GENIUS FORUMS

Beebuddy wrote:

...the word 'consciousness,' as it is being used, is not a 'thing' at all.

Could you elaborate on that idea?

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Beebuddy wrote:

...the word 'consciousness,' as it is being used, is not a 'thing' at all.

Could you elaborate on that idea?

-
Sue

"Consciousness" is being used to mean ego. Ego is identity. That's sooo obvious.

Cory wrote:

My intention was not to go into the details of a lobotomy. I could have just as easily used the example of someone who was left in a vegetative state after a head trauma, or I could have used the example of a mentally retarded person and how his brain structure has corresponding deficiencies compared to a so called normal.

The point is, 'matter' does indeed have a relationship to consciousness.

You may continue to insist that this is still empirically uncertain, however, it is no more empirically uncertain than causality itself.

We may never know all the specific causes of a thing, but we can be certain that it has causes.

Or do you think otherwise?

Brain surgeons have exhaustively proven that matter and states of consciousness are inexorably connected.

In the middle-ages, some “states of consciousness” were considered to be caused by demon possession. The people of that time didn’t have the knowledge and understanding of today’s science, so they had to work with what they held to be true and correct. In another thousand years, doctors will look back at today’s medicine and possibly consider it “barbaric”.

It is the nature of science to be constantly on the lookout for new patterns in nature - brain surgeons are no different. They will continue to believe matter and consciousness are “inexorably connected” - that is, until they come up with something different.

At present, it does appear that when brain surgeons slice into a person's brain there often is a change in the that person's personality or mental functioning. This appears to suggest that there is a connection - though, it's still only an appearance. But I hasten to add, it is all we have to go on at the moment - so it is most useful.

And yes, you can also say that matter and consciousness are simply an undivided whole - - - or that consciousness is an illusion altogether, and all there is is the physical.

Yes, “you” can say all that, but would you be correct?

-
Sue

Beebuddy wrote:

"Consciousness" is being used to mean ego. Ego is identity. That's sooo obvious.

Okay. How does introducing the ‘ego’ into this discussion help us ascertain the “relationship between matter and consciousness”?

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Beebuddy wrote:

"Consciousness" is being used to mean ego. Ego is identity. That's sooo obvious.

Okay. How does introducing the ‘ego’ into this discussion help us ascertain the “relationship between matter and consciousness”?

-
Sue

That's an unbelievable question!

After careful contemplation, I have to say that Cory has a point. There is a relationship between consciousness and matter. For instance: Suppose I study the work of a philosopher like Solway, and based on the consistency and sanity in his speech, I conclude that he is rational or he exhibits consciousness. Now, Kevin’s emergence in this world is entirely dependent on the proper material conditions. Genetically and environmentally, Kevin has been lucky, he has the right material ingredients from the outset to allow consciousness to be born within him.

Moreover, Delusions in the brain are a material process; they become conditioned over time in individuals that use feminine pleasures to feebly appease their emotional inadequacies.

So genetically and environmentally speaking, most of the population is flawed from the outset, and therefore they are destined to use femininity as a pacifier. Their material weaknesses within the body and brain prevent consciousness from emerging.

So the right material conditions are primary for consciousness to emerge through matter. Some scientists claim that consciousness is present in all levels of matter, but suppose this is true, there still needs to be the proper environment with the proper brain for it to be expressed into this world.

Therefore, perhaps matter does precede consciousness, unless somebody has an overwhelmingly convincing counterargument.

Because if consciousness preceded matter, wouldnt consciousness have the power to transform all of the brains of humanity effortlessly? Material limitations seem to prevent the emergence of consciousness into this world.

Consciousnes has very little power in this world. Ignorance has much more power. Ignorance, which is the result of genetic and environmental downfalls.

Gimli wrote:

Because if consciousness preceded matter, wouldnt consciousness have the power to transform all of the brains of humanity effortlessly?

So, by this logic, you are saying that matter has the power to transform all of the brains of humanity (into consciousness) effortlessly?

[edit: added content in brackets]

.

Shen wrote:

So, by this logic, you are saying that matter has the power to transform all of the brains of humanity (into consciousness) effortlessly?

I’m assuming that consciousness has the ability to act on matter, but matter cannot act on consciousness, however matter acts as a dam against consciousness, preventing it from entering the body/brain if the material conditions are not favoring.

These are two different things. Matter doesn’t act on consciousness, but it prevents its emergence.

Beebuddy wrote:

The problem is when it is said that "matter and consciousness (are) two independent things" you are ignoring the fact that the word 'consciousness,' as it is being used, is not a 'thing' at all.

oh am I? How about you go reread the tail end of my last post.

This is why it's true to say that there is no relationship.

Well, in that case there is no point in using the word relationship. By using the word relationship in your expressions, you imply that there are two things that do or do not have a relationship.

To say there is "no difference" or "no division" between matter and consciousness makes much more sense.

How can you expect people to read your mind? Like Kows writing style in general, your original post poorly conveyed your point - - -it is no fault of the readers that he needs further clarification. I can't just assume you are wise. I need to see whether or not you can flexibly deal with questions in an even tempered way.

I think you (and kow as well) need to understand the difficulties of speaking about this sort of thing on message boards, let acknowledge the difficulties of using words to begin with.

The intolerant reactions that you and Kow demonstrate for peoples reasonable inquires displays symptoms of two rather small minded, foolish individuals.

Cory Duchesne wrote: oh am I? How about you go reread the tail end of my last post.

It was a general statement you ADD twirpola.

To say there is "no difference" or "no division" between matter and consciousness makes much more sense.

Too bad you have no clue what the words actually mean, as demonstrated over and over in your stupid posts.

How can you expect people to read your mind? Like Kows writing style in general, your original post poorly conveyed your point - - -it is no fault of the readers that he needs further clarification. I can't just assume you are wise. I need to see whether or not you can flexibly deal with questions in an even tempered way.

I think you (and kow as well) need to understand the difficulties of speaking about this sort of thing on message boards, let acknowledge the difficulties of using words to begin with.

The intolerant reactions that you and Kow demonstrate for peoples reasonable inquires displays symptoms of two rather small minded, foolish individuals.

This is so stupid, until you learn to read I think I'll stick to ignoring you.

beebuddy wrote:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Beebuddy wrote:

...the word 'consciousness,' as it is being used, is not a 'thing' at all.

Could you elaborate on that idea?

-
Sue

"Consciousness" is being used to mean ego. Ego is identity. That's sooo obvious.

what is Ego?
you ,the individual as experience ,an estimation of difference that has,through differences and duality ,gained seperateness from 'the other stinking lump'.Ego becomes energized and is conscious by impacts on all otherness,known and unknown.

Kowtaaia wrote:

Beebuddy: "Consciousness" is being used to mean ego. Ego is identity. That's sooo obvious.

Sue: Okay. How does introducing the ‘ego’ into this discussion help us ascertain the “relationship between matter and consciousness”?

That's an unbelievable question!

I’m not sure what you mean, because neither you, nor Beebuddy, make clear what your thoughts are on this subject.

-
Sue

Read again mi amore. It's there...

There is no relationship between cosnciousness and matter

in the context that the word is being used.

Beebuddy,

You're still not making your case clear. You'll have to spell it out further.

-
Sue

Ryan:

R: Because if consciousness preceded matter, wouldnt consciousness have the power to transform all of the brains of humanity effortlessly?

L: So, by this logic, you are saying that matter has the power to transform all of the brains of humanity (into consciousness) effortlessly?

R: These are two different things. Matter doesn’t act on consciousness, but it prevents its emergence.

I'm still missing something. If matter prevents the emergence of consciousness, is that not an act upon it?

[edited to add relevant quotes]

.

Leyla wrote:

I'm still missing something. If matter prevents the emergence of consciousness, is that not an act upon it?

Let me try to make it clearer. Consciousness can change or alter the very structure of matter. It can reorganize, repair and tweak the brain cells themselves.

However matter cannot change or alter consciousness. A disorderly brain has no relationship to consciousness. However the disorderly brain behaves as a dam or a filter preventing consciousness from entering the brain, but it still isn’t acting on consciousness, it isnt changing, or altering it.

The root meaning of the word act means to do something, an action that is carried out agaisnt something.

It's sticky language, but there is a difference. Consciousness can change or alter matter, but matter cannot change or alter consciousness, however its very presence (disorderly brain) prevents the emergence of consciousness.

Yes, let's look for the source of consciousness and when we find it let's call it ..............um......well...... it looks like what we were looking for........ but shit....

Consciousness seems to be what it seems.....

What appears, seems to be ........... consciousness

Shit. Apperances aren't deceiving after all!

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Kowtaaia wrote:

Beebuddy: "Consciousness" is being used to mean ego. Ego is identity. That's sooo obvious.

Sue: Okay. How does introducing the ‘ego’ into this discussion help us ascertain the “relationship between matter and consciousness”?

That's an unbelievable question!

I’m not sure what you mean, because neither you, nor Beebuddy, make clear what your thoughts are on this subject.

-
Sue

Sue,

This is a no brainer. Bee equates consciousness with ego, on a thread about the relationship between consciousness and matter and you ask:
"How does introducing the ‘ego’ into this discussion help us ascertain the “relationship between matter and consciousness”?

As to your other point: maybe it's because, aside from this post, the only comment made was "That's an unbelievable question!"

On other threads, what consciousness is, has been made perfectly clear. There's no point in saying the same thing over and over again or in different words or on a plethora of threads.

Kowtaaia,

I wasn't aware you'd made clear "on other treads" your philosophical view on what consciousness is? As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever seeing any philosophical view of yours on any threads - but maybe I just missed them.

Anyway, because we are dealing with the question of consciousness here and now, I'm sure your view will assist in - if nothing else - filling me in on why you consider "this" a "no brainer".

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Kowtaaia,

I wasn't aware you'd made clear "on other treads" your philosophical view on what consciousness is? As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever seeing any philosophical view of yours on any threads - but maybe I just missed them.

No, you didn't miss them. You just have a herd mentality and you're trying to be a smart ass.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Anyway, because we are dealing with the question of consciousness here and now, I'm sure your view will assist in - if nothing else - filling me in on why you consider "this" a "no brainer".

kows' view on consciousness will not help your reading and comprehension skills with regard to understanding the implicit.

Suffice to say though, if consciousness is the feeling of existing: does it arise without sense/object contact?

Kowtaaia,

I'm in the dark, kow - "if consciousness is the feeling of existing: does it arise without sense/object contact"?

-
Sue

Even if Ryan's view turns out to be wrong, he is displaying the virtue that Kow and Bee buddy both lack - the ability to patiently alternate between different descriptions in order to make his point clear.

His descriptions, unlike beebuddy and kow's, also have a functional dimension to them. He is not only telling you a superficial 'what', but he is trying to show a more functional 'how'.

I think thats the worse thing about kow and beebuddy.

They're minds dont seem accustomed to thinking functionally. Instead they think that merely emphasizing a few nouns is meaningful in some way.

Stale crumbs seem to be all they have.

oh, I know - - -but I cant read, thats all! gotta Learn to read!

Again, their repetitive tendency to accuse those of questioning them of not being able to read just shows how superficial their understanding of language is.

And why is it that I've been refering to them as a group instead of dealing with them individually?

It's because I have come to realize that neither of them are really individuals, but cling to eachother like husband and wife.

Besides the differing psuedonyms, it seems they're pretty much the same person.

I get the impression that beebuddy is sort of like this loyal aprrentice and supporter of Kow's unwarranted authority.

A Smithers to Mr. Burns sort of relationship.

Dan wrote:

Yes, let's look for the source of consciousness and when we find it let's call it ..............um......well...... it looks like what we were looking for........ but shit....

Consciousness seems to be what it seems.....

What appears, seems to be ........... consciousness

Shit. Apperances aren't deceiving after all!

You're having the same problem as Kow and BeeBuddy. Not interested in how something functions over time, but instead contenting your self or pacifying yourself with mere nouns.

Some people long for a more functional perception, and this involves more than just settling on a name for a certain appearance.

Perhaps a generalization such as "things are as they appear" can be helpful in some instances, but when you make it into a motto, it's just crap.

Cory,

Dan's post, while humorous, is perfectly fucking clear in it's meaning! Stop blaming your stupidity on others. You're a real momma's boy aren't you?