GENIUS FORUMS

Hi everyone,

The best model that I currently have/use to describe the enlightenment path is basically "being an observer". Its been about a month since I came here and learned how to connect the concept of ego with selfishness and emotionality. Since then I've been watching myself in a different way, for example catching myself just after indulging in a silly emotional game, and thinking, "whoa, what was that?". I don't know where this will lead, but this new perspective is very exciting and seems very powerful.

Anyway, I've been thinking more about the sex thread I posted earlier, particularly the part about "breaking" genetic programming, as David Quinn put it. First of all, and please correct me if I'm shortsighted, what this phrase "breaking genetic progamming" really means is "an observable step forward in our genetic programming". For instance, against the normal inclinations to stay alive, eat food, have sex and children, etc., our programming now also includes the options of suicide, fasting, celibacy, and not having children. We may or may not call these changes products of raised consciousness, or of the evolution of our programming, but regardless they are caused by the prior effects of the world, so the distinction isn't really even necessary.

Categorizing the characterisitcs of genetic programming vs consciousness seems to me to be an impossible line to draw - or at least a line I'm not aware of (keenobserver?). For example, I think I've seen it written that no attachments = full consciousness. But just how full is it really? It can't possibly be so full as to be aware of ALL cause and effect, for all that there is to be known would now be known, which is clearly not the case.

For an example of the limited consciousness of humans, even of sages, neuro-linguistic programming ( http://www.nlpinfo.com/ check out "exercises" and "the eyes have it") shows us just how deep our unconscious behavior can go. The article Diebert posted about the hot and cold coffee is another example of this.

This stripping of emotional delusions about the world may indeed lead to more wisdom and ethical conduct, but I'm not so sure I would label it consciousness, as the term seems to hold an unlimited quality about it.

Prove me wrong.

-skipair

Skipair,

Categorizing the characterisitcs of genetic programming vs consciousness seems to me to be an impossible line to draw

Instead of genetic programming, it might be better to say genetic predispositions that cause the individual to pursue enslaving behaviors that sustain an emotional neurological reward system in the brain.

And the line is drawn through reasoning what behaviors are enslaving, and which behaviors are necessary to basic survival.

This stripping of emotional delusions about the world may indeed lead to more wisdom and ethical conduct, but I'm not so sure I would label it consciousness, as the term seems to hold an unlimited quality about it.

How can you be certain that consciousness is not unlimited in its depth and variety of expression?

Ryan,

Instead of genetic programming, it might be better to say genetic predispositions that cause the individual to pursue enslaving behaviors that sustain an emotional neurological reward system in the brain.

The genetic programming I personally am referring to are the processes that occur outside of the emotional/rational brain - hormones, physical body structure, breathing, etc. - which are conditions of our basic survival, but also go beyond and spill into and affect our emotional/rational brain. The degree to which it does is an interesting question, but nonetheless almost pointless since we cannot really know the answer as our "consciousness" is rooted in its system.

S: This stripping of emotional delusions about the world may indeed lead to more wisdom and ethical conduct, but I'm not so sure I would label it consciousness, as the term seems to hold an unlimited quality about it.

R: How can you be certain that consciousness is not unlimited in its depth and variety of expression?

Well, if we're talking consciousness of cause and effect, if it were infinitely deep we would now know all that there is to know, which is clearly not the case.

Skipair,

the processes that occur outside of the emotional/rational brain - hormones, physical body structure, breathing, etc. - which are conditions of our basic survival, but also go beyond and spill into and affect our emotional/rational brain. The degree to which it does is an interesting question, but nonetheless almost pointless since we cannot really know the answer as our "consciousness" is rooted in its system.

Yes, it seems to be a fairly integral system. People who are out of balance are out of balance on many levels. For instance: the genes, the glands and the neurology are integrally connected, and if they are out of balance, then many other systems go out of balance as well, such as the heart rate, blood pressure, the ability of the organs to cleanse themselves, replicate, and so on. Imbalance affects the ideal level of energy in the charka centers as well. Imbalance seems to be imbalance on all levels, and to various degrees depending on how conscious the individual is.

Well, if we're talking consciousness of cause and effect, if it were infinitely deep we would now know all that there is to know, which is clearly not the case.

Why do you say that we should know all there is to know as human beings, perhaps there is something limited about the human brain as an instrument that limits our scope of perception in some way, how could we determine for certain that this is or isn’t the case?

It is true that empirical evidence is uncertain/relative, and that all we have is appearances to analyze, but that being said, the human organism is still quite limited as far as its scope of perception is concerned.

Dennett has done many tests to illustrate how the brain is quite selective in how it perceives, which is mostly a function of our evolutionary biology. Moreover, even if we have perfected reasoning skills and our able to observe reality without any distortions, the physical structure that allows us to perceive and think is still a product of thousands of years of evolutionary changes.

Experiment: If you are walking through the woods, your eye wont naturally focus on the details of trees, or the shape of clouds, or something like that, but you will quickly spot something moving in the bushes, or a rock in your path, which is a function of how the brain evolved for survival, and not some ascetic advantage.

*bump*

The thing that I have been thinking about today is...

Why isn't walking stored in the genetic programming of a human? Some animals can walk from birth, so it is genetic. But not humans. We walk with concious rules. we take a step, and if that doesn't work we try a different approach. So something conscious is going on very early. Like a true or false situation. The true or false is stored for later use. But at first there was no storage of how to walk. Some time in the future we might be able to walk from birth.

With walking it is easy to see why we would learn, ELSE we would fall over. It's the ELSE part that is important.

Try two things, and see which is BETTER.
Where does BETTER come from?

Walking has an obvious result, but our concious is using ELSE, and BETTER for everything that needs learning. Not only our conciousness, but parhaps the whole of evolution.

The twin particle suggests to me that even a particle can spin one way, ELSE spin the other way.. BETTER. It would depend on conditions. the particle might be unable to spin the other way at all for example.

If you could try two methods instantly, like AT THE SAME TIME, you get a see saw that is perfectly balanced in the middle able to choose which way to drop. It could drop you on a land mine, ELSE drop you to safety. Safety is BETTER, but the result has changed your life, and no time passed.

However this situation is only an option if your eyes actually see the mine in real life. But eyes are a sensor. How small can a sensor get? Can a particle have a sensor? It doesn't have to see or anything. It just has to prefer some direction to the other. Apply this example to some particles...

A bouncing ball.

You drop it. "Hey it is easy for us to go this way with the flow of gravity!"
The ball hits the floor, expelling energy. "Dead end, try the other way!"
The ball is travelling against gravity. "The other way is easier than this way!"

and repeat.


A photon.

It travels up, and particles start to bunch up in front of it. "This way is starting to get hard, try the other way!"

It travels down, and is ok for awhile, but then the particles start to bunch up in front of it in the other direction. "This way is starting to get hard, try the other way!"

You get a wave pattern from the particle.

So that's a sort of conscious thought in everything in the universe.

And what about memories.... do they have memories?

Memory metal for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_memory_alloy

It suggests to me that the brain stores memories in particles, and goes against current thinking... pun was accidental!.. lol!

Anyway, it would then be the particles that send the electrons to the places of the brain that move your legs etc. But there is always the underlying.. "I prefer this way to go.", and that would be one of your concious decisions.