The Meaning of Life. Does life make sense?

Immediately findable total content…”
Ummm…?? :confused:

The term “immediately findable total content” means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Not all content is always present. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, … and so on.

So consciousness, “spiritual and emotional content”, is “found” … by what?

JSS,

By what? The soul, the seat of consciousness.

“Soul” is too vague to be used in an analytical definition (but then so is “spiritual experience”).

I did not say “is found” but “can be found” or “is immediately findable”, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.

Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.

The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).

But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.

“The owner” and “the soul” are pretty much the same terms and don’t really tell us much of anything. Are you certain that the consciousness is not “the owner”? If not, who/what is “the owner”? Precisely what is it that is potentially finding that emotional content? What is it doing when not finding it?

One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called “point of view”. This was the exact reason why I opened a thread dealing with a “superconsciousness”. Do you remember?

JSS,

(Not you Arm, not in the mood for your shenanigans) MM wrote

A thought, the vast memory of the soul has no emotional context due to a conflict with the soul’s primary function to process emotions, the pinnacle of experiences.

What if emotions are the source of consciousness? What type of being or machine could convert an emotion into an electric energy signal?

It seems that you are in the mood for your shenanigans.

Arm,

You are wrongly fixated on the brain, sorry.

Emotions emanate from thoughts and thoughts are electrical signals firing in the brain

Stop derailing this thread, Maniacal. Personal attacks are not needed here. And if you really want to be in the mood for your own shenanigans, then do it in another thread - not in my thread.

Perceptual sensations are what is firing, processing in the brain. Show me proof that that is where a thought, a reaction takes place.

Being told that you are wrong is an attack, are you a democrat? I have been speaking to the content so stop ragging Arm.

All consciousness emanates from the brain. Whether you call it perceptual sensation or thought is academic. Without a brain there is none

Then that leads back to the question, “Who/what is doing the finding?” :sunglasses:

…within which I could never figure out if you meant “super” as in greater or “super” as in beyond. :-k

Are you a monarch?

I am not wrong, and I did not say that you attacked me by using the word “wrong” or something like that (concerning the attack: see below). You have not been speaking to the context. Did you read the last posts before you posted? Obviously not. Did you read the opening post? Obviously not.

It is obvious what it means when somebody posts “something” like this:

Shall we all always name all those who are not meant? Like this:

If it is not meant in a rhetorical way, then in a stupid way or in both ways.

I do not want to discuss this further. So please try to communicate civilly, as Only Humean often says, and by referring to the topic or look for another thread.

Yes. And do you know for certain who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself, then the next question comes immedeiately: Why is it not the subject in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint. If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.

It was meant in both senses, but more in the sense of “beyond” then in the sense of “greater”. “Beyond” is the more proper word in that case, because I was talking about the superconsciousness more metphysically than physically. So I admit that it was meant in a pretty much speculative way. My intention was to get some knowledge about it via a speculative thesis.