normal' conscious observer? No.


Yes. If you remove the receiver from the TV, the TV goes blank. But this does not mean that the picture is created in the receiver in the TV.

By observing our own inventions we can, I think, better understand how consciousness interacts with the mind and the physical brain.

Rich
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:46 pm
@BrightNoon,
I am not disputing that consciousness is dependent upon the brain being functional. If the brain is damaged then consciousness will be affected. However I don't believe that consciousness can be understood solely in terms of the activities of the brain. Every conscious act is dependent upon many factors, of which the brain is one. I suppose the effort to 'locate' consciousness in the brain is an effort to understand it as the property of an object - specifically, the brain. However the brain is situated -first of all physically, and physiologically, in the body; and the whole complex is situated in an environment. Consciousness in the broader sense refers to the entire panorama of subject-object-act of perception. So in can't be reduced to one component or aspect, the physical processes of brain activity of chemistry.

Here is a quote from Alva Noe on this idea.

Quote:
What is consciousness?


I use the word "consciousness" in a narrow sense and in a broader sense. In the narrow sense I mean the experience of seeing something, or hearing something, or having a feeling. In the broader sense I just mean the whole colorful life of the mind: our thoughts, our feelings, our hopes, the desires that shape the contours of our lives. I don't think of consciousness as something that happens in us or to us but as something that we achieve or something that we do through our action and interaction with the world around us. Source
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:54 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;87544 wrote:

Here is a quote from Alva Noe on this idea.


Nice quote. Thanks.

Rich
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:07 pm
@BrightNoon,
It's a pretty big idea, this 'cognitivist' approach to consciousness. It is scientific, but not reductionist. It doesn't attempt to locate or explain consciousness in terms of what has been refered to in this thread as 'brain build':nonooo:. This site on neuro-anthropology is a pretty interesting source, although I have only skimmed it at this point.
0 Replies
 
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 12:16 am
@richrf,
richrf;87535 wrote:
In my own thought experiment,


By "thought experiment" do you mean meditation?

richrf;87535 wrote:
using ideas that I collected from many places including my own observations and experiences, I imagined consciousness, which is most ethereal, turning in on itself (as a baby might look in a womb), and slowing spiraling into itself more and more. As it spirals in, it becomes more dense, more compress, more energetic, and ultimately more physical.

You can start with some very long string and start it spiraling into itself. Denser and denser and denser. Soon, you have something very hard, like a baseball, even though it started off very light and flexible. So, spiraling motion is the key. Very similar to the Taiji symbol which I often use to demonstrate spiraling as the fundamental motion of nature.


This is an acceptable analogy on some levels. However the difference as I see it is that string, unlike consciousness, has measurable mass. My understanding is that kinetic energy can be made into mass, and that mass can be considered another form of energy, but does consciousness produce a form of energy that could conceivably be converted to mass? Particularly if that mass is a complex system such as a human body?

I'm with you on the Taiji symbol and the apparent spiral nature of things, but I am going to have to point out that you've ducked my initial question of which came first? the body or the consciousness? I'm curious as to what you might think about this.

richrf;87535 wrote:
We project onto others what is ourselves. If we listen to the way we criticize others, we learn a lot about ourselves.


Well stated.

richrf;87535 wrote:
I think this is a very interesting and astute observation.


No one has ever accused me of being astute before.

Another question I did want to explore though has to do with your idea of Universal Consciousness. Specifically, does this Universal Consciousness also include or allow for non-human and/or non-terrestrial consciousnesses in its structure?

Thanks,
TTM
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 02:44 am
@TickTockMan,
richrf;87535 wrote:
Yes. If you remove the receiver from the TV, the TV goes blank. But this does not mean that the picture is created in the receiver in the TV.

Rich



Seriously.

I really dont understand how someone can be persuaded simply by analogy.

And a mediocre analogy at best.



jeeprs;87544 wrote:
I am not disputing that consciousness is dependent upon the brain being functional. If the brain is damaged then consciousness will be affected. However I don't believe that consciousness can be understood solely in terms of the activities of the brain. Every conscious act is dependent upon many factors, of which the brain is one. I suppose the effort to 'locate' consciousness in the brain is an effort to understand it as the property of an object - specifically, the brain. However the brain is situated -first of all physically, and physiologically, in the body; and the whole complex is situated in an environment. Consciousness in the broader sense refers to the entire panorama of subject-object-act of perception. So in can't be reduced to one component or aspect, the physical processes of brain activity of chemistry.



Ok and I think we CAN understand the mind by looking towards the brain. I think we're both aware of some of the evidence from my position. Im waiting for the evidence from your position. I DONT want analogies, or drug-overdose-terminology; I just want to see some evidence so I can be persuaded. SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!!!


edit: sorry its late and Im tired of writing stheohsekdjlg.vfdg
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 04:13 am
@BrightNoon,
Fair enough. Actually I feel I am not really contributing anything useful in this thread, but my intitial involvement with inspired me to go out and buy Merleau Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception. So I shall withdraw to the quite confines of my study (I wish) and put something together on this as an alternative to neurological theories of consciousness. And I will try to avoid drug-overdose-terminology, the dreaded TV set analogy - and mysticism.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 05:34 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;87286 wrote:
Jeeprs is ready to follow my line of reasoning.

Both creatures using the same organ and biological mechanisms are seeing what is being transmitted on their little tv screens in the back of an organ in the head. I will leave it up to you brainiacs to come up with the proper name for that.

Neither are actually seeing the actual tree, nor can they. What they are seeing is the light reflected off of the tree and translated by their brain into an image of what may or may not be in front of them.

There is nothing that either of them can do to alter the reality of that tree being there, or what it actually is. Should some mishap cause the brain to interpret the image differently, THAT will be what they will think they see, but the tree will remain exactly what it really is, despite their biological interpretation of it.

A tree is a tree is a tree is a tree! Whether the being looking at it is a man, monkey, mouse or insect. The world is the world with the same determination. We can interact with it by plucking its leaves and fluttering through its atmosphere and sailing across its seas. But what it is, it is!

So the two creatures are biologically observing what is there in front of them. The reality of what is there before them has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness. The fact that their brain is able to translate light reflection into an image is not consciousness, it is merely a biological ability/ function. The dynamics within that biological process and the details of how it takes place is not consciousness.

Consciousness reveals itself in the fact that, over and above the picture being devised by the brain on the little viewing screen, a being is able to FURTHER interpret that image, and calculate what it might be, and intelligently speculate and theorize about its environment and possible interaction with them and their shared surrounding. It is in that FURTHER ability that consciousness is revealed. So in that definition we see that there is therefore a propensity for varying degrees of consciousness from creature to creature.

Even though the biological brain functions between the man and the chimp are pretty much exactly the same, we cannot say that the consciousness is the same. Both are conscious of it, but certainly not to the same degree. Both are using the brain to see an image inside their heads that shows them a constructed build of reflected light. We call the image we see a tree. Who knows what the chimp calls it in his mind, (Pretty brown and green lights that stand up straight?).

Can we agree on that at this point?



Are we agreed that as far as the biological function goes, both are the same? Because at this point we are really not talking consciousness until AFTER this point, because it is the degree that becomes the true definition of it.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:55 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;87556 wrote:
By "thought experiment" do you mean meditation?


It was more of a thought experiment as I tried to visualize what image seems to fit the overall picture of what I was observing.

TickTockMan;87556 wrote:
but does consciousness produce a form of energy that could conceivably be converted to mass? Particularly if that mass is a complex system such as a human body?


This would be the model. Consciousness would be the equivalent of the pilot wave/particle that makes manifests in quanta in the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It is no measurable using classical instruments because of the Heisenberg Principle.

TickTockMan;87556 wrote:
I'm with you on the Taiji symbol and the apparent spiral nature of things, but I am going to have to point out that you've ducked my initial question of which came first? the body or the consciousness? I'm curious as to what you might think about this.


It would be similar to gaseous substance condensing into galaxies, or water vapor condensing into ice cubes. Of course, it could be cyclical, but ultimately, it would be the more ethereal (quantum wave/particle), into the more dense.

TickTockMan;87556 wrote:
Another question I did want to explore though has to do with your idea of Universal Consciousness. Specifically, does this Universal Consciousness also include or allow for non-human and/or non-terrestrial consciousnesses in its structure?


It would seem so.


Thanks for the questions,


Rich
salima
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 10:11 am
@BrightNoon,
Kiel, I need a little more foundation to build a base camp as it were so that I can understand the full idea that you are backing. there are three points I want to understand.

first: I am trying to find out what is this 'mind' of which you speak. I dont believe in the mind. what is your definition of the word? I would have thought it was the same as 'soul' which I know you dont recognize as valid. why should there be something called a mind? isnt the brain sufficient for whatever processes you would ascribe to the mind?
in your post #46 to Jeeprs, you made this statement: "Ok and I think we CAN understand the mind by looking towards the brain." by this I would understand you to mean they are two different things. you said in post #38 you stated that the mind and the brain are not synonymous, but rather they are opposite sides of the same coin. actually I dont know what you mean by that. can you explain? it does sound to me like here you are saying the mind and the brain are the same thing. and previously in your post #20 you stated "The brain in a specific state is the mind in a specific state." I also dont understand that statement. can you elaborate? what states are you talking about? would they both be in the same state or two separate states?

second issue: we have established that you believe there must be a subject that is experiencing and we agree that consciousness is the experience itself. again in your post#20 in answer to my question 'who or what is the subject?', you replied: "It is the agent/organism." I asked for clarification, and from your answer in #38 I gather you would say in the case of a human being, it is the entire physicality of that human being that is the subject. am I correct in interpreting that?

and finally, I had asked the question how is a sense of humor biological? my question was worded thus: it would seem to be to be a learned response, as a result of the social context in which a person lives. now the question is, by what mechanism does social environment cause one brain to react by laughing and another by crying? how does social interaction change the material in the human brain so that it generates opposite behaviors? in that post #20 you commented "Social situations have massive influence on us whether we like it or not. What was once socially acceptable, is no longer. Likewise, when our views, values, whatever.... are in contrast with society it can change the way we think. Although, I think this is more of an ethical subject than dealing with the core issue of consciousness." I dont feel that addresses the question. in an attempt at clarification, I said in post #25:
"social mores are en ethical consideration of course. but humor would not be, would it? is humor entirely social? I see humor as coming from consciousness, it is a reaction to experience. so where is it produced? surely the brain makes us feel like laughing? do you see our views and values to be outside the realm of thought and produced by society's relationship to them? if not, and it is produced in the brain, how is that done and what is the evidence supporting that?"
so let me rephrase what it is I was trying to determine, I will admit it wasnt clear. I see humor as coming from consciousness, it is a reaction to something perceived and experienced. in the light of what you said about how our views and values are shaped, i would like to know by what biological process in the brain do they change the way we think?
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 10:22 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;87560 wrote:
Seriously.

I really dont understand how someone can be persuaded simply by analogy.

And a mediocre analogy at best.


I am not trying to persuade anyone. Everyone is on their own journey. If someone thinks that my ideas are interesting and is inquiring along the same lines, then I am more than happy to converse. You can believe anything you want to. What is Is, and I am just exploring it.

Materialism never answered the questions I have had regarding purpose and being. It is a dead end, and a very quick dead end at that, i.e. You are here, you are gone, and while you are here you are just a zombie following deterministic rules. I don't find that this fits my life at all, and I would have to spend my life wondering why am I doing anything if this was all there was.

My view of life is quite simple but for me very satisifying:

1) Consciousness is exploring what it is creating and creating new things to explore. Just like a child plays with blocks and adults play at work.

2) He learns and remembers what it is creating (physical and transcendental memory), so that it can create something new.

3) It is sharing what it is creating so that it can learn more from all perspectives.

As for evidence: It is what you are doing every day and remembering from day to day and from life to life. It is not very complicated, though it is seems to be very difficult to know for sure. Nature likes to hide.

I have a very simple view of life: Explore, learn, create, share.

Rich
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 11:49 am
@richrf,
richrf;87629 wrote:

Consciousness would be the equivalent of the pilot wave/particle that makes manifests in quanta in the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It is not measurable using classical instruments because of the Heisenberg Principle.


So in essence are you saying that you personally lean more toward a probabilistic view of the universe, rather than a deterministic view of the universe? Or am I misunderstanding what Heisenberg was saying about uncertainty?


richrf;87629 wrote:
It would be similar to gaseous substance condensing into galaxies, or water vapor condensing into ice cubes. Of course, it could be cyclical, but ultimately, it would be the more ethereal (quantum wave/particle), into the more dense.


Okay, so forgive me if I'm misreading you, but are you saying that consciousness did indeed come first, and that it condensed into the physical?

Thanks,
Tock
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 11:54 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;87721 wrote:
So in essence are you saying that you personally lean more toward a probabilistic view of the universe, rather than a deterministic view of the universe? Or am I misunderstanding what Heisenberg was saying about uncertainty?


Hi,

Probabilistic not in the sense that anything can happen. But more that there are influences that surround all of us and there is a choice in direction that we can take. The choice of direction is the navigation part of life. We can choose to go this way or that way.

In Bohm's model, he speaks of a quantum force that varies over distance and is constantly being influenced. This is very close to my concept of consciousness - i.e., observing and choosing a direction using Will.


TickTockMan;87721 wrote:
Okay, so forgive me if I'm misreading you, but are you saying that consciousness did indeed come first, and that it condensed into the physical?


Yes, this would be my conception. Sort of like gaseous substance condensing into galaxies or quanta waves collapsing into particles. The more ethereal condenses into the individual manifestations.

TickTockMan;87721 wrote:
Thanks,
Tock


Thanks.

Rich
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 01:31 pm
@richrf,
richrf;87726 wrote:
Hi,

Probabilistic not in the sense that anything can happen. But more that there are influences that surround all of us and there is a choice in direction that we can take. The choice of direction is the navigation part of life. We can choose to go this way or that way.

In Bohm's model, he speaks of a quantum force that varies over distance and is constantly being influenced. This is very close to my concept of consciousness - i.e., observing and choosing a direction using Will.


I'm working through some thoughts on this matter. Unfortunately I'm at work and can't take the time just yet to lay them out coherently. Suffice it to say I have some doubts and further questions, but I'd like to get back to you on this particular subject later if you're willing to continue this dialog. I find it interesting.

In the meantime though . . .

richrf;87726 wrote:
Yes, this would be my conception. Sort of like gaseous substance condensing into galaxies or quanta waves collapsing into particles. The more ethereal condenses into the individual manifestations.


This forces me to ask the question then: "Where did consciousness, as you define it, come from?"

Regards,
Tock
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 05:55 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;87749 wrote:
In the meantime though . . .
This forces me to ask the question then: "Where did consciousness, as you define it, come from?"

Regards,
Tock


This is of course the million dollar question. I am here, and others are here with me and we are all conscious of it. Was that consciousness always here? Or was it conceived by something else that we are not aware of? Always may be possible if we think of space/time differently. When I am asleep, always seems more possible since there is no now, past, or future. Just things happening. I think there are always clues to it all, and it is a matter of putting the pieces together. Something to ponder, I guess.

If you are interested, looking forward to discussing this with you further.

Rich
Rich
0 Replies
 
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:38 pm
@richrf,
richrf;87673 wrote:
I am not trying to persuade anyone.



I didnt mean myself. *hint hint*

---------- Post added 09-02-2009 at 06:12 PM ----------

salima;87669 wrote:
Kiel, I need a little more foundation to build a base camp as it were so that I can understand the full idea that you are backing. there are three points I want to understand.


ok

salima wrote:
first: I am trying to find out what is this 'mind' of which you speak. I dont believe in the mind. what is your definition of the word? I would have thought it was the same as 'soul' which I know you dont recognize as valid. why should there be something called a mind? isnt the brain sufficient for whatever processes you would ascribe to the mind?
in your post #46 to Jeeprs, you made this statement: "Ok and I think we CAN understand the mind by looking towards the brain." by this I would understand you to mean they are two different things. you said in post #38 you stated that the mind and the brain are not synonymous, but rather they are opposite sides of the same coin. actually I dont know what you mean by that. can you explain? it does sound to me like here you are saying the mind and the brain are the same thing. and previously in your post #20 you stated "The brain in a specific state is the mind in a specific state." I also dont understand that statement. can you elaborate? what states are you talking about? would they both be in the same state or two separate states?


Firstly, I dont know why you deny consciousness seeing how that defines who you are in a qualitative sense. Also, the word 'soul' is often associated as being a synonym for 'mind' but to each his own I guess.

Second, the reason why there is a distinction between the mind and the brain is because one is subjective and the other is objective: qualitative and quantitative. Can a third party 'see' consciousness in another individual? No, of course not. Otherwise it wouldnt be a subjective phenomenon. So where do we 'look' for the mind? The brain. The brain generates consciousness. When I say "the state of the brain is the state of the mind" it means exactly that: whatever the state that the brain is in the mind will be as well. So for example if we take an fMRI machine and hook it up to your brain and see all the different neurons firing via blood flow (hemodynamics) third parties can establish what you are thinking. Remember that states of the mind are an empirical problem for third parties because as we have said before: consciousness is a first-person ontology.

However, with your last question you seem to be hitting on the idea of Inverted Spectrum which, if that is the case, I will respond but if not then I think I answered it in the above.

salima wrote:
second issue: we have established that you believe there must be a subject that is experiencing and we agree that consciousness is the experience itself. again in your post#20 in answer to my question 'who or what is the subject?', you replied: "It is the agent/organism." I asked for clarification, and from your answer in #38 I gather you would say in the case of a human being, it is the entire physicality of that human being that is the subject. am I correct in interpreting that?


Well, as I stated before your wording can be interpreted in many different ways. And which is why I made the response to Jeepers. 'Entire physicality' is a bit ambiguous. If I lose my arm can I still be conscious? Yes. Although, if I lose my heart, or lungs, or any vital organ, can I retain my consciousness? No, probably not. The human body is a fully functioning system that is highly interconnected and complex, so we have to be specific about this, right?

As for your last question about humor, I find it a tad irrelevant. Should I find out where humor is 'located' in the brain to answer the question? If that is unobtainable (which it probably is) I dont understand what that accomplishes. Does that merit the stance of hyperdualism or a 'soul'? No. Where does this lead us? We dont need to know EVERYTHING about the human mind/brain to know the two are interrelated, and actually there is plenty of things we have no clue about when looking at the neural network of a brain.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:52 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;87770 wrote:
I didnt mean myself. *hint hint*


As I said, I am not here to persuade anyone. I enjoy discussing topics like consciousness just for the sheer enjoyment.

Rich
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:07 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;87770 wrote:

So for example if we take an fMRI machine and hook it up to your brain and see all the different neurons firing via blood flow (hemodynamics) third parties can establish what you are thinking.


Would you have a reference for that? It conflicts with some other reading I have been doing on the subject. I would be curious to know how you would translate MRI images into words and pictures.

Also the point about 'being conscious even if your arm is amputated' is not really germane to the idea of 'embodied consciousness'. The idea of 'embodied consciousness' is more that:

Quote:

Philosophers, cognitive scientists and artificial intelligence researchers who study embodied cognition and the embodied mind believe that the nature of the human mind is largely determined by the form of the human body. They argue that all aspects of cognition, such as ideas, thoughts, concepts and categories are shaped by aspects of the body. These aspects include the perceptual system, the intuitions that underlie the ability to move, activities and interactions with our environment and the naive understanding of the world that is built into the body and the brain.

The embodied mind thesis is opposed to other theories of cognition, such as cognitivism, computationalism and Cartesian dualism. The idea has roots in Kant and 20th century continental philosophy (such as Merleau-Ponty). The modern version depends on insights drawn from recent research in linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, robotics and neurobiology
Source


As said above, I will put together a separate piece on this idea.
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:28 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;87785 wrote:
Would you have a reference for that? It conflicts with some other reading I have been doing on the subject. I would be curious to know how you would translate MRI images into words and pictures.


Well BCI's do just that. Although, they use EEG I believe but still the same concept. It seems like an implication (correct me if Im wrong) that you are questioning whether or not our mapping of the brain has epistemic justification? (i.e. that when your occipital lobe fires doesnt mean you are having a visual experience) Because if that is the case I can show mounds of examples and reference you to my OP in the other thread.

jeeprs wrote:
Also the point about 'being conscious even if your arm is amputated' is not really germane to the idea of 'embodied consciousness'. The idea of 'embodied consciousness' is more that:



Oh, well, I am not that familiar with Embodied Thesis :\

---------- Post added 09-02-2009 at 08:30 PM ----------

richrf wrote:
As I said, I am not here to persuade anyone. I enjoy discussing topics like consciousness just for the sheer enjoyment.

Rich



What I meant was that YOU are probably persuaded by that analogy, amirite?
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:52 pm
@Kielicious,
"Dream delivers us to dream, and there is no end to illusion. Life is a train of moods like a string of beads, and, as we pass through them, they prove to be many-colored lenses which paint the world their own hue, and each shows only what lies in its focus." --Emerson

I imagine that I was once a fetus. I was born. According to my mother I could speak in complete sentences as 12 months of age. Was I conscious through all of that? I don't think so. I don't think there was any 'me' to be conscious. I can't account for when or how it started, though. Apparently I wasn't conscious of becoming conscious.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 07:06:22