Consciousness

[allfoak]

I think this is the position of David Chalmers. But I think that a better understanding will be based on "what it is like to be a center of narrative gravity" (Daniel Dennett). Given that the medium for our understanding of consciousness is language and that who we are is also a word (name) in that language, we are positing who we are in terms of the same medium for understanding who we are and not from any privileged objective distance. This strange loop (Douglas Hofstadter) plays tricks on our attempts to use the medium in which we are trying to understand the medium. This stickiness seems like it could be "a thing" but it is not. It is just a trick we are enmeshed in and that we are identified with. But not just a trick, for it is our very selves!

It doesn't seem necessary to understand consciousness, other than it being fundamental.
Once this is grasped we can then determine our own need by using pure consciousness as the model on which we run our mortal lives, with the knowledge that our mortal lives are the catalyst for the expansion of our eternal soul.
This knowledge is also useful for understanding our existence on every plane through the use of the law of correspondence.
It is actually knowledge that is needed to grow. Without it we end up becoming stagnant.

 

[allfoak]

My only quibble with this is if it is so obvious then why isn't the idea mainstream?

For the record, I do believe that "consciousness" precipitates matter but wouldn't try to argue the point due to Planck's own words, "We cannot get behind consciousness." So, any further explanation is somewhat moot.

We cannot get behind consciousness but we can through the use of this knowledge and reas on understand many things that are otherwise left a mystery.
The only reason I can surmisevfor not allowing this knowledge to be tested is because it is beyond the boundaries that science has erected.

 

[Fool]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

God said; "OM".

https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/135/0


http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/763034/1/mcfadden_JCS_2013(a).pdf


matter is not a fundamental of the universe. electricity is. consciousness is electrical impulses.



https://io9.gizmodo.com/5851828/10-things-an-electromagnetic-field-can-do-to-your-brain

 

[allfoak]

The more we learn, the more we think consciousness is an incident of thought, not central to it.

Perhaps it is the learning process that is the problem rather than the concept being the issue.
Mystics learn through experience.
Once one experiences the reality of oneness and comes to know that consciousness is fundamental, all the chatter that is passed off as science makes little difference.

 

[ChristineM]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

There is a view that life and consciousness are one and the same thing

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view

 

[dfnj]

I vote no. Consciousness is a product of certain types if complexity. Brains are sufficiently complex.

Language is an abstraction of reality. Your words may sound good but in reality I'm not so sure you view is a good one.

Feedback loops are really strange creatures. And the way quantum states are realized is very strange. Put the two together where observer and what is observed are the same thing then the realized quantum states might be the edge were consciousness becomes awareness. If you ever look in the mirror, in the black part of your eye's pupil you will see your face. Like two opposing mirrors in infinite regression, it's not clear how deep in reality our experience needs to go in order to have anything meaningful be experienced. As I said, the feedback loops are weird. We are made of the very thing we are experiencing. Whatever IT is that decides how a quantum state gets realized once observed seems more like spirit than mechanism. Reality has a certain bias towards how it is observed. Language is full of limitations and is pretty much a delusion on every level.

 

[Willamena]

Are all things derived from consciousness?

...Whether they are created in the mind or otherwise.

If, by 'things,' you include things not "derived by consciousness," then your question is answered before it was asked.

 

[blü 2]

Perhaps it is the learning process that is the problem rather than the concept being the issue.
Mystics learn through experience.

Or perhaps the definition of 'consciousness' is the problem.

Once one experiences the reality of oneness and comes to know that consciousness is fundamental, all the chatter that is passed off as science makes little difference.

>Here's< a study on the brain activity underlying meditation. It's from 2011. There's more recent research than that, if you're interested in what's true in reality. If you wish only for the subjective experience of particular brain states, that won't interest you, of course.

 

[allfoak]

There is a view that life and consciousness are one and the same thing

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view

I am familiar with this view.
While there is a lot to be learned from that perspective it seems to only be half of the story.
From one perspective there seems to be no separation but then we are communicating through what seems to be a a separation of consciousness.
So while it is true that it is all connected and one in nature, there seems to be from our perspective a lot of work to do to make that a reality in our lives today.

 

[allfoak]

If, by 'things,' you include things not "derived by consciousness," then your question is answered before it was asked.

If consciousness is fundamental then all "things" must come from this as it is the only substantial reality that can be perceived.

 

[allfoak]

Or perhaps the definition of 'consciousness' is the problem.
>Here's< a study on the brain activity underlying meditation. It's from 2011. There's more recent research than that, if you're interested in what's true in reality. If you wish only for the subjective experience of particular brain states, that won't interest you, of course.

Consciousness cannot be defined.
Do not think that because something is labeled "subjective" it is any less real than what is considered "objective" or"material".

 

[ChristineM]

I am familiar with this view.
While there is a lot to be learned from that perspective it seems to only be half of the story.
From one perspective there seems to be no separation but then we are communicating through what seems to be a a separation of consciousness.
So while it is true that it is all connected and one in nature, there seems to be from our perspective a lot of work to do to make that a reality in our lives today.

Consciousness is a concept that is not (yet) fully understood.

 

[Willamena]

If consciousness is fundamental then all "things" must come from this as it is the only substantial reality that can be perceived.

Are you asking, then, what is the nature of "substantial reality?" Is consciousness a thing-in-itself?

The best answer is that there are no things-in-themselves. Reality is not any thing, hence the world needs no fundamental substance. Any that we supply is just that, one that we have supplied it.

 

[sealchan]

Are you asking, then, what is the nature of "substantial reality?" Is consciousness a thing-in-itself?

The best answer is that there are no things-in-themselves. Reality is not any thing, hence the world needs no fundamental substance. Any that we supply is just that, one that we have supplied it.

I like to feed my own reification beastie (running rampant here) the thought, "is there any more mystery as to why anything exists than there would be if nothing existed?" We make being and awareness of being special as if it were something far and above all other things. There is mystery in the nature of our awareness and the source of all that we experience. But it is no more special or mysterious than if none of it ever existed. This, to me, is the fundamental mystery of creation.

As a mystic I enjoy the contemplation of mystery and its use in fictional works to inspire. But mystery is not to be made "real"...it is a door that is open for us to "walk through". It is a signpost of future possibility without holding a map of the way. It is a source of inner psychic energy that we need to draw from to have the full force of our psychological vitality.

 

[allfoak]

Consciousness is a concept that is not (yet) fully understood.

I see.

 

[David T]

Perhaps it is that you do not understand it well enough yet.
Perhaps it is necessary to stop living in a world of fantasy?

there is this park called nature ya out to get out and try it sometime. It has trees, and streams etc. They are real!!!! I mean they don't exist just in books on tv they internet they acrually exist. One second thats all.

 

[sealchan]

Consciousness is to the electrochemical nerve polarizations occurring in the human brain as waves are to the ocean. They are of no matter or substance themselves but they are an organization of matter or substance in a medium of matter.

Where this analogy breaks down, of course, is that the ocean isn't an evolutionarily evolved mechanism for representing the world in which it is embedded. But the brain is.

So consciousness isn't a thing, it is, itself, an "energic" organization of matter...like a wave to the ocean. So for extreme simplicity's sake let's think of consciousness as "waves in the ocean of the brain".

Now in many of our respective human cultures we happen to identify our selves as the whole of this wave activity AND simultaneously as one boat in the sea of these waves. This ambiguity belies, perhaps, the fact that we ARE this whole or part of the brain's waves looking in upon ourselves but not able to see out beyond ourselves.

 

[allfoak]

Are you asking, then, what is the nature of "substantial reality?" Is consciousness a thing-in-itself?

The best answer is that there are no things-in-themselves. Reality is not any thing, hence the world needs no fundamental substance. Any that we supply is just that, one that we have supplied it.

Do you agree that there must be a substantial reality behind all created things?

 

[allfoak]

there is this park called nature ya out to get out and try it sometime. It has trees, and streams etc. They are real!!!! I mean they don't exist just in books on tv they internet they acrually exist. One second thats all.

Ok thamks

 

[YmirGF]

Consciousness is a concept that is not (yet) fully understood.

Exactly. Which is why I believe consciousness precipitates matter but am smart enough not to go to the mat over my limited understanding. It is irksome that some are arrogant enough to presume otherwise.