GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:In the beginning was Consciousness.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's only the beginning of consciousness.

The experience of duality, "The Word", is the beginning of consciousness — no more.

Evolution occurs slowly to give the unfolding life matrix time to successfully acclimate itself to the complex and varied environments which it finds after implantation.

Too bad that 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed went extinct. Seems the "implantation" didn't go too well.

Our creator son chose earth for reasons we cannot know, being known only to him.

It was probably the closest.

Beingof1 wrote:Well over 50% of the post is quotes because the conversations seem to get dissolved and blurry unless we stay on target.

If I do not post quotes, it seems that positions can morph all across the board.

I knew that too.. and indeed Ones thoughts..always morph across the board.. which goes back to the path to the ocean analysis.. (above) All I am going to say.. is that consciousness is eternally Now and always has been.. Linear time is illusory, to manifest in physical form and density.. we experience it linear.. this also causes delay in cause and effect..within density or negativity.. We are energy..as everything Is. It is of course facinating to watch others thought processes.. The mind is merely a tool for consciousness.. and once one has transcended the entrapments of it then one is in control of thought.. this is free will... I have been told here that i am not adverse to long posts.. but at present I am letting you all get on with it ;-)... Being of 1 and others... I am sure you know this already.. that is why i am just observing.. and offering my brief thoughts along the way..

amandaxxx In continued service to consciousness... pure creational light source energy that fuels itself...

Kevin Solway wrote:We have, every one of us, observed consciousness arise from non-consciousness, every time we see someone arise from unconscious sleep.

Consciousness.. is deeper than sleep... I cannot recall what brainwave state it is called.. but i am sure one may google.. Consciousness is infinite.. ever expanding in awareness of itself.. Once one is aware of consciousness and how it grows.... then one may expand the All..Consciousness.. is woken up as it were into becoming more and more aware.

Kevin Solway wrote:Too bad that 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed went extinct. Seems the "implantation" didn't go too well.

There's the Kevin I've come to recognize. You hold science, mathematics, and academics in general in what approaches a mixture of disdain and contempt; yet you are all too willing to trot out a statistic if you think it helps to prove your point.

Too bad this figure of 99.9%, if it is indeed correct, proves my point instead of yours. Which is that little has been left to chance in the evolutionary appearance of man.

You cannot bring yourself to admit that sentience was an objective in a plan, rather than an "unpredictable" random occurrence of matter. (I included the quotation marks because you haven't explicitly conceded that there exists a consciousness which predates matter.)

In fact, this is precisely what you have previously done when a discussion reaches this point. You side-step it and hope it passes you by. So here we are again:

Why would a species randomly evolve the capacity to know itself and debate metaphysics with itself, if that capacity did not selectively affect differential mortality? In other words, how has the earth's environments alone physically caused this capacity to become manifest? How does it help the species or the individual to survive?

brokenhead wrote:This figure of 99.9%, if it is indeed correct, proves my point instead of yours. Which is that little has been left to chance in the evolutionary appearance of man.

This alien being of yours (ie, your "God") must have been extremely lazy — to seed a world with only microbes, and then wait billions of years for intelligent life to evolve.

Why didn't he "implant" fully conscious life right from the start?

I know: "For reasons known only to him". ;-)

You cannot bring yourself to admit that sentience was an objective in a plan

There's no evidence that it was a plan.

At any stage during the evolution of life on earth our planet might have been hit by a huge comet, which would destroy the entire planet. It's only luck that this hasn't happened yet.

Why would a species randomly evolve the capacity to know itself

Do you understand that "random" only means "unpredictable", and that it doesn't mean "arises spontaneously out of nowhere". I doubt that you understand this, and until you do you won't be going anywhere in your thinking.

Consciousness evolved because it gave us a survival advantage. It turned out that humanoids with greater consciousness had more chance of surviving and passing on their genes than humanoids with lesser consciousness. That's the way natural selection works.

how has the earth's environments alone physically caused this capacity to become manifest?

There's nothing else than our environment to cause anything.

Take climate change for example. This is part of the earth's environment. If we are very smart (conscious) we may be able to survive climate change, and pass on our genes to the next generation. If we aren't smart enough, we may well die.

That's how the earth's environment alone creates consciousness.

How does it help the species or the individual to survive?

Consciousness doesn't necessarily help a species or individual to survive, but in our case, so far — and we haven't been around for long — it has helped us to survive. If we destroy this earth, but through our consciousness we have been able to develop space travel, then we might move to other planets. That's how consciousness can help a species or individual to survive.

brokenhead: You cannot bring yourself to admit that sentience was an objective in a plan
Kevin Solway: There's no evidence that it was a plan.

What would constitute evidence? What would you accept?

After we clear this little matter up, I can then proceed to produce your evidence.

brokenhead wrote:B: You cannot bring yourself to admit that sentience was an objective in a plan

K: There's no evidence that it was a plan.

B: What would constitute evidence? What would you accept?

I would accept any evidence that there was direct conscious input into our evolution.

For example, we might be excavating a prehistoric archaeological site and find an actual written plan, written in some kind of alien language, on a material never seen before, and which we somehow manage to decipher. This written plan explains in detail what parts of our past where consciously designed, and details what conscious actions were made, and what their intent was, and those details match with what we have discovered elsewhere.

Or, better still, if an alien actually arrived here on earth, and explained that he had created us, and showed us exactly how he did it, and we are able to verify his claims. I would consider that fairly good evidence.

And ideally, the alien would also have proof that he wasn't a product of evolution by natural selection.

-

brokenhead: You cannot bring yourself to admit that sentience was an objective in a plan
Kevin Solway: There's no evidence that it was a plan.

No, blueprints will not do a blind man any good.

Kevin wrote:At any stage during the evolution of life on earth our planet might have been hit by a huge comet, which would destroy the entire planet. It's only luck that this hasn't happened yet.

A philosopher referencing luck. How quaint.

Do you understand that "random" only means "unpredictable", and that it doesn't mean "arises spontaneously out of nowhere". I doubt that you understand this, and until you do you won't be going anywhere in your thinking.

Do you understand that "unpredictable" implies someone is doing the predicting? I doubt that you understand this, and until you do, you won't be going anywhere in your thinking.

Consciousness evolved because it gave us a survival advantage. It turned out that humanoids with greater consciousness had more chance of surviving and passing on their genes than humanoids with lesser consciousness. That's the way natural selection works.

Natural selection cannot account for the initial appearance of consciousness. And how, exactly, does the ability to discuss metaphysics make you more likely to pass on your genes? I'm sure all the young Sheilahs flock around you, Kevin, but how do you know it's not due to your good looks and charm?

Take climate change for example. This is part of the earth's environment. If we are very smart (conscious) we may be able to survive climate change, and pass on our genes to the next generation. If we aren't smart enough, we may well die.

That's how the earth's environment alone creates consciousness

See, this is the Achilles' heel of your so-called philosophy. Insects aren't very smart. Yet they seem to survive grand climate change just fine.

If we destroy this earth, but through our consciousness we have been able to develop space travel, then we might move to other planets. That's how consciousness can help a species or individual to survive.

That will not happen. But let's say it does, for the sake of argument. Since the consciousness that can achieve space travel comes at the latest end of an unimaginably long chain of events, let's look at the other end for a moment. The initial appearance of consciousness, however rudimentary, is precisely what your reasoning cannot account for. Given that consciousness appears, and concomitantly the human head appears, why is the physical structure of the head and brain present at a time thousands of years before what it hosts (consciousness) is required for survival to invent space travel? In other words, how do it know?

I would accept any evidence that there was direct conscious input into our evolution.

Videotape, maybe? Maybe even something cooler?

Or, better still, if an alien actually arrived here on earth, and explained that he had created us, and showed us exactly how he did it, and we are able to verify his claims. I would consider that fairly good evidence.

Are you just pissed off because it happened 2,000 years ago instead of today? And why only "fairly" good?

David Quinn, chiming in, wrote:And ideally, the alien would also have proof that he wasn't a product of evolution by natural selection.

You two would make the OJ jury look like geniuses.

brokenhead wrote:

Do you understand that "random" only means "unpredictable", and that it doesn't mean "arises spontaneously out of nowhere".

Do you understand that "unpredictable" implies someone is doing the predicting?

Someone might like to predict, but because some things are unpredictable, they cannot predict. So what is your point?

Natural selection cannot account for the initial appearance of consciousness.

How so?

And how, exactly, does the ability to discuss metaphysics make you more likely to pass on your genes?

I explained that clearly in my last post. If we need to abandon this planet, say, because of a large comet is on a collision course with it, then having space travel available as an option will definitely make it more likely that I will be able to pass on my genes. Do you follow this reasoning?

Both rocket science and philosophy require the abstract reasoning that comes with consciousness.

Insects aren't very smart. Yet they seem to survive grand climate change just fine.

There are many different adaptions which make a species able to survive. Consciousness is only one of them. Some species, such as bacteria, have a very high reproductive rate. That is an adaption they have made which gives them a survival advantage. In our case, we have a very low reproductive rate, but we have consciousness to make up for it.

If we destroy this earth, but through our consciousness we have been able to develop space travel, then we might move to other planets. That's how consciousness can help a species or individual to survive.

That will not happen.

So you know the will of God now do you?

The initial appearance of consciousness, however rudimentary, is precisely what your reasoning cannot account for.

How so?

Given that consciousness appears, and concomitantly the human head appears

The human head appears at the same time as consciousness?

Are you serious?

I don't know what to say about that. I am speechless. I think no response is possible to such drivel.

Heads, which are normally where the primary sense organs are located, and often also the largest ganglia, or bundles of nerve fibres ("brains"), existed long before there was consciousness, and for very good reason. And it's not hard to work out why.

why is the physical structure of the head and brain present at a time thousands of years before what it hosts (consciousness)

Heads and brains (ganglia) don't have to host consciousness. A great many creatures have heads and brains, but no consciousness.

It is not the purpose of brains to host consciousness.

What do you think is the use of, say, the head and brains of an insect? Do you think the head and brains of an insect has no use?

. . . is required for survival to invent space travel? In other words, how do it know?

It is not the purpose of brains to host consciousness. The brain became the seat of consciousness in our case only as an adaption to the environment.

Or, better still, if an alien actually arrived here on earth, and explained that he had created us, and showed us exactly how he did it, and we are able to verify his claims. I would consider that fairly good evidence.

. . . why only "fairly" good?

Empirical evidence is never fully conclusive.

Kevin Solway wrote:Someone might like to predict, but because some things are unpredictable, they cannot predict. So what is your point?

You are not explaining how consciousness can be caused. It's the same point that you keep pretending isn't there so that your philosophy will appear consistent.

brokenhead: Natural selection cannot account for the initial appearance of consciousness.

Kevin: How so?

You just did it again.

I explained that clearly in my last post. If we need to abandon this planet, say, because of a large comet is on a collision course with it, then having space travel available as an option will definitely make it more likely that I will be able to pass on my genes. Do you follow this reasoning?

Both rocket science and philosophy require the abstract reasoning that comes with consciousness.

Why can you not understand my objection to this?

The species Homo Sapiens is what, a million years old? Sentience, the capacity for abstract thought, first shows up just in case a million years later the species might need to evacuate the planet? How is that natural selection? Even remotely?

Both rocket science and philosophy require the abstract reasoning that comes with consciousness.

Yes, and consciousness came with the appearance of the first humans. Agreed? Hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Kevin: If we destroy this earth, but through our consciousness we have been able to develop space travel, then we might move to other planets. That's how consciousness can help a species or individual to survive.

brokenhead: That will not happen.

Kevin: So you know the will of God now do you?

I know it by submitting to it, much like anyone else can.

brokenhead: The initial appearance of consciousness, however rudimentary, is precisely what your reasoning cannot account for.

Kevin: How so?

There, you're doing it again.

My point, lest it be forgotten, is that sentience is an objective in a plan. You seem to be maintaining that there was no such plan, that consciousness as we know it just popped up somwehere along the line. I hope you are not making the mistake of believing that I am trying to refute causality. I am trying rather to alert you to the fact that the effects you see around you pertaining to life were caused by conscious beings whose consciousness surpasses our own, yours and mine.

brokenhead wrote:Given that consciousness appears, and concomitantly the human head appears

The human head appears at the same time as consciousness?

Are you serious?

I don't know what to say about that. I am speechless. I think no response is possible to such drivel.

I was merely trying to get you to consider something substantial. I was referring to human consciousness, of course. Apparently, you seem determined to misunderstand:

It is not the purpose of brains to host consciousness.

What do you think is the use of, say, the head and brains of an insect? Do you think the head and brains of an insect has no use?

You do like to argue. The head and brain of an ant hosts ant consciousness, such as it is. If it is not the purpose of the human brain to host human consciousness, what would be its better purpose, its truer one?

It is not the purpose of brains to host consciousness. The brain became the seat of consciousness in our case only as an adaption to the environment.

What would have been the seat of consciousness in another case? The spleen? Or do you mean the brain would have had some other purpose in another case, like digesting food?

I can see that this is your story and, unimaginably improbable as it may be, you are sticking to it. The environment, hundreds of thousands of years ago when the species emerged, caused the brain to develop to a size which was sufficient, all this time later, to produce rocket science. I am asking you why the biological equipment showed up way before the environment required it to. You seem blind to this question.

Empirical evidence is never fully conclusive.

Once again, you are just resentful that it happened 2,000 years ago instead of today.

This discussion is a farce. Brokenhead's reasoning skills and understanding of the theory of evolution are far too poor to provide any interest.

Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

-

I did find this of interest, however .....

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin: If we destroy this earth, but through our consciousness we have been able to develop space travel, then we might move to other planets. That's how consciousness can help a species or individual to survive.

brokenhead: That will not happen.

Kevin: So you know the will of God now do you?

I know it by submitting to it, much like anyone else can.

I'm curious to know more about this. Can you expand on how you know that the above scenario painted by Kevin won't happen.

-

brokenhead wrote:You are not explaining how consciousness can be caused.

Consciousness is caused in the same way as anything else. There's no mystery.

The species Homo Sapiens is what, a million years old? Sentience, the capacity for abstract thought, first shows up just in case a million years later the species might need to evacuate the planet?

Why don't you study a book about evolution? What you say here shows that you don't understand even the fundamentals of how evolution works.

Things do not evolve "in case" they are needed. There is no purpose to evolution. Evolution has no goal. Evolution does not seek for things to become more complex, or more conscious, and it does not even seek to create species which survive.

All of these things you are projecting from your own ignorance.

K: If we destroy this earth, but through our consciousness we have been able to develop space travel, then we might move to other planets. That's how consciousness can help a species or individual to survive.

B: That will not happen.

K: So you know the will of God now do you?

B: I know it by submitting to it, much like anyone else can.

If you claim to know the future then you are even more deluded than I thought.

You seem to be maintaining that there was no such plan, that consciousness as we know it just popped up somewhere along the line.

All things "pop-up" somewhere along the line. That's the way Nature works. Millions of years of cause and effect go into making things "pop-up".

I hope you are not making the mistake of believing that I am trying to refute causality.

If you're not trying to refute causality, then what was the cause of your alien creator God?

I am trying rather to alert you to the fact that the effects you see around you pertaining to life were caused by conscious beings whose consciousness surpasses our own, yours and mine.

If you can provide the evidence, then I'll be interested to see it.

It is not the purpose of brains to host consciousness.

If it is not the purpose of the human brain to host human consciousness, what would be its better purpose, its truer one?

Things do not evolve with "purpose". This "purpose" is what you are projecting onto them.

It is not the purpose of brains to host consciousness. The brain became the seat of consciousness in our case only as an adaption to the environment.

What would have been the seat of consciousness in another case?

You've missed the point. Many things have brains, or bundles of nerve tissue, but most do not have consciousness. Most things with brains are unable to do philosophy. In the case of some human beings, their brain does enable consciousness, and they are thus able to do philosophy. It is not a necessary thing that a creature's brain has consciousness.

The environment, hundreds of thousands of years ago when the species emerged, caused the brain to develop to a size which was sufficient, all this time later, to produce rocket science. I am asking you why the biological equipment showed up way before the environment required it to. You seem blind to this question.

Your question is based on such a hugely false assumption that makes it meaningless.

How do you know that we did not require abstract reasoning — the very same kind of abstract reasoning that makes rocket science possible today — a hundred thousand years ago? Do you think that problem solving abilities wouldn't have helped us back then?

Or do you know the past with the same certainty that you know the future?

Once again, you are just resentful that it happened 2,000 years ago instead of today.

If you really believe that an alien creator being appeared on earth 2,000 years ago, and provided all the details of exactly how he created the entire cosmos, and demonstrated conclusively that everything he said was true in a way that people could understand and verify, then you are living in a fantasy world.

David Quinn wrote:This discussion is a farce. Brokenhead's reasoning skills and understanding of the theory of evolution are far too poor to provide any interest.

Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

-

When you know you cannot answer a question or respond to a point, David, you tend to get haughty. Have you noticed that? Your ad hominem remarks reflect rather badly on you, I'm afraid.

But no more so than espousing "scientific" views like the one above. You cannot be serious about this, can you? Both you and Kevin show a remarkably poor grasp of science of any kind. No wonder you eschew academics. First, Kevin tells me human consciousness evolved so that it can invent rocket science and escape a planet which it somehow knows it will have to do in a million years or so. Now you tell me it is a mere by-product of evolution.

Well? Which is it?

If advanced consciousness is a side-effect of the large-brain cooling-effect that appeared in Africa, then why aren't native Africans superior in intellect and cultural achievement? Or are we not supposed to say things like that?

You want to understand man's true place in the cosmos, nothing glorified, nothing belittled, but his true place. And you want me to believe you will settle for accepting man's capacity for abstract thought, for self-reflection, for discussing ideas simply for the joy of discerning the truth, as a side-effect of a cooling mechanism? Because that is exactly what you are saying to me.

brokenhead wrote:Kevin tells me human consciousness evolved so that it can invent rocket science

I did no such thing. Evolution does not have a goal.

If advanced consciousness is a side-effect of the large-brain cooling-effect that appeared in Africa, then why aren't native Africans superior in intellect and cultural achievement? Or are we not supposed to say things like that?

If conscious life evolved in Africa, then we are all Africans.

Kevin Solway

You hold in your consciousness "everything"?

Consciousness cannot hold anything at all.

Where are things?

How is a part the whole?

A part of the whole is not the whole. Consciousness is not the Totality.

What is consciousness?

What does comprehending unconsciousness have to do with comprehending "everything"?

When you understand what consciousness is, and what is not consciousness, then you understand everything, since those two things make up everything.

Okay, what is consciousness and what is not conscious?

You experience "all things" then?

Yes.

Where? Things, unless I was asleep during grade school science, have a fixed position in space time. Could you measure the dimensions of your monitor and tell us what they are?

After doing such, could you tell us when, during this process, you experienced "all things"?

How do you experience all things?

You can experience all cause and effect then?

Yes.

How?

Being :
According to what you are stating, you experience "all things" and all "cause and effect" from time immemorial, from eternity past to future, in all of its dynamics from atoms to galaxies while remaining a small "part"?

Kevin:
I experience that the infinite past is the cause of the present, and the present is the cause of the infinite future.

So then, while remaining a small part, you are able to tell us the exact position of every particle and its velocity in the universe?

While remaining a small part of course, can you tell us the expansion rate of the universe and where the edge is?

You see Kevin, you do understand, its just allowing the investment go for a much bigger one. I know that letting go seems like a huge loss, but the payoff is outa this world.

How?

Through simple logic, which I've outlined previously.

You are not demonstrating logic Kevin, you are showing a clinging.

1) All things and all cause and effect can be experienced by Kevin, from eternity past to the future and beyond.
2) Consciousness, that Kevin is, is but a small part of the universe.

This is not logic, it is morphology. Logic actually has a position on a subject.

Being: Because of logic?

Logic states that all things appear because of their causes. The fact is that no one thing, event, or being of this universe is separable from the whole. It is a continuum of essential energy with no gaps. Leibniz's famous apothegm "natura non facit saltus" - nature makes no jump.

Kevin: Logic tells you that cause and effect can't be caused, yes.

Logic tells us that there is an observer of cause and effect, all at the same time.

Nothing can be known because the only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing.

If that's the only thing you know for sure, then you're not using your brain properly.

Snippedy tactics now? Do you have an investment in how others view you? Is that why you snipped my post?

I do not snip your posts Kevin, I don't have to.

Here is the actual paragraph:

One cannot limit this universe of ours to a mere 18th century continuity of a function or Zeno`s paradox in reverse. This continuum was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. It remains inductive logic where the realm of post modernism is champion. Nothing can be known because the only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing.

Here is your answer again: "If that's the only thing you know for sure, then you're not using your brain properly."

Says a small part of the concept Totality. You see Kevin, this is how we know who is speaking words of truth, they do not have to consider how others view because;
The One who speaks, is the One who listens.

Being: If mechanical cause and effect is true then the concept Totality is continuum of infinitesimal quantity and magnitude. It becomes indiscernable, beyond experience, and beyond comprehension.

Kevin: I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical cause and effect", since there is only cause and effect.

You can't say something is beyond comprehension if you can't comprehend it. This is a logical fact.

This is my whole point.

How can a small part comprehend the whole? If nothing is contained within consciousness, how, in the logical world, does this follow?

Saying that some things are not conscious, all things are the concept Totality, you experience all things, you experience all cause and effect -------> Consciousness is a small part is baffling to logic itself because it is not logic unless you connect the dots.

Somehow, the train must arrive at the station for there to be logic. You do understand this I hope.

This begs the question - what is observing and experiencing cause and effect? A part or the whole?

A part. The "I".

Here is your position:
1) You experience all cause and effect in an infinite state.
2) You experience all things that are, have been, and will be in existence.
3) Your consciousness contains nothing.
4) Consciousness is a part of the whole.

If consciousness contains nothing, experiences the whole as you said, it therefore, is in an infinite state. It cannot - under the rules of logic - both at the same time - contain nothing and be a subset of something else. This is just absurd and is an emotional position cause it sure ain't logic.

1) Law of Identity (A is A)
2) Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be ~A)
3) Excluded Middle (B can be either A or not ~A).

Kevin:
The Totality is not a conceptual framework. I don't have a "conceptual framework" of the Totality.

Being:
1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.
2) Things only appear by the inference of their causes.
3) Cause and effect is a linear effect between things.
4) Cause and effect is eternal as is the Totality.
5) Cause and effect is deduced by logic.
6) Consciousness is required for logic.
7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.
8) Consciousness is a part of the Totality.

Kevin:
Cause and effect is not an effect.

Also, it doesn't mean much to call it "linear".

I thought you said causality is the relationship between things? Is that not an effect? If all things appear because of causality, that is the effect.

I do not know what this has to do with the concept Totality being a framework. Once you say that consciousness is a part of the concept Totality, you just created the framework because you apply a limit. Can this limit be measured while containing nothing?

7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.

It's just an effect of causes.

Cause and effect stops at its destination with the creation or relationship of things. This is the sum total of its ultimate effect, it therefore is an effect and not the cause.

What is left?

The concept Totality exists in only one place; in your mind and is held together by inductive jumps of imagery.

As I say, I'm not interested in any "concept" Totality.

I am, because it blocks your view. The very next posted exchange demonstrates this with clarity.

David Quinn wrote:This discussion is a farce. Brokenhead's reasoning skills and understanding of the theory of evolution are far too poor to provide any interest.

Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

-

Haha. That's the vaunted theory of evolution according to the view of many scientists? I would say many novelists. Or many speculators. What a farce.

Interesting theory that language evolved largely from changes in the y chromosome. It was some chance mutation occurring during the evolution of "alpha-male" sperm. Sounds like a good theory.

Kevin:Likewise, cause and effect doesn't exist in time.

Being:It is a marionette, that exists beyond time, while being completely understood and experienced by you while you remain in a bubble?

Kevin: Reason is not contained. Its vision reaches everywhere.

I can quote you as saying that logic is a part of consciousness. So now we have a part of a part that experiences everything?

What is logic Kevin?

The awareness that a thing is itself, and not other than itself.

Okay, how does something that contains nothing become a part?

How do you understand the concept Totality?

By accepting the truth of its nature, as revealed by my reasoning.

How is a part the whole?

You said you could define the concept Totality and I have heard you claim to have perfect understanding of it as well as experience it. It must be in the realm of your mind or you would not be posting about it.

Consciousness cannot contain anything. Consciousness is only an awareness, not a container.

Which part does not contain anything? Since consciousness, according to you, is a part of the Totality, which part does it not contain anything?

You believe it is the cause of all things. You keep saying this over and over in many different ways and all at the same time - deny you are saying it.

The Totality is the source of all things, since there is no other place things can come from.

Ah, there it is, take notice pilgrims and sojourners, the first cause argument.

It is, after all, a God concept. It is an idol and an image in your mind after all.

You gonna open up, or do you still have issues with trust?

B: What I am talking about is that which is a comprehensive realization of what is. It does not expand in a physical sense. It means, it expands in greater detail, what was already there in the extant expansive.

Math example:
a2 + 2ab + b2 is an expansion of ( a + b)2 - the equation did not change.

K: If there's more detail, that wasn't there before, then something has changed.

Since what you are talking about is changing, it is infinitely removed from the Totality.

I am talking about cause and effect and awareness of it.

Consciousness does not change, awareness and perception do. Awareness is a subset of consciousness and perception is a subset of awareness. They expand on the edge (so to speak) of the infinite known as consciousness. Ultimately, we find there is no edge. There is expansion within the infinite, just like cause and effect in your model of the Totality. Cause and effect expands information exchange.

The one difference between your model and what I am saying, you can actually experience consciousness, awareness, and perception and be aware of the data stream that accumulates. It still is experience and experience is contained by consciousness. Just as all things are contained within your model of the Totality.

If both causality and Totality are infinite, which one?

There's only one Infinite. The Totality is a name for the Infinite, and cause and effect is how it appears.

Appears to who? A part of the totality and thereby experience the infinite?

How?

Round and round and you never answer the question, you avoid it at all costs.

K: The Totality could only be "inferior" if there were something other than the Totality. And there can't be — by definition.

B: By your definition, it exists beyond your mind, as your consciousness is only a part and not the whole. It therefore, can only be a concept and as such, is not reality but a small part, you said so yourself.

K: Nothing at all exists in the mind, or in consciousness, but that doesn't mean we can't be aware of things.

If nothing exists in the mind - how is it a part of something else?

Answer the question. for the umpteenth time.

How do you know it is everwhere when your consciousness is just a 'part' of the concept Totality?

Consciousness reaches everywhere.

How is it a part of everything and yet reaches everywhere?

What was your first moment of consciousness?

Awareness that I exist.

And could you describe this moment?

I thought you said logic or A=A must have consciousness? How can you use the law of identity outside of your consciousness?

Nothing exists in consciousness, not even logic.

Then how do you define the Totality?

Do things appear?

where do 'things' appear?

Wherever they are caused to.

You wouldn't by any chance have seen some things appear have you?

Naw - to simple?

Who is deducing cause and effect and dividing up the universe into 'things'?

The conscious being.

Do you mean the one that is a itsy bitsy part or the one who is experiencing all things and all cause and effect in all of eternity?

And which one of these two contain nothing again? Becaue you have got two different sets of consciousness that I can see.

1) Is a part of the totality.
2) Is infinite.

Which one is the real consciousness, please stand up.

B: Where does the category of 'things' exist?

K: It doesn't. It is the Totality.

B: I thought you said the concept Totality is all things?

K: No, I've never said that.

I said that the word "Totality" is defined to mean "all things", and the definition hasn't changed.

B: 1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.

K: Correct.

I will repeat my question, when you get around to answering, let me know.

B: Where does the category of 'things' exist?

I thought you said the concept Totality is all things? Who made that definition?

I did.

Ah, so you did!

It was you all along, wasn't it?

Can you not see the merri-go-round you are on?

It's you who are on a merri-go-round.

Definition of Consciousness in Kevins view:
Consciousness is a part of the Totality, that contains nothing, that is everywhere, that experiences everything, that deduces the Totality, by using logic, that doesn't exist, because the Totality is all things, that do not exist, but can be perceived, by a part, that is everywhere.

You know Kevin, when you can travel, and actually do it, the complete universe, you meet yourself. The reason; wherever you are, there you are.

Across the void, is consciousness so bright and so smart it illuminates everthing. This is not a concept, this is experience. As a requirement however, you do have to know that it is a logical impossibility to be aware of something that you cannot experience.

B: "The Totality is all there is."
"How do you know"?
"Because the Totality is everything."
"How do you know the Totality is everything"?
"Because that is how it is defined."
"How do you know your definition is true"?

K: Right here is the fault of your argument.

A definition is just a definition, it's not something that can be "true" or "false".

Oh of course the concept Totality is exempt from logic. That way, it can morph beyond anything we can experience. The Totality is everything of which consciousness is a part and the aspect of it, is causation.

You define the concept Totality Kevin, over and over and over. Then, when it comes time to put up, suddenly, definitions mean nothing. So whatever you say, results in zero meaning, because it can mean literally anything or nothing at all.

Yup - words do not mean anything.

It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

-- Bill Clinton

K: Since consciousness itself is a thing, it too must be caused by something other than itself.

B: Then how in the world did you reach that conclusion other than within your very own consciousness?

K: Nothing is within consciousness. Consciousness is only awareness.

Awareness of what?

You are in a circle - round and round and round.

B: If the concept Totality is bigger than your consciousness, and you can observe that which is not conscious, where does the observation of the concept Totality take place?

K: I have no interest in your "concept Totality".

The observation of the Totality occurs outside of space and time.

How? How can you observe the Totality with a part?

That is like saying; " there is an outside of the universe, because there is an inside, therefore there is an outside to the universe."

No. I've given you solid reasons why there are things that are not consciousness. For example, I've explained that objects of perception are not consciousness, therefore there is something that is not consciousness.

How can there be something not conscious when consciousness is everywhere?

how is consciousness a part of the bigger concept Totality?

In the same way as any other part.

Repeat from me:

Then how in the world did you reach that conclusion other than within your very own consciousness?

You deduced, within your own consciousness mind you, that consciousness is a thing? At what point did you pull the rabbit out of the hat and stuff it back?

B: Does the concept Totality contain all things?

K: It's possible to have a "concept" of the Totality, but this is not the Totality by any manner or means.

Only the Totality contains all things. The "concept" of the Totality is only a concept.

Ah, so the Totality contains all things, of which consciousness is a part as well as a thing while containing nothing yet everwhere, and experiencing everything?

How? I can explain it, you should ask. Its happening right where you are sitting, and is self evident.

If your perception contains nothing, it therefore has no parts and ergo, is beyond boundedness.

Through the use of logic, we can escape boundedness.

Then, using logic, we become the Totality by escaping boundedness.

A conclusion of logic, inescapable and irreducible. What can happen is expansion of awareness as this is a subset of consciousness.

B: Consciousness does not require an object although awareness does. You can be conscious beyond or without thought. This is self evident and demonstratable.

K: You must have a completely different meaning for "consciousness" than I do.

Consciousness always comes with an awareness of duality.

Can you coax your mind from its wandering and keep to the original oneness?

-- Lao Tzu

When thought is absent, the infinite field manifests.

There's nothing wrong with thought. It's only deluded thought that we should seek to stem.

Read what I said again please, I said nothing about thought being wrong.

Then how do you write and post about the appearance of the concept Totality? If it does not reside within your consciousness, how can you recall your concepts?

Memory.

And memory is accessed where? It must be somewhere if consciousness is a thing and a part. What kind of a thing contains no parts?

The only time we observe consciousness is because - hello - its source was consciousness itself.

Your consciousness is responsible only for the concept of consciousness, but not consciousness itself.

Here are some questions you missed in your skipping about 20-25% of my post.

And where did you think this thought?

Is matter conscious?

Who deduced cause and effect?
Did you use logic, math, and thought to come to this conclusion?

Is your experience a container? If so, what does it contain?

The only time we observe consciousness is because - hello - its source was consciousness itself.

Your consciousness is responsible only for the concept of consciousness, but not consciousness itself.

More snipping? Kevin, this is how one can see who is avoiding issues and who is tackling them.

Here is the discussion:

K: If we assume it actually means conscious then I can answer that question as well

And the answer is, possibly, because it is possible for consciousness to consciously create further consciousness.

B: "Possibly"? Will you please use logic.

The only time we observe consciousness is because - hello - its source was consciousness itself.

K: Your consciousness is responsible only for the concept of consciousness, but not consciousness itself.

Consciousness contains all things because this is an observation that you cannot escape. That is just the beginning however and until you see this as what you experience in every moment of every experience you have ever had, you will continue to be in denial.

You cannot escape the experience you are having, that is what is wrong with the world, they think they can. Consciousness gives freely to all experience, good, bad, stuck, transcending limits, stubborn, gifted, giving power away, grabbing for power, and...

Robbing your innocence by taking advantage of your sacred trust Kevin. Causing a need to cling to insulation to block the pain. Consciousness can cure itself from the pain of suffering, by realizing that is the only place all experience transpires. Memories can help or ground us out through negativity and results in a diffusing of ones abilities.

The energy is ultimately not restraned, but can cause suffering or freedom depending on choice.

B: How does this even come close to answering the question?

K: Your question was very unclear, since it introduced elements such as "randomness". As I said, your question was very unclear.

You are the one that said cause and effect creates consciousness, do you understand cause and effect? It was you Kevin, not I, that delivered the definition of consciousness as a thing created by cause and effect and now you are unclear as to what you mean't by that?

Here is the question again:

Again the appeal to that which is beyond your experience to prove your experience?

Did random cause and effect make a conscious choice to become conscious? When has this ever been observed, duplicated, or experienced in the history of humankind?

The inverted comma is no longer there.

What is unclear about this question?

K: But cause and effect can also unconsciously create consciousness, through natural selection, etc.

B: How, when, where, and by whom?

Here you are promoting dogma and throwing your very own observation out the window.
We know for a fact, including yourself, life comes from life and it has never been observed to come from anywhere else, ever, not once, no such thing, has never occured, does not happen, and is not observed.

K: Just as consciousness comes from non-consciousness, life comes from non-life.

We have, every one of us, observed consciousness arise from non-consciousness, every time we see someone arise from unconscious sleep.

Brokenhead:
then consciousness must have first occurred an infinite time ago

K: Yes.

B: consciousness is infinite

Consciousness dies every time we enter unconscious sleep.

And we all know if someone clanged a pair of cymbals over your head while you were sleeping, you would remain unconscious, because you were sleeping?

You are reaching. Just acknowledge truth, it is not that hard.

Can you clear your mind of all images and words? Even for a second or two, that is consciousness.

If that's what you call consciousness, then you're welcome to it. I'm not the slightest bit interested in it.

That is because you are afraid. Yup, you fear the darkness.

So you are saying your mind must be kept busy? To avoid what Kevin, those bad memories? Are you afraid thoughts and images will not return to your mind?

Why will you not go between the words and images in your mind? What do you think is there?

brokenhead wrote:
B: You cannot bring yourself to admit that sentience was an objective in a plan

K: There's no evidence that it was a plan.

B: What would constitute evidence? What would you accept?

I would accept any evidence that there was direct conscious input into our evolution.

For example, we might be excavating a prehistoric archaeological site and find an actual written plan, written in some kind of alien language, on a material never seen before, and which we somehow manage to decipher. This written plan explains in detail what parts of our past where consciously designed, and details what conscious actions were made, and what their intent was, and those details match with what we have discovered elsewhere.

DNA - language, details, blueprint, design, intent, information transfer through RNA.

There ya go, evidence.

Elderwood:

If I do not post quotes, it seems that positions can morph all across the board.

I knew that too.. and indeed Ones thoughts..always morph across the board.. which goes back to the path to the ocean analysis.. (above) All I am going to say.. is that consciousness is eternally Now and always has been.. Linear time is illusory, to manifest in physical form and density.. we experience it linear.. this also causes delay in cause and effect..within density or negativity.. We are energy..as everything Is. It is of course facinating to watch others thought processes.. The mind is merely a tool for consciousness..

Indeed, once the source of all thought is known as it knows, duality is transcended. There remains only the relative in appearances.

and once one has transcended the entrapments of it then one is in control of thought.. this is free will... I have been told here that i am not adverse to long posts.. but at present I am letting you all get on with it ;-)... Being of 1 and others... I am sure you know this already.. that is why i am just observing.. and offering my brief thoughts along the way..

Yes indeed, choice becomes an aspect of what we are. We can see the thoughts, like a movie on a screen, but they no longer are the master.

Words and images are loaded programming. Certain images, like that of a new car, implies many different 'tags' of attachment. Just because I have the thought of buying a new car does not mean that I must obey all of the billboard signs, commercials, and society because I had the thought. I can invest in any thought I choose, and this is wisdom because we know where all thought comes from by being the observer of thought as well as mind and ego.

Kevin Solway wrote:Why don't you study a book about evolution? What you say here shows that you don't understand even the fundamentals of how evolution works.

Things do not evolve "in case" they are needed. There is no purpose to evolution. Evolution has no goal. Evolution does not seek for things to become more complex, or more conscious, and it does not even seek to create species which survive.

All of these things you are projecting from your own ignorance.

You keep telling me that I do not understand evolution. What you mean is, I continue to disagree with your understanding of it. I understand just fine the view point that there is no purpose to evolution, that it has no goal, that it seeks nothing, including complexity and consciousness.

I also know what evolution does. It produces these very things that it does not seek as a goal. It doesn't matter how many times you tell me I do not understand it. You are simply incorrect. I merely do not accept it as a satisfactory explanation for the world in which I find myself. I can see that you, however, do. I would gladly leave you to this, but I suffer from OCD. It bothers me when I see a painting hanging on a wall crooked, for example.

Kevin, I have read books on evolution. Do not pretend that you are in any way an expert in this area. No amount of study could make me say a triangle is a square. You seem to get bent out of shape when I paraphrase your lines of reasoning, maybe that's where I'm losing you.

It's all very simple. Once again, you see no purpose or plan in evolution. I, on the other hand, think it is absurd to believe that there is none. If you have conceded the possibility of alien creator beings, then you must at least concede the possibility that they have a plan. This is only rational.

Let us take a round figure of at least one hundred thousand years for the age of modern man, physically. I am not asking you why man a hundred thousand years ago did not invent space travel. I am asking you why he physically could have. You have said it yourself, or David has, without the brain, there could be no consciousness. That brain does indeed play host to the human consciousness. And it has not changed substantially for a hundred thousand years. Forget the nonsense about brain-cooling and try to focus. What selective environmental pressure or group of pressures could have been the cause(s) that necessitated its first appearance in a scale which has remained essentially unchanged for all this time? I am not saying no abstract thought was required a hundred thousand years ago. Why should that same organ still be physically sufficient? What environmental thing did it encounter to cause it to evolve to the extent that it could not only solve the extant abstract problems at the time, but invent quantum mechanics a hundred thousand years later?

Your point of view makes as much sense as if you were to tell me that I can take any seed, and tell me where I plant it will determine what it will eventually grow into. The environment which a growing plant encounters does indeed heavily determine what the plant will look like, whether it twists this way or that, whether it will be lush or spare, or even if it will grow at all and not just die. But the seed itself, no matter how tiny, contains all the information which will determine what the plant will be.

Please think about that. I'm late enough as it is for work today. I'll check in later.

Beingof1 wrote: we know where all thought comes from by being the observer of thought as well as mind and ego.

Beingof1 wrote:Consciousness does not change, awareness and perception do. Awareness is a subset of consciousness and perception is a subset of awareness.

Indeed.. Perceptions lead to understanding awareness, and becoming aware of awareness leads to understanding and thus observing consciousness..

Amandaxxx

Carl G wrote:

David Quinn wrote:This discussion is a farce. Brokenhead's reasoning skills and understanding of the theory of evolution are far too poor to provide any interest.

Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

Haha. That's the vaunted theory of evolution according to the view of many scientists? I would say many novelists. Or many speculators. What a farce.

This response is conspicuous by its lack of substance.

Amazing to think that in 2008 the theory of evolution by natural selection still continues to threaten people. When it was first proposed in 1860 it scared the living daylights out of Christians and conventional folk, and yet here we are today, on this forum, witnessing the very same thing.

This alone makes the theory of evolution so compelling. I personally regard it as the greatest achievement produced by science so far - nor only for its simplicity and elegance and tremendous explanatory power, but because it so effectively challenges people's cherished views of themselves.

-

Beingof1 wrote:

Consciousness cannot hold anything at all.

Where are things?

I've already answered the question where "all things" are.

What is consciousness?

The awareness of "self" and "other". Or, in general, the awareness that a thing is itself and not other than itself (A=A).

. . . and what is not conscious?

Whatever lacks consciousness.

B: You experience "all things" then?

K: Yes.

B: Where?

Right here where I am.

Things, unless I was asleep during grade school science, have a fixed position in space time.

They're all connected, and they're all connected to me.

How do you experience all things?

How do you experience one thing?

You can experience all cause and effect then?
Yes.

How?

As above.

So then, while remaining a small part, you are able to tell us the exact position of every particle and its velocity in the universe?

No. I can't tell you the exact position and velocity of anything in the Universe.

How can a small part comprehend the whole?

By not trying to contain it. By being honest and humble.

I don't normally quote others, but this is a good one:

"Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Thus the sage knows without travelling;
He sees without looking;
He works without doing."

Cause and effect is not an effect.

I thought you said causality is the relationship between things? Is that not an effect?

Since there can be nothing that causes it (since to do so, cause and effect would have to already be existence), it follows that cause and effect cannot be an effect.

Once you say that consciousness is a part of the concept Totality . . .

I have not interest in this "concept Totality".

Cause and effect stops at its destination with the creation or relationship of things. This is the sum total of its ultimate effect, it therefore is an effect and not the cause.

The present, or what you would call "the ultimate effect", is indeed an effect of the past, which is the cause of it. Together they are cause and effect.

What is left?

There's nothing left.

Reason is not contained. Its vision reaches everywhere.

I can quote you as saying that logic is a part of consciousness. So now we have a part of a part that experiences everything?

I've don't believe I've said that logic is a part of consciousness. Logic is essentially what consciousness is.

How does something that contains nothing become a part?

It is a part if there is something other than itself.

Which part does not contain anything? Since consciousness, according to you, is a part of the Totality, which part does it not contain anything?

Consciousness.

The Totality is the source of all things, since there is no other place things can come from.

Ah, there it is, take notice pilgrims and sojourners, the first cause argument.

I've already said that it's not a cause of anything, unless you understand the word "cause" in a transcendent way.

There's only one Infinite. The Totality is a name for the Infinite, and cause and effect is how it appears.

Appears to who?

Any conscious being.

If nothing exists in the mind - how is it a part of something else?

If there is something other than itself then it exists alongside at least one other thing, and is therefore a part.

What was your first moment of consciousness?
Awareness that I exist.

And could you describe this moment?

Yes. It was an experience very much like I have experienced ever since, and very much like the experience of other conscious beings.

Then how do you define the Totality?

Do things appear?

I believe I've answered these questions previously.

Definition of Consciousness in Kevins view:
Consciousness is a part of the Totality, that contains nothing, that is everywhere

My consciousness is not everywhere.

You define the concept Totality Kevin

I only define the Totality, not what you call the "concept Totality".

You keep trying to sneek-in the world "concept", but I'm not interested in mere concepts.

K: Nothing is within consciousness. Consciousness is only awareness.

Awareness of what?

Things.

How can there be something not conscious when consciousness is everywhere?

Consciousness is not everywhere.

Then, using logic, we become the Totality by escaping boundedness.

"Becoming the Totality" is only a stage on the spiritual path. The ultimate is to be a separate individual.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna appears in many forms, including forms with countless arms (infinite). But his ultimate form is two-armed. The significance behind this story is that the stage of the infinite, and oneness, is not the ultimate.

And memory is accessed where? It must be somewhere if consciousness is a thing and a part. What kind of a thing contains no parts?

A logical thing.

Here are some questions you missed in your skipping about 20-25% of my post.

I'm cutting it back a lot otherwise it will grow too big.

And where did you think this thought?

Wherever I am.

Is matter conscious?

Yes.

Who deduced cause and effect?
Did you use logic, math, and thought to come to this conclusion?

I did, and I used logic.

Is your experience a container? If so, what does it contain?

No, it's not a container.

Did random cause and effect make a conscious choice to become conscious? When has this ever been observed, duplicated, or experienced in the history of humankind?

What is unclear about this question?

Firstly, it's not clear what you mean by "random". Do you mean "unpredictable" or do you mean "happens spontaneously out of nowhere"?

Secondly, how can "cause and effect" be conscious? And even if it could be conscious, why would it want to become conscious if it's already conscious?

So your question doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:This discussion is a farce. Brokenhead's reasoning skills and understanding of the theory of evolution are far too poor to provide any interest.

Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

When you know you cannot answer a question or respond to a point, David, you tend to get haughty. Have you noticed that? Your ad hominem remarks reflect rather badly on you, I'm afraid.

I'm simply speaking the truth. Your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory is very apparent. The scientific community would laugh at your ignorance. Or more likely, they would be disgusted.

But no more so than espousing "scientific" views like the one above. You cannot be serious about this, can you? Both you and Kevin show a remarkably poor grasp of science of any kind. No wonder you eschew academics. First, Kevin tells me human consciousness evolved so that it can invent rocket science and escape a planet which it somehow knows it will have to do in a million years or so. Now you tell me it is a mere by-product of evolution.

Well? Which is it?

Your interpretation of what Kevin said is surreal.

If advanced consciousness is a side-effect of the large-brain cooling-effect that appeared in Africa, then why aren't native Africans superior in intellect and cultural achievement?

Because the expansion of the brain occured long before human race left Africa and split into the various modern races.

You want to understand man's true place in the cosmos, nothing glorified, nothing belittled, but his true place. And you want me to believe you will settle for accepting man's capacity for abstract thought, for self-reflection, for discussing ideas simply for the joy of discerning the truth, as a side-effect of a cooling mechanism? Because that is exactly what you are saying to me.

That is exactly what happened. Consciousness is nothing more than an accidental by-product of evolutionary forces, as are all species' traits.

It is important to understand that the human race is utterly insignificant in the greater scheme of things. We are no more special than any other species, or indeed any other thing in the Universe. The theory of evolution rams this point home with tremendous force, which is why so many humans squeal at the very sight of it.

-