Man vs. Consciousness

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by TheomExperience

 

How deep would a bullet go?

I seems obvious that is to deep for you.

In relation to an object being inanimate how do you define it is animate???

Or are you implying that at some level inanimate objects are somehow also animate??

Ok perhaps you would like to explain that, or is that to deep for you?

edit on 5-8-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

Like a rock that would appear to just be solid with no apparent individual movement, or a bullet as you suggest.
Can be applied with a higher awareness to achieve animate tasks.
A bullet can be used with a gun, with intention to be projected through an individual killing them. The chain of events set in motion all because of an inanimate object or objects combined with self awareness.

In all this the bullet is just a bullet but without the bullet the whole chain of events does not happen. The bullet has a history but it is forgotten by the self aware aspect which takes the responsibility.
Lots of bullets have lots of stories really, just like lots of rocks, some even turned into huge blocks to form great monuments withstanding the test of time to tell a story.

reply to post by TheomExperience


But without the intervention of consciousness non of those objects would exist. So hence the argument that suggesting in any way that man vs. consciousness can be construed as logical is irrelevant.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by TheomExperience

 

But without the intervention of consciousness non of those objects would exist. So hence the argument that suggesting in any way that man vs. consciousness can be construed as logical is irrelevant.

Any thoughts?

I see everything as consciousness. The label to describe all things consisting off and connected too via a subconscious energy field of sorts (that is just how i see it in my construct). Anything i can observe is conscious to me in that sense because it is what i make of it while i am observing it.

You are correct, without consciousness nothing exists so the argument would seem illogical or irrelevant depending on the individuals own understanding and interpretation of the word as well as the context in which it was delivered.

Awareness i would say is the reason these objects or anything exists, people being able to observe and imagine things to be more than they are. It is a paradox because if no one was here to talk about it, remember it or imagine it, then it cant be verified to actually exist.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

A growing superstition, one that may once again satisfy man's religious needs. Notice the effect "consciousness" has on David Lynch and the listeners to his talk.

How did this video effect you?
Here is the full length version.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Here is a nice talk about 'consciousness'.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by TheomExperience

 

I can accept that outlook. It is true that exploring such matters could lead to different discoveries.

But if exploring consciousness amounts to no more than exploring the processes of the body, maybe its time to renounce our explanations of "consciousness" and refine our descriptions of the body. If I was to predict the outcome, I would argue biologists might have the final say.

edit on 4-8-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: spelling

I think its important to realise that Man is actually a part of the environment, so by just focussing on the biology of the body, in a way negates the environment that man is a part of. You can describe the biology of man only in relation to the environment. As in the biological structure needs oxygen and food and water to exist. These things are not created by the biological structure of man they are created by the atmosphere and conditions of the earth man comes from.

So if we are going to look solely at the nature of conscience, studying mans biology is not enough. It does not provide the holistic explanation between mans relationship with the rest of his/her environment.

This is another great video about pure consciousness.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Unity_99

 

One is the body suit and the other part is You.

I don't think they can be separated. I have argued that there is no "you", what you might call consciousness, unless the body is also included. There simply isn't any way to separate the two being that they are one and the same.

- i understand your point LM

yet it aint true

...i understánd why you desire to keep "consciousness" controllable by you,
since it is Scarey to have those huge things nót under one s own control
but the fact is, it is Not under your rule

..there s so many different types of consciousness -
your physical awareness [ being aware of your physical senses and mind]
your "I " consciousness [people can Die to their physical desires]
God consciousness - an amazing, tsunami of Sweet Awareness lovingly Invading you
etc

...and yóu [ your soul] will Talk and Behave,
according to the type of Consciousness, she is under.

When you say "we have no way of invéstigating them" is very true
since its complicated to lift up the rug you are standing on

You re completely Entitled to your stance
...but the Dimensions , which are abóve you, really do not take a stance like this too seriously

kind regards,

We will never know what our existence is.

We will never be able to see beyond the invisible wall that separates our mind from our body, because it is the purest wall ever created.

I am the solipsistic being of my Universe.

I am creating this world in my mind, because I love to experience.

Science and popular opinion will always say another thing, because I need challenge in my life.

This does not matter to me, because I re-discovered my solipsistic core in this segment of Infinity.

When that happened, I was awoken again, and slipped further into me.

I am my own existence.

I think you have the most artistically developed and professional style on ATS. Good job.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Good OP. Well written and articulate. I regret not being able to respond in kind.

I do have the time, however, to state for the record, that consciousness is indeed not an entity. Only those clinging to a subjective metaphysic would still continue to argue this bronze-age notion. Consciousness is an attribute. As such, it works in conjunction with our sense modalities to give us the appropriate information for knowing our reality in the manner in which we do.

For those who would like to belabour the point of consciousness being able to be in a state of "unawareness", I would ask, as I almost always do without receiving satisfactory answers, how they would solve "Divine Lonesomeness".

In Humanity,
Daniel

reply to post by Kashai

Something is and object that energy can be derived from. I mean given one can generate fusion from hydrogen that is something.

Energy can be extracted from any element that makes it something.

You are implying that one should ignore the standard model, why???

Any thoughts?

Is that your theory? Energy is consciousness? I'll have to add that one to the list.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Although I enjoy his passion for creativity and creation, I think that Lynch was misguided on what causes his creativity. He attributes it to "consciousness" and not himself. Although he very briefly says "consciousness is the self", it sounded like he didn't even feel like expounding on that fact, and chose to do the whole mystical marketing technique by speaking abstractly, thereby misleading his whole audience to believe there is some sort of kernel of mystical power seated somewhere inside of them, which has never been the case.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

I think its important to realise that Man is actually a part of the environment, so by just focussing on the biology of the body, in a way negates the environment that man is a part of. You can describe the biology of man only in relation to the environment. As in the biological structure needs oxygen and food and water to exist. These things are not created by the biological structure of man they are created by the atmosphere and conditions of the earth man comes from.

So if we are going to look solely at the nature of conscience, studying mans biology is not enough. It does not provide the holistic explanation between mans relationship with the rest of his/her environment

I have to agree. Good objection.

reply to post by Lone12

..there s so many different types of consciousness -
your physical awareness [ being aware of your physical senses and mind]
your "I " consciousness [people can Die to their physical desires]
God consciousness - an amazing, tsunami of Sweet Awareness lovingly Invading you
etc

You forgot to add cheese consciousness and tennis consciousness. You don't even know what a "consciousness" is, yet you can point out many of them.

"Tsunami of sweet awareness?" That means absolutely nothing. God consciousness? Nothing. "I" consciousness? Nothing.

reply to post by Unrealised

I am creating this world in my mind, because I love to experience.

Actually, it would be more truthful to say the world is creating the world in your mind. Without exterior sensual data, you, nor anyone, would be creating anything. In order to experience something, there must be something to experience.

Solipsism is one of the least thought out philosophical view that gives too much power to a somewhat weak human brain.

reply to post by darkbake

I think you have the most artistically developed and professional style on ATS. Good job.

You're too kind. I could've spent more time refining it in my mind but I'm glad you see some substance in it.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

This is another great video about pure consciousness.

As opposed to impure consciousness? Seriously, itsknowagain, there is no idea what it is, there cannot therefor be different kinds of it.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


As always, LesMis, a deliciously thought-provoking argument. I've always enjoyed the Moebius-esque flavor of your musings and your thoroughly brusque, straightforward approach to the oft-obscured heart of any philosophical matter. Perhaps your intimate history with philosophy has melded with your current clinical methodology to form the perfect balance for investigative acuity.

But I digress. Time to wade into the murky thickets of rhetoric...

I think a good question worth answering is "What are we investigating when we we are looking for consciousness?"

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.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

This is another great video about pure consciousness.

As opposed to impure consciousness? Seriously, itsknowagain, there is no idea what it is, there cannot therefor be different kinds of it.

Seriously, Les miserable, is this even English?^^

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.