GENIUS FORUMS

Bof1,

When you can design the quantum supercomputer known as your brain, you may then say you 'know' the causes of consciousness.

Tell me; can you tell us when you were not?

We can't know no-thing. We can only point to it.
On this side of no-thing we have thing which we can know.
thing appears,changes and disappears.
for thing to appear, change, disappear...back in behind that there must be that which doesn't appear, change, disappear.
no-thing.

and yet, strangely, no-thing and thing are one.

Consciousness and the universe are similar, structure-wise and function-wise, but they are not at all the same 'thing'.

New Agers, David Wilcock etc. have got it just as spectacularly wrong as the rest of the religious buffoons who blotted the landscape of human history with their fantasies.


.'

Consciousness and the universe are similar, structure-wise and function-wise, but they are not at all the same 'thing'.

arising as one?

Diebert,

• In the waking state, the self is identified with a body in an outside world, where the body’s senses are assumed to know outside objects.

• But in the dream state, all bodies and all objects seen are imagined in the mind. Dreamt objects are experienced by a dream self – which is not an outside body, but has been imagined in the mind. This shows that the self which knows experience cannot be an outside body, as it is assumed to be in the waking world. Considering the dream state more carefully, it too depends upon assumed belief. In the experience of a dream, self is identified with a conceiving mind, where thoughts and feelings are assumed to know the dreamt-up things that they conceive.

• Finally, in the state of deep sleep, we have an experience where no thoughts and feelings are conceived and nothing that’s perceived appears. In the experience of deep sleep, there is no name or quality or form – neither conceived by mind, nor perceived by any sense.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Consciousness and the universe are similar, structure-wise and function-wise, but they are not at all the same 'thing'.

arising as one?

My comment was directed at Bof1..:)

But, it could/would/will (is being said by prince) be said that consciousness is an inevitable by-product of the universes apparently infinite capacity for complexity and change.

prince wrote:But, it could/would/will (is being said by prince) be said that consciousness is an inevitable by-product of the universes apparently infinite capacity for complexity and change.

What, in prince's opinion, is not such an inevitable by-product?

cousinbasil wrote:

Bof1 wrote:No - your consciousness is the universe.

C=dA+A^A

Consciousness and the universe are identical.

What does your equation here mean?

C stands for consciousness
d stands for the derivative (perception)
A stands for infinite flux

If my consciousness is the universe and your consciousness is the universe then my consciousness is identical with your consciousness. You see why I have a problem with that.

Yes - you think you can be outside of yourself - that is an optical illusion.



Dennis Mahar :

BO1:When you can design the quantum supercomputer known as your brain, you may then say you 'know' the causes of consciousness.

Tell me; can you tell us when you were not?

Dennis: We can't know no-thing. We can only point to it.
On this side of no-thing we have thing which we can know.
thing appears,changes and disappears.
for thing to appear, change, disappear...back in behind that there must be that which doesn't appear, change, disappear.
no-thing.

and yet, strangely, no-thing and thing are one.

Yes

Are you one with the nature of two?


Prince:

Consciousness and the universe are similar, structure-wise and function-wise, but they are not at all the same 'thing'.

Two questions
1) where is the universe? Since it is a 'thingy' you can point it out right?
2) Where is consciousness?

Icousinbasil:If my consciousness is the universe and your consciousness is the universe then my consciousness is identical with your consciousness. You see why I have a problem with that.

Bof1: Yes - you think you can be outside of yourself - that is an optical illusion.

The problem is that your consciousness is identical with the universe, and my consciousness is also identical with the universe. Logically, your consciousness is then identical with my consciousness. This is a contradiction, or are you saying it is not?

I understand the philosophical position of the Idealist. I reject it insofar as it renders further mentation useless. It would mean you and I cannot speak about the universe, since there is one in your head (your idea) and one in mine (my idea). Unless we agree there exists a noumenal Universe which is usefully reflected in our respective heads and further agree we can meaningfully discuss it, there is no point in any communication whatsoever. Correct?

cousinbasil wrote:

Icousinbasil:If my consciousness is the universe and your consciousness is the universe then my consciousness is identical with your consciousness. You see why I have a problem with that.

Bof1: Yes - you think you can be outside of yourself - that is an optical illusion.

The problem is that your consciousness is identical with the universe, and my consciousness is also identical with the universe. Logically, your consciousness is then identical with my consciousness.

Where is my consciousness?
Where is your consciousness?
How many consciousness do you have?
How do you know I have a consciousness?

This is a contradiction, or are you saying it is not?

Nope - you think you can have more than one consciousness, that is why you think there is a contradiction. I can assure you, you can only have one consciousness.

I understand the philosophical position of the Idealist. I reject it insofar as it renders further mentation useless.

No - it means you finally begin to think for yourself.

It would mean you and I cannot speak about the universe, since there is one in your head (your idea) and one in mine (my idea).

Stop right here - this is the problem. You think your consciousness exists in your head, I can assure you, the universe will not fit between your ears.

Unless we agree there exists a noumenal Universe which is usefully reflected in our respective heads and further agree we can meaningfully discuss it, there is no point in any communication whatsoever. Correct?

The neurotransmitter is considered an off on switch just like the electrical current in your home. They operate in two modes, chemical/electrical. If they capture a single bit of information, the data is then coming in from the outside rather than the internal wiring. Thought is accumulating the data at faster than lightspeed as all the information forms in an instant.

Your thought is a stream of electrons and electrons are not subject to gravity. Most assuredly your thought (as well as every particle in your body) is in communication with every other particle in the universe and all done at faster than lightspeed.

You just impacted the field known as the universe by reading this post. The field known as the universe just fed back the information as radiation.

Therefore - your consciousness contains the entire field known as THE UNIVERSE.

i AM THE UNIVERSE is truth.

Beingof1 wrote:Prince:

Consciousness and the universe are similar, structure-wise and function-wise, but they are not at all the same 'thing'.

Two questions
1) where is the universe? Since it is a 'thingy' you can point it out right?
2) Where is consciousness?

The Universe is not located anywhere in particular, or to put it another way, it's anywhere I care to point, from my arbitrary angle.

Consciousness is a finite phenomenon of the universe, found most likely inside the cranium of sentient beings that comprehend the arbitrary nature of 'reality'.

cousinbasil wrote:

prince wrote:But, it could/would/will (is being said by prince) be said that consciousness is an inevitable by-product of the universes apparently infinite capacity for complexity and change.

What, in prince's opinion, is not such an inevitable by-product?

Nothing is not. But consciousness bears talking about and understanding, Britney Spears not so much, although she too is an inevitable by-product of the universe.

Where is my consciousness?
Where is your consciousness?
How many consciousness do you have?
How do you know I have a consciousness?

I don't know where your consciousness is, but mine tends to be where I am.

How many? One, if I am conscious. Zero if I am not.

How do I know you have a consciousness? Is that a trick question? Unless I am communicating with some kind of AI, I simply assume you have one. Though by the way you respond to questions, I'm not so sure.

cousinbasil: I understand the philosophical position of the Idealist. I reject it insofar as it renders further mentation useless.

Bo1: No - it means you finally begin to think for yourself.

If you were here I would slap you.

cousinbasil: It would mean you and I cannot speak about the universe, since there is one in your head (your idea) and one in mine (my idea).

Bo1: Stop right here - this is the problem. You think your consciousness exists in your head, I can assure you, the universe will not fit between your ears.

You sound confused. If my consciousness is not where I am, where is it?

Bof 1,

Are you one with the nature of two?

there's only Tao or God or Source operating..

the idea of a separate me is just that, an idea..

cousinbasil wrote:

The standby mode, would it be any different from a plant registering temperature, humidity, vibration or speech? Which point is proven with this mode, apart from organisms registering stuff and reacting to it with what is deemed beneficial to the plant?

Can the plant later repeat the speech back? Can the plant at any time interpret the speech?

A plant is merely a simple organism Cousin. I though that was understood. So the example is about a general principle. Obviously a plant is affected by temperature, vibration, humidity and reactions on these are "interpreted" and can be visible over time by changes in temperature, humidity, growth, movement, etc. Gasses are exchanged, not unlike talking :-)

The point is that information received when one is on standby mode is not processed at that time. If it ever is processed, it may be done so at a later seemingly random time, with a meaning or awareness flashing into one's consciousness unbidden, divorced from its original context so that one may have no idea what to make of it. It may manifest as unnamed anxiety or irrational fear.

You don't really have a point here, unless it's a very common one and not disputed: that we're not aware but of a small part of that we sense, hear or see and certainly cannot remember it all. This is a good thing and perhaps one could then say the "I" is a very specialized process only meant to deal with certain complex decision making contexts; to reflect upon it before acting. Yet, this doesn't tell us yet anything about how much in need we are of we.

jupiviv wrote:The causes that you are talking about would be the causes of a particular consciousness(which itself must appear to another consciousness), and must be dealt with by science. I'm only interested in a philosophical discussion in this case, and not a scientific one.

Then why would you make a statement like

Jupiviv wrote:"a computer doesn't use any reasoning at all It just does what it does, without any consciousness of what it does."

This is what started our discussion. Aren't you mixing up philosophical concepts on consciousness with a technological one (a computer)? If you want to abstract a computer to philosophical principles, that's fine. That is what I tried to do, exploring for example memory in more general terms. By doing so things like "memory" becomes independent from its particular substrate. This is what it means to "abstract".

Moreover, even if someone investigates these causes, he still couldn't understand consciousness. He'll only understand the particular causes of it. Such an investigation must proceed from the assumption that consciousness is there in the thing investigated, and not the other way round(trying to find out the consciousness of a thing by investigating its causes). Otherwise it will go nowhere.

Anything we understand of anything at all revolves around knowing particular causes or effects. There's no "thing" in itself to know. Like a tree is most commonly identified by its fruits (or leafs).

Dennis Mahar wrote: • In the waking state, the self is identified with a body in an outside world, where the body’s senses are assumed to know outside objects.

Hardly though!

• But in the dream state, all bodies and all objects seen are imagined in the mind. Dreamt objects are experienced by a dream self – which is not an outside body, but has been imagined in the mind. This shows that the self which knows experience cannot be an outside body, as it is assumed to be in the waking world. Considering the dream state more carefully, it too depends upon assumed belief. In the experience of a dream, self is identified with a conceiving mind, where thoughts and feelings are assumed to know the dreamt-up things that they conceive.

So the mechanism is the same, proving the ability to construct a believable experience does not depend on anything but the mind, asleep or not.

• Finally, in the state of deep sleep, we have an experience where no thoughts and feelings are conceived and nothing that’s perceived appears. In the experience of deep sleep, there is no name or quality or form – neither conceived by mind, nor perceived by any sense.

Not sure what you'r referring to exactly. For example: Rats dream about their tasks during slow wave sleep. Or were you talking about another type of deep sleep?

Diebert wrote:

jupiviv wrote:"a computer doesn't use any reasoning at all It just does what it does, without any consciousness of what it does."

Aren't you mixing up philosophical concepts on consciousness with a technological one (a computer)?

We can scientifically say whether something is conscious or not based on empirical evidence. Presently there is no empirical evidence that indicates that computers are conscious.

If you want to abstract a computer to philosophical principles, that's fine. That is what I tried to do, exploring for example memory in more general terms.

Your definitions of memory, consciousness and perception weren't clear to me, which is why I ended the discussion and made this thread.

Anything we understand of anything at all revolves around knowing particular causes or effects. There's no "thing" in itself to know. Like a tree is most commonly identified by its fruits (or leafs).

If we don't know what a thing is to begin with then why bother about knowing its particular causes and effects? Saying that we can know a thing by first knowing about its particular causes is self-contradictory reasoning.

jupiviv wrote:If we don't know what a thing is to begin with then why bother about knowing its particular causes and effects? Saying that we can know a thing by first knowing about its particular causes is self-contradictory reasoning.

How does one know what a thing is "to begin with" without knowing anything about the thing's causes and effects? What does one "know first"?

cousinbasil wrote:

jupiviv wrote:If we don't know what a thing is to begin with then why bother about knowing its particular causes and effects? Saying that we can know a thing by first knowing about its particular causes is self-contradictory reasoning.

How does one know what a thing is "to begin with" without knowing anything about the thing's causes and effects? What does one "know first"?

To find out the particular causes of a thing, we have to divide it into parts. We know about a thing by identifying it - in a sense we know all the particular causes of a thing in the moment we identify it.

To find out the particular causes of a thing, we have to divide it into parts. We know about a thing by identifying it - in a sense we know all the particular causes of a thing in the moment we identify it.

By identifying it, I take you mean doing the A=A process. Even before we attach a label to something, we are asserting that we are constructing abstract boundaries, so then we are able to say "This is A, and it is not any thing other than A."

But I don't follow the sense in which that gives us all the particular causes of the thing, other than saying everything which is not A must include that which caused A, which is trivial.

prince wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:Prince:

Consciousness and the universe are similar, structure-wise and function-wise, but they are not at all the same 'thing'.

Two questions
1) where is the universe? Since it is a 'thingy' you can point it out right?
2) Where is consciousness?

The Universe is not located anywhere in particular, or to put it another way, it's anywhere I care to point, from my arbitrary angle.

Consciousness is a finite phenomenon of the universe, found most likely inside the cranium of sentient beings that comprehend the arbitrary nature of 'reality'.

Then how is the universe a 'thing'?

Consciousness is found where?
This is remarkable news as none till your breakthrough have found the source yet.
Could you tell us which brain cell is in charge?


Dennis:

there's only Tao or God or Source operating..

the idea of a separate me is just that, an idea..

Then - how big are you?


Cousin:

BO1:
Where is my consciousness?
Where is your consciousness?
How many consciousness do you have?
How do you know I have a consciousness?


Cuz:
I don't know where your consciousness is, but mine tends to be where I am.

And where exactly are you?

How many? One, if I am conscious. Zero if I am not.

Stop right here - stop - slow down and ponder.
Try not to get sidetracked and follow this path ALL THE WAY down the road.

How do I know you have a consciousness? Is that a trick question? Unless I am communicating with some kind of AI, I simply assume you have one. Though by the way you respond to questions, I'm not so sure.

When most say "think outside the box" - you should respond by asking "where is the box"?

cousinbasil: I understand the philosophical position of the Idealist. I reject it insofar as it renders further mentation useless.

Bo1: No - it means you finally begin to think for yourself.


If you were here I would slap you.

Since you are trapped inside of a box located in a place called 'here' - you did not notice I already slapped you.

cousinbasil: It would mean you and I cannot speak about the universe, since there is one in your head (your idea) and one in mine (my idea).

Bo1: Stop right here - this is the problem. You think your consciousness exists in your head, I can assure you, the universe will not fit between your ears.


You sound confused. If my consciousness is not where I am, where is it?

And you sound arrogant and full of yourself - are we done with our opinions yet?

Where exactly are you?

I noticed you completely ignored the bulk of my post - and then go on to say I am confused.
How very nice, you can completely ignore the science and logic and then claim I am confused all at the same time. Are you always this dishonest with yourself?

Look at the science and evidence again - then - respond with honesty.

Then - how big are you?

infinite,
'til 'I' appears,
with some meaning,
contracts into a dualistic point of view,
and starts talking shit.

When most say "think outside the box" - you should respond by asking "where is the box"?

Why are you introducing this box? What box?

And you sound arrogant and full of yourself

So what?

Look at the science and evidence again - then - respond with honesty.

The science of what? What evidence are we talking about?

It sounds like you are calling me dishonest. Why?

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Then - how big are you?

infinite,
'til 'I' appears,
with some meaning,
contracts into a dualistic point of view,
and starts talking shit.

:-)
Namaste and maranatha