What is consciousness?

[godnotgod]

Myths of creation are not evidences, because they are untestable, unverifiable.

They are merely unverifiable belief in the supernatural and in magic.

Like these other older myths, the Abrahamic deity using words, to create or destroy, is just a myth.

They are not evidences, but people not understanding nature, with wild imagination, would spin all sorts of superstitious stories.

I loved stories, but one thing I won't do is mistake them for reality.

Certainly there is the notion that a story 'is just a myth', as you indicated. No one actually believes in 'Jack and the Beanstalk'. However, myths point to moral lessons, in many cases. The myth that the sacrificial blood of Jesus washes sin away, when firmly believed, actually becomes reality for the believer. If one firmly believes in the Abrahamic deities' words as having powers of creation and destruction, one lives one's life in accordance with that belief to the point of taking action based upon them, even war and killing, as we all have come to painfully be aware of throughout history.

 

[godnotgod]

I'd take issue with the 2nd assumption, can the brain really independently manufacture consciousness? or is it merely a conduit for it?

Not so very long ago, the concept of a shared knowledge- existing in, and being drawn from, a great cloud of knowledge, through some invisible channel, that can instantaneously connect with billions of people across the globe, would be about as 'supernatural' a claim as one could imagine. Now this has been proven in principle by us mere mortals, but we didn't really invent this capability, we just discovered that it exists, inherently in the universe, and we used it in our own way.

We do have scientific proof that the brain is capable of signal-less, non-local communication, as evinced by the 1994 experiments by Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum at the University of Mexico in a paper published in Physics Essays volume 7, number 4, 1994, and which has since been corroborated in other similar experiments around the world:

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is that little monkey that sits on top of an elephant, excitedly bouncing about and madly chattering away at all it notices, thinking its chatter is directing the behavior of the elephant. Meanwhile, the elephant largely -- albeit not entirely -- ignores the monkey and mostly goes its own way.

It's not consciousness jumping about like a monkey; it's MIND, while consciousness is just sitting back, doing nothing, and observing the antics of MIND. In fact, Zen people call these antics 'monkey mind', not because we lack intelligence, but because monkey mind jumps about, latching onto first this idea, then that. This, we call the discursive mind. Consciousness is just there, doing nothing. IOW, it is just a state, and mind an illusory projection of consciousness. The great yogi, Pantanjili, in his Yoga Sutras, tells us that yoga, or divine union, "is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind". IOW, the awakening to true Reality, that of Pure Abstract Intelligence, is when mind and self are completely extinguished. Buddhists call this extinguishing 'Nirvana'.

Mind thinks, and formulates concepts about Reality;
Consciousness just sees things as they are, without thought.

 

[Sonofason]

As humans, our problem is that we have consciousness on the brain, so to speak..

Well, yes...we have consciousness and a capacity to store information. Which begs the question, what is consciousness if there is no ability to store and recall information?

 

[godnotgod]

Well, yes...we have consciousness and a capacity to store information. Which begs the question, what is consciousness if there is no ability to store and recall information?

What I meant was that, Westerners for the most part, think the center of consciousness to be DA BRAIN; it's all about DA BRAIN! There are other conscious centers, such as the heart, the solar plexus, the hara, etc. In kundalini yoga, for example, there is a dormant consciousness at the base of the spine, which, when awakened, shoots up the spinal chord as a very powerful pure white light, illuminating the brain and bringing it to full potential. This event is called Enlightenment. Western man, or should I say conditioned man, knows little of these other centers. For him, DA BRAIN is all he knows, and so attempts to 'figure out' the nature of reality intellectually and only ends up in paradox.

Radiant Man/Radiant Woman
by Arguellos

 

[godnotgod]

Well, yes...we have consciousness and a capacity to store information. Which begs the question, what is consciousness if there is no ability to store and recall information?

The brain does not understand the nature of the question it is asking in regards to the subject. In fact, it is asking the wrong question.

 

[Sonofason]

What I meant was that, Westerners for the most part, think the center of consciousness to be DA BRAIN; it's all about DA BRAIN! There are other conscious centers, such as the heart, the solar plexus, the hara, etc. In kundalini yoga, for example, there is a dormant consciousness at the base of the spine, which, when awakened, shoots up the spinal chord as a very powerful pure white light, illuminating the brain and bringing it to full potential. This event is called Enlightenment. Western man, or should I say conditioned man, knows little of these other centers. For him, DA BRAIN is all he knows, and so attempts to 'figure out' the nature of reality intellectually and only ends up in paradox.

Radiant Man/Radiant Woman
by Arguellos

What you say may very well be true, that "there is a dormant consciousness at the base of the spine, which, when awakened, shoots up the spinal chord as a very powerful pure white light, illuminating the brain and bringing it to full potential". But I have no knowledge of this being reality, or something that truly exists. Since I don't know, I certainly would not discard the idea. In my life, I have often experienced what I believe to be what the Bible describes as "being filled with the Holy Spirit". In my search for others who also believe they have experienced the Holy Spirit, I have come across this kundalini concept; and according to some of the descriptions by some of the people who claim to at least have some knowledge of this experience, I am left with the impression that the kundalini experience is very similar to experiencing the Holy Spirit. Yet, there is something about the descriptions of the kundalini experience that leaves me with the impression that they may not be the same thing. So I am left without the ability to actually connect them together. If I could do that, it would seem to imply that God's grace may not be just for self proclaimed "Christians", but also anyone who thinks rightly. I'll stop there for now because if one is thinking rightly, he would be incapable of doing wrongly. This is likely the reason that the experience that I often have of the Holy Spirit is so fleeting; because life so often and quickly distracts us from thinking rightly throughout every moment of our lives.

I am not even certain that one could experience the fullness of the Holy Spirit in every moment of his life. It would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to sustain. It would be like trying to bask in the sunlight when your duties obligate you to do something else, to be somewhere else; and that is not even mentioning those moments when we are distracted by temptations and practices that are less than honorable and praiseworthy.

 

[Sonofason]

The brain does not understand the nature of the question it is asking. In fact, it is asking the wrong question.

Then what is the right question?

 

[David T]

As humans, our problem is that we have consciousness on the brain, so to speak..

Perfectly drawn circle!!! The New testAment has one as well!! Thomas said " all eye witnesses are never to be trusted, later he himself was an eye witness, and proclaimed trust me I am an eye witness to the resurrection". And all the faithful said " look we have "scientific" empericial proof of Christ's resurrection! It's in our texts empirically and we have Thomas own empirical evidence"!!! And thus modern empirical science was born. The child of half wits. The text wasn't written by half wits it was written for half wits, although all half wits "believe" they wrote it.

 

[David T]

Then what is the right question?

What is objective what is subjective?

 

[Sonofason]

What is objective what is subjective?

That is a question, but it is not necessarily the right question. Where is your evidence, and how do you apply it to the discussion?

 

[David T]

What is objective what is subjective?

I might add the cranium tends to fall in love with itself and it is the center of its own existence. The alma mater used to mean, "nurturing mother of the fields". A term applied to the fertility of nature itself personified!!. Later the term alma mater was given to mother Mary the genesis of the Christian faith!! Later the term was applied to the university the nurturing mother of studies of books!!! And later the alma mater gave birth to children such as mon$anto$. That dedicated their existence to figure out how to put that ***** mother nature under their thumb!! Seems kind of like the alma mater is insane!!!!

 

[David T]

That is a question, but it is not necessarily the right question. Where is your evidence, and how do you apply it to the discussion?

It is fundamental to the question. If you don't understAnd that question then you are already lost in a house of mirrors of sub conscious assumptions unaware of being lost in a house of mirrors of assumptions.

 

[David T]

It is fundamental to the question. If you don't understAnd that question then you are already lost in a house of mirrors of sub conscious assumptions unaware of being lost in a house of mirrors of assumptions.

It's fundamental to understanding socrated and I am not convinced that Plato is understandable strictly by reading. The text alludes to this in me no in the first 7 pages.

 

[Sonofason]

It is fundamental to the question. If you don't understAnd that question then you are already lost in a house of mirrors of sub conscious assumptions unaware of being lost in a house of mirrors of assumptions.

Okay, I will take that as a non-response. Thanks for your time.

 

[David T]

It's fundamental to understanding socrated and I am not convinced that Plato is understandable strictly by reading. The text alludes to this in me no in the first 7 pages.

ooops typos but I don't know how to correct them. I could assume since I don't know then there is no way to correct them. But is that true?

 

[David T]

Okay, I will take that as a non-response. Thanks for your time.

Okay, I will take that as a non-response. Thanks for your time.

What do You want a circular self referential statement? How is that not modern Christianity? Circular reasoning is not reasoning it's self aggrandizing.

 

[Sonofason]

What do You want a circular self referential statement? How is that not modern Christianity? Circular reasoning is not reasoning it's self aggrandizing.

And that is exactly what you are doing. You are aggrandizing a comment that you made that has no content.

You said, What is objective what is subjective?
.
Earlier...

As humans, our problem is that we have consciousness on the brain, so to speak..

I responded to him
"Well, yes...we have consciousness and a capacity to store information. Which begs the question, what is consciousness if there is no ability to store and recall information?"
I believe my question was relevant here.

godnotgod responded

The brain does not understand the nature of the question it is asking. In fact, it is asking the wrong question.

To which I asked,
"Then what is the right question?

And then you interjected with this:

What is objective what is subjective?

And then my response to you was this:
"That is a question, but it is not necessarily the right question. Where is your evidence, and how do you apply it to the discussion?"

I was merely suggesting that I did not completely understand your answer. I did not see the application of it. I could not see how it applied to the discussion. I was simply asking for more clarification. Then you proceeded with your aggrandizing. I apologize if I came across arrogant or what ever adjective you'd like to apply to my responses to you, but as I see this all in front of me now...I might see where you were going with your answer, being the question you proposed.

Yes, the truth of the matter is important. So then, With regard to the conversation, what is objective and what is subjective?

 

[Sonofason]

ooops typos but I don't know how to correct them. I could assume since I don't know then there is no way to correct them. But is that true?

Hmm, try the edit feature under your post, or the delete function works too.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

- How and why did consciousness evolve?

My guess is that a certain amount of over-arching decision making was beneficial to survival, even for very early multi-cellular creatures. The cells all working together required some kind of information feed, or communication mechanism that didn't have them all trying to pull their communal multi-cellular mass in different directions. This "consciousness" would have been ridiculously rudimentary at first... probably nothing more than a type of "instinctual" set of instructions. As it proved a handy tool for survival, it took on different flavors and complexities.

In the end, I believe our "consciousness" to simply be a tool used by our multi-cellular body to help keep all the cells living. An agency by which higher level action can be taken to keep our "organism" alive by responding to sensory input informing us of the changing condition around us.