The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
The very fact that you can see this post and agree or disagree proves it. This is the starting point for non realism. Do any of you want to dispute the point that consciousness is relative?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Consciousness is Relative
- Thread starter The Reverend Bob
- Start date
Tao Te Ching 2 backs up what you say:
highlight snippet:
The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by.11 So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity.
Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.
There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.
When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other
Therefore the sages:
Manage the work of detached actions
Conduct the teaching of no words
They work with myriad things but do not control
They create but do not possess
They act but do not presume
They succeed but do not dwell on success
It is because they do not dwell on success
That it never goes away
So, what exactly do you mean about non-realism? Is it like Chuang Tzu section 2 :Making all things Equal?When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other
Therefore the sages:
Manage the work of detached actions
Conduct the teaching of no words
They work with myriad things but do not control
They create but do not possess
They act but do not presume
They succeed but do not dwell on success
It is because they do not dwell on success
That it never goes away
highlight snippet:
The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by.11 So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity.
Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.
There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Relative to what?
Skwim
Veteran Member
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
You.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Okay, . . . . . . . . then let me paraphrase you a bit from your OP:
"Do any of you want to dispute the point that consciousness is relative to Skwim?"
So all you people out there; Is consciousness relative to me or not? (Don't even ask me what this means.)
.
We Never Know
No Slack
Does consciousness come in different levels?
Do other species have consciousness but not on the same level as humans or is it limited to humans?
If say for example a bacteria will retreat from high heat, does it have consciousness?
Is consciousness like a 6th sense?
Is consciousness an inherited trait or an always exiting sense?
We Never Know
No Slack
Do the worms have consciousness to know they are in a can?
FWIW, in Buddhism, there are 6 base-sense (pattern recognition) consciousnesses: (the sensory consciousnesses being 6 of eight consciousnesses)
- eye consciousness/vision sensing
- hear consciousness/auditory sensing
- body consciousness/tactile sensing
- nose consciousness/olfactory sensing
- tongue consciousness/tasting
- conceptual consciousness/the sensing of ideas and abstracts
We Never Know
No Slack
Why do you feel you have to cut my post? If you don't want to answer the other, that's fine but why cut my post?
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
I wonder what worms are actually aware of? What information from the environment do they need to survive?
Possibly "awareness" is a more useful word here, since it's more general. You could say that all biological organisms have some awareness of their environment, with consciousness as a higher-level awareness.
Well, the post wasn't addressed to me, so I didn't want to put words in the OP's mouth, but I did want to bring up the sensing of ideas/conceptual consciousness as one type of sense-base media.
Relative to oneself or relative to another self or relative to self in general?
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
I think, therefore I am?
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
I am another point of you.
Bliss is pointless.
“I wish I was in heaven sittin’ down” (R L Burnside)
Neutral Name
Active Member
I once studied consciousness. There are like 20 types. So, one needs to state which type. Are we awake or asleep? Is life a dream? Are we sane or insane, lying in a bed somewhere unconscious, in touch with the supernatural or scientifically overly aware of things coming into our subconscious minds or of subliminal messages, etc.? It can get really deep.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Sure. You could say that we're always conscious OF something, which could include thoughts, moods etc. Then there's the question of why we're conscious of one thing rather than another at any one time, where our attention is drawn.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
Have you ever read Dr John Lilly ? He got really deep.
The thing that inspired me about Lilly was that he decided to explore the nature of consciousness experientially, which yields very different results to thinking about it, whether logically or otherwise.
“ Exploration of human consciousness
In the early 1960s, Lilly was introduced to psychedelic drugs such as LSD and (later) ketamine[19] and began a series of experiments in which he ingested a psychedelic drug either in an isolation tank or in the company of dolphins. These events are described in his books Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments and The Center of the Cyclone, both published in 1972. Following advice from Ram Dass, Lilly studied Patanjali's system of yoga (finding I. K. Taimni's Science of Yoga, a modernized interpretation of the Sanskrit text, most suited to his goals). He also paid special attention to self-enquiry meditation advocated by Ramana Maharshi, and reformulated the principles of this exercise with reference to his human biocomputer paradigm (described in Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments and The Center of the Cyclone).
Lilly later traveled to Chile and trained with the spiritual leader Oscar Ichazo (whose attitude to metaphysical consciousness exploration Lilly characterized as "empirical" in his book The Center of the Cyclone). Lilly claimed to have achieved the maximum degree of satori-samādhi consciousness during his training.[citation needed]
Lilly's maxim: "In the province of the mind what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experimentally and experientially. When so found these limits turn out to be further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind there are no limits. However, in the province of the body there are definite limits not to be transcended."[20] “