Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

But this doesn't tell us anything about what "wakefulness" even is. So consciousness is a form of wakefulness, so what?....then what is wakefulness? I'll tell you... It is another level or degree of interaction. That room is illuminated by what? Electromagnetism...Fundamental Interaction.

The metaphor of light is consciousness. At lower levels of illumination, or consciousness, the ego thinks it is the agent of consciousness, ie; the self. At higher levels, it is seen that the ego is an illusion, and that The Absolute is Pure Consciousness, The Self, Brahman, Tao, That, The Changeless, etc. Consciousness doesn't change; it's the illusory mind that seemingly changes, sculpting the light of consciousness in myriad ways. That is why Vivekenanda says:

'The Universe [maya] is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

It is the metaphor of the rope seen as a 'snake', but on a higher level.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If my eyes are damaged, my ability to interact with light is impaired. If my hearing is damaged, my ability to interact with sound vibration is impaired.

In the Buddhist suttas consciousness arises in dependence on sense-base and sense-object, eg the eye and visible form. That does seem to be in line with the idea of an interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

This doesn't tell us anything about what consciousness actually is though. Sure the brain is a receptor, but what is it that the brain is actually doing? It is interacting in a complex manner with external forces. The brain is not "conscious", matter is neither conscious or living, it is highly interactive. It is that ability to interact which is either reduced or enhanced. If my eyes are damaged, my ability to interact with light is impaired. If my hearing is damaged, my ability to interact with sound vibration is impaired.

If you watched the video, you will see that the brain is communicating NON-LOCALLY. I agree that the ability of the brain is reduced because it is damaged, but the signal itself is not damaged. The damaged brain is simply incapable of processing it. In this case, the signal is coming non-locally from another brain. The idea is that consciousness is not created by neurons at a certain critical mass as you suggest.

 

[Robert.Evans]

H

Material cells interact in complex ways thereby generating that feeling of consciousness. Consciousness is an illusion generated by complex interactions, that is all.

How would that be possible? Consciousness appears because we interact ? Got any more info on this?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Whatever.

I'm tired of your nonsense and games, onto ignore you go.

Now be nice and let him have some of your ice cream.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now be nice and let him have some of your ice cream.

Ice cream is conscious too. The Intrinsic Purity of Vanilla!

PS You must be really bored if you're revisiting this thread.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No. You claimed that consciousness is infinite and unlimited by the senses, so I asked you to explain how this can be, practically speaking. You have continually evaded the question, I'm pretty sure you don't know how to answer it.

I guess it is not limited by his but is by yours.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ice cream is conscious too. The Intrinsic Purity of Vanilla!

PS You must be really bored if you're revisiting this thread.

It is quite enlightening in places - and a little bored I guess.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I guess it is not limited by his but is by yours.

No, he just can't answer basic questions, which usually means the original statement was complete BS.

 

[godnotgod]

In the Buddhist suttas consciousness arises in dependence on sense-base and sense-object, eg the eye and visible form. That does seem to be in line with the idea of an interaction.

Yes, it arises, but is not created by, sense-base and sense-object. Therefore, consciousness is already in place.

We must be careful here, esp with translation. 'Consciousness' is sometimes used interchangeably to mean 'mind':

Vijñāna (Sanskrit) or viññāṇa (Pāli[1] is translated as "consciousness," "life force," "mind,"[2] or "discernment."[3]

In the Pāli Canon's Sutta Pitaka's first four nikāyas, viññāṇa is one of three overlapping Pali terms used to refer to the mind, the others being manas and citta. Each is used in the generic and non-technical sense of "mind" in general, but the three are sometimes used in sequence to refer to one's mental processes as a whole.[4] Their primary uses are, however, distinct.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijñāna

 

[godnotgod]

No, he just can't answer basic questions, which usually means the original statement was complete BS.

It's not that I cannot answer basic questions, it's that the answers are over your head. It's YOU who not only cannot answer questions, you refuse to altogether. For instance, I repeatedly asked:

" Does Therevada teach that the Buddha realized a state of consciousness called 'Enlightenment'?"

 

[Runewolf1973]

Something is identifying illusion as 'illusion', because it already knows the difference between illusion and reality. What is that something? You are identifying the behavior of neurons as being an illusion called 'consciousness'; but what are you using to do so, if not consciousness itself? Do you see the dilemma?

You previously stated that consciousness and interaction are one and the same, but if consciousness is illusory, as you claim, then so is interaction.

That complex, highly interactive organ we call a brain is what we use to identify illusion from reality. What I mean when I say consciousness is illusory is that it is not what it seems. It is the result of complex interactions, not some magically appearing out of nothing phenomena. Your idea of "illusory" equates to something more akin to delusions or hallucinations. Interactions do exist.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The metaphor of light is consciousness. At lower levels of illumination, or consciousness, the ego thinks it is the agent of consciousness, ie; the self. At higher levels, it is seen that the ego is an illusion, and that The Absolute is Pure Consciousness, The Self, Brahman, Tao, That, The Changeless, etc. Consciousness doesn't change; it's the illusory mind that seemingly changes, sculpting the light of consciousness in myriad ways. That is why Vivekenanda says:

'The Universe [maya] is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

It is the metaphor of the rope seen as a 'snake', but on a higher level.

Blah...blah...blah.... More "Pure Consciousness" nonsense

 

[Runewolf1973]

If you watched the video, you will see that the brain is communicating NON-LOCALLY. I agree that the ability of the brain is reduced because it is damaged, but the signal itself is not damaged. The damaged brain is simply incapable of processing it. In this case, the signal is coming non-locally from another brain. The idea is that consciousness is not created by neurons at a certain critical mass as you suggest.

I never said that consciousness was created by neurons. Consciousness is the result of complex interactions both locally in the brain and non-locally from the environment around us. Interaction occurs and comes from everywhere, not just in our brains. Our brains are like tools or mechanisms we use to interact in more complex ways than we could without them. Our brains do not create consciousness, they allow us to interact in complex ways and to some degree they also limit our ability to interact.

 

[Runewolf1973]

H

How would that be possible? Consciousness appears because we interact ? Got any more info on this?

It is that simple. Everything interacts. Some things are structured/evolved to interact more complex ways than others...brains for example. The more complexly (if I can use that as a word) something interacts with its environment, the more "conscious" it appears or seems. How would it be possible for consciousness to just appear out of nowhere for no reason?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Blah...blah...blah.... More "Pure Consciousness" nonsense

That could easily go on for another 93 pages...ad infinitum!

 

[Runewolf1973]

In the Buddhist suttas consciousness arises in dependence on sense-base and sense-object, eg the eye and visible form. That does seem to be in line with the idea of an interaction.

No, my ideas are probably not in line with buddhism, but why should they be?

 

[Runewolf1973]

That could easily go on for another 93 pages...ad infinitum!

No doubt. Lol.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, my ideas are probably not in line with buddhism, but why should they be?

I think it's about how accurately idea correspond with experience.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Some say that consciousness is created locally in the brain. Others say that consciousness is non-local, but no one has ever been able to explain what consciousness actually is. I say it is the cumulative effect generated by both local and non-local interactions.