The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[cousinbasil]

If you lose all five senses, are you still conscious?

WIth each sense less, another bit of mind goes unless another sense heightens instead. But does it make sense?

Not sure about that. Sensory deprivation chambers were once all the rage to help people heighten awareness, or at least make the cacaphonic competition for that "still, small voice" a bit quieter.

[jupiviv]

If you lose all five senses, are you still conscious?

If you are unconscious, do you have five senses?

[Jamesh]

Diebert,

Hey good old Jimz. While I'm familiar with those theories and certainly can vouch for them experimentally, what still surprises me is that the same sensitivity for coincedence and correlation appears to suppress in these cases any desire to check things out. As if all rustles in the grass will always be dangerous predators and never something to hunt for or discover. Caution and heigthened senses are one thing: dumb reflexes and hostility to thought or analysis (another type of hunt?) is another one.

Yes, and that wiki link posted by Bob Michael about Positive Disintegration explains that quite well, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration

Dabrowski observed that most people live their lives in a state of "primary or primitive integration" largely guided by biological impulses ("first factor") and/or by uncritical endorsement and adherence to social convention ("second factor"). He called this initial integration Level I. Dabrowski observed that at this level there is no true individual expression of the autonomous human self.

I'm glad there are still sound theories out there to be discovered, and hopefully absorbed.

So to use the lion analogy a bit further: it's perhaps not people wanting it to mean something but perhaps more like some fear that it might not mean anything at all. The symbol of a comet on some obsolete money bill (and are value papers not mystical and mysterious in their ever-shifting meaning?) or the timing of its orbit and all other stories surrounding the coming year: is it not the need for a sign, a negative one, a sign of some occulted "brown star" born hope, a sign of the "end of time". Like a hidden deathwish: we might prefer time to end or at least to be somewhat interupted, any shift at all as it's something modern society increasingly does not allow! The fear is not of death, or disasters: the greater fear is not having anything like that at all, at least in the space of meanings. Just the ticking of clocks....

There is a lot in there, and I'm not feeling very bright today, but anyways.

There has been a strongly polarised carbon tax debate in Australia in recent months. Reading the comments section of the newspapers, there are a lot of folk out there that emotionally see the carbon tax as the "end times", the ruination of Australia, and most of these folk wouldn't have done much analysis at all. At the same time Oz is one of the lucky countries, doing well (unemployment <5%). Housing, thus rental, prices and inflation on necessities is hurting the poor and addicted, but others should be fine. Its being used as a focal point for anxieties, promoted extensively by the conservative, US emotionalised style of politicking adopted here by the opposition in the last decade. Its particularly strong now as the opposition leader is an opportunistic Christian religious prick, albeit only Catholic though, not the crazed Republican evangelicals as in the US.

I've supported the tax because it seems the morally right thing to do. A necessary first step that won’t do much, but might eventually lead into other policies that involve the real issues, like population and heedless consumption. I'm less supportive now because of this article
The Great Bubble Machine. (the ETS bit is at the end)

any shift at all as it's something modern society increasingly does not allow

The takeover of society by the wealthy via owning politicians and the horrid unmoderated economic rationalism is causing an uneasy level of anxiety in me. Its something that everyone must feel in one manner or another. In the 60-80s, we were heading the other way. The benefits of productivity were being distributed, the path was for greater freedom from the binds of work and meaningless autocratic controls. Now its going the other way - the dominance of the powerful is being reasserted, and we are back to being chattel. All simply because the great of a few, fosters the greed of many.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/bhps- ... =text-only

The greed of the many means that they'll become subservient in order to consume more. A consumption constantly promoted everywhere by advertising and all other media imagery, even modern music, as well as the increasingly supply of product "choice" as companies try and flirt with your senses.

There is cause to be uneasy. We have an underlying groking that "quieter times" would indeed be greener for our souls. At present though, we are not seeing quieter times on the other side. We sense the other side is not going to be a better version of the 1984 we lived through, but the one in the book.

Just the ticking of clocks....

[Beingof1]

Mind is activity isn't it?
depends on object for existence.
no senses, no object, no mind.

Yes the mind has object.

If you lose all five senses, are you still conscious?

WIth each sense less, another bit of mind goes unless another sense heightens instead. But does it make sense?

That is like saying; "If you lost your finger in an accident, you are less of a person."

If you lose all five senses, are you still conscious?

If you are unconscious, do you have five senses?

Yes but awareness is diminished and diffused. The brain and body still react with reflex.

[Dennis Mahar]

B of I,

Yes the mind has object.

Does that mean mind and object exist independently of each other?

[Blair]

Well of course! By BO1's logic, the mind is not an object.

Get with the programme.

[Beingof1]

B of I,

Yes the mind has object.

Does that mean mind and object exist independently of each other?

Object is subject to mind. Object is a subset of mind as all objects, no matter conceptual or sense related, are contained in the mind. Consciousness is the full set, mind is a subset of consciousness, awareness is a subset of mind.

Well of course! By BO1's logic, the mind is not an object.

Get with the programme.

The mind is not an object Prince - unless you do not pay attention. It is apparent you lack discernment of your very own experience.

Like most, you superimpose your concept of reality over reality and pretend the concept is more real than your very own experience. How is that working for you?

All objects, concepts, ideas, thoughts, and sensory qualities are contained by your mind. How then, can mind be an 'object'?

[Dennis Mahar]

Object is subject to mind. Object is a subset of mind as all objects, no matter conceptual or sense related, are contained in the mind. Consciousness is the full set, mind is a subset of consciousness, awareness is a subset of mind.

lots of bits and pieces there.

body grows hair, grows fingernails, makes urine, sweats, walks, talks,
eye sees, nose smells, ears hear, tongue tastes, emotions arise, touch happens.
objects appear.
mind names objects as characteristics and functions.

Can we say 'I do it' ?
Is any of it 'mine'?

[Blair]

All objects, concepts, ideas, thoughts, and sensory qualities are contained by your mind. How then, can mind be an 'object'?

[jupiviv]

If you are unconscious, do you have five senses?

Yes but awareness is diminished and diffused. The brain and body still react with reflex.

I'm not talking about diminished awareness. I am talking about no awareness whatsoever. Do the 5 senses still exist then? My question was meant to expose the fallacy in your question. It's like asking - "if you do not know the name of your second cousin, are you still conscious?"

[Beingof1]

All objects, concepts, ideas, thoughts, and sensory qualities are contained by your mind. How then, can mind be an 'object'?

And where are you seeing this image?

In my mind?

How most can miss the stunningly obvious is amazing.

If you are unconscious, do you have five senses?

Yes but awareness is diminished and diffused. The brain and body still react with reflex.

I'm not talking about diminished awareness. I am talking about no awareness whatsoever. Do the 5 senses still exist then? My question was meant to expose the fallacy in your question. It's like asking - "if you do not know the name of your second cousin, are you still conscious?"

I know you were attempting to point out a fallacy.

I asked; "if you lost all five senses can you still be conscious"? Saying there is no consciousness is like asking, "if there is no universe, are there planets"?

If you have no consciousness (which is only possible in the imagination of consciousness) of course there is no five senses in this manufactured thought experiment.

It is not possible to have a state of "no consciousness". None have ever experienced such a state and is the great big grand daddy of all fallacies. It is like saying;"I went to a ball game once and do not remember it, therefore, I was not conscious during the event."

[cousinbasil]

It is not possible to have a state of "no consciousness". None have ever experienced such a state and is the great big grand daddy of all fallacies. It is like saying;"I went to a ball game once and do not remember it, therefore, I was not conscious during the event."

Half the guys in the bleachers at Yankee Stadium are not conscious during the event and have no recollection of having been there once they're home.

[Blair]

And where are you seeing this image?

In my mind?

How most can miss the stunningly obvious is amazing.

I'm thinking of an object right now, and putting a tag on it saying "Beingof1 read this". Access mind and tell me what it is.

[Beingof1]

And where are you seeing this image?

In my mind?

How most can miss the stunningly obvious is amazing.

I'm thinking of an object right now, and putting a tag on it saying "Beingof1 read this". Access mind and tell me what it is.

Emptiness.

I am sorry if you cannot read your own thoughts.

[Blair]

You are insisting Mind is omnipotent and not an object, so you should be able to read my thoughts just as easily as you can read your own.

[Beingof1]

You are insisting Mind is omnipotent and not an object, so you should be able to read my thoughts just as easily as you can read your own.

I am not insisting that Mind is omnipotent, consciousness is. Mind is omniscient in that it contains all that can be known. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything.

Can you experience seeing this post? If you can, the thought exists of whether or not I can read your thoughts.

There; I just read your mind.

Can you list everything you are seeing right now? If you cannot, does that mean you are not seeing the objects in your field of awareness? You are aware of an infinite amount of things in your field of awareness and all done in a finite amount of time. This is called a hypertask and demonstrates that you can experience the infinite but to pull a single object out from the field by focus is applying the boundary. Just because you cannot find a countable number the equals infinity does not mean the experience of it is not real because one of the definitions of infinite means a number that is countably infinite. Meaning; a higher number than can be counted.

Zero or the empty set meets the criteria for the characteristics/properties and so - your mind is empty unless you combine all infinite sets.

[Blair]

Ok, you win.

[cousinbasil]

You are aware of an infinite amount of things in your field of awareness and all done in a finite amount of time.

This is a bit of hand-waving, though, is it not? Each saccade - the supposed unit of visual input - is finite in time. But an infinite amount of things? What you are aware of during that time and before the next saccade, is not infinite. You could subsequently write an infinite treatise on the "things" you saw in that finite amount of time, but that does not mean by any stretch that you were "aware" of them when they entered your perceptual reach. The task is for consciousness to pull at least a minimum number of useful elements from what entered the organism during this time.

This is called a hypertask and demonstrates that you can experience the infinite but to pull a single object out from the field by focus is applying the boundary.

Called a "hypertask" by whom? Applying the "boundary" of what, and applying it to what?

Just because you cannot find a countable number the equals infinity does not mean the experience of it is not real because one of the definitions of infinite means a number that is countably infinite. Meaning; a higher number than can be counted.

I think you meant here that one of the types of infinity is when a set of things is uncountably infinite.

You don't seem to grasp the simple distinction between a set that is countably infinite and one that is uncountably infinite. In fact, both sets are larger than you could ever count. That is what infinite means. A countable set - infinite or not - is one whose elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (i.e., 1, 2, 3, ...) The set of natural numbers itself is infinite, so it is a good example of a set that is countably infinite since it obviously can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with itself. The set of positive even numbers is likewise countably infinite. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite, on the other hand.

Since both sets are infinite, it may fly in the face of common sense to call one set larger than the other, but usually mathematicians regard the cardinality of a set as being indicative of its relative size. Therefore, it is commonly said that the set of real numbers is larger than the set of natural numbers, or that it contains more elements, even though they both contain an infinite number of elements. In practice, no one could count the members of either set; in theory, one set is said to be countable, and therefore is regarded as "smaller."

Ok, you win.

Fat chance.

[Beingof1]

You are aware of an infinite amount of things in your field of awareness and all done in a finite amount of time.

This is a bit of hand-waving, though, is it not? Each saccade - the supposed unit of visual input - is finite in time. But an infinite amount of things?

No I was not waving my hand.

Start counting the things you are aware of - let me know when you are done.

What you are aware of during that time and before the next saccade, is not infinite.

Start counting the things you are aware of in one moment of time - let me know when you are done.

You could subsequently write an infinite treatise on the "things" you saw in that finite amount of time, but that does not mean by any stretch that you were "aware" of them when they entered your perceptual reach. The task is for consciousness to pull at least a minimum number of useful elements from what entered the organism during this time.

The amount of information can be disconcerting; I know. The very art and craft of the mind is to pull a single object out from the literal infinite field known as the universe and focus on it. You focus on one thing at a time. Try seeing beyond the one thing and tell me how many objects and things you are aware of in one moment.

This is called a hypertask and demonstrates that you can experience the infinite but to pull a single object out from the field by focus is applying the boundary.

Called a "hypertask" by whom? Applying the "boundary" of what, and applying it to what?

Not by you apparently.

Just because you cannot find a countable number the equals infinity does not mean the experience of it is not real because one of the definitions of infinite means a number that is countably infinite. Meaning; a higher number than can be counted.

I think you meant here that one of the types of infinity is when a set of things is uncountably infinite.

I am glad we agree.

You don't seem to grasp the simple distinction between a set that is countably infinite and one that is uncountably infinite. In fact, both sets are larger than you could ever count. That is what infinite means. A countable set - infinite or not - is one whose elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (i.e., 1, 2, 3, ...) The set of natural numbers itself is infinite, so it is a good example of a set that is countably infinite since it obviously can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with itself. The set of positive even numbers is likewise countably infinite. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite, on the other hand.

Since both sets are infinite, it may fly in the face of common sense to call one set larger than the other, but usually mathematicians regard the cardinality of a set as being indicative of its relative size. Therefore, it is commonly said that the set of real numbers is larger than the set of natural numbers, or that it contains more elements, even though they both contain an infinite number of elements. In practice, no one could count the members of either set; in theory, one set is said to be countable, and therefore is regarded as "smaller."

Count it any way you want to - tell me when you are done.

[cousinbasil]

You are aware of an infinite amount of things in your field of awareness and all done in a finite amount of time.

This is a bit of hand-waving, though, is it not? Each saccade - the supposed unit of visual input - is finite in time. But an infinite amount of things?

No I was not waving my hand.

Start counting the things you are aware of - let me know when you are done.

What you are aware of during that time and before the next saccade, is not infinite.

Start counting the things you are aware of in one moment of time - let me know when you are done.

You could subsequently write an infinite treatise on the "things" you saw in that finite amount of time, but that does not mean by any stretch that you were "aware" of them when they entered your perceptual reach. The task is for consciousness to pull at least a minimum number of useful elements from what entered the organism during this time.

The amount of information can be disconcerting; I know. The very art and craft of the mind is to pull a single object out from the literal infinite field known as the universe and focus on it. You focus on one thing at a time. Try seeing beyond the one thing and tell me how many objects and things you are aware of in one moment.

This is called a hypertask and demonstrates that you can experience the infinite but to pull a single object out from the field by focus is applying the boundary.

Called a "hypertask" by whom? Applying the "boundary" of what, and applying it to what?

Not by you apparently.

Just because you cannot find a countable number the equals infinity does not mean the experience of it is not real because one of the definitions of infinite means a number that is countably infinite. Meaning; a higher number than can be counted.

I think you meant here that one of the types of infinity is when a set of things is uncountably infinite.

I am glad we agree.

You don't seem to grasp the simple distinction between a set that is countably infinite and one that is uncountably infinite. In fact, both sets are larger than you could ever count. That is what infinite means. A countable set - infinite or not - is one whose elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (i.e., 1, 2, 3, ...) The set of natural numbers itself is infinite, so it is a good example of a set that is countably infinite since it obviously can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with itself. The set of positive even numbers is likewise countably infinite. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite, on the other hand.

Since both sets are infinite, it may fly in the face of common sense to call one set larger than the other, but usually mathematicians regard the cardinality of a set as being indicative of its relative size. Therefore, it is commonly said that the set of real numbers is larger than the set of natural numbers, or that it contains more elements, even though they both contain an infinite number of elements. In practice, no one could count the members of either set; in theory, one set is said to be countable, and therefore is regarded as "smaller."

Count it any way you want to - tell me when you are done.

OK. I'm done.

[Tomas]

OK, brokie and cuz ain't one and the same.
you can leave the dock.
thanks.

Up in the top right of the page is a search box.

Type in>> lah di fucking dah <<

Whose names appear?

CousinBasil, Brokenhead in Worldly:

Sexual Beings thread .. Brokenhead
lah-di-fucking-dah

Malcolm X thread .. Cousinbasil
lah-di-fucking-dah

In Genius Forum ..

What Is True Friendship? thread .. Brokenhead
lah-di-fucking-dah by Brokenhead.

PS - In the search box,

type in>> uncle <<for the search.

A few names will show up 'uncle brokie' will show up as started by brokenhead.

.