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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 





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


I would say it is the other way around, that the body and it's processes are in control of me at all times.




posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule
 





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


I would say it is the other way around, that the body and it's processes are in control of me at all times.




This thread is beginning to feel like a circus of language. :p

I get the feeling you want to talk to people, but only if everyone is speaking a different language so that your can have your sport.

Word-play wrestling matches get old. Trying to decode you is not fun anymore. Maybe you would prefer to live in a society that doesn't use words or symbols? Or one that uses a language you invented yourself?


edit on 22-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Doesn't consciousness mean self-awareness?



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HanoiLullaby
 


Not in a circus of language it doesn't.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Aphorism
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

To put you at ease, I believe materialists are simply idealists who use a different language.

I'm not sure I see the correlation between a materialist and an idealist. They are two completely opposite philosophies. How does one bridge the dichotomy between these two?


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.

Wasn't the computer an idea before it was a computer? Wasn't it imagined in some way before it came into physical existence? I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. And just to be clear, I said that our bodies collect information for our consciousness. Our consciousness is the conglomeration of awareness and interaction- either with yourself or the environment.


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?

Your mind is not your mind? It's always "ourselves" that we are talking about, regardless if we separate our being into different aspects. A mind is not a brain, or an arm, or some toes. Which means, then, there is a non-physical aspect of self aside from our material body. Unless you don't believe we possess a mind capable of formulating ideas.


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.

Exactly. Who's imagining it like that? Consciousness is not a mystical substance the last I checked.


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.

Is the universe not governed by interactions? Do particles not interact with each other? Systems of systems, composed of interactions of interactions. Can something interact with something else without in some sense being aware of the other, and/or not having information about it? This is a serious question.



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


Aphorism
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.

How does that invalidate the statement?
Perhaps you agree then, that our environment is a composition of consciousness, awareness, etc...


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.

Yes, we are the universe. We are not separate from it. That is the problem with the modern view of the world. We've been conditioned to think that we are separate from nature. That's incorrect. There's is no such thing as artificial. It's a made up word to create this separation and it's invaded the human psyche.

By your logic, the trillions of cells that make up your bones, your organs, your brain are not you. Does that make any sense?
Are we not universes (of cells and systems) in our own right? Think about it.
It seems your not seeing the forest for the trees.


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

Thank you.

I didn't expect you would agree with any of my ideas based on your OP.
Your view seems much different than mine. More rigid and linear. However important none-the-less.
edit on 22-1-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 





This thread is beginning to feel like a circus of language. :p

I get the feeling you want to talk to people, but only if everyone is speaking a different language so that your can have your sport.

Word-play wrestling matches get old. Trying to decode you is not fun anymore. Maybe you would prefer to live in a society that doesn't use words or symbols? Or one that uses a language you invented yourself?



Don't decode me. Decode yourself. I see nothing behind the concept of consciousness. It is empty, just like much of the language I see spouted in it's regard. It is without content or context, and it is not me making doing untold harm to communication by supporting and even deifying words.

I never said anything about not using words or symbols; I only imply that words and symbols should mean something and symbolize something. Yet no one can tell me what consciousness means or symbolizes without making vast assumptions and sweeping assertions.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Aphorism
Yet no one can tell me what consciousness means or symbolizes without making vast assumptions and sweeping assertions.

Correct - no one can 'tell' you what consciousness is.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 




Wasn't the computer an idea before it was a computer? Wasn't it imagined in some way before it came into physical existence? I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. And just to be clear, I said that our bodies collect information for our consciousness. Our consciousness is the conglomeration of awareness and interaction- either with yourself or the environment.


I mean that you've gone and abstracted me into body, consciousness, conglomeration of awareness and interaction. So many different aspects of one thing. It is all assumption. Awareness and consciousness mean the same thing. It is circular reasoning to say that consciousness is awareness. It is begging the question. It is assuming the conclusion. If consciousness is a conglomeration of awareness and interaction, then we must look at what is aware and interacts—only the body does this.


Your mind is not your mind? It's always "ourselves" that we are talking about, regardless if we separate our being into different aspects. A mind is not a brain, or an arm, or some toes. Which means, then, there is a non-physical aspect of self aside from our material body. Unless you don't believe we possess a mind capable of formulating ideas.


Once again, this is all assuming the conclusion. Petitio principii . Why do you think you have a mind? How would you know you had a brain, or an arm, or toes if the mind is something separate from the body? I believe we are an organism capable of forming ideas, we don’t possess minds or consciousness. What do the ideas come out of when we speak? What do wee use to write them down? What do we share ideas with others with? What is it that dreams when it sleeps? The mind? An assumption.


Is the universe not governed by interactions? Do particles not interact with each other? Systems of systems, composed of interactions of interactions. Can something interact with something else without in some sense being aware of the other, and/or not having information about it? This is a serious question.


Interaction has nothing to do with consciousness. Things affect one another because they are moving, not because they are conscious.


How does that invalidate the statement?
Perhaps you agree then, that our environment is a composition of consciousness, awareness, etc...


I vehemently disagree.


Yes, we are the universe. We are not separate from it. That is the problem with the modern view of the world. We've been conditioned to think that we are separate from nature. That's incorrect. There's is no such thing as artificial. It's a made up word to create this separation and it's invaded the human psyche.


I never said we are separate from the universe, only that we are not the universe. Do you know what the universe is? You’re speaking of separation the very time you’re arguing for a separation of a human being into body, consciousness, mind etc. It is indeed embedded within the human psyche.


By your logic, the trillions of cells that make up your bones, your organs, your brain are not you. Does that make any sense?


I never said that nor implied that. It is you who is trying to say we are the universe. It doesn’t make any sense.


Are we not universes (of cells and systems) in our own right? Think about it.
It seems your not seeing the forest for the trees.


You said we are the universe. You never mentioned a single thing about us being universes of cells and systems until just now. You said “the universe”, singular.


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




Thank you.

I didn't expect you would agree with any of my ideas based on your OP.
Your view seems much different than mine. More rigid and linear. However important none-the-less.


You’re views are a little too assumptive for my liking, but at least we can get along in this exchange.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Aphorism
Yet no one can tell me what consciousness means or symbolizes without making vast assumptions and sweeping assertions.


No one can tell you what ANYTHING means or symbolizes without making assumptions and assertions.


Sri Nirsargadatta Maharaji "Consciousness as such is the subtle counterpart of matter. Just as inertia and energy are attributes of matter, so does harmony manifest itself as consciousness. You may consider it in a way as a form of very subtle energy. Wherever matter organizes itself into a stable organism, consciousness appears spontaneously . With the destruction of the organism consciousness disappears.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


So in other words, we call stable organisms "consciousness". That's what I've been saying all along.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc
 


So in other words, we call stable organisms "consciousness". That's what I've been saying all along.

No that was not what was quoted.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 



Wherever matter organizes itself into a stable organism, consciousness appears spontaneously . With the destruction of the organism consciousness disappears.


When he sees a stable organism, what is he seeing? A stable organism. Consciousness never appears, only the stable organism does. If you have ever seen a birth or death, you have only seen the stable organism, and in death, the stable organism dying.

And I said "in other words".
edit on 22-1-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
so when you say collective consciousness you mean
un collective entropy reflected off of our id?

if we dig deep enough into our subconsciousness can we jump ship and rewire our auto pilot - super consciousness and thus slow down our heart beat pattern and increase certain functions of our pineal gland?

I think so

when we dream we do the real work of the universe.

time traveling, jumping dimensions, fixing holes in our ego.

in dreams is where real life exists

this other world, this awake world
only exists to give our brains electricity to keep dreaming
given by ingesting food and creating electricity with the pumps of our organs

the awake world is only for gathering food either by foraging or working

the awake world is about building a secure and comfortable home for our minds so they can safely go to work
in the real universe

while our bodies rest



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FinalCountdown
 





in dreams is where real life exists

this other world, this awake world
only exists to give our brains electricity to keep dreaming
given by ingesting food and creating electricity with the pumps of our organs



I think it is possible to be induced into a coma. I'm sure if you handed someone enough money, you could be put into a sleeping state for the rest of your life, fed through tubes, and have someone sponge bath you after you mess yourself, all while you live in your head.

Time to start saving.
edit on 23-1-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Why do you think you have a mind? How would you know you had a brain, or an arm, or toes if the mind is something separate from the body? I believe we are an organism capable of forming ideas, we don’t possess minds or consciousness. What do the ideas come out of when we speak? What do wee use to write them down? What do we share ideas with others with? What is it that dreams when it sleeps? The mind? An assumption.

The mind is an assumption? So it's all just the brain then...LUUUCYY- you have some splainin' to do!

Here, how about this, next time you're performing brain surgery see if you can find where all the thoughts and ideas are.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the paradox you've presented, but I will give it to you that you seem very secure in your assertions. Isn't it pretty well accepted within the scientific community that we do possess a mind? Maybe if you could explain why you think that we don't (and how you did it without a mind), I'd be most interested to know (using my mind). Really.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind (no pun) answering these questions as a guide line so I can better understand your views:

* How do you form an idea, think, or make decisions without a mind?
* How do you have subjective experience or perceive without consciousness?
* What is the essence of self? What commands the brain to do anything?
* Assuming you possess self-awareness, and the ability to be introspective- how do you do that without mind/consciousness?
* Close your eyes and visualize a blue cow- where is that image exactly and what is it made of? Is it real? Describe blue.
* What do you make of NDE's? (however bizarre, this is a well documented and scientifically researched phenomenon)
* Are you a robot? Why or why not?

AFAIK, it is generally well accepted that we all possess minds. And while we don't yet fully understand this phenomenon and it's relation to the physical body, it wouldn't be intellectually honest to assert that it doesn't exist without further study.

Based on my experiences and research I have to respectfully disagree with your view on things, as presented thus far in this thread. But of course it is only my opinion, and I am willing to consider yours and others (even if I don't accept them) because it's part of the quest of learning what the truth of the matter really is.

We experience this existence on our own, and together, at the same time; trying to figure out this strange world we find ourselves in. I share my experience with you, as you do with me. The majority of us think we do in fact have a mind and consciousness to be able to do this. But what is it "really"? Hell if we know, but a fair question. Right now it's just words we are using to describe a phenomenon that is beyond our current language or cognitive abilities. Or perhaps it's all just a figment of our imagination, whatever that is.

Either way I think it still requires a mind.
A body? Hmm, that's typically what we use to describe a dead person.
edit on 23-1-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc
 



Wherever matter organizes itself into a stable organism, consciousness appears spontaneously . With the destruction of the organism consciousness disappears.


When he sees a stable organism, what is he seeing? A stable organism. Consciousness never appears, only the stable organism does. If you have ever seen a birth or death, you have only seen the stable organism, and in death, the stable organism dying.

And I said "in other words".
edit on 22-1-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)

You can take words out of quote (context) and make them "in other words" .

How can I tell you what He is seeing ?
How can you tell me what I have seen?

P.S Awareness is not consciousness.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



The mind is an assumption? So it's all just the brain then...LUUUCYY- you have some splainin' to do!

I realize I am in an extreme minority. I’ll try my best to explain it, but like yourself and an uncountable amount of others, I will likely have to resort to assumption to arrive at any sort of conclusion. Just a warning.

Here, how about this, next time you're performing brain surgery see if you can find where all the thoughts and ideas are.


I’ll try to explain my reasoning as best I can:

Thought is something we do, not things we create. Thinking is an action.

To use your analogy: If a surgeon opens up a stomach, will he find something called “digestion”? Or would he find organs “digesting”? There’s a difference between “digestion” and “digesting”: one is a noun, one is a verb. One implies a thing, the other implies a thing performing an action. Now which will the surgeon find? A thing called “digestion”? Or a thing/things “digesting”?

What happens when I open up the skull? Will I find things called “thoughts”? Or will I find something “thinking”? We’ve never found “thoughts”, yet we can see something “thinking” just by looking at it. The answer is quite evident.

We don’t possess a person, place or thing called a “mind”—no such thing has ever been witnessed, hence one must assume in order to say we possess minds—we are simply performing the act of “minding”, for lack of a better term. Mind, as a noun, is an assumption made in abstracto, and has no existence in concrete reality.


I’m sorry, I just don't understand the paradox you've presented, but I will give it to you that you seem very secure in your assertions. Isn't it pretty well accepted within the scientific community that we do possess a mind? Maybe if you could explain why you think that we don't (and how you did it without a mind), I'd be most interested to know (using my mind). Really.


It’s really quite simple. Look in the mirror. Now do you see yourself or a mind? What is thinking, yourself? or that which you cannot see feel, smell, or hear? I don't see how an immaterial mind or consciousness can notice an itch or a smell or some sort of arousal being that a non-physical object or thing has nothing to notice with.


How do you form an idea, think, or make decisions without a mind?

The only difference between me and you is I don’t assume a mind. I think, not my mind. I make decisions, thoughts, and ideas with my entire being. You don’t?


How do you have subjective experience or perceive without consciousness?

Once again, I don’t assume that there is something other than myself experiencing or perceiving. I use my entire being.


What is the essence of self? What commands the brain to do anything?

The entire being. No need to shed my flesh to find an immaterial entity that is assumed to think and command.


Assuming you possess self-awareness, and the ability to be introspective- how do you do that without mind/consciousness?

I use the faculties and abilities of my entire being. I don’t feel the need to limit myself to non-physical, purely imaginative entities.


Close your eyes and visualize a blue cow- where is that image exactly and what is it made of? Is it real? Describe blue.

I will not pretend to know the answers to these questions. If you have never seen, heard, smelled or felt a mind, how do you know images are in there?


What do you make of NDE's? (however bizarre, this is a well documented and scientifically researched phenomenon)

The body is capable of many strange things.


Are you a robot? Why or why not?


I am a human being. Robots are made by human beings. This is self-evident, but I understand the correlation you are trying to make.


AFAIK, it is generally well accepted that we all possess minds. And while we don't yet fully understand this phenomenon and it's relation to the physical body, it wouldn't be intellectually honest to assert that it doesn't exist without further study.


I realize I stand alone in this idea, and I am quite comfortable about that. But I think my logic is sound. Here is the definition of mind:


mind |mīnd|
noun
1

the element
of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought:

The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think and feel, is that person himself, nothing else. How else are we able to be aware of the world and our experiences, to think and to feel? This is a serious question that maybe you could answer.

I am my mind, and I already have a name.


Based on my experiences and research I have to respectfully disagree with your view on things, as presented thus far in this thread. But of course it is only my opinion, and I am willing to consider yours and others (even if I don't accept them) because it's part of the quest of learning what the truth of the matter really is.

We experience this existence on our own, and together, at the same time; trying to figure out this strange world we find ourselves in. I share my experience with you, as you do with me. The majority of us think we do in fact have a mind and consciousness to be able to do this. But what is it "really"? Hell if we know, but a fair question. Right now it's just words we are using to describe a phenomenon that is beyond our current language or cognitive abilities. Or perhaps it's all just a figment of our imagination, whatever that is.


I really appreciate your views and your respect of mine. This is the kind of discourse between opposing views that I cherish. And it is such a rarity to find.



edit on 23-1-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


This is going to be a long post so please bare with me here.


Aphorism
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Thought is something we do, not things we create. Thinking is an action.

Actually, if I may- Thought (as a verb) is the action of creating thoughts, ideas, opinions etc (the nouns). We certainly create thoughts. So I will have to disagree with your assessment, simply on the grounds of it being incomplete.


To use your analogy: If a surgeon opens up a stomach, will he find something called “digestion”? Or would he find organs “digesting”? There’s a difference between “digestion” and “digesting”: one is a noun, one is a verb. One implies a thing, the other implies a thing performing an action. Now which will the surgeon find? A thing called “digestion”? Or a thing/things “digesting”?

I get what you're trying to say here but I'm not sure the analogy is accomplishing what you want. We may be able to see the results of digestion, the mechanical process, in progress. Ideas and thoughts are the results of thinking, but will never be things we can see, unless we consciously bring them into physical existence in some way. We don't idea an idea. We conjure ideas, and the mind is the "theatre" that allows us to visualize them, and ponder them.


What happens when I open up the skull? Will I find things called “thoughts”? Or will I find something “thinking”? We’ve never found “thoughts”, yet we can see something “thinking” just by looking at it. The answer is quite evident.

You won't find thoughts, that is correct. And I don't believe you can see a brain think either. But that doesn't mean thoughts are not being created by the act of thinking. Thoughts are, of course, intangible, yet we do possess them. You want to assert they are in the brain, fine, but where? When you take a snap shot of the Empire State Building with your eyes and store that image in your brain, what is physically making up that snapshot when you recall/visualize it at a later time? We won't find a photo album with a tiny little polaroid in there. Remember envisioning the blue cow? Where can I see that when I open up your brain? My point is if these images aren't in your mind, then where are they exactly in concrete reality?

You're logic would seem to suggest that thoughts or ideas don't exist.


We don’t possess a person, place or thing called a “mind”—no such thing has ever been witnessed, hence one must assume in order to say we possess minds—we are simply performing the act of “minding”, for lack of a better term. Mind, as a noun, is an assumption made in abstracto, and has no existence in concrete reality.

This view is too deeply rooted in materialism for my taste. "If we can't see it then it must not exist." Can you see gravity?


It’s really quite simple. Look in the mirror. Now do you see yourself or a mind? What is thinking, yourself? or that which you cannot see feel, smell, or hear? I don't see how an immaterial mind or consciousness can notice an itch or a smell or some sort of arousal being that a non-physical object or thing has nothing to notice with.

I see myself, in my mind. Where do you think the image of yourself in the mirror is being displayed in the first place? Hint: not in your eyes.


The only difference between me and you is I don’t assume a mind. I think, not my mind. I make decisions, thoughts, and ideas with my entire being. You don’t?

Maybe you can expound what it is you mean by "my entire being". It's a very broad concept, perhaps too broad for what we are discussing here. In the physical sense- You don't use your feet to think. Or your small intestine to make a decision. So the term "entire being" would seem to not apply then. And I'm fairly certain you're not talking about the metaphysical aspect of "being"


PE: How do you have subjective experience or perceive without consciousness?


A: Once again, I don’t assume that there is something other than myself experiencing or perceiving. I use my entire being.

This seems a bit evasive.


PE: What is the essence of self? What commands the brain to do anything?


A: The entire being. No need to shed my flesh to find an immaterial entity that is assumed to think and command.

Again, will need to understand your concept of "entire being"


PE: Assuming you possess self-awareness, and the ability to be introspective- how do you do that without mind/consciousness?


A: I use the faculties and abilities of my entire being. I don’t feel the need to limit myself to non-physical, purely imaginative entities.

What are the "faculties and abilities" that allow you to be self-aware? You don't feel the need to limit yourself to the non-physical(?), but you're limiting yourself to the physical.


PE: Close your eyes and visualize a blue cow- where is that image exactly and what is it made of? Is it real? Describe blue.


A: I will not pretend to know the answers to these questions. If you have never seen, heard, smelled or felt a mind, how do you know images are in there?

This seems like another cop out to me. Certainly you have memories of your past, don't you? Certainly they are not blank?
What is your subjective experience of the color red, or the taste of pizza? "Your being"?


I am my mind, and I already have a name

But you don't even think a mind exists, so how are you your mind? Your stomach is not your mind. So what exactly is "I" in this equation?


I really appreciate your views and your respect of mine. This is the kind of discourse between opposing views that I cherish. And it is such a rarity to find.

Likewise.
edit on 24-1-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Korzybski said 'consciousness' by itself was incomplete - it only has meaning when you specify what you are conscious of. In his theory, to be human is to be conscious of abstracting. Animals are conscious of their environments but they are not conscious of the fact that they are abstracting. This can only be known via our science of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. This is a quantum leap in terms of evolution.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

saneguy
Animals are conscious of their environments but they are not conscious of the fact that they are abstracting.


reply to post by saneguy
 


How do we know for sure that those animals that are known to be self-aware are not capable of abstracting? Like great apes, dolphins, & elephants for instance. Or even, the non-mammalian, magpie, which is considered one of the most intelligent animals in the world and is also known to be self-aware.

I wonder if this elephant knows what he is painting...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join