Re: Pure Consciousness?
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:07 am
Greylorn;
Agreed. Although they are sometimes hard to find, they are worth the effort.
The study of consciousness is extremely challenging, partially because the subject matter itself is so elusive, but also because it has been studied by so many for so long. People have attached ideas, symbols, and words to their interpretations of consciousness, so it is very easy to trigger these ideas and end up with a misunderstanding. I try hard to avoid this and have learned to not use the word "soul" unless I am very careful, I put "God" in parenthesis, and do not use the word "theory" because it makes the science types crazy. (chuckle) I am also very careful to state that I "suspect", "believe", "think", or "know" something, depending upon the degree of confidence that I have in whatever I am saying. But I have a long history of working in law, and law is very dependent upon words, so I know to be careful of how I express my thoughts.
You and I, both, have taken ideas from science, religions, philosophy, personal experience, and personal paranormal experiences to evaluate the truths and illusions of consciousness. So we have terminology from all of these divisions making it very easy to be misunderstood. This is why I started to use the water metaphor, as it is neutral as to science and religion, yet water seems to share properties with consciousness. I suspect that your editor had no clue as to the complications terminology presents to the study of consciousness.
No you wouldn't; you would be irritated. I read two or three pages, then think two or three days. If there are no more funerals, at this rate I will finish the book sometime next year. I have MS. I move slowly. I sleep a lot. And I always think about new ideas slowly and thoroughly.
Almost 50 years ago, I realized that I had a connection to some people. If certain people called me in their minds, I would respond, and vise-versa. But if that person was thousands of miles away, then what medium did the information travel through? Why didn't all of the people in between get the message? Or did they and they just didn't understand it? So I started out with a simple idea that something like radio waves traveled between people -- the more I learned, the more complex it got.
I would say that language is the digital representation of analog "knowledge", not thought. I am not sure that it is actually thought before it is digitized. Knowledge comes to us through our senses, including the sense of awareness, but is not actually known to us until it is digitized. (I like that word, digitized.) After being digitized, we call it conscious thought.
This is something that psychology teaches us. If you remember the post that I wrote on my husband's death, you may remember that I habitually "report" to myself any events that are emotional so that I will have a more accurate (stable) memory of the event. If I had not done this, I would have no way of knowing that there were two images of my husband. The first image from that night would have been forever lost and forgotten. Psychology explains that emotion can corrupt knowledge over time, and I personally believe that emotion is a stronger form of awareness. Because emotion is so much stronger, it gives us too much information to absorb, so we store it in the sub/unconscious mind. Our minds then take their time "digitizing" the information and eventually show us what corruption they came up with. I think this is the source of a lot of anthropomorphism.
You are more ambitious than I am. Good luck with that. I would be happy with just disposing of some of the nonsense and getting people to see that it can eventually be cracked.
But I do not agree with the six months into pregnancy idea, and wonder how you came up with that very arbitrary idea. Do you assume that a six month pregnancy can produce a viable human, so it is when a human begins consciousness, much like the jurists in the "Roe v Wade" case? Or do you have some other reason? After considering some of Dr. Ian Stevenson's research and what psychology states, I very much doubt your six month concept.
I like the word "persistence". So "persistent" means stubborn, but also flexible. It sounds a lot better than just stubborn. (chuckle) So I am not stubborn, I am persistent.
You have made some very good points. Do I have to remember and list them?
We are all a little nucking futs in our own special ways.
The most valuable thing about Dr. Stevenson is that he is credible, so he is a good reference. His research has been peer reviewed, his methodology investigated and found impeccable, and people that he dealt with or was interviewed by found him to have a high degree of integrity. Of course, people in the West don't want to believe his findings, so there have been a lot of naysayers, but no one has been able to disprove his findings or explain them as being anything other than what was presented.
If you went to his website at the University of Virginia, you found that he not only studied reincarnation, but also out-of-body experiences where he provides evidence for this concept, and near death studies. I think that his site was the first to inform me that near death experiences are not always "nice"; some are really quite terrifying.
There is a tremendous amount of information at his site, and the more one thinks about it, the more complex consciousness becomes.
G
Greylorn Ell wrote:Dealing with people who think can be briefly humbling and often challenging, but is consistently rewarding.
Agreed. Although they are sometimes hard to find, they are worth the effort.
I was referring to your demands that people stop implying that you are on a "religious" hunt for converts. You inadvertently led them to that conclusion, so your demands are unreasonable.Greylorn Ell wrote:Of all the bad and wrong things I've been justifiably accused of, this is the first appearance of unreasonable demands. Would you mind enumerating some specific demands?Gee wrote: Your demands are unreasonable.
The study of consciousness is extremely challenging, partially because the subject matter itself is so elusive, but also because it has been studied by so many for so long. People have attached ideas, symbols, and words to their interpretations of consciousness, so it is very easy to trigger these ideas and end up with a misunderstanding. I try hard to avoid this and have learned to not use the word "soul" unless I am very careful, I put "God" in parenthesis, and do not use the word "theory" because it makes the science types crazy. (chuckle) I am also very careful to state that I "suspect", "believe", "think", or "know" something, depending upon the degree of confidence that I have in whatever I am saying. But I have a long history of working in law, and law is very dependent upon words, so I know to be careful of how I express my thoughts.
You and I, both, have taken ideas from science, religions, philosophy, personal experience, and personal paranormal experiences to evaluate the truths and illusions of consciousness. So we have terminology from all of these divisions making it very easy to be misunderstood. This is why I started to use the water metaphor, as it is neutral as to science and religion, yet water seems to share properties with consciousness. I suspect that your editor had no clue as to the complications terminology presents to the study of consciousness.
I don't think that any analogy is perfect, but the purpose of an analogy is to cause understanding, and your bucket analogy is very good. I will use it often in my considerations and understandings of consciousness.Greylorn Ell wrote:I hope that I also mentioned that the analogy is imperfect, because at the molecular level the water consists of a finite number of molecules. Theoretically an apparatus can be devised to count them, but in practice a reasonably approximate count can be calculated by weighing the bucket. I'm delighted that you understand the analogy as it was intended.
Greylorn Ell wrote:We appear to have entirely different takes on nitty-gritty components of consciousness. I'd find it helpful to know what chapter you've finished.
No you wouldn't; you would be irritated. I read two or three pages, then think two or three days. If there are no more funerals, at this rate I will finish the book sometime next year. I have MS. I move slowly. I sleep a lot. And I always think about new ideas slowly and thoroughly.
Well, I don't know if I can, as I am still trying to understand them. Every time I think that I have some organized idea, my understanding has to expand in lieu of new information. I suspect that the physical material reality that we study is no more than half of reality, and that the nonmaterial physical reality of consciousness is just as complex as the material reality, and it works in and with the material reality. Consider that in your bucket analogy, water can carry sand just as awareness carries knowledge, but sand can contain and hold water just as our bodies hold consciousness. Can knowledge (sand) hold and contain awareness (water)? Does it work both ways?Greylorn Ell wrote:I noted long ago that I was looking forward to your read, because you have explored consciousness from an entirely different perspective than mine. I'm hoping that in time you will be able to detail your concepts that I might better understand them.
Almost 50 years ago, I realized that I had a connection to some people. If certain people called me in their minds, I would respond, and vise-versa. But if that person was thousands of miles away, then what medium did the information travel through? Why didn't all of the people in between get the message? Or did they and they just didn't understand it? So I started out with a simple idea that something like radio waves traveled between people -- the more I learned, the more complex it got.
The above explanation helps me to understand consciousness better. This is one of the reasons for my interest in your book. Another is that I don't understand out-of-body experiences. Another is that I don't understand how the "raw awareness" that seems to be part of the universe coalesces into a singular "mind". There seems to be at least two types of consciousness in the universe, one which is raw and natural (prelife), the other which is processed (life and post life), and probably more.Greylorn Ell wrote:We are not ready for a full discussion yet, but I must correct some of your notions about Beon Theory. Remember, I approach the subject in terms of mechanisms first. The brain is clearly digitized, in that its neurons, axons, and connections are finite and theoretically countable at any given point in time.
However, the flow of electricity through any digital device produces extraneous analog signals. An improperly shielded digital computer will interfere with an analog TV set. The brain's extraneous analog signals (brain waves) can be picked up by detectors placed at the skull's surface.
Some neurological research has demonstrated that analog signals within the brain can carry information, and are therefore not extraneous. Beon Theory proposes that beon is a completely analog kind of entity, operating in the conventional physical universe via waves and fields-- the analog components of our atomically digitized universe.
This is the idea behind my belief that computers are not conscious. They only possess the contents of the "sand bucket". Life possesses both. Of course, we now know that many other species possess language, so they have the ability to digitize thought.Greylorn Ell wrote:I understand what you mean by the digitization of thoughts via language. This is an interesting and valid perspective that had not occurred to me.
It fits rather nicely into my perspectives about the digitization of the physical universe, in this sense.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Information that is transferred in waves of energy (or anything else) tends to be more easily interfered with and distorted than digitized information, especially when the wave energy is low, as it is for human thought. Digitization, or digital encoding of information, renders the information more stable.
Language, then, is the digital representation of analog thought. That is why we must express new ideas with words, images, or mathematics to prevent them from returning to the aether, forever lost, and to convey them to others.
I would say that language is the digital representation of analog "knowledge", not thought. I am not sure that it is actually thought before it is digitized. Knowledge comes to us through our senses, including the sense of awareness, but is not actually known to us until it is digitized. (I like that word, digitized.) After being digitized, we call it conscious thought.
This is something that psychology teaches us. If you remember the post that I wrote on my husband's death, you may remember that I habitually "report" to myself any events that are emotional so that I will have a more accurate (stable) memory of the event. If I had not done this, I would have no way of knowing that there were two images of my husband. The first image from that night would have been forever lost and forgotten. Psychology explains that emotion can corrupt knowledge over time, and I personally believe that emotion is a stronger form of awareness. Because emotion is so much stronger, it gives us too much information to absorb, so we store it in the sub/unconscious mind. Our minds then take their time "digitizing" the information and eventually show us what corruption they came up with. I think this is the source of a lot of anthropomorphism.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I was intent on inviting you to read DUAS because of your intense interest and insights into the nature of consciousness. Making the connections between consciousness and thermodynamics might be a few miles down the road, but your curiosity could make it happen, and your anticipated insights have already made their first appearance. With contributions from interested others we can crack the mystery of consciousness.
You are more ambitious than I am. Good luck with that. I would be happy with just disposing of some of the nonsense and getting people to see that it can eventually be cracked.
I apologize. I know better than to use an inadequate term and stand corrected in my use of the term "attach". It does sound kind of sci-fi, doesn't it? I normally state that consciousness is drawn to or activated by life.Greylorn Ell wrote:Beon does not naturally attach to a human . . .
B.T. proposes that the human brain contains circuitry that attracts beon about six months into pregnancy, and maintains that connection until it dies or can no longer abide the connections, resulting in some forms of madness.
But I do not agree with the six months into pregnancy idea, and wonder how you came up with that very arbitrary idea. Do you assume that a six month pregnancy can produce a viable human, so it is when a human begins consciousness, much like the jurists in the "Roe v Wade" case? Or do you have some other reason? After considering some of Dr. Ian Stevenson's research and what psychology states, I very much doubt your six month concept.
So did I, which is why I remember it. I use it to remind me that any idea I have must be backed up by evidence, or doubted.Greylorn Ell wrote:I recall that riddle, and failed to solve it.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I am as influenced by preconditioned bias as anyone else who has a brain. If I differ from others in any functional respect, it is in terms of persistence.
But when logic or evidence shows my positions to be false, I abandon them immediately.
I like the word "persistence". So "persistent" means stubborn, but also flexible. It sounds a lot better than just stubborn. (chuckle) So I am not stubborn, I am persistent.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I've been in many arguments. Noticed that after I won an argument, I was never acknowledged for having done so., or even for making a good point.
You have made some very good points. Do I have to remember and list them?
Greylorn Ell wrote:I do not understand people. Are 97% of them really that nuts?
We are all a little nucking futs in our own special ways.
Greylorn Ell wrote:BTW I neglected to follow up on Stevenson when you mentioned him some 20 pages back, but checked him out today. Fascinating! Had I known of his research it would have been referenced in DUAS. It will be referenced in my rewrite.
The most valuable thing about Dr. Stevenson is that he is credible, so he is a good reference. His research has been peer reviewed, his methodology investigated and found impeccable, and people that he dealt with or was interviewed by found him to have a high degree of integrity. Of course, people in the West don't want to believe his findings, so there have been a lot of naysayers, but no one has been able to disprove his findings or explain them as being anything other than what was presented.
If you went to his website at the University of Virginia, you found that he not only studied reincarnation, but also out-of-body experiences where he provides evidence for this concept, and near death studies. I think that his site was the first to inform me that near death experiences are not always "nice"; some are really quite terrifying.
There is a tremendous amount of information at his site, and the more one thinks about it, the more complex consciousness becomes.
chuckle chuckleGreylorn Ell wrote:"Most?"Gee wrote:You are light years ahead of most.
G