GENIUS FORUMS

I already answered why consciousness is limitless, various times, in my previous posts. Read up.

Such as.
It can not be that which it perceives, it can not have limits anymore than it can have colors and a texture.
It perceives change so it can not change. Change happens within it, not to it... as do all other phenomena, concepts, Totalities and Subtractions.
Etc. Etc.

average wrote:Since it perceives change, then it can not change, because change is an aspect of perceived phenomena.
Similarly it perceives color, thus it can not have a color, because color is an object of perception.
And finally it perceives limits, beginnings and ends, thus it can not have limits, beginnings or ends.

Asking why consciousness has no limits or doesn't change, is like asking why it has no color or shape.

Is this the argument your whole supernatural house of cards stands upon?


Line 1: Since it perceives change, then it can not change, because change is an aspect of perceived phenomena.

1. Change is an aspect of perceived phenomena.
2. Consciousness is the perceiver.
3. Therefore consciousness cannot change.

Needless to say, this is a complete non-sequitur. You are affirming something about perceived phenomena and drawing conclusions thereby about the (supposedly) non-perceived.

Tell you what, try ceasing the biological activity pupportedly associated with this ghostly perceiver and see if this perciever - consciouness suffers a rather sharp change. Just like the lack of logical necessity in your argument above, the whole mind-body duality thing is so unnecessary. Which makes you wonder why people create this gap where there is no logical justification to do so, always to fill it with the supernatural. And that's down to a relevant and existent duality, that of emotions and reason. As I say, there is no logical necessity but I can certainly see the emotional necessity of such beliefs.


Line 2: Similarly it perceives color, thus it can not have a color, because color is an object of perception.

1. Colour and shape are articles of perception.
2. Consciousness is the perceiver.
3. Therefore consciouness cannot have colour, shape, or indeed any property of articles of perception.

The same non-sequitur, expanded. Which also clarifies the, as yet unmentioned, obvious self-contradiction involved in assigning properties to that which you say cannot have properties assigned to it.


Line 3: And finally it perceives limits, beginnings and ends, thus it can not have limits, beginnings or ends.

1. Limits, beginnings and ends are articles of perception.
2. Consciouness is the perceiver.
3. Therefore consciousness cannot have limits, beginnings or ends.

The same untruth, with some really juicy articles of perception thrown in to spice up, glamourise and propagandise the logically unnecessary conclusions drawn from it. This is not to mention the fact that, when you think about it, consciousness can perceive no limits (limitlessness), no beginnings (beginninglessness) and no ends (endlessness). So, by your argument, consciousness therefore cannot be limitless, beginningless or endless.


Commentary: Asking why consciousness has no limits or doesn't change, is like asking why it has no color or shape.

If what you attempted to prove were true then such questions would be simply meaningless. You are implying negative meaning where meaninglessness is all there is. These are meaningless questions, and yet you find conclusions.

But as it stands, you haven't even proven that what you say of consciousness is logically necessary. That means that these meaningless, ill-conceived questions and conclusions about a meaningless, unproven, unnecessary, illogically defined conception of consciousness take meaninglessness on another level.

In reality there are plenty of aspects of the purely biological, non-supernatural, process we call consciousness that indeed do not change, like the fact that it's ever changing for instance.

You haven't said why any of these reasonings are non sequitur.
While what I say makes perfect sense. It would be like perceiving an expensive sports car, and wondering how expensive your Consciousness is, or how fast it can go...lol :)


If you believe Consciousness can have a color, a texture, or a limit, go right ahead! But try to elaborate what you mean, and how what I said are non sequitur...I'm always eager to hear comedy.

But if you can't, then best to remain silent. ;]

No worries.

average;

This is one of the best explanations I have read and perhaps this will point the way:

Consider whether the non-dual awareness of ultimate truth is a dependently related event. Does it arise in dependence on causes? Experience tells us causes and circumstances do give rise to this non-conceptual realization of emptiness. It result from meditating, cultivating an ethical way of life, developing mental stability and clarity, making intelligent inquiry into the nature of reality, gaining insight, and then repeatedly entering into that awareness. If one lives an immoral life or takes no interest then this realization will not arise. Such awareness therefore does not exist self-sufficiently and absolutely, but depends on favorable causes and conditions.

This raises a broader issue which is very important in the Madhyamaka view, this most subtle of all Buddhist philosophy. As a hypothetical case, if something were to exist intrinsically, absolutely, and self-sufficiently, what would that imply? What kind of attributes would it necessitate? Nagarjuna and other great meditators of the past, following the Buddha himself, have stated that such an entity would be absolutely immutable. It would be devoid of change and immune to any interaction with phenomena other than itself, because any kind of interaction implies change. It would be utterly and absolutely isolated from anything that is not itself. Moreover, it would be beyond the scope of awareness, because we know something only by our consciousness interacting with that object. If, for example, non-dual awareness of ultimate reality were to exist intrinsically, it would be forever unknowable.

-- from The Seven-Point Mind Training by B. Alan Wallace

clyde wrote:average;

This is one of the best explanations I have read and perhaps this will point the way:

Consider whether the non-dual awareness of ultimate truth is a dependently related event. Does it arise in dependence on causes? Experience tells us causes and circumstances do give rise to this non-conceptual realization of emptiness. It result from meditating, cultivating an ethical way of life, developing mental stability and clarity, making intelligent inquiry into the nature of reality, gaining insight, and then repeatedly entering into that awareness. If one lives an immoral life or takes no interest then this realization will not arise. Such awareness therefore does not exist self-sufficiently and absolutely, but depends on favorable causes and conditions.

This raises a broader issue which is very important in the Madhyamaka view, this most subtle of all Buddhist philosophy. As a hypothetical case, if something were to exist intrinsically, absolutely, and self-sufficiently, what would that imply? What kind of attributes would it necessitate? Nagarjuna and other great meditators of the past, following the Buddha himself, have stated that such an entity would be absolutely immutable. It would be devoid of change and immune to any interaction with phenomena other than itself, because any kind of interaction implies change. It would be utterly and absolutely isolated from anything that is not itself. Moreover, it would be beyond the scope of awareness, because we know something only by our consciousness interacting with that object. If, for example, non-dual awareness of ultimate reality were to exist intrinsically, it would be forever unknowable.

-- from The Seven-Point Mind Training by B. Alan Wallace

awareness of (insert concept of phenomena here) is always dualistic. right.

awareness itself, is not. awareness itself is not something to know, if you are concerned about knowing awareness or understanding it - you have missed the whole point.

It is the immutable ultimate truth, it is what we are, it is limitless and beyond causality, regardless if we know it or not - so what else is left to say?

David wrote:

Why do you say that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant?

Because it is the only conclusion that is logically tenable, provided that one has followed a thoroughly rational line of enquiry.

Perhaps you could outline it for me, Jehu. The explanation put forward by average is full of holes and doesn't make any sense.

-

Average wrote:

I already answered why consciousness is limitless, various times, in my previous posts. Read up.

Such as.
It can not be that which it perceives, it can not have limits anymore than it can have colors and a texture.
It perceives change so it can not change. Change happens within it, not to it... as do all other phenomena, concepts, Totalities and Subtractions.
Etc. Etc.

You haven't yet explained how consciousness can continue to exist without any perceived phenomena to be conscious of. Your point of view doesn't have any basis without this explanation.

While what I say makes perfect sense. It would be like perceiving an expensive sports car, and wondering how expensive your Consciousness is, or how fast it can go...lol :)

Given that consciousness is just another temporary phenomenon which, to all appearances, is generated by neural activity in the brain, the question of how expensive your own consciousness is boils down to being a equation of how valuable your own life is. And that is a valid question to ask.

Again, you haven't shown how consciousness isn't just another temporary phenomenon generated by causal conditions, essentially no different to clouds, trees stars, and other temporary phenomena. All you're doing is asserting that consciousness is eternal and conditionless, in the same groundless way that a fundamentalist makes his assertions.


-

Cat,

Sorry, I think I was unclear; no, that's not what I'm trying to say. I don't think a leaf requires consciousness to fall from a tree. I'm trying to say that consciousness or awareness is a momentary thing, I'm not aware of my whole life at once, I can only be aware a moment at a time. So when I said moments I meant all momentary consciousness. I don't think that consciousness is a constant through time, I don't think consciousness is a temporal thing, it's sporatic, it is in you and me at the same time, and sure there was a time before conscious life evolved when there was no consciousness. But if you see the grand scheme of causation, that there was a billion years ago, there is a 'now', there will be a billion years from 'now', then it seems, since all is caused, and where there is awareness, it perceives what it is caused to percieve, that 'now' makes no difference. Every conscious moment is a 'now' no matter where it occurs along time. Time is an illusion for consciousness because all awareness thinks it is the center or 'now' of time. And as for consciousness not having limits, I was addressing the limits of awareness, as in what can't consciousness perceive? not when can't it appear?

Okay, I understand where you are coming from now. I agree that acts of consciousness always take place in the "now". That is what "now" literally means for a conscious being.

We can say that consciousness is limited by what it is perceiving in any given moment. By its very nature, it cannot perceive anything other than what it is perceiving. In other words, the very act of consciousness itself is a limiting activity, as it necessarily has to block out everything in the Universe apart from what it is perceiving. Without this blocking out, consciousness wouldn't be able to occur.

-

Trees, Planes, Fast cars and concepts of Totalities and actual Totality and all temporary phenomena all happen within Consciousness itself, yet it stretches far beyond them, so I have no need to form a basis for it, for such a demand is simply another needle in the hay stack, another false appearance really.
I have outlined clearly what Consciousness is not, and thus what is left for it to be, how it stretches beyond particulars and is limitless itself...

You are still asking me what the smell of consciousness is and what color it has, I enjoy jokes but you are a true comedian :)

About brains, they can be shown to cause thoughts and ideas and what not, mental images, but brains do not and have not been shown to cause Awareness, there is no empirical way to do this - since Awareness is a first person subjective being.
No one can show when a person is unaware, for they have no access to such a thing, and no instrument of science does either.
No person can show when they are unaware, for they would be unaware of such an event and unable to infer or deduce anything about it. At best they can appeal to lack of memory, that is all, but a totally different matter.

The rest is up to the flower and the moon!

Dave Toast wrote:

Tell you what, try ceasing the biological activity pupportedly associated with this ghostly perceiver and see if this perciever - consciouness suffers a rather sharp change.

Average wrote:

If you believe Consciousness can have a color, a texture, or a limit, go right ahead! But try to elaborate what you mean…

Dave was very clear in the above point, but you have avoided answering it. But because it is the kingpin to your ‘idea’ of what consciousness is, you do need to face up to the reality that if you take away all the things that support the existence of consciousness it doesn’t continue on “unlimited”, it ends very abruptly. And even the "flowers" and the "moon" cannot save it.

.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Dave Toast wrote:

Tell you what, try ceasing the biological activity pupportedly associated with this ghostly perceiver and see if this perciever - consciouness suffers a rather sharp change.

Average wrote:

If you believe Consciousness can have a color, a texture, or a limit, go right ahead! But try to elaborate what you mean…

Dave was very clear in the above point, but you have avoided answering it. But because it is the kingpin to your ‘idea’ of what consciousness is, you do need to face up to the reality that if you take away all the things that support the existence of consciousness it doesn’t continue on “unlimited”, it ends very abruptly. And even the "flowers" and the "moon" cannot save it.

.

Consciousness is aware of supports, foundations, basis, etc. So it does not require any support foundation or basis.
Just like it is aware of Colors and limits, but does not have any such characteristics.

So, no problem at all.

Consciousness is impervious to corrections in logic because those corrections are in Consciousness and therefore Consciousness is bigger and can kick the ass of the corrections.

Dave wrote:

Perhaps you could outline it for me, Jehu. The explanation put forward by average is full of holes and doesn't make any sense.

If you are sincerely interested in going into the matter, I should be delighted; but I believe that if we do, then we ought to begin a new thread; for I must go back to the very beginning of metaphysics, in order to establish a firm foundation.

the fundament:

the bottomless Self projecting from non-existence the procreatrix I, was the great opportunity and the beginning: to extend the purpose of desire - for time to make all existence inexact - those things kept ever faint and vague.

average wrote:You haven't said why any of these reasonings are non sequitur.

What on earth are you talking about? They are non-sequiturs because the conclusions do not follow from the stated premises - that's what non-sequiturs are. I laid out your premises and your conclusions and said they were non-sequiturs. Surely you don’t mean you want me to explain why the conclusions don’t follow from the premises because that’s obvious to anyone even vaguely acquainted with logic. And you informed us all a while ago that you are more than acquainted, that time when you were telling us that logic isn’t that important.

Here it is then, once again:

Your first premise is that change is an aspect of perceived phenomena. Your second is that consciousness is fundamentally different to perceived phenomena because it is the perceiver. Your conclusion is that therefore consciousness cannot change.

Firstly, your first premise states something about perceived phenomena, your second states that something is not a perceived phenomenon (somehow) and you draw conclusions thereby about the suchness of that which is (supposedly) beyond perception, with respect to the first premise, which is about perceived phenomena. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because there is no information whatsoever contained therein about that which is beyond perception, only information about that which is not beyond perception. Secondly, there is no attempt at all to prove that the perceiver is any different (with respect to being a perceived phenomena) to the perceived. Rather this is an assumption of your second premise. So your second premise simply begs the question.

Then you start to introduce absurd category errors into your pernicious equation to muddy the waters still further. You speak of the colour and shape of consciousness in an attempt to ratify your argument by appealing to the absurdity of category errors, like questioning the weight of green, the perspicacity of a jet engine or the colour of New Zealand’s pubes. In doing so you try to prove that such absurdity applies to the question of whether consciousness changes. Again this is a non-sequitur because there is no information at all in your premises about the nature of that which is beyond perception. So the conclusion cannot follow from the premises. And yet again, your premise that consciousness is fundamentally different in nature to perceived phenomena remains unproven and begs the question.

Finally you bring the terms ‘limits, beginnings and ends’ into that very same flawed equation. Here you propagandise your fallacious conclusion and suggest that consciousness has no limits beginnings or ends thereby – heady stuff! Of course it doesn’t occur to you that those terms could just as easily be ‘limitlessness, beginninglessness and endlessness’ which, if we ignore your fallacious inference, would produce the conclusion that consciousness cannot be limitless, beginningless or endless. Here again you are utilising the very same non-sequitur and your ‘consciousness is fundamentally different in nature to other perceived phenomena’ premise continues begging the question.

While what I say makes perfect sense. It would be like perceiving an expensive sports car, and wondering how expensive your Consciousness is, or how fast it can go...lol :)

Non-sequiturs don't make perfect sense I'm afraid. Neither do premises which beg the question. You cannot appeal to the absurdity of category errors until you prove that treating consciousness the same as any other perceived phenomena is a category error. And you haven’t done that, you have simply assumed it in your premises.

Your meaningless questions about the non-dual are just that, meaningless. And yet you manage to derive meanings like 'Therefore it has no colour' from them. That does not make perfect sense. The only perfect sense one can derive from such questions is that the answers will be meaningless. To say that ‘it has no colour’ is every bit as meaningless as saying that it is magenta with cerise polka-dots.

Further, your assertion that consciousness is non-dualistic is baseless. So not only are your questions meaningless but they are asked of a nebulous concept and yet still you find answers. This is yet further removed from perfect sense.

And this is how you manage to arrive at statements like ‘Consciousness has no limits’ - via less than perfect sense.

If you believe Consciousness can have a color, a texture, or a limit, go right ahead! But try to elaborate what you mean, and how what I said are non sequitur...I'm always eager to hear comedy.

As I say, in the absence of proof for your super-natural consciousness hypothesis, the status quo remains - consciousness is natural and dualistic. It makes as much sense to talk about the colour and texture of consciousness as it does to talk about the colour and texture of gravity. However, when it comes to limits, consciousness has them in spades, just like it has N amount of other attributes. Or perhaps your consciousness is able to perceive the likes of the exact speed and position of a sub-atomic particle, picture a 5-dimensional object, leave your body and go jump in the body of someone else on the other side of the planet or perceive anything that your biological activity is not perceiving in the moment. This list goes on and on.

But if you can't, then best to remain silent. ;]

No worries.

Yeah.

Here’s the list of questions you need to answer thus far:

1. How perceiving things necessitates that consciousness is not a thing?
2. How consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of evolution?
3. How consciousness does not change in any way?
4. How you are able to draw truthful conclusions from asking meaningless questions about nebulous concepts?
5. How you are able to assign properties to that which you say is beyond the assignation of properties?
6. Why you believe something which happens to be emotionally palliative and ego fortifying (with regard to the eventual cessation of your consciousness) when there is not a shred of evidence to support this point of view?

For the record, my conception of consciousness is that it is an emergent property of the process of evolution. First there is distinction – me or not me (A or B) – this is the beginning of awareness. Awareness becomes more sophisticated with the addition of further distinctions – A or B, A or B or C, A or B or C or D, and so on. With time and the addition of the capacity to draw relationships between these distinctions, this awareness reaches a critical mass which we arbitrarily define and call the result consciousness. This consciousness can be can be of greater or lesser efficacy, depending on the sophistication of the distinctions it is able to make and the concomitant sophistication of the relationships and inferences it is able to draw between the distinctions it makes. Sooner or later this consciousness reaches the point where it is sophisticated enough to contemplate its place in the universe and the fact that there is a rather obvious and seemingly final limit to its continuation. And therein the gnashing of teeth begins and the bizarre explanations of how to bypass this impasse are rolled out.

This conception of consciousness is all too easily explained in terms of evolutionary advantage and selection thereof. But forget about that. You need to justify your conception of consciousness.

How's and Why's don't apply to Consciousness, since it is that which is aware of all these things.

Owned.

average wrote:How's and Why's don't apply to Consciousness, since it is that which is aware of all these things.

Owned.

ROFFLE biscuits!!1!eleven1!

Fucks [sic] sake, what a waste of time. You can't even punctuate.

An accurate appraisal of average's postion i would say,Dt.But this caught my eye....

Dave Toast wrote:Sooner or later this consciousness reaches the point where it is sophisticated enough to contemplate its place in the universe and the fact that there is a rather obvious and seemingly final limit to its continuation. And therein the gnashing of teeth begins and the bizarre explanations of how to bypass this impasse are rolled out.

Given that I'm given to gnashing of teeth, can i request that you clarify what you are saying within the embolded statement.

If the experiencers(as a group) are gaining ever increasing epistemologic insight, can not the consciousness be said to be ever expanding,theoretically limitless(albeit within the bounds of the senses)?

I'm just talking about individual consciousnesses having enough time and resources to be able to contemplate their own mortality there mate, albeit in needlessly fluffy language!

Ah ok,no worries.I thought you had moved on to talk about it as a whole.

My bad.