Does Consciousness Exist?

[autonomous1one1]

The prefix 'con' means together or with and 'science' means to know, so there is a conditional implication of duality or multiplicity associated with 'consciousness'. Whereas with 'awareness' there is no conditional modifier and it can be applied to a biological entity or a spiritual source of knowledge.

Personally, I only use terms like consciousness or self-awareness when dealing with network based awareness.

Very interesting, Ben. It seems that many people use awareness and consciousness sort of interchangeably or at least closely in meaning. Could you share some more wisdom on how awareness, consciousness, and self-awareness are related and different?

 

[methylatedghosts]

What limits are there in consciousness?

Perhaps rephrased as: what limit is there, to what you can focus awareness on?

To what extent is consciousness an input/output process? (information in, focus of awareness out - and do these two depend on each other?)

 

[Ozzie]

As Daniel Dennett said, “With consciousness … we are still in a terrible muddle.”

Dennet would argue that consciousness is a result of billions of interactions, that it can be broken down to allow scientific inspection once technology allows it. He doesn't argue anywhere that consciousness does not exist to my knowledge.

 

[Ozzie]

Very interesting, Ben. It seems that many people use awareness and consciousness sort of interchangeably or at least closely in meaning. Could you share some more wisdom on how awareness, consciousness, and self-awareness are related and different?

I think that any word could be used to replace "consciousness" to explain awareness, consciousness and self-awareness in common parlance and there would still be confusion as to meaning because our acceptance of the word is contingent on the historical development of our language. The etymological roots of the word indicate historical roots nothing more. Were going to have to go beyond that level to examine the differences between the three constructs you mentioned.

Personally I think all three have multiple meanings. Some can be shared in agreed terminology, some are entirely personal and cannot be shared in the case of those not available to intellectual understanding arrived at through meditative/spiritual practice etc. However, there is no authority on what consciousness means. I guess it all boils down to personal psychology and experience.

 

[sandandfoam]

He doesn't argue anywhere that consciousness does not exist to my knowledge.

He argues that phenomenal consciousness is a conceptual confusion.
Source:-Challenging Psychological Issues - Google Book Search

 

[Ozzie]

He argues that phenomenal consciousness is a conceptual confusion.
Source:-Challenging Psychological Issues - Google Book Search

Though not that it does not exist, as he would not argue that "conceptual confusion" does not exist.

 

[sandandfoam]

Though not that it does not exist, as he would not argue that "conceptual confusion" does not exist.

Have a look at the link, his argument is that Baars and Domasio cannot explain phenomenal consciousness because it does not exist.

 

[Ozzie]

Have a look at the link, his argument is that Baars and Domasio cannot explain phenomenal consciousness because it does not exist.

The link is not available.

 

[sandandfoam]

The link is not available.

Aha
This is the book -
Challenging Psychological Issues

By Troy Cooper, Open University Course Team, Ilona Roth, Open University

It's available in google books - p.208.
The argument is as I outlined it above. Dennet argues that phenomenal consciousness does not exist.

 

[Ozzie]

Aha
This is the book -
Challenging Psychological Issues

By Troy Cooper, Open University Course Team, Ilona Roth, Open University

It's available in google books - p.208.
The argument is as I outlined it above. Dennet argues that phenomenal consciousness does not exist.

Dennet argues that phenomenal consciousness is not a subject (I agree with him here), all the while attempting to explain the ghost in the machine, without success. Because Dennet stops short of explaining consciousness, he does not argue that it does not exist. According to the link, he dismisses Damasio on similar grounds. Dennet may believe that consciousness does not exist.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
Suprisingly had missed this thread till friend autonomous1one1 PM.
As an illiterate never gave much weight to words and everything to personal experiences besides we know that words always falsify and is by nature away from truth.
Is it not surprising that only one person in the history of humanity do we find received the transmission without words i,e, Mahakasyapa.
However as a layman what little can understand that AWARENESS is a state where there is someone who is *AWARE* it is inbuilt in the word. As soon as we say *Aware* we understand that someone is aware. We never say The nation or the government is aware. So awareness is individual where the observer still exists.
Friend ben brought out a beautiful definition con- together and science- know.
That is really beautiful. ben and friends, here we are transcending both we are merging the two worlds into ONE.
Consciousness is universal. we can say global consciousness, social consciousness etc.
Friend Heneni and YmirGF have posted excellent comments besides all others have contributed towards this understanding greatly.
Consciousness is what is there is everything. Probably Chinese it is called *WU-CHI*
When we see the symbol of YING and YANG we see two shapes of opposing colors merging and some of the symbols show a spot in the center of the two shapes in opposing colors and that means to state that consciousness is there in the center of both the opposing forces. It is very much there in Satan as much as in god. Consciousness is from where even god/satan separated and all dualities began there journey. Consciousness would therefore in ben's definition should mean *Together with science* In fact humanity can evolve to the next stage of evolution only when science gets together with religion. It surely is happening but more needs to be done we need scientists who mediate and works so that their research becomes a meditation.

Love & rgds
thank you friend auto..., for giving the opportunity to share this moments with everyone here.

 

[DallasApple]

Nope absolutely not..

Well wait a minute..In not sure..Ummm...

Hang on ..I'll think of it..

Love

Dallas

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Very interesting, Ben. It seems that many people use awareness and consciousness sort of interchangeably or at least closely in meaning. Could you share some more wisdom on how awareness, consciousness, and self-awareness are related and different?

Hi autonomous1one1, it doesn't really matter to me what words are used, so long as my understanding of what others are trying to convey is to the extent possible congruent with the meaning they intended.

Though for my sake and for the purpose of minimizing misunderstanding, I try to express myself in a manner and with words that are meant to reduce ambiguity.

Now it is my understanding that the mortal mind functions according to a self-reference local space/time framework and results in an apparent dualistic reality experience, i.e. I'm me and the other is not-me, I'm here and not there, this is now and not tomorrow, etc.. Such awareness is clearly limited by the local space/time perspective of the entity and therefore it is appropriate to call it self-awareness. And since it is an awareness that is based on duality, i.e. the discrimination between things, it could also be called consciousness, i.e. knowledge of things conceived/perceived.

However if one considers the transcendent, i.e. non incarnate spiritual existence, then it seems to me that if there is awareness or some such, it would not be a dualistic discriminatory one, but rather a non-dual state free of the relativeness of conceptual knowledge. Such awareness would be void of the self and non-self dichotomy associated with concepts such as self-awareness and consciousness, and is thus pure awareness. However, there is also non-self awareness associated with the lower kingdoms of nature such as the Mineral, Plant, etc., but this is relatively rudimentary evolving awareness associated with the earlier incarnation of the cosmic universal spirit.

Apart from everything else, the pure non-dual UNIVERSAL MIND provides the underlying omnipresent AWARENESS from which everything in material and non-material existence derive their existing sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, or pure awareness, as appropriate. i.e. the kingdom is within, it is ubiquitous.

Sorry for going on so, should realize that ultimately it is all really beyond conceptual knowing.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings Zen. Thank you for further sharing of your perspective. From your post above and these below taken from Stephen's God-consciousness thread, would it be correct to conclude that consciousness is key to your non-dual perspective? That is, the individual consciousness 'merges' with the universal (or spiritual) consciousness to realize oneness or non-duality. It seems that you are saying there are two - individual consciousness and universal consciousness - but they are really one - right?

Friend Stephenw,
Firstly there is no god.
It is only a concept.
Conciousness is ONE.
BUT individual conciousness is ONe with the universal conciousness only when the individual loses that sense of time or when he is in that meditative state but as soon as he comes back to the mind level when sense of time comes back his conciousness has diminished and the mind has started its function again.
Till all the unconcious levels comes to the concious level, the individual will be travelling back and forth.
Love & rgds

Friend Aupmanyav,

Surely your Conciousness may be temporary but not UNIVERSAL CONCIOUSNESS.
That is where YOGA or merging is required to be complete.
Love & rgds

What, exactly, is universal consciousness?

James

Friend spirituallu Inclind,
Spiritual Conciousness is what one calls *god*.
Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Auto...,
Firstly have to give it that on much meditation on the words Awareness and Consciousness find contradicting myself as find not much differences and finally the words appear interchangeable.
Next about Consciousness or energy surely there is a source and we are part of that source and so to understand that though they are the same but one is outside the individual body-mind and one inside and so the duality appears because of this body-mind and once that understanding/realisation happens it becomes one and so is all religion about. been one with TAO or universal consciousness/awareness/etc.
The body goes back dust unto dust as soon as the mind drops completely and that energy merges completely with the universal one and the individual body-mind is totally free which flew off without leaving any footprints.
It is the mind that hold on to the body and keeps changing forms [births] as its desires are not fulfilled, desire to hang on to those attachments it is developed over ages through various bodily births dropping some, attaching new ones and keep on evolving till finally the total mind itself drops and the body like a cover disintegrates.
Love & rgds

 

[autonomous1one1]

Thank you, Zen, Ben, Stephen, and Ozzie who have responded directly to my questions, and to all who have posted so far. Each and every post offers some wisdom for us to consider. Am hoping that someone wiser than myself will respond to the questions of Methylated - perhaps Methyl himself.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Methylatedghost,

What limits are there in consciousness?

Perhaps rephrased as: what limit is there, to what you can focus awareness on?

To what extent is consciousness an input/output process? (information in, focus of awareness out - and do these two depend on each other?)

That which has no beginning or end is termed limitless.
Just being aware/conscious is allows one to BE.
Then one simple IS.
Love & rgds

 

[FFH]

John Locke introduced the word "consciousness" into the English language in the 17th century -- effectively inventing the concept -- but is there such a thing as consciousness? If so, what is it?

Our human spirit, which resides in our mortal body.

 

[logician]

There really is no proof at all that there is any essence separate from the physical body, nor would one expect there to be in the broader definition of our evolution from "lower" life forms.

 

[Sleepr]

What limits are there in consciousness?

Perhaps rephrased as: what limit is there, to what you can focus awareness on?

To what extent is consciousness an input/output process? (information in, focus of awareness out - and do these two depend on each other?)

I personally feel as though these questions reflect a very similar mindset to mine with regard to "self-awareness".

I'll offer my thoughts on the answers. Hopefully, it will result in further discussion of these specific questions.

To begin, I'll define my take on the "characteristic" that seems to be the central focus of discussion, regardless of label. To me that characteristic can be defined as the capacity to direct (or steer) thought (i.e. the capacity to command the application of logic and rationale, the ability to subjectively categorize and judge the values of perceptions, the capacity to conceive through abstract thought, etc.).

I believe that this characteristic is the product of reactions and exchanges of energy between matter, neural synapses. So, the limits? I believe the limits are two-fold.

First, "consciousness" is limited to the reaction and energy exchange between matter. As long as the synapses are taking place, the potential for consciousness is present. To realize that potential, there are very specific reactions and energy exchanges required, all working in concert. For example, an individual will experience "normal" consciousness when sober. But, introduction of a host of different chemicals may lessen, or in some cases enhance, that capacity to command and direct thought processes. Additionally, I believe meditation and/or sensory deprivation may lead to a sense of enlightenment by concentrating the individual's available capacity to specific thought processes. In the end, all still dependent of the reactions and energy exchanges between matter.

Second, I believe that compiled information defines the arena for consciousness. I say arena, because "bounds" would seem to imply a defined limit. I don't think that's the case. I believe new conception, born of abstract thought processes, constantly push the "bounds" of consciousness outward. Those new conceptions add to the information possessed by an entity that has capacity for consciousness. Together with all other stored information from thought applied to perception, the arena is defined, from which, to expand outward. So the limits for consciousness, or the command of thought processes, is defined at any given time by the arena available to that command.

I hope that made sense. Thoughts?