• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Consciousness and Brains

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Actualised to whom? That “I” awareness that cognises objects is not materialised. That is the point of realisation of the method of subject-object discrimination.

Subject, the awareness, is not materialised. It’s objects reflect consciousness.

What we call matter and the ability to define “matter” is based on consciousness/awareness.
awareness is still a physical thing, being self-aware is a physical thing; which implies being wary
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
information

Then we have different concepts.

According to Vedanta, information is physical. But who or what knows information? It is the subject that knows the objects. It is the subject that designates the terms 'material' or 'non-material'. The subject is prior to these categorisations and the categories. The nature of the subject is pure awareness-consciousness. It cannot be pointed at by saying "This is consciousness".
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Then we have different concepts.

According to Vedanta, information is physical. But who or what knows information? It is the subject that knows the objects. It is the subject that designates the terms 'material' or 'non-material'. The subject is prior to these categorisations and the categories. The nature of the subject is pure awareness-consciousness. It cannot be pointed at by saying "This is consciousness".
pure awareness is still physical. it's an action. self-aware is still an action
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
pure awareness is still physical. it's an action. self-aware is still an action

'Self aware' is action? Even if it is so, how it becomes physical?

Knowing thyself as "I am" is happening of waking or dreaming state. That is not consciousness.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
'Self aware' is action? Even if it is so, how it becomes physical?

Knowing thyself as "I am" is happening of waking or dreaming state. That is not consciousness.
it moves, it vibrates, it is self-perpetuating


idealism is just the polar opposite of materialism.


they are the same thing. it is conscious and it is active


to exist it requires it to be, a verb, a movement, an action, and then it is a thing, saguna brahman.


it isn't just nirguna but also saguna.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
it moves, it vibrates, it is self-perpetuating

idealism is just the polar opposite of materialism.

they are the same thing. it is conscious and it is active

But the "I am" known in waking or dreaming state is not consciousness. It is an effect.

In deep sleep, when mind is unconscious, the consciousness is not partitioned into subject-object by movement of mind-desire, and timeless-spaceless consciousness alone is.

Where is the question of 'physical', 'matter' in non dual consciousness?

...

I do not think I should continue because you and I are not talking same thing. Our 'consciousness' is not same.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
In deep sleep, when mind is unconscious, the consciousness is not partitioned into subject-object by movement of mind-desire, and timeless-spaceless consciousness alone is.
.
and in that state it still moves, it is physical. it does not vibrate differently from the all pervading. sleeping is still a verb


 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
It may be the case that our present senses and instruments aren't capable of detecting certain things.
But then again, how could you identify those things, if there is no way for us to detect them?

To use an infamous saying: The undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike...




Keyword: directly

Lots of things aren't directly detectable. Like magnetic fields. We don't "see" magnetic fields. But we can sure as heck observe their effects.

Or black holes. We can't directly observe a black hole. That's in fact, what makes it "black". But we sure can measure its effect on its surroundings.

Dark matter is the exact same. We DO measure *something*, as the stuff we do directly observe isn't enough to account for all phenomena. So there must be something else that's cause the unexplained phenomena. Dark Matter is the current idea on the table which best accounts for those unexplained things.

Note also how physicists will typically be honest with you and tell you that it's a work in progress and that it is anything but "certain" that this model is correct.



I'ld rather say "at all times".
We will always be limited in what we know.
That's fine. The important thing is to be honest about it. There is no shame in "i don't know - let's get to work to try and find out". There is also no shame in failing to find out.

There is MUCH shame in pretending to know anyway.



That's nice. But it's just some religious belief off course.



Not yet, anyway.
Just like it hasn't gotten behind loads of other questions yet either.
Most all questions were in that stage at some point in the past.

Science not knowing about something, is not at all a valid reason to turn to religion for answers. If science doesn't know, there is no reason that religion does know.

Priests aren't better informed on reality then scientists.
If one day we find out what consciousness is, I'm pretty confident the answer will be provided by a scientist, not a religion.




As all questions once were.

So what?
From my study of the paranormal, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that dramatic things occur that are not understood by current science. Now, a scientist of your mindset might say, fine, we can't explain then but we are trying. And to that I say 'good'.

But our difference is that I have come to believe there are those who have genuine abilities to sense things directly that the physical senses and instruments can not. These things for example are postulated to be in realms/dimensions not directly detectable by the cruder physical. From a study of the teachings of these clairvoyants a model of reality has emerged in considerable detail to me that makes sense of these unexplained (paranormal) events persistent through out human history.

I am fine with science moving slowly through empiricist methods only but I in my personal worldview respect traditions and teachers beyond where science can yet investigate. The philosophy you are promoting here is what has been called scientism (per the dictionary: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques).
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I wouldn't say it presents a "big problem". I'ld rather say that that just makes it difficult.
But it also tells us something about the phenomena.
It means that there are "gradual" variations of "consciousness".
And multiple criteria. AND, no definitive point of differentiation. True of many things when it comes right down to it.
And it seems to me that the bigger brains get, the "more advanced consciousness" seems to manifest.
And those things that I would call "non conscious", seem to have no brains at all.
But that's my point. I don't think the assumption that consciousness is confined to a "brain" is correct. I think consciousness manifests, to varying degrees, within the whole 'body' of a life form.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
From my study of the paranormal, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that dramatic things occur that are not understood by current science

I think it's funny how this implies that it's valid to take the jump from "we don't understand X" to "X is paranormal".

Now, a scientist of your mindset might say, fine, we can't explain then but we are trying. And to that I say 'good'.

Not a scientists "of my mindset". Just a scientist instead.
A scientist works according to the principles of the scientific method.

When you use the scientific method, then not knowing something is cause for investigation and hypothesis building and subsequent testing of those models.

It never includes pretending to have the answers before even asking the questions.

But our difference is that I have come to believe there are those who have genuine abilities to sense things directly that the physical senses and instruments can not.

Indeed, our difference is that I don't believe undomenstrable nonsense and aren't impressed by mere claims of "the amazing".

These things for example are postulated to be in realms/dimensions not directly detectable by the cruder physical

Yes, if I were to try and con someone into believing I have amazing magical abilities, I too would guard against being tested by making stuff up like "it happens in a realm/dimension that you with your primitive human tools and senses can not detect. that's how awesome I am."


From a study of the teachings of these clairvoyants a model of reality has emerged in considerable detail

Published in Con-man Magazine? It wasn't in any proper respected journal, I'll tell you that much.

to me that makes sense of these unexplained (paranormal) events persistent through out human history.

It doesn't.
The unexplained is unexplained

You're basicly saying "it's magic beyond our ability to comprehend as mere primitive mortal humans who aren't priviliged with such magical abilities - you just gotta believe others are, eventhough they won't demonstrate it properly"

I am fine with science moving slowly through empiricist methods only but I in my personal worldview respect traditions and teachers beyond where science can yet investigate.

For not good reason, I'll add.
Sounds like you're just finding it comforting to be able to pretend to have answers to questions of the unknown and unexplained. That's fine off course, if that makes you feel better.

But let's not pretend as if this is any different from believing in bigfoot, alien abduction or monsters under the bed.

The philosophy you are promoting here is what has been called scientism (per the dictionary: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques).

No. It's just being rational.

Unexplained things are unexplained.
To be in a state of unexplained, does not, in any way shape or form, suggest anything "supernatural" / "paranormal" / "magical" / "however-you-wish-to-call-it".

There is zero reason to believe these things are real. It's just a bunch of hearsay and make-believe. Or at the very least: nobody has ever demonstrated to it being more then that.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And multiple criteria. AND, no definitive point of differentiation. True of many things when it comes right down to it.

But wouldn't you expect exactly such a world, if it is the result of processes like gradual evolution?

This seems, after all, true of many body parts and traits and stuff.
Where does an arm end and a wing begin?
When you go back in human history generation by generation and see the faces of a lineage flash by... at wich point would you on longer call it a human?

Sounds kind of the same to me. Defining clear boundaries for traits that are the result of some 3.8 billion years of gradual modification... At some point you're going to end up with arbitrary criteria, to make it easier.
And those arbitrary criteria might change depending on context.

In some contexts the word "humans" will include neanderthalis.
In other contexts, it will only refer to homo sapiens.

Why would consciousness be any different?

But that's my point. I don't think the assumption that consciousness is confined to a "brain" is correct.

And it's always possible that it isn't, off course.
However..... literally all the evidence is compatible with the idea that consciousness is confined to a brain. The evidence is even consistent with the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain.

I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the opposite.

I think consciousness manifests, to varying degrees, within the whole 'body' of a life form.

And on what do you base that thinking?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
to exist it requires it to be, a verb, a movement, an action, and then it is a thing, saguna brahman.

It is a foolish statement. To exist, Brahman requires a movement, an action?o_O

Brahman is the existence-consciousness. Movements and actions arise in it.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
It is a foolish statement. To exist, Brahman requires a movement, an action?o_O

Brahman is the existence-consciousness. Movements and actions arise in it.


foolish, or no, it is alive, it is life, it lives.


it is an action, a physical thing. consciousness isn't nothing. it is everything and it is physical.


the sri yantra represents its movement in all directions
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I think it's funny how this implies that it's valid to take the jump from "we don't understand X" to "X is paranormal".



Not a scientists "of my mindset". Just a scientist instead.
A scientist works according to the principles of the scientific method.

When you use the scientific method, then not knowing something is cause for investigation and hypothesis building and subsequent testing of those models.

It never includes pretending to have the answers before even asking the questions.



Indeed, our difference is that I don't believe undomenstrable nonsense and aren't impressed by mere claims of "the amazing".



Yes, if I were to try and con someone into believing I have amazing magical abilities, I too would guard against being tested by making stuff up like "it happens in a realm/dimension that you with your primitive human tools and senses can not detect. that's how awesome I am."




Published in Con-man Magazine? It wasn't in any proper respected journal, I'll tell you that much.



It doesn't.
The unexplained is unexplained

You're basicly saying "it's magic beyond our ability to comprehend as mere primitive mortal humans who aren't priviliged with such magical abilities - you just gotta believe others are, eventhough they won't demonstrate it properly"



For not good reason, I'll add.
Sounds like you're just finding it comforting to be able to pretend to have answers to questions of the unknown and unexplained. That's fine off course, if that makes you feel better.

But let's not pretend as if this is any different from believing in bigfoot, alien abduction or monsters under the bed.



No. It's just being rational.

Unexplained things are unexplained.
To be in a state of unexplained, does not, in any way shape or form, suggest anything "supernatural" / "paranormal" / "magical" / "however-you-wish-to-call-it".

There is zero reason to believe these things are real. It's just a bunch of hearsay and make-believe. Or at the very least: nobody has ever demonstrated to it being more then that.
Well I can sum up our differences. You are a follower of what is called scientism. Whereas I feel science is of course a great thing but has a limited domain at this time.

I believe there are many through so-called psychic sensing and experiencing that can tell us of things currently beyond the realm of science to either confirm or disprove. And you say all such folks are charlatans or perhaps delusional. I have spent decades studying such folks and their teachings and am personally convinced beyond reasonable doubt that we are dealing with real phenomena beyond the current domain of science.

We each must think and investigate for ourselves. But watch for ingrained learned prejudices that might keep us in a rut that we become too comfortable in. I think open-minded skepticism is the closest term to the right approach.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
foolish, or no, it is alive, it is life, it lives.

But you said "to exist it requires it to be, a verb, a movement, an action, and then it is a thing, saguna brahman."

Yes. That is foolish or ignorance. Brahman is the existence-consciousness.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
But you said "to exist it requires it to be, a verb, a movement, an action, and then it is a thing, saguna brahman."

Yes. That is foolish or ignorance. Brahman is the existence-consciousness.
brahman is active whether you call it saguna or nirguna. only when it takes on attributes, forms, facets does it become saguna. movement doesn't require it to have an attribute. if it were to stop moving, be static, then it would have a form. it is amorphous
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
brahman is active whether you call it saguna or nirguna. only when it takes on attributes, forms, facets does it become saguna. movement doesn't require it to have an attribute. if it were to stop moving, be static, then it would have a form. it is amorphous

My dear friend. You said "to exist it requires it to be, a verb, a movement, an action, and then it is a thing, saguna brahman."

Why are you side-stepping the point now? Brahman is existence-consciousness.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
My dear friend. You said "to exist it requires it to be, a verb, a movement, an action, and then it is a thing, saguna brahman."

Why are you side-stepping the point now? Brahman is existence-consciousness.
yes, to be is a verb, an action.
 
Top