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?” 
…within which I could never figure out if you meant “super” as in greater or “super” as in beyond. 
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.
Yes. But that is by MY definition. I am asking about yours.
I have already given my definition.
Wrong remains wrong. Later or not. 
I am just offering some keyword arguments that could - but must not - speak for the meaning of life:
1] Offspring.
2] Harmony.
3] God.
4] Love.
5] Soul.
6] Spirit.
7] Ego.
8] Recognition (cf. Hegel).
9] Will as the thing-in-itself (cf. Schopenhauer - referring to Kant’s “thing-in-itself”, “thing-as-such”).
10] Fitness (cf. Darwin).
11] Will to power (cf. Nietzsche).
12] Anentropy.
13] Fulfillment of what is set in the beginning of life (cf. Spengler).
14] Genetic program.
15] Being beautiful.
16] Being good (cf. Sloterdijk et al.).
17] Being intelligent.
If we argue aesthetically (see: 15) or ethically (see: 16) or logically (see: 17), then we ask whether is it because of the other arguments (see: 1-14) or the other way around.
You are all fucking stupid and stupid decided to fuck back.
RF warned.
RF warned.
lol And look to your consequences, Homer.
Stuck in the mud!
Many things exist, James. I see their existence before me - though some do not make sense.
We all see with different “eyes” but we still see. Some see clearly and some see vaguely and some refuse to see anything though they see it.
The meaning of life is an individual interpretation.
Some things make great sense, some make no sense, some make nonsense. Sometimes one particular thing may hold great sense and meaning and at other times, the same thing becomes meaningless.
We’re all at the mercy of our minds and emotions.
How do I interpret the meaning of life?
The same way I would do a puzzle. The more pieces which are put into that puzzle and are put into the correct spaces, the more clearer life becomes.If you don’t like what the puzzle shows you, if the image isn’t real for you, choose another puzzle and begin again. Find the one which bespeaks “your” reality to you.
When it comes to meaning and purpose, one puzzle and one size does not fit all.
There is a universal consciousness but then there is also our own consciousness, unconsciousness, nonrationality, psyche/Self - ad continuum.
Hi james.