1
   

what is consciousness?

 
 
rockpie
 
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 02:53 am
in your opinion, what is it? and how is it there? why is it there?

a lot of people have been talking about this where i live and can't really decide. what do you guys and gals think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 772 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 04:42 am
Homer: Well, goodnight son.
Bart: Um dad?
Homer: Yea?
Bart: What is the mind? Is it just a system of impulses or is it something tangible?
Homer: Relax. What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. (laughs)
Bart: Thanks dad...

The simpsons on the mind.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 08:18 am
I'm not aware of any one's consciousness
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 09:25 am
rockpie.

Nobody has a definitive answer to that question. If you are interested in the range of possible answers I suggest you start here.....

http://consc.net/online.html

......and come back in a year or two with some thoughts of your own. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 09:37 am
Fresco, Rockpie is not interested in what you present. He is interested in attempting to establish that consciousness resides outside the physical tissues of the brain, as basis from which to argue that consciousness can potentially survive death. In short, he's trying to get the "soul" in the back door. Before he began this thread, he put up a different thread in which he pasted a long screed attempting to "prove" that near death experiences are "proof" that the consciousness exists outside the physical body, and can potentially survive death. The site from which he took his screed indulges the worst kind of pseudo-scientific claptrap, replete with references to studies and credentialed individuals, who are not actually ever quoted in context, and to whom are imputed certain statements or contentions which were actually created by the author based on innuendo and bald-faced lies.

He stated unequivocally, when he first arrived at this site, that he is a "born-again" Christian, and follows the usual route of condemning anyone who dissents from his world view and theology by asserting that they are not "true" Christians, because they don't have a personal relationship with his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. His basis for such a contention is merely that he says so. He has told us that he is a student at the University of Wales, Lampeter, and that he is studying theology. In one protracted debate, he cited the "scientific" evidence of a gentleman, who, upon investigation, proved not to be a scientist at all, but rather a lecturer in theology at Lampeter, whose area of chosen "study" is the relationship of science to religion (as though there actually were one--science and religion have exactly that relationship as does a man who is plagued by the importunities of someone who follows him around in the attempt to offer an unwanted friendship).

My advice is not to expect anything substantive from Mr. Rockpie.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 10:13 am
What is consciousness?
Consciousness is another word for the Self, or the "I" that is aware of the objective world. There are basically two views on this: (1) consciousness is a phenomenon that arises from the complexity of the brain and nervous system. This is the materialist view -- the material world is primary, consciousness arises within it; (2) the world is a projection of consciousness. This is the spiritual or transcendental view -- pure absolute consciousness is the primary reality and it projects the "objective" world. The one becomes many. According to Eastern mysticism, consciousness or the Self becomes overshadowed by the non-Self, or temporary, relative states or conditions. Consciousness becomes identified with what it is not -- an individualized separate ego. That is the condition of ignorance. It is the primal error that gives rise to all subsequent errors in the world and thus to suffering. Spiritual practice is an effort to transcend ego identification and regain awareness of one's own identity with the higher Self.

Based on my own experience as both a scientist and a long term spiritual practitioner, I have to give my vote for the transcendental view of consciousness. There is no experiment that can be done to prove whether consciousness is primary, or matter is primary. The fact that consciousness can be altered by brain stimulation or chemicals only shows that the nervous system is the mechanism by which consciousness connects with the outer world. It tells us nothing about consciousness itself. However, in deep meditation one can experience heightened states of awareness that make consciousness self-evident as a transcendental reality.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 11:00 am
Setanta,

Thanks for that Rockpie update.

It seems clear that whatever "consciousness" is it requires some "material basis" as a necessary condition for its operation yet materiality/physicality may be insufficient in itself to account for "consciousness".

Relative to Rockpie's possible quest, the a priori requirement for operational "physicality" nails all arguments for the survival of " individual consciousness" after death, irrespective of transcendental (non egotistic/ non local) views about "holistic consciousness".
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 12:41 pm
Thank you, Setanta. I won't get involved in that philosophical trap again.

Suffice to say that, from a spiritual point of view, I would simply restate one of my signatures taken from a Joseph Campbell quote: "The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought."
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 03:07 pm
What is consciousness?
fresco wrote:

It seems clear that whatever "consciousness" is it requires some "material basis" as a necessary condition for its operation yet materiality/physicality may be insufficient in itself to account for "consciousness".

Relative to Rockpie's possible quest, the a priori requirement for operational "physicality" nails all arguments for the survival of " individual consciousness" after death, irrespective of transcendental (non egotistic/ non local) views about "holistic consciousness".


In order for consciousness to function in the physical world, a physical nervous system is required. That requirement in no way precludes the persistence of individualized consciousness after death of the physical body. Individualized consciousness or egoic existence still functions, but on subtle planes of awareness. When we each incarnate on the earth, we retain little or no memory of our previous existence on these astral planes, so many tend to deny their existence. However, during sleep, dreams represent a temporary retreat of awareness to the astral plane. The best "proof" for all this is personal experience -- heightened spiritual states of awareness experienced in deep meditation. When there is a profound awakening that transforms consciousness, it becomes self-evident that pure, absolute consciousness is the basis for existence. The subtle realms of consciousness become accessible.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 03:24 pm
Consciousness is the familiar sense of all things not percieved as "self".
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 03:42 pm
Sorry, Ifeelfree, but that last post is pure speculation bordering on religiosity. Evidence may lie in the eye of the beholder but the consensus is that neither you nor anybody else is "self aware" during most of the night and that "the self"is often dissipated or (unaware) during much of the day!

I have experienced "heightened awareness" in meditational states and they are characterized by loss of ego, not "self-awareness". Claims for attaining "higher selves" familiar to readers of some esoteric systems tend to be tainted with spiritual elitism and are more likely to be the modus operandi of pyramid type cult structures rather than being reflective of "transcendental reality".
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 08:38 pm
fresco wrote:
Sorry, Ifeelfree, but that last post is pure speculation bordering on religiosity. Evidence may lie in the eye of the beholder but the consensus is that neither you nor anybody else is "self aware" during most of the night and that "the self"is often dissipated or (unaware) during much of the day!

To the extent that my words are based on my experience, they are more than speculation. The experiences may not persuade you, but since they are my experiences they are convincing to me. However, I agree that most people exhibit little self-awareness (during night or day). It takes a certain spiritual maturity to maintain consciousness of the inner Self during activity.
Quote:
I have experienced "heightened awareness" in meditational states and they are characterized by loss of ego, not "self-awareness".

Loss of ego is the same thing as self-awareness. Ego is the identification of self with the body, mind, emotions, etc. Self-awareness is the dropping of that identification through experience of the higher Self, the undifferentiated absolute state of consciousness. So, your experience sounds right to me.
Quote:
Claims for attaining "higher selves" familiar to readers of some esoteric systems tend to be tainted with spiritual elitism and are more likely to be the modus operandi of pyramid type cult structures rather than being reflective of "transcendental reality".

There are false claims by misguided individuals in the religious and spiritual literature, and there are certainly organizations which exhibit cult structures (to a greater or lesser degree). However, the experience of a heightened state of awareness and freedom from ego is not all that uncommon. There are many accounts of people who experienced this state as a result of tragic loss at some point in their lives. As a result of losing everything, or faced with the likelihood of their imminent death, they are left with nothing. Everything drops away and they are left with nothing but a sense of a sacred Presence, a silent Witness. However, it is not necessary to have such an extreme experience for this to happen. In deep meditation, or other spiritual practice, this experience can come spontaneously. I have practiced meditation for 33 years and I can tell you that I have had profound experience of pure consciousness, deep bliss, and awakening of the higher energy centers, or chakras. There are many others who have had these experiences, and more.

The error that skeptics make is that they deny the reality of these experiences because the experiences are subjective. They cannot be verified objectively, aside from looking at physiological correlates such brain waves, metabolism, etc., which is ambiguous. Nevertheless, the experiences are real. The analogy that I sometimes make is that it is like falling in love -- you don't need others to agree on the reality of your experience. You know that it is real. In the case of "falling in love", most people would not be skeptical because they know that such an experience exists and have probably had it at some points in their lives. In the case of spiritual experiences, they are less common, so that people are more likely to be skeptical.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 12:19 am
Ifeelfree,

We differ in the definition of "self". In common usage it is a clear expression of individuality...of separation from "the whole". The transcendental state reveals this as illusory but to then use "Self" (capital S) as a term for communing with "the whole" is either a misnomer or implies an "elitist attainment." Better perhaps to call this state "non-self" within which "height" implies a better "vantage point" than usual.

The area called second order cybernetics (observation of observation) has modelled such transcendent states mathematically. It allows for an infinite regress of such states without the need for closure (which might be implied by "a deity" say). The nesting of "cognitive systems" is also central to the Santiago theory of cognition in which "consciousness" is nothing special and may simply be an epiphenomenon at a systems level involving "language use". This would go some way to explaining the "ineffable" nature of transcendental states wherein normal language as a particular segmentation of "the world" becomes de-constructed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 06:25 am
Cyracuz wrote:
Consciousness is the familiar sense of all things not percieved as "self".


This works well enough for me, and means i won't have to wade into the religious swamp.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 01:33 pm
fresco wrote:
Ifeelfree,

We differ in the definition of "self". In common usage it is a clear expression of individuality...of separation from "the whole".

That is exactly what I mean by the self, or ego. It is an identity which involves separation and individuality. Generally that means identifying the body, mind, emotions, thoughts, etc. as a the "self", as distinct from everything else that is considered "other".
Quote:
The transcendental state reveals this as illusory but to then use "Self" (capital S) as a term for communing with "the whole" is either a misnomer or implies an "elitist attainment." Better perhaps to call this state "non-self" within which "height" implies a better "vantage point" than usual.

The term "Self" with a capital "S" is the traditional term used in spiritual literature to connote the absolute, eternal Being or Pure Consciousness, which is our ultimate identity. Complete, unbroken union with the Self is a rare attainment. However, many have experienced glimpses of it to various degrees. Some have even experienced an awareness of the spaciousness or silence during their daily life. This indicates that the experience of the Self during spiritual practice is beginning to spill over into daily activity. It is a step along the spiritual journey.
Quote:
The area called second order cybernetics (observation of observation) has modelled such transcendent states mathematically. It allows for an infinite regress of such states without the need for closure (which might be implied by "a deity" say). The nesting of "cognitive systems" is also central to the Santiago theory of cognition in which "consciousness" is nothing special and may simply be an epiphenomenon at a systems level involving "language use". This would go some way to explaining the "ineffable" nature of transcendental states wherein normal language as a particular segmentation of "the world" becomes de-constructed.

Mathematical models are one thing (I do mathematical modeling as part of my profession as a materials scientist), but the direct experience of transcendental states is another. In mathematics, recursion is a way of understanding self-referral -- the Self becoming know by itself. However, experience trumps theory, in science and in spirituality.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 04:35 pm
Quote:
However, experience trumps theory, in science and in spirituality.


....Sounds good but I don't think it holds water any more for "science" at least. (I'm thinking here of particle physics in particular).

As for spirituality I agree this is primarily "experiential" but there's certainly a problem convincing others that such "experience" is not some form of "self-hypnosis".
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 06:21 pm
fresco wrote:
Quote:
However, experience trumps theory, in science and in spirituality.


....Sounds good but I don't think it holds water any more for "science" at least. (I'm thinking here of particle physics in particular).

As an example, string theory is very controversial in the particle physics community. The theory is rich and interesting, but without experimental confirmation, its validity will remain in question.
Quote:
As for spirituality I agree this is primarily "experiential" but there's certainly a problem convincing others that such "experience" is not some form of "self-hypnosis".

One should not expect to convince others, until they are ready to hear it. It requires a certain maturity to even be open to the possibility of real spiritual experience. Often, this openness is the result of seeing the inherent suffering of life. When one understands the futility of seeking lasting fulfillment in worldly life, a person may turn inward. They stop seeking, momentarily, and there is silence. In that silence, there is a sacred Presence that points toward freedom from suffering. Until the individual becomes open to the spiritual dimension, they will live in the world as a conflicted ego. The result is all the troubles we see in the world today.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 11:24 pm
Ifeelfree,

I admit to playing Devil's advocate here in drawing out from you the extent of your knowledge of esotericism. The problem words in your last post are of course "maturity" and "sacred" which are essentially axiomatic value judgements within esoteric systems. I have some experience defending the first of these in this forum, but I am uneasy with the second because so much evil has been perpetrated in the world under the banner labelled "sacred".
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:11 am
Setanta wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
Consciousness is the familiar sense of all things not percieved as "self".


This works well enough for me, and means i won't have to wade into the religious swamp.


A good analogy, Setanta, though I love swamps, myself. And, oddly enough, I spent many years in that same swamp on a spiritual quest or a search for self. I finally realized that it's a dog chasing its tail, and, though one finally sees the foolhardiness of the chase, freedom of mind is achieved.

I don't expect many people to spend 20 years on a religious quest, and most people settle for an established religion. The problem is that literal religions conflict with modern science and widespread education; thus the child has to choose between the credulous acceptance of the literal interpretation of the religious myths or drop out completely. Of course, the third alternative is to see the myths as metaphorical representing a deeper experience. However, the metaphor is taken as anathema to most conservative churches, and the literalist is much more comfortable dealing with atheists and agnostics; the three are closely related.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 01:34 pm
Quote:
...I spent many years in that same swamp on a spiritual quest or a search for self. I finally realized that it's a dog chasing its tail, and, though one finally sees the foolhardiness of the chase, freedom of mind is achieved.

Its when the search is abandoned that truth dawns. The mind gives up seeking and rests. There is silence. In that silence there is a sacred Presence. All identification with objective form falls away. There is only the Self, experienced as bliss and freedom. Life is lived free of the burden of the ego.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » what is consciousness?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 09:46:35