Progress in consciousness?

lol

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

What do you all think about collective consciousness?

welcome extra medium (would that name by cloned from MacDonald's?);

at this point in scientific investigation, collective consciousness would be an excellent place to 'dump' everything that is not scientifically understood; prescience, various kinetic phenomena, auras, animal instinctive drives, etc., etc.

while i expect more will surface, explaining interconnectivity of brain function; until it does, i remain part of the 'sequestered' jury!

Arthur C. Clark's "Childhoods End" leads in my opinion to the logical conclusion.

[we may side step this issue, by reinventing ourselves as A.I.; then interconnectivity would be 'part of the game'!]

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

nolanguagenrlungs

However I suggest you start with the more recent "Web of Life" (or Google references thereto).

I would add that I am not a particular fan of Capra's "deep ecology" stance, but it is one way of moving away from problems of "observer-observed". You might note also that the "eastern slant" in general is criticised by Dawkins who often makes sense elsewhere.

Thanks,
I'm picking up a copy after the weekend. Funny you should mention, I am a Dawkins acolyte.
But I really do enjoy finding out if, and why my studies have pointed me in a narrow direction. So the read should be an interesting rub from the path I've been accustom to.

-c

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

If consciousness is an emergent phenomena then Krishnamurti, Buddhism nondualism etc. etc. are false; consciousness cannot emerge from a fiction that it itself has created.

If objects of observation are observer dependent; have to be observed to exist as such, then the brain which is rarely observed does >not< give rise to consciousness, for cause and effect only come into existence upon observation. Consciousness has to be prior to that which is observed, prior to the observable uiniverse.

Quote:
Well, consciousness can indeed be demonstrated to be an emergent phenomena, so non-dualism must be false. The universe existed long before any human being had conscious awareness of it.

Obviously stories about the universe and origin of the universe based on observations and imaginations can be incorporated into a dream/illusion as explanations as to the nature and history of that supposed reality. But such stories/elaboration's/explanations are no evidence at all that they are describing anything other then an illusion.
And also of course, consciousness cannot be demonstrated to be an emergent property, for consciousness cannot be observed, and that which cannot be observed cannot be said to be a property of that which can be observed.

Quote:

Non-dualism (your version of it, at least) does not provide any explanation of where consciousness comes from, how we can perceive a world that does not exist, who created the illusions of this world, or why.

I agree. There are no answers to these questions. Though the questions themselves are relative; at another level of consciousness they are of no consequence and have no meaning, i.e. if the youless you is absolute, or is neither the absence or presence of the absolute or relative.

0 Replies

Terry wrote to jnhofzinser

Quote:

Why do you consider self-awareness to be an illusion? Yes, it derives from un-aware stuff, but if there were not a self to be aware of itself, the illusion could not exist.

Quote:

It is not an infinite regress, it is a specific process in the brain whereby core consciousness is generated and aware, and extended consciousness is aware of the fact that it is aware. There are no other mysterious "unobserved observers." The buck stops at core consciousness.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:

you have found nearly as many definitions for nondualism as I did in the post you were replying to...although it looks like all your quotes come from forum dwellers rather than notable philosophers...anyway, you just proved my point because not all of your definitions were the same...thus proving that it does not have a well understood definition...which was my entire point.

I don't think that was your entire point.

Nonetheless, people are trying to speak to that which contradicts dualism so differences/difficulties will arise; each sage/philosopher/mystic will articulate the same or similar understanding/insight/intuition differently. Point is, the core understanding of nondualism is that the observed self that creates (primary) dualism is fictional. (Although the word nondualism, like the word dualism can be used in a variety on contexts with a variety of meanings, which can be said about most word use)

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Why would derivation from mindless processes make intelligence an illusion?

For the same reason that truth and love, good and evil would necessarily be illusions.

Terry wrote:

consciousness can indeed be demonstrated to be an emergent phenomena

Coming from an otherwise intelligent and educated contributor, this is quite a statement! "can indeed be demonstrated?" How, pray tell? Or, better yet, please demonstrate!
<WARNING: Dogma detector at maximum sensitivity Wink

>

0 Replies

I'll answer this after the election.

0 Replies

Twyvel, this matter of the emergent status of consciousness presents a real problem. On the one hand, I do not believe in an objective world, a "thing-in-iitself", apart from observation. We create our world. But on the other hand, it does makes sense to me the "objectivist's" position that material conditions and processes have given rise to consciousness, including consciousness of those material events. I acknowledge the validity of the metaphor that we are dreaming, that our very idea of the emergence of consciousness (we do not experience consciousness, only its contents like the aforementioned "idea"). All discussions of mind as epiphenomenon of matter overlooks the fact that the very discussion is a form of minding. I'm tempted to squirm out of my dilemma by stretching the metaphor. Our dream that mind is an emergent of material evolution, cosmic and terrestial, reflects the idealist in me. But this dream takes place within another dream, as it were, the dream of the cosmos (Brahma--the Hindu metaphor). My dream (my subjectivity) occurs in the context of "Brahma's" dream (objectivity). Now, this seems very dualistic: the distinction between "my" subjective dream and Brahma's objective dream. But it's not intended to be, because I (we) are ulitmately Brahma itself. In this way, I have my cake and eat it.
Now tell me, what's wrong with this construction.

P.S. this is not what I understand by mysticism. It's just a string of ideas. The only mystical truth I know, or have an inkling of, is the NON-SEPARATION of me and my consciousness from my "physical" context and the content of "my" consciousness.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Twyvel, this matter of the emergent status of consciousness presents a real problem. On the one hand, I do not believe in an objective world, a "thing-in-iitself", apart from observation. We create our world. But on the other hand, it does makes sense to me the "objectivist's" position that material conditions and processes have given rise to consciousness, including consciousness of those material events. I acknowledge the validity of the metaphor that we are dreaming, that our very idea of the emergence of consciousness (we do not experience consciousness, only its contents like the aforementioned "idea"). All discussions of mind as epiphenomenon of matter overlooks the fact that the very discussion is a form of minding. I'm tempted to squirm out of my dilemma by stretching the metaphor. Our dream that mind is an emergent of material evolution, cosmic and terrestial, reflects the idealist in me. But this dream takes place within another dream, as it were, the dream of the cosmos (Brahma--the Hindu metaphor). My dream (my subjectivity) occurs in the context of "Brahma's" dream (objectivity). Now, this seems very dualistic: the distinction between "my" subjective dream and Brahma's objective dream. But it's not intended to be, because I (we) are ulitmately Brahma itself. In this way, I have my cake and eat it.
Now tell me, what's wrong with this construction.

P.S. this is not what I understand by mysticism. It's just a string of ideas. The only mystical truth I know, or have an inkling of, is the NON-SEPARATION of me and my consciousness from my "physical" context and the content of "my" consciousness.

consciousness Audio pronunciation of "consciousness" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs-ns)
n.

1. The state or condition of being conscious.
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.
3.
1. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness.
2. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social injustice.
4. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.

-------------------------------------------

in·tel·li·gence Audio pronunciation of "intelligence" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.

1.
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
3. Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.
2. An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
3. Information; news. See Synonyms at news.
4.
1. Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
2. An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.
3. Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: "Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities" (John le Carré).

-----------------------------------

JL, good morning!

Do you notice any parallels or similarities in these definitions?

0 Replies

JLNobody

0 Replies

Gelisgesti

If we are talking about consciousness as sheer awareness not an attribute or capacity then few of those definitions would fit.

0 Replies

Twyvel, I must say that my thoughts/intuitions on this matter are two subtle for me, for my capacity to articulate them. I will try, but probably with some absurdity. By consciousness (note the lower case "c"), I refer to awareness of on-going life. This capacity is what has evolved/emerged (whether "caused" or not I can't say) from Reality's "Evolution" (note the lower and upper case "e"). This is the level at which we create our world. There is no "objective" world in the sense of "me", "tree", "falling", "sound", etc.. There IS, however, the world "as not seen" by me. I have no idea what THAT is. It only takes the forms or meanings we experience when engaged by an enculturated human being. So when I say we create our world, I mean it takes its shape from us. I have no sense of what it would be like when not experienced/constructed by us.
That world, "as not seen" (I think I prefer this epistemological phrase to Kant's ontological thing-in-itself), is objective, relatively speaking, but it remains a form of Consciouosness (note the upper case "C"). It is all there really is. Yet in order to be able to make speculations about this relativistic (c)onsciousness, I analyticallly detach it from the absolutistic (C)onsciousness. Here "subjectivity" (mentalism) is to 'objectivity" (materialism) what consciousness is to Consciousness. This way I can continue to acknowledge the primacy of Mind over matter while not having to choose between them. It remains, I think, a non-dualistic distinction.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Gelisgesti

If we are talking about consciousness as sheer awareness not an attribute or capacity then few of those definitions would fit.

Hi twyvel, I was thinking more of a conscious reflecting upon itself ..... an awareness of the ability to focus .... a sense of self evaluation.

0 Replies

A bit of Eckhart:

Meister Eckhart (c.1260-1328) was born near Erfurt in Thuringia, Germany, and in his distinguished career became a Parisian Professor of Theology, also taught in Cologne, and took a leading pastoral and organisational role in the Dominican Order. He delivered his sermons to the people in German, not Latin, and had a significant influence on other contemporary mystics - Suso, Tauler and Ruysbroek. Towards the end of his life he fell into disgrace. A number of propositions extracted from his writings were condemned as heretical by the Church. Today, however, he is revered by many as one of the greatest Seers of mediaeval Europe - perhaps one of the greatest Christian Seers of all time.

As with any true Seer, Eckhart speaks from his own first hand experience, not simply from what he has read or been told to believe. Somehow he awoke to his own true nature, to his innermost Self - the 'desert' that is void of all characteristics, empty of all thingness. (Other words he uses are Aybss, Nothingness) This 'desert of the Godhead' is also Thomas Traherne' 'Capacity' (see last newsletter), Buddhism's Void or Buddha Nature, and Zen's Original Face. It is the Sufi's Beloved, and the Self of Ramana Maharshi and the Indian Advaita tradition.

When we look into the desert of our true nature, into our very centre, we find there is no-one at home. One's 'self' is absent. This is not an achievement born out of virtue or discipline - it is simply the way things are. At centre there is nobody home - except the Godhead. (As Eckhart puts it so simply, "God's in, I'm out.") Look in the right place (right where you are), in the right way (open-mindedly), and you will see the void that is filled by the world, from your own hands and feet to the furthest star. The desert of our true nature blossoms forth as the living universe.

http://www.netowne.com/angels-christian/mysticism/eckhart.htm

0 Replies

Okay Gelisgesti,

Consider though, if you can reflect/evaluated/focus on yourself, that's not you. Smile

0 Replies

Twyvel, thanks for your response.(I don't think many will make the effort to wade through my jumble). My effort was of the kind that desperately needs a critical examination for me to refine.
I was responding to Terry's assertion that:
"If consciousness is an emergent phenomena then Krishnamurti, Buddhism nondualism etc. etc. are false; consciousness cannot emerge from a fiction that it itself has created." I want to address the nature of that "fiction."

What I refer to as Consciousness (upper case C) is neither one's (small mind), ego-centered awareness nor one's enlightened (Big) mind; it is that of "Brahma," of Reality itself. One (as small mind) can never see it, but one's true self (Big Mind), although it doesn't exactly see it as a whole, does in the enlightened state (satori, moksha, etc.) see one's portion of it (Atman). But there is a likely complication that I do not understand,,, i.e., ultimately there is no whole-part distinction. But Big Mind (one's true Self) does feels its oneness with the whole. This, I presume, is the so-called state of Nirvana. This "Big Mind" is your number two:.

Brahma' Consciousness (upper case C) corresponds to your number three:
"And there is a world, same world, as you say, >>"as not seen" (I think I prefer this epistemological phrase to Kant's ontological thing-in-itself), is objective, relatively speaking, but it remains a form of Consciouosness (note the upper case "C"). It is all there really is.<<

My "small mind", is the number one you describe:
"There is a world seen by you/me lower case Consciousness; consciousness mediated through/by the enculturated ego. "

Your number two is, of course, what I mean by "Big Mind":
"There is the same world seen directly by unmediated awareness in which there is no involved ego self, upper case Consciousness. (which of course is always the case whether recognized or not) It contains all the perceptions of 1., but with no sense of self. It's nondualism, pure awareness"
As far as I'm concerned there is only one and two. One can experience life in the ego-centered or enlightened modes.
But if I am shot in the head, both modes disappear. But number three persists. It even includes the objective fact of my murder. But ultimately that objective event IS me. My Big Mind and Brahma's Conscioiusness are really one. Even my small mind is included, only it suffers the burden of believing it is a reality, a distinct self-contained and separate entity. That reminds me of the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno, characterized not by fire but by ice, symbolizing the coldness of isolation (in Dante's terms, if I recall, because of one's distance from the warmth of God's love). I would say from one's unity with Reality, or one's true nature.

byw, I take the terms, big and small mind, from the writings of Shunryu Suzuki.

0 Replies

Twyvel, thank you. Very insightful. No doubt, as you say, 1, 2, and 3 comprise differences that make no difference. They are merely conceptual distinctions, distinctions my intellect requires. But they are only relatively meaningful. Ultimately, there's nothing to talk about; my "model(s)" try only to meet requirements of the mind. Your "nihilism" (i.e., persistent focus on "nothingness") clearly presents the situation more faithfully than does mine, but it leaves the intellect stunned and, thus, unsatisfied. No doubt you are right. We are nothing/everything, thus rendering all descriptions of us in terms of either numbers 1,2 or, even, 3 false--ultimately false. But this reality leaves us silent--and awe-struck. My effort is to create working categories in pursuit of some intellectual satisfaction. A satisfaction that "talks about" the Reality while at the same time acknowledging its ultimate non-duality. I appreciate your tenacity and unwillingness to compromise with the kinds of concepts I feel compelled to make up. But I do assume that you appreciate what I am trying to do: invent fictions designed to "make (at least foggy)sense" of The Great Fiction (the dream). If I were a true mystic, like Meister Eckhart, I would take great pleasure in describing Reality in terms very satisfying to myself and the few prepared to appreciate it. But alas, and
Egad.

0 Replies

Progress in consciousness?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know