Consciousness

[atanu]

Intelligence is a subjective label used from an objective perspective, to describe some intrinsic or extrinsic level of complexity that is expressed or inferred by an organism. It is this inferred quality that we call intelligence. Again, the term is relative and irrelevant. Ask Bob the builder if a roach or a blood cell is intelligent. Do you think he will give the same answer as an roach entomologist or a hematologist? Intelligence, like beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Please describe how you know that you are intelligent(not complex)? You can't because it is not a subjective perspective. But ask someone else, and you'll get an answer. Are you now trying to equivocate consciousness with intelligence? Intelligence is and intrinsic value that others see in you(objective perspective). Consciousness is an intrinsic state of mind, that only you see within yourself(subjective perspective). They may not be mutually exclusive since both can be objectively inferred. Do you think that single celled organisms are consciously aware of itself, or it intelligence?

Do you mean to say that because "I am" is subjective, it is not true?

On the contrary, it is self evident and does not require an external proof.

For those of us who do know about quantum entanglement, and quantum non-locality between space and polarized photons, they would also know that experiments suggest another unknown theory at work.

Which theory?

It is difficult for me to address your truth claims, when you shroud them in your own fallacy-riddled logic, but I'll try. I'd like to think of myself as logical and simple. When I hear such obtuse and convoluted logic.

Which truth claims?

It is the mind(a process of the brain) that has 3 states of awareness(not discernment). Only 10% of the mind is devoted to being consciously aware of logic, reason, the environment, self-awareness, and the position of the body in space-time. Up to 60% of the mind is devoted to the sub-conscious task of communicating with the conscious mind. Rote knowledge, language, facts, routines, and all compartmentalized stored data(like RAM), are totally accessible to the conscious mind. Up to 40% of the mind is devoted to the unconscious state. This includes control of our internal metabolism, vegetative functions, our deepest and innermost emotions and feelings(basically the hard drive's data base). This is the level that defines self, and is controlled and expressed by our genes. My belief is that we were never meant to gain access to our unconscious mind because of the natural law of compensation(using more of one will lessen the other). If a reason did exist for direct control of our unconscious mind, it would evolve naturally.

This is all theory. "I am" awareness is not theory.

My tag is "truly enlightened". It is just a tag.This doesn't mean that I am. So spare me your straw man, or an excuse to posit your unscientific pseudo-sophistry.

May be. But it is misleading. And you cannot blame me of straw man etc.

What is missing from a dead body, is life. Anything else is just your vivid imagination.

Exactly. What is life if not awareness and what is awareness if not life?

What am I imagining?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Do you mean to say that because "I am" is subjective, it is not true?

On the contrary, it is self evident and does not require an external proof.




Which theory?



Which truth claims?



This is all theory. "I am" awareness is not theory.



May be. But it is misleading. And you cannot blame me of straw man etc.



Exactly. What is life if not awareness and what is awareness if not life?

What am I imagining?

There is no excuse for using a straw man argument. It is intellectually dishonest. A enlightened person should focus only on responding to what is said, and not what my tag is. There is only ONE state of consciousness, but THREE states of the mind. A proper analogy using water would be water(mind), and the three states(there are actually 5) of water. My point was, without the physical brain, there is no mind. Without the mind, there is no consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no subjective "I am" perspective. Unless you can "mind meld" with another being, or can see your 4 dimensional self from outside of yourself, consciousness or the "I am", will always be in the subjective perspective. Always. Maybe you can prove OBJECTIVELY any exception to this rule? Or, how it is self-evident, other than you just asserting that it is? We will always be trapped within our own perspective, therefore our own reality. Why? Because we only have our own senses, and not anyone else's. We can only receive sensory input, not send or share sensory input.

Do you really believe that an organism without a brain is self aware(not relatively intelligent)? Prove it. What objective evidence can you present to support your positisiton?

Let's not insult either of our intelligence, by trying to redefine what life is. We both know that there is more to life than being the conscious "I am" perspective. Just ask those that are not conscious, in a coma, or not near-death. The lack of consciousness does not equate to not being alive. Although I do agree that being conscious is evidence for being alive("Cognito Ergo Sum") in the physical and biological sense. Just stating that "What is life if not awareness and what is awareness if not life?", implies that life and awareness are mutually inclusive. This is a fallacy of presumption(excluded middle, false dilemma). This is what takes a vivid imagination.


Regarding your quantum question. Do you know what "unknown", and "suggests" mean? If you only could observe the results of an experiment, would that not suggest a cause(common sense) for the results? We just don't know for certain what the cause is. Do you know why quantum entanglement exists? Can you explain why quantum particles behave the way they do? I didn't think so. But a Theory would.

Maybe you can answer me this. Does our conscious awareness(or the I am perspective), depend on the ability of an evolved language to conceptualize thought? Also, why didn't our early ancestors have this same ability? how did this ability evolve? Could it be that survival was a higher priority? Finally, are the statements you are making TRUTH claims, or just your personal opinion?

 

[godnotgod]

Not a very clear discussion, though.

Well, the primary point of that discussion is that Brahman does not 'become' the world, and the jiva does not 'become' Brahman. The world and the jiva already ARE Brahman, just as the gold chain already is and always was, gold. This argument is exactly the same argument found in the Zen koan: 'If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!'. IOW, if you see something in your mind 'becoming' the Buddha, it is an illusion. We already are in immediate possession of Buddha nature, but we pretend that we are not That, as a consequence of the divine nature playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek, hiding within all forms, and pretending that those forms represent reality.

 

[godnotgod]

I find it quite interesting that consciousness is associated with space in the Tibetan system. In order to discern the "emptiness" of the mountain, one must "make space" or "separate" the different components and causal reasons for the mountain having come to be a mountain.

Oh, it is far more than merely being 'interesting'; it is very, very compelling, because now you have touched upon another phase in the exploration of consciousness, and that is to suggest that Space is Consciousness itself, something the East has known for centuries. But to get any glimpse of this as being true, the mind must be made clear, and 'Space' no longer seen as an object, or as a dimension of height, width, and depth, because it, like Consciousness, cannot be an object of Consciousness, which, as Planck has suggested, one cannot 'get behind' it. Space is Infinite, as Consciousness is.

"You see the hedge against the background of the hills;
you see the hills against the background of the sky;
but you see the sky against the background of Consciousness"

(A Hindu trying to explain how he sees the world to an Englishman)

 

[godnotgod]

What is missing from a dead body, is life. Anything else is just your vivid imagination.

The 'dead' body is teeming with life: living macrophages and other bacteria are busy breaking almost every part of it down.

When we are unconscious, we are not aware that we are. Were you asleep or unconscious in 4 billion BC? Maybe it is just a logical deduction that we were asleep before we awake. Going through the different states of the mind, is not as yet fully understood. Since all states of the mind depend on an organic brain, the controls must also be organic. Don

No, not necessarily. During higher levels of meditation, for example, it is the organic brain that responds to meditative states, and begins to churn out large amounts of Alpha waves. In fact, scientific studies now have shown that long-time meditators actually grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-meditators. Consciousness grows the brain.

When you are asleep, and the baby cries, or someone calls to you because there is a fire or some other calamity, you awaken. Isn't consciousness the reason you awaken from an 'unconscious' state?

 

[crossfire]

Oh, it is far more than merely being 'interesting'; it is very, very compelling, because now you have touched upon another phase in the exploration of consciousness, and that is to suggest that Space is Consciousness itself, something the East has known for centuries. But to get any glimpse of this as being true, the mind must be made clear, and 'Space' no longer seen as an object, or as a dimension of height, width, and depth, because it, like Consciousness, cannot be an object of Consciousness, which, as Planck has suggested, one cannot 'get behind' it. Space is Infinite, as Consciousness is.

"You see the hedge against the background of the hills;
you see the hills against the background of the sky;
but you see the sky against the background of Consciousness"

(A Hindu trying to explain how he sees the world to an Englishman)

Which goes right back to my earlier question:

Ahh, but can consciousness exist without space-time? (Time to tell me your work around regarding the void!)



Take your time.

 

[godnotgod]

Which goes right back to my earlier question:

ie: 'can consciousness exist without space-time?'

There is the concept of space-time, to which consciousness is not bound, and there is the experience of 'space', which is none other than the experience of consciousness. It is the conditioned mind that lives inside of space-time, and is therefore not yet free. The conditioned mind sees things in terms of Time, Space, and Causation, and is therefore living in the dead past or the non-existent future; the awakened mind is free of these fetters. It is alive in this timeless present moment, where there is no time or space as defined by the rational mind. Yeshua was reflecting this very state of awakened consciousness when he said: 'Before Abraham was, I Am'.

Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, said: 'Yoga (ie; divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind'. This means that the subject/object split of the rational mind has merged; that space as an object of the mind dissolves into pure consciousness; where 'Tat tvam asi' becomes a reality.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The 'dead' body is teeming with life: living macrophages and other bacteria are busy breaking almost every part of it down.



No, not necessarily. During higher levels of meditation, for example, it is the organic brain that responds to meditative states, and begins to churn out large amounts of Alpha waves. In fact, scientific studies now have shown that long-time meditators actually grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-meditators. Consciousness grows the brain.

When you are asleep, and the baby cries, or someone calls to you because there is a fire or some other calamity, you awaken. Isn't consciousness the reason you awaken from an 'unconscious' state?

I get it.

What is missing from a dead body compared to a living body is NOT LIFE. It is because a dead body is, "...teeming with life: living macrophages and other bacteria are busy breaking almost every part of it down". No obvious fallacy here!

There is scientific proof that meditation will make the cerebral cortex(there's only one) thicker. This is hard to believe since up to 49% of the cortical neuron are lost by the age of 75. Cerebral Cortex . Conclusion, it is how we use our consciousness that determines the thickness of our cerebral cortex, not our genes. Simply closing your eyes will churn out alpha waves. What is the connection that causes new growth in the cerebral cortex?

That all of the 7 people that died in home fires each day(US), must not of had babies to wake up their conscious mind(gas, arson, smoking in bed, etc.). Obviously being hard-wired by evolution, has nothing to do with being alerted by the baby screaming.

.

 

[crossfire]

ie: 'can consciousness exist without space-time?'

There is the concept of space-time, to which consciousness is not bound, and there is the experience of 'space', which is none other than the experience of consciousness. It is the conditioned mind that lives inside of space-time, and is therefore not yet free. The conditioned mind sees things in terms of Time, Space, and Causation, and is therefore living in the dead past or the non-existent future; the awakened mind is free of these fetters. It is alive in this timeless present moment, where there is no time or space as defined by the rational mind. Yeshua was reflecting this very state of awakened consciousness when he said: 'Before Abraham was, I Am'.

Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, said: 'Yoga (ie; divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind'. This means that the subject/object split of the rational mind has merged; that space as an object of the mind dissolves into pure consciousness; where 'Tat tvam asi' becomes a reality.

Space separates objects, which allows for discernment between them.

 

[godnotgod]

Space separates objects, which allows for discernment between them.

Actually, space connects objects.

Any 'separation' exists only in the mind.

 

[crossfire]

Actually, space connects objects.

Any 'separation' exists only in the mind.

Sure, everything is interconnected, and can interact with each other. Space provides room for interaction. Yes, I do agree that separation exists within the mind, but not only within the mind. For instance, one object might be between a star and another object, and block the light from the star from shining on the further object.

 

[atanu]

Well, the primary point of that discussion is that Brahman does not 'become' the world, and the jiva does not 'become' Brahman. ..

We have discussed this earlier without a resolution.

The problem is that while being in the phenomenal state (we are after all arguing as different egos), we cannot simply wish away the fact that ego-s need the illumination. It is futile and wrong to say that there is no 'wave' on the sea. Although all waves are fundamentally the sea, yet a single wave has attributes that differentiate it from other waves and also from the sea.

 

[atanu]

T....My point was, without the physical brain, there is no mind. Without the mind, there is no consciousness. ...

This has been dealt with earlier in a post linked below. Without consciousness you would not see a body or a brain. In deep sleep and dream states the objects are not of same nature as of waking nature. I have no need to argue or debate. I am often pleasured when people see that it is consciousness that takes on shapes and the shapes are of different texture in different states of existence: waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. If you do not see this, it is okay.

I had answered your queries and also put forth some questions for you. I fully well know that no one can ever force you to see that your definition of consciousness is limited to your waking state awareness. You do even have the willingness to even consider the scientific papers that I linked. These papers do show that awareness is not dependent on a brain.

That awareness is dependent on a physical mass of tissue is a notion that is as anthropomorphic as imagining god to be a man or a woman.


I am again linking the post that you may reconsider if you so desire. Else just let it pass.

Consciousness

 

[godnotgod]

We have discussed this earlier without a resolution.

The problem is that while being in the phenomenal state (we are after all arguing as different egos), we cannot simply wish away the fact that ego-s need the illumination. It is futile and wrong to say that there is no 'wave' on the sea. Although all waves are fundamentally the sea, yet a single wave has attributes that differentiate it from other waves and also from the sea. A wave ends to look inward and abide there to know that it is the sea. Same with us.

....only to realize that the wave is none other than the sea itself, playing itself as the wave. Doh!...same with us...ha ha..

'attributes' are merely froth on the surface of the deep, deep sea. I am afraid, my dear atanu, that you are still attached to, and hypnotized by form and the play of maya into believing it to be reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, everything is interconnected, and can interact with each other. Space provides room for interaction. Yes, I do agree that separation exists within the mind, but not only within the mind. For instance, one object might be between a star and another object, and block the light from the star from shining on the further object.

Connectivity and oneness do not depend on perception. Though the object you mention cannot be seen, space still exists between the two objects. We already know via Alain Aspect's experiment with entanglement, that two photons can be miles apart and still exhibit synched and 'spooky action at a distance'. Space is the world of the invisible and the silent. Everything is here, and none of it is separate from the whole in any way.

 

[crossfire]

Connectivity and oneness do not depend on perception. Though the object you mention cannot be seen, space still exists between the two objects. We already know via Alain Aspect's experiment with entanglement, that two photons can be miles apart and still exhibit synched and 'spooky action at a distance'. Space is the world of the invisible and the silent. Everything is here, and none of it is separate from the whole in any way.

Well, if something was completely separate from everything, we wouldn't be able to perceive it through sensory information. Likewise, if everything was so compressed together in a chaotic tangle, we wouldn't be able to discern it.

 

[atanu]

..... I am afraid, my dear atanu, that you are still attached to, and hypnotized by form and the play of maya into believing it to be reality.

Ha. Ha. Still seeing unenlightened 'others'?

Yes, I do not claim to be established in the knowledge that I am Brahman. Your pointing my ignorant status only helps to prove that jiva-s need illumination and the Vedic saying "By knowing brahman jiva becomes brahman".

But, OTOH, you affirm that you dwell in duality only, since you always see others separate from you that are hypnotised and are attached. Please preach what you actually see.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You are right, it is pointless arguing about what is scientifically and intuitively obvious. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that if single-celled organisms can demonstrate intelligence or consciousness without a physical brain, that humans can also have a consciousness without a physical brain. This is an absurd and weird conclusion. Especially, since it can be so easily proven false(chemically induced coma, damage to the brain, disease, etc.).

I'm afraid that I'm only human, limited by my human senses, interpreted by my human brain, that produces my human consciousness, that allows me to navigate through my subjective reality. Therefore, my consciousness can be trusted as having a practical value. If you are suggesting that the conscious mind can access the unconscious mind, then some experiments have demonstrated that this is possible(control of BP). If you're suggesting that the conscious mind can also access different states of reality, or higher planes of knowledge and understanding, or can experience things that are far beyond the limitations of our senses, then evidence is essential. Otherwise, you are just another cultist trying to manipulate science and logic to fit your belief.

The difference between us, is that I am aware of the scientific reasons why textures seem different in different states of mind. I am aware of why consciousness is just one process of the brain, and how and why the brain has evolved the way it has. I don't need to created a new vocabulary(foreign at that), or fallacy-riddled logic to support my claims. Knowledge is always the cure for ignorance. Without knowledge there is only belief. If even one of your ideas are true, why not submit your ideas for peer review?

I am the first to admit that I may be wrong. Maybe there is an untapped existential reservoir, that can be accessed only through some form of introspection. People certainly have a right to believe in whatever helps them to sleep at night. But lets not use science to support it, because it doesn't, no matter how much you manipulate the facts to fit. We're done here.

 

[atanu]

... It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that if single-celled organisms can demonstrate intelligence or consciousness without a physical brain, that humans can also have a consciousness without a physical brain. This is an absurd and weird conclusion. Especially, since it can be so easily proven false(chemically induced coma, damage to the brain, disease, etc.).

Consciousness is not linked with physicality. Since in non physical dream objects too 'consciousness' is effective. Furthermore, I am not at all talking only of consciousness of human brain kind (this is intellect and not consciousness, which is the substratum and links sense of "I" through states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping).

...

I am the first to admit that I may be wrong. Maybe there is an untapped existential reservoir, that can be accessed only through some form of introspection. People certainly have a right to believe in whatever helps them to sleep at night. But lets not use science to support it, because it doesn't, no matter how much you manipulate the facts to fit. We're done here.

I may be wrong to a greater extent.

But my meditation experiences (and of many others) points to the understanding that consciousness is not equal to 'intellect'. Experience of consciousness that links the states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping, cannot be conveyed to you just as I cannot exactly tell you how it feels to eat a mango or experience an orgasm. You will need to experience that yourself, if you so desire.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Consciousness is not linked with physicality. Since in non physical dream objects too 'consciousness' is effective. Furthermore, I am not at all talking only of consciousness of human brain kind (this is intellect and not consciousness, which is the substratum and links sense of "I" through states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping).

...



I may be wrong to a greater extent.

But my meditation experiences (and of many others) points to the understanding that consciousness is not equal to 'intellect'. Experience of consciousness that links the states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping, cannot be conveyed to you just as I cannot exactly tell you how it feels to eat a Mango or experience an orgasm. You will need to experience that yourself, if you so desire.

Please stop insulting my intelligence. NO ONE is claiming that consciousness is a physical entity. That would be insane. I simply know that a dimensionless consciousness can't exist without a functioning brain. I am also NOT equating intelligence with consciousness. The former is an objective label representing how we use the knowledge gained in our conscious state. The latter is the subjective experience that is a composite representation of our sense organs, depicting our reality. Not sure I understand you. We are not conscious of our physical brain(like arms and legs), because there aren't any inputs to sensory areas coming from "brain activity", and for very good reasons. Since you are now saying that you are not talking about the conscious state of the mind, then I have no idea what you are talking about. And, you certainly haven't demonstrated the existence of this "substratum" that links the sense of "I" with dreaming, waking or sleeping.

Of course you can describe what it feels like to do the things you mentioned. Since we all have the same kind of senses, anything that is sensory related(externally generated) can be easily explained. What you are talking about are things that are internally generated(dreams, consciousness, sleeping), which can only be experienced subjectively. My dreams are very vivid and elaborate. So much so, that I try to manipulate them to bring something back. But in the end, it is only a dream, no matter what I want it to be.