Pure Consciousness?

[Ginkgo]

I think getting back to the thread is a good idea.

People such as Freud, Blanco, neurophilosophers, physicists and language theorists and mystics all have something to contribute the the consciousness debate. The difficultly is to know what to leave out and what to include. The intractable problem then becomes the
synthesis.

Helpful I know.

[Arising_uk]

... I'm happy to address ancillary subjects such as Uri Geller, who bent a spoon upward within six inches of my face, twice, in front of skeptical witnesses at close range, but such subjects belong on separate threads. ...

Just goes to show that physicists believe the evidence of their senses.

[Ginkgo]

... I'm happy to address ancillary subjects such as Uri Geller, who bent a spoon upward within six inches of my face, twice, in front of skeptical witnesses at close range, but such subjects belong on separate threads. ...

Just goes to show that physicists believe the evidence of their senses.

Actually, that is a good point. It relates to Greylorn's comment on Feynman in another thread.

[Blaggard]

I came here to learn about philosophy and certainly didn't expect to find that the scientific sophistication of most of these philosophers is out of date. Not all there do seem to be a lot of people making a well motivated attempt to keep up with the times, science moves fast though, don't bend down to tie your shoe laces the wagon may be out of reach sooner than you expected.

But please let me know if anything I have said about where science is now is out of line, by pm is fine.

I am surprised by the ludditism or post post modern bent of philosophy now that seems to have become a trend to turn on science, when they should be allys, but I guess I shouldn't be the view that science is some sort of ivory tower, the willingness of philosophers to attack things that they haven't even studied in depth. It all seems a bit sad to me. So if you want to wave your pitchforks and torches at science that is fine, science thrives on criticism, hell it is its life blood, but please make sure the science you are talking about is not 20 years out of date or 10 years for that matter, if you have been out of education 10 years chances are at least 50% of what you learnt is now obsolete, 20 and you can probably discount most of what you learnt especially in medicine and biology.

All I am saying is you need to keep up with relevant science, not where you thought science was 20 years ago, it's like attacking your relations because in the past 20 years ago they said I aint evolved from no damn ape, without taking account of what they are saying now assuming of course they are not spouting the same absurdities. It's sophistry and I don't think questioning faulty reasoning in any form is a crime on a philosophy forum.

If you don't like where science is now, or you don't like people who point you to relevant modern scientific information, that's fine just put me on ignore and go about your merry business, but don't slag me off for pointing out you need a little more than 20 year old information to make a relevant contribution to science. It's kinda sad. And I am not going to indulge people who have not done their research and should not be expected to, frankly.

If questioning faulty science and faulty reason based on it is a bad thing so be it...

Perhaps we might all do Gee the courtesy of getting back on track. I'm happy to address ancillary subjects such as Uri Geller, who bent a spoon upward within six inches of my face, twice, in front of skeptical witnesses at close range, but such subjects belong on separate threads.

I apologize to Gee for assisting in a thread hijacking.

Your comments about science are valid to some extent, but there are some old problems in physics that have yet to be resolved. (Perhaps on another thread and different section?) Here, the science we indulge should be related to the question of consciousness, keeping the thread on track. My theories are derived from physics, specifically a combination of classical thermodynamics, QM, and the properties of dark energy. If you feel that these aspects are out of date, well, go ahead and share your opinions with someone who agrees with your foresightful physics instincts, but please do so on a separate thread. So far you're doing a lot of whining and zero contributing. You are capable of contributing, I believe.

I didn't object to your physics, it was the biology and the nonsense claim about the chances of humans based on a model that has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with sophistry, also your endospore thing was also woefully behind the times, exospores and endospores are mechanisms that were explained by natural selection and random mutation at least a decade ago if not longer. The only time I mentioned penrose and hameroff was to say I was once banned from a forum for posting their paper, it was a physics forum.

An I don't think a stage magician is really a good person to be pointing at and saying look he has magic powers really. No offence but if any 10 bob pan handler can do what he does then it's most likely because as has been shown it is just sleight of hand and misdirection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xswt8B8-UTM

this is Derrren Brown a stage enetertainer who seemingly has the power to read peoples minds. He tends to expose the ways in which various so called magic is used to fool people into believing extraordinary things.

He's for example brainwashed people into robbing an armoured truck, beaten 12 grandmasters at chess 7-5 at the same time despite being of no standard whatsoever at chess. He can tell you your pin number for your cash machine card by holding your hand and asking you to think about the number. He doesn't use stooges or camera tricks just hypnotism, reading body language and various other magicians tricks.

He's also correctly predicted the lottery number live and he has also bent spoons, convinced people that they are in an apocalypse event at the end of the world. Made an entire shopping mall put their hands up in the air all at the same time merely by talking to them. Made a person who believed in witch craft and wicca paralysed by using a vodoo doll and tying it with a lock of her hair. The list is fairly extensive.

Made a student believe that he had turned invisible, did the zener card test with 7 or 8 students and never got one wrong and so on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PBiWRu8GV0

The coin trick at the end is really impressive, he is obviously exceptionally good at reading lies.

it's at 3:20 it is a live televised day time program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI5-NDiY7IM

Stephen Fry thinks Derren should be burned as a witch.

[yogisuba]

Awareness of mind and no body
Awareness of body and no mind
Awareness of Awareness and no body or mind -
what R U consciousness?

I cannot see how you exist without a body
nor imagine you without a mind
and yet
when i rest in your presence
you're all that i can find:

Samadhi...

[Arising_uk]

Awareness of mind and no body
Awareness of body and no mind
Awareness of Awareness and no body or mind -
what R U consciousness?

I cannot see how you exist without a body
nor imagine you without a mind
and yet
when i rest in your presence
you're all that i can find:

Samadhi...

That's probably because you've spent a long while learning to ignore the body.

[Arising_uk]

I'm delighted to know about your extensive library of old books by philosophers who failed to solve the consciousness problem. ...

Which "consciousness problem" are you referring too? There's been a bunch. Personally I find no problem with being conscious and why but maybe you find differently?

Good for you! Do you also drive an old used car? Atta-way to save money! Do you treat your body as frugally as you do your mind? If so, according to TV street people, lots of fine, nutritious food with a few bites left can be had from dumpsters behind 4 and 5-star restaurants.

What are you babbling about? Have you read any of those who've been called philosophers?

So, knowledge and insights into a subject you appear to be interested in is not worth 19 bucks. Hey, your choice. Perhaps you are one of those guys whose parents paid for his education, so you don't value it. Suit yourself and stay ignorant.

It said £28 on the site I saw and thats way to much of my hard-earned money given it appears to be yet another author making a 'physics' based religious metaphysic.

We didn't have the education system you have at the time, so no I did not have to pay for it nor ask my parents to pay for it but I did have to work to live whilst studying.

Have you actually read any of those who are called philosophers to see what they've said or are you yet another interweeb gnu pontificating upon a philosophy forum whilst knowing bugger all about whats been said?

And if that's your choice, perhaps you might consider limiting your conversations to like-minded participants who also prefer ignorance over insights. I would prefer to converse with individuals who took the trouble to examine alternative ideas.

Seen and heard many of them over the years, yours sounds much of a much and if I was to waste time with such metaphysics I'd go for Zuze, Fredkin, Wolfram, Bostrum, et al's as I prefer mine up-to-date with the zeitgeist.

Kindly recall that this thread is about consciousness, and contribute accordingly. I'll get my own posts back on track as well. Thanks!

You're the one who brought-up the Geller nonsense as evidence for some kind mind over matter bollocks.

[Greylorn Ell]

Awareness of mind and no body
Awareness of body and no mind
Awareness of Awareness and no body or mind -
what R U consciousness?

I cannot see how you exist without a body
nor imagine you without a mind
and yet
when i rest in your presence
you're all that i can find:

Samadhi...

Yogisuba,

Thank you for this post. It is thoughtful, and quality poetry, encompassing in a few words ideas that I could not have expressed in a thousand words. You'd not have added it to this thread without first understanding the core concept of Gee's OP.

I looked up "samadhi," reminding myself of failed attempts at meditation, which seems not to be for everyone.

If this is copyrighted material please let me know. Else I will use it in next book. Again, thank you!

Greylorn

[uwot]

Awareness of mind and no body
Awareness of body and no mind
Awareness of Awareness and no body or mind -
what R U consciousness?

I cannot see how you exist without a body
nor imagine you without a mind
and yet
when i rest in your presence
you're all that i can find:

Samadhi...

If you empty your 'mind' with meditation, Gregorian chants or whatnot, it can be quite startling to experience just 'being'. Mind you, existence without consciousness is essentially what the existentialists found so nauseating. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to attribute mind to anything that isn't experiencing something.

[Gee]

Well, I enjoyed Yogisuba's prose and thought that it was insightful. Since there are very few members responding to this thread, who have a clue as to what I am trying to discuss, I appreciate all posts that are on target.

Arising_uk;

It is true that many great philosophers have considered and studied consciousness, but it is also true that most of them have had their considerations limited and stymied by the times that they lived in. Even if they had the ability to understand consciousness as we can now, they would never have been able to publish their papers, because in order to truly understand consciousness, one has to be able to cross over from science to philosophy to religion. This would not have been allowed in the last few thousand years in Western philosophy. Eastern philosophy has long ago combined the ideas of philosophy and religion in the study of consciousness, so it is ahead of the game.

I very much enjoy talking to Greylorn about consciousness for three very important reasons;

1. He does not participate in the Science v Religion games.
2. I do not have to convince him that the paranormal/supernatural exists.
3. He realizes that at least some aspects of consciousness are physical and real.

If you add to this the idea that he seems to be intelligent, has a sense of humor, and writes well, then it is like icing on the cake.

If you could recommend any philosophers, who meet with my three requirements, then I will look them up.

G

[uwot]

Well, I enjoyed Yogisuba's prose and thought that it was insightful. Since there are very few members responding to this thread, who have a clue as to what I am trying to discuss, I appreciate all posts that are on target.

Pure consciousness, presumably. The problem I have with that is that I am not pure consciousness, or if I am, I have these peculiar sensations of having a body. It also seems that all the information I have about anything other than myself is apprehended by sensory organs that are part of that body. The most plausible explanation for those sensations is that they reflect reality; more to the point, there is no good reason to suppose they don't. Any information I obtain about pure consciousness, therefore, is mediated through my impure consciousness and there is no way of telling whether the sensations are external, or my own corrupted consciousness playing tricks on me.

It is true that many great philosophers have considered and studied consciousness, but it is also true that most of them have had their considerations limited and stymied by the times that they lived in. Even if they had the ability to understand consciousness as we can now, they would never have been able to publish their papers, because in order to truly understand consciousness, one has to be able to cross over from science to philosophy to religion. This would not have been allowed in the last few thousand years in Western philosophy.

This is nonsense. As Alfred North Whitehead said: "The safest general characterization of the philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." That is hardly to philosophy's credit, but there is some truth in it. Plato was struck by Socrates emphasis on the role of philosophy in guiding lifestyle. Unlike the Pre-Socratics, Socrates was only interested in the world as the place his 'soul' happened to inhabit at the time. If you are interested, you should read the Phaedo http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html

Eastern philosophy has long ago combined the ideas of philosophy and religion in the study of consciousness, so it is ahead of the game.

If you trouble yourself with a bit of western philosophy, you will discover that that is not true.

I very much enjoy talking to Greylorn about consciousness for three very important reasons;

1. He does not participate in the Science v Religion games.
2. I do not have to convince him that the paranormal/supernatural exists.
3. He realizes that at least some aspects of consciousness are physical and real.

If you add to this the idea that he seems to be intelligent, has a sense of humor, and writes well, then it is like icing on the cake.

So have you stumped up the cash for his book?

If you could recommend any philosophers, who meet with my three requirements, then I will look them up.

Well, once you've finished the Phaedo, Rene Descartes would be a good place to continue, but frankly most of the philosophers you will have heard of fit your criteria. The most obvious exception is Hume, but if you are serious about philosophy, you really can't ignore him.

[Blaggard]

Awareness of mind and no body
Awareness of body and no mind
Awareness of Awareness and no body or mind -
what R U consciousness?

I cannot see how you exist without a body
nor imagine you without a mind
and yet
when i rest in your presence
you're all that i can find:

Samadhi...

That's probably because you've spent a long while learning to ignore the body.

It's start but a lot of people have clearly ignored the mind too, hence why threads like this exist. Waffle is the new bullshit.

[Blaggard]

Well, I enjoyed Yogisuba's prose and thought that it was insightful. Since there are very few members responding to this thread, who have a clue as to what I am trying to discuss, I appreciate all posts that are on target.

Arising_uk;

It is true that many great philosophers have considered and studied consciousness, but it is also true that most of them have had their considerations limited and stymied by the times that they lived in. Even if they had the ability to understand consciousness as we can now, they would never have been able to publish their papers, because in order to truly understand consciousness, one has to be able to cross over from science to philosophy to religion. This would not have been allowed in the last few thousand years in Western philosophy. Eastern philosophy has long ago combined the ideas of philosophy and religion in the study of consciousness, so it is ahead of the game.

I very much enjoy talking to Greylorn about consciousness for three very important reasons;

1. He does not participate in the Science v Religion games.
2. I do not have to convince him that the paranormal/supernatural exists.
3. He realizes that at least some aspects of consciousness are physical and real.

If you add to this the idea that he seems to be intelligent, has a sense of humor, and writes well, then it is like icing on the cake.

If you could recommend any philosophers, who meet with my three requirements, then I will look them up.

G

Anyone and absolutely anyone I mean who is not Greyhorn Ell, Spinoza, Schopenhaur, Nietzsche, Kant, Socrates, Descartes, Camus, Sartre, Hume, that guy with the Wittgenstein complex, bernhardenstein I forget the name: the list is endless. They at least did or do make sense.

No offence but that guy is not a philosopher and you should not listen to his nonsense. That said if you want to indulge him then fine, but he's not anywhere near what logic is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r6NY4Kl8Ms

Ooooh it's Bertrand Russel. I knew I knew who he was, but couldn't remember his logical theses. I should really he formalised logic and is responsible for mathematical logic notation, which has provided us at least with the means to see if it is, or is not Numberwang.

It is of course Numberwang unless it's ninety that number is just wrong.

Convincing people you like who share your ideals, opinions and pretty much your whole world view is an exercise in ononism. But hey it's you're mind you do as you want. Just don't involve more logical people in the whole, I am right you are wrong game we like to call numberwang.

Bertrand Russel

""

Silent in 1952.

[yogisuba]

That's probably because you've spent a long while learning to ignore the body.

Blessings,

While i have spent many years meditating, the truth of the matter is, we have these experiences all the time. We can be completely absorbed in thought to the point where all our senses are forgotten, the pains of the body disappear, etc... Be this thought spiritual, scientific, or just plain ole' obsession. In the same way, we can be so enraptured with the sense experiences that thought disappears. Be this some visual experiences, the sounds of beautiful music, or an orgasm. In both cases the flashlight beam of awareness brings us so closely to our chosen focus, that everything else is left out: even out of the periphery.

As for Samadhi, in my experience, when we continue to rest our attention on some one thing/experience/etc... we start to meld/fall/morph/or whatever appropriate word we can use to describe the experience of the subject (meditator) and object (focus) disappearing. There is just this experience of being without reference point. It lasts only a moment in my experience, but it seems to be something that we can familiarize ourselves with and practice to lengthen in duration.

One thing is for certain, upon coming back to my body/mind, i am unbound-fully-joyful and want nothing else but to somehow abide in that state, if state is what we call it?

Bringing this all back to Gee's original thought, i wonder if consciousness could be tainted/impure? Is it like water, where it can be clouded like a muddled mind, agitated like a frazzled one, and so on. The Eastern Tradition has a nice bucket analogy that goes along with this line of thought. Or is it more like energy, which, while not taintable, at least, as far as i understand energy, it is merely channeled, used, and experienced via the system/packet/particle from which it is connected/associated/partook/etc. in/with? (i have a really hard time finding the right words because each word used often shines light upon the subject in a different way, that while one word cannot encompass the whole of the subject matter, it does participate in helping us understand the subject. In saying, please forgive me if i slash words together in the hopes of capturing more of what i am thinking:)

In a nutshell, my personal belief/thought/opinion and feeling/intuition is that consciousness cannot, in anyway, be impure - it just is whatever the heck it is. For instance, the crystal analogy seems to draw this out. Lets for fun sake say that a crystal is analogous to consciousness, and no matter how many colored pieces of fabric or lights are placed under it or shown through it, the crystal never changes even though it appears to take on the color as itself. To complicate things a little bit, i believe consciousness is experienced in degrees, not because consciousness is gradient-ed, but because of the capacity and complexity of the object/organism/or whatever you want to call it. This belief of course does not include the different facets/aspects/domains/dimensions/etc. of consciousness, that's a completely different subject to discuss. To continue the crystal analogy, the capacity and complexity of the whatever (for no better word), is more like a smearing/dusting of the crystal faces. While it does not directly change consciousness, it does impact the whatever's ability to experience the fullness/pureness of consciousness. In other words, depending on the capacity/complexity of whatever will determine not only its level/depth/breath of experience, but also its degrees of consciousness. So while an elemental particle will not have any sense of self, it does have preference, in that, it is attracted to some things, repulsed from others, and indifferent to one or the other given different circumstances and environmental factors. Moving on up the evolutionary chain we get distinct feelings and experiences, degrees of environmental awareness, variety of personality traits, self-consciousness, mystical experiences of consciousness colored by a person's beliefs, and, what some believe to be the pinnacle of conscious experience, the pure experience of consciousness uncolored by sensory experiences or thought/memory/etc.

Blessings Be...

[Greylorn Ell]

Awareness of mind and no body
Awareness of body and no mind
Awareness of Awareness and no body or mind -
what R U consciousness?

I cannot see how you exist without a body
nor imagine you without a mind
and yet
when i rest in your presence
you're all that i can find:

Samadhi...

If you empty your 'mind' with meditation, Gregorian chants or whatnot, it can be quite startling to experience just 'being'. Mind you, existence without consciousness is essentially what the existentialists found so nauseating. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to attribute mind to anything that isn't experiencing something.

How about attributing mind to something that has experienced lots of things, and is taking a momentary break to experience itself?