Man vs. Consciousness

reply to post by Itisnowagain

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

Can you prove what you believe 'consciousness' to be without proving LesMis right? As in, can you prove why your definition is the correct one and all others are wrong? Or are you just going to stonewall me and prove LesMis correct - again?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Trust me, I wasn't suggesting that. My initial point was to say that our senses may not be necessary to experience a feeling of wakeful consciousness. That's all

reply to post by AfterInfinity


One of my favourite Einstein quotes is:

"The field is the sole governing agency of the particle".

Quite apt for this thread.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Trust me, I wasn't suggesting that.

I know - I was replying to Afterinfinity.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Trust me, I wasn't suggesting that. My initial point was to say that our senses may not be necessary to experience a feeling of wakeful consciousness. That's all

What's the point of having a wakeful consciousness if it's all purely a delusion? Your example gives us all the more reason to distrust our eyes and ears. LesMis has already made a thread - quite a good one, I might add; it is titled "Faith In Uncertainty" - which makes a fairly sound case stating that certain assumptions must always be made in order to determine the reality of any given situation or construct.

One such assumption is that our biological sensory systems are accurately informing us to the extent necessary to determine the actual nature of what is being observed. Or more to the point, that our idea of accurate sensory systems is in itself effectively accurate.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

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

Can you prove what you believe 'consciousness' to be without proving LesMis right?

Explain how LesMis is right.
How are you and LesMis correct?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Explain how LesMis is right.
How are you and LesMis correct?

I never said anything about myself. I asked if you could provide a reasonable and well-founded set of parameters for the precise nature of consciousness without proving LesMis correct in the following quote:

One such misunderstanding, surrounded by its ever-pious protectors and benefactors, is “consciousness”, a term that has done nothing but confuse since its inception. In the philosophy of mind it remains a “the hard problem of consciousness”, where dualists and materialists wage intellectual war over the nature of it, qualia, sensation, mental states and brain states. To the ever faithful and those who enjoy the convenience of believing, consciousness can range from an ever-growing medley of tastes and flavours, from an immaterial force, to God, to the unified field, to some primordial wave or substance, and even all that is. Ask anyone what consciousness is, and watch as every answer differs, every assumption a misunderstanding made by a member of a species that is unable to observe inside of themselves as they do the things they do, but nonetheless pretend they know.

You are notorious for exemplifying the above quote, even to the very letter. The highly bemusing part is how you steadfastly ignore your demonstration of it even in the process. Perhaps you are incapable of recognizing the nature of the chasms you are leaping in your hearty chase of the grand riddle, but we cannot ignore the gaps in your logic. While I respect and admire the ardor with which you cling to your pursuit, I wince at the painful ignorance by which you seem to miss the most blatant of unstable groundings beneath the buttresses of your grand ideals and imaginings.

This is a stellar opportunity for us to work on that together...if you are willing.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

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

Very good. I did intend the title to be a contradiction. I don't believe a line can be drawn between the two. What we are always investigating when looking for consciousness is the human organism.

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?

I don't think we can say there is a phenomenon of consciousness if we don't know what consciousness is. If we are talking about the bodily functions, we should say so, rather than posit some non-existent entity as the source of our bodily functions.

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.

I tried to argue that in order to be conscious, one must be a human organism, for that is all we are talking about when it comes to such terms as "consciousness" and "awareness". The senses, the "mind", "consciousness" are all abstract notions of this human organism.

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?

I do believe the word is used seductively to lead people to certain conclusions one wouldn't usually reach. I believe the word to be meaningless, and our constant propelling of this word to almost mystical status to be the start of a new religion. I have described our self-awareness as the body being aware.

For me the thing that I want 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 even all. 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.

I believe you are talking about the subject/object relationship. I could be wrong.

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.

There's much literature, at least in philosophy, about consciousness. It is a heated topic right now in philosophy of mind and neuroscience since it re-emerged in the 80's. The most conclusive definition of consciousness in the philosophy of mind (in my opinion) is "what its like". For instance, there is "something that it is like" to be you and "something that it is like" to be me. Read Thomas Nagel's What its like to be a bat for more reading on that idea. Its an interesting read.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Consciousness: the state of being conscious. --> Conscious: possessing the active ability to regard. --> Regard: pay attention to.

Consciousness - the state of possessing the active ability to pay attention.

I know, it's a little rough...but it's the best I have right now. Would you agree with the above break down of the general nature of consciousness?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
This is a stellar opportunity for us to work on that together...if you are willing.

I have tried to work with you before. it is impossible to show this to you because if it is not seen then it hides.
I watch the videos I post and see all the people desperate to see it. people who really, really want to see it pay money to get it but I see them in the audience not getting it.
I do not know why it cannot be seen until it shows itself.

This right here and right now is consciousness - it is all there is.
The mind believes different though!!

reply to post by Itisnowagain

This right here and right now is consciousness - it is all there is.
The mind believes different though!!

I think for the sake of clarity you should perhaps name your "right here right now" something else. I would argue you might only muddy the waters further by calling it consciousness. It's not too big of a deal; coining a phrase is fun.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I have tried to work with you before. it is impossible to show this to you because if it is not seen then it hides.
I watch the videos I post and see all the people desperate to see it. people who really, really want to see it pay money to get it but I see them in the audience not getting it.
I do not know why it cannot be seen until it shows itself.

This right here and right now is consciousness - it is all there is.
The mind believes different though!!

...Is that really the best you can do? I gave you a perfectly open opportunity to describe in detail the parameters of the nature of consciousness, and all you can do is give me a tired excuse of why you can't.

I guess LesMis's OP has been justified. I really can arrive at no other conclusion. The simple fact that you would not agree with my own opinions in the matter corroborates this.

Edit: Please understand, Itisnowagain, the only reason I am being hardnosed with you is because you act like you're some kind of expert in the subject. I am not expert. I have opinions, and I am more than willing to share and share alike. But I will not claim any degree of expertise in the matter. You, on the other hand, claim to have a vast store of conclusive knowledge and the inability to express or share any of it in any manner that furthers the understanding and coherent comprehension of those who seek to share in it. Your apparent unwillingness to demonstrate your self-professed knowledgeability in this subject is about as helpful as an inflatable dartboard.

That's my problem here. I just want you to understand that.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

This right here and right now is consciousness - it is all there is.
The mind believes different though!!

I think for the sake of clarity you should perhaps name your "right here right now" something else. I would argue you might only muddy the waters further by calling it consciousness. It's not too big of a deal; coining a phrase is fun.

This is being all there is. This is aliveness. Aliveness is conscious of the present happening and the present happening is just happening in the aware space that is ever present.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I guess LesMis's OP has been justified.

How does LesMis taste?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I guess LesMis's OP has been justified.

How does LesMis taste?

Excuse me? You seem to be implying something, but I would like you to clarify before I make any assumptions.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

What's the point of having a wakeful consciousness if it's all purely a delusion? Your example gives us all the more reason to distrust our eyes and ears.

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you saying that wakeful consciousness absent any sensory input would be delusional experience?

As you say- Our senses exist for the purpose of accurately obtaining information about our surrounding environments. It's not our senses that we should distrust, but perhaps more our mind, that it's not misinterpreting the information or making us think we see or hear things that aren't actually there. But then again we're limited by what our senses allow us to perceive. There could very well be things that fall outside the realm of what our senses are capable of ascertaining, which if we made assumptions about, could then be classified as being delusional.

LesMis has already made a thread - quite a good one, I might add; it is titled "Faith In Uncertainty" - which makes a fairly sound case stating that certain assumptions must always be made in order to determine the reality of any given situation or construct.

I don't see any reason why I would/should disagree with that premise.

One such assumption is that our biological sensory systems are accurately informing us to the extent necessary to determine the actual nature of what is being observed. Or more to the point, that our idea of accurate sensory systems is in itself effectively accurate.

Same with that premise

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I guess LesMis's OP has been justified.

How does LesMis taste?

Excuse me? You seem to be implying something, but I would like you to clarify before I make any assumptions.

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

Assume away - it is your way.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Consciousness - the state of possessing the active ability to pay attention.

I see no problem with it personally, although I would rather see "consciousness" stricken from the dictionaries. We'd have to go down some long difficult philosophical roads to discuss "states", and whether man can be in more states than one, but it does seem intuitive that man does pay attention. I would have to think a while if it is an ability or not, and if it is active or passive ability, and that it is an ability that can be possessed or maybe only manifested.

Very difficult topic. I would refuse to define it myself.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Have we proven or collected a reasonable amount of evidence to determine the probability of the location of consciousness?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Take care how you address me in the future. I have been nothing but respectful and honest with you...I would appreciate the same courtesy in return. I have given you a request, which I myself have completed for myself for the benefit of all participants in this thread, and you have steadfastly refused for no reason other than to contradict your own claims - consciousness is definable in one sentence, but inexpressable in the next.

I consider our exchange concluded.