|
Post by Sediba on Mar 29, 2019 15:22:54 GMT 10
Is there such a thing as Individual Consciousness?
Is there such a thing as a Universal Consciousness that individuals share in?
If there is a Universal Consciousness, what information has any individual drawn from it that could not have been drawn from Individual Consciousness? (can the universal consciousness clearly be separated from individual consciousness)
You may vote for more than one option. Voting for all four will just nullify your vote.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Mar 29, 2019 16:14:04 GMT 10
TED TALK 5mins What is ConsciousnessPatient P.S. suffered a stroke that damaged the right side of her brain, leaving her unaware of everything on her left side. If someone threw a ball at her left side, she might duck. But she wouldn't have awareness of the ball or know why she ducked. Where does consciousness come from? Michael Graziano explores the question that has vexed scientists and philosophers for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Mar 29, 2019 16:29:07 GMT 10
TED TALK 15mins Our shared condition - ConsciousnessPhilosopher John Searle lays out the case for studying human consciousness -- and systematically shoots down some of the common objections to taking it seriously. As we learn more about the brain processes that cause awareness, accepting that consciousness is a biological phenomenon is an important first step. And no, he says, consciousness is not a massive computer simulation.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Mar 29, 2019 18:08:08 GMT 10
I expect consciousness does not exist, I know concentration does not exist because the brain cannot stop on anything, despite the advice we are given to concentrate for a better performance. Conscious is an active mind and unconscious is a mind with no activity or awareness.
|
|
|
Post by cster on Mar 30, 2019 6:27:07 GMT 10
Wow the first 5 minute video said we have 86 billion neurons firing in our heads. and if half of them are damaged then we cant get enough activity to deliver full consciousness. Interesting, so perhaps it is a consequence of the two halves and when one is damaged we lose the balance that enables consciousness. The interface between the two halves generates the whole.
The second Video I have a problem with. The professor says the arc of light that we discern as the diurnal constant is perception and I don't think so I say it's cogniscence that allows us to discern the suns movement and the diurnal constant. Consciousness allows us to speculate on if it is real or imagined, we now know it is our planet spinning that delivers the diurnal not the sun moving around us.
My premise that we are like a dynamo in that its the spinning magnet that excites the copper coils. It's our brain action of cogniscence that creates consciousness and in that today it may appear to be the two halves acting together that gives us our mindset.
|
|
|
Post by pedro on Mar 30, 2019 7:07:59 GMT 10
++ Where does consciousness come from? Michael Graziano explores the question that has vexed scientists and philosophers for centuries.++ Pedro knows/knew IT!!40 Centuries have gone/passed by ( out the Unconsciousness window?)And WE still consciously render OURSELVES Unconscious while consciously WE MAKE ourselves...UNCONSCIOUS!! Spinning magnets, if stop spinning AFTER 3987 years of...spinning OUT of control...could make Senior Minds unconditionally....UNCONSCIUOUS. Pedro is unconscious...he has been unconscious for 3 hour...after reading the conscious mode of collapsing into/over/under/near Unconsciousness!! Pedro does APOLOGIES for HIS...I forgot!! PS. Do not worry, Cster! As long as you/Pedro will sort out your elucrubations...sooner or later!!
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Mar 30, 2019 9:12:45 GMT 10
Wow the first 5 minute video said we have 86 billion neurons firing in our heads. and if half of them are damaged then we cant get enough activity to deliver full consciousness. Interesting, so perhaps it is a consequence of the two halves and when one is damaged we lose the balance that enables consciousness. The interface between the two halves generates the whole. The second Video I have a problem with. The professor says the arc of light that we discern as the diurnal constant is perception and I don't think so I say it's cogniscence that allows us to discern the suns movement and the diurnal constant. Consciousness allows us to speculate on if it is real or imagined, we now know it is our planet spinning that delivers the diurnal not the sun moving around us. My premise that we are like a dynamo in that its the spinning magnet that excites the copper coils. It's our brain action of cogniscence that creates consciousness and in that today it may appear to be the two halves acting together that gives us our mindset. I am still not convinced that consciousness exists. Sorry I know there is a word in the dictionary, but unicorn is in there too and they do not exist.
|
|
|
Post by cster on Mar 31, 2019 6:20:02 GMT 10
To Play on words here Col, then you cant be conscious of the facts but may be cognisant of the ache it creates.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Apr 8, 2019 20:49:51 GMT 10
1. We are conscious, so I suppose consciousness exists, whether it be emergent or underpinning.
2. We draw on cosmic resources to exist so it is reasonable to argue that we draw on a cosmic, unified field of consciousness.
3. Of course, consciousness could be just an epiphenomenon of matter and every thought or moment of awareness or self-awareness might be just a form of AI. That might suggest we have individual consciousness, though just a by-product of matter, which is supposed to not have consciousness, and so we're really just zombies. That would be zombie-consciousness - the consciousness you have when you don't have consciousness.
4. The term needs to be defined when the question is asked. Do we mean the kind of consciousness that constitutes our mental states? Or perhaps the universal consciousness on which all individual consciousnesses draw: consciousness as underpinning and irreducible - that underpins both material and mental states.
5. Does it matter whether consciousness is a "thing" or not? All we can know for sure is that existence exists. Why there is something and not nothing is a mystery, and we can't imagine 'nothing' other than as the absence of 'something', so 'nothing' derives from 'something'. Try thinking of pure infinite nothingness. 'Empty space'? Empty of what? Space between what and what?
6. The forest is nice and peaceful tonight. Cool and quiet. There's a tree falling in it somewhere, but I can't hear it, so I guess it doesn't make any noise.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Apr 9, 2019 6:40:44 GMT 10
Does consciousness = aware? If it does then it is argument over - there is no such thing as consciousness. Aware is not a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Apr 9, 2019 10:03:56 GMT 10
...and YET...I & Pedro were SURE to be aware of being...Unconscious!
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Apr 9, 2019 10:35:11 GMT 10
Good question Col.
Schopenhauer spoke of an ‘Idea’ or ‘Will’ that underpinned all phenomena, which themselves were manifestations of the Idea/Will. The Will itself, however, lacks self-awareness, but is driven (self-driven) by the urge to take form in phenomena.
Beyond the urge to be manifested the Will has none of attributes identified with consciousness - motivation, reflection, sentiment, preference, attachment, etc. It lacks any higher consciousness but underpins all phenomenal forms of consciousness and the material world itself.
Weird? Crazy philosophy? Probably no crazier than any other metaphysics. And Schopenhauer never claimed to be ‘loved’ by this Being.
|
|
|
Post by cster on Apr 9, 2019 12:56:57 GMT 10
Consciousness must give us the Adult mindset, for it must drive that mindset with attentive responsibilities, the default for Adult mindset seems to be the Adolescent mindset. One is on the front foot and responsible rational and incumbent upon us being self managed, the other on the back foot and reactive. A reactive adolescent on the back foot reacting to what they have just seen as opposed to an Adult who seems to act on what has been observed. One self managed and responsible in their approach the other unable to be proactive more so reactive driven by selfishness or petulance. Perhaps a victim mindset.
If cogniscence drives consciousness then What drives the mindset and how does one stay in the higher realm. Practice? at maintaining the higher mindset. Apparently doesn't come easily to the human race.
In essence we must all try to raise our children to be better at that maintaining of the adult mindset than we are.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Apr 9, 2019 19:36:52 GMT 10
++ better at that maintaining of the adult mindset than we are.++ ++ other unable to be proactive more so reactive ++
SOOOO DEEEEEP (and...slippery?) and.....you do know WHAT I do mean!! IF you do know...tell me..I do NOT know...IT!!!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Apr 10, 2019 7:40:43 GMT 10
What is consciousness?
C’mon get real, put the ego on the shelf for a moment or two. If you are conscious then you would be aware. And one hardly needs to venture far from the conscious preconceptions surrounding the physical characteristic of humans to understand awareness must have consciousness. Though if you wish to become seriously aware, look outside the square and look at what is actually being represented in this type of discussion. Believing there is a conscious universe that contains just Me/Us as a conscious entity is vastly different then knowing it.
Our existence, conscious, subconscious or unconscious, may not even be the world that we understand a physical world to be, nor would such a world have to conform to, or be subject to any universal laws; as we in our universal naivety, would like to proportion our totality . Whether one wishes to allocate the mind to being singular or plural will often become a mute point, especially when individual subjectivity becomes a factor for consideration. However, in the final analysis, no one can dispute that we are not all one. It becomes a contradiction in terms maybe, but the singular mind must be plural. Universal! if one so desires a reconciliation. Always bearing in mind of course, that our subsistence only exists in the dimension so allocated by the universal minds logic and experience. And conscious thought after all is what occupys the consciousness of many philosophic people (inclusive of the odd scientific variety) who will readily dispute or void the reality of our subjective and conscious experiences. Even within the likes of Solipsism; a belief of nonexistence, though consciousness must still be the major element that dominates the initial postulation.
Not only but also... if Madam Tonto is correct quote;
'consciousness = aware? If it does then it is argument over - there is no such thing as consciousness. Aware is not a thing.'
Strewth... he must be referring to consciousness and awareness in some other dimension. I would assume he was conscious when he put up his post here… aware ….hmmm, maybe not.
PS in hindsight it appears my post overruns Epics a bit… ah well, its all heading in the right direction I guess
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Apr 10, 2019 17:37:44 GMT 10
Tute Mate your grammar is stuffed you are confusing a verb with a noun.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Apr 13, 2019 6:09:50 GMT 10
Now, Now, NOW!! Calm Down/Up/Side & Way!! Careful… YOUSE are making/Causing Each & Other to fall/collapse UNCONSCIOUS...discussing the volatile subject of UNCONSCIOUSNESS! An easy way OUT of this Spiritual (mental?) Over-heated dissertation is/could be: Write/post that YOU ALL are correct on your interpretation of CONSCIOUSNESS! Example: MadTar YOU are correct and I (Pedro) am WRONG!! Replace the names : MadTar/Pedro with YOUR OWN names…EASY!!!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Apr 13, 2019 7:39:36 GMT 10
Tute Mate your grammar is stuffed you are confusing a verb with a noun.
Oops.... thanx for that Col, Tute was unaware the syntax police were so active around the campfire. It makes one ponder the penalties that could be imposed for unlawful use of a lexicon. Perhaps our moderator should inspect for any improper use of a vocabulary prior to a post being formalised.
Besides.... identifying common terminology within the realms of, nouns, verbs, adjectives etc, and whilst also being the fundamental principals of the bastardised vernacular English rules, they can never be realised for universal language law.
Not only but also...
.....Luv u Tonto
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Apr 13, 2019 11:24:48 GMT 10
Yeth yous shood always cheque you sin tax.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Apr 14, 2019 5:41:17 GMT 10
I have a Spiritual ( and partly Foreign Languages Uncontrolled Spread)dilemma...:WHAT is LESS worse: A post overflowing with a oversupply of NONsense...or an intelligent post (almost) impossible to decipher? To my (eventual) posteriors the arduos duties of an incomprehensible ANSWER!!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Apr 14, 2019 6:34:02 GMT 10
And Sediba had said ...... 'Faith can be anything you want it to be, so it cannot, by definition, be used successfully to find reality.'
And Tute sez...
Ah yes, but then reality says you need faith to define anything successfully Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by tute on Feb 9, 2020 9:19:22 GMT 10
I thought this could be of interest.... almost as interesting as to how our site functions.... or fails to function.
Took this from the Blackjay.net site. It does not copy well here in this format for some unknown reasons. Eg: Paragraph separation and no accompanying pics.
Enjoy....
The Mahout, the Elephant and the Path Guest Post by Richard McCure
It seems incredible that the subconscious mind was first postulated by Sigmund Freud. If you are elderly it is likely that your grandparents imagined that the entire content of their mind was accessible to conscious contemplation. Freud’s discovery opened the way for a flowering of scientific investigation into the nature of the occult workings of the human brain. Now my knowledge of psychology is very much undergraduate level, and mid 20th century at that, so I would be more than happy to be corrected on any mistakes in this essay. My interest is in what we might call the hierarchy of subconscious instincts, and how they might arise. It is well known that new born babies carry into the world a knowledge of certain dangers. A well known example is fear of heights. This is an obviously useful phobia which is helpful for surviving the world outside the womb. To overcome fear of heights later in life is challenging. Then there’s the instincts acquired at an early age, and within a definite time-window. An example of this was called “imprinting”. Imprinting involved among other things the recognition of the faces of family as well as the development of sexual preferences. All this subconscious structure is in place to allow us to navigate the material world without having to learn by trial and error, “the hard way”. As such it is pivotal to our survival, and for this reason would not be given up lightly. We hang on to these precepts tenaciously even though we are only aware of them via emotional responses, rather than in the form of conscious thought. This explains the phenomenon of “confirmation bias” where we ignore information that is counter to our (subconscious) world view. To do otherwise is to risk destabilising our grip on reality. This may well apply to the condition called post traumatic stress disorder, Dogs provide a good example of the way this process works. Dogs seem to be either terrified of thunder or completely indifferent to it, and it seems to depend on whether or not they have experienced a thunder storm during puppyhood. If they have experienced thunder during that critical period it becomes part of their internal model of the world, and is accepted as “normal”. If on the other hand they first experience it in later life it produces absolute terror as does any other dramatic alien phenomenon encountered. Primitive humans deal with unfamiliar phenomena by invoking supernatural beings. I think this mechanism could be useful in explaining some other seemingly irrational aspects of human behaviour. Imagine a child born into a radical Islamist household. At a very early age a subconscious model of the world would form in which an omnipresent Allah holds dominion. This picture would be re-enforced through to adulthood. There would be no shortage of media stories about evil acts perpetrated by Infidels, all consistent with the call to kill non-believers. Living in, say, a non-English speaking suburb of Sydney, surrounded by a community with similar views, there would be little opportunity to develop a counter narrative. For de-radicalisation to work it would be necessary to erase this subconscious world view, probably impossible without erasing the identity of the individual concerned (whatever that might mean). Let’s have a look at climate hysteria in this context. The pedagogues driving this would be left leaning, meaning that they have an ingrained belief that Capitalism is innately oppressive and that socialism offers a more moral system of government. In a move that is so clever it is difficult to believe that it has not been carefully planned, fossil fuels are targeted as the horsemen of the apocalypse. Never mind that not just capitalism but civilisation itself is threatened.
|
|
|
Post by Val on May 7, 2020 6:07:28 GMT 10
Used to be I'd answer A, but now I'm not so sure anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on May 7, 2020 8:46:38 GMT 10
I do agree with Most of EVERY and partly with the BODY!! Most of the Spiritual Statements/Posts are VERY DEEP and MEANINGFUL! Would take some time to produce a REALLY confusing post!!
|
|
|
Post by cster on May 11, 2020 17:35:03 GMT 10
So how are we doing with this secondary field strength thing. The field strength seems rather small in some. Like a coil unable to spark enough to lite the cylinder it's in. What an analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on May 15, 2020 8:27:12 GMT 10
Visitors/readers do come to...investigate HOW/WHY they should comment on/react/share their view on The Deep Consciousness AND they fall in a VERY deep discussion hole! All Philosophical, Religious, Political Subjects are eternal, unresolved real/imaginary problems /subjects of Multi millennial "I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE LEFT/WRONG"!! The Piece, Pasta, Pace, Pisces, Pooches be with US and OUR Anterior & Posteriors & Interiors Friends & Related Relatives!!!
|
|
|
Post by cster on May 19, 2020 17:36:45 GMT 10
I expect we have very contemplative posts Pedro, how else can we explain the visit numbers and no posts.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on May 20, 2020 5:26:18 GMT 10
Morning Cster! Easier AND quicker to add visitors/guests than producing/adding Posts...THIS according to the Vaqueros Bible of Argentinian Posters & Producers Industry!
|
|