In the shape of my mind. If I translate correctly, yes. Well I'd say much of it is hovering just below the surface of my focus. All it takes is the right stimulous or thought to bring it into light. It lies embedded within the concepts that are unified into any particular thought. Think of any particular idea, and stuff from your past shaped it, whatever stuff made an emotional impact on you at whatever prior times it was involved in your thoughts. For instance thinking of "the integral" flashes me back to the auditorium where the idea clicked in my mind. I was in awe. That kind of thing. No. No, simply that until observed or inferred it's basically schroedinger's cat. Until it is thought, it doesn't "exist" per se. It will remain a nameless, unknown, never really happened event until it's thought or inferred - even though it may have happened. It would seem so. Okay. If I do it'll probably be on sci, so... I'll try to remember to let you know so long as you're around. I'm not sure I really can though without more data or an interesting line of questioning. We'll have to see. Well, like I said it seems to make sense to me in the context I established in that "hypothetical nature of time" thread to which I referenced you. No. I mean "spatial dimensions", in the string theory flavor of things.
I agree with this excepting that it could be that concepts can only exist as a compliment to matter. I think it's actually wise that some people try to utlize the razor to the fullest extent. They keep the "big thinkers" honest. I'm glad for them or I'd surely be more looney than I am. I don't think the concepts necessarily exist without being "realized" by a body. Perhaps a "coupling" of sorts, whereby a brain is required to bring about the conditions under which such concepts can be realized. Actually I'd think it would imply that it's made of the things that make up your experiences, including sub-conscious experiences. Internally. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think most people who do are just trying to be prudent, and stick with what can be shown - presuming it can be explained but it's simply beyond knowledge for now. I'd actually rather things continue toward the razor rather than those "with power" decreeing whatever BS they make up to be truth. Nice thoughts though, thanks for posting them.
Nirakar: Whilst the notion that some things may exist separately from matter is not, in and of itself, irrational, we must also proove such a thing. Thus far even the notion of an immaterial mind, specifically one independent of the body in all ways, is unsubstantiated. That is the main problem with affirming something beyond matter: Proof of it. Well, the fact is, that it requires -substantiation-. So little for it exists. That and we have to have a very, very good reason, to affirm that something is non-physical, as it requires us to create an entire new class of existence. This presumes that the mind is not material. Moreover, could you, if not in your body, have a notion of good and evil? Let me ask you this: What do you think your consciousness is made of? WHat do you think consciousness is? Moreover, simply because people with synesthesia have weird neural connections, does not mean much. It simply means they connect concepts with other concepts and think in a manner which is unorthodox. No one is suggesting we actually create new light in our mind, but that we simply take from the senses their information and from that gain an awareness of what it is. When the brain is injured, so is the consciousness. There are people who have, for instance, completely lost the capacity to mathematically calculate, due to damage to a specific portion of the brain. They are incapable of doing math. wesmorris: Understood. That it is implied in all we think. So in essence: A meaningless event? Understood.
What is Consciousness? The only 'bit' of Consciousness that can ever possibly be 'perceived', anyway, is the barest of glimmer that leaks through the tightly bound shutters of ego. Conscipusness can never be 'known' because it is beyond our pitiful senses and abilities of concept and language, which is solely efficacious within the context of what appears on 'this side' of the ego lens. Consciousness 'is', and cannot be 'known' as there can be no 'knower' on 'that' side of 'ego'.
From Wikipedia on Occam's Razor: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, ........................................................................ Now, with "did the wind knock over the tree?" standing in for "is consciousness made of the body?" we have to change the above scenario. First, we did not see or hear the storm. Second, there is not a wild theory involved in saying that consciousness may not be made of matter. Saying consciousness may not be made of matter is like saying something other than a storm may have knocked down the tree. With the evidence we have, asserting that consciousness is made of matter would be like asserting that a storm knockd down the tree just because you don't know anything else that knocks down trees even though no storm was observed. Trees could fall for other reasons. We should not believe we know why the tree fell if no storm was observed. To accept that we know that consciousness is made of matter does not create a simpler world than saying we don't know if consciousness is made of matter. On the other hand, to assert that non-physical things exist does make the world more complicated. Some documented paranormal phenomina may not be explainable using a conventional physical reality. Consciouness seems to be unexplainable using anymodel of reality. We assert that consciousness is made of matter but our evidence does not go beyond the objects of consciouness being related to matter. What does realized by the body mean? We see brain waves that correspond to thinking. Does this prove that bodies realize things? It feels to me that my consciousness realizes or experiences the body. If I ask myself, "what do 2+2=?", where do I ask it? Some corresponding brain waves happen and suddenly from some place the answer 4 apeers and is embraced as truth. But what happened? And where did it happen? What role did the brain waves play? If some neuroogist says, "he knows the answers", he is mistaken. Wouldn't that be the objects of consciousness rather than the consciousness/experiencer itself? Where is internally? Somebody wanted the ptuitary gland to be the seat of the consciousness. In the physical world everything )other than subatomic particles with known velocities) has a specific location relative to everything else. It looks like consciousness won't follow this rule. Yes, I agree. I seem to think it is my job to keep us remembering that we chose to believe some things because it was convenient and made life simpler rather than because we actually knew. Thanks. Would we also have to affirm that consciousness is made of matter, or can we assert that consciousness is made of matter without having any evidence for such an assertion other than the lack of proof for the existence of anything other than matter? Agreed, we need a very good reason to affirm a new class of existence. I am still trying to work out whether the concept of "good and evil" qualifies as a very good reason to affirm something beyond matter or atleast a profound misunderstanding by all of us of the nature of matter so that matter can connect with the non-physical. Duendy's Alive particles looks at other ways of relating to matter that might give matter the chance to form concepts. Even consiousness itself may be a proof of the non-material. Even if every thing that I experienced existed only in my mind, that does not preclude that my mind might exist only in my body, so no this does not presume that the mind is not material, although a non-physical mind is my esthetic bias. I see no reason why having a physical body is necessary for the experiencing of anything that is not made of matter. Your "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism" was very good, but I did not in the end agree that your evidence supported your conclusions. It also seems to me that you can not have in your body a notion of good and evil. What is a body other than a fancy stone? How can a stone have a notion of good and evil? The closest thing the body has to good and evil is attraction and repulsion. Maggots for example, give me the creeps and I want to get away from them. My hunch is that consciousness is a class of existence by itself. In addition to consciousness and matter I would propose that concepts and sensations (including thought) and motivations (desires, habits and will) are all separate classes of existence. My reasoning for this is that these groups of existence are very different from each other but the items in the groups are similar to the other members of the group. The synesthesia and shape seing math savant, and amputee with phantom pain are all examples of the thought/sensation/object of consciousness group not matching up with the physical/matter/energy/waves/forces group and the conceots/dimensions group in the ways that are normal for humans. But you do see colors as a method of interpreting the light that strikes your eyes. Can we agree that the colors that you see correlate with the light striking the eye but the colors themself are in fact something completely separate from the electromagnetic waves that strike the eye and excite receptors for the various wavelengths? What are the colors that we see if they are not really wavelenghts of electromagnetism? Where do we really see the colors if we don't see them in our eyes? Does the visual cortex make the colors or does it just translate interpretation of the colors into data for other parts of the brain that have object databases and actions databases and connections to the thought making part of the mind? What do we really know? First, consciousness is not the ability to do math or to use our eyes. Consciousness is the ability to be aware of the math being done and the image being created from the light that struck the eyes. So I would say the mind is injured but not the consciousness when we can't do math. I reserve the word consciousness for two separate kinds of things that when lacking would leed some people to call you unconscious. One is the ability to turn the present into memories and the other is the witnessing which is what I really think of as consciousness. I have yet to figure out how the witnessing benefits us in the struggle to survive but it seems to have something to do with the ability to learn and reprogram ourselves. Perhaps the witnessing maybe the same as infinitely short term memory. We don't learn when we sleep accept that something does go on during sleep that enables us to retain the previous days memories. Second, When our eyes are injured so that we can't see the blackboard without glasses and then our glasses break so we can't see the blackboard at all, this does not mean that our consciousness came from the glasses or the eyes. The object (the ideas symbolized by the sounds symboloized by shapes of the chalk marks) of our consciousness came to our consciousness via light reflected off the blackboard via our glasses via our eyes via our optic nerve via our visual cortex via ? via ? via ? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49897&page=6&pp=20 I wanted to say something but I didn't want to take the time to eplain it. New Agers on the other hand usually are all style and no substance although sometimes they sort of get a hold of something they can't verbalize. Having read the rest of my stuff where I was going with the non-prose might jump out at you now. Put "seven bodies" in a google search and you will find all sorts of variations on a basic theme. These ideas about what a human is, are both ancient and new revisions by idiot new agers. The broader cult of the number seven can be seen in Christianity's Seven days and seven seals.....
You are apparently promoting "consciousness" as something beyond the individual? Trying to accomodate your meaning, I think the topic of discussion is really "how is consciousness instanced into individuals". I find the degradation of our "senses and abilities" rather callous and somewhat shallow. But on "this side of ego", can we not relate to it and as you've done above, put it in a context modelled to be independent of ego? Is this not what "knowing" is? It can indeed be known as it can be related to given circumstance or perspective. Is that not knowing? Isn't that how "knowing" works to begin with? Consciousness can be understood. I can understand it. I have, if only for brief moments. The term "to know" or "to understand" implies relativity and an imperative "to whom it relates", so you are patently incorrect. It can indeed be "known" as in "I relate to it thusly...". I further hypothesize that "how "I" relate to it" could be related in a way that all "I's" actually relate to it.
Realized: Like the collapse of a probability function into a determined result. Imagine a sea of potential thought with nothing to think it. Now, imagine a POV is established in this space by the chemical conditions brought about by a brain. That which is potential, is now seen from a perspective, allowing it meaning/subjectivity whereas without that perspective there is no focal point for this potential. The potential becomes "realized" in the form of subjective experience, in a sense - a constantly collapsing, ever changing probability function. No. But it does offer evidence to support the hypothesis that a brain is required for thinking. Have you read the thread? I'd call them "abstract constructs" myself, but they are undoubtedly real to me at least in the sense that they exist. I've been arguing this case throughout this thread. I see you haven't read it. If you're interested, I've offered a lot on this in this thread. Either way it wouldn't account for the abstract aspect of mind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good work then. NP. Please read my thoughts on all this throughout the thread. For years I've been working on this line of thinking. Maybe you'll find it interesting.
If I understand what you mean by 'instanced', I already spoke to that. What bit of Consciousness is perceiveable on the 'Me' side of the ego is what is commonly accepted to be a 'personal, individual' consciousness. Another illusion of the ego. Consciousness is One. Ego speaking. All that the senses are capable of perceiving is that which is held as 'materiality', artificially, on the 'dark side' of the ego lens. The only 'reality' that the senses perceive IS shallow and illusory. I guess that when one is bound within the senses, egoically, these statements may appear 'callous', but I speak with honesty and compassion. Sometimes 'lancing a boil' is painful, like an examination of egoically held 'truths', but the results are clarity and health. A small price to pay, IMO. We can have no existence independent of ego. 'Knowing' as in "the more I learn, the less I 'know'?" 'Known' as in 'believe'? 'Known' as in an accepted assumption? We've been here, Wes, and we have our 'views'. No need to rehash unless you have new info to add. Ultimately, nothing can be truly 'known' other than 'delusion'. Only that, perhaps, which ego has caused you to believe is 'individuated consciousness'. And even that cannot be fully understood as it is also 'illusion in the land of paradox'. On the other side of ego, there is no 'you' to understand any-thing (as 'things' do not exist on the far side of ego, anyway.). More ego. As long as there is a difference between the 'knower' and the 'known', you are caught in egoic illusion and can only 'relate' to that illusion. How 'you' relate to what, consciousness? When the 'you' that 'relates' is an already 'artificial' construct, when you leave the darkness of the cave of illusion, and emerge into the 'light', you can no longer be the same 'you', (individual and seperate) as 'illusion' is, perforce, 'transcended', left behind. It seems to me that the way in which I hypothesize Consciousness and the 'individual' has more universal explanatory possibility then the 'egoically centered' paradoxically riddled versions.
Stating "ego ego ego" is as I would expect you would know, utterly pointless, as every utterance from every human... EVER is an utterance of ego. You in particular flabbergast me to an extent in that it seems to me you indulge in what you call illusion to dispute illusion. It's freakin fascinating. Oh, but besides that I don't really think you understood much of what I said. I'll explain if you want but I don't want to annoy you because I like you, so I'm just dropping it unless you say go.
nirakar: It is not a wild theory, no, but it is one which requires a great deal of substantion which is missing at the moment. Moreover, we have at least some reason to suggest that the mind is material via the brain. The problem with recoursing to paranormal phenomena is that it is so poorly documented, and so poorly experimented with, and basically not dealt with scientifically, that we only have believers in it who affirm the reality of it, and essentially nothing else. However, that conscousness is unexplainable in any model of reality currently, I am not so sure. We have the brain, for instance, which is a material thing, and without it, evidently there is no thought or mind. We have at least some reasons to suspect that consciousness is made by matter, via the connection to the senses and to the brain. That, and everything else is made of matter, which means that it is almost safe to assume that -everything- is made of matter, until proven otherwise. Duendy's Alive Particles are pretty unsubstantiated. I'd deal with it directly, but Duendy rarely responds to me because he thinks I'm a Fascist and cruel. Now, my view on whether "good and evil" concepts may be referred back to matter, is pretty simple. Good and evil are constructs developed by man that essentially place an undue weight on an issue that is essentially "harm v. benefit". This later developed through religions through religious law, then at the same time or even before, with societal law. Since harm and benefit ultimately go back to pain and pleasure, and even the religious proscriptions and societal laws are essentially based on this, it is basically warping a very simple matter-based (sensation) idea to something more weighty. You speak of a physical body only necessary for experiencing something made of matter, but I ask whether or not something not made of matter can even be experienced. If our experiences are almost always centred in the material world, and something needs to occur there in order to get our attention, could an immaterial thing ever manifest? For if it manifested in the material, it would be matirial, no? If not, how would I interact? This goes back to the Mind-Body Problem. What about desires, habits, and will (clarification of this term in this context, please) would require a separate class of existence? Desires are rooted in material things and habits occur out of exposure ot things. What synthesia seems to me is simply a weird mental connection betwixt two generaly unrelated things, but owing to some sort of brain connection, or even the way they have learned to learn, they are capable of thinking in a manner in a different way. MOreover, phantom limb pain is most likely associated with the fact that the brain has not coped with most of its normal neural connections ending in a dead end and therefore must take a great deal of time to rewire the brain to realize that it has lost a part of the body. Completely separate? No. The colours we see do correspond to wavelengths, but yes, they are constructs of the mind in that it is unlikely that there exists, within the waves of light, "colour". But yes, the visual cortex conceives of the data in terms of colours and sends that to other parts of the brain for a unified understanding of what one is seeing. If the consciousness is no longer capable of being aware of math, of ever viewing math, of even conceiving of it, how is it not impacted by it all? Or do you conceive of consciousness only as the inward-observer? Well, if we did not witness, we'd not be able to act on the data. A sensory stimuli unnoticed is a sensory stimuli not reacted to. If I don't hear you talking to me beacuse I am wrapped up in a book, you might as well have not spoken to me. No, it does not mean that the consciousness came from such a thing, but it does point to the fact that the consciousness' ability to be aware of information depends on our capacity for information. If one were to strip the entire rest of the mind away from consciousness, would it even exist? Okay. I shall look for such things soon. But at the same time, we must realize that simply because we have some symbolism around the number seven, does not mean that it has some importance beyond some cultural thing. There are notions of two and three and five and ten being important in other cultures.
All the more reason to understand what it is. Of course. There are no options here. Relax... Theres no reason for conflict. I just responded to the thread subject in a very concise manner, from my valid perspective. Food for thought is all, and every word is 'supportable' from many directions if one wanted an in-depth discourse, which I do not, again. One 'believes', ultimately, what their experience, mind, emotions, concepts, perceptions, etc.. allows. And when the 'context' changes, so does the 'understanding'.
so have we understood that conscioueness is not a thing? cannot be measured, and yet is how matter-energy feels, and creates?
Yes. (well, I guess that depends on who you mean by 'we'!) Yes. No. Feelings are 'associated' with the peptides produced in the hypothalamus in the brain and distributed throughout the body to the appropriate receptors. It seems a 'physical' thing. Yes!!
Feelings are not made of matter and energy (matter and energy basically is the same), they are not made of anything actually, feelings are a process.
Cars are 'made' by 'processes' in car factories. Feelings are initially seen to begin their 'process' of manifestation in the chemical (material) factory in the brain (physical). No peptides (physical) or receptor sites on the cells throughout the body = no feelings. Two necessary aspects of the same 'event'. The 'end result' of the 'process' of feeling manufacture is not material, of course, simply mental concepts, like every'thing' else...
anyone know the difference between individual (in-divide-dual) consciousness and collective conciousness (if such a thing exists)?
If the extremities of the body are paralyzed in a certain way, severed from the 'neural loop', like from a severed spinal cord paralyzing the legs, there would be no physical leg 'feeling'. Physical interruption of the necessary loop. There are other kinds of paralysis where the nerves are not affected and feeling is possible. Emotional feelings are still possible though as they are 'innitiated' in the brain and distributed throughout the body. I think, duendy, that the more existential question would regard our ability to 'access' these 'feelings'. Men, in Amerikkka, at least, bought into a 'sick' meme that 'manliness' and 'strength' depended on 'controling' feelings to the point where they eventually lost access to their own emotion feelings (what they thought was weakness was actually 'power', go figure!). Stone faced, drably dressed, mechanically working hard and productively. Clueless workers and (due to their 'condition', only partial) 'providers'. This is still our legacy. A man that is fully human, fully in touch with his own feelings inspires 'gay' jokes by the partially human 'robots'! Women have a large hand in this whole thing. It keeps men in a subservient position to women who are 16 times smarter than men. As long as they let us think that we were 'boss' all was well.... Ahh, the oh so delicate male ego! Ok, soapbox dismounted. "in-divide-dual" seems to be sort of a paradox. Something 'dual' that cannot be divided. Interesting. Consciousness appears, at least in 'my experience', to extend 'infinitely' beyond the 'collective' concept. Does that encompass the 'human conscious-sphere' (I supose that 'collective consciousness' refers to us arrogant egoic humans solely?) I have found that there is 'Consciousness/Mind'. 'Individual' consciousness is merely an extremely limited 'access' to 'Consciousness' that the ego claims as it's own isolated bit. Evolution of 'our' consciousness proceeds from bodily identified and centered, to 'family', to society, to humanity, to planetary, to universal, to ... Consciousness. As ego blocks 'access', egoic man stumbles through life with only the barest glimmer of consciousness that ego has magnified to the illusion of actual wakefulness and ... well, you know what ego can do. This is why there are so many 'disciplines' available to 'expand' one's consciousness, to 'expand into' Consciousness. Make any sense?
What is consciousness? - I believe it to be awareness, or more specifically self-awareness. Is it necessary to have a complex collection of cells for consciousness to emerge? not atall, even fundamental particles such as photons can display self-awareness. Now, how exactly seemingly basic matter can be aware on this level i'll admit im not entirely sure, although i think its a distinct possiblity that everything must be connected or as 'one' for this to occur. If you take this to be true, then a photon being aware of when its observed becomes simple rather than complex. The photon is aware of the osbserver because the photon and the observer are essentially the same same thing. The photon doesnt *have* to be aware of the observer atall, only what it understands to be itself- which is everything including the observer. It also seems to me that for most people consciousness means... complex matter that has gouped together via evolution to preform complex tasks. Life-forms such as these are conscious its true, but are (i suspect) not nearly as aware as more basic fundamental particles and elements within the universe. The problem with being a task(s) driven machine is, you have a specialised form of awareness which tends to blind you and hinder awareness on a non-specialised more fundamental level. Its no coincidence i think, that when the human mind is trained to switch off the task driven thought processes (as in meditation) that the mind achieves a much more all encompassing version of awareness, which is much closer to what i would call 'pure awareness' or 'raw consciousness'.
