What is consciousness?

[idav]

I think here though the question is more about asking why we are aware of having our experiences at all, as opposed to not being aware of them like the lower mammals. Why do cognitive processes have an associated internal experience? I think the suggestion is that it gives us an evolutionary advantage by presenting us with a "user-friendly" interface...or something like that.

I like this explanation. Those that argue that consciousness is the basis of reality buy into the illusion a bit more than they may admit. What is fundamental is action and reaction and I would go as far as to say perception is fundamental, but that doesn't lead to the level of awareness we have without this "user-friendly interface" that gives an evolutionary advantage. For example single celled organisms and plants would not have our level of awareness, but perceptions are already occurring at very rudimentary levels. The big thing is that there would be no perception without action and reaction in which the brain takes something and and does something with it. Feelings are thresholds built on memory which definitely is not fundamental. Thinking everything has memory due to perception is equivalent to thinking everything is energy therefore everything is a capacitor or battery, very similar aspects but with very different abilities.

I haven't got to see the video yet but I will give my thoughts when I get a chance, sound pretty interesting.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In short: All atoms in our body works via electromagnetic properties and connections and our brain can percieve electromagnetic informations from outside our body.
Humans also have a electromagnetic sphere and circuit around the body. This electric field contains memory from the individual and this individual can connect with other electromagnetic fields and informations - and really far out in space. (This happens often in the so called out-of -body-experiences and even in deep meditation).
The human conciousness is not limited or locked to our bodies. It is only limited by our modern/techical way of thinking. The ancient and natural way of gathering relevant human knowledge is intuitive and visionary.

Is there any evidence to support these ideas?

 

[Papoon]

Then why is there need for warnings such as this?
https://www.cpsc.gov/newsroom/news-...0-residential-child-drowning-deaths-annually/

They aren't new born. It is instinctual at birth.

The best approach to preventing those deaths is to start dropping babies into water asap.

Toddlers and children who panic, unattended, drown.

 

[Native]

Is there any evidence to support these ideas?

It all depend of one´s accept of evidences

Empirically, the numerous cultural Myths of Creation is evidences for me and the very same goes for "revelations" in the Bible and otherwhere and for instants the Shamanistic way of getting knowledge of cosmos.

The human mind is capable to connect (or to be externally connected) to realms outside the body via meditation and thus getting intuitive knowledge of everything.

Read about "Revelation" here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation - "In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities".

Real also about "Intuition" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition - "Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired".

Edit: I´ve had some personal experiences too - http://www.native-science.net/Visions.Dreams.htm

 

[Papoon]

It all depend of one´s accept of evidences

...
The human mind is capable to connect (or to be externally connected) to realms outside the body via meditation and thus getting intuitive knowledge of everything.

'Everything' IS the body.

 

[Lighthouse]

'Everything' IS the body.

It's okay to be honest. You "believe" everything is the body. It would be dishonest to ask for evidence knowing you already have none, but if you're willing to explain your beliefs a little further I'm willing to listen.

 

[Papoon]

It's okay to be honest. You "believe" everything is the body. It would be dishonest to ask for evidence knowing you already have none, but if you're willing to explain your beliefs a little further I'm willing to listen.

You simply misunderstand my meaning.

Try and find the boundary of 'your body' and the universe. It is just an intellectual proposition.

So actually, I could say that you have an unprovable belief that your body and the universe are two different things.

 

[Lighthouse]

You simply misunderstand my meaning.

Try and find the boundary of 'your body' and the universe. It is just an intellectual proposition.

So actually, I could say that you have an unprovable belief that your body and the universe are two different things.

It's okay to be honest. I once did not claim a belief that my body and the universe are two different things. I do not know. It is better to say nothing sometimes. It saves you from lying and assuming. So actually you can say that if you wish to lie and assume.

Fair enough, it was just an intellectual proposition.

 

[Native]

Natural Consciousness . . .

Take your time to listen to this video produced by The Findhorn Community. In my opinion, it provides a fine and overall description of the actual topic here.
---------------------
A New Story for Humanity - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-story-humanity/

Storyline

Marked by bustling metropolitan cities and modern technologies, Western culture feels as though it exists on a separate plane from nature. As a result, pollution levels are perilous, animal and sea life is waning, and climate change is a very real threat that could prove ruinous to our planet. We've been brainwashed by the dictates of a capitalism to believe that hard work is all we require to find success and happiness.

This philosophy creates discord in our relationships, unrelenting stress on our minds and bodies and a blindness towards the finer pleasures of life. The world needs a new narrative - one that promotes solidarity with the environment and a revitalized hope for a positive future. That narrative is explored in A New Story for Humanity, a feature-length documentary about the evolution of a global movement.

The film finds its roots in the New Story Summit. Presented by the Findhorn Foundation, a spiritual community of leaders, activists and teachers throughout the globe, the event included a series of presentations aimed at spreading an inspiring message: the world we seek lies within each of us. Each presentation throughout the summit constituted a different thread in the discussion, including economic concerns, social issues, education, the environment, the importance of embracing our diversity and establishing a sense of community, and the virtues of friendly competition.

The film contains a wealth of excerpts from these sessions, and in-depth conversations with the panel of multi-cultural teachers, including activist and author Satish Kumar, General Secretary of the Global Ecovillage Network Lua Bashana-Kekana, spiritual educator Dororthy Maclean, and Andean medicine man Puma Quispe Singona.

Empowering and enlightening, A New Story for Humanity calls upon the skills and dedication of every generation to write a new chapter in the future of humankind. Calling upon the wisdom of both ancient and modern cultural thinking, the lessons are clear, aspirational and relevant to every member of the global community. The calls to action are easily adaptable and achievable for all of us. Viewers will leave the film feeling as though they possess the potential and the tools they need to change the world.

Directed by: Lorenz Gramann, Mattie Porte

 

[Yerda]

Why do cognitive processes have an associated internal experience? I think the suggestion is that it gives us an evolutionary advantage by presenting us with a "user-friendly" interface...or something like that.

I've heard neurologists describe consciouness as more efficient than unconscious states. Sleep walkers, for example, as slow and fumbling and accident prone. I don't know if that's a good example but a sleep walker can navigate the world and respond to questions possibly without being conscious of anything all - certainly not the objects they are avoiding and speech they are responding to and making.

Like everyone else I've no idea of any good way of decribing consciouness in terms of anything other than itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness has never evolved; the brain evolved. Pure Consciousness is unconditioned, uncreated, unformed.

The brain does not create consciousness; Consciousness creates the brain. Consciousness has relegated autonomic functions of the body to the brain, such as breathing, digestion, heart beat, etc, so that consciousness can pay attention to what is up front, such as a tiger lurking ahead in the jungle.

Consciousness did not come out of the Big Bang and Evolution;
The Big Bang and Evolution are events in Consciousness.

What is consciousness? Spirituality. Same thing.

Now mind is a different matter......

 

[godnotgod]

The next videos on Youtube after that one, are then trying to show scientifically that consciousness affects matter, thus can be shown it is also outside of our brain.

The documentary 'Today I Died', has some one watching their brain operation take place, where they were clinically dead, and thus the doctors try questioning if consciousness exists on a quantum level.

The lectures, and data collected by Rupert Sheldrake try to show how there are numerous phenomenon, that show interconnected consciousness working outside of us.

Thus the scientist trying to quantify it only within the brain, are missing the additional evidence that suggests otherwise.

Yes, and it has already been scientifically proven that the brain is capable of non-local communication:

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

Since the original experiments, others around the world have corroborated the results.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Consciousness has never evolved; the brain evolved. Pure Consciousness is unconditioned, uncreated, unformed.The brain does not create consciousness; Consciousness creates the brain. Consciousness has relegated autonomic functions of the body to the brain, such as breathing, digestion, heart beat, etc, so that consciousness can pay attention to what is up front, such as a tiger lurking ahead in the jungle.
Consciousness did not come out of the Big Bang and Evolution;
The Big Bang and Evolution are events in Consciousness.
What is consciousness? Spirituality. Same thing.
Now mind is a different matter......

This is just your usual pseudo-Hindu new-age dogma.

The problem is that these beliefs rest on the assumption that internal experiences define the cosmos, or correspond to a larger reality. But this is a HUGE assumption, and there is no objective way of verifying it.

Projecting out internal experience in this way is common in religious traditions, but there seems to be a great deal of wishful thinking and confirmation bias involved.

 

[godnotgod]

This is just your usual pseudo-Hindu new-age dogma.

The problem is that these beliefs rest on the assumption that internal experiences define the cosmos, or correspond to a larger reality. But this is a HUGE assumption, and there is no objective way of verifying it.

Projecting out internal experience in this way is common in religious traditions, but there seems to be a great deal of wishful thinking and confirmation bias involved.

Both individual wave and universal ocean, though different in form, are made of the same substance: water.

Only form is different.

form is emptiness;
emptiness is form

Man's consciousness is in no way separate from The Universe. Only the illusory mind thinks it is so.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Both individual wave and universal ocean, though different in form, are made of the same substance: water.
Only form is different.

form is emptiness;
emptiness is form

Man's consciousness is in no way separate from The Universe. Only the illusory mind thinks it is so.

More cliched dogma which doesn't address the substance of my post at all.

There is no objective way of verifying that internal experiences correlate to some larger reality, and claiming that internal experiences define the cosmos is just arrogant.

You preach biocentrism, but it often looks more like egocentrism.

It's beyond me why you have again quoted the Heart Sutra. I have repeatedly shown that sunyata is incompatible with your new-age beliefs, since consciousness also lacks inherent existence.

 

[godnotgod]

More cliched dogma which doesn't address the substance of my post at all.

It's beyond me why you have again quoted the Heart Sutra, I have repeatedly shown that sunyata is incompatible with your new-age beliefs.

.

I don't know if Sunyata is incompatible with new age beliefs or not. I personally do not entertain new age beliefs. Having said that, Sunyata is completely compatible with the idea of universal consciousness, however. As for addressing the substance of your post, the answer is in there. You just need to learn how to look at the moon that the finger points to.

BTW, it is interesting to note that the question being asked is utilizing consciousness to do so. But the more important question is not 'what is consciousness', as if it can be an object of itself, but who, or what, is asking the question. Answer that question and you will instantly become enlightened. Guaranteed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't know if Sunyata is incompatible with new age beliefs or not. I personally do not entertain new age beliefs. Having said that, Sunyata is completely compatible with the idea of universal consciousness, however. As for addressing the substance of your post, the answer is in there. You just need to learn how to look at the moon that the finger points to.

You are being very dishonest because you continually preach new-age dogma here, a muddle of pseudo-Hinduism and pseudo-science, inspired by the charlatan Chopra.

Sunyata is definitely not compatible with your new-age beliefs, and it is very dishonest of you to imply that it is. The Zen approach is definitely not compatible with your convoluted new-age metaphysical dogma, and again it is very dishonest of you to imply that it is.

You still haven't addressed the substance of my post, further demonstration that you are only here to preach your new-age dogma, and not the least bit interested in genuine discussion.

 

[godnotgod]

You are being very dishonest because you continually preach new-age dogma here, a muddle of pseudo-Hinduism and pseudo-science, inspired by the charlatan Chopra.

Sunyata is definitely not compatible with your new-age beliefs, and it is very dishonest of you to imply that it is. The Zen approach is definitely not compatible with your convoluted new-age metaphysical dogma, and again it is very dishonest of you to imply that it is.

You still haven't addressed the substance of my post, further demonstration that you are only here to preach your new-age dogma, and not the least bit interested in genuine discussion.

You have shown time and time again that it is impossible to have a discussion with you, so I won't go any further along that path.

Quite simply, you just don't know what you're talking about, and no, it is you who are dishonest, I am afraid. In fact, you are nothing short of a compulsive liar, regurgitating the same old tired and false crap over and over and over again.

Yawn...I need a cup of tea. Bye.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have shown time and time again that it is impossible to have a discussion with you, so I won't go any further along that path. Bye.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide coherent explanations of your new-age dogma, and you have repeatedly failed to do so. All you do is arrogantly regurgitate the same old dogma and launch personal attacks on anyone who dares to question your Chopra-inspired twaddle.

But here's another chance for you to engage in a genuine discussion, and think outside your little new-age box. Let's see if you can provide a coherent response to the substance of my earlier post.

 

[godnotgod]

I have repeatedly asked you to provide coherent explanations of your new-age dogma, and you have repeatedly failed to do so. All you do is arrogantly regurgitate the same old dogma and launch personal attacks on anyone who dares to question your Chopra-inspired twaddle.

But here's another chance for you to engage in a genuine discussion, and think outside your little new-age box. Let's see if you can provide a coherent response to the substance of my earlier post.

I would be more than happy to accomodate you except for the fact that I do not indulge in new age dogma. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else?

I have addressed the topic. If you fail to understand, perhaps I can point to the moon again for you. If you still do not understand, perhaps another 30 years on your meditation mat may do the trick....or maybe not.

hint: 'what is consciousness?' Who, or what, is asking the question?