If consciousness is primary, how could that be evidenced?

[atanu]

Many recent threads have discussed materialism, spritualism, idealism and many other philosophical approaches and positions.

One of the critical points of difference that has emerged is the argument about whether consciousness is a product of matter (materialism), or matter a product of consciousness (idealism).

Other than traditional wisdom, what evidence for idealism is there, or could there be? How could we go about testing it as a hypothesis?

Has anyone any experience of unconcsiousness? Has anyone seen any object using their unconsciousness? Consciousness is unbroken. It requires no evidence. It is self evident.

OTOH, it requires an imagination that the objects (that are made perceptible due to play of consciousness) are the generators of the consciousness, to deny consciousness in past and future. Whereas all we have is the present.

This knowledge is important for attaing peace in oneself and is the fundamental teaching of at-least Hinduism and Buddhism. And I believe that this is the teaching in other religions also.

As far as I can see this also does not conflict with science, which is enabled due to to freedom of consciousness. An intelligence engendered by inert materials through some blind deterministic mechanism cannot lead to an free intelligence. An intelligence engendered through blind material reaction will generate robots.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let me ask humbly "is there an I?"

I really like the "I" game. You should bold out each instance by which I would be typed out each and every time for an awesome effect. I wouldn't mind at all.

Anyway.....

To answer your question most humbly would be yes.

Yes, there is definitely an I at present. If I'm lucky though, perhaps It will last for another 50 years, although 25 to 30 seems more probable. Then the atoms will go their merry way to who knows where. ;0]

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well. That is the history then.

Yep in black and white.

It is what it is.

 

[atanu]

I don't really play church with categorization and definitions that are put out.

Just because consciousness is categorized in a column labeled ultimate reality dosent really do much in face of the actuality by which the aggregates manifest and is experienced directly.

Its that simple.

As if you know the actuality? What you call 'actuality', is the realm of 'aggregates' is 'dukkkha' -- the pain. I can, against this state of fixed belief, only repeat the Zen teaching:

According to Zen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Zen Buddhism[edit]
The central issue in Chinese Zen philosophy of mind is in the difference between the pure and awakened mind and the defiled mind. Chinese Chan master Huangpo described the mind as without beginning and without form or limit while the defiled mind was that which was obscured by attachment to form and concepts.[101]

 

[Ekanta]

Has anyone any experience of unconcsiousness? Has anyone seen any object using their unconsciousness? Consciousness is unbroken. It requires no evidence. It is self evident.

This is interesting. Lets say we investigate the human body and find out that consciousness requires a brain. How did we find out? At no time in that process was consciousness absent! Yet we say "consciousness is generated by the brain". The most basic thing that is there all the time is consciousness, why then assume its a product of the brain?

You can even use Occam's razor to figure it out:
"The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

I.e. since consciousness is present all the time, why ASSUME its a product of anything else? Why even make the assumption that its generated by the brain and then base your argument on that?
I know its not the ordinary way of thinking, but its the inevitable conclusion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As if you know the actuality? What you call 'actuality', is the realm of 'aggregates' is 'dukkkha' -- the pain. I can, against this state of fixed belief, only repeat the Zen teaching:

According to Zen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Zen Buddhism[edit]
The central issue in Chinese Zen philosophy of mind is in the difference between the pure and awakened mind and the defiled mind. Chinese Chan master Huangpo described the mind as without beginning and without form or limit while the defiled mind was that which was obscured by attachment to form and concepts.[101]

There's a notable difference in regards to attachment and direct experiences. There's no attachment nor dukkha towards acknowledging I or I am through the experiences brought about by the aggregates. That's not regarded as defilement compared with cases by which the I is clinged onto in such a manner it's come hell or high water, by which I'll never stop being a person that consequently results in dukkha. Not any acknowledgment of a present form which is the reason I said yes there is an I.

If I didn't, that would actually be kind of funny like someone running around denying he or she isn't a person when in direct fact it's presently the case as it would stand.

If I suddenly ran around saying or screaming I'm not a person....... I might get committed. Lol

Philosophy as much as I like it, sucks anyways in discussions like this.

As much as I respect Chan, I don't practice it either.

 

[Bunyip]

Has anyone any experience of unconcsiousness?

What a strange question. How can you be conscious of your consciousness? Please think through your questions.

Has anyone seen any object using their unconsciousness?

Wow! Erm...you ask if people are conscious while unconsciouss, no mate they aren't.

.Consciousness is unbroken. It requires no evidence. It is self evident.

OTOH, it requires an imagination that the objects (that are made perceptible due to play of consciousness) are the generators of the consciousness, to deny consciousness in past and future. Whereas all we have is the present.

This knowledge is important for attaing peace in oneself and is the fundamental teaching of at-least Hinduism and Buddhism. And I believe that this is the teaching in other religions also.

As far as I can see this also does not conflict with science, which is enabled due to to freedom of consciousness. An intelligence engendered by inert materials through some blind deterministic mechanism cannot lead to an free intelligence. An intelligence engendered through blind material reaction will generate robots.

Why is that? Surely such blind material interactions have created many creative intelligences.?

Please, please think harder before you ask me again whether people can experience things when unconsciouss.

 

[psychoslice]

Consciousness to me is the pure Source where all arises and all emerges back to, it is our true Being, the world as we know it is likened to a dream or illusion, but it can be a great dream so we may as well enjoy it while we are here within the dream.

 

[atanu]

What a strange question. How can you be conscious of your consciousness?

I do not understand this. Are you not conscious of your consciousness?

Please think through your questions. Wow! Erm...you ask if people are conscious while unconsciouss, no mate they aren't.
Please, please think harder before you ask me again whether people can experience things when unconsciouss

Yes. So you agree that it is foolish to even imagine that you could observe any object, including a brain, in absence of consciousness. So, whatever we see or know, consciousness is ever present.

On the other hand, we have seen in our waking state, thart physically intact brains in dead people do not exhibit any consciousness.

So, consciousness is not a product of physical brain but of the 'LIFE' process that drives the body-brain.

Why is that? Surely such blind material interactions have created many creative intelligences?

Bunyip. This is typical of you. You assert and imagine that your assertions prove your assertions. The assertion in red above is one example only.

A product of material interactions/reactions is predetermined. An intelligence engendered by inert materials through deterministic mechanism cannot lead to a free intelligence. An intelligence engendered through blind material reaction will generate robots.

 

[idav]

I do not understand this. Are you not conscious of your consciousness?



Yes. So you agree that it is foolish to even imagine that you could observe any object, including a brain, in absence of consciousness. So, whatever we see or know, consciousness is ever present.

On the other hand, we have seen in our waking state, thart physically intact brains in dead people do not exhibit any consciousness.

So, consciousness is not a product of physical brain but of the 'LIFE' process that drives the body-brain.



Bunyip. This is typical of you. You assert and imagine that your assertions prove your assertions. The assertion in red above is one example only.

A product of material interactions/reactions is predetermined. An intelligence engendered by inert materials through deterministic mechanism cannot lead to a free intelligence. An intelligence engendered through blind material reaction will generate robots.

The way matter is, nothing generating processes is going to be unaware because of qm. A plant reacts by blind stimuli but there is inteligence and awareness. Plants dont appear to have the type of self awarenees that we have but not even monkeys pass the test, if it were even possible to test plants.

 

[Bunyip]

I do not understand this. Are you not conscious of your consciousness?

Sorry, it was a typo. I meant to ask how you could be conscious whilst unconscious?

Yes. So you agree that it is foolish to even imagine that you could observe any object, including a brain, in absence of consciousness. So, whatever we see or know, consciousness is ever present.

These questions and points you are making a truly bizarre - yes we only see things when awake, we cn not observe when asleep or unconscious.

On the other hand, we have seen in our waking state, thart physically intact brains in dead people do not exhibit any consciousness.

So, consciousness is not a product of physical brain but of the 'LIFE' process that drives the body-brain.

How does that follow?

Bunyip. This is typical of you. You assert and imagine that your assertions prove your assertions. The assertion in red above is one example only.

A product of material interactions/reactions is predetermined.

LOL. Oh, ok - so you assert that a product of material interactions is predetermined - giving no rationale to support that assertion (or any of your other assertions), but challenge me for making unsubstantiated assertions? Which your posts are almost entirely composed of. How could you possibly establish that a product of material interactions is predetermined??

An intelligence engendered by inert materials through deterministic mechanism cannot lead to a free intelligence.

Really? Can you prove that? Or show your rationale? No? These are just unfounded assertions - not an argument or rational points. Why can't they lead to intelligence? What point just claiming that they can't? Do you have an argument?

. An intelligence engendered through blind material reaction will generate robots.

So you say, but you have not explained why you think that is true. Do you have a logical argument - or are you just going to repeat the same assertions?

 

[Bunyip]

The question is rhetoric.

It responds to my typo. I meant to ask how can somebody can be conscious while unconscious.