Man vs. Consciousness

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Then let's translate for you: the only place you will find a glass of PURE WATER is in a LABORATORY. The only place you will find PURE CONSCIOUSNESS is in a laboratory. The subject would most likely be a blind, deaf, and dumb white rat with absolutely no textile sensitivity whatsoever, inside or outside of its body. Essentially, an isolated brain. A brain contained in a useless pile of meat and bone. An organic life form that is better off dead if it isn't cured.

If you think PURE CONSCIOUSNESS is something to be preferred, I shudder to think what your life must be like right now.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Then let's translate for you: the only place you will find a glass of PURE WATER is in a LABORATORY. The only place you will find PURE CONSCIOUSNESS is in a laboratory. The subject would most likely be a blind, deaf, and dumb white rat with absolutely no textile sensitivity whatsoever, inside or outside of its body. Essentially, an isolated brain. A brain contained in a useless pile of meat and bone. An organic life form that is better off dead if it isn't cured.

If you think PURE CONSCIOUSNESS is something to be preferred, I shudder to think what your life must be like right now.

edit on 5-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

You believe 'pure consciousness' can be found in a lab? Only in a lab?
Ok.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

The answer to this, in my mind, is quite simple: we are investigating the boundaries of the relationship between car, driver, and the road. Some believe the car and driver are fused irrevocably. Some believe the driver can easily put the car into neutral and step out. Some believe that the driver is, in fact, the road. And some believe that the car, driver, and road are all components of a giant video game that we designed.

The investigation of consciousness, to my understanding, is the investigation of this riddle.

I think that sounds about right. Elegantly put.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

You believe 'pure consciousness' can be found in a lab? Only in a lab?

Well, let's ask you this: what would you classify as "pure consciousness"? Be specific now.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

You have admitted time and time again that you have no idea what 'consciousness' is. Do not paint everyone with the same brush - but of course you have no choice - you only know what you know and assume everyone else is the same as you or just wrong.

I think I've proven that no one knows what "consciousness" is, and that if they say they do, they are parroting someone else or making it up. I think you're a fine example of this. Sure, don't take my word for it, but a little research on the matter outside of youtube might help you out.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You believe 'pure consciousness' can be found in a lab? Only in a lab?

Well, let's ask you this: what would you classify as "pure consciousness"? Be specific now.

No.
It does not matter who tells you about 'consciousness' - it is not something that can be told or understood - only known - if you don't know what it is no matter how long I explain it you will not see it or get it. Shame.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

No.
It does not matter who tells you about 'consciousness' - it is not something that can be told or understood - only known - if you don't know what it is no matter how long I explain it you will not see it or get it. Shame.

According to Einstein, if you cannot explain it to a five year old, you do not understand it yourself. I tend to agree with this. And since you've flatly refused to even attempt to explain it to me, now would be a very good time to stop pretending to be an expert on the subject of consciousness, as you have just demonstrated you are nothing of the sort.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Who Wants To Know What?

Here is an answer but I very much doubt a five year old will understand it - good luck. It is not luck that is needed though - it is listening that is required.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

No.
It does not matter who tells you about 'consciousness' - it is not something that can be told or understood - only known - if you don't know what it is no matter how long I explain it you will not see it or get it. Shame.

According to Einstein, if you cannot explain it to a five year old, you do not understand it yourself.

Can you provide a link to where Einstein says this?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

It is not luck that is needed though - it is listening that is required.

To be seduced by someone's rhetoric, and to accept that person's beliefs as one's own, one must first listen to it. Listening is definitely required.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Alas, another conversation about consciousness that for me is only questions...

Our consciousness, our ego, our mind, our emotions—nothing but words and gods for our misunderstandings and obfuscations—all of these are abstractions of that which does consciousness, does ego, does mind, does emotions.

What we misunderstood about this particular god, what is actually fundamental when it comes to consciousness, is ourselves.

I found your thread title curious. Man vs Consciousness. To me it read more as if you thought Man is Consciousness.

I could be wrong in my assessment here, but it's as if you're saying that humans are a physical manifestation of the phenomenon we call consciousness.

It seems to me that your issue is one of semantics with the word, more than what it actually is.

It's something. It's not nothing. Right? There's no such thing as nothing, so we'll have to come up with a way to explain the phenomenon itself. Or are you saying that there isn't a phenomenon of consciousness at all?

My take away, and I could be way off base here, is that you feel consciousness is an amalgamation of the 5 senses (input) and our brain which processes the information. Our so called consciousness is the resulting subjective experience, or output of that information.

But are the 5 senses necessarily required to be conscious?

Perhaps we can consider a sensory deprivation tank experience. I've never tried it, but I've spoken to people who have and I hear it's just you and your mind, with no senses to perturb the experience of full/pure self introspection. You're awake or "conscious", but with no sense of sense at all. I hear it can be kind of trippy. Point is our consciousness may not necessarily require senses to experience. Just a working mind.

Maybe you don't like the word consciousness. So how would you describe our (self) awareness (or introspection) and the experiences from that awareness which we all possess?

For me the thing that I want to try to understand, if its even possible, is that which determines who gets to experience; when they get to experience; and how they get to experience; or, at all for that matter. I ask this question in every discussion about consciousness and it either gets ignored or brushed aside, and I'm not sure why. There is clearly a state of being. One which I consider to be the root(meaning) of consciousness. And yes, it is a non-material thing.

Only I can experience from my point of view, though my own perceptions. What ultimately determined that I will experience life as myself and nothing else? Why am I experiencing now, and not 1000 years ago, or 1000 years from now? Does is have solely to with my brain? Why does my brain give me the notion of being me? Or even the ability to consider myself in the first place. And what is it that decides what I'm going to think about or do.

What is, for lack of a better word, the essence of "I" when I decide to physically do something, or reflect on something?

Nothing else on this planet has ever known a universe to be out there, until we showed up. If humans are really the only living things on this planet to ever possess the level of awareness that we have, and we didn't arise, would the universe have ever been noticed? Was the universe supposed to be noticed?

I wonder if we are extremely privileged to even be able to observe and think about such a thing.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

It is not luck that is needed though - it is listening that is required.

To be seduced by someone's rhetoric, and to accept that person's beliefs as one's own, one must first listen to it. Listening is definitely required.

The mind won't let the seeker of consciousness hear the message. Hearing must be done with the ears - it is difficult to listen when the mind is jumping up and down. The mind fears that it will be wrong about it's beliefs so makes a lot of noise.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Well, let's ask you this: what would you classify as "pure consciousness"? Be specific now.

I brought this up in my last post-- ever try a sensory deprivation tank?

I consider the idea of pure consciousness to be experiencing wakefulness but without the senses. So it's just you and your mind...

reply to post by Itisnowagain


It's attributed to Einstein as well as Richard Feynman, with variants being attributed to a number of theoretical physicists and others in career fields related to Einstein's work. It could be said that such a commonly arrived-at opinion should hold considerable weight with those whom lend professional credibility to the minds that produced it.

If you question its validity, I would ask that you at least explain why. Why should someone who claims to know a subject so well, not be able to explain it to a child, their grandmother, or a bartender? A mark of comprehension is the ability to translate effectively.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I brought this up in my last post-- ever try a sensory deprivation tank?

I consider the idea of pure consciousness to be experiencing wakefulness but without the senses. So it's just you and your mind...

I did say "laboratory", did I not? Or is there a law allowing citizens to utilize sensory deprivation tanks in the comfort and isolation of their own basement?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

It's attributed to Einstein as well as Richard Feynman, with variants being attributed to a number of theoretical physicists and others in career fields related to Einstein's work.

Can you provide a link please?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

I brought this up in my last post-- ever try a sensory deprivation tank?

I consider the idea of pure consciousness to be experiencing wakefulness but without the senses. So it's just you and your mind...

I did say "laboratory", did I not? Or is there a law allowing citizens to utilize sensory deprivation tanks in the comfort and isolation of their own basement?

'Consciousness' isn't just in an isolation tank and it is not just in a laboratory. Oh dear.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


No. But I'll give you a hint: try looking him up on Wikipedia. Look for "Misattributed". And while you're at it, you should look over some of his other quotes...Einstein is a very intriguing source of inspiration.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Sorry, I kind of jumped on that post before reading the entire context of its origin.

Anyway, there are spas where anyone can go to "meditate" in a sensory deprivation tank. I don't see why a civilian with enough money couldn't legally purchase one for their home.

The point is, a possible way to experience a state of pure consciousness, if there is such a thing, could be by eliminating the noise from our senses so that your left with just the non-physical you. And this is what these tanks do

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If you question its validity, I would ask that you at least explain why. Why should someone who claims to know a subject so well, not be able to explain it to a child, their grandmother, or a bartender? A mark of comprehension is the ability to translate effectively. ;[

I can point to it. If there was a five year old present with me I expect the five year old would get it.
Adults are more difficult because they are filled with ideas and beliefs. Adults are obsessed with their ideas and beliefs - young children are more open.