What you actually mean by 'Consciousness'?

[Martin]

That is quite simple Meercat. In an in-animate object, each atom is conscious, though the object as a whole does not have any consciousness. In Living beings, the individual atoms has its own consciousness, but the being as a whole also has its own different consciousness. The consciousness of atom is the universal consciousness, the consciousness of the being is not, it wallows in 'maya'. Take a rock and put it in a reaction, and see the reaction begin. The rock responds in its own way. Why do you want a rock to respond in a human way? Should it talk to you?
Yes, it talks, if you can hear it. I was a geology student. Each stone or rock talks, tells its own history. How it was ground down and came to lie in a sediment or how it was given the hell treatment to turn it into granite, basalt or obsidian.

So atoms are "conscious"? Please explain how you have come to this conclusion.
How do you know atoms are conscious?

Is there any scientific support for this assertion, or is it your personal interpretation of Advaita?

 

[SalixIncendium]

After reading through the first page of this thread, I'm seeing the same argument as I've seen (and been in) before. Until the definition of 'consciousness' is agreed upon, such a debate is an exercise in futility.

For example, in Eastern thought, when discussion 'consciousness,' there is no 'unconsciousness.' Consciousness is immutable...eternal...unchanging. It is not switched off during deep sleep, at death, or at any other "time." It actually transcends time. I saw mention of what happens to consciousness in deep sleep. In Eastern, or more accurately, Vedantic thought, deep sleep is an experience of absence, not an absence of experience. It doesn't "un." It remains static.

Unless those discussing consciousness can stop digging their heels in about where consciousness originates, whether in the brain or outside of the body/mind, the argument is pointless. There is no objective evidence of either, and either side asking the other to present it is mere posturing.

 

[Martin]

After reading through the first page of this thread, I'm seeing the same argument as I've seen (and been in) before. Until the definition of 'consciousness' is agreed upon, such a debate is an exercise in futility.

For example, in Eastern thought, when discussion 'consciousness,' there is no 'unconsciousness.' Consciousness is immutable...eternal...unchanging. It is not switched off during deep sleep, at death, or at any other "time." It actually transcends time. I saw mention of what happens to consciousness in deep sleep. In Eastern, or more accurately, Vedantic thought, deep sleep is an experience of absence, not an absence of experience. It doesn't "un." It remains static.

Unless those discussing consciousness can stop digging their heels in about where consciousness originates, whether in the brain or outside of the body/mind, the argument is pointless. There is no objective evidence of either, and either side asking the other to present it is mere posturing.

Let's not conflate "Eastern thought" with Vedantic thought, since Buddhism explains consciousness quite differently to Hinduism. In Buddhism consciousness arises in dependence upon conditions.

So what counts as "objective evidence" in relation to the nature of consciousness? I don't regard meditative experiences as objective evidence, for the reasons outlined earlier.
Is there anything else which supports your view? Is there any objective evidence for the idea of consciousness as immutable, eternal and unchanging, and not dependent on living creatures? I think it's a nice idea, but where's the evidence?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Let's not conflate "Eastern thought" with Vedantic thought, since Buddhism explains consciousness quite differently to Hinduism. In Buddhism consciousness arises in dependence upon conditions.

Does Buddhism assert that consciousness is a product of the body/mind?

So what counts as "objective evidence" in relation to the nature of consciousness? I don't regard meditative experiences as objective evidence, for the reasons outlined earlier.
Is there anything else which supports your view? Is there any objective evidence for the idea of consciousness as immutable, eternal and unchanging, and not dependent on living creatures? I think it's a nice idea, but where's the evidence?

I wasn't arguing my view, I was merely presenting the Eastern perspective, so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. As I said, there is not evidence on either side for the origin of consciousness. The point of my post is that until there is objective evidence from either camp, there is no point in arguing either side.

 

[Polymath257]

After reading through the first page of this thread, I'm seeing the same argument as I've seen (and been in) before. Until the definition of 'consciousness' is agreed upon, such a debate is an exercise in futility.

For example, in Eastern thought, when discussion 'consciousness,' there is no 'unconsciousness.' Consciousness is immutable...eternal...unchanging. It is not switched off during deep sleep, at death, or at any other "time." It actually transcends time. I saw mention of what happens to consciousness in deep sleep. In Eastern, or more accurately, Vedantic thought, deep sleep is an experience of absence, not an absence of experience. It doesn't "un." It remains static.

Unless those discussing consciousness can stop digging their heels in about where consciousness originates, whether in the brain or outside of the body/mind, the argument is pointless. There is no objective evidence of either, and either side asking the other to present it is mere posturing.

And it is very clear to me that different definitions are being used.

In my understanding of the word 'consciousness', there is simply no way at all that an atom *can* be conscious. Nor, for that matter, can a rock. So anyone who seriously says that they are is using the term in a *very* different way than I am.

I'll go further.

By what I mean when I say 'consiousness', it is clear that bacteria, sponges, and jellyfish are NOT conscious, even though they are alive and reactive to their environment.

On the flip side, it is clear to me that dogs, cats, and raccoons are conscious.

Are reptiles conscious? Amphibians? Fish? I don't know, and the answer may vary by species. if a good definition could be found, I am willing to be flexible on these.


On the other hand, when a claim is made that an atom is conscious, I have to wonder what is even being claimed by that statement. Is it simply that an atom can react to its environment? If so, that seems to be a very strange use of the word 'conscious'.

 

[Polymath257]

I wasn't arguing my view, I was merely presenting the Eastern perspective, so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. As I said, there is not evidence on either side for the origin of consciousness. The point of my post is that until there is objective evidence from either camp, there is no point in arguing either side.

I don't think there can be objective evidence until there is a fixed definition. Maybe all are talking about legitimate phenomena. If so, perhaps they need to be given different names and simply ban the use of the word 'conscious' from any serious study as being to overlaid with too many contradictory meanings.

 

[Polymath257]

This is precisely the point.The mystics would say that the universe is conscious. Probably Atanu too. I would agree with them, till they conflate this consciousness to human consciousness. These two are very different things, apples and oranges, as they say. Consciousness of physical matter and consciousness of a living being. Though both are based on electricity and chemistry (forces of nature), whether it is the universe or the human brain.

So maybe different words should be used since the phenomena are so different?

 

[SalixIncendium]

And it is very clear to me that different definitions are being used.

In my understanding of the word 'consciousness', there is simply no way at all that an atom *can* be conscious. Nor, for that matter, can a rock. So anyone who seriously says that they are is using the term in a *very* different way than I am.

I'll go further.

By what I mean when I say 'consiousness', it is clear that bacteria, sponges, and jellyfish are NOT conscious, even though they are alive and reactive to their environment.

On the flip side, it is clear to me that dogs, cats, and raccoons are conscious.

Are reptiles conscious? Amphibians? Fish? I don't know, and the answer may vary by species. if a good definition could be found, I am willing to be flexible on these.


On the other hand, when a claim is made that an atom is conscious, I have to wonder what is even being claimed by that statement. Is it simply that an atom can react to its environment? If so, that seems to be a very strange use of the word 'conscious'.

I think Western thought conflates sentience with consciousness, where Eastern/Indian/Vedantic thought separates the two.

"Another distinguishing features of consciousness in Eastern perspectives is that it differentiates between different types of consciousnesses. Indian perspective distinguish between Transcendent and Immanent consciousness. Similarly in Buddhist perspective there is a distinction made between different level of consciousness, these are gross and subtle consciousness. The Immanent consciousness of Indian perspective and Gross consciousness of Buddhist perspective are similar to modern day conception of consciousness in western perspective. What is unique about the eastern perspective is the other form of consciousness, these are transcendent consciousness in Indian perspective and subtle consciousness in Buddhist perspective both of which are transcendental in nature."​

"Critical Inquiry into Eastern and Western Perspective of Consciousness" by Yadav, Vikas - International Journal of Education and Management Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 4, December 2015 | Online Research Library: Questia

 

[Polymath257]

I think Western thought conflates sentience with consciousness, where Eastern/Indian/Vedantic thought separates the two.

"Another distinguishing features of consciousness in Eastern perspectives is that it differentiates between different types of consciousnesses. Indian perspective distinguish between Transcendent and Immanent consciousness. Similarly in Buddhist perspective there is a distinction made between different level of consciousness, these are gross and subtle consciousness. The Immanent consciousness of Indian perspective and Gross consciousness of Buddhist perspective are similar to modern day conception of consciousness in western perspective. What is unique about the eastern perspective is the other form of consciousness, these are transcendent consciousness in Indian perspective and subtle consciousness in Buddhist perspective both of which are transcendental in nature."​

"Critical Inquiry into Eastern and Western Perspective of Consciousness" by Yadav, Vikas - International Journal of Education and Management Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 4, December 2015 | Online Research Library: Questia

I think I'd have to see specific examples of each to make sense of this. The use of the word 'transcendental' also seems to throw me off.

 

[Martin]

Does Buddhism assert that consciousness is a product of the body/mind?



I wasn't arguing my view, I was merely presenting the Eastern perspective, so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. As I said, there is not evidence on either side for the origin of consciousness. The point of my post is that until there is objective evidence from either camp, there is no point in arguing either side.

No, you're presenting one Eastern view of consciousness, reflecting your Advaitan background and beliefs.

Anyway, you seem to be saying you have no objective evidence for this view?

 

[Martin]

I don't think there can be objective evidence until there is a fixed definition. Maybe all are talking about legitimate phenomena. If so, perhaps they need to be given different names and simply ban the use of the word 'conscious' from any serious study as being to overlaid with too many contradictory meanings.

Yes, "consciousness" is a can of worms. The difficulty is in finding suitable alternatives.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, you're presenting one Eastern view of consciousness, reflecting your Advaitan background and beliefs.

You failed to answer my question. Repeating the same error doesn't make it any more correct.

Anyway, you seem to be saying you have no objective evidence for this view?

Since you appear to prefer answering questions with questions, do you have any objective evidence for any views on the origin of consciousness?

 

[Martin]

You failed to answer my question. Repeating the same error doesn't make it any more correct.



Since you appear to prefer answering questions with questions, do you have any objective evidence for any views on the origin of consciousness?

I've already explained that Hinduism and Buddhism explain consciousness in different ways, challenging your attempt to conflate the "Eastern" and Advaita views. Remember that Advaita is only one school of Hinduism, and that Hinduism is only one of the Dharmic traditions. So as an Advaitan you don't have a monopoly on "Eastern thought", and you're not qualified to make general statements about it.

Like you, I don't have any objective evidence about the origin of consciousness. I simply don't know, but will keep exploring the possibilities.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've already explained that Hinduism and Buddhism explain consciousness in different ways, challenging your attempt to conflate the "Eastern" and Advaita views. Remember that Advaita is only one school of Hinduism, and that Hinduism is only one of the Dharmic traditions. So as an Advaitan you don't have a monopoly on "Eastern thought", and you're not qualified to make general statements about it.

What to you know of my qualifications?

Just because one has a particular worldview doesn't mean they haven't studied others and/or are automatically not qualified to make general statements about other views.

But since you continue postulate Eastern thought, let's get back to the statement you made earlier and the subsequent question you so conveniently ignored...

Let's not conflate "Eastern thought" with Vedantic thought, since Buddhism explains consciousness quite differently to Hinduism. In Buddhism consciousness arises in dependence upon conditions.

I'll ask again: Does Buddhism assert that consciousness is a product of the body/mind?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So atoms are "conscious"? Please explain how you have come to this conclusion.
How do you know atoms are conscious? Is there any scientific support for this assertion, or is it your personal interpretation of Advaita?

That is even simpler. Heat. Atoms react. If they were dead, they would not have reacted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Like you, I don't have any objective evidence about the origin of consciousness.

The only objective evidence is that a dead body is not conscious. Therefore, consciousness belongs to a functional body of a living being (human, animal, tree, algi, virus, any). >> As we go down to simpler and simpler live forms, consciousness turns into chemical reaction, e.g., virus. It does not have a consciousness where a brain is required. I do not think it is difficult to understand unless someone ties him/herself into religious knots. Think simple.

In Buddhism consciousness arises in dependence upon conditions.

Buddha is generally not wrong. Yes, consciousness depends on the conditions. There should be someone to observe and something to observe. The observer should have all the paraphernalia for observation, etc. My homage to my guru, Gautama, the Buddha.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The only objective evidence is that a dead body is not conscious.

Does a dead body exist in consciousness?

What evidence do you have that consciousness does not exist in a dead body (and no, I'm not suggesting that it does, merely that there is no evidence that it doesn't)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So maybe different words should be used since the phenomena are so different?

That is quite simple. I just say now I am talking of universal (quantum/gravitational) consciousness. The other times I may be talking of human consciousness (social, economic, religious, etc.).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does a dead body exist in consciousness?
What evidence do you have that consciousness does not exist in a dead body (and no, I'm not suggesting that it does, merely that there is no evidence that it doesn't)?

You have made the question difficult. Does my pant exist in legs or my legs exist in the pant!
Consciousness is not a casket or container (talking of modern computer usage) that the dead body will exist in it.
The atoms in the body are as conscious as they were before. What is not there is human consciousness because the light are off in the brain. That is a necessary requirement for human consciousness. As I said keep it simple, keep it uncomplicated, and you will have all the answers.

 

[Koldo]

What evidence do you have that consciousness does not exist in a dead body (and no, I'm not suggesting that it does, merely that there is no evidence that it doesn't)?

It doesn't exhibit signs of consciousness.