Progress in consciousness?

twyvel wrote:

Okay Gelisgesti,

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

Hi tywvel, thought considered.

Offered for your consumption ........
We are, at the moment, in terms of consciousnes, at the apex of consciousness with each thought being a rubicon. It is not in our ability to 'un-learn' once learned.
To say that it is impossible for the observer to observe the observer is to utilize an undefined premise ie: premise defined as 'observe in human fashion' ..... photons activating rods and cones on the back of a human eyeball .... I agree, that would be impossible.

To define the premise as: One's 'spirituality' being 'aware' of one's 'spirituality' ( self awareness being a quality of 'consciousness') is a more appropriate reflection of the level or degree of consciousness.

In short, we ascend to 'total consciousness' through being aware that the self is not the physical.

I think. Wink

0 Replies

Gelisgesti

Quote:

We are, at the moment, in terms of consciousnes, at the apex of consciousness with each thought being a rubicon. It is not in our ability to 'un-learn' once learned.

Well we have forgotten who/what we are. We have, the vast most of us, taken on a role, the ego self (that which we think we are as body-mind) and have identified so strongly we don't' know we have identified, i.e. we think we are it.

Quote:

To say that it is impossible for the observer to observe the observer is to utilize an undefined premise ie: premise defined as 'observe in human fashion' ..... photons activating rods and cones on the back of a human eyeball .... I agree, that would be impossible.

Yes, the eye is considered, by many, to be part of the brain, to be brain. And as you indicate we are unaware of our own brains physiological, neurological, physical functioning's. We as observes only get, 'for our viewing pleasure' the end product of the process; thoughts, images, sensations etc.

And if we could

Quote:

To define the premise as: One's 'spirituality' being 'aware' of one's 'spirituality' ( self awareness being a quality of 'consciousness') is a more appropriate reflection of the level or degree of consciousness.

0 Replies

I have been out of town for a while and did not have time to take part in this discussion, but would like to jump back in.

My take on the question is that there is:

1. an ego-self that is aware of its own existence, history, and its participation in the world. It is produced by reiteration of the proto-self with current sensory data, memories and data processing functions.

2. a proto-self that is pure awareness since it lacks the autobiographical data of the ego-self. It is produced by structures in the brain that evolved long before self-consciousness and forms the basis for the higher functions that produce the ego-self.

3. a universe containing patterns of matter and energy that exist whether or not they are perceived by anyone. At least one planet in this universe produced sentient life through the natural processes of evolution.

If the universe does really not exist, why do we perceive it in such detail? Whence came the ideas that comprise it? How can a Big Mind exist without any structure to allow it to remember anything, think, or communicate with itself and its parts?

The universe has structure. Brains have structure. Thoughts have structure as energy patterns produced by arrays of organic molecules. I cannot imagine how a free-form Consciousness can exist without some kind of structure, whether it is composed of matter, energy, force fields, or some unknown substance.

Twyvel, consciousness could not be a reflected manifestation without something to manifest itself, something to reflect it, and something to observe it. You can't generate an argument with smoke and mirrors, then take away the smoke and mirrors and claim that your point remains, totally unsupported. Shocked

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

I have been out of town for a while and did not have time to take part in this discussion, but would like to jump back in.

My take on the question is that there is:

1. an ego-self that is aware of its own existence, history, and its participation in the world. It is produced by reiteration of the proto-self with current sensory data, memories and data processing functions.

Quote:
And much like the data on a ram chip the 'history' must be 'refreshed' frequently or be forgotten.
Question or food for thought: Is it possible to 'reset' or stop remembering?
[/i][/color]

2. a proto-self that is pure awareness since it lacks the autobiographical data of the ego-self. It is produced by structures in the brain that evolved long before self-consciousness and forms the basis for the higher functions that produce the ego-self.

Quote:
For lack of a better term I call it 'intelligence'..... as in the force behind the combining of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water .... no life without it.
[/i][/color]

3. a universe containing patterns of matter and energy that exist whether or not they are perceived by anyone. At least one planet in this universe produced sentient life through the natural processes of evolution.

Quote:
And life forms that exist whether or not they are perceived
[/i][/color]

If the universe does really not exist, why do we perceive it in such detail? Whence came the ideas that comprise it? How can a Big Mind exist without any structure to allow it to remember anything, think, or communicate with itself and its parts?

Quote:
Or in such identical detail?
[/i][/color]

The universe has structure. Brains have structure. Thoughts have structure as energy patterns produced by arrays of organic molecules. I cannot imagine how a free-form Consciousness can exist without some kind of structure, whether it is composed of matter, energy, force fields, or some unknown substance.

Twyvel, consciousness could not be a reflected manifestation without something to manifest itself, something to reflect it, and something to observe it. You can't generate an argument with smoke and mirrors, then take away the smoke and mirrors and claim that your point remains, totally unsupported.

0 Replies

BoGoWo and stuh, re neural networks in the brain, they do not take a strictly algebraic sum of neural outputs since it is an electrochemical process. The firing of a neuron is affected by the biochemical levels of surrounding neurons as well as direct inputs. A neuron doesn't fire just once but repeatedly, and any of the thousands of other neurons connected to it may be added or subtracted to the network depending on how their own inputs change over time. Emotions generated during the process (thirst and fear from a previous encounter with a predator will affect the decision to approach a watering hole) change the biochemical levels which affect the firing rate. Some inputs may be consciously damped out (I don't trust that data or source, I shouldn't let my emotions affect this decision). Eventually some equilibrium will be achieved and the decision is made. I don't think that computer simulations of the brain can do all of the processes justice.

Neural networks in the brain don't work like your chess-playing neural net. We can formulate goals, play out scenarios in our mind to see what would work best to accomplish our objective, determine the steps required to reach the goal, and make a conscious decision to act to implement our plan.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

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.

And the belief that all is a dream/illusion may be an illusion itself. I'll go with the most logical explanation: the universe exists and is the source of my perceptions, not something I dreamed up.

The properties of consciousness can and have been observed, and many books and journal articles have been written on the subject. The biochemical processes which give rise to consciousness can and have been observed. We can easily determine whether any given individual is conscious or unconscious. We can observe our own consciousness. I have no idea why you continue to reject the extensive research that has been done on the subject of the emergence of consciousness. Yes, there is a lot more to learn, but to insist that we cannot observe consciousness and therefore cannot determine its properties to it make absolutely no sense at all.

Quote:

What observes core consciousness?

Nothing. It is the basic sense/feeling of awareness. Of course we can determine whether core consciousness is operative in someone else by their responses to us and be aware of our own awareness, but there is no "deeper level" of consciousness in our head that observes core consciousness.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

And much like the data on a ram chip the 'history' must be 'refreshed' frequently or be forgotten.
Question or food for thought: Is it possible to 'reset' or stop remembering?

[/i][/color]
It is possible to suppress memories. You can also lose the ability to form long-term memories due brain damage or taking certain drugs.

Quote:

For lack of a better term I call it 'intelligence'..... as in the force behind the combining of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water .... no life without it.

[/i][/color]
Core consciousness is not intelligence, it is simply awareness.

Quote:

And life forms that exist whether or not they are perceived

[/i][/color]
Yes, I do think that you exist even though I cannot see you. But I will not believe in aliens, ghosts, or demons until I see one. Smile

0 Replies

The most accurate and detailed description of Reality is the greatest obstacle to its mystical or direct realization. It's better to be confused (to suffer a "Great Doubt") than to meditate with the comfortable assurances of an understood profound philosophy.

0 Replies

Reality is when you realize the ironical juxtapostion of of life and death, at the edge of your grave.

0 Replies

Quote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
If it cannot be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, or touched, .... it does not exist.

Touched or felt?

You do not have to touch something in order to feel it. Which brings you back to the levels of consciousness.

I will wrote more, when I have more time to explain my point. For now, I felt compelled put in my 2 cents.

0 Replies

Reality is that which exist, that which has existed and that which will exist. Reality is not perception, but instead fact.

Are you in-touch with reality? Or better yet, are you conscious? Can we control the level of consciousness of which we live our lives, or is that controlled by evolution.

____________________________________________________________
True success is not measured by what you have accomplished, but by the means of which you have made your accomplishments.

0 Replies

I am still uncertain where we define consciousness.
Did early man only begin to be conscious when he started to burry other man. When he created human language? When did he create _human_ language?
When I made the personal conclusion that tropism too is consciousness, things started to blur. I made this conclusion because my physics teacher told me that scientists have found chemical reactions which had VERY similar behavior typical to life.
I suppose all things are transitional.

Change is the only constant. So to shall reality parish.

0 Replies

Interesting comment, ReX. My sense is that change is the most fundamental cosmic fact that we can imagine. All things shall perish (not parish). But the Hindus have a more balanced way of imagining the matter. To them--METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING--Brahma, or Reality, consists of two complementary forces: Vishnu is the "god" of construction (bringing things into existence) and Shiva is the "god" of destruction (taking things out of existence). Together they make up CHANGE, the fundamental characteristic of Brahma (ultimate reality).

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

To them--METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING--Brahma, or Reality, consists of two complementary forces: Vishnu is the "god" of construction (bringing things into existence) and Shiva is the "god" of destruction (taking things out of existence). Together they make up CHANGE, the fundamental characteristic of Brahma (ultimate reality).

I was thinking of this as I was posting on the Religion thread re: It is impossible for us to live without "destroying" other living entities. Yes, we can be vegetarians. But still, at some point in life, all of us will inevitably accidentally step on an ant, breath in a microscopic being and kill it, eat living plants, etc.

Just by existing and breathing, we create and destroy. Does creation and destruction come with all existence?

0 Replies

Extra Medium, it seems so. Destruction is inevitable. The Jain believe that even though we kill living entities without intending to do so, we will suffer the consequences in terms of karmic Law. Buddhists consider karmic negative consequences to result from the state of mind of an individual when s/he causes the death of another. Buddhist notions of karma and "rebirth" are virtually nothing like the average impression. For anyone wishing to understand these complex and subtle concepts more accurately, I recommend a very accesilble writing: "Who Is The Buddha" by Sangharakshita.

0 Replies

JL,
Your post fits well with this thread where the poster is asking if one accumulates negative karma when they accidentally kill:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30958

They'd probably love to hear your take on it.

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
To them--METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING--Brahma, or Reality, consists of two complementary forces: Vishnu is the "god" of construction (bringing things into existence) and Shiva is the "god" of destruction (taking things out of existence). Together they make up CHANGE, the fundamental characteristic of Brahma (ultimate reality).

I was thinking of this as I was posting on the Religion thread re: It is impossible for us to live without "destroying" other living entities. Yes, we can be vegetarians. But still, at some point in life, all of us will inevitably accidentally step on an ant, breath in a microscopic being and kill it, eat living plants, etc.

Just by existing and breathing, we create and destroy. Does creation and destruction come with all existence?

Does creation and destruction come with all existence?

Yes, but some call it evolution.

0 Replies

And what is evolution if not some kind of 'systematic" change? Some call it teleological change. I'm not sure that's so. It IS orderly, however; that's why science can define it in terms of patterns.

0 Replies

Progress in consciousness?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know