What are you?

We are caught in a devil's bargain . . .

0 Replies

Someone probably already said this but

I am the Walrus
CooCoo Ka chew

0 Replies

rosborne979

I haven't focused primarily on the interpretation of the question as such. I said I am awareness, pure awareness,........ and beyond.

You wrote:

Quote:

For instance, suppose I suggested that awareness is just another emotion, like anger, or joy. Not an observer or an "I" at all, just a feeling.

Well unlike emotions awareness is not observable, so it's not a feeling in as much as feelings can be observed.

Metaphorically observing thoughts is like looking into a mirror; they are a reflection of an aspect of this so called 'self'.

Some would go as far as to say, no thoughts no 'self'.

However I think this 'self' is an illusion, the real SELF is not something perceived, it is the perceiver, the unobserved observer.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

rosborne979

I haven't focused primarily on the interpretation of the question as such. I said I am awareness, pure awareness,........ and beyond.

You wrote:

Quote:
For instance, suppose I suggested that awareness is just another emotion, like anger, or joy. Not an observer or an "I" at all, just a feeling.

Well unlike emotions awareness is not observable, so it's not a feeling in as much as feelings can be observed.

Can you flesh that out a bit. I do not see the difference between emotions and awareness where obserability is concerned.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Can you flesh that out a bit. I do not see the difference between emotions and awareness where obserability is concerned.

I certainly can flesh that out Frank but I'm not sure I understand your statement above.

Are you saying you do not see the difference between emotions and the awareness of them?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Can you flesh that out a bit. I do not see the difference between emotions and awareness where obserability is concerned.

I certainly can flesh that out Frank but I'm not sure I understand your statement above.

Are you saying you do not see the difference between emotions and the awareness of them?

Not at all.

You had said:

Quote:

Well unlike emotions awareness is not observable...

Why, in your opinion, is awareness not observable -- but emotions are?

If one is not observable -- it seems to me the other is not either.

Unless you mean something unique in your use of the word "observable."

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Why, in your opinion, is awareness not observable -- but emotions are?

If one is not observable -- it seems to me the other is not either.

Unless you mean something unique in your use of the word "observable."

No I don't mean anything unique in the use of the word "observable"

But to clarify, obviously I cannot observe your emotions or anyone else's emotions/feelings, and nor can I or others observe another persons awareness.

Apart from that I am saying I can observe my emotions but I cannot observe the awareness that is observing the emotions or the awareness that is observing thoughts or sense perceptions or anything else, since in all cases the awareness is being used to do the observing, it is the observer and as such cannot become an object to its own observations.

0 Replies

Wish I'd got on this thread much earlier.
So, what am I ?

Well, I know I'm certainly not finished. I've got a lot of rough edges that could do with smoothing down and there are whole sections of me that could probably do with a complete reworking.
But this isn't answering the question.

Firstly, and admittedly I haven't read all the posts on this thread so apologies for any reiteration here, you have to define "I".

Personally I (there's that word again) define "I" as : that which is me after all the physical things have been removed. Define physical ? OK. All the flesh and blood.

So basically I am my consciousness, my mind, my strength of will and my memories.

This I may very well be imprinted on the quantum sub-structure of the universe and is therefore a physically measureable thing, even if it can't be done yet, but that was not the physical I was referring to earlier.
This I may be something else entirely, I don't know what. What I do know is that I'm going to be around for far, far longer than the shell of flesh and blood I happen to be wandering around in at the moment.

My consciousness has been brought into being as part of the normal emergent complexity in the universe by the arrangement of neurons inside my head. There's nothing magical in that, the universe does it all the time.
However, there is something more than just the arrangement of neurons. There is more complexity and behaviour than can be accounted for just by the arrangement. THIS is emergence. THIS is what is not yet understood.
Consciousness is an emergent phenomena and no one can explain it. Yet.

So, I am a consequence of a normal, functioning process of this universe.

Damn, I could go on all day here but I'd better get myself ready for work Sad

0 Replies

Going to the shore for today, Twyvel. I'll respond tomorrow.

I still think you are making too big a case for the difference, but I'll think about it while basking in the sun and body surfing in the water.

0 Replies

Yeah... the good answers have been taken.

Popeye's philosophy has got it nailed.

Or, another spin on it... I am, therefor I think.

I refuse to believe that I am the only person, that all my perception is solely tailored for my own perception, so, by courtesy, I extend my own percieved attributes to others.

"Thou art god
I am god
That which groks is god."
Robert Heilein

0 Replies

Enjoy Frank, and don't forget the sun screen.

I think I too will head outdoors.......and it's as sunny as ever though some clouds are hogging the rays.

0 Replies

I....am one hot piece of ace.

0 Replies

piece of ace?

0 Replies

That's right.

0 Replies

(trust Slappy to call a spade a spade.)

(But we all know he's a card.)

0 Replies

I think Slappy is a Joker. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Why, in your opinion, is awareness not observable -- but emotions are?

If one is not observable -- it seems to me the other is not either.

Unless you mean something unique in your use of the word "observable."

No I don't mean anything unique in the use of the word "observable"

But to clarify, obviously I cannot observe your emotions or anyone else's emotions/feelings, and nor can I or others observe another persons awareness.

Apart from that I am saying I can observe my emotions but I cannot observe the awareness that is observing the emotions or the awareness that is observing thoughts or sense perceptions or anything else, since in all cases the awareness is being used to do the observing, it is the observer and as such cannot become an object to its own observations.

This just doesn't make any sense to me, Twyvel.

If you have a sense of your emotions that you can call "observing your emotions" -- you certainly can have a sense of your awareness that you can call "observing your awareness."

You cannot see terror in yourself -- you can only sense it.

But you certainly can sense awareness -- using the awareness.

I honestly think you are making way too much of the fact that "being" -- "existing" -- is a very mysterious process -- and understanding it is probably beyond the ken of humans at this stage of their evolution.

0 Replies

Have we not evolved into mere meme collectors?
Our bodies are gene vessels, merely there to help replicate genes... and also to mix up and get 'better' genes through sex. Why do we have minds? A mind by itself is useless, but as part of a society, a mind becomes part of the giant meme replicator.

Society [collection of minds] is to memes as a body [collection of cells] is to genes.

Memetics is the illegitimate son of postmodernism.

Postmodernism espouses the lack of a singular truth, while memetics purports that it doesn't matter: true or not, a fit memeplex will survive for a hell of a lot longer than any one person.

What will be left of YOU a thousand years from now? Those same genes will be here-- the hemoglobin one, the cholinesterase one, and probably a couple of others. Different vehicle, same genes.

Memes will be here. They will have evolved. They are young to the scene right now, like genes were back when we were slime.

They won't survive, however, unless a memeplex takes hold that says the most important thing: SURVIVAL AT ALL COSTS.

Survival at all costs means keeping meme generators/replicators alive. Survival in these terms means the fitter ones survive. Survival in these terms means no war, for war is bad for meme generators/replicators. Of course, memes don't KNOW this. They just exist for the sake of replicating. It is up to us to push them in the right direction.

Isn't consciousness an emergent property of complexity?

0 Replies

truth
Hi Twyvel, good to have you back. I just discovered this thread too late to catch up, but let me just suggest that the question of observing observing is something that must be answered by each of us in the act of looking, not cogitating. When I try to observe my act of trying to observe my act of trying to observe....I conclude, rightly or not, that the only way I can become aware of my observing experience is in my memory of it. Without memory we would not be aware of the act of observation. We WOULD observe but not know that we are doing that; only afterwards (probably immediately afterwards) can we do so. In this way Twyvel is right: one cannot observe observing. But so is Frank: we can recall the experience of observing (BUT "recalling" is not "observing" perceptually, only conceptually).

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

This just doesn't make any sense to me, Twyvel.

Lets go back a minute to what rosborne979 said:

For instance, suppose I suggested that awareness is just another emotion, like anger, or joy. Not an observer or an "I" at all, just a feeling.

I agree with an aspect of this; i.e. that " awareness" is not an (observable) observer.

But I do not agree that " awareness" is a feeling.

Let me put it another way:

I can observe emotions, means I can experience them in the same way I experience thoughts, body sensations feeling etc. They are an experience.

When I experience a thought or a feeling, "I" as awareness am aware of the experience as an event that has come into existence.

An 'experience' appears to be something that happens to 'me',.....the 'me' being awareness. (even though there is no observable 'me' in this sense)

Experiences are either sensations or thoughts, but a sensation or thought is not the awareness, they are events that appear to happen to or in awareness.

So if I experience an emotion it is something that is happening to 'awareness', but it is not the awareness, for the awareness (appears to be) is experiencing it, observing it.

So I can only experience that which is manifested, that which is observable, that which that can become an experience either as a sensation or a thought. But awareness is always observing and never the observed so it cannot be experienced, in a subject---object relation, because it cannot become an object to itself. It cannot be manifested.

So you can't experience awareness ( in a subject-object relation) because YOU are it and because awareness is not manifested, it's the unmanifest.

As awareness I don't experience myself, rather I AM myself. Awareness isn't something that 'happens' to me, IT IS ME. I can't objectify awareness; I can't observe awareness as something separate from me, if the 'me' IS the awareness.

Quote:

If you have a sense of your emotions that you can call "observing your emotions" -- you certainly can have a sense of your awareness that you can call "observing your awareness."

You cannot see terror in yourself -- you can only sense it.

But you certainly can sense awareness -- using the awareness.

In a general every day sense yes, but we're not talking about 'a general every day sense, we're talking about the nature of existence, the nature of 'self, trying to get to some truth etc., and in strict, close inquiry the every day sense doesn't cut it.

And as I think I have pointed out awareness cannot be 'sensed', it cannot be felt, smelt, tasted, heard, seen or thought of. It cannot be observed or experienced through a subject---object relation.

When you have a sense of your awareness that you can call "observing your awareness" as you put it, you are observing thoughts and sensations not the awareness.

Well that's the transcendent view.

Quote:

I honestly think you are making way too much of the fact that "being" -- "existing" -- is a very mysterious process -- and understanding it is probably beyond the ken of humans at this stage of their evolution.

I don't know what you mean here Frank, you appear to be contradicting yourself.

I do think there are people who have profound insights of 'being, 'existence' and consciousness/awareness.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know