It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man vs. Consciousness

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





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.


The problem is, every time you add the suffix "ness" you are making a noun out of an adjective. Or in other words, making a something out of nothing. I don't think what you describe can be circumscribed by your words.




posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I'm guess that "consciousness" is the amalgamation of everything that is "now" - otherwise known as presently occurring or existing. But I honestly don't see how the pencil sitting beside my computer is consciousness, rather than a translation. That's what consciousness is to me - an actively processing code that is prepared to translate but may or may not be doing so. Imagine if your tower had no monitor and no keyboard or mouse. What remains of the information and data system while the tower is powered on and active is the consciousness.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
consciousness is definable in one sentence, but inexpressable in the next.

Consciousness is not definable. Consciousness is boundless.

It is this. This is always this but this always appears different.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





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.


The problem is, every time you add the suffix "ness" you are making a noun out of an adjective. Or in other words, making a something out of nothing. I don't think what you describe can be circumscribed by your words.


This is nothing appearing as everything - this is all there is.
Emptiness is forming.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





I'm guess that "consciousness" is the amalgamation of everything that is "now" - otherwise known as presently occurring or existing. But I honestly don't see how the pencil sitting beside my computer is consciousness, rather than a translation. That's what consciousness is to me - an actively processing code that is prepared to translate but may or may not be doing so. Imagine if your tower had no monitor and no keyboard or mouse. What remains of the information and data system while the tower is powered on and active is the consciousness.


That's actually a decent analogy. The whole consciousness idea seems almost like vitalism in some way. There might be a religious revival of vitalism in the near future if consciousness doesn't go the way of phlogiston and aether.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



This is nothing appearing as everything - this is all there is.
Emptiness is forming.


If you're trying to convince me, I require concrete terms and particulars, not abstractions and universals. Emptiness is a completely meaningless term; all there is is all there is; everything is everything. and nothing is nothing. My mind is lead no where, a dead end when pondering your words. What exactly are you talking about?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Imagine if your tower had no monitor and no keyboard or mouse. What remains of the information and data system while the tower is powered on and active is the consciousness.


Try to watch the tv if it has no screen - you can't.
The pictures have to appear on something.
Consciousness is the screen. When the pictures appear on the screen the screen is not noticed but is constantly present. The screen is primary.

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



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
My mind is lead no where, a dead end when pondering your words.


That's the spirit.

The mind does not want to be silenced?
Only when the mind is silent will it be known.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

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.


Does it not apply to other living organisms?



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.


Okay, but shouldn't we ascribe a name, term, phrase, for the bodily function that we currently ascribe consciousness to? Or is your take that however consciousness is currently defined should be assimilated into the current definitions we have for other bodily functions. That there's no need for consciousness at all. Simply because we don't know what it is or can't define it? Or do you think it's simply a made up idea based on nothing?



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.


How about the act of (self) awareness exhibited by other animals? They sense the world as we do, albeit on different levels. Why should your idea of consciousness be strictly limited to the human experience?

Everything around us is all abstract notions, is it not? Like gravity.


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.


So how would you describe our awareness of being aware?


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


You would have to concede that you possess a sense of being, if you are to understand what I was asking. And I would assume you know what I'm talking about. Everything that makes you you (thoughts, experiences etc), is your being. So then- What is this notion of being that we as humans possess? For instance- when you find yourself in an unsavory situation- and you ask yourself " Why me?", that's what I'm getting at. Why (am I) me? And not you or that squirrel over there? Could this sense of being just as easily been someone or something else? What determines when and how we experience and what/who we experience as?

The "what it's like" problem, as I see it.

And on a separate note- does your problem with consciousness stem from others' interpretations elevating the term to a cult or religion? If people didn't do that would you have still written this thread, and left consciousness to remain that unknown attribute of human existence?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



That's the spirit.

The mind does not want to be silenced?
Only when the mind is silent will it be known.


And how do you silent your mind?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



That's the spirit.

The mind does not want to be silenced?
Only when the mind is silent will it be known.


And how do you silent your mind?


You don't. It happens or it doesn't.
David Lynch advocates Transcendental Meditation, that is how he reckons he did it. But of course until one sees without the minds disturbance nothing can be seen with clarity.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I actually believe that aether deserves somewhat more investigation than it's been getting. I have a suspicion it is closely tied to magnetism...



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 




Does it not apply to other living organisms?

I don't think we have the ability to think as other animals and explore their processes with introspection. So no.



Okay, but shouldn't we ascribe a name, term, phrase, for the bodily function that we currently ascribe consciousness to? Or is your take that however consciousness is currently defined should be assimilated into the current definitions we have for other bodily functions. That there's no need for consciousness at all. Simply because we don't know what it is or can't define it? Or do you think it's simply a made up idea based on nothing?

I've argued that "consciousness" requires the whole body (and its position in the universe), therefore when we speak of consciousness, we are speaking of the whole body. Why don't we ditch consciousness and speak about the body.


How about the act of (self) awareness exhibited by other animals? They sense the world as we do, albeit on different levels. Why should your idea of consciousness be strictly limited to the human experience?

Everything around us is all abstract notions, is it not? Like gravity.


I don't have an idea of consciousness, I don't think there is such a thing to contemplate. When I use the term "consciousness" I actually mean the organism. I will contemplate the organism.



So how would you describe our awareness of being aware?


It's still the body being aware.



You would have to concede that you possess a sense of being, if you are to understand what I was asking. And I would assume you know what I'm talking about. Everything that makes you you (thoughts, experiences etc), is your being. So then- What is this notion of being that we as humans possess? For instance- when you find yourself in an unsavory situation- and you ask yourself " Why me?", that's what I'm getting at. Why (am I) me? And not you or that squirrel over there? Could this sense of being just as easily been someone or something else? What determines when and how we experience and what/who we experience as?


I don't think that's an answerable question, or the question is the answer.


And on a separate note- does your problem with consciousness stem from others' interpretations elevating the term to a cult or religion? If people didn't do that would you have still written this thread, and left consciousness to remain that unknown attribute of human existence?


Absolutely. If there was no superstition growing around the idea, it wouldn't have crossed my mind. Although, I have actually spent much time studying philosophy of mind, and the hard problem of consciousness is a heated topic in that arena right now.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



That's the spirit.

The mind does not want to be silenced?
Only when the mind is silent will it be known.


And how do you silent your mind?


You don't. It happens or it doesn't.
David Lynch advocates Transcendental Meditation, that is how he reckons he did it. But of course until one sees without the minds disturbance nothing can be seen with clarity.


So the act of "seeing" you're referring to is not the one that involves the use of the eyes, but the mind. Since the use of our eyes would "disturb" the mind from the so called silent state you mention.

So what exactly is "seeing with clarity" without the eyes? Or what is it that we are visualizing in our mind?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





You don't. It happens or it doesn't.
David Lynch advocates Transcendental Meditation, that is how he reckons he did it. But of course until one sees without the minds disturbance nothing can be seen with clarity.


One cannot turn off his mind. I think despite your claim of non-thinking, you are still thinking. What you think about, whether it be something or nothing, matters not.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





You don't. It happens or it doesn't.
David Lynch advocates Transcendental Meditation, that is how he reckons he did it. But of course until one sees without the minds disturbance nothing can be seen with clarity.


One cannot turn off his mind. I think despite your claim of non-thinking, you are still thinking. What you think about, whether it be something or nothing, matters not.

As I said - you don't silence (turn off) the mind.
The mind shuts up.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So the act of "seeing" you're referring to is not the one that involves the use of the eyes, but the mind. Since the use of our eyes would "disturb" the mind from the so called silent state you mention.

So what exactly is "seeing with clarity" without the eyes? Or what is it that we are visualizing in our mind?

When I say 'seeing' I mean knowing what is arising - whatever is appearing - sound, sensation, sight, taste - is all known to be happening.
It all happens in the space of consciousness as consciousness.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





As I said - you don't silence (turn off) the mind.
The mind shuts up.


You change nothing but what you are thinking about. The mind does not shut up.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





As I said - you don't silence (turn off) the mind.
The mind shuts up.


You change nothing but what you are thinking about. The mind does not shut up.

You can only know how it is where you are.
I cannot prove how it is here.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





As I said - you don't silence (turn off) the mind.
The mind shuts up.

The mind does not shut up.

I do appreciate that it is the case for most and that is how consciousness hides.

Who is the mind talking to? And what is it so concerned about?
edit on 5-8-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join