Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@Kielicious,

The difference between ego and identity is that in order to have an ego one must first have an identity. What you are saying Salima does not meet with my definitions.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;85933 wrote:

But awareness of what? One cannot simply 'be aware,' in the same way that one cannot just see, or just hear. Never has anyone seen, heard, or been aware, and not also seen something, heard something, and been aware of something.

Very well then, let's take "awareness" to mean "awareness of something". That should work.

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 02:30 PM ----------

salima;85951 wrote:

there have been a few rare people who were able to see beyond their ego.

I don't understand. Do you mean that they could directly perceive other people's thoughts, or somehow even 'be' themselves and other people simultaneously?

salima;85951 wrote:

finally, it is the ego that causes people to fiercely cling to and defend beliefs and concepts, to argue, to insult and belittle, to want to indoctrinate-not the spirit. why would these things matter to the soul, which by its very nature would be unchangeable? ego fights to maintain separateness while spirit would be best served by unity.

Where do teaching and learning come into this? Are they performed by the ego or the spirit/soul? It couldn't be by the soul if that is unchangeable.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;85933 wrote:

First, I just have to state the obvious and say that reality doesn't require a purpose;

Yes, I agree. However, it does seem like the observer, that which is peering through the eyes, does want to observe, learn, create, and share. It seems to want to do it, and to keep itself alive to do it. This is the purpose that I observe.

I always take the universe as is and observe it, and try to understand it. There are no illusions in my perspective of things. And while things may be hidden, they can be found by following the clues. Sort of like a game of Hide and Seek.

So, the observer, is what I call Consciousness. It is within me and apparently within you. This is what I call the Individual Consciousness. It is aware, it is observing, it is learning (storing information), and it is creating. Apparently in order to keep doing this it has the Will to Live.

And, when the Individual Consciousnesses share what they learn information, it all goes into the same basket, which I call the Universal Consciousness. Individual Consciousness is to the Universal Consciousness as waves are to the ocean. They are individual but they are also all connected as in a complete continuum.

What we see as the physical body is simply Consciousness condensing itself into something more dense. There appears to be a continuum from consciousness ==> energy ==> physical matter. That is why when someone hits us we hurt, or when someone says something funny we laugh. All of the senses are physical manifestations of our own individual Consciousnesses.

I do not feel there is any separability in the universe. Quantum physics also seems to indicate that there is no separability in the universe. Everything is connected and everything affects each other, either in a minor or major way. Therefore, I do not think it is possible to separate consciousness from the material. They are one and the same. Just different forms.

Rich

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

as regards the definition, i can see that consciousness and awareness may be synonyms. so saying consciousness is awareness doesnt give us much to go on.
'consciousness is the sum of all experience of sensation and thought.' this works for me.
what happened to kielicious? it was also suggested that he define it-or are we shooting for something that he will agree with?

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 09:44 PM ----------

ACB;85985 wrote:

Very well then, let's take "awareness" to mean "awareness of something". That should work.

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 02:30 PM ----------

I don't understand. Do you mean that they could directly perceive other people's thoughts, or somehow even 'be' themselves and other people simultaneously?

Where do teaching and learning come into this? Are they performed by the ego or the spirit/soul? It couldn't be by the soul if that is unchangeable.

those people who have been able to function by detaching themselves from their ego would be someone like Krishnamurti, or so it was said he was like that. a person's point of view would then be of the entire human race and possibly beyond-he would no longer have any influence on his thoughts for issues of self preservation, he would be selfless in actuality. though the ego cannot as far as i know be destroyed, it can be subjugated to such a minimal position.

teaching and learning, yes i had thought of that. can spirit acquire knowledge if it is unchangable? i dont think so...the part of the human psyche that intrigues me is the id-this is the sleeping giant. this is what i believe should be running the show. it has been characterized as evil but i think that is a mistake. if it were entirely conscious, the ego and superego would fall back into subordinate positions as they should be.

really fascinating, but off topic, i know

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;85951 wrote:

and finally, it is the ego that causes people to fiercely cling to and defend beliefs and concepts, to argue, to insult and belittle, to want to indoctrinate-not the spirit. why would these things matter to the soul, which by its very nature would be unchangeable? ego fights to maintain separateness while spirit would be best served by unity.

well I agree that a distinct "self" doesn't exist for different reasons but the reason the reality-based people on this forum cling fiercely to our beliefs has a lot to do with our understanding that they can be shown to benefit society greatly and the memory of past instances where they were violently suppressed or slowly forgotten (e.g., the library of Alexandria)

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Do we have a working definition for consciousness? It seems to me that there are two options floating around.

1) consciousness: awareness

2) consciousness: the sum of all experience of sensation or thought

I would say that both are accurate; they refer to the same phenomenon. However, I prefer the second definition because it is more specific, without raising any contentious issues, assuming that we all agree that the content of consciousness is either sensation or thought; i.e. that this awareness is of either raw sensation, or thought in some form, or both. Those phenomena certainly are a part of consciousness, and I can think of no other type of phenomena in consciousness, so those two seem sufficient to me to account for the content of consciousnes in a general way. On the other hand, just defining consciousness as awareness, while nice and simple, doesn't (to my mind) accomplish anything; we are still exactly where we started. The two words are basically synonymous. 'I am aware of my drinking problem,' versus 'I am conscious of my drinking problem.' 'I was so drunk, I was unconscious,' versus 'I was so drunk, I was totally unaware.' If we leave the definition of consciousness as simply 'awareness' then don't we need to define awareness? What does awareness mean if not awareness of certain phenomena? And which phenomena? I would say that they could generally be categorized as either raw sensations (hot, cold, ouch!) or thoughts (memories, dreams, imaginations, predictions, analyses, etc.)

Shall we take a vote or something?

Who thinks that the above two options are the two best definitions? If someone does not think so, then provide an alternative one. Once we've got a list of the options, we can vote on the one we'll actually use.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86055 wrote:

well I agree that a distinct "self" doesn't exist for different reasons but the reason the reality-based people on this forum cling fiercely to our beliefs has a lot to do with our understanding that they can be shown to benefit society greatly and the memory of past instances where they were violently suppressed or slowly forgotten (e.g., the library of Alexandria)

that's entirely possible, and if that were the case it would be based on logic and very admirable. i hope you are right!

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510A34V94TL.jpg

NEVAR FORGET

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

ok, if we are taking a vote, i like 2) consciousness: the sum of all experience of sensation or thought

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;86068 wrote:

What does awareness mean if not awareness of certain phenomena? And which phenomena? I would say that they could generally be categorized as either raw sensations (hot, cold, ouch!) or thoughts (memories, dreams, imaginations, predictions, analyses, etc.)

So here lies the issue. From your own definition, consciousness is awareness of phenomenon, e.g. thought, senses, its own self?

So for me, Awareness subsumes everything else. Awareness of what one is thinking (inner information creation and processing) and sensing (external information gathering).

So to be complete, I would either just leave at as:

(1) Awareness, or

(2) Awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought

Or, if you want to include the memory component, then I would propose:

(3) Awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought.

My preference is (3).

Rich

1 Reply

@salima,

richrf,

Your third definition is acceptable to me, it's a good compromise, and if that's what everyone agrees on, then fine, but I still prefer 'the sum of all experience of sensation or thought.' I still think that 'awareness' of that sum of experience is actually just the 'sum of experience.' Experience entails awareness already; experience is defined by awareness. One cannot have an experience of which one is unaware. Consider two examples.

1. I am aware of my current experience of pain due to touching the stove.

2. I am currently experiencing pain due to touching the stove.

They say the same thing don't they? They refer to the same, how else can I say it, experience being experienced by the person making the statement. 'I am aware of my experience..' sounds to me analagous to something like, 'I think my thought;' we could just say 'I think' and we can just say 'I experience,' and leave the other word out.

I think experience always involves awareness. If one is not aware of one's experience, then one is not having that experience. Ergo, if we say that something involves experience, that something also neccessarily involves awareness. The same with the specific phenomena; if one is not aware of a sensation, one is not experiencing that sensation; if one is not aware of a thought, one is not experiencing that thought. Therefore, by saying that consciousness is 'the sum of all experience of sensation and thought,' one is already presupposing that whatever agent is having this experience is aware of it. There's no need to explicitly reaffirm that fact.

Anyway, I think we have three options now:

1. 'the sum of all experience of sensation or thought' (2 votes so far, Salima, BrightNoon)
2. 'awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought' (1 vote so far, richrf)
3. 'awareness' (1 vote so far, KaseiJin)

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86083 wrote:

(1) Awareness, or

(2) Awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought

Or, if you want to include the memory component, then I would propose:

(3) Awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought.

Your definitions (2) and (3), as written, are the same. Didn't you mean to include something about memory in (3)?

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

4.

unless we are willing to say that there is no unique distinction between the consciousness of an animal and a human, than we must consider the fact that humans alone are able to equate their experiences and awareness, to who and what they are as an individual entity, whether one wants to define that as soul, spirit, or biological functioning.

Consciousness is more than just an awareness of our surrounding and our ability to think and consider our experience. Any animal can do the same. And I simply cannot accept that the human capability is merely an increased degree of the animalistic capability.

No animal has evolved to such a degree that the human has attained. Only the human displays these abilities and talents.

So consciousness MUST take into account this factor. The consciousness of the human cannot be defined without acknowledging this unique dynamic that separates us from the animal kingdom.

Consciousness therefore MUST be defined as an awareness of individuality and identity that makes us human, which we acquire through the experience of being human.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;86133 wrote:

Your definitions (2) and (3), as written, are the same. Didn't you mean to include something about memory in (3)?

You are quite correct. These would be the choices as I would propose. I think that Awareness should be in any definition that we should choose:

(1) Awareness, or

(2) Awareness of sensation or thought

Or, if you want to include the memory component, then I would propose:

(3) Awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought.

My preference is (3).

Thanks ACB for pointing this out.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 06:15 PM ----------

BrightNoon;86125 wrote:

Experience entails awareness already; experience is defined by awareness. One cannot have an experience of which one is unaware.)

Hi BrightNoon,

While you may be correct in your analysis (I would have to think it through), I think there may be reasons to be explicit as opposed to implied.

(3) Would be my choice since I think it full expresses the concepts.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 06:17 PM ----------

Pathfinder;86134 wrote:

Consciousness therefore MUST be defined as an awareness of individuality and identity that makes us human, which we acquire through the experience of being human.

Hi PathFinder,

I think your proposal may have been omitted from your posting. I cannot find it anywhere.

Rich

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86134 wrote:

4.unless we are willing to say that there is no unique distinction between the consciousness of an animal and a human, than we must consider the fact that humans alone are able to equate their experiences and awareness, to who and what they are as an individual entity, whether one wants to define that as soul, spirit, or biological functioning.

There is no unique distinction, no fundemental difference, between the consciousness of a human and that of an animal; the difference is one of degree.

Quote:

No animal has evolved to such a degree that the human has attained.

Except humans. Can't forget that! We have evolved from lower animals over a very long period of time; we developed our ultra-complex consciousness very gradually, by degree, not in one sudden jump from a lower order to a unique, higher order.

Quote:

So consciousness MUST take into account this factor. The consciousness of the human cannot be defined without acknowledging this unique dynamic that separates us from the animal kingdom. Consciousness therefore MUST be defined as an awareness of individuality and identity that makes us human, which we acquire through the experience of being human.

Two points.

1) If we define consciousness extremely strictly as only human consciousness, that rules out alot of potentially productive debate. Don't you think there might be something to learn about our own consciousness from considering animals, e.g.?

2) What you are describing as 'awareness of individuality and identity' is not consciousness; it is self-consciousness. That will come up in the debate if I have anything to do with it, but I consider it just another degree of consciousness, not something distinct and fundementally different from non-reflective consciousness.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

I consider human self consciousness very different from animal consciousness and that is why I propose it that way Noon. I guess we must agree to differ there. But for me, it is this distinction that makes the human unique in creation and therefore, to define their consciousness, that must be taken into consideration.

But for the sake of the thread I will just try to fit my view in where this continues based upon your definitions.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

My fellow posters here, please do heed what I will present here, and [size=3]PLEASE[/size], not only read it so as to understand, but do the homework too--in the event any feel I am mistaken in my understanding and memory.

It is a fact that I had provided a general working definition for consciousness back near the start of this thread. It is a fact that a general, workable definition of the word consciousness should not really be a problem in itself--as long as we simply and only look at the bare referent for that word (since the average of aggregate dictionary entries will make it plan enough).

However, it is also a fact that there are various nuances of types (or more specifically, functional refinements) of the general referent symbolized by the word consciousness. (see posts #52, #58, #60, and #86) It is also a fact that these nuances (i.e. refined descriptions of functional levels and types) are based largely on a philosophically considered neuroscience-discovery-bulk-knowledge base. (If one does not consider that to be the case, then I'd be happy to escort you to source material, even though I know that not all can get it, due to having to have membership in some cases, or private contact in other cases . . . so please do trust me, I am not being dishonest in any way at all by saying that there are these refinements out there).

Then, the WHOLE reason for my having suggested a common denominator definition for the word consciousness is because of richrf's complaining that 1) there was no consensus for a referent for that word, and 2) that he could not understand what I had presented (I don't know how much effort he may, or may not have, put into researching those refinements [sometimes folks will have to go the local library, instead of on-line sites--I mean, if one is really serious]).

If we wish to start at some point which is MOST basement in nature, we will have to start with awareness alone--less source of, less object of, less content. The reason for that is because it is an indisputable observation that we are talking about a time sequence. 'Awareness' has to be turned on firstly--it is as good as fact !! Even though it is true that we are only talking microseconds, we are nevertheless talking about a first come, second come, seemingly--though not really--linear chain of events. 'Awareness' must be turned on firstly . . . otherwise there is nothing (and we can't ascribe awareness to a source at the basement position; it's just a word which has a given circumstance as a referent). As soon as we were to say, 'OK, the basement referent for the word consciousness is the equivalent referent for the word awareness, namely a given circumstance,' we could go on to attach refined catagories, particulars to it; we could go on to argue for a source, for content, for purpose. (as a side note: other than myself, two others have already agreed on this bare minimum.)

[size=3]That said[/size], in that it was richrf who had been complaining, I, for one, am willing to start with what makes him happy, because I have confidence that it's only an expansion from the basement meaning of 'consciousness' (namely, awareness) in the direction of his position, which he will have presented anyway, (and which I have confidence can be argued against anyway). Therefore, while my vote is still with taking awareness as the bare (and please do not forget to fully grasp what bare insinuates....just that alone...) minimum of the meaning of 'consciousness,' I am fully willing to go with what richrf feels comfortable with. (so in a sense, I am double voting?)

May I suggest that if there are no further major objections by Sunday night 11:59 USA California time (Monday 15:59 Japan, Australia 16:59~, India 12:43~ time . . . others please calculate...sorry.....) the voting should be considered closed, and we all agree to go with the results--no complaints.

richrf;86135 wrote:

(1) Awareness, or

(2) Awareness of sensation or thought

Or, if you want to include the memory component, then I would propose:

(3) Awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought.

My vote is primarily with 1, and secondarily with 3. In the event that at Sunday night closing time (USA) item 1) does not have the majority[(means it could be equal to item 3)], please consider that my vote will automatically shift to item 3). Please understand, this is to break a deadlock.

At the moment, item 1) has three votes.

(ps. I almost get the feeling that this latter section should be in `Philosophy of Politics'....hee, hee, hee....)

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

Who but you K. has voted for 'awareness?' And I ask that honestly, not to impugn you. I've been counting since I asked people to vote last page. Salima and I voted for 'the sum of all experience of sensation or thought;' richrf voted for 'awareness of the sum of all experience of sensation or thought;' obviously you voted for 'awareness;' Pathfinder proposed and voted for 'awareness of individuality and identity.' Has anyone else voted? By my count that puts 'the sum of all experience of sensation or thought' ahead at two, with all the others at one.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

I earlier indicated that I was happy with the definition "awareness" (#577). In response to BrightNoon's argument, I later suggested "awareness of something" (#602).

"The sum of all experience of sensation or thought" is OK, except that it has an element of temporal extension (memory) which we may not want if we are looking for something absolutely basic on which to build later. So I hereby cast my vote for "awareness".

1 Reply

@ACB,

Fair enough, I missed that. So then, we now have a tie.

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know