GENIUS FORUMS

beebuddy wrote:Cory,

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

He's a dead head, bee. A poser, a liar and about as inattentive as it's possible to be and still function in the relative realm. Thankfully, no one else on this forum, compares to him.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Kowtaaia,

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

-
Sue

Sue,

We're taking the word 'consciousness' to mean the sense of existing, the sensation of being (a something), the space the mind refers to as "my mind". We're asking if it's possible for that to arise, to be, to exist without sense/object contact. There's a fair amount of talk on this forum, that pertains to a faculty of mind, called 'reason'. All you need is a little bit, to see the relationship between consciousness and matter, when consciousness is understood in this light.

Does that help, sweetness and delight? :)

kowtaaia wrote:

beebuddy wrote:Cory,

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

He's a dead head, bee. A poser, a liar and about as inattentive as it's possible to be and still function in the relative realm. Thankfully, no one else on this forum, compares to him.

He makes me not want to have children. :)

Ryan Rudolph wrote: However matter cannot change or alter consciousness.

Well, going by the same logic that one had to have the right genetic and other environmental factors to attain conciousness - if we take a concious person and crack his skull open with a baseball bat or shoot him in the head - I'm betting that more often than not, the matter of the bat or the bullet will change or alter his conciousness - right into unconciousness often enough.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I'm betting that more often than not, the matter of the bat or the bullet will change or alter his conciousness - right into unconciousness often enough.

Try it out on yourself and then get back to us. If you can only manage to type like this: uuytgfbau'1=JD\R ,Mrcgqub, don't worry: we'll know it's you and that you were right. :)

Elizabeth wrote:

Well, going by the same logic that one had to have the right genetic and other environmental factors to attain conciousness - if we take a concious person and crack his skull open with a baseball bat or shoot him in the head - I'm betting that more often than not, the matter of the bat or the bullet will change or alter his conciousness - right into unconciousness often enough.

Brain damage, which is the result of physical injury will also prevent consciousness from operating through the brain, if there was consciousness there to begin with, but remember as Solway defines, most of the population is unconscious.

Moreover, the material damage caused by the bat or bullet changes or alters the brain matter, but not the consciousness operating through the brain matter. Based on what you have just stated I’m now also claiming that physical injury prevents consciousness from operating only because there has been damage done to the brain matter, but not damage done to consciousness itself.

Here is a metaphor: Think of consciousness as light, and the brain matter as the light bulb. You can smash a light bulb with a bat, and the light fades away, however the bat hasn’t caused damage to the light itself, only the bulb. Moreover, if you set up the right conditions with the proper bulb again, light will shine through once more.

It is always the same light, only the bulb changes.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

Well, going by the same logic that one had to have the right genetic and other environmental factors to attain conciousness - if we take a concious person and crack his skull open with a baseball bat or shoot him in the head - I'm betting that more often than not, the matter of the bat or the bullet will change or alter his conciousness - right into unconciousness often enough.

Brain damage, which is the result of physical injury will also prevent consciousness from operating through the brain, if there was consciousness there to begin with, but remember as Solway defines, most of the population is unconscious.

Moreover, the material damage caused by the bat or bullet changes or alters the brain matter, but not the consciousness operating through the brain matter. Based on what you have just stated I’m now also claiming that physical injury prevents consciousness from operating only because there has been damage done to the brain matter, but not damage done to consciousness itself.

Here is a metaphor: Think of consciousness as light, and the brain matter as the light bulb. You can smash a light bulb with a bat, and the light fades away, however the bat hasn’t caused damage to the light itself, only the bulb. Moreover, if you set up the right conditions with the proper bulb again, light will shine through once more.

It is always the same light, only the bulb changes.

I agree that conciousness is different from the ability to attain conciousness.

kowtaaia wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I'm betting that more often than not, the matter of the bat or the bullet will change or alter his conciousness - right into unconciousness often enough.

Try it out on yourself and then get back to us. If you can only manage to type like this: uuytgfbau'1=JD\R ,Mrcgqub, don't worry: we'll know it's you and that you were right. :)

I'm having a bad day kow, don't tempt me...

Ryan Rudolph wrote:
Here is a metaphor: Think of consciousness as light, and the brain matter as the light bulb. You can smash a light bulb with a bat, and the light fades away, however the bat hasn’t caused damage to the light itself, only the bulb. Moreover, if you set up the right conditions with the proper bulb again, light will shine through once more.

It is always the same light, only the bulb changes.

That's a terrible metaphor. Change "Think of consciousness as light" to "Think of consciousness as electricity". Etc., etc..

Kow wrote:

"Think of consciousness as light" to "Think of consciousness as electricity".

Light is still the superior choice here because light represents the actual illumination through the light bulb, whereas the electricity merely represents the generating force that supplies the necessary energy for the light to operate.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Dan wrote:

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

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

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

Shit. Apperances aren't deceiving after all!

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

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

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

Cory,

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

yes,Dan's post is poorly rendered.

nevertheless he (finally) realises.

what I am saying on this forum for a year now will eventually triumph,with or without me,no one can stop the truth.

any personalization,deduction,induction,image,etc. will become valid as appearance.for Ego as the subjective and only reality that is not a pretentious supposition is nearer - the real world.

you so make this world...

Beebuddy wrote:

Dan's post, while humorous, is perfectly fucking clear in it's meaning!

lol.

Womanly angst.

The reproductive act, uttered in slang and inserted before an adjective marks the ego flailing.

Go to bed, wuss.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Kow wrote:

"Think of consciousness as light" to "Think of consciousness as electricity".

Light is still the superior choice here because light represents the actual illumination through the light bulb, whereas the electricity merely represents the generating force that supplies the necessary energy for the light to operate.

The problem is that the light bulb doesn't manifest light as light; it manifests electricity as light by way of its structure. This has nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of what you're pointing to; just the wording of the analogy.

.

Kow wrote:

The problem is that the light bulb doesn't manifest light as light; it manifests electricity as light by way of its structure. This has nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of what you're pointing to, just the wording of the analogy

.

Yes, its not a perfect metaphor, the light bulb example isn’t ideal, but remember I’m using light as a metaphor for consciousness because the light is the actual end result that one can observe operating through the light bulb, however one cannot directly observe the electricity so it wouldn’t make sense to use electricity as the metaphor because my entire argument rests on the fact that you can observe rationality/consciousness in another philosopher.

Electricity is the hidden cause and Light is the visual effect, I still hold that light is the better choice because of the way in which this dynamic operates.

Ryan wrote:

Yes, its not a perfect metaphor

What metaphor is perfect? none of course. A metphor isnt meant to convey the subtle details of actuality, which was the basis that Kow was absurdly judging from.

Kow wrote:

The problem is that the light bulb doesn't manifest light as light

In other words, 'Light' was a perfectly reasonable word to use.

Your latest droppings perfectly reveal your social problems.

I hazard to guess that your neurotic fixation on petty niceities has been your way of escaping from genuine suffering for many years.

You are addicted to being contentious. And contentiousness for the sheer gratification of it - is pettiness.

kow: it manifests electricity as light by way of its structure.

That's just like saying the tree manifests water as fruit.

Its true, but you are being so picky its ridiculous.

kow: This has nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of what you're pointing to; just the wording of the analogy.

I thought you said it was a terrible metaphor? It turns out that the metahpor is fine. The problem is Kow.

I've only skimmed this thread, so if I repeat what other's have said, I apologize. With that said...

Matter quite obviously isn't consciousness. The process' undergone by matter probably are consciousness though: meaning that neocortical process X is conscious experience Y. Why there seems to be a difference between the two is a matter of intense philosophical debate at the moment. One can say that the visual appearance of a brain-scan shouldn't be expected to reflect the actual feeling of being a brain, but that opens up a metaphysical can-o-worms regarding the elusive nature of being, and leads to troublesome notions like panpsychism. I'm of the opinion that such problems are only resolvable to a degree, and that we should take the existence of first-person conscious experience as fact, complete with the feeling-of-being that's wrapped inexorably in such experience, without drawing any epistemicly indefensible notions as to how this reflects upon the metaphysical nature of reality in general, regardless of how reasonably they seem to flow from such notions.

Kowtaaia to Sue:

We're taking the word 'consciousness' to mean the sense of existing, the sensation of being (a something), the space the mind refers to as "my mind". We're asking if it's possible for that to arise, to be, to exist without sense/object contact. There's a fair amount of talk on this forum, that pertains to a faculty of mind, called 'reason'. All you need is a little bit, to see the relationship between consciousness and matter, when consciousness is understood in this light.

Beebuddy to Cory:

Dan's post, while humorous, is perfectly fucking clear in it's meaning!

You both imply that you understand something about the nature of consciousness – but it continues to only be an ‘implied understanding’, for neither of you have spelt out what knowledge you’re basing these impressions on. For example, kow, you have not yet posted anything about what you consider the relationship between matter and consciousness to be. Neither have you explained your idea about the relationship between the ego and consciousness in the question of the relationship between consciousness and matter. And continuing to post vague questions is not the same as actually posting your thoughts on this subject.

Beebuddy, you also imply that you understand “clearly” Dan’s post – but without you backing this claim up, your contribution is equal to no contribution at all.

If you are both truly serious about understanding the nature of existence, then act accordingly – but if you two just enjoy mucking around, then do it outside this forum.

-
Sue

Consciousness is awareness (meaning perceptiveness of states and changes of states) plus knowledge of fundamental principles which are applicable to general states of affairs.

Sue,

The consciousness/matter relationship was explained to you (according to a certain way of using the word 'consciousness'). You were asked to use a little bit of reason to see the truth of it, for yourself.

Consciousness is awareness (meaning perceptiveness of states and changes of states) plus knowledge of fundamental principles which are applicable to general states of affairs.

The term "consciousness" has a lot meanings. You've outlined a couple of them, but the term can also be used to represent phenomenal consciousness: first-person experience.

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

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

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

Shit. Apperances aren't deceiving after all!

Cory wrote to Dan:

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

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

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

I presume, Cory, that when you say, “some people long for a more functional perception” of things, that you are one of those people. If that is the case, Dan has provided just that – for he described succinctly the truth about how we experience all things as “appearances”.

Consider, for one moment, how you experience things. Let’s say you get up and go to the fridge for a cool drink. Now, where did all those things take place? How did you experience them? The answer is that you experienced them all in your mind – that is, every sensory perception, thought and emotion occurred as mental concepts – as appearances.

If you don’t think that this is the case, try with all your might to hop outside your mind to take a look to see if things exist away from these mental constructs. Can’t do it? No, it's impossible. All we have are the appearance of things.

This truth allows us to understand the illusionary nature of all things, which in turn allows us to stop fooling ourselves into believing things are more than what they are.

I’d say that this understanding assists greatly in giving one a “functioning perception” – what do you reckon?

-
Sue

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:The term "consciousness" has a lot meanings. You've outlined a couple of them, but the term can also be used to represent phenomenal consciousness: first-person experience.

I think we're just going for philosophical "consciousness" here - not the whole dictionary.

Kowtaaia wrote:

The consciousness/matter relationship was explained to you (according to a certain way of using the word 'consciousness').

For the sake of clarifying your ‘position’, what do you make of my above post to Cory? Do you think that consciousness lies outside our mental construct of it?

-
Sue

Elizabeth,

I think I misunderstood the post of yours that I replied to. I thought by describing consciousness as "awareness" you meant "wakefulness". After rereading your post it seems that you were actually describing phenomenal consciousness, which is the definition of the term most often used in philosophical discussion. My mistake.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Kowtaaia wrote:

The consciousness/matter relationship was explained to you (according to a certain way of using the word 'consciousness').

For the sake of clarifying your ‘position’, what do you make of my above post to Cory? Do you think that consciousness lies outside our mental construct of it?

-
Sue

One last time: Consciousness is the sense of existing.

.

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

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

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

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

Or do you think otherwise?

I prefer to substitute 'cause' with 'IS'

A tree IS the sun, water, minerals, cations, anions, etc.

If I were to say X causes Y, I would be lying. No matter what variables you insert into that equation, it is a lie.

Cause and effect is ultimately a fiction, but a very useful one.

In substitution of ‘cause and effect’ some people emphasize ‘relationship’, which is equally correct. Seeing how there is only relationship, is seeing the non-existence of things.

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

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

I used the lobotomy example for the very reason that I see it as barbaric and unsophisticated -- it wasn’t meant to be taken as 'today’s medicine'

Likewise, 'a baseball bat to the head' isn’t meant to be taken as sophisticated empirical knowledge either.
100000 years into the future, people won't see us as barbaric for believing that a crack to the skull affects the consciousness of organisms that have skulls and brains.

However, people of the future may see us as barbaric for simply having delicate, defecating, blood letting bodies with skulls and bones. However, hopefully they are sophisticated enough to not have such all-too human opinions. Some of the best minds practicing medicine today probably look back on the work of Hippocrates and Galen with gratitude and admiration, despite they do not subscribe to many of Hippocrates and Galen’s old world views.

As for the more detailed theories behind brain/consciousness, perhaps yes - those may be laughable - -- but our generalizations about how a hard crack to the head generally effects consciousness will be just as true then as it is now.

The oldest and most primitive tribes that history knows of or can guess of are not seen as barbaric for rightly seeing the relationship between wood and fire, or a break in skin, with blood.

There are some simple generalizations that are timeless.

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

And so you think that scientists will continue searching for reasons for why planets in the solar system are not approximately spherical?

The truth is that scientific research, in some fields, eventually stop producing returns, and thus the scientists settle for the latest approximation and move on.

And keep in mind, it’s not like the latest discoveries in quantum physics totally undermined Newtonian physics. New discoveries can be complimentary to old discoveries as well, rather than just destructive. Not everything becomes barbaric and ridiculous as time moves on.

Personally I feel that the Golden age of science is passing - there have been some great discoveries in science, discoveries that I feel will not be undermined, but only enhanced by the discoveries that lie ahead. And the discoveries that lie ahead are more like color filling in the general outline. For instance, the theory of natural selection is a general outline, one that will be served rather than destroyed.

We've just amassed enough science to begin tackling the brain effectively. The brain is the holy grail of science – all of our knowledge, from philosophy, chemistry, electricity, and biology has been a preparation for it.

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


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

Well, yes and no. There are useful fictions. It is correct to say that both the physical and the spiritual are illusionary.

There is energy.

But can you capture water in the net of words? The truth always slips through, doesnt it?