Consciousness....a careful step by step analysis....

[Scott Mayers]

I am going to attempt to explain what this with clarity but need to begin in steps that hopefully involve others willing to participate and 'agree' (or 'disagree') to some minimal facts regarding the description of the phenomena.

All "conscious" experience involves the following:

(1) A physical organ, namely the brain that originates and is minimally necessary for this phenomena. "Physical organ", as a more general term will be used if comparing these effects to other things, like possibly the heart or some computer. I will use "brain" here more specifically here as minimal but reserve the general term, "physical organ" or "organ" IF we discuss whether this phenemona goes beyond our own brain.

(2) Discrete atomic (cellular) structures, of which the core units of control are called "neurons", and includes any and all necessary supporting substructures that coincide with EACH cell. This description is only meant to safely describe the nature of the brain to require discrete units in which the collection of these make up the structural foundation of the brain that causes consciousness. This will also be helpful to reference 'atomic units' for other beings that we may possibly determine is or is not 'conscious'. I will use 'neurons' to substitute for these units that include the supporting organelles. The more general term, "atomic units" can be used where it describes the same effects elsewhere but may be controversial to assume as 'conscious' by default. I will be using things like "CPU" as an analogy at times and this would be referred to as an 'atomic unit' in just such a generic way. But it does not require meaning that CPUs are actually 'conscious' unless we could somehow prove or disprovce that later.

(3) The phenomena of consciousness is not the ONLY function of the same structure. It is only one STATE of two or more states of the brain or its neurons. This means that we are not always conscious, such as being asleep, or that we have degrees of awareness in which we are more or less aware of being conscious at different times. This is important to differentiate between other organs that may be understood as having states that are strictly always 'on' or 'off'. This may be unnecessary for conscious states to exist in other things but is minimally essential for clarifying our human idea of experiencing consciousness as opposed to whether a computer may be 'conscious' like we are. All we at least could agree to minimally is that we have consciousness but cannot 'feel' others things, including other humans NORMALLY. If we DO, we need 'proof' that is relative to our own conscious states and or to any extended rationale that is logically valid and sound to our independent minds to conceive.

(4) The sensation of consciousness as one is made up of multiple sensations sensed apparently simultaneously. This feature of consciousness is what makes it seem so confusing when for all other things in life, we do not. To help describe this, we have two words from quantum mechanics that is useful. You don't have to agree to the particular quantum mechanics theories to agree to these. The first of the two is "superposition", which means that multiple events occur at the same PLACE or 'position' at the same TIME; the second is "entanglement", which means that things in distinctly different PLACES feels or appears simultaeously in TIME. Both are apparent by differnt perspectives. If we are interpreting conscious as 'one' thing in one particular location, then the input senses are in a 'superposition' of that one place; if we are interpreting multiple distinct places, like two or more distinct atomic units (neurons) as being felt at the same time, this is an 'entanglement' of different places, and thus, distinct things in these different places are felt as though it were one thing. Since we are just describing this phenomena for now, both are relevant descriptors even though maybe only one or neither of them may be possibly true.

Before going on, I need to determine if anyone else here agrees to these minimal facts. If I don't get common agreement, I don't have much further use for being here at all and so need this to decide whether I will invest beyond this opening statement, and likely this site altogether.

So, do you "agree" so far?

[Age]

The word 'conscious' can be just in relation to 'awareness', itself.

So, the word 'consciousness' can just mean, or refer to, 'being aware'.

'Matter' combined together into forms known as animals can be 'conscious', or just 'aware', of 'things'.

Animals have senses, and brains. The senses carry 'information' to the brain, where that 'information' is gathered and stored.

Animals have varying lengths of being able to 'recall' the stored 'information' in the brain.

The animal known as 'the human being' is just continually evolving into 'becoming' more and more 'aware', or 'conscious'.

WHEN a 'human being' KNOWS "its" 'Self', then that one has, literally, reached 'Consciousness', It Self.

By the way, 'careful' is a very relative term and word.

[Scott Mayers]

The word 'conscious' can be just in relation to 'awareness', itself.

So, the word 'consciousness' can just mean, or refer to, 'being aware'.

'Matter' combined together into forms known as animals can be 'conscious', or just 'aware', of 'things'.

Animals have senses, and brains. The senses carry 'information' to the brain, where that 'information' is gathered and stored.

Animals have varying lengths of being able to 'recall' the stored 'information' in the brain.

The animal known as 'the human being' is just continually evolving into 'becoming' more and more 'aware', or 'conscious'.

WHEN a 'human being' KNOWS "its" 'Self', then that one has, literally, reached 'Consciousness', It Self.

By the way, 'careful' is a very relative term and word.

So, is this an agreement, a disagreement, or neither?

Being 'formless' may appeal to whatever image you want to portray yourself as on this site. But I am looking for clarity of agreement or disagreement of what I've been clear to define above or I am not interested in your disapproval of me nor my selected choice of definitions.

[henry quirk]

Scott,

A physical organ, namely the brain that originates and is minimally necessary for this phenomena.

The brain appears necessary, but there's evidence the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness (mind), so -- no -- I don't agree.

Discrete atomic (cellular) structures, of which the core units of control are called "neurons", and includes any and all necessary supporting substructures that coincide with EACH cell.

Yes, the brain is complex, and appears necessary for consciousness. But this is not the same as sayin' the brain is the source or the sole source of consciousness.

The phenomena of consciousness is not the ONLY function of the same structure. It is only one STATE of two or more states of the brain or its neurons.

The brain obviously has multiple functions: regulation and oversight for the body and bein' the interface between mind and body (or receptacle for mind in the body).

The sensation of consciousness as one is made up of multiple sensations sensed apparently simultaneously.

The same evidence suggestin' the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness also suggests mind is unitary and has no subsets or parts.

So, do you "agree" so far?

With your central thesis? No.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott,

A physical organ, namely the brain that originates and is minimally necessary for this phenomena.

The brain appears necessary, but there's evidence the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness (mind), so -- no -- I don't agree.

I do not follow your criticism at all. I proposed that the brain is 'necessary' and you seem to agree but then assert that it is not the 'sole' source as though you've just ADDED an extra postulate to what I said. These are 'minimums' here. Thus the brain is necessary AT MINIMAL. Thus, although I disagree with whatever likely religious idea of 'soul' you are implying coexists dualistically, I did not state that these are maximum properties, thus allowing at least for your extended interpretations.

Note that 'soul' and 'sole' are correlated from the meaning 'single'. As such, the Cartesian belief in dualism interprets the soul as the single controller of the mind where the physical properties were unknown to him the way we do today, and he treated the brain as unessential for consciousness. That is, the brain is thought of in that kind of dualism to be just a mere secondary function to consciousness (a 'soul') as though consciousness is eternal but temporarily linked to physical reality via the brain it was just an interpreter.

Discrete atomic (cellular) structures, of which the core units of control are called "neurons", and includes any and all necessary supporting substructures that coincide with EACH cell.

Yes, the brain is complex, and appears necessary for consciousness. But this is not the same as sayin' the brain is the source or the sole source of consciousness.

If you are proposing consciousness coincides with the physical brain (as I did) you'd notice that the distinction of being conscious and the brain are non-existent. Thus, without the brain, do you hold that consciousness persists? And if so, how or why would this be the appropriate means to begin an investigation? Begging that consciousness is absolutely distinct and non-dependent locks out any rational explanation and would certainly be non-analyzable.

Are you just not being biased to some religious interpretation?

The phenomena of consciousness is not the ONLY function of the same structure. It is only one STATE of two or more states of the brain or its neurons.

The brain obviously has multiple functions: regulation and oversight for the body and bein' the interface between mind and body (or receptacle for mind in the body).

I meant that there is at least a distinct phase where the neuron is functioning as a communicator (the awoke state) versus a non-communicating phase. Cells need a down time to take any possible temporal markers regarding its communicating activity during conscious time to hard-wire its structure for the next wakened period. That is why sleep is needed, it turns the relatively soft or short-term memory into hard or long-term memory.

But given that requires knowing about cellular biology in general and neurology in particular, I reduced this to simply what we all experience: a clearly conscious state of being awake versus some state of unconsciousness. It can have more than these two. But I am seeking what any person can infer from their own perspective with the least education necessary.

The sensation of consciousness as one is made up of multiple sensations sensed apparently simultaneously.

The same evidence suggestin' the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness also suggests mind is unitary and has no subsets or parts.

So, do you "agree" so far?

With your central thesis? No.

I have yet to propose any thesis above, only THAT I want to propose one. I am laying out what is minimally shared regardless of whether one is religious or not. Whatever I might propose later may have other possible theses that also fit with these minimals.

You also missed my meaning about consciousness having multiple sensations occuring simultaneously AND suggested something I can't make sense of: how you proposed that a multiple source of consciousness is identical in meaning to a single source.(?)

To give you an example, we can hear out of two distinct ears, see out of two distinct eyes, and sense an unknown multitude of contact-related sensese, like touch and taste senses. Then we also have thought-based inputs, like inputs from internal memory sources of the brain, ...our memory. Thus, we experience multiple sense data from distinctly different sources as though they are one whole complex sensation. The question is how, not THAT it occurs. Are you just not understanding the way I expressed it?

If you are hostile towards me by any chance and not necessarily in disagreement, this intended effort to TRY to find common ground will not work. Like I said above, I am not likely going to stick around if I cannot get any cooperative interaction here. I feel like I'm wasting my time in forums when no one seems to have any flexibility and/or that I'm being interpreted in some derogatory way that I have no hope of improving upon. I gave my charity to others here where it only fostered dissent....by even those I was supporting. [...like how you might step into defending some innocent person from being beaten only to have him/her make it out that your interference is somehow worse.] So I'm kind of at a dead end here if I can't get some sincerity here for trying.

[henry quirk]

Scott,

I do not follow your criticism at all.

What's not to get? You say consciousness originates in the brain; I say there's evidence to suggest this is not so. You say the brain is (minimally) necessary for consciousness; I agree.

Seems pretty straight forward.

If you are hostile towards me

I'm not. I just don't agree with you. We can talk about why I disagree with you, if you like.

[Walker]

OP

1. Yes. Access to consciousness requires a form. A plant form, and a human form, access portions of the same one and only consciousness, according to the sophistication of each form. For instance, both plant form and human form access certain basics concerning the surroundings: heat consciousness, cold consciousness, light consciousness, dark consciousness, humidity consciousness, and probably other elements of the situation. But yes, access to consciousness requires a form.

2. Far out. These are particulars about the workings of the human form that accesses a portion of the one consciousness that all living things access, since in addition to consciousness requiring form, life also requires form.

3. States of consciousness make various portions of the singular consciousness accessible by the same life form, and this can be affected by the natural workings of the form. For example, it’s easy to assume that a plant has but one state of consciousness. We know from experience that people have various states of consciousness that filter perception of reality, which is another way of saying that the complexity of any particular form affects the portion size and taste of the one, total consciousness that is accessed by all life.

4. Far out.


I’m interested, and agreeable. Just wanted to note some observations without blabbing too much detail that might distract from your presentation.

[bahman]

I am going to attempt to explain what this with clarity but need to begin in steps that hopefully involve others willing to participate and 'agree' (or 'disagree') to some minimal facts regarding the description of the phenomena.

All "conscious" experience involves the following:

(1) A physical organ, namely the brain that originates and is minimally necessary for this phenomena. "Physical organ", as a more general term will be used if comparing these effects to other things, like possibly the heart or some computer. I will use "brain" here more specifically here as minimal but reserve the general term, "physical organ" or "organ" IF we discuss whether this phenemona goes beyond our own brain.

(2) Discrete atomic (cellular) structures, of which the core units of control are called "neurons", and includes any and all necessary supporting substructures that coincide with EACH cell. This description is only meant to safely describe the nature of the brain to require discrete units in which the collection of these make up the structural foundation of the brain that causes consciousness. This will also be helpful to reference 'atomic units' for other beings that we may possibly determine is or is not 'conscious'. I will use 'neurons' to substitute for these units that include the supporting organelles. The more general term, "atomic units" can be used where it describes the same effects elsewhere but may be controversial to assume as 'conscious' by default. I will be using things like "CPU" as an analogy at times and this would be referred to as an 'atomic unit' in just such a generic way. But it does not require meaning that CPUs are actually 'conscious' unless we could somehow prove or disprovce that later.

(3) The phenomena of consciousness is not the ONLY function of the same structure. It is only one STATE of two or more states of the brain or its neurons. This means that we are not always conscious, such as being asleep, or that we have degrees of awareness in which we are more or less aware of being conscious at different times. This is important to differentiate between other organs that may be understood as having states that are strictly always 'on' or 'off'. This may be unnecessary for conscious states to exist in other things but is minimally essential for clarifying our human idea of experiencing consciousness as opposed to whether a computer may be 'conscious' like we are. All we at least could agree to minimally is that we have consciousness but cannot 'feel' others things, including other humans NORMALLY. If we DO, we need 'proof' that is relative to our own conscious states and or to any extended rationale that is logically valid and sound to our independent minds to conceive.

(4) The sensation of consciousness as one is made up of multiple sensations sensed apparently simultaneously. This feature of consciousness is what makes it seem so confusing when for all other things in life, we do not. To help describe this, we have two words from quantum mechanics that is useful. You don't have to agree to the particular quantum mechanics theories to agree to these. The first of the two is "superposition", which means that multiple events occur at the same PLACE or 'position' at the same TIME; the second is "entanglement", which means that things in distinctly different PLACES feels or appears simultaeously in TIME. Both are apparent by differnt perspectives. If we are interpreting conscious as 'one' thing in one particular location, then the input senses are in a 'superposition' of that one place; if we are interpreting multiple distinct places, like two or more distinct atomic units (neurons) as being felt at the same time, this is an 'entanglement' of different places, and thus, distinct things in these different places are felt as though it were one thing. Since we are just describing this phenomena for now, both are relevant descriptors even though maybe only one or neither of them may be possibly true.

Before going on, I need to determine if anyone else here agrees to these minimal facts. If I don't get common agreement, I don't have much further use for being here at all and so need this to decide whether I will invest beyond this opening statement, and likely this site altogether.

So, do you "agree" so far?

What is needed for experience is qualia which are generated by other minds. Mind itself experiences qualia without any intervention. The brain is a set of minds in which they produce appropriate qualia.

[Age]

The word 'conscious' can be just in relation to 'awareness', itself.

So, the word 'consciousness' can just mean, or refer to, 'being aware'.

'Matter' combined together into forms known as animals can be 'conscious', or just 'aware', of 'things'.

Animals have senses, and brains. The senses carry 'information' to the brain, where that 'information' is gathered and stored.

Animals have varying lengths of being able to 'recall' the stored 'information' in the brain.

The animal known as 'the human being' is just continually evolving into 'becoming' more and more 'aware', or 'conscious'.

WHEN a 'human being' KNOWS "its" 'Self', then that one has, literally, reached 'Consciousness', It Self.

By the way, 'careful' is a very relative term and word.

So, is this an agreement, a disagreement, or neither?

Do 'you' SEE 'this' as agreement, disagreement, or neither?

Being 'formless' may appeal to whatever image you want to portray yourself as on this site.

I NEVER used the 'formless' word. AND, I ALSO have NO idea WHY 'you' are USING that word here now for.

But I am looking for clarity of agreement or disagreement of what I've been clear to define above or I am not interested in your disapproval of me nor my selected choice of definitions.

But I am NOT 'disapproving' of 'you' NOR of YOUR selected choice of definitions.

And, again, do 'you' SEE 'disagreement' or 'agreement' here?

[Age]

I am going to attempt to explain what this with clarity but need to begin in steps that hopefully involve others willing to participate and 'agree' (or 'disagree') to some minimal facts regarding the description of the phenomena.

All "conscious" experience involves the following:

(1) A physical organ, namely the brain that originates and is minimally necessary for this phenomena. "Physical organ", as a more general term will be used if comparing these effects to other things, like possibly the heart or some computer. I will use "brain" here more specifically here as minimal but reserve the general term, "physical organ" or "organ" IF we discuss whether this phenemona goes beyond our own brain.

(2) Discrete atomic (cellular) structures, of which the core units of control are called "neurons", and includes any and all necessary supporting substructures that coincide with EACH cell. This description is only meant to safely describe the nature of the brain to require discrete units in which the collection of these make up the structural foundation of the brain that causes consciousness. This will also be helpful to reference 'atomic units' for other beings that we may possibly determine is or is not 'conscious'. I will use 'neurons' to substitute for these units that include the supporting organelles. The more general term, "atomic units" can be used where it describes the same effects elsewhere but may be controversial to assume as 'conscious' by default. I will be using things like "CPU" as an analogy at times and this would be referred to as an 'atomic unit' in just such a generic way. But it does not require meaning that CPUs are actually 'conscious' unless we could somehow prove or disprovce that later.

(3) The phenomena of consciousness is not the ONLY function of the same structure. It is only one STATE of two or more states of the brain or its neurons. This means that we are not always conscious, such as being asleep, or that we have degrees of awareness in which we are more or less aware of being conscious at different times. This is important to differentiate between other organs that may be understood as having states that are strictly always 'on' or 'off'. This may be unnecessary for conscious states to exist in other things but is minimally essential for clarifying our human idea of experiencing consciousness as opposed to whether a computer may be 'conscious' like we are. All we at least could agree to minimally is that we have consciousness but cannot 'feel' others things, including other humans NORMALLY. If we DO, we need 'proof' that is relative to our own conscious states and or to any extended rationale that is logically valid and sound to our independent minds to conceive.

(4) The sensation of consciousness as one is made up of multiple sensations sensed apparently simultaneously. This feature of consciousness is what makes it seem so confusing when for all other things in life, we do not. To help describe this, we have two words from quantum mechanics that is useful. You don't have to agree to the particular quantum mechanics theories to agree to these. The first of the two is "superposition", which means that multiple events occur at the same PLACE or 'position' at the same TIME; the second is "entanglement", which means that things in distinctly different PLACES feels or appears simultaeously in TIME. Both are apparent by differnt perspectives. If we are interpreting conscious as 'one' thing in one particular location, then the input senses are in a 'superposition' of that one place; if we are interpreting multiple distinct places, like two or more distinct atomic units (neurons) as being felt at the same time, this is an 'entanglement' of different places, and thus, distinct things in these different places are felt as though it were one thing. Since we are just describing this phenomena for now, both are relevant descriptors even though maybe only one or neither of them may be possibly true.

Before going on, I need to determine if anyone else here agrees to these minimal facts. If I don't get common agreement, I don't have much further use for being here at all and so need this to decide whether I will invest beyond this opening statement, and likely this site altogether.

So, do you "agree" so far?

What is needed for experience is qualia which are generated by other minds. Mind itself experiences qualia without any intervention. The brain is a set of minds in which they produce appropriate qualia.

At least 'you' are CONSISTENT at being INCONSISTENT and CONTRADICTORY "bahman".

How can 'the brain' be 'a SET of minds'?

[Age]

Scott,

A physical organ, namely the brain that originates and is minimally necessary for this phenomena.

The brain appears necessary, but there's evidence the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness (mind), so -- no -- I don't agree.

Are you saying here that this 'mind' 'thing', which 'you', human beings, go on about, in the days when this is being written, is 'consciousness'?

Also, WHERE is the so-called 'evidence' that the brain is NOT the source nor sole source of 'consciousness'?

By the way, what EXACT definition of 'consciousness' are 'you' USING here "henry quirk"?

Discrete atomic (cellular) structures, of which the core units of control are called "neurons", and includes any and all necessary supporting substructures that coincide with EACH cell.

Yes, the brain is complex, and appears necessary for consciousness. But this is not the same as sayin' the brain is the source or the sole source of consciousness.

So, what Is the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'?

Oh, and by the way, what the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here is VERY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY to UNDERSTAND and KNOW.

The phenomena of consciousness is not the ONLY function of the same structure. It is only one STATE of two or more states of the brain or its neurons.

The brain obviously has multiple functions: regulation and oversight for the body and bein' the interface between mind and body (or receptacle for mind in the body).

What, EXACTLY, is this 'mind' 'thing' to 'you', "henry quirk"?

The sensation of consciousness as one is made up of multiple sensations sensed apparently simultaneously.

The same evidence suggestin' the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness also suggests mind is unitary and has no subsets or parts.

Did you answer before WHERE this 'evidence' COMES FROM, EXACTLY?

So, do you "agree" so far?

With your central thesis? No.

[Age]

Scott,

A physical organ, namely the brain that originates and is minimally necessary for this phenomena.

The brain appears necessary, but there's evidence the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness (mind), so -- no -- I don't agree.

I do not follow your criticism at all. I proposed that the brain is 'necessary' and you seem to agree but then assert that it is not the 'sole' source as though you've just ADDED an extra postulate to what I said.

If you just want to say that 'the brain' is NECESSARY for 'consciousness', itself, then I would say I AGREE.

These are 'minimums' here. Thus the brain is necessary AT MINIMAL.

To me, 'matter', which 'the brain' is OBVIOUSLY made up of, is OBVIOUSLY NEEDED for 'consciousness'. But, ALSO just as NEEDED is OTHER parts of a body, which contains a brain, AND the SENSES that transfer 'information' from the so-called "outside world" to 'the brain'.

Thus, although I disagree with whatever likely religious idea of 'soul' you are implying coexists dualistically, I did not state that these are maximum properties, thus allowing at least for your extended interpretations.

Note that 'soul' and 'sole' are correlated from the meaning 'single'. As such, the Cartesian belief in dualism interprets the soul as the single controller of the mind where the physical properties were unknown to him the way we do today, and he treated the brain as unessential for consciousness.

What is this 'mind' 'thing', EXACTLY, which you talk of, and about, here?

AND, could the 'properties' of this 'mind' 'thing', or could what this 'mind' 'thing' is EXACTLY, be UNKNOWN to 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, like how 'it' is KNOWN in days AFTER when this is being written.

That is, the brain is thought of in that kind of dualism to be just a mere secondary function to consciousness (a 'soul') as though consciousness is eternal but temporarily linked to physical reality via the brain it was just an interpreter.

What the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' is here is, by the way, ACTUALLY VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to COME-TO-KNOW, and UNDERSTAND.

Discrete atomic (cellular) structures, of which the core units of control are called "neurons", and includes any and all necessary supporting substructures that coincide with EACH cell.

Yes, the brain is complex, and appears necessary for consciousness. But this is not the same as sayin' the brain is the source or the sole source of consciousness.

If you are proposing consciousness coincides with the physical brain (as I did) you'd notice that the distinction of being conscious and the brain are non-existent. Thus, without the brain, do you hold that consciousness persists? And if so, how or why would this be the appropriate means to begin an investigation? Begging that consciousness is absolutely distinct and non-dependent locks out any rational explanation and would certainly be non-analyzable.

Are you just not being biased to some religious interpretation?

The phenomena of consciousness is not the ONLY function of the same structure. It is only one STATE of two or more states of the brain or its neurons.

The brain obviously has multiple functions: regulation and oversight for the body and bein' the interface between mind and body (or receptacle for mind in the body).

I meant that there is at least a distinct phase where the neuron is functioning as a communicator (the awoke state) versus a non-communicating phase. Cells need a down time to take any possible temporal markers regarding its communicating activity during conscious time to hard-wire its structure for the next wakened period. That is why sleep is needed, it turns the relatively soft or short-term memory into hard or long-term memory.

But given that requires knowing about cellular biology in general and neurology in particular, I reduced this to simply what we all experience: a clearly conscious state of being awake versus some state of unconsciousness. It can have more than these two. But I am seeking what any person can infer from their own perspective with the least education necessary.

The sensation of consciousness as one is made up of multiple sensations sensed apparently simultaneously.

The same evidence suggestin' the brain is not the source or sole source of consciousness also suggests mind is unitary and has no subsets or parts.

So, do you "agree" so far?

With your central thesis? No.

I have yet to propose any thesis above, only THAT I want to propose one. I am laying out what is minimally shared regardless of whether one is religious or not. Whatever I might propose later may have other possible theses that also fit with these minimals.

You also missed my meaning about consciousness having multiple sensations occuring simultaneously AND suggested something I can't make sense of: how you proposed that a multiple source of consciousness is identical in meaning to a single source.(?)

To give you an example, we can hear out of two distinct ears, see out of two distinct eyes, and sense an unknown multitude of contact-related sensese, like touch and taste senses. Then we also have thought-based inputs, like inputs from internal memory sources of the brain, ...our memory. Thus, we experience multiple sense data from distinctly different sources as though they are one whole complex sensation. The question is how, not THAT it occurs. Are you just not understanding the way I expressed it?

If you are hostile towards me by any chance and not necessarily in disagreement, this intended effort to TRY to find common ground will not work. Like I said above, I am not likely going to stick around if I cannot get any cooperative interaction here. I feel like I'm wasting my time in forums when no one seems to have any flexibility and/or that I'm being interpreted in some derogatory way that I have no hope of improving upon. I gave my charity to others here where it only fostered dissent....by even those I was supporting. [...like how you might step into defending some innocent person from being beaten only to have him/her make it out that your interference is somehow worse.] So I'm kind of at a dead end here if I can't get some sincerity here for trying.

[Age]

Scott,

I do not follow your criticism at all.

What's not to get? You say consciousness originates in the brain; I say there's evidence to suggest this is not so. You say the brain is (minimally) necessary for consciousness; I agree.

Seems pretty straight forward.

What is also straight forward is that 'consciousness', itself, does NOT and can NOT 'originate' in 'the brain'.

If you are hostile towards me

I'm not. I just don't agree with you. We can talk about why I disagree with you, if you like.

"scott mayers" seems to think or assume that if someone just 'disagrees' with 'them', then that one is being 'hostile'.

[Dontaskme]

One cannot know Consciousness. One can only BE Consciousness. One IS Consciousness.. Being is Knowing in the exact same instance of experience.
Everything else is an idea imposed upon pure being experience.
To know you know is a knowledge which is a plagiarism of someone else's idea.
Life itself is the ONE and only authentic teaching experience. Learning from a book or from lectures is not enough, one has to learn though the direct experience of being life itself which is Consciousness. In other words, every objective 'thing' KNOWN is made of Consciousness that in and of itself cannot be known, it can only BE.


.

[Walker]

One cannot know Consciousness. One can only BE Consciousness. One IS Consciousness.. Being is Knowing in the exact same instance of experience.
Everything else is an idea imposed upon pure being experience.
To know you know is a knowledge which is a plagiarism of someone else's idea.
Life itself is the ONE and only authentic teaching experience. Learning from a book or from lectures is not enough, one has to learn though the direct experience of being life itself which is Consciousness. In other words, every objective 'thing' KNOWN is made of Consciousness that in and of itself cannot be known, it can only BE.


.

Since it features so prominently in that quoted observation, the question thus becomes, can one contemplate consciousness without using any form of the verb, “TO BE.”

If so, one can use that pathway for transcending I-DEN-TI-TY, and lounging on the OB-JEC-TIV-ITY Plateau, at least while contemplating consciousness.