Consciousness

[blü 2]

seawater is not the ocean, but the ocean is seawater, and so is the water in the glass.

Ignoring the deficiencies of your analogy, you've yet to produce the teensiest bit of evidence that 'universal consciousness' is an aspect of reality, has any existence other than as a thing imagined in individual brains.

consciousness itself is not the product of rational thought.

I never suggested it was. Instead I pointed out that it's the product of a class of physical states in the individual brain, and suggested you read up on the evidence.

It exists independently of Reason, and just because it is not based upon Reason, does not mean it is irrational;

Again, so what?

My argument is with your statement (#116) ─

"Consciousness as the fundamental reality cannot be proven via such analytical investigation; it lies beyond the grasp of the rational mind."
​

First of all, consciousness is not the 'fundamental reality'. Otherwise the real world couldn't kill you. The real world, the world external to the self, is the fundamental reality, and our brains are part of it, and produce our mentation for us.

Second, consciousness is simply another aspect of reality and is a straightforward subject of reasoned enquiry. Science's exploration, description and explanation of the brain and its functions has already given us insights into the nature and function of consciousness, and will further explain the what and the how of it in a manner that your position can never achieve.

Just because you have a 'sense of self' you call 'I', does not mean it is real.

It's a class of states generated by the brain. They exist physically. They're real.

As for 'universal consciousness' ─

Where and how does it exist?

Where did it come from?

Did it exist before life forms existed in the universe?

Either way, what evidence says so?

How does it communicate with brains?

Why does it do so?

Since it doesn't know the capital of South Dakota, can't tell a glass of seawater from an ocean, doesn't do or say anything, why should anyone think it matters?

 

[atanu]

And where does this experience of perception occur?

Where really?

 

[sealchan]

It would be funny if it turned out that what some call the experience of pure consciousness IS in fact the basis for this nagging sense that we exist as an 'I' in this web of illusions. Wait...web? Web of? Illusions of what?...

Mystical language is understood best when it is realized that it is meant to restore a forgotten psychic balance and not to preach a superior "truth". In the Zen classroom, when the student's 'I' stands up, the teacher knocks the student's 'I' down. When the teacher sees the student stand up without 'I', then the teacher is satisfied with the student's answer.

Does that make any kind of sense? 'I' doesn't think so...

 

[sealchan]

I think that in Buddhism this 'I' is much maligned. Isn't this experience of mind also a part of our "direct" experience? Just because we disengage the rational, critical aspects of mind, this doesn't mean we shouldn't reason.

But it is very important to realize that we are not just this 'I' but of something much deeper and more profound. Just as our self-awareness is only a part of our brain activity, our "awareness" is a deeper part...all of which emerges out of the electrochemical activity of neurons in complex, adaptive interaction with the world.

And realizing this deeper sense of consciousness (not better, just more expansive and more foundational) we can relax a little our efforts to define consciousness, to ask when, where, who, what and why. Not that these questions shouldn't be asked...but let's not weaponize these questions in debate...nor dismiss them either.

 

[YmirGF]

I think that in Buddhism this 'I' is much maligned. Isn't this experience of mind also a part of our "direct" experience? Just because we disengage the rational, critical aspects of mind, this doesn't mean we shouldn't reason.

But it is very important to realize that we are not just this 'I' but of something much deeper and more profound. Just as our self-awareness is only a part of our brain activity, our "awareness" is a deeper part...all of which emerges out of the electrochemical activity of neurons in complex, adaptive interaction with the world.

And realizing this deeper sense of consciousness (not better, just more expansive and more foundational) we can relax a little our efforts to define consciousness, to ask when, where, who, what and why. Not that these questions shouldn't be asked...but let's not weaponize these questions in debate...nor dismiss them either.

I quite like what you are saying here. I think the point that some miss here is there is no one single answer that fits for everyone. One thing I came up with awhile ago is IF there is a "Universal Consciousness" then it would not be unreasonable for telepathy to be a fairly common observable result between two individuals who are experiencing this common foundation. Yet, we have virtually no empirical evidence supporting telepathy.

What I am meaning here is that if two people were simultaneously experiencing this "Universal Consciousness" you would expect some kind of interplay on a mental level, especially if this aspect of consciousness was at a far deeper level than the mental processes.

Likewise, if there is no "sharing" on the mental level that suggests that individuality simply moves into an unconscious state, rather than dissolving, it simply moves into the background of awareness. For example, in the Oneness experience, one feels a distinct and direct connection to everything, but curiously one does not actually know how a blade of grass "feels" or what it is like to be a chair. It's only a sensation of unity that is produced in our minds.

My guess is we sense that because there is no way for our conscious minds to handle all the data. It's sort of like listening to a piece of music created for a trillion member orchestra and trying to pick out a single instrument.

 

[sealchan]

I quite like what you are saying here. I think the point that some miss here is there is no one single answer that fits for everyone. One thing I came up with awhile ago is IF there is a "Universal Consciousness" then it would not be unreasonable for telepathy to be a fairly common observable result between two individuals who are experiencing this common foundation. Yet, we have virtually no empirical evidence supporting telepathy.

What I am meaning here is that if two people were simultaneously experiencing this "Universal Consciousness" you would expect some kind of interplay on a mental level, especially if this aspect of consciousness was at a far deeper level than the mental processes.

Likewise, if there is no "sharing" on the mental level that suggests that individuality simply moves into an unconscious state, rather than dissolving, it simply moves into the background of awareness. For example, in the Oneness experience, one feels a distinct and direct connection to everything, but curiously one does not actually know how a blade of grass "feels" or what it is like to be a chair. It's only a sensation of unity that is produced in our minds.

My guess is we sense that because there is no way for our conscious minds to handle all the data. It's sort of like listening to a piece of music created for a trillion member orchestra and trying to pick out a single instrument.

Yes, and I appreciate the efforts of those who are trying to capture such phenomena in the lab. But nothing yet reproducible it seems...

And I think Buddhism arose because there was a need to relativize and silence the rational 'I'. And for career Buddhists, this may be a lifetime goal. But I think that I would severely miss the successes and failures of the cultural development of our "shady I's". The whole story of the Garden of Eden is predicated on this sense of what we do in the name of 'I' is our concern and responsibility, but in that there is a divine compliment to help guide us.

I think that such ideas are useful often in fictional accounts where we can imagine and explore new realms of possibilities of human experience. I know that years ago, when I briefly worked at Intel, their employee training video included the astounding goal that Intel wanted to create technology that would enable a direct computer to human brain interface. Imagine such technology (set aside any scary thoughts for the moment) with quantum coupling networks...then we would have something like a Universal Consciousness enabled by technology.

My old saying I invented goes like this...

What the religions speak of as remote occurrences of the miraculous will, one day, become common-place realities through the developments of science and engineering.

In my view science fiction serves as user acceptance testing for such potential modern miracles.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, and I appreciate the efforts of those who are trying to capture such phenomena in the lab. But nothing yet reproducible it seems...

And I think Buddhism arose because there was a need to relativize and silence the rational 'I'. And for career Buddhists, this may be a lifetime goal. But I think that I would severely miss the successes and failures of the cultural development of our "shady I's". The whole story of the Garden of Eden is predicated on this sense of what we do in the name of 'I' is our concern and responsibility, but in that there is a divine compliment to help guide us.

I think that such ideas are useful often in fictional accounts where we can imagine and explore new realms of possibilities of human experience. I know that years ago, when I briefly worked at Intel, their employee training video included the astounding goal that Intel wanted to create technology that would enable a direct computer to human brain interface. Imagine such technology (set aside any scary thoughts for the moment) with quantum coupling networks...then we would have something like a Universal Consciousness enabled by technology.

My old saying I invented goes like this...

What the religions speak of as remote occurrences of the miraculous will, one day, become common-place realities through the developments of science and engineering.

In my view science fiction serves as user acceptance testing for such potential modern miracles.

Yes, and rather than stifle discussion, by claiming a "know it all" ideology, I welcome ideas that are in contrast to my own simply because I have the inherent humility to clearly understand I do not know everything, even if I have sensed a direct connection to everything on many wonderful occasions. What I distinctly dislike is when people, frail humans, like myself, are insistent on ideas they have no way of verifying. I'm more interested in sharing rather than promoting a dogmatic view to the annihilation of all others.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Neither are the claims of consciousness arising from the brain.

But the approach toward seeing that consciousness is the fundamental reality is not like that of proving a theory, in which data and facts as evidence are accumulated to build up a body of knowledge upon which, at some point, a decisive conclusion about the theory can be reached. The process is exactly the opposite, where opinions and ideas are subtracted until one arrives at a state of mind in which nothing is ultimately important; where one's view is completely unobstructed by the thinking mind. So, unlike factual knowledge which constructs a conceptual framework or model by which reality can be understood, all conceptual frameworks must go, and reality apprehended directly. In the end, all that remains is pure consciousness. It does not come out of anything; it does not go anywhere; it is, unlike the mind, unconditioned. That is the way things are in their original state. Everything else comes afterward. This kind of unconditioned consciousness cannot be proven via the rational thinking mind; it can only be experienced, but, as the Buddha told us, it is available to all, and is immediately present at all times. If the mind moves one nanometer to get there, it has moved too far.

So, that's your conceptual model about consciousness.

As I said, consciousness is correlated with events measured in the brain; correlation does not equal causation.

However, any experiences we have appear to be mediated by the nerve pathways of our bodies and brains.

And I agree, neither your model nor the material can be proven.

 

[ajay0]

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

This is not a new concept, and has also been stated by the ancient upanishadic philosophy as well as Advaita.

Enlightened masters all over the world regardless of nationality, culture and religion, has stated that upon enlightenment they perceived the state of consciousness to be fundamental and pervasive. I had personally met an enlightened master who confirmed the same to me.

Pure consciousness is the same as pure love, and this is why Jesus stated that 'God is love' and 'The kingdom of God is within you'.

Muhammad had similarly stated that God is closer to oneself than the veins of one's neck. It is obvious that it is consciousness that they were referring to.

The advaitan philosophy which teaches the fundamental nature of consciousness, was of great help to the theoretical physicist Werner Heisenburg while pioneering key concepts of quantum mechanics.

After these conversations with Tagore some of the ideas that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense. That was a great help for me. - Werner Heisenburg


The quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger also backed the state of consciousness to be fundamental...

Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction... The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.

Erwin Schrödinger - Wikiquote

 

[crossfire]

Regarding the dissolution of subject and object, one does not have to be in a meditative state. We do this all of the time when using tools: the tool becomes an extention of ourselves in accomplishing our task. Stilts become an extention of us as we walk. A bicycle becomes an extention of us as we steer it, accellerate it, and brake. The subject-and object phase happens when you are learning to ride the bike or use the tool. The no-separation-between-subject-and-object phase happens once you master it. Once you learn to ride a bicyle, you never forget how to do it. It becomes part of you.

 

[godnotgod]

Regarding the dissolution of subject and object, one does not have to be in a meditative state. We do this all of the time when using tools: the tool becomes an extention of ourselves in accomplishing our task. Stilts become an extention of us as we walk. A bicycle becomes an extention of us as we steer it, accellerate it, and brake. The subject-and object phase happens when you are learning to ride the bike or use the tool. The no-separation-between-subject-and-object phase happens once you master it. Once you learn to ride a bicyle, you never forget how to do it. It becomes part of you.

I suspect that much of what we, as moderns, experience as the subject/object split comes from the Abrahamic religions, in which there is a sharp and definite distinction between man and God, where God is seen as the 'Maker', and man, and the rest of the world, as created artifacts. This becomes evident in the view where man is seen as clay, and is fashioned into a human form. Such a clay form has no independent life of its own until God breathes life into it. This idea of God as Maker extends to the entire Universe as well, which is seen as an artifact, ie; a 'made thing, or collection of made things'. God is the subject; the Universe the object. This is a polarized view, in which man can never be God. Man, as artifact, as a created 'thing', is completely dependent upon the Maker. This split continues in the world of science as well, where a non-conscious, dead Universe is likened to a machine with parts, a purely mechanical view that occurred by pure chance. Man is seen as an ego manipulating and shaping the world to his liking, with science and technology the means by which he does so. Modern man is even alien to the natural world, something he tries to 'understand' via the intellect, which only creates more paradox, because nature is not based upon Reason. So man bulldozes the world about, thinking to 'improve' it, but only ends up destroying his own nest with the poisons coming out of a science and technology that are out of tune with man's environment. Instead of man living in harmony with his world, he tries to dominate and control it to his own detriment. He fails to realize that the world he pushes around is what he needs to nourish him spiritually. And so we have modern alienated schizoid man.

The other half of the religious man/Maker split is that of Idolatrous Love, understood in psychology as one of the Five Egotistical States. Essentially, this involves the ego projecting itself onto an 'other' idol that is of a divine nature, and then worshiping that idol as if it were real.

But in reality, both man and Universe were not made 'things', but were grown, not in a linear fashion of causation, but in a way that is an unfolding from the inside out. To get in touch with this unfolding and to flow with it is to regain sanity. This effort of some to re-establish union with The Universe that nurtured him in the first place is going on while at the same time the spiritually asleep do everything they can to keep other sleeping people from awakening spiritually. At it's worst, they want us to believe in the cold and lopsided machinations of science and technology, in which consciousness does not actually exist, and is nothing more than the result of brain chemistry. Such types hate it when mystics talk about consciousness as it relates to Quantum Physics, but they themselves don't mind trying to treat consciousness as if they can study it in the lab, with the intention of nailing it down once and for all. They want to measure it, contain it, predict it, and ultimately control it, not understanding the nature of what they are dealing with in the ultimate subject/object split. This kind of clinically sterile thinking has the potential to lead to a world far, far more hideous than that of the story of 1984. In fact, it has already begun. And it's all because man thinks himself a separate self that wants to be the do-er; the controller; the manipulator, because he lives in fear of his own nature, and of nature in general, not realizing he is working against his own freedom and happiness.

 

[godnotgod]

So, that's your conceptual model about consciousness.

As I said, consciousness is correlated with events measured in the brain; correlation does not equal causation.

However, any experiences we have appear to be mediated by the nerve pathways of our bodies and brains.

And I agree, neither your model nor the material can be proven.

That is to say, not proven via the tools of the rational mind. But yes, you can confirm these claims for yourself, just as anyone can. It requires that you simply go to see for yourself that it is true, just as the prisoner in Plato's Cave ventured topside of his cave to at last behold the glorious Sun.

I see you have misunderstood: any conceptual model of consciousness fails, because, as I pointed out, consciousness is unconditioned, unborn, ungrown, uncaused. IOW, it fits no model that the rational mind can come up with, and therefore, the only way it can be accessed directly is to transcend the thinking mind, which is forever trying to 'explain' reality via some conceptual framework. Consciousness smashes all such models, which pale in comparison. Pure consciousness is the perfect mirror, perfectly reflecting what it sees, while retaining nothing, unlike the mind, which carries the residue of the past into the future.. Pure consciousness is perfectly empty of any and all distortion. It's realization is what is called prajnaparamita: the perfection of wisdom.

"Prajnaparamita is the wisdom of directly realizing the non-conceptual simplicity of all phenomena, which has arrived at, or will lead one to, non-abiding nirvana."
Prajnaparamita - Rigpa Wiki

Because all phenomena, including man, is non-conceptual, it is therefore empty of any inherent self-nature. We call this emptiness 'Sunyata'. You are none other than this Indestructible Sunyata.

 

[godnotgod]

Can I get a definition of both "experience" and "perception," please? "Perception" first, if you don't mind..

Perception is the conscious experience of the five senses. This is the world of perceptual reality, as compared to Ultimate Reality, which is the realization of union with The Universe.

 

[crossfire]

Perception is the conscious experience of the five senses. This is the world of perceptual reality, as compared to Ultimate Reality, which is the realization of union with The Universe.

So where does this experience of perception occur other than in the subjective mind? Sensory information is processed subjectively.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction...

I would like beenherebeforeagain to take note of the fact that what you are saying here and what I have said about consciousness not being contained within any conceptual framework, was arrived at independently of one another. This means that consciousness itself is directing our attention to the same realization, and this consciousness is universal and fundamental in nature. This common realization of the same reality is unlearned and unconditioned. We did not compare notes before making our statements, nor did we consult some textbook in arriving at our conclusions. It is not a religious doctrine of any kind. It is a presence that one simply awakens to; one that was there all the while. And this is typical of the wisdom so realized independently of one another all over the world in different times and places. It is as if some fish, having been born into a sea whose presence they are not aware of, suddenly awaken to a sea not only all around them, but inside of them as well, and upon which they are completely dependent for their lives. Once realized, they begin to sing the praises of this wonderful common sea to one another.

 

[godnotgod]

So where does this experience of perception occur other than in the subjective mind? Sensory information is processed subjectively.

It is an illusion that it is processed via of a self called 'I'. At the precise moment of burning a finger on a hot stove, there is no such 'I' that is the agent of such finger-burning; there is only the process of finger-burning. A split-second afterward, one thinks: 'I burned my finger'. You did no such thing. You had no pre-knowledge of what was to occur, so there was no 'I' that could have willed it or prevented it. The illusory 'I' simply creates and re-creates itself from one moment to the next in order to pretend that it is in control of everything; that it is the do-er; that there is 'self and other' in the subject/object split it creates and maintains for the perpetuation of self.

I would say just the opposite: that sensory information is processed automatically, with 'I' pretending to be involved. If you hear a sudden sound, you have no control over hearing or not hearing it. Sometimes, when the mind is just in the right mode, a sudden and spontaneous sound can trigger Satori, as is implied in the famous haiku poem:

Furu ike ya
kawazu tobikomu
mizu no oto

...of which this is but one of many translations:

old pond
a frog leaps in —
a moment after, silence

Here is my own:

pondfrogleapsplash

Matsuo Basho's Frog Haiku (30 translations)

"There is a humorous story told among Zen masters about a student that was getting desperate about producing an answer of who he really is. On his way to an interview with the Zen master, the student saw a bullfrog sitting around in the garden. He grabbed the bullfrog and hid it in the sleeve of his kimono. To give the answer of who he was he showed the master the bullfrog. The master shook his head and replied, “too intellectual, you've been reading too many books".

HarmonyAngels - Zen

 

[crossfire]

So where does this experience of perception occur other than in the subjective mind? Sensory information is processed subjectively.

It is an illusion that it is processed via of a self called 'I'. At the precise moment of burning a finger on a hot stove, there is no such 'I' that is the agent of such finger-burning; there is only the process of finger-burning. A split-second afterward, one thinks: 'I burned my finger'. You did no such thing. You had no pre-knowledge of what was to occur, so there was no 'I' that could have willed it or prevented it. The illusory 'I' simply creates and re-creates itself from one moment to the next in order to pretend that it is in control of everything; that it is the do-er; that there is 'self and other' in the subject/object split it creates and maintains for the perpetuation of self.

I would say just the opposite: that sensory information is processed automatically, with 'I' pretending to be involved. If you hear a sudden sound, you have no control over hearing or not hearing it. Sometimes, when the mind is just in the right mode, a sudden and spontaneous sound can trigger Satori, as is implied in the famous haiku poem:

Where did I invoke an "I?" The sensory information has to be processed somewhere for the experience of perception. That would be the subjective mind, no?

 

[godnotgod]

Where did I invoke an "I?" The sensory information has to be processed somewhere for the experience of perception. That would be the subjective mind, no?

The subjective mind is the mind of personal self-view. That is the view of 'I'. It thinks it is the experiencer of the experience, when there is only the experience of perception itself. You are the experience but not the experiencer of the experience. When this is understood, there is no longer subject nor object. They have merged as one in emptiness, both transcended.

 

[crossfire]

The subjective mind is the mind of personal self-view. That is the view of 'I'. It thinks it is the experiencer of the experience, when there is only the experience of perception itself. You are the experience but not the experiencer of the experience. When this is understood, there is no longer subject nor object. They have merged as one in emptiness, both transcended.

By your own definition, perception is of sensory information of perceptual reality. If the sensory information is of perceptual reality, then there would have to be a place for them to be processed within perceptual reality, no? That would be the subjective mind, no?

 

[godnotgod]

By your own definition, perception is of sensory information of perceptual reality. If the sensory information is of perceptual reality, then there would have to be a place for them to be processed within perceptual reality, no? That would be the subjective mind, no?

Is there really an agent of perception you are calling 'the subjective mind', or is there simply the act of perception itself, sans an agent of perception?

Is there an agent of flowing water called 'river', or is there simply flowing water?

The realized man feels the same pain and pleasure as the ordinary man, but is not attached to them in a way that says 'this is MY pain; this MY pleasure'; for him, there is just the experience of pain or pleasure; there is just the flow of life from one moment to the next, and he is that flow.

'Satori is just like ordinary everyday life, except that it is about 2 inches off the ground'
Suzuki