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.

 

The Circus of Consciousness

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule
 





I use words as signs or symbols. I think most people do. That way we can communicate through a common frame of reference. I'm not really sure I understand how you are using words. To me, mind is a word that symbolizes something important. It's like a finger pointing to the moon.

Do you think that finger should be cut off? That we should ignore the moon? I'm really not sure what your point is. Do you want humanity to stop using or replace words that have been particularly abused?


I really had no point. I was trying to respond in a pithy manner.

Signs and symbols for what? is the question. I mean what are we symbolizing with the word mind? It is the same as consciousness or soul or spirit; every time we use these words we are simply talking about ourselves. It is just another word for the human being—the only thing of importance worth symbolizing with these words—and I think beyond that there is nothing to symbolize.


Hmm. Interesting point of discussion. Allow me to ask you another question, if you would be so kind: which part of us defines the word "human" - our minds, or our bodies?




posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





Then what conclusion are you attempting to outline in this thread? What's your point here?


That some thinkers are creating a god out of what they do not understand—the human being. That the use of pure reason, as in the case of Descartes, requires assumptions in order to reach any conclusion.

It's like how Zeus was used as a placeholder for when we didn't understand what went on in the skies, or Poseidon for when we didn't understand the sea. Something like that.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule
 





I use words as signs or symbols. I think most people do. That way we can communicate through a common frame of reference. I'm not really sure I understand how you are using words. To me, mind is a word that symbolizes something important. It's like a finger pointing to the moon.

Do you think that finger should be cut off? That we should ignore the moon? I'm really not sure what your point is. Do you want humanity to stop using or replace words that have been particularly abused?


I really had no point. I was trying to respond in a pithy manner.

Signs and symbols for what? is the question. I mean what are we symbolizing with the word mind? It is the same as consciousness or soul or spirit; every time we use these words we are simply talking about ourselves. It is just another word for the human being—the only thing of importance worth symbolizing with these words—and I think beyond that there is nothing to symbolize.


Do you have an unconscious mind? As opposed to your conscious mind. Assuming you know what I'm referring to here, are you consciously aware of the contents of your unconscious mind at all times? Do you recognize a difference between your conscious and unconscious minds?

Is your mind in a waking state at this very moment? If you answer yes, then you must have an intuitive sense of what I mean by the word mind. If you answer no, then maybe you are asleep?

Your body goes about its business of breathing day-in-day-out without your conscious involvement. But suppose you were to sit for a while and do some specific breathing exercises that require your concentration. You would be using your conscious mind to concentrate, would you not?


edit on 21-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Aphorism
That some thinkers are creating a god out of what they do not understand—the human being.

There are no 'thinkers'. There is just thoughts arising.
The thought I appears and there is an identification with it - a thought happens that says I therefore you think you are.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





Allow me to ask you another question, if you would be so kind: which part of us defines the word "human" - our minds, or our bodies?


I don't believe there is such a dichotomy between mind and body, no "either or". This dichotomy is the product of Descartes' Cogito, which still runs deep in philosophy. Both terms explain little about ourselves and likely leads to more confusion when we choose to employ one term over the other.

If I had to force an analogy, I would liken the body to the instrument and the mind to the music it plays. Break the instrument, end the harmony. Music can never play itself. And an instrument that doesn't play music is likely no longer of any use to the universe that plays it.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 




Do you have an unconscious mind? As opposed to your conscious mind. Assuming you know what I'm referring to here, are you consciously aware of the contents of your unconscious mind at all times? Do you recognize a difference between your conscious and unconscious minds?


I only have me. I am never fully aware of myself and my variety of processes. Although I feel every single raindrop when it rains, I am not aware of nor concern myself with every single one of them.


Is your mind in a waking state at this very moment? If you answer yes, then you must have an intuitive sense of what I mean by the word mind. If you answer no, then maybe you are asleep?


I am in an awakened state at this moment.


Your body goes about its business of breathing day-in-day-out without your conscious involvement. But suppose you were to sit for a while and do some specific breathing exercises that require your concentration. You would be using your conscious mind to concentrate, would you not?


I would be using entirety of my being in an effort to practice breathing exercises.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Aphorism

I would be using entirety of my being in an effort to practice breathing exercises.


And when you're not practicing breathing exercises, there's something of your being you aren't using. How shall we refer to that something?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 



Aphorism

Consciousness, as it is used here and in quantum mind theories and new age piety, is nothing but the duct tape of human misunderstanding, patching up every hole with “consciousness”, which amounts to nothing more than a human being thinking about himself and making himself out to be something other than what he really is, just as we’ve done for millennia. We don’t know why we have thoughts, see things, have sensations, feel... and when we open ourselves up to find out why, we’re surprised when we don’t find anything but more body. Shouldn’t this tell us something? Why do we feel pain? Hit yourself and find out. Why do we feel cold? Go out in the snow. Why do we feel heat? Go near a fire. There’s no brain feeling it; there’s no substance or mystical ghost feeling it; there’s no “consciousness” feeling it; there is only one thing and one thing only moving towards the heat, hitting himself, thinking, doubting, seeing, hearing, engaging in subjective experience, and imagining these theories into words.

Is it that we do not like ourselves enough to admit it?


Well written post, and opinion. I glean from this last part that perhaps you might be a materialist at heart. I could be wrong in my judgement of course...

Our body collects information for our consciousness, which I consider as awareness and interaction with our environment. Information and consciousness are the fundamentals of everything in this universe and also give way to the essence what our sense of "self" is. Without either of these we don't have much of anything. It's what we use to build and fortify our constructs - of ourselves and our environment. It's what allows us to formulate an idea (however that works) and bring it into materialism. An idea has no material substance until we make it so. An idea is the result of information received from our environment, and introspection. So are ideas real or not? Are they material? What is the "self" that comes up with an idea in the first place?

Look out your window-- all of that, quite literally, is consciousness. It's awareness of and interactions with environment.

I think we forget sometimes that we are literally the universe. Made from the very same stuff. And out of this stuff, arose beings like ourselves that have become aware of the universe without and within. Is it any wonder that humans lie right in the middle of the scale of the universe and can see all the way up (out) and all the way down (in)? And at least on this planet, we appear to be the only things in the last 4.5 billion years to able to do so.

We are getting to peak behind the curtain, and what we're beginning to discover and understand (about ourselves and the universe) is quite remarkable.

But I wonder what the sense of self is in all of this? Is it consciousness? Perhaps. And how does that impact the world at large?

edit on 21-1-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Aphorism
I only have me.
That 'me' that 'you' only have is what? Is it an object with any type of reality except a thought - a persistent thought?


I am never fully aware of myself and my variety of processes.
If you were aware of yourself alone (with no appearance - as in deep sleep) what would be apparent?

Although I feel every single raindrop when it rains, I am not aware of nor concern myself with every single one of them.

It is only ever the appearance - ie. raindrops, sensations, thoughts - which can be known - the knower is transparent.



edit on 21-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





Allow me to ask you another question, if you would be so kind: which part of us defines the word "human" - our minds, or our bodies?


I don't believe there is such a dichotomy between mind and body, no "either or". This dichotomy is the product of Descartes' Cogito, which still runs deep in philosophy. Both terms explain little about ourselves and likely leads to more confusion when we choose to employ one term over the other.

If I had to force an analogy, I would liken the body to the instrument and the mind to the music it plays. Break the instrument, end the harmony. Music can never play itself. And an instrument that doesn't play music is likely no longer of any use to the universe that plays it.


I respect your opinion, however, I'm not inclined to view the matter in quite the same way. To my understanding, the human body and the human mind do not lend identical values to the concept of humanity. They do not reflect the same functions, and therefore the same virtues. Mind and body are like fog and ice. While they may be composed of the same elements and react much the same to certain stimuli, they are not the same in structure and function. They do not possess the same limitations or the same potential. Steam powers ships, ice breaks them. Ice cools our drinks while steam cooks our food.

How does this support your belief?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
in my degree coursework, i was recently introduced to the positivist philosophy of science. this philosophy is a formal treatment of what the majority of people, scientist and layman alike, consider science to actually be and do. simply: a logical framework in which to place empirical observation; all phenomena can be explained as a direct consequence of some more general phenomena or law.

the author Carl Hempel lays it all out in excruciatingly boring detail in his work, "Explanation in Science and History" i dont want to bore anyone so i will try to get to the rather obvious blunder of this type of science and why it is unable to account for at least half of reality.

hempel's model tells us plainly that reality is constructed as events, the one following the other, and the other used to explain the one in a linear forward progression of causality.... one event causing the next causing the next, etc.

from his 1960's perspective, poor mr. hempel knew for sure that he would have to accommodate the already proven statistical methods of quantum theory. so beginning on page 49, he shows us what an "explanation" in terms of statistical phenomena really means....

1- john doe is suffering from hayfever.
2- he administers chlor-trimeton to relieve it.
3- chlor-trimeton does not cure hayfever always... only sometimes.
4- a statistical model is thus built.


did you see the mistake? hempel apparently didn't.

the medicine did not find itself in doe's body by mere coincidence. doe put it there. why? because he wanted relief. relief of illness is a future event. according to the positivist model, how can a future event be at cause of a present event?!


the present is a consequence of the future? uh oh.
poor, silly, mr. hempel.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I think that consciousness cannot be explain by consciousness. I mean, we need a third party to figure it out. Just like us looking at this cosmos we act as third observer frame of reference.

May be AI in the future will figure it out or with the aid of AI.

cheers)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


It's like how Zeus was used as a placeholder for when we didn't understand what went on in the skies, or Poseidon for when we didn't understand the sea.


oh i get it now.

its like how the statistical model (previous post) is a placeholder for the apparently terrifying implications of quantum theory that the great priest Feynman has instructed us "no one understands".

so developing an actual explanation would be sorta like burning the bible?

this consciousness stuff must be truly horrifying.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

tgidkp
reply to post by Aphorism
 


It's like how Zeus was used as a placeholder for when we didn't understand what went on in the skies, or Poseidon for when we didn't understand the sea.


oh i get it now.

its like how the statistical model (previous post) is a placeholder for the apparently terrifying implications of quantum theory that the great priest Feynman has instructed us "no one understands".

so developing an actual explanation would be sorta like burning the bible?

this consciousness stuff must be truly horrifying.




..or it could be very trivial and simple. It is just given, to study ...It will be explained in higher order of knowledge concepts that are not known yet.
imo



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



Well written post, and opinion. I glean from this last part that perhaps you might be a materialist at heart. I could be wrong in my judgement of course...


Thanks for reading. To put you at ease, I believe materialists are simply idealists who use a different language. Now I have a couple questions regarding some specific assertions you’ve made.


Our body collects information for our consciousness, which I consider as awareness and interaction with our environment.


But what is aware and what interacts with the environment? Imagine a computer without the computer. It’s impossible.
Consequently, the body doesn’t collect information for anything other than itself.

Why create aspects of one thing—body? consciousness? We don’t possess these aspects as if they were something to hold on to. They are not “ours” in the sense that they are something we drag along with us. What else besides ourselves are we talking about by using these words?

When you interact with your environment, when you are aware of yourself and your environment, it is always you that does so. No need to imagine ghosts and mystical substances.


Information and consciousness are the fundamentals of everything in this universe and also give way to the essence what our sense of "self" is. Without either of these we don't have much of anything. It's what we use to build and fortify our constructs - of ourselves and our environment. It's what allows us to formulate an idea (however that works) and bring it into materialism. An idea has no material substance until we make it so. An idea is the result of information received from our environment, and introspection. So are ideas real or not? Are they material? What is the "self" that comes up with an idea in the first place?


There is nothing that says or shows that information and consciousness are the fundamental. I think this is a grave assumption. A human would not be conscious if he didn’t first exist. Meaning something else is fundamental to consciousness and information, and it is that which is conscious, and that which outputs information.


Look out your window-- all of that, quite literally, is consciousness. It's awareness of and interactions with environment.


Not even figuratively is that true. Awareness is the exact same concept as consciousness. It is like saying someone has a sense of humour because he tells a lot of jokes. Why does he tell a lot of jokes? Well, because he has a sense of humour. It is a tautology. It means the exact same thing, and explains nothing.


I think we forget sometimes that we are literally the universe. Made from the very same stuff. And out of this stuff, arose beings like ourselves that have become aware of the universe without and within. Is it any wonder that humans lie right in the middle of the scale of the universe and can see all the way up (out) and all the way down (in)? And at least on this planet, we appear to be the only things in the last 4.5 billion years to able to do so.


Not even figuratively are we the universe. If you were the universe, I’d be sitting in a chair responding to your post somewhere inside you. It is a horrific thought.

I enjoyed your response. However I see difficulties immediately with these assertions and dogmas.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 





And when you're not practicing breathing exercises, there's something of your being you aren't using. How shall we refer to that something?


I am always using everything of my being. I don't have a choice.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 





its like how the statistical model (previous post) is a placeholder for the apparently terrifying implications of quantum theory that the great priest Feynman has instructed us "no one understands".


At least you're honest about it.



so developing an actual explanation would be sorta like burning the bible?


An explanation is an explanation. We can burn whichever one's we choose.



this consciousness stuff must be truly horrifying.


Literally, there is nothing to fear.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Aphorism

Not even figuratively are we the universe. If you were the universe, I’d be sitting in a chair responding to your post somewhere inside you. It is a horrific thought.


Have you considered that you are existing inside other peoples heads from their perspective? Their created version of you in their mind is not you, so who is it? It is a horrific thought because people are not in 100% control of the image received by others only the image projected from themselves.

This is as straight up as it gets, nothing mysterious about this process.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule
 





And when you're not practicing breathing exercises, there's something of your being you aren't using. How shall we refer to that something?


I am always using everything of my being. I don't have a choice.


Elaborate. Do you mean to say you are in conscious control of your autonomic nervous system at all times?



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDualityExperience
 





Have you considered that you are existing inside other peoples heads from their perspective? Their created version of you in their mind is not you, so who is it? It is a horrific thought because people are not in 100% control of the image received by others only the image projected from themselves.

This is as straight up as it gets, nothing mysterious about this process.


You are correct, Duality. And there's no need to call this process "the universe". They see my words and fill in the blanks with their assumptions and conjecture, much like "consciousness".



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join