The nature of consciousness

[Russell Parr]

You do not know how your brain works either, right? Do you know how your body regulates the temperature in a closed mechanical/electrical/chemical system at 98.6 degrees but your consciousness is not doing that? According to your reasoning, your heart is not beating and you are not breathing unless you explicitly think about it.

This is how you - it is you - " won't, can't, or refuse to understand."

Let me think here; consciousness designed your brain, body and central nervous system of which is at the bare minimum 10,000 more times complex than a space shuttle - which you could not hope to design - but you are absolutely positive - I am the one not getting it?

Your consciousness is able to design the blueprints to construct a biological machine before it existed that allows you to think about consciousness but you know what its limitations are?

What else is your consciousness aware of that your finite thought is not aware of? Every particles velocity and position in the entire universe but if you cannot manage to get this stepping stone - you will never be able to keep up when I try explain to you that.

What you call consciousness, I call causality (although I wouldn't say causality is "aware" of anything). What you call finite thought, I call consciousness.

However complex the brain is or anything in the universe is handled with ease by causality, because causality is infinite. Your awareness of the details therein, as exhibited above, is all finite.

You said everything that is not consciousness was the cause and now you say the "self."

You are not able to systematically control your blood pressure but you are so absolutely sure you know that this mysterious "self" designed consciousness? You do not even know how your brain and central nervous system processed the concept "self" but you claim to know what this is.

Sounds like your "self" is God - just sayin

You now have a choice - you can abandon logic and cling to your beliefs or you can accept the stunningly obvious.

Blue pill or red pill?

Both self and consciousness (regardless if they are defined to be the same or not) are finite things that arise due to causality. A thing is causally connected with everything else, so it is caused by that.

If you agree with the rest, then using logic - you agree that reality is a unified field then? It is the absence of separation?

Yes. Separation is an illusion that is perceived by consciousness. Even the existence of consciousness is an illusion.

So you use another strawman (a logical fallacy) to support your original strawman? That you "know" of my experiences? And since you "know" my experience you introduce it as me using it as evidence when I have not mentioned it a single time in this discussion nor used it as evidence?

What kind of logic is that?

If I have not used this as evidence a single time in this thread (though you have used mystical insight) and that means you are having trouble with the logic and are hoping to discredit me with a strawman. I am using pure and unfiltered logic - you brought up mysticism, astral projection and so on. I do not need it because I have logic for proof but apparently you do since you brought it up.

I disagree that I'm being fallacious here, but fine, I won't bring it up again. My point was simply that consciousness requires a host. This is undeniable.

This is why you need to address the questions I ask as you are not keeping up.

I did not account for formlessness? Really?

Let me jog your memory:

Being said:
It only appears that there is subject/object because of the hypnotic effect of seeing only the thing being perceived. There is a vast field that is virtually ignored and it is as timeless as cause and effect.

Example:
There is a single space between each word and letter. There is only one space and these words exist within that one space. They appear out of nowhere and we focus on the words and letters and miss the space interpenetrating all things.

When you see that, ex nihilo and duality is resolved. We experience duality because of finite thought or a mode in which we think but your nature of being is nonlocal.

This refers to the dualistic realm. The "things being perceived" and the "vast field that is virtually ignored" make up one such duality. Can't you see, consciousness and dualism go hand in hand, and cannot be otherwise. In the realm beyond the dualistic realm, no concepts or dualisms can exist or apply. It is in this realm that the rest of the Infinite resides.

[Russell Parr]

While I'm not going to enter fully this discussion, I'd like to point out as bystander that it seems you two are talking about different things which you both try to name "consciousness" or "self" without having any agreement yet on how to use the terms. It's very confusing to read the argumentation as being coherent at either side since it refers to what seem to be different definitions.

Russell appears to employ consciousness as "A" -- any identity, any awareness occurring, the "thing" is then equal to consciousness itself, whatever it is. But since A is defined by whatever is not A, you get a definition of consciousness made possible by what it's not, which equals what it's not aware of.

While you, Ken, seem to define consciousness as transcendent, complete and universal, as some field in which everything else moves or exists, as part of it. Which is a metaphysical definition, something like "god" or nature. But this seems not be the topic for Russell at all!

I agree with this, but I doubt that Ken and I will come to an agreement on what consciousness is, hence the crux of our argumentations, which I agree is repetitive. In all honesty, I'm also using this as an opportunity to refine my ways of describing these matters. My guess is that we end up agreeing to disagree.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In all honesty, I'm also using this as an opportunity to refine my ways of describing these matters.

Isn't that all we're doing? It must just look like discussion :)

One other difference, I think, which pops in many discussions here is that you are not putting any emphasis on any defined nature of consciousness, its processes, where it resides, how powerful it is and so on. You address it only in terms of a logical concept based on the only certainty: something arises, as it's impossible to say that there's just nothing at all. Does that need some observer, field, web of forces or interdimensional relation at the cellular, atomic or quantum level? That last thing is a very interesting, more scientific question and can take place in a whole other context. That's because even a scientific discovery or even just some inner perspective one develops, could easily be turned upside down. It has no absolute reality.

Or in simpler words: first all participants need to enter the same discussion. Understand the stakes and granularity of the exchange. How to do that?

[Russell Parr]

One other difference, I think, which pops in many discussions here is that you are not putting any emphasis on any defined nature of consciousness, its processes, where it resides, how powerful it is and so on.

By this do you mean any specific instance of consciousness? If so, I agree that it would be better and more helpful to provide more examples to illustrate my points. If I'm off base here, let me know.

You address it only in terms of a logical concept based on the only certainty: something arises, as it's impossible to say that there's just nothing at all.

Indeed, this is my main focus.

Does that need some observer, field, web of forces or interdimensional relation at the cellular, atomic or quantum level? That last thing is a very interesting, more scientific question and can take place in a whole other context. That's because even a scientific discovery or even just some inner perspective one develops, could easily be turned upside down. It has no absolute reality.

Yes indeed, this could be taken in many directions, all leading to the same Truth.

Or in simpler words: first all participants need to enter the same discussion. Understand the stakes and granularity of the exchange. How to do that?

Let's give it a shot.

Ken, google defines consciousness as "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." Does this work for you? If not, please share your prefered definition and let's see what we can work with.

[jupiviv]

Russell, I have a question. Why do you insist on adhering to this notion of a dual and non-dual aspect to the All, and consciousness somehow having the edge over non-consciousness within the "illusory" dual aspect? To wit (from your first post in this thread):

There may be an infinite within consciousness, but let's not neglect the infinite beyond. Within consciousness the Infinite is "converted" into an arrayment of colors, sounds, smells, etc.. Beyond consciousness is the Infinite unconverted, that is, the nondual realm, or the "void". Causality undermines all of this. Where consciousness is caused, so are the appearances perceived by consciousness.

Consciousness cannot observe Oneness. And if Oneness is ultimate, then consciousness, as with all appearances, must be illusory.

Anyone who honestly analyses your position impartially will lose no time in pointing out that the distinction between the illusory conscious/dual realm and the authentic non-dual realm is blatantly contradictory. Furthermore, the sub-distinction in the conscious/dual realm into consciousness and non-consciousness does not make sense.

You make a good point, I sometimes erroneously attribute the quality of "ultimate" to the non-dual realm beyond consciousness over the dualistic realm of within it. It is a bad habit I've picked up over the years of ridding myself of the belief in things. In reality, the dual and the non-dual realms are both illusory, as in, both are merely appearances.

That was not my point. My point was that this distinction between "illusory" dual and non-dual aspects of reality, and the further subdivision of the dual aspect into consciousness and non-consciousness, is unnecessarily complex. Not to mention contradictory. For one thing, any assertions about these illusory distinctions are necessarily false because they are illusory themselves according to their own premise. You are doing what anyone who wants to defend the indefensible does - muddying the waters and hoping no one notices.

Since you've started a thread on consciousness, maybe you should explain from scratch what you believe consciousness really is. Just for the record.

I don't think that is necessary. To start from scratch would be to say that the experience of consciousness is utterly obvious. From there, the nature of its existence and function have been addressed aplenty so far.

There cannot be an experience of one's own consciousness, and there can only be indirect experiences of other consciousnesses. In any case, the reason you should start from scratch is that a discussion about consciousness with someone who seems to be even more confused about it than you won't benefit those who want to understand your conception of it.

[Russell Parr]

Jupiviv,

• Nothing is "real", as all things arise out of causes. Neither can anything be "illusory", as there is nothing real to make them illusory. So you need not expend effort projecting reality or illusoriness onto things. Simply accept things for what they are.
  
  - K.Solway

Those that believe that consciousness or things are "real", need to be told that they are "illusory". Once this is overcome, this language can then be dropped. If you think that I am being a bit excessive with my use of the word, sure, I'll give you that. But I think you need to reevaluate your enemies.

[jupiviv]

Those that believe that consciousness or things are "real", need to be told that they are "illusory". Once this is overcome, this language can then be dropped. If you think that I am being a bit excessive with my use of the word, sure, I'll give you that.

I agree, and that is precisely what I've been doing in my conversations with you and others. You seem a bit too keen to elevate consciousness over unconsciousness. I know you disagree with Beingof1's solipsism, but you are harbouring a different, more cogent kind of solipsism. In Buddhist terms, Beingof1 inhabits the lower reaches of the Aroopdhaatu (heavens beyond form), whereas you inhabit the upper. Heed these words:

Ananda, all the devas in these heavens were once worldly men whose reward caused their rebirth there, and after enjoying its fruit, they will have to return to Samsara. However, their rulers (devaraja) are Bodhisattvas who, in their practice of Samadhi, appear in their heavens which they use as paths for their progressive advance towards Buddhahood.

Ananda, the devas in these four heavens beyond form have wiped out all traces of body and mind. As their still (dhyana) nature has appeared, they are free from all retribution involving (material) forms. Hence this is the region beyond form.

All this comes from their being not clear about the profound mind of Bodhi and because of their preservation of accumulated thoughts, they create the three illusory realms of existence through the seven states; hence they are living beings (pudgala) in the worlds they have deserved.

- Surangam sutra.

But I think you need to reevaluate your enemies.

You need to exercise your sense of humour a bit more. ;)

[Russell Parr]

Do you still believe that things exist regardless if consciousness is aware of it?

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

While I'm not going to enter fully this discussion, I'd like to point out as bystander that it seems you two are talking about different things which you both try to name "consciousness" or "self" without having any agreement yet on how to use the terms. It's very confusing to read the argumentation as being coherent at either side since it refers to what seem to be different definitions.

Russell appears to employ consciousness as "A" -- any identity, any awareness occurring, the "thing" is then equal to consciousness itself, whatever it is. But since A is defined by whatever is not A, you get a definition of consciousness made possible by what it's not, which equals what it's not aware of.

While you, Ken, seem to define consciousness as transcendent, complete and universal, as some field in which everything else moves or exists, as part of it. Which is a metaphysical definition, something like "god" or nature. But this seems not be the topic for Russell at all!

So far my observation, provided to perhaps prevent too much repetition of viewpoints scrolling by on my screen. No further input is required by me.

Thank you Diebert for lending a helping hand - I will accept this kind of moderation anytime ;)



There is a difference between mind, thought and consciousness.

The hierarchy:
Consciousness is the full set and has an infinite membrane for memory. It is why the laws of physics work.
Mind is a subset of consciousness and is equal to the universe as it requires perception.
Awareness is a subset of mind as it requires object or thing.
Thought is a subset of awareness and may only focus on one finite thing at a time.

Let C stand for consciousness (velocity of light).
Let d stand for the derivative or perceptual awareness.
Let A stand for an infinite state of change or flux (cause and effect).
C = dA + A ^A
Consciousness transcends and contains the universe.

Or in simpler words: first all participants need to enter the same discussion. Understand the stakes and granularity of the exchange. How to do that?

By clearly defining what we mean when something is said or A=A. I hope the above is clear and if it needs clarity just ask.


My experince with Russell is that when asked for more clarity it becomes more cloudy and mysterious and no defined terms or identity. I have asked repeatedly for definitions so that we could establish context and I keep getting more obfuscation and the clouds of unkowing.

I mean - anyone can say "God did it."

[Beingof1]

Russell,

If you want to answer with more clarity I am all for that because in your last post I just see 'God did it' so we need to be as clear and distinct as we are able.

Diebert makes very good points.

I will leave you with a thought.

If cause and effect is infinite as you agree, this means the smallest act of kindness and nobility creates worlds of be, harmony and peace. Equally true, the smallest act of selfish cruelty creates worlds of terror, pain and anguish.

This is why honesty - especially self honesty is critically important because cause and effect stretches into infinity and that means if you are dishonest - in the timelessness of creation you have created worlds where the truth will never, ever be heard - and that - is the truth. If you are truthful, you have created worlds of honesty and clarity.

Did you know you were that powerful?

[Beingof1]

Jupiviv,

• Nothing is "real", as all things arise out of causes. Neither can anything be "illusory", as there is nothing real to make them illusory. So you need not expend effort projecting reality or illusoriness onto things. Simply accept things for what they are.
  
  - K.Solway

Those that believe that consciousness or things are "real", need to be told that they are "illusory". Once this is overcome, this language can then be dropped. If you think that I am being a bit excessive with my use of the word, sure, I'll give you that. But I think you need to reevaluate your enemies.

Now you have enemies?

Raise your right hand and repeat after me:
" I pledge allegiance to QRS and to the united against the world I stand."

You have found enlightenment - for reals

[Russell Parr]

My experince with Russell is that when asked for more clarity it becomes more cloudy and mysterious and no defined terms or identity.

I offered the definition provided by Google. Did you miss it? Didn't like it?

I will say this:

Consciousness is the full set and has an infinite membrane for memory. It is why the laws of physics work.

I can't work with this. What you are referring to here, to me, is actually physical reality as evidenced by empiricism.

Is it possible that we could agree on a definition of consciousness? I'm willing to try. But if not, I suppose we can continue to debate on what exactly consciousness is until one of us tire.

If cause and effect is infinite as you agree, this means the smallest act of kindness and nobility creates worlds of be, harmony and peace. Equally true, the smallest act of selfish cruelty creates worlds of terror, pain and anguish.

The infinitude of causality implies no such thing. A good deed can cause ill effects in another. You could make someone sicker by mistreating their ailment. Someone can misinterpret an honest act as otherwise. The wise can appear mad or pompous to the ignorant.

Now you have enemies?

If you didn't, you wouldn't be here! Truthfully, you take my meaning here too strongly.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

To me it seems that the order goes something like this: gustav/rod/being>jupiviv> Russell >diebert>moving.

(The left end being Gustav, symbolizing the idiot)

I'd be hard pressed to believe most or any of you were describing a complete/full enlightenment. (Unless you say otherwise.)

You admit to a lot of unecertainty and confusion on certain things, you often seem to egotistically react as if to each other, and in general seem to make terribly shaky claims about what is true.

There's more to it than that, and it's a tricky thing to talk about, but I thought I would point out that it really seems that way.

[Beingof1]

Rusell, you mean this definition?

Consciousness:
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

No because it is clearly not the definition. This is known as; to be conscious. Look them up - they are identical.

You can go to a museum a year ago and may not remember it, does that mean consciousness was not there? I can agree you are not conscious of the event but to say there was no consciousness is not true. I already demonstrated consciousness can regulate your body but you may not be aware of it. If you can give a logical reason why that is not true, then sure.

Your example of Timbuktu - you are not conscious of the consciousness that is there. I have even given the math so you could clearly see the logic with every single identifier. If you have a problem with the math/logic then point it out.

You already agreed there was in your words "an inward infinity" and so by your own words we cannot - because of your definition use the Google definition. Since there is only one definition for infinity - in which you made a big deal about me using "amount" - after that agreed there was an "inward infinity ." ~

This is getting really non- sensical.


Show me the difference between to be conscious and consciousness because I truly did - as in reality and stuff.


And now you cannot work with this definition and you have yet to define the self, Its ridiculous.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There is a difference between mind, thought and consciousness.

The hierarchy:
Consciousness is the full set and has an infinite membrane for memory. It is why the laws of physics work.
Mind is a subset of consciousness and is equal to the universe as it requires perception.
Awareness is a subset of mind as it requires object or thing.
Thought is a subset of awareness and may only focus on one finite thing at a time.

Let C stand for consciousness (velocity of light).
Let d stand for the derivative or perceptual awareness.
Let A stand for an infinite state of change or flux (cause and effect).
C = dA + A ^A
Consciousness transcends and contains the universe.

For you consciousness is a container then (for the universe). It's akin to what I'd call nature or Tao although I'd avoid a term like "containing" since it has to be boundless and because of that not bound by definitions either. The infinite by any other name.

Your particular distinction between awareness and consciousness should be focussed more on. Same how you distinguish mind and thought. It would need some more work, perhaps like Sri Aurobindo's levels of being.

But it would help to understand that others, like me and perhaps Russell too, might not distinguish between consciousness and awareness too much in these discussions, although consciousness does have a few more meanings (as including a more general state). And of course thought does a bit more than focussing on "one thing at the time" (I'd argue that it's an aggregate, the one thing being the illusion).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

For example, what beingof1 wrote in the above quote seems to strongly indicate "stupid", yet Diebert replies as if it were mostly well and good.

Sort of like he'd been served a plate of shit and responds "Perhaps it needs more herbs" or "Maybe it's not thoroughly cooked through" or "I'm not sure about this particular portion of this plate of shit".

It makes you wonder, is D's taste any good at all? Or maybe he is just humoring the chef? Dealing with the shit lightly? It's unclear to me.

[jupiviv]

Do you still believe that things exist regardless if consciousness is aware of it?

Yes, since consciousness is by definition unaware of countless things at any given moment. You have said as much in this thread itself, so what's the problem?

[Beingof1]

Would inward infinity work for anyone because I know it would not work for me?

There is only one infinity and so this is the only time Russell has been honest about what is what, as in reality and stuff.

Words are symbols of thought and not the reality in and of themselves.

[Beingof1]

For example, what beingof1 wrote in the above quote seems to strongly indicate "stupid", yet Diebert replies as if it were mostly well and good.

Sort of like he'd been served a plate of shit and responds "Perhaps it needs more herbs" or "Maybe it's not thoroughly cooked through" or "I'm not sure about this particular portion of this plate of shit".

It makes you wonder, is D's taste any good at all? Or maybe he is just humoring the chef? Dealing with the shit lightly? It's unclear to me.

Multiple choice for those on this philosophical level.
1) I doubt therefore I may be.
2) I do not exist therefore I am not here.
3) I talk smack therefore I am King Kong
4) I think therefore I am
5) I am one with everything therefore its to many things to count.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

For example, what beingof1 wrote in the above quote seems to strongly indicate "stupid", yet Diebert replies as if it were mostly well and good.

Sort of like he'd been served a plate of shit and responds "Perhaps it needs more herbs" or "Maybe it's not thoroughly cooked through" or "I'm not sure about this particular portion of this plate of shit".

It makes you wonder, is D's taste any good at all? Or maybe he is just humouring the chef? Dealing with the shit lightly? It's unclear to me.

It's a discussion forum after all. Serving up piles of shit in a few one-liners and let the rest comment on it with scorn, laughter or ridicule, that would be more for Twitter or 4chan. Or not? What do you expect?

The thing is, dear Seeker, I have a personal preference to understand why people think the way they do. More so than distilling any truth content, I try to get a sense of what makes it all tick. Of course I often end up with detecting one big "thing" which then appears to be defended fuelled by some emotion. But even so, what's the point of some aggressive or dismissive approach? It only seems to fuel attachments, amplify emotion and not improve any quality at all. And it's not like I never engaged in some poke or frontal attack. But those more psychological all-too-clever approaches, how well do they work on this medium? What would you expect to accomplish with it? Do you really think you can some somehow "blaze" through the bullshit with clever Zen shit razor blades remarks? I think you're trying to hard. You might not realize yet the source of all your own impulses.

And unlike you, I'm not trying to chase after some imaginary change or revolution. You're free to do so, you have that energy. Use it wisely!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I'm not doing that though, or trying to accomplish anything. If I was my methods haven't been very efficient.

What's with all this talk of motives? If any exist over here they're just transient feelings at best and near impossible to speak of at all. Leave any serious motivations to the serious.

"I have personal preferences"

Wisdom!

"To understand why people think the way they do."

Whatever floats your boat. My curiosity was simply whether any of you are completely 'enlightened'. (Fully awakened to true nature). If you say you are I'll believe it. (Yes, I do see it as something which has a final completion, as in, no more possibility of enlightenment regarding what is ultimately true. (As opposed to, let's say, circumstantially true.) )

Since in my experience, most cases seem to be just of 'inbetweeners', usually still very egotistical and requiring one or more further "steps".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What's with all this talk of motives?

You appeared to be asking questions about possible motivations. Like this: "It makes you wonder, is D's taste any good at all? Or mayb he is just humoring the chef? Dealing with the shit lightly? It's unclear to me". I guess they'd be "rhetorical" questions then, just talking to your self?

If any exist over here they're just transient feelings at best and near impossible to speak of at all.

Then don't.

Yes, I do see it [enlightenment] as something which has a final completion, as in, no more possibility of enlightenment regarding what is ultimately true. (As opposed to, let's say, circumstantially true.) )

Whatever floats your boat. Heheh.

Since in my experience, most cases seem to be just of 'inbetweeners', usually still very egotistical and requiring one or more further "steps".

You still sound you want something accomplished, not in your self or for your self, but in others. Which for me is the same thing: you voice "requirements" as if something in you is missing in them.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell, jupiviv, Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, the truth of emptiness and impermanence is forgotten and worlds of subjective attachment arise, ergo the 'battle' for right view of consciousness.

The one way to keep oneself in check (and its not an easy task!) is to be mindful of when one is focusing on a word (an object) exclusive of all words (objects).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Russell, jupiviv, Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, the truth of emptiness and impermanence is forgotten and worlds of subjective attachment arise, ergo the 'battle' for right view of consciousness.

The one way to keep oneself in check (and its not an easy task!) is to be mindful of when one is focusing on a word (an object) exclusive of all words (objects)

more BS.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

What's with all this talk of motives?

You appeared to be asking questions about possible motivations. Like this: "It makes you wonder, is D's taste any good at all? Or mayb he is just humoring the chef? Dealing with the shit lightly? It's unclear to me". I guess they'd be "rhetorical" questions then, just talking to your self?

I have no clear memory of that event.

You still sound you want something accomplished, not in your self or for your self, but in others. Which for me is the same thing: you voice "requirements" as if something in you is missing in them.

More BS.