Origin of human and general awareness

atanu · Sep 26, 2011

idav said:
Thats what I'm talking about. When a person says they "remember" nothing it would mean that there isn't anything to recall. We would be oblivious and not know the difference between a second and an eternity.

edit: However it is just that we can't recall it, doesn't mean nothing happened.

That is not the point we are trying to make.

Suppose a man says "I remember nothing of the time I was fast asleep", it indicates that the man was existing and his not knowing anything indicates that he knows that he knew nothing.

At any point of now, denying existence and awareness is not possible. To deny the self a self is required.

Take time please. This may seem illogical but examine whether the present can ever be obliterated with thoughts of past and future? To think about past and futre an aware self is required in the present.

Otherright · Sep 26, 2011

atanu said:
I very often hear one of the following:
1. Consciousness is result of interactions of chemicals in brain.
2. Consciousness is result of computational process.

What are the arguments for and against the above views.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either. I'm more interested, however, in the research that is done on consciousness being based at a quantum level in microtubules, through the interaction of the states of tubulin as particle or wave function.

atanu · Sep 26, 2011

Otherright said:
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either. I'm more interested, however, in the research that is done on consciousness being based at a quantum level in microtubules, through the interaction of the states of tubulin as particle or wave function.

I will also be interested to know what all is known at present. You may like to create a thread on the subject perhaps?

kepha31 · Sep 26, 2011

atanu said:
I very often hear one of the following:

1. Consciousness is result of interactions of chemicals in brain.
2. Consciousness is result of computational process.

What are the arguments for and against the above views.

1). Unconsciousness is the result of diminished chemicals in the brain.
2). Unconsciousness is result of an arrest of computations...

Which I really could use after driving a cab on the night shift.

ManTimeForgot · Sep 26, 2011

idav said:
Speaking at the conscious level recollection can only go back far. If my memories were a scrapbook they only go back to a point that my consciousness is able to recall it. I only remember flashes when I was a baby and things got more vivid at 2 and three so I feel like consciousness emerged gradually.

But like I said, not being able to recall it doesn't mean nothing happened. Like I good be asleep and go sleep walking and wake up as if only a second had passed by. Saying we were conscious at any point depends on being able to recall it from memory and all the rest is blank.

We are well aware that death/non-existence and unconsciousness would likely have exactly the same experience to a conscious actor, but what we are trying to point out to you is that you have no evidence of your "lack of existence knowledge." How did you ever experience non-existence? If you didn't exist, then how could you have been around to experience it? And if you are suggesting that gaps in your knowledge are evidence of non-existence; well then all I have to do is point out you admit the same thing happens when you are asleep.

MTF

idav · Sep 26, 2011

ManTimeForgot said:
We are well aware that death/non-existence and unconsciousness would likely have exactly the same experience to a conscious actor, but what we are trying to point out to you is that you have no evidence of your "lack of existence knowledge." How did you ever experience non-existence? If you didn't exist, then how could you have been around to experience it? And if you are suggesting that gaps in your knowledge are evidence of non-existence; well then all I have to do is point out you admit the same thing happens when you are asleep.

MTF

I've acknowledged what your saying. Knowing what happened in the past is dependent on being able to recall it. However there is a point when the gap goes back independent, as far as I can recall. I also used the sleep analogy.

atanu · Sep 26, 2011

idav said:
I've acknowledged what your saying. Knowing what happened in the past is dependent on being able to recall it. However there is a point when the gap goes back independent, as far as I can recall. I also used the sleep analogy.

Come clear IDAV

The gap that you perceive is your recall, and you are present. Reincarnation, history, future all are relative truths which the present time gives value. The awareness in the present moment holds up everything.

idav · Sep 27, 2011

atanu said:
Come clear IDAV

The gap that you perceive is your recall, and you are present. Reincarnation, history, future all are relative truths which the present time gives value. The awareness in the present moment holds up everything.

I'd hazard to say that the gap before conception is a real gap in recall. I can't imagine where I might have been before conception. 'ME' was likely not doing anything.

atanu · Sep 27, 2011

idav said:
I'd hazard to say that the gap before conception is a real gap in recall. I can't imagine where I might have been before conception. 'ME' was likely not doing anything.

Yes, I do not disagree.

What is important to know is that that is property of mental plane, which is a mirror. But as per scripture and as per experience of sages, the reality is slumberless that observes the states of sleeping, dreaming, and waking -- remaining distinct from the states.

idav · Sep 27, 2011

atanu said:
Yes, I do not disagree.

What is important to know is that that is property of mental plane, which is a mirror. But as per scripture and as per experience of sages, the reality is slumberless that observes the states of sleeping, dreaming, and waking -- remaining distinct from the states.

This is why being aware and knowing or remembering your aware are two different things. This is where I separate general awareness from self awareness. Consciousness requires to remember being aware rather than just going by chemical reactions. At the general awareness level, action would occur without having to think about it and self becomes irrelevant.

atanu · Sep 28, 2011

idav said:
This is why being aware and knowing or remembering your aware are two different things. This is where I separate general awareness from self awareness. Consciousness requires to remember being aware rather than just going by chemical reactions. At the general awareness level, action would occur without having to think about it and self becomes irrelevant.

It depends on what you call self. For most of us self is encased in a body and localised. Yes, it is ego self that is a conditioned aspect of pure awareness that is not localised. Commonly we mistake the ego self to be the Self -- and there the confusion lies.

We have been trying to dispel this confusion for long.

Again. What you say from the perspective of conditioned ego-self is okay. But that ego-self is not the Self.

idav · Sep 28, 2011

atanu said:
But that ego-self is not the Self.

I see what you mean. Self was throwing me cause it just sounds egotistical to me. Not the same as when we say I am.

atanu · Sep 28, 2011

idav said:
I see what you mean. Self was throwing me cause it just sounds egotistical to me. Not the same as when we say I am.

:yes:

When i say self, i of course denote the real thing and not the image.

vnct · Oct 1, 2011

atanu said:
I very often hear one of the following:

1. Consciousness is result of interactions of chemicals in brain.
2. Consciousness is result of computational process.

What are the arguments for and against the above views.

please define consciousness in the context of your query. are you strictly referring to human consciousness? not all conscious entities have brains. for example, plants are conscious without having brains, although the nature and properties of plant consciousness varies from that of human beings.

my concern is that not all consciousness is the same and the nature of an entity's consciousness varies from entity to entity. there is complex consciousness and there is simple consciousness, according to an entity's level of evolution/devolution.

it is my view that the consciousness of human beings differs from the consciousness of animals. the consciousness of animals differs from the consciousness of plants. the consciousness of plants differs from the consciousness of rocks. all which exists is conscious, but the nature of consciousness will vary according to the entities involved.

some basic properties of 'human' consciousness include:
1. the capacity of reason/logic (mathematics)
2. the capacity of love/affection (appreciation of beauty)
3. the capacity of volition/choice (involving planned action)
4. the capacity of virtue/conscience (legality/morality)

atanu · Oct 1, 2011

vnct said:
please define consciousness in the context of your query. are you strictly referring to human consciousness? not all conscious entities have brains. for example, plants are conscious without having brains, although the nature and properties of plant consciousness varies from that of human beings.

my concern is that not all consciousness is the same and the nature of an entity's consciousness varies from entity to entity. there is complex consciousness and there is simple consciousness, according to an entity's level of evolution/devolution.

it is my view that the consciousness of human beings differs from the consciousness of animals. the consciousness of animals differs from the consciousness of plants. the consciousness of plants differs from the consciousness of rocks. all which exists is conscious, but the nature of consciousness will vary according to the entities involved.

some basic properties of 'human' consciousness include:
1. the capacity of reason/logic (mathematics)
2. the capacity of love/affection (appreciation of beauty)
3. the capacity of volition/choice (involving planned action)
4. the capacity of virtue/conscience (legality/morality)

Thank you VNCT for the post. My understanding of Consciousness is exactly as:

http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/definition-of-consciousness.pdf

I fully agree that consciousness of different types of beings are different. We call that 'Conditioned Consciousness'. But that indiactes an underlying unconditioned Consciousness of Being.

vnct · Oct 1, 2011

atanu said:
Thank you VNCT for the post. My understanding of Consciousness is exactly as:

http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/definition-of-consciousness.pdf

yes, this is exactly as they taught consciousness in its most simplified form, when i sat under my mentors at the theosophical society of america. subject and object.

I fully agree that consciousness of different types of beings are different. We call that 'Conditioned Consciousness'. But that indiactes an underlying unconditioned Consciousness of Being.

all is conscious. i sometimes call this 'metaverse'. gaia earth is conscious. our individual universe is conscious. the singular metaverse is conscious.

atanu · Oct 1, 2011

atanu said:
I very often hear one of the following:

1. Consciousness is result of interactions of chemicals in brain.
2. Consciousness is result of computational process.

What are the arguments for and against the above views.

Sufficient argument for me is that neither the chemicals nor the mathematical equations come and tell us: Look here, we are your awareness. It is we who with our given power of awareness have interpreted it that way.

Origin of human and general awareness

atanu

Member

Otherright

Otherright

atanu

Member

kepha31

Active Member

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged

idav

Being

atanu

Member

idav

Being

atanu

Member

idav

Being

atanu

Member

idav

Being

atanu

Member

vnct

Member

atanu

Member

vnct

Member

atanu

Member