Is consciousness the single fundamental thing in the universe ?

a reply to: TzarChasm
I am a student, you could be a student, too if you didn't have your head stuck up your butt

what do you want to know ?

I think you should give a listen to the Pixies, Where is my mind.....
tet

a reply to: gosseyn

The usual approach taken by scientists is to say that what we perceive is real, that we may not perceive every characteristic of an object, but that the object is real nonetheless, so they ask the question "but then what does the object really look like?". They say the object is made of tiny objects, atoms, electrons, photons in the case of light, etc.. They think consciousness is merely the product of evolution, and if our senses are limited as they are, it's because evolution didn't need more than that to save us from extinction. Or said in another way, we just needed to survive and reproduce, we didn't need to understand gravity or that our planet gravitates around the sun. After all, we have used fire hundreds of thousands of years before we even started to comprehend what fire was made of, or how it comes to existence. So for these scientists, which are the large majority, perception is merely an hallucination, and so is consciousness.

I don’t think they mean hallucination; I think they mean illusionary.

The problem with scientists in a philosophical sense is that they are what is known as reductionists.

One who reduces reality down to one thing.

One narrow element to the exclusion of others.

For example, this guy with the interface theory and the mainstream scientists with their constant reductionist ideas such as evolution ONLY; Quantum physics only...etc..etc..etc


They always want to reduce reality to one numerical idea or thought or theory.

And science plods along always coming up with dogmatic notions of some kind of singular reality postulate that ALWAYS is shown to be insufficient.

And rather than learning from the same mistake repeatedly they blindly wander on to the next big single theory of everything which always ends of being WRONG.

a reply to: Willtell

The problem with scientists in a philosophical sense is that they are what is known as reductionists.

One who reduces reality down to one thing.

One narrow element to the exclusion of others.

"everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Einstein

the actual quote: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

Reductionism is simply an attempt to reduce extra noise without losing essential data. As opposed to other systems of data processing which believe that if you throw enough mud at the wall, it will form a picture of god because the universe at large really feels like we need to know about him.

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
I am a student, you could be a student, too if you didn't have your head stuck up your butt

what do you want to know ?

your response "You're describing human consciousness. Consciousness itself functions on many different levels" seems to suggest you have experience with consciousness that is other than human. Would you care to elaborate on what your non human consciousness experiences have taught you, as a human who perceives reality using strictly human sensory organs? To put it another way, what can a microscope tell us about being an MRI machine or a bathroom weight scale? Or in your case, an abacus.

a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

You are over simplifying consciousness the way the Greeks over simplified elements. And you are using this stick figure of the human mind to translate the universe and interpret its purposes. Much like an abacus attempts to predict the arc a baseball will travel and how to catch it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

You are over simplifying consciousness the way the Greeks over simplified elements. And you are using this stick figure of the human mind to translate the universe and interpret its purposes. Much like an abacus attempts to predict the arc a baseball will travel and how to catch it.

Aside from not answering my question, your response makes no sense at all. How long did it take you to compose that?

Now it's your turn, explain how you know that other lifeforms don't have consciousness. Since you seem to be an expert

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

You are over simplifying consciousness the way the Greeks over simplified elements. And you are using this stick figure of the human mind to translate the universe and interpret its purposes. Much like an abacus attempts to predict the arc a baseball will travel and how to catch it.

Aside from not answering my question, your response makes no sense at all. How long did it take you to compose that?

Now it's your turn, explain how you know that other lifeforms don't have consciousness. Since you seem to be an expert

And comparing the human consciousness to the universe does make sense?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

You are over simplifying consciousness the way the Greeks over simplified elements. And you are using this stick figure of the human mind to translate the universe and interpret its purposes. Much like an abacus attempts to predict the arc a baseball will travel and how to catch it.

Aside from not answering my question, your response makes no sense at all. How long did it take you to compose that?

Now it's your turn, explain how you know that other lifeforms don't have consciousness. Since you seem to be an expert

And comparing the human consciousness to the universe does make sense?

so you're not going to answer the question?

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

You are over simplifying consciousness the way the Greeks over simplified elements. And you are using this stick figure of the human mind to translate the universe and interpret its purposes. Much like an abacus attempts to predict the arc a baseball will travel and how to catch it.

Aside from not answering my question, your response makes no sense at all. How long did it take you to compose that?

Now it's your turn, explain how you know that other lifeforms don't have consciousness. Since you seem to be an expert

And comparing the human consciousness to the universe does make sense?

so you're not going to answer the question?

Humans consider themselves paragon because of all the talents we enjoy that make us "superior". Man was given the plants and animals of the land and sea to own and to rule, or so the sacred texts tell us. Creatures that are conscious aren't typically considered property.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

You are over simplifying consciousness the way the Greeks over simplified elements. And you are using this stick figure of the human mind to translate the universe and interpret its purposes. Much like an abacus attempts to predict the arc a baseball will travel and how to catch it.

Aside from not answering my question, your response makes no sense at all. How long did it take you to compose that?

Now it's your turn, explain how you know that other lifeforms don't have consciousness. Since you seem to be an expert

And comparing the human consciousness to the universe does make sense?

so you're not going to answer the question?

Humans consider themselves paragon because of all the talents we enjoy that make us "superior". Man was given the plants and animals of the land and sea to own and to rule, or so the sacred texts tell us. Creatures that are conscious aren't typically considered property.

That's the belief system that you've been indoctrinated into

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm
The human conscious mind is composed of two layers --the subconscious and the conscious (the thinking mind). Together, they create consciousness. Your thinking mind is only a part of consciousness. It is not consciousness in and of itself. Consciousness is simply awareness and its sole purpose is to evolve. So keeping those two factors in mind, how many other lifeforms on this planet can you think of that might have some level of consciousness -- an acuity or awareness to interact with its environment in order to evolve?

You are over simplifying consciousness the way the Greeks over simplified elements. And you are using this stick figure of the human mind to translate the universe and interpret its purposes. Much like an abacus attempts to predict the arc a baseball will travel and how to catch it.

Aside from not answering my question, your response makes no sense at all. How long did it take you to compose that?

Now it's your turn, explain how you know that other lifeforms don't have consciousness. Since you seem to be an expert

And comparing the human consciousness to the universe does make sense?

so you're not going to answer the question?

Humans consider themselves paragon because of all the talents we enjoy that make us "superior". Man was given the plants and animals of the land and sea to own and to rule, or so the sacred texts tell us. Creatures that are conscious aren't typically considered property.

That's the belief system that you've been indoctrinated into

Then obviously there's no way we could ever be property of some higher power from the stars. I think, therefore I am my own master. Conscious universe or otherwise.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly. we are consciousness

originally posted by: gosseyn
Our own consciousness is made of nested conscious agents. There are tiny and simple conscious agents and there are immensely complex conscious agents, just like there are pieces of information that are made of just 2 bits, and others made of 128 or 256 bits, etc. to infinity.

Hope it's not off topic, but this made me think of something else.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know where he got the idea of conscious agents. Not sure if I buy it, but it's original thinking for sure. To take it a step further, It made me think about reincarnation and compare it to sexual reproduction. We have 23 pairs of chromosomes and it depends on the mix of mother and father how the child looks like. There are so many combinations that 'all' children are different. But it could happen that a couple gets a child, and in a new conception 3 years later, exactly the same mix of chromosomes appears again. Then you get an identical twin with 3 years age difference.

With the concept of conscious agents, maybe the same could be imagined. In every new human, you get a different combination, creating a new person. But every some million people, the same or almost the same combination of agents as someone who died turns up in a new body, so basically they combine to the same person as the deceased person, who then remembers his or her past life.

Anyway, just a thought that occurred to me.

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly. we are consciousness

We are ego. There's a difference.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly. we are consciousness

We are ego. There's a difference.

Consciousness encompasses ego

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly. we are consciousness

We are ego. There's a difference.

Consciousness encompasses ego

You mean consciousness adorns ego the way satin robes and a gilded throne adorn the pope. But at the end of the day, all those decorations are just so much baggage to make the spirit feel valuable and it doesn't work. The dead outnumber us 100 to 1 and they have nothing to say. The universe is no different. If consciousness was not ego, I AM would have been WE ARE.

WE ARE NOT ALONE

But no, what we got was

I AM WHATS IMPORTANT HERE AND DONT YOU FORGET IT

Aka EGO.

a reply to: TzarChasm
I am is the way the truth and the life.
I am is existence.

Misidentification is when I am is followed by 'a something'.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cherokeetroy
a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly. we are consciousness

We are ego. There's a difference.

Consciousness encompasses ego

You mean consciousness adorns ego the way satin robes and a gilded throne adorn the pope. But at the end of the day, all those decorations are just so much baggage to make the spirit feel valuable and it doesn't work. The dead outnumber us 100 to 1 and they have nothing to say. The universe is no different. If consciousness was not ego, I AM would have been WE ARE.

WE ARE NOT ALONE

But no, what we got was

I AM WHATS IMPORTANT HERE AND DONT YOU FORGET IT

Aka EGO.

Ego is just another label for personality or identity. Ego is a human construct comprised of multiple archetypes --another human construct. Even if you lose sense of your identity (ego) through loss of memory, you never lose sense of your awareness (consciousness) because consciousness envelopes everything else. Consciousness is All and All is eternal

originally posted by: TzarChasm
...
WE ARE NOT ALONE

But no, what we got was

I AM WHATS IMPORTANT HERE AND DONT YOU FORGET IT

Aka EGO.

Have you considered that some folks may interpret the Cogito ( I think, therefore: I am. ), differently than you ?

What if the way you take it: is merely your belief ?
What if anyone and everyone's take on it: is merely their belief ?

What if some of us don't interpret the "I AM", as being the lion's roar of the ego, but in different ways ?

If one's approach to existence, is solely based in the scientific-method, does not a whole lot of our life's experiences seem to be beyond the measurable ?
Immeasurable ?

What if "I AM" is more like a stand-still moment of pure awareness, where anything and everything is absent ?
So: no 'me', just awareness.
Not awareness of some 'thing'.

These are not concepts, or viewpoints, or interpretations, or whatever, that one arrives at through some intellectual process, but rather through hundreds, or thousands of hours of contemplation, meditation, beingness, prayer, ...etc.
And there is a kind of 'letting-go', that is a part of that, where preconceived ideas and beliefs are left floating, in a sort of big cosmic soup of 'maybe' .

And then unhindered and unburdened: as Itisnowagain often says: " we look for what is looking".
Eventually: the 'we', the 'looker' melts away, and all that is: is looking.
No ego. Just looking.
No 'me' that is aware. Just awareness.

Some folks interpret that awareness, some don't so much.
Some call it 'consciousness'.
Me ? Don't know.

So: are you gonna stick with your interpretation, or are you open to reconsidering it ?



Some here may have come to the suspicion, that this 'supposed' reality, in akin to the Holodeck.
We tested it out, by 'moving' towards: 'Computer: end program'.
And lo and behold: the 'program' ended.
And yet: just like in Star-Trek: we keep coming back to the Holodeck, for various reasons.