Consciousness

[surreptitious75]

Consciousness does not occur within brains but the other way round - brains occur within Consciousness
Consciousness is therefore First Order and everything else is Second Order but if you have a materialist worldview then this cannot be understood
There is therefore no object / subject distinction from a mind dependent perspective because everything is One and connected to everything else
And so you are not an independent mind / brain that is conscious within yourself but a part of Consciousness that is infinite and absolute - Discuss

[Ecmandu]

Consciousness does not occur within brains but the other way round - brains occur within Consciousness
Consciousness is therefore First Order and everything else is Second Order but if you have a materialist worldview then this cannot be understood
There is therefore no object / subject distinction from a mind dependent perspective because everything is One and connected to everything else
And so you are not an independent mind / brain that is conscious within yourself but a part of Consciousness that is infinite and absolute - Discuss

Consciousness always has some limit (material)… otherwise it couldn't "congeal" You are close though!

[promethean75]

(p.s. hacker's avoiding denying freewill because he's a swell guy, not because he really believes it exists)

[surreptitious75]

It is a very hard concept for virtually everyone because it denys materialism which is taken to be the default position
I am a materialist but yet I can still think outside of that particular limitation and consider alternative interpretations

[Aegean]

Consciousness does not occur within brains but the other way round - brains occur within Consciousness
Consciousness is therefore First Order and everything else is Second Order but if you have a materialist worldview then this cannot be understood
There is therefore no object / subject distinction from a mind dependent perspective because everything is One and connected to everything else
And so you are not an independent mind / brain that is conscious within yourself but a part of Consciousness that is infinite and absolute - Discuss

Consciousness precedes life, and does not proceed, extending from it?
Are you an Abrahamic?

[surreptitious75]

I am not an Abrahamic but am simply referencing an alternative to the materialist position that consciousness can only exist within brains

Abrahamism references a metaphysical God who cannot be observed because he exists outside of physical reality
Consciousness is an alternative to materialism but does not have the metaphysical baggage that Abrahamism has

Consciousness is non duality by another name where there are no distinctions and every thing is connected to every thing else
The duality between the physical and the mental is a false one because the latter is merely the former on a more subtle scale

Human beings like to compartmentalise and put things into nice neat boxes but reality is not like that at all
There are no gaps in reality and so compartmentalising it is actually presenting a false picture of what it is

The map is not the territory and sometimes it is not even all that accurate with regard to said false picture
Reality is and always has been just one regardless of how we interpret it from our own limited perspective

Human beings should therefore accept reality for what it is rather than go and reinterpret it merely to satisfy their philosophical desires
To simply accept it as it is regardless of how uncomfortable that may make one feel because denying it will not actually make it go away

[Aegean]

Consciousness is the difficult concept to define.
For me it is a process, that can only be represented through metaphors.

I use the old-school film projectors to explain how I conceptualize conceptualizing.
A film projector has a reel, film and light.
Consciousness is the light projecting an image, encoded on the film.
The film corresponds to neurons clustered into groups, representing a neurological encoding of sensual input - some collected via the sense organs - from external sources - others collected from internal sources, via the nervous system.
These two data streams merge and synthesize, when possible, in the brain.
The projected image is consciousness.
How this happens I cannot say. Neuroscientists are studying it.
But consciousness is contained in the brain, ro is a manifestation of the brain which is the organism's processing hub.
Parts of the brain play the role of projector, light/energy and film.

Memories are divided into two kinds. inherited - DNA - and collected - experiential. This corresponds to the nature/nurture dichotomy.
What are experiential memories and how are they formed and stored in the brain?
They are neural clusters, produced by external/internal stimuli, abstracted by the brain.
Abstraction is a process of simplification/generalization, that reduces a dynamic, fluctuating world, into a static representation, A biological algorithm, which can be stored and then triggered - stimulated - by an neural pulse.
Like all organic matter it can deteriorate, over time.
When a neural pulse - energy - passes through the specific neural cluster, a cascading reaction occurs, triggering the memory into consciousness.

DNA is a form of it.

[surreptitious75]

Consciousness is difficult to define because there is no single universal definition of what it actually is

Materialism / neuroscience says it is a function of the brain and can only exist within this limitation
Non duality says it is universal and the mental / physical distinction of materialism is a false one
Panpsychism says it exists within all matter so does not recognise the organic / object distinction
Panentheism says that God exists within everything as a conscious entity

For me the first two are the only plausible ones as the others are too unscientific or metaphysical

The organic / object distinction is demonstrably more rigorous than the mental / physical one
Pantheism just substitues Universe for God but panentheism is way too similar to panpsychism

As beings whose entire existence is mind dependent it can be very hard to look at consciousness from a more objective perspective
But the subjectivity of a mind dependent perspective however may not be a true representation of what consciousness actually is

[Aegean]

I cannot begin my understanding on a presumption.
I begin with the material, the presence of a brain in an organic body, because I've only experienced consciousness through such.

Matter is but a variant of energy. The proper term would be energy.
The difference is in relation to the conscious organism.
Matter/energy refer to patterns, i.e., vibrations/oscillations.
Matter is slow, in relation to the organism's metabolic rates, energy is fast.
The rate by which the brain's cells go through the cycle of systole/diastole determines the standard by which it interprets reality.

[surreptitious75]

Any understanding of physical reality has to be evidence based and from our own perspective the best thing to study is the human brain
But even though it cannot be demonstrated that does not necessarily mean that that is the limitation of what consciousness actually is

Philosophical interpretations of reality can never be anywhere as rigorous as scientific ones
But science is limited in what it investigates and so there will always be gaps in knowledge

[Aegean]

the absence of evidence is not evidence.
The nil, is not an argument....
But ti has become so, in this age.

Ignorance begins by building on what it perceives, not by what it presumes.
Bottom/Up.

ideologies and spiritualities of the nihilistic kind, do the reverse.
That is the disease I want to rid myself of.

[Magnus Anderson]

Consciousness does not occur within brains but the other way round - brains occur within Consciousness.

What does it mean to say that brains occur within consciousness?

It is a very hard concept for virtually everyone because it denys materialism which is taken to be the default position

What exactly does it deny?

What does materialism claim other than "You can figure out what someone is aware/conscious of based on what's inside their brain"?

Consciousness is difficult to define because there is no single universal definition of what it actually is

Materialism / neuroscience says it is a function of the brain and can only exist within this limitation
Non duality says it is universal and the mental / physical distinction of materialism is a false one
Panpsychism says it exists within all matter so does not recognise the organic / object distinction
Panentheism says that God exists within everything as a conscious entity

For me the first two are the only plausible ones as the others are too unscientific or metaphysical

Neuroscientists do not define consciousness as a function of the brain. Rather, they think that consciousness is a function of the brain. There is a difference between defining words (which is merely about describing what certain words mean within certain language) and claiming that phenomena that can be represented by this or that word is caused or brought on by this or that thing. How much of fruitful discussion can be expected if we can't even agree on the definition of the word "definition"?

[Magnus Anderson]

What does it mean to say that brains occur within consciousness?

Does it perhaps mean that you can predict what's inside one's brain based on what is inside their consciousness?

Can you predict what's inside your brain at some point in time t based on what you see and hear at that point in time t? I think you'll agree that's hardly the case. There's probably a lot more inside your brain than there is inside your consciousness (the tip of the iceberg metaphor) and most of it is not a filler.

But is that what you (and other people) mean when they say "Brains exist within consciousness"? If not, what is it?

[Aegean]

What does it mean to say that brains occur within consciousness?

Does it perhaps mean that you can predict what's inside one's brain based on what is inside their consciousness?

Can you predict what's inside your brain at some point in time t based on what you see and hear at that point in time t? I think you'll agree that's hardly the case. There's probably a lot more inside your brain than there is inside your consciousness (the tip of the iceberg metaphor) and most of it is not a filler.

But is that what you (and other people) mean when they say "Brains exist within consciousness"? If not, what is it?

An example of how nihilism inverts reality.

Logos precedes action.
Brains exists in consciousness.
Ideology creates reality.

Everything is inverted.

[Exuberant Teleportation]

The mind and the body are 1. Our sacred vessels of consciousness ascend up into the aether when we perish. The realization of all possible forms is a continuing cycle of regenerative spawning and awakening. We pierce the gloom of destiny by accepting the body, accepting the physical, and by conducting experiential learning and path building, we begin to see the clear light.

[zinnat]

Consciousness does not occur within brains but the other way round - brains occur within Consciousness
Consciousness is therefore First Order and everything else is Second Order but if you have a materialist worldview then this cannot be understood
There is therefore no object / subject distinction from a mind dependent perspective because everything is One and connected to everything else
And so you are not an independent mind / brain that is conscious within yourself but a part of Consciousness that is infinite and absolute - Discuss

Something like that but not exactly.

As far as i am able to understand how the term consciousness in used, i think that there is some linguistic issse also in it.

Consciosness should not be used as noun but as an adjective, though most intellectuals do otherwise. Something happens in the brain in order to make one conscious, this quality is consciousness. The real question is whether the brain manifests that quality allby itself or someone else helps in the process?

Now, your take is right that the quality of consciousness does not manifested by the brain but it predates and exists saperately too. Mind is a vehicle/medium for consciousness to merge with the body.

let me take an example to clear the issue.
Think of a cell phone. Someone calls on the phone, bell rings and we start talking, means, the phone becomes oprational/alive. We can say the the phone is talking but does it really? Our brain is something like that. It can talk/Think but for that it has to recieve the signlals from the towers. Whithout that incoming signals, the phone is useless, and that signal is consciousness. Are those signals are also part of the phone? Certainly not. They are coming from outside. interacts with the phone and make talking possible. The same is with the brian. Something comes from the outside , interacts with it and makes it functionable.

with love,
sanjay

[Meno_]

Aegean wrote:


"Consciousness is the difficult concept to define.
For me it is a process, that can only be represented through metaphors."

>

Which means consciousness is demonstrable only through an existentially excluding differential ontology, but inclusive in it's being.

The ontological metaphor subsumed , subsumes this ordinance.

[Aegean]

This is why negation is essential to self-awareness.
"I am that which I am not".
Life itself is a rejection of other, as the establishment of self.
Discrimination is consciousness. The act of negating.
Any ideology that idealizes non-discrimination is proposing a reduction of self-awareness.
This is fundamental. Life attracts what is most like itself, to repair what is being lost through temporal attrition.
excess energies are those which repel, and they are eliminated through digestive processing.
Nothing new.
But this only applies to life.

The patterns that comprise an organism attract what are most in harmony with them, and repel what are disharmonious to them.

Self-consciousness is a negation of the body, and an identification with the parts of the mind engaged in this process.

Fear is often used to describe repulsion.

[Aegean]

The eye cannot see itself seeing. It can only do so through reflection.

[Meno_]

The eye cannot see itself seeing. It can only do so through reflection.

The Narcissistic myth as a metaphor is as well, difficult.

Pity the flowering slow evolution of it's self conscious genetic arousal could not correspond to the surreal daliness of social coherence except in dreams, or in madnger.

[Aegean]

A Narcissist become trapped in his gaze, like a victim becomes trapped in his sympathy for himself in the other's circumstances.
What is pitiful is when charlatans pretend to know what they know nothing about, and mask their ignorance in prose and pretty linguistics, attempting to seduce himself through another.

[Meno_]

A Narcissist become trapped in his gaze, like a victim becomes trapped in his sympathy for himself in the other's circumstances.
What is pitiful is when charlatans pretend to know what they know nothing about, and mask their ignorance in prose and pretty linguistics, attempting to seduce himself through another.

And not more evident then in 'Scorpio rising' as a fit epithet to 'Lucifer Rising'
where kundalini, the snake, rises in battle.

Kenneth Anger

Thus the above is justified.