GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth, I was actually referring to Jamesh's post as being plain nasty, not Kelly's. Without knowing Kelly, it sounds as though she's getting a raw deal.

Kelly Jones wrote:Your reckless and wasteful attitude to philosophy has absolutely no place on the Genius Forum.

I have discussed this in person with Kevin and he has advised me that speculative threads such as this one are better started in Worldly Matters, which is where I'll start them in future.

--
Sapius, Andrew, Leyla - I hope to respond to each of you as energy and motivation allow

Bilby wrote:Elizabeth, I was actually referring to Jamesh's post as being plain nasty, not Kelly's.

Thank you for the clarification. Sometimes the way we phrase things around here is a bit blunt, and James is particularly lacking in tact. He meant well by what he said, and I only look at a person's intentions.

Sapius wrote:Firstly, for “I” am aware(ness), there has to necessarily be something other than the self to be aware of.

Why not simply awareness of self (where that self is awareness)?

Sapius wrote:If I am all Black, I cannot be aware of Black at all, hence no awareness, unless there is white, against which I will KNOW my Blackness. Without at least TWO things being around, awareness cannot arise, be it even an “internal” distinction.

Why need there be a distinction? Do you argue that I would not recognise the colour black unless I had first seen white? This seems untenable - why should it not be the other way around so that I could not recognise the colour white unless I had first seen black (one of them must come first)? Do you argue that I would not be aware of colour at all if I lived in a world that was entirely white?

Sapius wrote:Say even if it is only the “self” that is not aware of “another”, it has to necessarily be comprised of more than one thing for awareness to arise within, and that has to necessarily be a dynamic process within, otherwise nothing can be happening at all. There is an element of time-flow to be considered, and memory too, because a “self” has to necessarily maintain the sense of “self” through this time-flow, and to all evidence in and of existence, there is nothing that points to anything being static, otherwise that would translate into absolutely nothing happening at all, including aware(NESS), which is impossible.

These are strong arguments that you present. I must admit though to a belief (or at least a willingness to consider the possibility) that static awareness can exist - static in the sense that it is unaffected by anything external and that there is no dynamic thought occurring, merely a state of constant feeling.

Sapius wrote:In my opinion, the “ultimate” quantum particle would still be subject to further divisions, just like we previously though that atom was the ultimate, and yet we discovered divisions beyond that.

This seems to be a lot like the regression: "if God created the universe, then what created God? And then what created the thing that created God? And then what created the thing that created the thing that created God? And... etc". Are you content with an infinite regression? And if you are content with it in particles, then why not with God?

Laird: I believe that awareness can exist independently of memory. For example, when coming around from a general anaesthetic I have little to no memory, but I am still self-aware - I just have little conception of the usual complexities of that self.

Sapius: It depends how you define memory, and I can't see how some sort of memory is not necessary. In what kind of memory bank do you think is the information that triggers puberty held?

OK, I'll put it this way instead then: I believe that awareness can exist without conscious access to memory.

Laird: I find it, as well, extremely difficult to conceive of ["I"s and "you"s] as reducing to the emptiness that the rational infinitists like to promote.

Sapius: There is no such thing as “emptiness”. There is absolutely no thing that is “empty”.

Perhaps I mischaracterised their thought - perhaps "nothing" would have been a better word than emptiness. But in any case you seem to agree that self is a meaningful concept.

S: Consciousness always is, will be, and it was never that it was not; same goes for duality.

L: My thoughts, beliefs and speculations run along lines suggestive of that understanding too.

S: OK, but I have a high degree of certainty than your expression seems to suggest, but that could be because of my personal experiences.

Can you describe those experiences?

S: namely, recognition through differentiation and thence reaction, which necessarily requires duality, hence is inseparable

L: Again, you describe part of the process of consciousness, but I believe in the (more abstract?) idea of consciousness itself which is an inhabiting force, affected by and affecting the process of consciousness.

S: No, it is not “part” of the process; it is the process itself, and that is what the process detects as consciousness, and it is due to its capability of abstract thinking that it names itself ‘consciousness’. There is no other “entity” working within, or affecting from afar.

Well your explanation is simplest; I just find it hard to reconcile it with my conscious experience and with the phenomena that I pointed to previously.

Laird: If so, then my point is that many types of dreams in my opinion can *not* be explained in terms of any survival advantage that they might impart to the evolving individual of the human species.

Sapius: Are you now saying that there is no mental evolution happening (as I think you mentioned earlier and are of that mind)?

I think that there is mental evolution happening in the realm of shared ideas, knowledge, techniques and ethics. I don't know whether our brains are still evolving though - it's an interesting question.

Sapius wrote:From what I said above you should by now gather that Consciousness is an evolving thing from a quark kind to ours, and what makes you think that Consciousness has reached its pinnacle of evolutionary level? [...] In my opinion it is an emergent phenomenon, only that we don’t have enough knowledge to see the connections, but that will surely change in time.

OK, so you believe that Darwinian theory can fully explain consciousness (you haven't explained how lucid dreams and astral experiences help us to survive, but you seem to think that one day when we have enough knowledge we will be able to explain this).

You also believe that consciousness is still evolving. But there seems to be no selection mechanism anymore - modern medicine allows almost anyone to survive regardless of how fit they are. So it seems that there must be some evolutionary force other than mutation and natural selection after all. Am I reading you correctly?

S: How come just the memory of light is more than enough to light up objects never ever seen before, whereas otherwise light is necessary to see objects from which it bounces off. Do we have a lighted bulb in our skulls?

L: Is "imagination" too simplistic/unrealistic an answer for you?

S: What do you think? Do I look like a person who can be convinced by a lullaby? Would such a reply be good enough for you? :D

As a first-pass explanation, yes, it would be. A second-pass explanation might run like this:

There are probably circuits in the brain that are wired to deal with lighting and shadows, and with predicting how shading will look for known objects in new situations so that a predicted appearance can be compared to what we are actually seeing to determine whether we are actually seeing a known object in a new lighting environment. I imagine that in a dream, those circuits could be turned to new objects to apply lighting and shadowing effects.

Laird,


Here are some examples of futile speculation, which don't belong in philosophy:

Laird wrote: Sapius: Firstly, for “I” am aware(ness), there has to necessarily be something other than the self to be aware of.

Laird: Why not simply awareness of self (where that self is awareness)?

For there to be awareness of awareness, there has to be something other than awareness present in awareness.

So it is a futile speculation.

Sapius wrote:If I am all Black, I cannot be aware of Black at all, hence no awareness, unless there is white, against which I will KNOW my Blackness. Without at least TWO things being around, awareness cannot arise, be it even an “internal” distinction.

Laird: Why need there be a distinction? Do you argue that I would not recognise the colour black unless I had first seen white? This seems untenable - why should it not be the other way around so that I could not recognise the colour white unless I had first seen black (one of them must come first)? Do you argue that I would not be aware of colour at all if I lived in a world that was entirely white?

As Sapius' concept means there is nothing other than "Black", it is pointless to suggest that it can include "white".

Laird wrote: I must admit though to a belief (or at least a willingness to consider the possibility) that static awareness can exist - static in the sense that it is unaffected by anything external and that there is no dynamic thought occurring, merely a state of constant feeling.

You have stated there is nothing "external" (no contrast) to your concept of "state of constant feeling", then suggest that it can be contrasted with things like "not-states" or "not-constant" or "not-feeling".

Do you see how these concepts of yours are overly-imaginative and pure nonsense?

Laird wrote: Are you content with an infinite regression? And if you are content with it in particles, then why not with God?

This suggests the possibility that the Infinite (which is not-finite, not-bounded) is bounded by not-regression. Do you see how that is a pointless speculation?

Laird wrote: I believe that awareness can exist without conscious access to memory.

Back it up with reasoning. E.g. "There can be awareness of self without there being any concept of self appearing to mind, because....."

Laird: I find it, as well, extremely difficult to conceive of ["I"s and "you"s] as reducing to the emptiness that the rational infinitists like to promote.

Sapius: There is no such thing as “emptiness”. There is absolutely no thing that is “empty”.

Laird: Perhaps I mischaracterised their thought - perhaps "nothing" would have been a better word than emptiness. But in any case you seem to agree that self is a meaningful concept.

There cannot be reduction to Emptiness, if Emptiness is all there is. That implies not-reduction-to-Emptiness has to exist somewhere.

S: Consciousness always is, will be, and it was never that it was not; same goes for duality.

L: My thoughts, beliefs and speculations run along lines suggestive of that understanding too.

Back it up with reasoning. Sapius might be pulling your leg, especially when he says that his personal experiences are evidence of eternity.

Laird: I believe in the (more abstract?) idea of consciousness itself which is an inhabiting force, affected by and affecting the process of consciousness.

If you say "I believe....is an absolutely true definition" (which is effectively what you are doing), you must back it up with reasoning, including, define your terms absolutely. It may mean something to you, but unless you contextualise your meanings absolutely, then there is no point expressing them to others.

It is like an insane person or a religious fanatic, making wild claims. What do you mean by "inhabiting force". What do you mean by "process of consciousness" ? for example.

Well your explanation is simplest; I just find it hard to reconcile it with my conscious experience and with the phenomena that I pointed to previously.

Define consciousness first, instead of looking at variable empirical evidence to find a meaning for it.

I think that there is mental evolution happening in the realm of shared ideas, knowledge, techniques and ethics. I don't know whether our brains are still evolving though - it's an interesting question.

It's not an interesting question. It is either possible, happening, or neither.


The rest is just overly-imaginative gossip, and totally unrelated to the topic.

-

Kelly
I'm finding it rather difficult to respond coheriently to your last post to me. It is about time I responded to something you've said so I'll give it another try tomorrow.

Kelly Jones wrote:Here are some examples of futile speculation, which don't belong in philosophy:

Kelly, I will repeat what I wrote on the third page of this thread, in response to Carl G's post but directed at you:

Laird wrote:I'm probably not going to interact with you very much if at all on these forums because you have broken my trust and shown no recognition of it, let alone any intention that might restore my faith in you.

Not only have you still shown no recognition of your moral bankruptcy in attempting to publicly humiliate me using information that I disclosed to you in private confidence (and which I specifically requested you to be sensitive in your dealings with), but you have now heaped scorn upon writings that I put a good deal of effort into, and have also suggested that I be banned from this forum. If you expect me to respond with respectful detail to your post (I do not intend to), then you need to first show me some respect. At the moment all that I see from you (at least publicly) is denigration. You might find it instructive to ask yourself: what is it about open-minded free-thinking that I find so threatening? You might also want to ask yourself: is there any correspondence between my private interactions with Laird and my public responses to him? I can give you a pointer or two if you can't see any.

AWiseman wrote:I haven't got the time nor the energy to read though all of the posts on this thread, so I hope what I say here isn't too out of context or inappropriate.

It was perfect - the most open-minded and informative post so far.

AWiseman wrote:This would certainly explain why confidence (true belief that it will go your way) is so crucial within sport.

And love. And gambling.

Speaking of gambling, I'm reminded of a story. During my fifth year of school a raffle was held - I seem to recall that the prize was a chocolate cake. It was a small school of about one hundred students, but I seem to recall that this raffle included parents and staff. One of my friends - Winkie by nickname - told everyone that he could win any raffle that he wanted to, and that he had decided to win this one. We were intrigued at his breezy confidence, although a little skeptical of his claim. But lo and behold, Winkie won that raffle! We all were astounded - it felt like something spooky had just happened.

Very anecdotal evidence and an outcome that could, as with my initial examples, easily be dismissed as coincidence. But Andrew I'm very interested in the research that you referenced - it would be a lot harder to dismiss something that was rigorously scientific.

Hypothesising that this story is not coincidence but an example of psi force in effect, what might have happened if not only Winkie had had this strong belief that he would win, but three or four others of us had too? Would there have been a "battle of the psi forces"?

AWiseman wrote:If you have read some of my other recent posts, this ties in with my suspicion that consciousness is tied in to "physical reality" in a way far more intimately than is currently understood.

It also seems to support my idea that consciousness is more than just an emergent phenomenon.

Laird: Might then that attachment be weakened by considering a less threatening perspective from which my words might be approached?

Leyla: No. How could it be when it requires x-ray vision to see beneath the layers?

Laird: But I provided the x-ray photograph of the relevant layer!

Leyla: Ohhh, the relevant layer! What do you think is wrong with the x-ray, since in all the multi-layered satire of it all, I (for one) apparently didn’t see it? Is that like the layer that’s purer than all the other layers?

Not purer - it was the layer that could serve the most useful purpose in the moment; purpose being whatever one decides, or is caused to decide, that it should be, and purpose itself being multi-layered.

Laird: I submit that "pure" intention is nothing more than the overlay of that at each layer; that beneath it all is nothing of meaning beyond restful emptiness.

Leyla: I see. So, what’s this all about, then:

Laird wrote:…unfortunately your purpose in so doing again escapes me, unless it was for the pure pleasure of it.

Leyla: Is it possible to have pure pleasure but not pure intention, or are you simply exercising poetic license for -- "pure" nothing?

I was exercising poetic license, but I also believe in states in which the many layers drop away or at least become irrelevant to the "purest" layer - I'm referring in particular to sexual states but also to states in which adrenaline is predominant so that a threat might be evaded.

Leyla Shen wrote:I would say, Laird, that this "restful emptiness" is indeed brimming with life and meaning. In fact, I suggest that emptiness is the very fabric of meaning itself.

It's hard for me to take that seriously - if all meaning reduces to emptiness then all is meaningless. Do you wish me to believe that there is no purpose to existence?

Laird,

1. Kevin suggested that speculative arguments belong in the Worldly Matters forum, and he has already made it clear to you what speculative arguments are. So has David. I pointed them out too. Yet you do not understand, because you do not want to know. Even though we are all being quite patient with you, and encouraging you to be rational. What more can we do? You're not being fair.

2. Your extreme attachment to femininity is causing you to despise rationality, and I would like to see your denial of this fact, change. It would uplift you mentally to no end. At present you don't seem to make any connection between your love of speculation, your anger at being challenged, and your attachment to females, and particularly the iconic vision of your mother. If you were a thinker, you'd wonder about it.

I don't care whether or not you take these thoughts on board. Perhaps your cup is too full to receive anything.

What's wrong with taking six months off to get your thoughts together?

-

Laird, sorry for the delayed response... but I see that you have been quite busy yourself... :D

S: Firstly, for “I” am aware(ness), there has to necessarily be something other than the self to be aware of.

L: Why not simply awareness of self (where that self is awareness)?

Sure, the Self IS Awareness, and Awareness IS Self, but not the way you imagine it to be a singularity within. Essentially, It is Awareness (consciousness in our case) itself that is the self; you are simply assuming it the other way around and imposing imagined qualities to it. To explain such a stand you will have to first define ‘self’ and ‘awareness’. If you find such words inappropriate, you can choose some other words, but you will then have to define them in context as well, otherwise our discussion will simply be incoherent.

Why need there be a distinction? Do you argue that I would not recognise the colour black unless I had first seen white? This seems untenable - why should it not be the other way around so that I could not recognise the colour white unless I had first seen black (one of them must come first)?

Both have to BE for either one of them to be KNOWN, be aware of. One cannot be known without the other being around.

I thought you were more intelligent than that, Laird. The point is, that without differentiation recognition cannot occur, and this dynamic process of ‘recognition through differentiation’ is what consciousness IS, and that itself is the sense of SELF, because of all that is recognizably not it. Consciousness, Awareness, and Self are but one and the same thing. Self is but a logically conscious awareness of NOT being something else, which can happen only through differentiation, otherwise not.

Do you argue that I would not be aware of colour at all if I lived in a world that was entirely white?

Yes; please tell me, how would you define ‘white’ in such a world? How would you KNOW white if there is absolutely nothing to contrast it?

These are strong arguments that you present. I must admit though to a belief (or at least a willingness to consider the possibility) that static awareness can exist - static in the sense that it is unaffected by anything external and that there is no dynamic thought occurring, merely a state of constant feeling.

As I said, you will have to define ‘awareness’. Even for a CONSTANT feeling, motion has to necessarily be involved, and to the contrary there seems to be absolutely nothing that is static in my experience.

On the other hand, if you mean a “state of constant feeling” as in an atom, then not only is that a possibility, but I am absolutely sure that an atom “feels” certain awareness, but the point is that there has to necessarily be more than one constituent part within it that are dynamically interactive, where one part recognizes the other through differentiating its “self” from the other, or vice versa, which in turn means that an atom, or any minutest quantum particle is never ever a solid ONE single unit. The ‘interactive-ness’ is what awareness is at its core. Hence awareness without a dynamic duality cannot exist. Hence, if and where there is ONE in an absolute sense, it cannot be aware of its SELF, and yet be purely ‘awareness’, except possibly imagined.

S: In my opinion, the “ultimate” quantum particle would still be subject to further divisions, just like we previously though that atom was the ultimate, and yet we discovered divisions beyond that

L: This seems to be a lot like the regression: "if God created the universe, then what created God? And then what created the thing that created God? And then what created the thing that created the thing that created God? And... etc". Are you content with an infinite regression? And if you are content with it in particles, then why not with God?

Well, regressions for those who yet cannot believe that there isn’t a first cause, and cannot logically deduce that if energy cannot ever die, it couldn’t have ever been born. What I said points to logically deduced infinity rather then regression emerging from false beliefs, and false hopes in them, thereof.

OK, I'll put it this way instead then: I believe that awareness can exist without conscious access to memory.

Reason being that it is static? Well; I don’t believe awareness can exist without memory being a fundamental aspect of it. That should settle the argument then. Is that ok with you?

Perhaps I mischaracterised their thought - perhaps "nothing" would have been a better word than emptiness. But in any case you seem to agree that self is a meaningful concept.

Yes, it is a meaningful concept, but it does not necessarily need meanings or concepts to be what it is. A new born baby is fully aware of its ‘self’, an ant is aware of its ‘self’, and so on… otherwise they couldn’t operate or interact with their environment, which they recognize as being something other than their “selves”.

S: Consciousness always is, will be, and it was never that it was not; same goes for duality.

L: My thoughts, beliefs and speculations run along lines suggestive of that understanding too.

S: OK, but I have a high degree of certainty than your expression seems to suggest, but that could be because of my personal experiences.

L: Can you describe those experiences?

I could, but I don’t see how describing MY experiences will boost YOUR confidence and certainty? In any case I cannot make you experience them as it were, so lets try some logical reasoning instead, which in time may prove to be as good.

You also believe that consciousness is still evolving. But there seems to be no selection mechanism anymore - modern medicine allows almost anyone to survive regardless of how fit they are. So it seems that there must be some evolutionary force other than mutation and natural selection after all. Am I reading you correctly?

Not really. You simply assume that evolution is of the “physical” kind only. How about “mental mutation” (that we are becoming far more intelligent with every generation; that our power of questioning, reasoning, that has brought us closer to modern medicine from an ancient one) and “natural selection” (Is it not obvious that evolution naturally selects and favors higher intelligence?)? Is it not the mental evolution that has tremendously increased our chances of physical survival? Evolution first tried a thick and furry skin, but then found that evolving the Brian, memory, and logical deduction is far more productive and apt for survival since it gives multiple solutions to stay warm.

Evolution favors a higher capacity of memory and logical deduction for obvious reasons; it helps survive without much effort dedicated to trial and error that takes millions of years to correct. How long a period did it take for modern medicine to arrive as against it took for Homo sapiens to arrive? Evolution looks for the shortest and the easiest root that helps existence survive, not only our “physical” selves. It cares less for us because it is not a “physical” thing but a process, (otherwise it would magically protect us from natural disasters), but this process creates a thing intelligent enough to reason and take decision to protect its self through mentally calculative actions. But like always, even this sentient abstract world that it creates is still prone to trial and errors, mentally speaking. We do make mistakes you know, but we can equally come up with brilliant solutions as well.

Things and awareness (consciousness) are interdependently evolving - not independently; Let me put it this way… There is only one evolution happening in and of duality, and that is existence moving forward through trial and error, and finding the shortest and easiest way to survive, (not that it could do otherwise for that is Nature itself), be it things or the process itself for they are inherently interdependent, hence inseparable. Neither can exist on its own without the other. And since it is a process that corrects itself through sensing error that can be stored only in THINGS - in and of memory, and not “consciousness” (the process itself), which is simply a process of sensing and using that memory. Hence existence favors a memory storage system that is better than the one held in a quark, and quark type awareness (consciousness), and voila, result – a logically reasoning thing which was however based in and of a logical system anyways, however at a very minimal operational and a thing level.

S: In a dream; How come just the memory of light is more than enough to light up objects never ever seen before, whereas otherwise light is necessary to see objects from which it bounces off. Do we have a lighted bulb in our skulls?

L: Is "imagination" too simplistic/unrealistic an answer for you?

S: What do you think? Do I look like a person who can be convinced by a lullaby? Would such a reply be good enough for you?

L: As a first-pass explanation, yes, it would be. A second-pass explanation might run like this:

There are probably circuits in the brain that are wired to deal with lighting and shadows, and with predicting how shading will look for known objects in new situations so that a predicted appearance can be compared to what we are actually seeing to determine whether we are actually seeing a known object in a new lighting environment. I imagine that in a dream, those circuits could be turned to new objects to apply lighting and shadowing effects.

Hummm… nope, that did not help me much the second time around either.

Sapius wrote:To explain such a stand you will have to first define ‘self’ and ‘awareness’.

I define "awareness" as "the state of knowing that something exists", and "self" as "the subject of conscious experience, including most expansively mind, brain and body, and least expansively a putative soul".

Sapius wrote:Both [black and white] have to BE for either one of them to be KNOWN, be aware of. One cannot be known without the other being around.

OK, let's leave colours for now, because it's hard to live without being aware of many of them, and let's instead consider something that we are aware of without contrast to other similar entities: air. I am aware of air when I breathe, but it's not because I am differentiating it against argon, boron and chlorine gases.

Sapius wrote:I thought you were more intelligent than that, Laird.

We've got different perspectives - that doesn't make either of us less intelligent than the other.

Laird: Do you argue that I would not be aware of colour at all if I lived in a world that was entirely white?

Sapius: Yes; please tell me, how would you define ‘white’ in such a world? How would you KNOW white if there is absolutely nothing to contrast it?

How do we define air in our world? I "know" air without contrasting it against other gases.

So you might argue: there are different qualities of air - some air is polluted and smells bad; air in a forest smells fresher. Fair enough, but if then you are to argue that it's only through differentiation between types of breathable gases that we recognise air then you'd have to argue that someone who from birth had been fed a constant, unchanging air supply would not be able to recognise it as air, having not had the opportunity to contrast it against other types of breathable gases. This, to me at least, seems very unlikely - I'm almost certain that this person would still be aware of air.

So then you might argue: the contrast is between the emptiness and the fullness of the lungs; between the stimulation of the nerves in the lungs/nostrils and their resting, undisturbed state. And if so, then I can go there with you. And I can even agree to the likelihood of what you say next:

Sapius wrote:Even for a CONSTANT feeling, motion has to necessarily be involved, and to the contrary there seems to be absolutely nothing that is static in my experience.

That seems sensible - even the mighty and seemingly timeless mountain changes through erosion by wind and water; changes by tectonic forces that push it upwards; is comprised of tiny atoms where electrons spin wildly in change around a nucleus. I don't go so far though as to assert that this is absolutely true for everything. To me it's possible that there are aspects of reality that are changeless. You might ask "well, what then!!?" I can only answer that it is an intuition regarding consciousness that I respect in myself.

Sapius wrote:Hence, if and where there is ONE in an absolute sense, it cannot be aware of its SELF, and yet be purely ‘awareness’, except possibly imagined.

This is where we part ways, because I can imagine a ONE that is purely awareness.

Sapius wrote:Well, regressions for those who yet cannot believe that there isn’t a first cause, and cannot logically deduce that if energy cannot ever die, it couldn’t have ever been born.

So if it wasn't born, then how is it that energy exists at all?

Laird: OK, I'll put it this way instead then: I believe that awareness can exist without conscious access to memory.

Sapius: Reason being that it is static? Well; I don’t believe awareness can exist without memory being a fundamental aspect of it. That should settle the argument then. Is that ok with you?

If you mean, "let's agree to disagree", then: yes, it's OK with me.

Laird: You also believe that consciousness is still evolving. But there seems to be no selection mechanism anymore - modern medicine allows almost anyone to survive regardless of how fit they are. So it seems that there must be some evolutionary force other than mutation and natural selection after all. Am I reading you correctly?

Sapius: Not really. You simply assume that evolution is of the “physical” kind only. How about “mental mutation” (that we are becoming far more intelligent with every generation; that our power of questioning, reasoning, that has brought us closer to modern medicine from an ancient one) and “natural selection” (Is it not obvious that evolution naturally selects and favors higher intelligence?)? Is it not the mental evolution that has tremendously increased our chances of physical survival? Evolution first tried a thick and furry skin, but then found that evolving the Brian, memory, and logical deduction is far more productive and apt for survival since it gives multiple solutions to stay warm.

But Sapius do you not see that this "mental" evolution is nevertheless "physical" Darwinian evolution anyway? "Mental" evolution is physical in the sense that it relies on a physical brain. If the physical brain is not evolving, then how is mental evolution progressing?

Sapius wrote:Let me put it this way… There is only one evolution happening in and of duality, and that is existence moving forward through trial and error, and finding the shortest and easiest way to survive, (not that it could do otherwise for that is Nature itself), be it things or the process itself for they are inherently interdependent, hence inseparable.

Wonderful! Yes, I think along similar lines. But I don't see how mental evolution in terms of maths, physics, chemistry, artistry and creativity (musicality, for example) etc, can be explained by simple "trial and error". It seems more complex than that. That complexity can't be explained by simple Darwinian evolution.

Sapius wrote:Hence existence favors a memory storage system that is better than the one held in a quark, and quark type awareness (consciousness), and voila, result – a logically reasoning thing which was however based in and of a logical system anyways, however at a very minimal operational and a thing level.

Right, so complexity is validated. But what is it that validates complexity?

Laird,

I define "awareness" as "the state of knowing that something exists",

How would you define ‘knowing’ here? Does a cat have no awareness?

and "self" as "the subject of conscious experience, including most expansively mind, brain and body, and least expansively a putative soul".

So a cat does not have a sense of ‘self’ then?

We've got different perspectives - that doesn't make either of us less intelligent than the other.

Yes we do have different perspectives, and I meant no insult; consider it a friendly jovial remark for bringing up an unreasonable example.

How do we define air in our world? I "know" air without contrasting it against other gases.

So you might argue: there are different qualities of air - some air is polluted and smells bad; air in a forest smells fresher. Fair enough, but if then you are to argue that it's only through differentiation between types of breathable gases that we recognise air then you'd have to argue that someone who from birth had been fed a constant, unchanging air supply would not be able to recognise it as air, having not had the opportunity to contrast it against other types of breathable gases. This, to me at least, seems very unlikely - I'm almost certain that this person would still be aware of air.

So then you might argue: the contrast is between the emptiness and the fullness of the lungs; between the stimulation of the nerves in the lungs/nostrils and their resting, undisturbed state.

I might argue this and I might argue that… well, all I have to say is hold your breath long enough and you will know the difference, and the best part is, you don’t even have to define the difference.

L: And if so, then I can go there with you. And I can even agree to the likelihood of what you say next:

“S: Even for a CONSTANT feeling, motion has to necessarily be involved, and to the contrary there seems to be absolutely nothing that is static in my experience.”

L: That seems sensible - even the mighty and seemingly timeless mountain changes through erosion by wind and water; changes by tectonic forces that push it upwards; is comprised of tiny atoms where electrons spin wildly in change around a nucleus. I don't go so far though as to assert that this is absolutely true for everything. To me it's possible that there are aspects of reality that are changeless. You might ask "well, what then!!?" I can only answer that it is an intuition regarding consciousness that I respect in myself.

Well, I respect your intuitions, but I try to reason over my mine, and try to deduce how much can I really trust them? Try to see if they conform to rationality? As far as I am concerned, without change, nothing exists. What I think intrigues you is the elusive essence of ‘consciousness’; Thoughts like… how can it be a product of matter/energy, or that itself? There has to necessarily be more to it… which has to necessarily be common to all…

Yes there is, and the common factor is that the process on which it is based on is exactly the same, otherwise each and every individual is absolutely unique in accordance to its own dynamically caused conditions; conditions that are also interdependent on the individual itself.

S: Hence, if and where there is ONE in an absolute sense, it cannot be aware of its SELF, and yet be purely ‘awareness’, except possibly imagined.

L: This is where we part ways, because I can imagine a ONE that is purely awareness.

Did I say you can’t? I can imagine too, and I love them for what they are, but I cannot derive rational conclusions from imaginations; on the other hand I can rationally deduce imaginations. In my experience faith in imaginations lead to unreasonable conclusions, hence unreliable.

So if it wasn't born, then how is it that energy exists at all?

Because it never was that it did not exist, by the mere fact that it is, and that we know it cannot die. Quite difficult to accept… right? Well, I’m afraid you will have to work on that yourself.

Laird: OK, I'll put it this way instead then: I believe that awareness can exist without conscious access to memory.

Sapius: Reason being that it is static? Well; I don’t believe awareness can exist without memory being a fundamental aspect of it. That should settle the argument then. Is that ok with you?

L: If you mean, "let's agree to disagree", then: yes, it's OK with me.

No, I mean is my response ‘I believe’ so-and-so, good enough for you? Apparently not; since eventually it’s ok with you to ‘agree to disagree’. So how can I simply accept or agree to what you believe, irrelevant of the way you put it. You do expect logical reasoning’s to back up my beliefs, don’t you? The problem I think is that you talk about only human consciousness and awareness, and consider ‘memory’ to be just as the kind used in cognitive thinking, and don’t regard a cat to have any memory or awareness as such. A DNA strand, a stem cell or an atom, would be out of the question absolutely. Is it?

But Sapius do you not see that this "mental" evolution is nevertheless "physical" Darwinian evolution anyway? "Mental" evolution is physical in the sense that it relies on a physical brain. If the physical brain is not evolving, then how is mental evolution progressing?

And don’t you see progressive technological achievements for one? Did a tooth fairy drop a laptop in our laps? Darwin discovered evolution, he did not invent it, and it was already known long before he was personally accredited for it. And is the word ‘evolution’ his personal property? The brain hasn’t evolved much since we invented the wheel, but our thinking has definitely evolved tremendously since then. Do I really need to give examples, Laird?

Right, so complexity is validated. But what is it that validates complexity?

Forgot the interactive interdependency so soon?

Will to exist.

Laird: I define "awareness" as "the state of knowing that something exists",

Sapius: How would you define ‘knowing’ here? Does a cat have no awareness?

That definition's a hard one. I intend "knowing" as broadly as possible though - it's not, for example, purely intellectual: it can be a "feeling" or an "experiencing". I am very confident that a cat has awareness, but it probably isn't an awareness as capable of intellectualisation (involving use of symbols such as words and mathematical/logical abstractions) as we are, although it might be capable of some rudimentary form of abstract reasoning such as "if I keep on meowing I'll irritate em enough that ey'll feed me to keep me quiet".

Laird: and "self" as "the subject of conscious experience, including most expansively mind, brain and body, and least expansively a putative soul".

Sapius: So a cat does not have a sense of ‘self’ then?

I can only speculate, but it seems very, very likely to me that a cat has a sense of self.

Sapius wrote:Yes we do have different perspectives, and I meant no insult; consider it a friendly jovial remark for bringing up an unreasonable example.

I won't take offence but nor will I accept that my example was unreasonable: you've accepted below that one can be aware of air (by, as you write, holding one's breath) without reference to other similar gases - why should it not be the same for colours? If I can know air without reference to chlorine gas, then why should I not be able to know white without reference to black?

Sapius wrote:What I think intrigues you is the elusive essence of ‘consciousness’; Thoughts like… how can it be a product of matter/energy, or that itself? There has to necessarily be more to it…

Yes, something like that. I can't imagine being able to explain the subjectivity of experience as an emergent property of energy/matter/time/space. I'm willing to consider that my imagination is simply failing me though.

Sapius wrote:which has to necessarily be common to all…

Yes, the same for each individual consciousness - if that's what you mean.

Sapius wrote:Yes there is, and the common factor is that the process on which it is based on is exactly the same, otherwise each and every individual is absolutely unique in accordance to its own dynamically caused conditions; conditions that are also interdependent on the individual itself.

At first I thought (and the above paragraph seems to suggest it too) that you have a purely emergent view of consciousness, but I can't help but notice the final line of your post:

Sapius wrote:[Answering "what validates complexity?"] Will to exist.

So would I be correct in inferring that you believe that along with energy/matter/time/space, there is an additional force of will that drives forward the evolution of consciousness?

S: Hence, if and where there is ONE in an absolute sense, it cannot be aware of its SELF, and yet be purely ‘awareness’, except possibly imagined.

L: This is where we part ways, because I can imagine a ONE that is purely awareness.

S: Did I say you can’t?

Sorry, I was a little drunk when I wrote that post and I missed a couple of details like that.

Sapius wrote:I can imagine too, and I love them for what they are, but I cannot derive rational conclusions from imaginations; on the other hand I can rationally deduce imaginations. In my experience faith in imaginations lead to unreasonable conclusions, hence unreliable.

Imaginings help us to develop new understandings. Many of my rational conclusions started out as imaginings that I firmed up through deeper consideration. There's no need to put unwarranted faith in an imagining - just to think about it from as many different angles as possible and try to determine its strengths and weaknesses, and finally decide how plausible it is, especially in relation to the alternatives. That's part of how my mind works, anyway.

Laird: So if it wasn't born, then how is it that energy exists at all?

Sapius: Because it never was that it did not exist, by the mere fact that it is, and that we know it cannot die. Quite difficult to accept… right?

Well, yes, it is. It also seems to contradict other of your beliefs - as far as I understand them, which, since we have only been communicating a short time in writing, is limited. You seem to believe strongly in causality. Yet here is one thing that you believe is not subject to causality - there is no cause for energy, it just "is, always has been and always will be". How do you explain then that this is the one thing that is exempt from causality?

Laird: OK, I'll put it this way instead then: I believe that awareness can exist without conscious access to memory.

Sapius: Reason being that it is static? Well; I don’t believe awareness can exist without memory being a fundamental aspect of it. That should settle the argument then. Is that ok with you?

Laird: If you mean, "let's agree to disagree", then: yes, it's OK with me.

Sapius: No, I mean is my response ‘I believe’ so-and-so, good enough for you? Apparently not; since eventually it’s ok with you to ‘agree to disagree’. So how can I simply accept or agree to what you believe, irrelevant of the way you put it.

You don't have to accept the belief as your own, but you can accept that I hold it, let me accept that you hold a different one, and leave it at that. We are different people with different mindsets and experiences - the origins of our beliefs are complex and it's unlikely that we will be able to justify them to each other in such brief written exchanges as we are limited to. Perhaps if we could plug into each other's brains we would have a more satisfying interchange.

Sapius wrote:You do expect logical reasoning’s to back up my beliefs, don’t you?

I expect something, whether that be logical reasoning, experience or faith. But from what I know of you, I expect that reasoning based on experience will be the most likely basis of your beliefs.

Sapius wrote:The problem I think is that you talk about only human consciousness and awareness, and consider ‘memory’ to be just as the kind used in cognitive thinking, and don’t regard a cat to have any memory or awareness as such. A DNA strand, a stem cell or an atom, would be out of the question absolutely. Is it?

I regard that cats have memory and awareness. I suppose that a DNA strand has memory of a sort, but not of a sort that's (directly) accessible to consciousness. A stem cell I'm not sure about, but probably as for DNA. An atom - well, it's dicey - I'd prefer to say that it has a "state". If you want to equate state and memory, well, you're entitled to, it's just something that I'm not quite so comfortable doing.

Laird: But Sapius do you not see that this "mental" evolution is nevertheless "physical" Darwinian evolution anyway? "Mental" evolution is physical in the sense that it relies on a physical brain. If the physical brain is not evolving, then how is mental evolution progressing?

Sapius: And don’t you see progressive technological achievements for one? Did a tooth fairy drop a laptop in our laps? Darwin discovered evolution, he did not invent it, and it was already known long before he was personally accredited for it. And is the word ‘evolution’ his personal property? The brain hasn’t evolved much since we invented the wheel, but our thinking has definitely evolved tremendously since then. Do I really need to give examples, Laird?

Certainly not, and I understand you differently now. I understood from your earlier comments that you believed that the physical brain was itself still evolving, but based on what you write above, that was a misunderstanding - you are talking about the content and structure of our thoughts, and the underlying knowledge on which they are based, which - I agree - grows more and more sophisticated generation by generation.

Laird,

It also seems to contradict other of your beliefs - as far as I understand them, which, since we have only been communicating a short time in writing, is limited.

It most certainly may seem to be so, for the exact reason that you mention. I need to show logical connections before the contradiction is dissolved. However, in the meanwhile, please accept my apologies. I am scheduled to yet again travel in a few hours for a week. Until then, then.

Safe travels, Sapius. I look forward to resuming our discussion when you get back.

Laird wrote:Safe travels, Sapius. I look forward to resuming our discussion when you get back.

Just arrived; will get back soon.

Hi! Laird,

Laird: I define "awareness" as "the state of knowing that something exists",

Sapius: How would you define ‘knowing’ here? Does a cat have no awareness?

Laird: That definition's a hard one.

Yes it is.

I intend "knowing" as broadly as possible though - it's not, for example, purely intellectual: it can be a "feeling" or an "experiencing". I am very confident that a cat has awareness, but it probably isn't an awareness as capable of intellectualisation (involving use of symbols such as words and mathematical/logical abstractions) as we are, although it might be capable of some rudimentary form of abstract reasoning such as "if I keep on meowing I'll irritate em enough that ey'll feed me to keep me quiet".

That’s much better and I agree. So wouldn’t you agree that some degree of “intellectualization” in involved for animals to act the way they do? Not that they are capable of abstract intellectualization though. We generally call it instinct, but doesn’t instinct itself need a certain degree of intellect to operate?

And don’t you thing that some degree of intellect is involved for “feelings” or “experiences” itself to come about? For example the very core of “feeling” a self is necessary an intellectually calculated (not abstractly though) result of experiencing that there is something other than myself through sensual info, even in the absence of abstract intellectualization. Experience of a self is a pre-calculated result of a thing interacting with anything that is not it.

Laird: and "self" as "the subject of conscious experience, including most expansively mind, brain and body, and least expansively a putative soul".

Sapius: So a cat does not have a sense of ‘self’ then?

Laird: I can only speculate, but it seems very, very likely to me that a cat has a sense of self.

How does it remain a speculation then? Isn’t it logical enough that it could not interact “intellectually” with its environment unless it had a certain degree of intellect?

I won't take offence but nor will I accept that my example was unreasonable: you've accepted below that one can be aware of air (by, as you write, holding one's breath) without reference to other similar gases - why should it not be the same for colours? If I can know air without reference to chlorine gas, then why should I not be able to know white without reference to black?

In my opinion you are comparing the wrong categories. What has what air is comprised of got to do with what AIR is or is not itself? By holding your breath you KNOW what NOT-AIR is, hence you KNOW what AIR is through that comparison; now what all gasses AIR is comprised of is irrelevant here. Particular gasses can be differentiated only against particular gasses, but all gasses (air) can only be compared to a vacuum (no air), or liquid, solids, etc., depending on the context. If I didn’t need to breath at all, I could never ever know what Not AIR, or AIR itself is, irrelevant of AIR being around. It’s the difference that makes me aware of either.

Similarly, if all is but WHITE all around me, how could I ever differentiate any thing at all? Or define WHITE itself?

There has to necessarily be at least shades of gray (other than pure white), otherwise I will not be aware of WHITE itself. Since we are talking about colors here, there has to necessarily be some other COLOR for white to stand out against, and not necessarily ONLY against black. Without differentiations existing, there is nothing to be aware of. And being aware of differences is what consciousness is, and a cat is fully aware of differences, hence also conscious at its own level.

May be if we did an exercise… say I live in an absolutely White world, now you tell me what White is.

S: What I think intrigues you is the elusive essence of ‘consciousness’; Thoughts like… how can it be a product of matter/energy, or that itself? There has to necessarily be more to it…

L: Yes, something like that. I can't imagine being able to explain the subjectivity of experience as an emergent property of energy/matter/time/space. I'm willing to consider that my imagination is simply failing me though.

Subjectivity emerges when a thing experiences subjective-ness in the first place, which is none other than a thing differentiating a self from a not-self. What is missing above (in the matter/energy/time/space thing) is the actual activity, the process of differentiation, coupled with the capability of retaining such experiences as data (memory), among which one is the sense of “I” (=subjectivity), which arises only because we experience all that is not “I”, against our “I”. One can also simply FEEL this “subjectivity” because it has been sensually experienced and retained as memory by an individually operating thing, but is not an utterly independently operating thing, because It necessarily relies on all that it is not.

You can readily imagine awareness without memory, so what is the problem imagining otherwise? :D

S: which has to necessarily be common to all…

L: Yes, the same for each individual consciousness - if that's what you mean.

In my opinion what is common to all individual consciousness is the active process of differentiation; result = the “I” of every individual; but every “I” of any particular individual is absolutely unique due to its own causal conditions which cannot be exactly the same for all. Nor is the level of the sense of “I” the same for all things; for example I KNOW through logical deductions that I have a sense of “self”, but a cat does not know that abstractly, although it necessarily has to have a sense of “self” to actually interact coherently with its environment, and I can know that through abstract reasoning.

So would I be correct in inferring that you believe that along with energy/matter/time/space, there is an additional force of will that drives forward the evolution of consciousness?

Sure, but it is not an additional force that has a mind of its own per say, but is an emergent property of a dynamic interactivity, in and of the fabric of existence itself; just like gravity is an emergent property of things in motion, and in turn can affect the motion of things itself. In a similar manner, awareness (consciousness) as an emergent property, can and does affect the course of things; and more complex a consciousness, the more can it affect in a willful manner with preconceived abstract intentions. Free will evolves with the complexity of evolving consciousness; causality in no way undermines the operational capabilities of an individual thing according to its causally created attributes, particular qualities. Otherwise, either of our opposite conclusions have no intrinsic meaning or hold no opposing values at all. Which is it that seems more logically coherent and consistent?

S: I can imagine too, and I love them for what they are, but I cannot derive rational conclusions from imaginations; on the other hand I can rationally deduce imaginations. In my experience faith in imaginations lead to unreasonable conclusions, hence unreliable.

L: Imaginings help us to develop new understandings. Many of my rational conclusions started out as imaginings that I firmed up through deeper consideration. There's no need to put unwarranted faith in an imagining - just to think about it from as many different angles as possible and try to determine its strengths and weaknesses, and finally decide how plausible it is, especially in relation to the alternatives. That's part of how my mind works, anyway.

Sure, any and all minds work that way; how do you think I arrived at what I did? But plausibility becomes a certainty if no other plausible alternatives remain, which is not to say that it is Ultimate Reality, though.

You seem to believe strongly in causality. Yet here is one thing that you believe is not subject to causality - there is no cause for energy, it just "is, always has been and always will be". How do you explain then that this is the one thing that is exempt from causality?

Because that would be like asking; what caused causality? Which is absurd because whatever did, it has to necessarily be a part of it.

Let me put it this way… causality is but the dynamic process seen through the interactivity of things (energy/matter), not the other way around. Causality does not create any thing at all, because it does not have any such capabilities of its own, and the same goes for energy. Energy is but the effects seen and calculated through the study of things in motion, and at no time could motion not be around, not even for a God to be in. We did discuss earlier that motion is necessary for anything to be, and now I tell you that “motion” is detected and defined as energy itself. Energy is but the motion and the reaction of a thing to a thing according to the nature of a particular thing; so where exactly is “energy”, or IS on its own? I strongly believe in gravity, but where would it be if it were not for motion?

What I meant by that is that existence IS, and it is impossible for it to be otherwise.

Causality and energy is one and the same thing - dynamic motion of interactivity; causality/energy creates nothing at all. It is but the fluctuations; the change we detect; of a dynamically constant existence.

I imagine quite a bit... don't I? :D

Welcome back Sapius... it seems that you were hardly gone before you were back with us again!

Sapius wrote:So wouldn’t you agree that some degree of “intellectualization” in involved for animals to act the way they do? Not that they are capable of abstract intellectualization though. We generally call it instinct, but doesn’t instinct itself need a certain degree of intellect to operate?

Yes, very much so and I'm glad that you brought that up. In my opinion, "instinct" is often a condescending term to describe complex processes that in human beings we would term "intelligence". I believe that it's often a prejudice that we perpetuate against animals.

Sapius wrote:And don’t you thing that some degree of intellect is involved for “feelings” or “experiences” itself to come about?

Yes, I think so.

Sapius wrote:For example the very core of “feeling” a self is necessary an intellectually calculated (not abstractly though) result of experiencing that there is something other than myself through sensual info, even in the absence of abstract intellectualization.

I'm so close to being able to agree with you but I just can't quite agree yet. I'm still skeptical of this idea that self needs other to be aware.

Sapius wrote:Experience of a self is a pre-calculated result of a thing interacting with anything that is not it.

I'm going to try to merge our understandings. Tell me where I get it wrong.

Firstly, let's say that self is an amorphous concept - is my body part of me? or is it only my brain? or is it some intangible thing called "mind" or "soul"?

OK, so let's secondly speculate that "self" is different things at different times, so that when I feel pain in my physical leg, my leg is a part of me, but that if I am an amputee, then my leg is not a part of me. Now we can say that there are parts of us that can be either "self" or "not-self". My leg is from one perspective a part of self and is from another perspective a part of not-self.

Now, we can integrate our different views and say that interacting with not-self is sometimes the same as interacting with self, so that to be aware of not-self is sometimes the same as being aware of self.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Laird: I can only speculate, but it seems very, very likely to me that a cat has a sense of self.

Sapius: How does it remain a speculation then?

Because to truly know, I would have to be a cat, or at least to be able to insert myself into its perspective. There are Eastern gurus who it's claimed are able to perform such feats, but I am not one of them (at least not yet, anyway).

Sapius wrote:Isn’t it logical enough that it could not interact “intellectually” with its environment unless it had a certain degree of intellect?

Yes, but a skeptic could say something like "all of its reactions are programmed by its DNA" (I am not such a skeptic, but I recognise the existence of such attitudes).

Sapius wrote:By holding your breath you KNOW what NOT-AIR is

Really? I would have thought that holding breath in your lungs exposes you primarily to what AIR is. NOT-AIR only arises when the oxygen in the air becomes depleted, whereupon we experience mostly the stinging and breath-desire of excessive carbon dioxide. It's still AIR though, just a differently comprised version of it.

Sapius wrote:now what all gasses AIR is comprised of is irrelevant here.

Oh but I don't think that air is "all gases" though. It is more like a colour: a composite of different gases but not all-in-one. I suppose that we might say that it is not the colour white (all colours) but is more a shade of light (many colours). For example it is not comprised of equal proportions of all gases, being mostly (78%) nitrogen. So I think that what air is comprised of is particularly relevant when making an analogy with colour.

Sapius wrote:Particular gasses can be differentiated only against particular gasses, but all gasses (air) can only be compared to a vacuum (no air), or liquid, solids, etc., depending on the context.

Given that air is not "all gases", what it must be compared against is up to debate. I think that it makes your case dubious given that we need to ask ourselves, "just what is it that I must compare air against? Is it other types of gas; is it other states of matter (liquid/solid); is it absence of matter (vacuum)?" We have all of these options - how are we to know which one is right? Or is it better to say that...

Sapius wrote:If I didn’t need to breath at all, I could never ever know what Not AIR, or AIR itself is, irrelevant of AIR being around. It’s the difference that makes me aware of either.

...it's the difference that air makes to our nervous system (wind on our skin; fullness of lungs) that makes us aware of it, rather than the differentiation with similar concepts (other gases/liquids/solids/vacuums).

Sapius wrote:May be if we did an exercise… say I live in an absolutely White world, now you tell me what White is.

Then white is that thing that I experience through my eyes.

Sapius wrote:Subjectivity emerges when a thing experiences subjective-ness in the first place, which is none other than a thing differentiating a self from a not-self. What is missing above (in the matter/energy/time/space thing) is the actual activity, the process of differentiation, coupled with the capability of retaining such experiences as data (memory), among which one is the sense of “I” (=subjectivity), which arises only because we experience all that is not “I”, against our “I”. One can also simply FEEL this “subjectivity” because it has been sensually experienced and retained as memory by an individually operating thing, but is not an utterly independently operating thing, because It necessarily relies on all that it is not.

And what is missing from your description above is the in-the-perspectiveness of consciousness. How does it arise that I am in *my* perspective and not in *yours*? Can purely process-based activity explain this? I am doubtful.

Sapius wrote:You can readily imagine awareness without memory, so what is the problem imagining otherwise? :D

Oh, I can imagine it - it's just what's most plausible to me that matters most.

Sapius wrote:for example I KNOW through logical deductions that I have a sense of “self”, but a cat does not know that abstractly, although it necessarily has to have a sense of “self” to actually interact coherently with its environment, and I can know that through abstract reasoning.

I agree with that reasoning - that cat's have a sense of self but are probably not aware that they have a sense of self.

Laird: So would I be correct in inferring that you believe that along with energy/matter/time/space, there is an additional force of will that drives forward the evolution of consciousness?

Sapius: Sure, but it is not an additional force that has a mind of its own per say, but is an emergent property of a dynamic interactivity, in and of the fabric of existence itself; just like gravity is an emergent property of things in motion, and in turn can affect the motion of things itself.

Firstly, I thought that gravity had more to do with mass than motion, but let's leave that to the physicists to debate. What I'm more interested in now is what you alluded to earlier in our discussion: an explanation of how astral travel might occur through purely emergent consciousness.

Laird: You seem to believe strongly in causality. Yet here is one thing that you believe is not subject to causality - there is no cause for energy, it just "is, always has been and always will be". How do you explain then that this is the one thing that is exempt from causality?

Sapius: Because that would be like asking; what caused causality? Which is absurd because whatever did, it has to necessarily be a part of it.

Ah, but then let's look at the analogy of the watch. In "The Blind Watchmaker", Richard Dawkins compares the watch with biological life and agrees with the idea that such a complex creation requires an explanation for its existence - he just thinks that such an explanation lies in the theory of evolution rather than of creation by a God. But let's instead think of the watch as the universe itself. We must still agree that such a complex creation requires an explanation for its existence, but you want to feed me such a simplistic answer as "oh, it just always has been and always will be - there's nothing more to it." But that doesn't explain how the complexity of the universe arose! So what's more absurd - asking what caused causality or asserting that complexity requires no explanation?

Sapius wrote:I imagine quite a bit... don't I? :D

And you make the world a more interesting place in the process...

Laird,

Yes, very much so and I'm glad that you brought that up. In my opinion, "instinct" is often a condescending term to describe complex processes that in human beings we would term "intelligence". I believe that it's often a prejudice that we perpetuate against animals.

Hahahahhaaaa… you are quite right there.

S: For example the very core of “feeling” a self is necessary an intellectually calculated (not abstractly though) result of experiencing that there is something other than myself through sensual info, even in the absence of abstract intellectualization.

L: I'm so close to being able to agree with you but I just can't quite agree yet. I'm still skeptical of this idea that self needs other to be aware.

From what I have read below, I think we need to sort out ‘self’ first.

I'm going to try to merge our understandings. Tell me where I get it wrong.

Firstly, let's say that self is an amorphous concept - is my body part of me? or is it only my brain? or is it some intangible thing called "mind" or "soul"?

OK, so let's secondly speculate that "self" is different things at different times, so that when I feel pain in my physical leg, my leg is a part of me, but that if I am an amputee, then my leg is not a part of me. Now we can say that there are parts of us that can be either "self" or "not-self". My leg is from one perspective a part of self and is from another perspective a part of not-self.

Now, we can integrate our different views and say that interacting with not-self is sometimes the same as interacting with self, so that to be aware of not-self is sometimes the same as being aware of self.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Not really. Sticking to the human sense of self since you are talking about amputated body parts. The sense of self lies in the activity of thoughts supported by memory and at least those organs that eventually help support a sound consciousness, irrelevant of how many other body parts are amputated or nonfunctional; example, Stephen Hawking.

An amputated leg is a piece of dead flesh and bones, which was once a part of my body (not the functional consciousness that gives rise to my sense of self); what has the sense of self, which I necessarily experience through the interactivity of my thought processes, got to do with my amputated leg?

I think the example is not appropriate… think of another.

Laird: I can only speculate, but it seems very, very likely to me that a cat has a sense of self.

Sapius: How does it remain a speculation then?

Laird: Because to truly know, I would have to be a cat, or at least to be able to insert myself into its perspective. There are Eastern gurus who it's claimed are able to perform such feats, but I am not one of them (at least not yet, anyway).

Well, truly know is more of a philosophical point of view, and from that point of view I am confidant that I truly know nothing, except that experiences are happening. However, that is a different matter all together, and although I understand what you mean, I would say that that does not necessarily apply here. The capability of our intelligence has opened us up to dimensions that could not be known otherwise. For example, we can study the eye of a bee and are capable of simulating the world as seen by a bee. You seem to heavily underestimate our intellect.

As for the Eastern guru, all I can say is that he can claim such a feat, but what he will be explaining is exactly what I can tell about a cat’s perspective without inserting myself into its perspective. After all, I can reason, and so can the guru.

Yes, but a skeptic could say something like "all of its reactions are programmed by its DNA" (I am not such a skeptic, but I recognise the existence of such attitudes).

Fair enough.

S: By holding your breath you KNOW what NOT-AIR is, (hence you KNOW what AIR is through that comparison;)

L: Really?

Really. Especially if you read that above as a whole, including the part in brackets which you omitted.

I would have thought that holding breath in your lungs exposes you primarily to what AIR is. NOT-AIR only arises when the oxygen in the air becomes depleted,

Good example. Now can you see how you are aware of either through differentiation? Whatever the differentiation may be.

whereupon we experience mostly the stinging and breath-desire of excessive carbon dioxide. It's still AIR though, just a differently comprised version of it.

So? This is a besides the point being discussed.

Oh but I don't think that air is "all gases" though. It is more like a colour: a composite of different gases but not all-in-one. I suppose that we might say that it is not the colour white (all colours) but is more a shade of light (many colours). For example it is not comprised of equal proportions of all gases, being mostly (78%) nitrogen. So I think that what air is comprised of is particularly relevant when making an analogy with colour.

All of the above is beside the point, including some of what I read below, so I will respond to what is relevant.

...it's the difference that air makes to our nervous system (wind on our skin; fullness of lungs) that makes us aware of it, rather than the differentiation with similar concepts (other gases/liquids/solids/vacuums).

Again a good example. (You are doing the thinking for me) Besides the ‘rather than…’ which is an unnecessary exercise… experiencing the difference is what makes either feeling known. Wind on our skin / no wind on our skin. Fullness of lungs / emptiness of lungs.

S: say I live in an absolutely White world, now you tell me what White is.

L: Then white is that thing that I experience through my eyes.

Hahahahaa…. right… but that doesn’t say anything about White though. How do you know it is WHITE?

And what is missing from your description above is the in-the-perspectiveness of consciousness. How does it arise that I am in *my* perspective and not in *yours*?

I really don’t understand this. I (my perspective) am not you, and you (your perspective) are not me; what is the complication? We two are not one and the same thing. And what do you mean by “in-the-perspectiveness of consciousness.”?

Can purely process-based activity explain this? I am doubtful.

You will have to work on your doubts yourself I’m afraid.

S: You can readily imagine awareness without memory, so what is the problem imagining otherwise? :D

L: Oh, I can imagine it - it's just what's most plausible to me that matters most.

Well, that matters to me too, just that I find the later most plausible.

Firstly, I thought that gravity had more to do with mass than motion, but let's leave that to the physicists to debate.

It has to do equally with mass as well as motion, and one has to consider the effects of spacetime curvature too among many other things; however, you are right, let the physicists figure out how many dimensions does a string theory or the M-theory should contain to achieve a TOA.

What I'm more interested in now is what you alluded to earlier in our discussion: an explanation of how astral travel might occur through purely emergent consciousness.

Yes I did… and you know what… I wrote all of the above yesterday, and stopped here, to really reflect on ‘are we ready to listen’, but I feel that things have gone drastically wrong when one simply listens to such things without experiencing them first, and even those that have, necessarily interpret such experiences according to their own current convictions based on their own logic of reasoning, be it religious or non-religious based.

I don’t see how you could even entertain a highly speculative explanation as seen against our current scope of physics and physical laws, when you seem to be reluctant enough not to accept a reasonable explanation of what ingredients are necessary for awareness to be. There will necessarily be questions as to HOW could that happen? That will emerge out of your current knowledge based on your experiences, which I cannot really help you with.

You have not even paid much attentions to dreams, and those who may have had glimpses of things beyond a dream, finally consider it to be a frontal lobe seizure, hence shutting off any more possibilities of it ever happening again, because it is my belief that intense emotional convictions (be it through blind faith or a true conviction to logically uncover truth) leads to unimaginable experiences. But once a person is convinced that I know all there is to know, or that there is nothing more to experience in that direction, a soul rests in peace there and then, spiritually speaking of course. It all depends on how strong a WILL has been developed, irrelevant of the goal in question.

You see, you know and accept that one cannot truly know the perspective of a cat, so any attempt of explaining otherwise will not help. There are certain things that cannot be explained to another unless experienced by him first hand to a certain degree at least. For example, if I have never had one, there is no way you can explain me the taste of an apple that I may understand and go… Ah! So that is what it tastes like; unless I eat one myself. (Now please don’t raise the point that I could always have apple juice)

You do not even accept that awareness necessarily means constant recollection of the moment-to-moment experiences that coherently maintains that sense of awareness, so how will you entertain the idea that consciousness like a ball lightening can maintain its self once it is developed (evolved) enough to not rely completely on a complex enough “physical” body that once it needed for a kick start? It is possible for consciousness (or ‘spirit’) to live off its surroundings, which is actually full to the brim with “physical” things that we cannot scientifically detect for now.

Today, very recently, we have been able to recreate a ball lightening because we have understood what triggers it, when until very recently is was a mystery; and it will not be long (say a few thousand years perhaps) when we can create consciousness without the aid of a human body, albeit with the help of some “physical” matter, but then, what truly is physical and non-physical other than the two faces of the same coin called existence; purely a dualistic dynamic process, which is fundamentally underlined by no particular thing at all. In my opinion, we may get to the bottom of that through quantum physics, if not by some other means.

However, I think I have said enough here, and this topic does not belong in this section any ways. Maintaining the respect for the forum hosts, you will have to open a thread in the Worldly Matters to discuss this kind of “illogical spirituality” if you are hell-bent on it.

But let's instead think of the watch as the universe itself. We must still agree that such a complex creation requires an explanation for its existence, but you want to feed me such a simplistic answer as "oh, it just always has been and always will be - there's nothing more to it." But that doesn't explain how the complexity of the universe arose! So what's more absurd - asking what caused causality or asserting that complexity requires no explanation?

Well, according to me, asking what caused causality is ultimately meaningless, since existence could not have not been to begin with. Nothing can pop by utter magic; we cannot blame the lack of our knowledge on God, by magically creating one. However, eventually it all depends on which side of the river one sees existence from. I think the simplest explanation always seems to be the most unbelievable; I wonder why… Each to his own, eventually.

Hence I will take your advice and say…. lets agree to disagree then, and move along to other matters :)

S: I imagine quite a bit... don't I? :D

L: And you make the world a more interesting place in the process...

No, the pleasure is absolutely all mine… how interesting would it be without you for example, or all that is not me, that I may purely experience, sincerely.

Sapius wrote:I think the example [of an amputated leg being both self and not-self] is not appropriate… think of another.

My points were that the self is an amorphous concept and that from different perspectives, that which is a part of self can also be that which is not a part of self. I'll illustrate this with what I hope is a better example: think of a group of neurons in the brain rather than a leg. This group of neurons is responsible for some meaningful part of consciousness, but is not a requirement for consciousness. So in one sense they are a part of self, but if we surgically remove them from the brain, then they are a part of not-self.

But we can go further - put that group of neurons back into the brain and take out another group of neurons. Now we find another candidate that can be both self and not-self. We could repeat this process until we have finally determined that every part of the brain can be both self and not-self.

My point is that given your understanding of consciousness as awareness of that which is not-self, and given that all parts of the brain can as equally be considered to be self as to be not-self, and given that awareness can be turned upon itself (feelings and thoughts), then consciousness by your understanding could operate entirely without an "external" world, being that it has plenty of "other" to work with inside of itself. So your "awareness of other" could equally be "awareness of self".

This isn't quite what I was trying to get at earlier with the hypothetical universe of pure awareness, whose state could be summed up as "I am aware(ness)", but it does make it more of an imaginable possibility to me.

Sapius wrote:Well, truly know is more of a philosophical point of view, and from that point of view I am confidant that I truly know nothing, except that experiences are happening.

I am in firm agreement with you.

Sapius wrote:You seem to heavily underestimate our intellect.

I'd like to think instead that I'm awed at the immensity of the issues that consciousness raises.

Laird: I would have thought that holding breath in your lungs exposes you primarily to what AIR is. NOT-AIR only arises when the oxygen in the air becomes depleted,

Sapius: Good example. Now can you see how you are aware of either through differentiation? Whatever the differentiation may be.

I can see that differentiation helps in understanding one thing better by contrasting it against another, but I don't see that it's a requirement for awareness of that thing. Understanding and awareness are closely related concepts, but they are distinct.

Laird: ...it's the difference that air makes to our nervous system (wind on our skin; fullness of lungs) that makes us aware of it, rather than the differentiation with similar concepts (other gases/liquids/solids/vacuums).

Sapius: Again a good example. (You are doing the thinking for me) Besides the ‘rather than…’ which is an unnecessary exercise… experiencing the difference is what makes either feeling known. Wind on our skin / no wind on our skin. Fullness of lungs / emptiness of lungs.

But there has to be one thing and the other thing before there can be a difference between them. Why do you focus on the difference and not on the pre-existing things (experiences/sensations) themselves?

S: say I live in an absolutely White world, now you tell me what White is.

L: Then white is that thing that I experience through my eyes.

S: Hahahahaa…. right… but that doesn’t say anything about White though. How do you know it is WHITE?

Because that's what everyone else in this world calls it.

Laird: And what is missing from your description above is the in-the-perspectiveness of consciousness. How does it arise that I am in *my* perspective and not in *yours*?

Sapius: I really don’t understand this. I (my perspective) am not you, and you (your perspective) are not me; what is the complication? We two are not one and the same thing. And what do you mean by “in-the-perspectiveness of consciousness.”?

When I think of a particle such as a neutron, I can easily conceptualise it as an uniquely existing, objective thing - as far as I can tell it has no sense of self. When it comes to both of us, there is something new though: there is now a subjective experience of being in / looking out from a perspective. I can conceive, from the objective outside, of our consciousnesses as being uniquely existing things much like the neutron, but unlike the neutron, there is an inside as well. What I find it hard to understand is how this inside comes to be mine (and likewise how you come to be "in" your inside) - in fact I find it hard to understand why there is an inside at all.

It's a very difficult concept to write on.

Laird: Can purely process-based activity explain this? I am doubtful.

Sapius: You will have to work on your doubts yourself I’m afraid.

I could also wield them as critical weapons to encourage us both to deeper understanding. Same thing.

S: You can readily imagine awareness without memory, so what is the problem imagining otherwise? :D

L: Oh, I can imagine it - it's just what's most plausible to me that matters most.

S: Well, that matters to me too, just that I find the later most plausible.

I agree with you that memory plays a huge role in intelligent consciousness. I strongly doubt that I could function in my everyday life without memory. You might even be right that it's an integral part of awareness, but I'm not convinced of that. My reasoning is twofold: there might be such a thing as instantaneous awareness, and in an instant there is no memory; instantaneous/timeless memories (of feelings rather than of events) can be recollected, and once recollected there is no memory.

Sapius wrote:There are certain things that cannot be explained to another unless experienced by him first hand to a certain degree at least.

Are you saying that you've experienced astral travel?

Sapius wrote:You do not even accept that awareness necessarily means constant recollection of the moment-to-moment experiences that coherently maintains that sense of awareness

It's not so much that I think it's wrong, as that I'm open-minded about the possibilities, and this possibility to me, whilst plausible, is not necessarily the right one, although for all I know it might be. The way that you worded it there though seems pretty substantial and is something that I'd say is more likely than not.

Sapius wrote:so how will you entertain the idea that consciousness like a ball lightening can maintain its self once it is developed (evolved) enough to not rely completely on a complex enough “physical” body that once it needed for a kick start?

Oh, but entertaining ideas is what I do best. Putting my faith in them is what I do least though. This is in any case a very interesting one to play host to.

Sapius wrote:It is possible for consciousness (or ‘spirit’) to live off its surroundings, which is actually full to the brim with “physical” things that we cannot scientifically detect for now.

You seem to be saying that not only does brain create mind, but that mind can create brain. Do you have any idea of what kind of brain that might be? Does it, for example, have components analogous to neurons?

Sapius wrote:Today, very recently, we have been able to recreate a ball lightening because we have understood what triggers it, when until very recently is was a mystery; and it will not be long (say a few thousand years perhaps) when we can create consciousness without the aid of a human body, albeit with the help of some “physical” matter, but then, what truly is physical and non-physical other than the two faces of the same coin called existence; purely a dualistic dynamic process, which is fundamentally underlined by no particular thing at all.

This is what I'm most interested in. If we are able to do this, then my questions evaporate. I'm not sure whether we will be able to, but I'm open-minded on the issue. If we can't do it, then we could probably at least append functions and range to our current consciousness through artificially intelligent components integrated with our physical bodies/brains. Rather than reaching for the calculator, our digitally enhanced minds could perform the operation under our awareness. On the other hand, it might be that our minds are truly that powerful already and what is required is more an unlocking/training than an appending.

Sapius wrote:In my opinion, we may get to the bottom of that through quantum physics, if not by some other means.

Yes, quantum physics has a strange and appealing nature suggestive of the possibility of revealing mysteries.

Sapius wrote:However, I think I have said enough here, and this topic does not belong in this section any ways. Maintaining the respect for the forum hosts, you will have to open a thread in the Worldly Matters to discuss this kind of “illogical spirituality” if you are hell-bent on it.

It would be nice to keep all of the related discussion in this thread - perhaps our hosts would like to move this thread itself to Wordly Matters. As I've already written, Kevin has advised me that it would have been better started there in the first place. But that's for them to decide - in the meantime please don't limit our discussion - I'm finding it intriguing.

Sorry for the delay...

Laird,

My points were that the self is an amorphous concept and that from different perspectives, that which is a part of self can also be that which is not a part of self.

It is amorphous to the extent we logically try to squeeze “it” into an isolated identifiable “thing”, but all the while we try to do that, the self is necessarily operational while doing that too, because self is no more than the ‘process’ itself, involved in identifying, retaining such identifications, and reacting as a due process of dynamically moving “things”. Where things are anything from the smallest particle known to us, to any thing that seems to be solid within its own dimensional relationship.

Our skin that seems to be relatively solid for a macro world is relatively no barrier to a micro world, and both worlds exist simultaneously. Our cells, including each neuron, is not aware of the dimension that makes “ME” up, but is fully aware of every neighboring cell-to-cell, neuron-to-neuron awareness, and hence can react according to its own dimension which seems solid to it. Awareness exists in accordance to dimensional relationship, say from the quantum level upwards, but quantum level awareness cannot look UP (be aware of) other dimensions “above” it. We (our consciousness) on the other hand, being far more complex from that level, directly experiencea a certain dimension, but we are capable of looking down, through our kind or level of intellectual complexity, at other levels of existence. AND, the same complexity of thinking capabilities, can make us aware of even higher dimensions through logical deductions, including logical seductions = imaginations.

In short, self is the “feeling” between say two things interacting, felt by both of them by feeling the difference of each other, but the FEELING is not a third solid THING. We are simply able to define a self that already exists through such direct experiences, because of our capability of retaining words and their meanings as fixed recallable data. In effect, we are kind of able to freeze causality that is perpetually on the move, by freezing thoughts in memory. In a sense, we can also “freeze” time, say as in a photograph.

My point is that given your understanding of consciousness as awareness of that which is not-self

The sense of self arises because there are two things interacting; one is ME, according to the dimension felt, and the other is not me, within that same dimension; including all other things that I can experience as a dimensionally interrelated thing which is not-ME. Same Goes for all things according to their dimensions; be it neurons, quarks, mosquitoes, amoeba, virus, humans, goat, etc., etc., All according to their interrelated dimensional relativity. Say their “skin” to “skin” felt barrier. But we (our consciousness) are able to cross that barrier through logical reasoning.

This isn't quite what I was trying to get at earlier with the hypothetical universe of pure awareness, whose state could be summed up as "I am aware(ness)", but it does make it more of an imaginable possibility to me.

From what I said above, I hope I was able to explain that “awareness” is not possible without two interactive “things” being around, where the third “thing” is but the feeling felt by both; only that we can logically define such a “thing” as THING. Awareness cannot exist without such interactivity, (the process itself); poetically or philosophically expressed as being the process itself. My logical sense of self is but a result of such interactivities retained as fixed though, that I am able to recall every time “I” wakeup from that very deep 2~3 hours of sleep, and so does an animal, for it remembers its own off spring each day through smell or whatever. That works for an animal, language and meanings work for us, additionally.

To address your immediate above quote, “pure” awareness without “things” is not possible.

I'd like to think instead that I'm awed at the immensity of the issues that consciousness raises.

And I’m in extreme awe that I experience existence itself, and the fact that that is all that I’m left with, irrelevant of me being in awe over any other thought. After being able to experience meaningless things meaningfully, what more could a meaningless thing desire? I wonder…

It’s a real pity that we don’t realize or really appreciate the such-ness of it; otherwise compassion shall dwell in all meaningful meaningless things. It’s only a matter of realizing it, sans self-centered prejudices.

I can see that differentiation helps in understanding one thing better by contrasting it against another, but I don't see that it's a requirement for awareness of that thing. Understanding and awareness are closely related concepts, but they are distinct.

Yes, they are distinct concepts in our case because we are able to conceptualize them so, but such distinctions do not exist on other lower level dimensions, for a simple reason that they are not required, but however exist on their own level. A “thing” has to necessarily feel the difference between its felt self and the other thing, and vice versa, and the “understanding” of THAT comes to a thing when certain complexity as a thing is crossed - us.

Sapius: Again a good example. (You are doing the thinking for me) Besides the ‘rather than…’ which is an unnecessary exercise… experiencing the difference is what makes either feeling known. Wind on our skin / no wind on our skin. Fullness of lungs / emptiness of lungs.

Laird: But there has to be one thing and the other thing before there can be a difference between them. Why do you focus on the difference and not on the pre-existing things (experiences/sensations) themselves?

Of course, there has to necessarily be TWO things in the first place. My apologies if I gave an impression otherwise. I did mention 'known' in my above quote; and THAT “knowing” comes through differentiation between ANY two things; meaningfully in our case, and non-meaningfully between other things that are not capable of conceptualizing, but the difference “known” however. Which is what “awareness” is itself, the difference KNOWN, and that is my point. And that difference known (experienced); is through sensing different sensations, comparably. BTW, experiences are retained data of different sensations after sensing such differences, and do not pre-exist. (or did I misunderstand your use of ‘pre-existing’ above?)

A sense of self inevitably remains, irrelevant of conceptualizing or otherwise. Existence is already chopped-up, and we delude ourselves in thinking that our “mind” chops-it-up, whereas it is impossible for awareness (mind in our case) to arise without chopped-up things being around in the first place. It is our sense of slavery that cannot help but desire an Ultimate Master, that we religiously (to God) or philosophically bow down to Ultimate “concepts”, which arise from no less then TWO things being around, not ONE. Philosophically deducing a ONE-NESS through realizing the process (or the connectivity of THINGS seen through such a process; causality) through which all “things” operating has its own place, which should utterly humble a person down to the depths of his soul, and create unparalleled compassion for all THINGS that do not DISAPPEAR – HOWEVER. Calling “forms” and “appearances” illusory, in no way removes their inter-dimensional factuality. My skull will however be smashed by a falling piano irrelevant of both being called either “forms” or “appearances”; unless one believes that existence is a toon-world.

S: say I live in an absolutely White world, now you tell me what White is.

L: Then white is that thing that I experience through my eyes.

S: Hahahahaa…. right… but that doesn’t say anything about White though. How do you know it is WHITE?

L: Because that's what everyone else in this world calls it.

Hahahaaaa…. Are you really serious about where this is going?

So you at least acknowledge that there is something else other than yourself that tells you that what you are looking at is white, and you believe him. Good.

(On “in-the-perspectiveness of consciousness”)

L: When I think of a particle such as a neutron, I can easily conceptualise it as an uniquely existing, objective thing - as far as I can tell it has no sense of self. When it comes to both of us, there is something new though: there is now a subjective experience of being in / looking out from a perspective. I can conceive, from the objective outside, of our consciousnesses as being uniquely existing things much like the neutron, but unlike the neutron, there is an inside as well. What I find it hard to understand is how this inside comes to be mine (and likewise how you come to be "in" your inside) - in fact I find it hard to understand why there is an inside at all.

It's a very difficult concept to write on.

I guess it is, but lets look at it closely. What I think you may be talking about is the “I” of the mind.

A neuron may have such an “I”, which is but a feeling of sense of self as discussed earlier, but the same “feeling” is now logically known through language and definitions by a much evolved complex thing. You and I are able to define such a sense of “I” which already exists, but a neuron does not necessarily need such defining power. If you see closely, neither do you need to actually “conceptualize” an “I”, to be an “I”, it is already there. It is absolutely impossible to loose such a sense except when in deep sleep, and yet when you wake up with the identity of that particular thing, you are again Laird. It is the continuity of a particular Identity in and of memory that maintains such identity until it dissipates, including a logically known sense of “I”.

I agree with you that memory plays a huge role in intelligent consciousness. I strongly doubt that I could function in my everyday life without memory. You might even be right that it's an integral part of awareness, but I'm not convinced of that. My reasoning is twofold: there might be such a thing as instantaneous awareness, and in an instant there is no memory; instantaneous/timeless memories (of feelings rather than of events) can be recollected, and once recollected there is no memory.

I really don’t know how you are defining memory in the later part? Memory itself is but a process of recollecting stored data in a way. Could you please clarify ‘memory’ here?

Are you saying that you've experienced astral travel?

How does that really matter? The point is, each and every individual mind is unique, and has its own causal conditions, hence just like a taste cannot be explained and needs personal experience to know it without any explanations, in a similar manner, it needs a personal experience to know for ones self. One could call it a frontal lobe seizure for all I know; so lets just speculate for now.

S: You do not even accept that awareness necessarily means constant recollection of the moment-to-moment experiences that coherently maintains that sense of awareness

L: It's not so much that I think it's wrong, as that I'm open-minded about the possibilities, and this possibility to me, whilst plausible, is not necessarily the right one, although for all I know it might be. The way that you worded it there though seems pretty substantial and is something that I'd say is more likely than not.

Then lets leave it at that. I can’t express it any better I’m afraid.

S: So how will you entertain the idea that consciousness like a ball lightening can maintain its self once it is developed (evolved) enough to not rely completely on a complex enough “physical” body that once it needed for a kick start?

L: Oh, but entertaining ideas is what I do best. Putting my faith in them is what I do least though. This is in any case a very interesting one to play host to.

So let me entertain you then.

S: It is possible for consciousness (or ‘spirit’) to live off its surroundings, which is actually full to the brim with “physical” things that we cannot scientifically detect for now.

L: You seem to be saying that not only does brain create mind, but that mind can create brain. Do you have any idea of what kind of brain that might be? Does it, for example, have components analogous to neurons?

Do I seem to be saying that? Well, what I meant is, say consciousness, which seems to be heavily reliant on a particular physical body that contains a brain, may not necessarily rely on that body once it (consciousness) reaches a certain complex evolutionary level; it then lives off of any available resources other than the body it previously arose from.

Body is but a complex enough form that is capable of producing, say a complex enough “energy” field called consciousness, and when this consciousness is mature enough, (evolutionarily speaking), it continues by tapping into other “material” things that can support it for a while more longer.

Imagine that the human body, brain included, is a powerhouse that creates an energy field called consciousness. This energy field is but a different form of energy based in and of matter/energy itself, (hence it is not all smoke or “non-physical” as we think of it) but is an interactive field that can in turn interactively pick information held within some other kind of M/E thing, say brain, which initially cradled consciousness into being. We may not be scientifically fully aware that what we think as “empty” space, may not be that EMPTY after all. It may contain far more complex M/E based fields other than dark or anti-matter. And it could be possible that what we consider as ‘souls’ and ‘spirits’, may be able to live off such undetectable complex fields in and off “empty” space. Our body itself seems to be a certain kind of complex enough energy field as against other tightly packed things within a certain dimensionally felt interactivity. So why is it not possible that an evolved energy field, (body), cannot be further used to create another kind of energy field, (consciousness), which can then step onto other islands of energy fields, (in and off seemingly “empty” space) and is then dependant on something else rather than an energy field (body) that it once used to depend on?

Imaginative enough for you up until here?

If, the above probability is accepted, then the factual existence of the Abrahamic God, Zeus, Vishnu, and the likes, seems very probable. BUT, they were created things, with all “human” attributes and tendencies, and none of them were in any way solely responsible for “CREATING” existence for what it IS.

S: Today, very recently, we have been able to recreate a ball lightening because we have understood what triggers it, when until very recently is was a mystery; and it will not be long (say a few thousand years perhaps) when we can create consciousness without the aid of a human body, albeit with the help of some “physical” matter, but then, what truly is physical and non-physical other than the two faces of the same coin called existence; purely a dualistic dynamic process, which is fundamentally underlined by no particular thing at all.

L: This is what I'm most interested in. If we are able to do this, then my questions evaporate. I'm not sure whether we will be able to, but I'm open-minded on the issue. If we can't do it, then we could probably at least append functions and range to our current consciousness through artificially intelligent components integrated with our physical bodies/brains. Rather than reaching for the calculator, our digitally enhanced minds could perform the operation under our awareness. On the other hand, it might be that our minds are truly that powerful already and what is required is more an unlocking/training than an appending.

Taking what I said a bit further. What do you think is responsible for building the pyramids for example; human limbs, or consciousness? When “I” say we could produce consciousness, it is actually consciousness saying that it can reproduce consciousness. Consciousness has already created millions of things, and we are still under the impression that it is merely a caused phenomenon. Consciousness is using the principle of causality through reasoning (if I do this, that will happen; and if I do that, this will happen, or MAY BE that. without any of the either particular thing actually happening) to create a thing that consciousness can calculative-ly know will solve a certain problem, and creates a better and better thing through trails and errors, ending up with the best vacuum cleaner for example; We see the same trial and error in “physical” evolutions, which is but a creativity of a lesser level of consciousness; which is but the dynamically blind ‘Will to be’ on that level, and is a free will to express and create in our case.

And yes, some unlocking of the mind may be required, but we are yet in the kindergarten stage of “physical” evolution, on which mental evolution is dependant on, and the unlocking may happen inevitably when the time is ripe, and many minds may automatically break free. Mental evolution is still an on going process, just that at times, there may be “freaks” of nature phenomenon that slips over to a different dimension, however remaining in the same over all natural system of interactively resonant thing-to-thing awareness.

It would be nice to keep all of the related discussion in this thread - perhaps our hosts would like to move this thread itself to Wordly Matters.

Makes sense.

Laird: there might be such a thing as instantaneous awareness, and in an instant there is no memory; instantaneous/timeless memories (of feelings rather than of events) can be recollected, and once recollected there is no memory.

Just to address this point in particular; yes, there is no memory IN the instant, but OF the instant; that being the reason a sense of continuity remains, the “I”. In a sense, we are never ever aware of events that happen at lightening speed that instantaneous, but become aware instantaneously enough through recalling of an event that happened at light speed, that's why we can make logical sense of an event. But an event which actually happened say light-speed ago. We may be aware of things at light speed, but however, there is a certain speed involved, so the instant we become aware of something, could be considered as NOW, but in fact that happened light-speed ago; however minuscule the rate of change that that might have involved.

Sapius, there is such a lot for me to think about and respond to in your imaginative writing that it is going to take me some time to get back to you - I have to let it brew for a while. I want you to know though that I'm on the job and have made a solid start.