Another view of Consciousness

[CelineK]

regarding the brain is the cradle of consciousness is atheistic in essence... hence rebuking mysticism... the brain doesn't create Consciousness because Consciousness exists outside the brain. The brain is the 'device' to connect with It. Any neuroscience research discarding Consciousness regards the brain a mere computer, and while it may be true to some extend, this stance is nonetheless a flawed programming denying the existence of a Greater Reality. When looking at the state of the planet, philosophy was taken over by the "left brain thinking" and is on its death bed. Practically almost everything, written over the last 200 years, must be rewritten.

Man can create only with his Mind -- and the brain is not the Mind. The brain is merely the seat of sensation and the electric recorder of sensation - Walter Russell

[zinnat]

regarding the brain is the cradle of consciousness is atheistic in essence... hence rebuking mysticism... the brain doesn't create Consciousness because Consciousness exists outside the brain. The brain is the 'device' to connect with It. Any neuroscience research discarding Consciousness regards the brain a mere computer, and while it may be true to some extend, this stance is nonetheless a flawed programming denying the existence of a Greater Reality. When looking at the state of the planet, philosophy was taken over by the "left brain thinking" and is on its death bed. Practically almost everything, written over the last 200 years, must be rewritten.

Man can create only with his Mind -- and the brain is not the Mind. The brain is merely the seat of sensation and the electric recorder of sensation - Walter Russell

Absolutely right.

with love,
sanjay

[waechter418]

When looking at the state of the planet, philosophy was taken over by the "left brain thinking" and is on its death bed. Practically almost everything, written over the last 200 years, must be rewritten.

....and rethought

The above work is a respective attempt - that hopefully will be continued by you, in whichever way you see fit to bring about a renaissance (rebirth) of ourkind.

[Along The Way]

I demonstrated on another thread (perhaps the "Will Machines Replace Human's" thread), how easy "self-awareness" is put into almost all computers of today.

None of it is magic. And most of it is actually very trivial. Its just that some people like to worship things regardless of how simple they actually are.

It is amazing how many people absolutely refuse to worship God yet absolutely refuse to not worship Consciousness (and Chaos).

But computers are created by human beings. In other words, they aren't organic in the way that human, animals, plants, bugs, etc. are.

I don't think there is anything "mystical" about consciousness either. I simply believe that there are conditions for consciousness. And one of those conditions is that it occurs organically. Then again, I could be wrong.

[waechter418]

If Consciousness were limited to neurons, brain mass & matter, would we have mythologies, sculptures, novels, games, philosophies, theatre, paintings, symphonies, pornography - and whatever else we invent to please ourselves and others with?

[waechter418]

In the conventional Western paradigm, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter in the form of a human/animal brain. In the Eastern metaphysical schools based upon the Upanishads (most saliently within the Hinduism school of Advaita Vedānta and within schools of Mahayana Buddhism (such as Zen and Yogacara), Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology) is the fundamental ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. All is a manifestation of Consciousness just as dream characters and ambience are manifestations of brains as mental processes. Thus, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the visa versa view of Western materialism.

By Don Schneider

[waechter418]

Recommend reading: The discourse on Prajna (Mind essence) - by Hui-Neng

https://terebess.hu/zen/HuinengCleary.pdf

[waechter418]

The following correction of chapter 1 appears necessary:

“The seeing of the eyes, the hearing of the ears and the breathing of the nose report to the mind; the mind is the centre of cognition, the tongue expresses the cognised”

(Many cultures use the term heart for mind)

[Magnus Anderson]

In the conventional Western paradigm, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter in the form of a human/animal brain. In the Eastern metaphysical schools based upon the Upanishads (most saliently within the Hinduism school of Advaita Vedānta and within schools of Mahayana Buddhism (such as Zen and Yogacara), Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology) is the fundamental ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. All is a manifestation of Consciousness just as dream characters and ambience are manifestations of brains as mental processes. Thus, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the visa versa view of Western materialism.

By Don Schneider

In my view, consciousness, unless we are talking about awareness, is one of those meaningless terms thrown around because most people are easily seduced by it. An easy way to test whether any given term is a meaningful one or a meaningless one is to point with your finger at something, some particular, and say "this is an example of my concept!" and then point with your finger at something else, some other particular, and say "this is NOT an example of my concept!" If you can do this then it proves that the concept you are using is not too specific (i.e. all-exclusive) and not too generic (i.e. all-inclusive.) In other words, it proves it is a proper concept. As it is, the concept of consciousness is all-inclusive which means it is not a proper concept. You see something? That's consciousness! You hear something? That's consciousness! You feel something? That's consciousness? You are thinking about something? That's consciousness! If I ask "what is NOT consciousness?" the answer that I can expect is "that which is NOT within consciousness!" But what the hell is NOT within consciousness? External reality? And what the hell is "external reality"? And now I can expect someone telling me "you see, everything is conscious!" I agree that the concept of consciousness is all-inclusive. But I find it difficult to nod to the claim that everything is conscious. You see, I think that questions such as "do other people have consciousness?" are meaningless. By saying something like "everything is conscious" you are saying that "other people have consciousness" which means you are answering a meaningless question. What does it mean for people to have consciousness? There is a difference between modes or states of consciousness. These are meaningful concepts. There is a difference between the state of being drunk, the state of being under the influence of psychedelic drugs, the state of being awake and sober, the state of being in a dream and so on. But what the hell does it mean that people or things or whatever have consciousness? I understand that such skepticism towards the generally accepted concept of consciousness is difficult to digest for people who are very easily seduced by it. But that's how it is. The concept is meaningless. Note that I understand that the manner in which we experience ourselves and the manner in which we experience others are different in many respects. The view I have of other people is different from the view I have of myself. The former can be called third-person view and the latter first-person view. When I experience other people I do not feel what they feel, I do not sense what they sense, I do not think what they think, etc. Similarly, when I experience myself, I rarely have the kind of view I have when experiencing other people. For example, I do not see myself as a human body into the distance engaging in some sort of activity. Unless, of course, someone takes a video of me that I can later watch. I also understand the interest people have in experiencing others from the first-person point of view. But this is not a matter of whether there is consciousness in other people or not. It is a matter of how to construct first-person experience using whatever information we have about others. And these others need not be humans . . . they can also be rocks. Not because rocks have consciousness or whatever but quite simply because it is US who choose what information we are going to turn into a first-person experience.

[waechter418]

Trying to define Consciousness is a hobby - trying to handle it is a duty.

[waechter418]

You will find substantial updates of "Another view of Consciousness"

under the heading"Selfrealisation" in https://waechter418.wordpress.com

enjoy

[waechter418]

In face of the remarkable changes that have been occurring since the first posting (2015),
the need arose to update these texts, particularly the ones concerning
“Know thy Self” and “Do thy Will”, which you are going to find now
at the end of “Selfrealisation” in https://waechter418.wordpress.com

PS: most of the aphorisms of AHA got integrated in the main body, which, by the way, has become more compact and coherent as well

Thank you for your help Golden Turd !