Consciousness Doesn't Exist.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
This thread is quickly making me lose consciousness...

... but the OP is correct: consciousness is a state, an abstract noun.

So when Deepak Chopra talks of a "higher consciousness" he's making no sense.

How can someone be in a higher STATE of consciousness?!

One is either conscious or not. Period.

Is this contradiction deliberate?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
The hardest thing to prove is existence of any type, I have reached a point where the effort is just not worthwhile. We say humans exist, but how do we know we are not just dreamers within a large dream? We dont, we just argue either for or against. No matter what the truth may be, to be for or against anything is a mind play.

reply to post by senselessness

Although consciousness is a name for a "state of being", and is often considered an "abstract" name/noun, consciousness can be experienced with the five senses by the conscious being itself.

If consciousness experiences the five senses, how can it be the five senses that it senses itself by? It must be before the senses.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Incorrect. If the being didn't exist, there would be nothing to be conscious. If the body didn't exist, the being wouldn't be awake, aware, and experience the five senses and be conscious.

Incorrect. Consciousness is everywhere, in every way. Matter can not exist without consciousness. The body that speaks of it is not aware of itself, except to speak of the things it is aware of. You have it the wrong way around.

It seems perfectly logical.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

The only real factor is the body being awake and conscious. The body itself is real, while there is no measurable, definable and observable thing called consciousness at play. I ask that you show me consciousness

Wrong again.. and you seem to have a working definition of the conscious

Can you tell me how consciousness can be "at play"?

You`re trying to disprove consciousness using grammar. Grammar is a concept born from conscious beings. The most you can achieve is pointing out the limits language puts on trying to express concepts such as consciousness.

One person here get's it. The OP has a material sense of what is consciousness. I'm under the impression that all but one other poster here sees the conscious as something other than the ego. Some speak of the soul in that the experiences known will continue (and have no known beginning), but it sounds like the ego nonetheless.

You can't face God without a "conscience".

This is what a spirit can do...

Well, at least youre thinking and pondering ... I respect that.

I disagree and kindly so as I believe my body is a vehicle in which I express my thoughts. Whether my body obeys or not.... i still think and express myself with the help of my thoughts. I dont need this vehicle and the day I take my last breath is the day I can prove it, only I wont be able to prove it to you.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

You misunderstand that they also understand this but have to translate their communication into a framework to people who don't have the foundations to grasp the subtlety of the message.

You actually nail it... "Consciousness" is a "doing". Everything is a "doing", there are NO things, only "doings/beings"... of which the "Doing of Consciousness" informs the "Being of Everything".

Namaste.

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
i read a poem where the poet referred to a tree as a piece of wood. i quit reading there. just because someone said something that made it through time and ended up with quotations marks around it does not make it wise or anything like that

this goes both ways..think about it.

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

The only real factor is the body being awake and conscious. The body itself is real, while there is no measurable, definable and observable thing called consciousness at play. I ask that you show me consciousness

Wrong again.. and you seem to have a working definition of the conscious

Can you tell me how consciousness can be "at play"?

Being conscious and having thoughts is a bodily function, I admit that of course, but there is no substance called consciousness. You're making huge assertions here without anything to base it on. I'm saying consciousness can't be at play in something being conscious because it doesn't exist. You keep proclaiming that consciousness is a thing, a noun, you call 'the conscious,' but whatever it is you cannot show me or prove it's there.

You tell me I'm wrong but you have not produced any sort of substance called consciousness. How can you say I'm wrong when it's you who is claiming consciousness exists, then immediately afterwords not produce anything called consciousness to verify your assertions. You can only say Wrong! Wrong again! Well fine. I can play that game too. You're wrong.

Originally posted by squandered
One person here get's it. The OP has a material sense of what is consciousness. I'm under the impression that all but one other poster here sees the conscious as something other than the ego. Some speak of the soul in that the experiences known will continue (and have no known beginning), but it sounds like the ego nonetheless.

You can't face God without a "conscience".

This is what a spirit can do...

Bah. What? Now you're confusing terms. Conscience, isn't consciousness. We're talking strictly about consciousness.

Originally posted by psilo simon
You`re trying to disprove consciousness using grammar. Grammar is a concept born from conscious beings. The most you can achieve is pointing out the limits language puts on trying to express concepts such as consciousness.

I'm not disproving things that are conscious. I'm disproving that there is a thing called consciousness. The most I can achieve is more than someone who holds there is a thing call consciousness can show.

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Incorrect. If the being didn't exist, there would be nothing to be conscious. If the body didn't exist, the being wouldn't be awake, aware, and experience the five senses and be conscious.

Incorrect. Consciousness is everywhere, in every way. Matter can not exist without consciousness. The body that speaks of it is not aware of itself, except to speak of the things it is aware of. You have it the wrong way around.

It seems perfectly logical.

You claim it is everywhere, but cannot quantify it. Why is that? Where is consciousness? You speak as if it is something gaseous floating in the air.

Originally posted by kudegras
When you drive your car, you can control the car. You can turn corners , speed up, slow down. It also requires fuel and it requires an intelligence behind the wheel.
When you get out of the car, the intelligence has left the car. It doesn't move and yet it still has its fuel.
An important factor had left the car, you could say its consciousness, its operator.
When we die, our consciousness leaves our vehicle and goes on to do something else.
Pretty simple. That's my belief . We drive these vehicles until its time to replace them.
Meanwhile we learn lessons and get the opportunity to atone for past mistakes, we are all reincarnating and we all have our own purposes here.
We are our consciousness, the intelligence that drives the vehicle. Otherwise what is the purpose of life if not to learn and experience life in all its good and bad, up's and down's.
Common English cannot describe the essence of the soul in a mere word.
Peace

The operator is the operator, if you would like to change the definition of operator with consciousness, by all means, butcher the language.

Originally posted by kudegras
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

These are the limits of your mind Champ, your talking semantics. What you may have a problem with is the way the English language defines a thing that is both intangible, but obviously there or we wouldn't be debating it.
None of us can prove it exists, we cant measure it, we cant see it. We cant pick it up and throw it. But something exists that helps us develop rational thoughts and ideas. Something is operating our brains at a higher level than a mechanical level. And they named it consciousness. So what?

It isn't obviously there. If it was obviously there, it would be obvious. You claim it is, that's your only deciding factor. I'm asking you to show me or prove it. And if you cannot, at least question why we think it exists.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

You're stuck in one definition and vantage of "exists" as it is strictly defined in some (but not all) languages (as you indicate in your frustration with people who "butcher" the language).

The Tree existed before the word "Tree".

Existence existed before the word "Exist".

The language isn't being butchered... Language butchers Truth.

Consciousness does exist, and if you can't verify this truth for yourself without anyone else around to offer *their* proof... then you're looking too hard.

It simply doesn't exist according to the "strict" definition of our butchering language, and there is NO word that could be conceived that would describe that which exists prior to the attempt to define it.

"Is"
"Be"
"Am"

These are the closest we get, but there is no language which can adequately define and demonstrate what "Is" before the word "Is". However it is very clear that the language came AFTER the existence... therefore it is existence which defines language, not language which defines existence.

Existence will always butcher language in the long run when those using the language develop an understanding which exceeds the capacity of the language.

Namaste.

Most people today have confused the "map" (language) with the terrain (consciousness).

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


consciousness is the only thing that exists.. Everything is an epiphenomena of it..

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

You're stuck in one definition and vantage of "exists" as it is strictly defined in some (but not all) languages (as you indicate in your frustration with people who "butcher" the language).

The Tree existed before the word "Tree".

Existence existed before the word "Exist".

The language isn't being butchered... Language butchers Truth.

Consciousness does exist, and if you can't verify this truth for yourself without anyone else around to offer *their* proof... then you're looking too hard.

It simply doesn't exist according to the "strict" definition of our butchering language, and there is NO word that could be conceived that would describe that which exists prior to the attempt to define it.

"Is"
"Be"
"Am"

These are the closest we get, but there is no language which can adequately define and demonstrate what "Is" before the word "Is". However it is very clear that the language came AFTER the existence... therefore it is existence which defines language, not language which defines existence.

Existence will always butcher language in the long run when those using the language develop an understanding which exceeds the capacity of the language.

Namaste.

edit on 2012/7/16 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

I agree with this. Nicely put. But in this case, the non-existence is what is butchering the language. We hopefully can agree there is no thing called consciousness. Only things that are conscious or awake.

There is a tree, we define it as a tree because it shares characteristic of all trees. There is no perceivable thing called consciousness, yet we name the the shared characteristics of all things that are conscious as something called consciousness.