Consciousness

[allfoak]

You purport to know quite a lot about the unknowable. How's that done? What test did you use to determine whether the All is unknowable or not?
Do these conversations have information content or are they just emoting? Will the All give me a proof or disproof of the Riemann hypothesis? Will it tell Groucho the capital of South Dakota? Or do the All and the visitor just gaze at each other's navels?

 

[blü 2]

Ah, it's a secret!

That explains a lot.

Now I'll never know the capital of South Dakota ...

 

[Straw Dog]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

We have no clear idea of consciousness, much less one that is fundamental. From the fact that we can think, talk, actively participate with and hypothesize about consciousness, doesn’t mean that consciousness exists in-and-of itself or that it possesses the property of timelessness. Our ideas and words are imagistic and we have no real idea of a “consciousness” substance or a non-image idea.

We can’t necessarily conclude that consciousness is not also a corporeal thing, unless we know that we know everything about the mind, but we know that we don’t know everything about the mind (or we don’t know that we know everything), so we don’t know that the mind isn’t also corporeal and conscious. Perhaps consciousness is indeterminate rather than timeless or fundamental.

 

[godnotgod]

It is unfortunate but i do believe that you are unable to understand what i am saying.
Consciousness is akin to the All, that which is unknowable.
Through the understanding and use of certain laws and forces of mind we can learn how to converse with the All but never can we know all there is to know.

Right. The distinction must be made between factual knowledge and insight into the nature of Reality. Most of science is concerned with factual knowledge. But somewhere along the line, though Planck is a scientist trained in the scientific method, he has seen into the nature of the atom via another kind of insight transcendent of factual knowledge. Factual knowledge alone cannot tell us what the nature of Reality is, though many think it can, and so they doggedly pursue this pathway. Ultimately, factual knowledge only makes sense when understood within the context of the nature of Reality, and not the other way around. I think scientists in general have this idea in the back of their minds that someday they will have accumulated enough factual knowledge in order to reach an epiphanic moment where they can say: 'Ah HA! So THAT'S what it's all about!' They are sadly mistaken. What is required is a transformation of consciousness by which what they thought to be the case, is not actually the case. Quantum Physics has given us glimpses into this other view of Reality, but it is an incomplete view.

Factual knowledge is a dead knowledge because all of it is based upon dead facts held in memory, and memory is a creature of the past. Not saying it is useless, but it cannot tell us what things actually ARE.

 

[godnotgod]

Will the All give me a proof or disproof of the Riemann hypothesis? Will it tell Groucho the capital of South Dakota? Or do the All and the visitor just gaze at each other's navels?

Actually, it is the area just below the navel, called the hara, that is considered to be the center of consciousness in the East, as compared to the brain as the West sees it.

Hara in Japanese means ' Centre of your being '. It is a point 2" below the navel and when you are deeply aware, You find yourself here.

Hara is the Centre of Intuition, Immunity, Vitality and Longevity. Hara is also centre of Personal Will, Intent, and Sexual Energy and is the Core Consciousness of the Whole Being. Working on Hara is the process of Self-Becoming which erases the opinions, prejudices and beliefs. Learning the art and science of Hara certainly unleashes the hidden energies lying dormant within each one of us! All the truly enlightened masters live eternally in Hara Consciousness.

" Union of Head & Heart, Thought & Feeling, Intuition & Intellect is called as Yoga or Spirituality and all this union happens at the Centre of Your Being otherwise called as the HARA "... Dr.Yugandhar

:: HARA - Centralizing the Consciousness of Mankind ::

I can tell you from personal experience with the hara via focused meditation and breath control, that, at the very minimum, there is a pronounced and unmistakable experience of solidity, robustness, and centering that is far superior to focusing on the cranial area as the center of consciousness.

Anyone seeking factual knowledge begins with consciousness already in place. Most of us think consciousness is an individual phenomena, exclusive to each of our persons. That is like a fish thinking it has a personal sea at it's disposal, when it is really supported fully inside and out by a sea universal to all fish. IOW, 'my mind' is just an illusion. It is universal consciousness, The All, that is the true Reality. But we continuously interject 'I' into the experience, which only creates a limited view of Reality. As Alan Watts once put it:

"The dead man speaks and gives us all the facts, but tells us nothing"

 

[godnotgod]

Ah, it's a secret!

That explains a lot.

Now I'll never know the capital of South Dakota ...

As long as the discriminating mind is used to seek it, it will always remain a secret.

"That which you are seeking, is causing you to seek"
Cheri Huber, Zennist

 

[godnotgod]

While I have resisted urges to respond to your prior pontifications, I am weak, so will continue to resist them even if I occasionally give in. I recognize that is your own highly authoritarian position but it is certainly not mine. Who is right? More importantly, who really cares?

Considering the bulk of my comments spring from my direct experience, I rather expect, I do. No doubt you will feel an urge to explain why I have this so very, very wrong.


I don't tend to labor over drivel of this nature.

I'm just pointing out the simple fact that the description of an experience is not the actual experience. Sounds reasonable, but most people. believe it or not, make this very mistake. You have missed this point because you are yanked along by the example itself rather than what the example signifies. Get off it.

You see my position as 'authoritarian' because you refuse to take a look at what I am actually saying to see if it is true or not. "who is right' is not the issue here. Seeing things as they are is what we should be focused on, instead of seeing things as the thinking mind dictates how they are. The thinking mind cannot come to grips with the true nature of Reality simply because it's nature is to create a model of reality, and then attempt to make Reality fit the model.

Your comments here are telltale: they show that you are still wallowing around in duality, as 'right and wrong' are your concerns. So no. You do not understand the difference between assertion as a result of thought, and direct experience of reality without thought.

It is not clear to you that a 'self-realized, self-identified modern mystic' is an oxymoron, because you are still driven by self, which you really believe to be real. Get over it. And your obvious condescending attitude is not needed. Besides, it's sophomoric and poorly written in the guise of being clever.

Cheers.

 

[godnotgod]

This is an idea I unreservedly support. How would one know? (If they were being honest, that is.) Having written on this phenomena extensively offline, for many years, I've come to the conclusion that if one did visit such an aspect as formless consciousness you would likely have no memory of it other than a blank spot. That is not to say that one could not theoretically enter such a state, and still have full consciousness, rather, upon return to ordinary consciousness, you would retain no memory.

If you were a bird raised in captivity, you would not know what the freedom of flight is like. But once experienced, the taste of it would of course be unmistakable. If you returned to your place of captivity, you would know the difference beyond the shadow of any doubt.....wouldn't you?

Once the prisoner in Plato's Cave escaped and went topside to experience The Sun for the very first time, there is no doubt that the shadows on the cave walls that previously represented Reality would pale in comparison. Of course, the other prisoners who never saw The Sun would tenaciously cling to those cave wall shadows and defend their veracity unto death.

Worst case scenario is to catch a glimpse of The Sun, deny it as delusion, and then return to the shadow world.

Sound familiar?

 

[godnotgod]

You purport to know quite a lot about the unknowable. How's that done? What test did you use to determine whether the All is unknowable or not?

While you cannot fill a glass with the entire ocean, a glass full of ocean water is of the exact same nature as that of the entire ocean.

"You are not just the drop in the ocean. You are the mighty ocean in the drop."
Rumi

 

[godnotgod]

....that is what we're talking about in the first place... that the matter of THIS universe somehow isn't sustained without consciousness present to perceive it? Well shoot.

Where do you see a separation between what you call 'matter' and consciousness?

 

[blü 2]

I can tell you from personal experience with the hara via focused meditation and breath control, that, at the very minimum, there is a pronounced and unmistakable experience of solidity, robustness, and centering that is far superior to focusing on the cranial area as the center of consciousness.

It seems possible that particular exercises of mind regarding body might result in benefit to both.

But these are questions of fact, and so testable. Has your claim been tested by orthodox science and resulting improvements demonstrated? If so, where may I check the results? If not, why not?

Most of us think consciousness is an individual phenomena, exclusive to each of our persons.

That's certainly my view. Consciousness, after all, is the product of the individual's brain functions. What evidence acceptable to science do you offer in support of an alternative source of consciousness?

 

[blü 2]

As long as the discriminating mind is used to seek it, it will always remain a secret.

That can only encourage skepticism. If you say it's true, then demonstrate its correctness in reality, publish the results in reputable journals of science, and welcome criticism and investigation. After all, if you claims are indeed correct you have nothing to fear, and if they're not, you have everything to gain.

 

[godnotgod]

1) Not immediately. My understanding is that it takes several hundred milliseconds for the sensations to be sent from the nerve endings to our brainstem and hindbrain, and it takes several more milliseconds for those signals to be processed and sent along to other centers of the brain, and signals to be send from the various parts of the body in response.

Or are you suggesting that there is some 'conscious' experience of falling into the lake prior to the nerve signals reaching the brain?

No. What I am saying is that you experience coldness via consciousness before a single thought comes to mind that the water is indeed 'cold'. It matters not that there is a slight delay for the signal to to arrive and be processed. Without consciousness, you do not know that the water is cold. Immediately after this experience, you think: 'Oh. The water is cold!' But your conscious experience of it's coldness comes first. Same with burning your finger on a hot stove. It's just that the thinking mind wants to be in control, and thinks it is the 'experiencer of the experience'. There is no such agent of the experience. It's just an illusion that has become hard-wired into the brain.

2) When I've stopped my internal monologue, the flow of experience continues (except when it stills when I fall asleep). but my ongoing experience is based in the transmission of nerve impulses from receptors to the various pre, un, and sub conscious parts of the brain in a process taking many milliseconds before the signals reach my awareness.

The brain has it's job, of course, and needn't alert consciousness to the beating of heart; the digestion of nutrients; or breathing esp during sleep, unless something goes awry. But you do not actually know that your ongoing conscious experience sans thought is not coming from outside your brain, in somewhat the same manner that the images on a TV screen do not come from inside the TV set. Even during sleep, however, consciousness is still there. You will awaken if someone calls your name in an emergency, or the baby wakes and begins to cry.

While I am receptive to the idea that there might be conscious experience unmediated by nerve pathways and the brain, I personally do not see any way to demonstrate that that is what happens. What evidence is there?

What I am suggesting is that all of the brain functions have been pre-programmed by consciousness. We wouldn't argue that a computer processor isn't first dependent upon software programming by conscious humans. Could such a complex organ as the brain really have come about as a fluke of nature?

Once one resumes thinking, of course one tries to analyze and understand the experience. The map is certainly not the territory of experience. But neither is it self-evident from experience that we are anything but a conscious mind dependent upon sensory input for experience.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, no, there is no sound, but there are sound waves. Even if recorded remotely, the sound on the recorded media is not sound until processed by a conscious listener. Sensory input doesn't mean anything until processed by consciousness. But without sensory input, there is still consciousness.

The exercise of putting consciousness first, of making it the ground of existence, the "behind" of our experiences is just another model about consciousness. Where and what is the evidence that this is the case? As far as I can tell, it seems to be an untestable assumption.

The consciousness you are referring to as a model is mind, not consciousness. Mind is sculpted, conditioned consciousness. But before such conditioning, consciousness is unconditioned, uncreated, unformed. But you are correct in one sense: it is untestable via scientific methodology. But it can be directly experienced as long as the pathway is clear. That means the intrusive and incessant chatter of the discursive mind must first be silenced.

3) No. false dichotomy. A meal is the sensory impulses from your nerves, into and processed by the brain--your EXPERIENCE. The ongoing narrative your mind provides is a map of your experience, not the experience itself.

"First there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then there is."

And again, what is the evidence that consciousness is so self-evidently prior to the existence of a body with sensory receptor nerves, a transmission pathway, and processing at several different levels and locations within the brain?

None of the above is evidence that consciousness originates within the brain. How can a material organ create non-material consciousness? At what point does this occur, and how?

We know from several studies, that focused consciousness (ie meditation) actually grows brain tissue, specifically the cortex tissues.

 

[blü 2]

While you cannot fill a glass with the entire ocean, a glass full of ocean water is of the exact same nature as that of the entire ocean.

Obviously it isn't, It differs in volume, temperature, boundaries, contents, rates of evaporation, place in the water cycle, variability, salinity, turbidity, currents, icebergs, tides, storm effects, tsumani effects, submarine volcanic effects, tectonic features and phenomena, amount of garbage dumped, bacteria, crustacea, molluscs, arthropods, vertebrates, corals, weeds, kelps, sunken ships, recreational and commercial swimming and diving, esthetic uses ...

Feel free to try again.

 

[crossfire]

As long as the discriminating mind is used to seek it, it will always remain a secret.

"That which you are seeking, is causing you to seek"
Cheri Huber, Zennist

How do you rule out delusion without discernment?

 

[godnotgod]

That can only encourage skepticism. If you say it's true, then demonstrate its correctness in reality, publish the results in reputable journals of science, and welcome criticism and investigation. After all, if you claims are indeed correct you have nothing to fear, and if they're not, you have everything to gain.

The clue here is that, one is unwittingly creating obstructions as long as one pursues the mystery via rational thought.

Consciousness as the fundamental reality cannot be proven via such analytical investigation; it lies beyond the grasp of the rational mind.

 

[godnotgod]

Obviously it isn't, It differs in volume, temperature, boundaries, contents, rates of evaporation, place in the water cycle, variability, salinity, turbidity, currents, icebergs, tides, storm effects, tsumani effects, submarine volcanic effects, tectonic features and phenomena, amount of garbage dumped, bacteria, crustacea, molluscs, arthropods, vertebrates, corals, weeds, kelps, sunken ships, recreational and commercial swimming and diving, esthetic uses ...

Feel free to try again.

You have missed the point: I said that the two have exactly the same nature. IOW, what you think of as 'my consciousness', is the same consciousness as the source of that consciousness. We just create an artificial shell around consciousness called 'I' that is an illusion. All consciousness is universal in nature, but the ego wants to own and control it as 'mine'. It's delusive, to say the least.

 

[godnotgod]

How do you rule out delusion without discernment?

Isn't delusion a discernment that is incorrect?

The enlightened mind illuminates what is so one just sees things as they are. It does not involve a thinking process.

"And the light that I was was the light that I saw by, and the light that I saw by, was the light that I was"
Incredible String Band

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sure it's easy to argue with them, ESPECIALLY when what they say is taken to unite science and religion.

Those two (and any others you're likely to bring up in a discussion such as this), were writing roughly a century ago...their understanding of physics was incomplete, and at the same time, there has been a great deal of further thought in philosophy in relation to both science and religion, and into how the two might fit together.

Got any more or less contemporary (say, the last 50 years) references?

Next, there has been quite a bit of research into consciousness, and a lot of theorizing, too, in the last several decades. Do you really think that any of this research and theory is irrelevant to whatever Planck, Einstein, or whoever, might have thought? Do you think that, if they were still alive today, and up-to-date in their fields, that they would still keep the same views about consciousness?

Yes. In view of deeper understanding of multmulti-dimensional universes and Hawking's single wave concept of the universe, I think they might consider it more seriously.

 

[godnotgod]

It seems possible that particular exercises of mind regarding body might result in benefit to both.

But these are questions of fact, and so testable. Has your claim been tested by orthodox science and resulting improvements demonstrated? If so, where may I check the results? If not, why not?
That's certainly my view. Consciousness, after all, is the product of the individual's brain functions. What evidence acceptable to science do you offer in support of an alternative source of consciousness?

My response about the hara was in response to your use of the 'navel gazing' stereotype. I was just trying to show that it has far more validity than the way you portrayed it.

Consciousness has no material component. How can a material brain create and contain non-material consciousness?