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.
If I and Homer are so stuck in the mud, what do you call this, your arguing of this matter of the meaning of life and if life makes sense? Will you argue it eternally? You’ve already argued it past the point of finding legitimate answers to those questions. You are, by all appearamces, stuck in the mud far worse than Homer and Homer at least has the satisfaction of flipping you all off and then only being stuck in the mud for a moment before being pulled through. May have gotten a slight beating, but not as bad as all of you. When your stupidities hit you, and again I say to the mod fuck off with your bullshit warning, for all of your perceived superiority, all of you will feel vastly inferior to Homer and vastly stupider than he, for while caught literally in mud, you are all caught figuratively and metaphorically in worse mud than he that is more akin to quicksand or the la brea tar pits.
The more you struggle the more stuck you all become and you pretend otherwise.
Random Factor wrote:
But personally speaking, what is so wrong with being stuck in the mud? I can recall two epiphanies/realizations coming to me as a result of my literally being stuck in the mud.
Going in search of truth - looking for the holy grail. Doesn’t it wet your appetite for discovery?
These are age-old questions and I don’t suppose they’re going anywhere, as long as philosophy has any say in it. Someone needs to ponder the questions. But hopefully distance can be made with them.
Me personally? Probably not, I don’t see myself as being so much eternal.
.
So what!!!
Are there always or usually “legitimate” answers in philosophy? or more so legitimate questions and individual perceptions and interpretations? Will we ever get to the bottom of these questions - the meaning of life, does life make sense, what is meaning, what is purpose? That’s philosophy, no?
The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest
The unexamined life is not worth living.”
― Socrates
Then of course, there is this guy below…
“It’s enough for me to be sure that you and I exist at this moment.”
― Gabriel García Márquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
But then again, how does one go about being sure of one’s existence if one does not examine the truth of his/her life and all that it entails.
You have no idea how often I personally am stuck in the mud. As someone said - Life brings us problems and it is up to us humans to find solutions to them - or not. Some problems have no solutions. Those may be the most interesting.
I don’t suppose that Homer can be that stupid. If I recall, there is a philosophy book at B&N about Homer. I recall in the book that Homer is quite the philosopher, according to some of the things which he says. I’m paraphrasing of course.
That is certainly true of quicksand. But one MUST struggle to come out of the mud.
Pigs might have a different philosophy of life about mud though.
For quicksand, one must grab onto a long stick and gradually pull one’s self.