on consciousness

[bert]

there have been made various planned schemes of consciousness in the past,although all of them were to be apprehended as inconclusive.
so,consciousness is considered as indefinable although we are aware of its being our entirety.analysis along two lines,distinction between act and content as seperable:the cogito argument:"cogito ergo sum" could be more fully expressed as:'sensation,cognition,thought,action',:
1)if something bites me and I feel nothing,nothing has happened consciously.2)if I am bitten and it hurts me,i.e.,sensation.3)if I see the thing that hurts me,that is perception as cognition.4)'thought' then follows,to avoid and prvent recurrence followed by action.

to be continued...(need inspiration and intuition and if it must Ecstasy)

[bert]

5)therefore ,consciousness is con-sentience and awareness of varying degree and direction.the final phase is introspection or reflection:a scrutinity of the event and process involved are subsequent and determine future acts.Ergo:"I feel therefore I am".

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Certainly there must be more to consciousness than a conglomerate of feelings. For instance, the ideas of judgment, and the acting subject; consciousness allows us to think and plan and act. Are these processes nothing more than feelings? And, if they are, then a "feeling" becomes as complex as a "thought", and you're right back to Descartes.

[bert]

yes,but it is not of consciousness directly

"I feel therefore I am."
therefore,consciousness creates memory and fore-knowledge,i.e.,preceptiveness and intuition from sensational experience recoverable from memory,the main function being to create ability to cope with events,e.g.,the experiencing,questioning and reifying factors of future individualistic Ego.


NOW YOU ONLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUBCONSCIOUS AND THEN TAKE THOSE IDEAS ALONG TO GET TOWARDS THE TRUE ACCEPTANCE;THAT BEING :EVERYTHING IS IRRATIONAL.

but I know already that most will turn their backs towards it,because they are conditioned to do so.

[Sapius]

Bert,

5)therefore ,consciousness is con-sentience and awareness of varying degree and direction.the final phase is introspection or reflection:a scrutinity of the event and process involved are subsequent and determine future acts.Ergo:"I feel therefore I am".

I’m not good at this, but however…

You see, Even an animal “feels” that it exists, otherwise it could not interact with it’s environment, or one can say that any thing with the least bit of consciousness “feels” it exists, but that is not an analytical thought for that thing. It is logically unaware of its own existence. We on the other hand, we know that even though any thing may or may not be said to exist, but for sure there is something that is thinking even that, so a thinking thing has to be a necessity. So in that sense, it actually means ‘I can logically deduce that something is thinking, without any doubt, for it would exist even if it doubted it to be so, and this thinking calls or defines its self as an “I”, to differentiate and acknowledge all other things as not - I, and confirms that I must logically exist”. In other words, “I think therefore I am”, logically speaking.

But that is philosophy and has it’s aspects, on the other hand, a philosopher too could see with a little bit of faith in physical evolution how actually human consciousness comes into being, and why.

Which quite appropriately you mention here…

the final phase is introspection or reflection: a scrutiny of the event and process involved are subsequent and determine future acts.

Again, not to the same extant of complexity, but even an animal consciousness necessarily functions on experience and memory to determine future acts, only that we are capable of doing that on a higher plain through conceptualization, and all the same to determine future acts.

Consciousness as it is, is necessarily based on recognizing through sensual perceptions, memory of those perceptions, and the capability of differentiations, which is not a feeling, but a piece of un-“conscious”, instinctually processed data, which is basically defined as A=A, the law of identity, recognition. That is, instinctual identification. The same thing is the foundation of Human consciousness also, albeit with the capabilities that humans have evolutionarily developed, one can now actually define a Thing, and define all other things since they are not that. Hence we Know the essence of A=A, but non-sentient things are not logically aware of that although any minimally conscious thing does also operate by the same principle.

So, “I feel, therefore I am”, does not make sense, since an animal may well “feel” it, but not necessarily know that he is.

.

[R. Steven Coyle]

NOW YOU ONLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUBCONSCIOUS AND THEN TAKE THOSE IDEAS ALONG TO GET TOWARDS THE TRUE ACCEPTANCE;THAT BEING: EVERYTHING IS IRRATIONAL.

bert,

There is a band. I have a feeling you might enjoy them. Their name is "Of Montreal." They write with the irrational. They are skliptam.

[bert]

sapius,I was writing ,and I felt like not wanting to post what I was writing.this' the result.....

steven,I've heard it.not bad,but it didn't overwhelm enough.I wasn't with it.
At The Drive-in overwhelms me drasticly,I'm with them.

[bert]

of course things are timely

[R. Steven Coyle]

0-X7Z.

[bert]

Mindless Self Indulgence,When(jester records),Sugababes,Arckanum,System of A Down,The Madcapsule Markets,AFI's sing the sorrow,the cure,the beatles,Thorns,...and others I forget

[bert]

0-X7Z.

?

[R. Steven Coyle]

Beatles, The Shins, Dylan, Mile Davis, Flaming Lips, Beck, Etc.

[R. Steven Coyle]

0-X7Z.

?

Number graffiti.

Was trying to communicate "Cool."

[bert]

Johnny Cash ,when he was almost dead.
:)

and Aimee Mann

[bert]

0-X7Z.

?

Number graffiti.

Was trying to communicate "Cool."

I didn't know it came out of the freezer.
:)

[R. Steven Coyle]

Was being irrational :)

[bert]

hi sapius,

So, “I feel, therefore I am”, does not make sense, since an animal may well “feel” it, but not necessarily know that he is.

why does one have to know that he is ,to be conscious?

[bert]

If one hasn't consciousness of himself,then does he know that he is?
If one has experienced "I am" in accordance with "I think,therefore I am",and also feels,then, can he say "I feel,therefore I am" as a means to explain that his feeling is of importance to the condition of the consciousness he experiences?
one does need feeling to experience "I feel,therefore I am".
I feel and I am conscious of me being me.

[bert]

If one does not experience "I feel,therefore I am",then how can he be suitable for the quote,which by the way is stated as ".." ,as to be read as it is described , I stated:Ergo,"I feel, therefore I am".

a fact is a figment of a truism,so all facts are inconclusive.
Nietzsche said:there are no facts,only interpretations.

interpretate "I feel,therefore I am" as:

so,consciousness is considered as indefinable although we are aware of its being our entirety.analysis along two lines,distinction between act and content as seperable:the cogito argument:"cogito ergo sum" could be more fully expressed as:'sensation,cognition,thought,action',:
1)if something bites me and I feel nothing,nothing has happened consciously.2)if I am bitten and it hurts me,i.e.,sensation.3)if I see the thing that hurts me,that is perception as cognition.4)'thought' then follows,to avoid and prvent recurrence followed by action.5)therefore ,consciousness is con-sentience and awareness of varying degree and direction.the final phase is introspection or reflection:a scrutinity of the event and process involved are subsequent and determine future acts.Ergo:"I feel therefore I am".

[Sapius]

Hello Bert,

Sapius: So, “I feel, therefore I am”, does not make sense, since an animal may well “feel” it, but not necessarily know that he is.

Bert: why does one have to know that he is ,to be conscious?

This too doesn’t make logical sense. From where did you get that Knowing creates consciousness? That is what your question actually means. Knowing simply affirms that which is.

If one hasn't consciousness of himself,then does he know that he is?

No, if one doesn’t have consciousness of himself, then he doesn’t logically Know that he is. Knowing is not the same as being conscious.

If one has experienced "I am" in accordance with "I think,therefore I am",and also feels,then, can he say "I feel,therefore I am" as a means to explain that his feeling is of importance to the condition of the consciousness he experiences?

Trying to show importance of “feeling”, sure, I get the picture, but can you see the logic behind it? You are Logically aware that “I feel so I must be an am”. You cannot escape logic.

one does need feeling to experience "I feel,therefore I am".

And how did you come to that conclusion? and know that and state it so? Feelings? Or a reasoned logical statement?

I feel and I am conscious of me being me.

Good, I can see your logic behind it, can you?

a fact is a figment of a truism,so all facts are inconclusive.
Nietzsche said:there are no facts,only interpretations.

Did he? I never read him, nor do I feel the need seeing what misconceptions could lead from what the poor guy must have actually meant, but if you believe that to be the absolute Truth…. Then…

“If one does not experience "I feel,therefore I am",then how can he be suitable for the quote,which by the way is stated as ".." ,as to be read as it is described , I stated:Ergo,"I feel, therefore I am".”

How much truth can I consider is involved in the above statement? Or is it not the truth? Is the above statement a fact or not? Is it conclusive to any degree that you might chose it to be? Because if it is an interpretation, it has to be according to you, then I must consider it to be inconclusive. No? How much certainty do you have in your own statement?

Ergo:"I feel therefore I am".

Ergo, you know that you feel therefore you think that you are. Animals also feel, hence are conscious, but they do not know what feelings are, hence they don’t even Know feelings per say, although they feel feelings.

You are a self-conscious being, because of logic, created by the same nature that created feelings, why do you want to go back to animal consciousness, when your sentient consciousness facilitates the knowing of it all? Without what you presently are, you couldn’t even know or state “I feel therefore I am”, and you prefer that you never knew this, is that it?

However, I do understand the importance you are placing on ‘feelings’, and I don’t have anything against it, because one cannot ignore any thing at all that exists in nature, but being a sentient being, logic helps us understand and know exactly that, which somehow you don’t seem to acknowledge. Strange...

.

[bert]

hi sapius,

Hello Bert,

Quote:
Sapius: So, “I feel, therefore I am”, does not make sense, since an animal may well “feel” it, but not necessarily know that he is.

Bert: why does one have to know that he is ,to be conscious?


This too doesn’t make logical sense. From where did you get that Knowing creates consciousness? That is what your question actually means. Knowing simply affirms that which is.

yes,I know that it doesn't make logical sense.

Quote:
If one hasn't consciousness of himself,then does he know that he is?


No, if one doesn’t have consciousness of himself, then he doesn’t logically Know that he is. Knowing is not the same as being conscious.

yes,I agree

Quote:
If one has experienced "I am" in accordance with "I think,therefore I am",and also feels,then, can he say "I feel,therefore I am" as a means to explain that his feeling is of importance to the condition of the consciousness he experiences?


Trying to show importance of “feeling”, sure, I get the picture, but can you see the logic behind it? You are Logically aware that “I feel so I must be an am”. You cannot escape logic.

I said in the beginning:the cogito ergo sum argument can be more fully expressed as:...
you care about logic.I care about relationing.

Quote:
one does need feeling to experience "I feel,therefore I am".


And how did you come to that conclusion? and know that and state it so? Feelings? Or a reasoned logical statement?

1)if something bites me and I feel nothing,nothing has happened consciously.
If one does not feel,there shall be no "I feel ,therefore I am"

Quote:
I feel and I am conscious of me being me.


Good, I can see your logic behind it, can you?

I understand it.ideas you conceive are their own possibility.

Quote:
a fact is a figment of a truism,so all facts are inconclusive.
Nietzsche said:there are no facts,only interpretations.


Did he? I never read him, nor do I feel the need seeing what misconceptions could lead from what the poor guy must have actually meant, but if you believe that to be the absolute Truth…. Then…

I read only a few things of Nietzsche.
Why do you think I have put my definition above that of Nietzsche?to avoid misconceptions.putting 2 quotes can make something the more clear.
yes I believe it as I interpretate it.it is not to difficult to understand,I think.

Quote:
“If one does not experience "I feel,therefore I am",then how can he be suitable for the quote,which by the way is stated as ".." ,as to be read as it is described , I stated:Ergo,"I feel, therefore I am".”


How much truth can I consider is involved in the above statement? Or is it not the truth? Is the above statement a fact or not? Is it conclusive to any degree that you might chose it to be? Because if it is an interpretation, it has to be according to you, then I must consider it to be inconclusive. No? How much certainty do you have in your own statement?

as much as you will want to.
I believe it ,but not as a conclusion.
it is as factual as "I think,therefore I am".
I do not believe it as a conclusion.
yes it is inconclusive.
how much?that the assumptions that are made by the words are full of argument.

Quote:
Ergo:"I feel therefore I am".


Ergo, you know that you feel therefore you think that you are. Animals also feel, hence are conscious, but they do not know what feelings are, hence they don’t even Know feelings per say, although they feel feelings.

You are a self-conscious being, because of logic, created by the same nature that created feelings, why do you want to go back to animal consciousness, when your sentient consciousness facilitates the knowing of it all? Without what you presently are, you couldn’t even know or state “I feel therefore I am”, and you prefer that you never knew this, is that it?

However, I do understand the importance you are placing on ‘feelings’, and I don’t have anything against it, because one cannot ignore any thing at all that exists in nature, but being a sentient being, logic helps us understand and know exactly that, which somehow you don’t seem to acknowledge. Strange...

I think lots of animals are conscious of themselves.

I want to 'go back' to the animal consciousness because of the powers that come with it.
what I find funny is that for example Quinn follows in the footsteps of Lao Tzu,Nietzsche,Socrates.but these people, according to me,made use of the powers of the animal consciousness.

oh,no,sapius.
I do not refute logic or consciousness.others seem to overrate it.logic,just like art has its limitations.and that is only to be accepted.

[Sapius]

Bert,

I want to 'go back' to the animal consciousness because of the powers that come with it.

It might certainly be logical to you, but I wonder, why would one want to do that when nature goes through all the “trouble’ to actually first create an animal consciousness, then a self-aware consciousness, which tells us that going back to animal consciousness is all encompassing, ignoring or trying to dump the faculty (self-awareness) that is indeed telling him to do so, which he possibly cannot in the first place?

I do understand the power and lure of “feeling” a thoughtless world, but unfortunately, that feeling itself is not empty of thought, nor can it be achieved as long as you are a self-aware creature, because even if it could be achieved, it would be a contradiction since that thing has to necessarily be aware of thoughtlessness, which itself would be a thought. Otherwise, nothing would actually exist since there would be nothing conscious to be conscious of anything at all. Is this what you want? No awareness at all? If you find tranquility in achieving a thought that you have no thoughts at all, please enjoy it, but that does not work for all, at least not for me.

what I find funny is that for example Quinn follows in the footsteps of Lao Tzu,Nietzsche,Socrates.but these people, according to me,made use of the powers of the animal consciousness.

Powers of animal consciousness? Again, how did you come to that conclusion? That animal consciousness has some kind of greater “powers” than self-awareness? What could be more powerful than the power to know that there is something such as animal consciousness? Who got what through what is a different story all together. Personally I do not yearn to gain any “powers” of any kind, but simply understand existence, for that is what nature has created in me, awareness, coupled with reasoning, to actually help know it.

oh,no,sapius.
I do not refute logic or consciousness.others seem to overrate it.

I agree, Bert, I don’t, just understand this, logic or consciousness is not God, but if you see closely, for a self-aware thing there is no thing actually possible without thinking about it. A feeling is also a thought generated from the point that it is felt and interpreted by the brain to be recognized as such. Even animals have that, but they cannot actually define or reason over it as we can. And you want to go back to that!? Each and every thing is a tool and not a God in itself, including logic or consciousness, but that is just I.

logic,just like art has its limitations.and that is only to be accepted.

May be, but can you see that there must be some reasoning behind you knowing and accepting it so, and I have my reasoning which does not allow me to accept your conclusion that it has to be simply accepted. I need to know why? My mind does not simply accept accepting. I am caused to relentlessly reach a point where I cannot accept something unless it makes logical sense to me, because I find that that is necessarily logical in my opinion, just as you find in yours. That does not mean that my Truth is God, nor does it mean that Logic is God, it still remains a tool to discover your own Truth, by questioning and comparing “truths”.

End of the day, it is your own reasoning that will let you accept whatever you accept, is it not? You have to find for yourself that you are certain of something, only then can one accept, I agree that every one has his limitations according to his own reasoning, so what remains is “truths” according to each individual, that then needs to be compared and further discerned until it satisfies ones own certainty. No God will come and attest that, so it is ones own certainty that one has to rely on; you on yours, me on mine.

May the force be with you :)

[bert]

Quote:
I want to 'go back' to the animal consciousness because of the powers that come with it.


It might certainly be logical to you, but I wonder, why would one want to do that when nature goes through all the “trouble’ to actually first create an animal consciousness, then a self-aware consciousness, which tells us that going back to animal consciousness is all encompassing, ignoring or trying to dump the faculty (self-awareness) that is indeed telling him to do so, which he possibly cannot in the first place?

It is a decision that you have to make.any philosophy,thesis or style degenerates pro rata to the number who embrace it.thou art the way.
I would ask of thee,thy supressed Self,is it not the new thing desired?

I do understand the power and lure of “feeling” a thoughtless world, but unfortunately, that feeling itself is not empty of thought, nor can it be achieved as long as you are a self-aware creature, because even if it could be achieved, it would be a contradiction since that thing has to necessarily be aware of thoughtlessness, which itself would be a thought. Otherwise, nothing would actually exist since there would be nothing conscious to be conscious of anything at all. Is this what you want? No awareness at all? If you find tranquility in achieving a thought that you have no thoughts at all, please enjoy it, but that does not work for all, at least not for me.

a negation of thought is the goal,so there is prevention of desire from belief and the functioning of all consciousness through (as is called) the sexuality.

Quote:
what I find funny is that for example Quinn follows in the footsteps of Lao Tzu,Nietzsche,Socrates.but these people, according to me,made use of the powers of the animal consciousness.


Powers of animal consciousness? Again, how did you come to that conclusion? That animal consciousness has some kind of greater “powers” than self-awareness? What could be more powerful than the power to know that there is something such as animal consciousness? Who got what through what is a different story all together. Personally I do not yearn to gain any “powers” of any kind, but simply understand existence, for that is what nature has created in me, awareness, coupled with reasoning, to actually help know it.

there is nature and nurture.most call nature that what you are talking about,and nurture is like having a 'jacket' on.when you live too long in the jacket,you think you are the jacket.
I interpretate the path I am talking about the living in your Nature,because the Body is aloud to manifest spontaneously.
some say that it belong to nurture,others nature,to do so.I don't care.
there is very much to say about all this.but philosophers,when not keeping themselves to means,become users of useful sarcasm.

Quote:
oh,no,sapius.
I do not refute logic or consciousness.others seem to overrate it.


I agree, Bert, I don’t, just understand this, logic or consciousness is not God, but if you see closely, for a self-aware thing there is no thing actually possible without thinking about it. A feeling is also a thought generated from the point that it is felt and interpreted by the brain to be recognized as such. Even animals have that, but they cannot actually define or reason over it as we can. And you want to go back to that!? Each and every thing is a tool and not a God in itself, including logic or consciousness, but that is just I.

everything has its purpose to manifest.
I explained some of yours questions also in my 'will to pleasure' argument in another topic.
A question to you,sapius:do you believe in a Soul?what is your approach towards it?


I have no time to answer your last response.later I will.

[Sapius]

Bert, honestly, I can hardly decipher what you are trying to say. Could you come down to my level of English and help me understand? Otherwise there is no sense in discussing this. My bad, I know.

do you believe in a Soul?what is your approach towards it?

I can’t say what my approach would be unless you define Soul. I need to know what are you talking about.

[frank]

Bert:

I want to 'go back' to the animal consciousness because of the powers that come with it.

Then you'll have to get yourself out of the social hypnosis..you'll have to live as an outlaw.

You'll have to get yourself a lair in the forest and piss on trees to mark your territory...and you'll have to defend it.

You'll have to kill your own meat and steal from others and rape chicks...

But you won't do any of it 'cos you're gutless.

You will 'lounge' about in the social hypnosis...'brightening' up your straitjacket with pretty colours...

You will 'spin' conceptual cobwebs...they will issue from your mouth like steaming piles of vomit...

...stroking your softcock and designating yourself with properties like 'Genius'...you drift along in a soporific blancmange...like a patient aetherised upon a table...and there's the psyche meds to 'thin' you out, like a streaky cloud, grey and lifeless, dissipating the final vestiges of your anger...anger at being 'straitjacketed' and completely overwhelmed...inauthentic.

Welcome to the Machine.

frank