Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6899
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:08 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm
By asking how Neural Activity produces Redness I am implicitly asking the Deeper question of What is Redness in the first place.
Only the one asking the ''what is'' question can answer that because the one asking the question is the only creator of all known knowledge. If there was no knowledge already available there would be no need for a question, for what is the point or need of a question if the question doesn't have an answer?

If consciousness is the interaction of electromagnetic impulses in the brain, then what is observing the consciousness that is the interaction of electromagnetic impulses in the brain?

The infinite regress problem is solved right there in that one question, the one question to all our answers.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm
we already know what an Apple is and what the Ground is. However we don't even know What Redness is in the first place.
Concepts such as apple / ground /red are KNOWN.

But it cannot be known what knows a concept, because only concepts are known, and that which is known cannot know ..for example, an apple is known...but the apple doesn't know that it's known.

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:18 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:06 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm
You are missing the fine points of the question. By asking how Neural Activity produces Redness I am implicitly asking the Deeper question of What is Redness in the first place. Your analogy misses the point because we already know what an Apple is and what the Ground is. However we don't even know What Redness is in the first place.
You aren't asking a "deeper" question. You are asking a meaningless question. A question that is not grounded on any foundation.

It's causing you to fall into circular reasoning. It's not your fault. Philosophy makes you stupid.

It's far too easy to argue, and far too difficult to learn to spot your own cognitive errors.
I reject your assertion that the question: "What is the Experience of Redness?" is a meaningless question. It is meaningless to people that don't properly understand it. Think Deeper about the Redness itself as a thing in itself.

Skepdick
Posts: 1685
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Skepdick » Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:22 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:18 pm
I reject your assertion that the question: "What is the Experience of Redness?" is a meaningless question. It is meaningless to people that don't properly understand it.
You are one of those people.

You are asking "What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?". The answer 42 upsets you, but you don't why.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:31 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:22 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:18 pm
I reject your assertion that the question: "What is the Experience of Redness?" is a meaningless question. It is meaningless to people that don't properly understand it.
You are one of those people.

You are asking "What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?". The answer 42 upsets you, but you don't why.
If the answer is 42 then that would upset me because as we all understood when we read the book that wasn't really an answer. It was a Science Fiction spoof. Ok back to planet Earth and the reality of the Experience of Redness ...

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6899
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:21 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:31 pm

I reject your assertion that the question: "What is the Experience of Redness?" is a meaningless question. It is meaningless to people that don't properly understand it.
If the question "What is the Experience of Redness?" could be understood properly, then the question "What is the Experience of Redness?" would no longer be asked. The fact that you continue to ask the question means you don't properly understand it, if you did, then why are you still asking the question? and that is what doesn't make sense here, it seems like a meaningless question to ask.
Also, we can only know an answer to a question with the knowledge that is already available to us, so the answer must exist within the knowledge already available. If the answer is not coming to mind, then it's because the knowledge is not available.

Also, the fact you keep asking the question means you don't know the answer, so how do you think someone else could possibly know the answer? and where do you think someone else would have got the answer from that seems to be unavailable to you?
Thinking someone else has the answer is why you ask the question in the first place...because you must believe that they can give it to you...but what you don't realise is if someone else has the answer then where did they get it from? ..and that is the infinite regress problem right there yet again...because that which is looking to understand itself is constantly receding from itself as it is being approached. There is no other side of the horizon.



.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:31 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:21 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:31 pm

I reject your assertion that the question: "What is the Experience of Redness?" is a meaningless question. It is meaningless to people that don't properly understand it.
If the question "What is the Experience of Redness?" could be understood properly, then the question "What is the Experience of Redness?" would no longer be asked. The fact that you continue to ask the question means you don't properly understand it, if you did, then why are you still asking the question? and that is what doesn't make sense here, it seems like a meaningless question to ask.
Also, we can only know an answer to a question with the knowledge that is already available to us, so the answer must exist within the knowledge already available. If the answer is not coming to mind, then it's because the knowledge is not available.

Also, the fact you keep asking the question means you don't know the answer, so how do you think someone else could possibly know the answer? and where do you think someone else would have got the answer from that seems to be unavailable to you?
Thinking someone else has the answer is why you ask the question in the first place...because you must believe that they can give it to you...but what you don't realise is if someone else has the answer then where did they get it from? ..and that is the infinite regress problem right there yet again...because that which is looking to understand itself is constantly receding from itself as it is being approached. There is no other side of the horizon.



.
It is of course ridiculous to say that I need to know the answer to the question before I ask the question. I ask the question to all Humans alive today and to all Humans or further Evolved Humans that will one day be alive. The question will be answered someday but not necessarily in this stage of the Evolution of the Human being. On the other hand, some smart Mind might be inspired by the question and come up with the answer tomorrow afternoon.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6899
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:09 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:31 pm
On the other hand, some smart Mind might be inspired by the question and come up with the answer tomorrow afternoon.
The answer to a question can only come from the knowledge that is already available NOW.

That which is not-known can eventually become known via knowledge available NOW.. but that which is unknowable can never be known. There is no knowledge of any before or any after NOW ...because there is only NOW without any known beginning nor ending. NOW never began, and that which has never began cannot end.

Now is nondual by nature, therefore nonduality is the one question to all our answers.

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:55 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:09 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:31 pm
On the other hand, some smart Mind might be inspired by the question and come up with the answer tomorrow afternoon.
The answer to a question can only come from the knowledge that is already available NOW.

That which is not-known can eventually become known via knowledge available NOW.. but that which is unknowable can never be known. There is no knowledge of any before or any after NOW ...because there is only NOW without any known beginning nor ending. NOW never began, and that which has never began cannot end.

Now is nondual by nature, therefore nonduality is the one question to all our answers.

.
I agree that we probably need more Knowledge before the answer to the question is obtained. But that's all I have ever asked is that people think about this problem more Deeply in order to create the new Knowledge that will be necessary.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6899
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:10 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:55 pm
I agree that we probably need more Knowledge before the answer to the question is obtained. But that's all I have ever asked is that people think about this problem more Deeply in order to create the new Knowledge that will be necessary.
There is no such knowledge as new knowledge - there is only knowledge that is already known and available now.
If knowledge can eventually become known that was not previously known, then it must have already existed. However, lets not confuse what can become known with the ''absolute unknowable'' because answers to questions can only arise via the sense of a separate entity which is a fiction, the separate entity is born of the mind of knowledge...you need to go back to the garden of eden story to grasp this concept of how knowledge came to be known...the real world is beyond all knowledge of it and cannot be touched by mortal 'thoughts'

And since knowledge is a fictional overlay upon the ''silent presence of awareness'' it's actually uncreated and unwritten anyway.There is no knowledge of what or how there is ''silent presence of awareness''

To know how or why ''concious experience'' happens or what or how consciousness actually is - would be like the brain trying to operate on itself. There is no person living inside a brain. The person is a 'thought' and 'thoughts' can't do anything or even know that they exist. There is no existence in the word 'existence' and is why reality is likened to a dream.

The mind of thought can imagine all sorts of concepts, but a concept such as '' I am a person '' will know absolutely nothing of itself because like I said earlier concepts are fictional characters, they are unwritten and uncreated appearances of the unknowable mind.
The mind sometimes finds this idea difficult to grasp, because it's become too fixated on it's fictional conceptual creations, since for the mind, concepts are the only knowns available to it.

The sages of Advaita Vedanta / Nonduality hold to no belief or delusion about anything conceptual, as the mind that expresses itself as and through the human mechanism, aka the brain is a transcendental phenomena, it's a unique aspect of infinite intelligence which knows reality to be nought but an empty dream, it's known this for eons. Every apparent mind can know this knowledge if they want to.


You can know anything you want by simple observation via a demand for the knowledge that will already be stored to the memory, rendering all known knowledge a reaction after the event. There is no knowledge of anything in the immediacy of the now because now never happens...happenings are of memory, they are reactions aka fictions...aka the illusory dream of separation.

There cannot be any knowledge of anything in the immediacy of the eternal now moment of experiencing because to know anything is born of memory which is a fictional overlay upon the eternal unknown unborn now.

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:48 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:10 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:55 pm
I agree that we probably need more Knowledge before the answer to the question is obtained. But that's all I have ever asked is that people think about this problem more Deeply in order to create the new Knowledge that will be necessary.
There is no such knowledge as new knowledge - there is only knowledge that is already known and available now.
If knowledge can eventually become known that was not previously known, then it must have already existed. However, lets not confuse what can become known with the ''absolute unknowable'' because answers to questions can only arise via the sense of a separate entity which is a fiction, the separate entity is born of the mind of knowledge...you need to go back to the garden of eden story to grasp this concept of how knowledge came to be known...the real world is beyond all knowledge of it and cannot be touched by mortal 'thoughts'

And since knowledge is a fictional overlay upon the ''silent presence of awareness'' it's actually uncreated and unwritten anyway.There is no knowledge of what or how there is ''silent presence of awareness''

To know how or why ''concious experience'' happens or what or how consciousness actually is - would be like the brain trying to operate on itself. There is no person living inside a brain. The person is a 'thought' and 'thoughts' can't do anything or even know that they exist. There is no existence in the word 'existence' and is why reality is likened to a dream.

The mind of thought can imagine all sorts of concepts, but a concept such as '' I am a person '' will know absolutely nothing of itself because like I said earlier concepts are fictional characters, they are unwritten and uncreated appearances of the unknowable mind.
The mind sometimes finds this idea difficult to grasp, because it's become too fixated on it's fictional conceptual creations, since for the mind, concepts are the only knowns available to it.

The sages of Advaita Vedanta / Nonduality hold to no belief or delusion about anything conceptual, as the mind that expresses itself as and through the human mechanism, aka the brain is a transcendental phenomena, it's a unique aspect of infinite intelligence which knows reality to be nought but an empty dream, it's known this for eons. Every apparent mind can know this knowledge if they want to.


You can know anything you want by simple observation via a demand for the knowledge that will already be stored to the memory, rendering all known knowledge a reaction after the event. There is no knowledge of anything in the immediacy of the now because now never happens...happenings are of memory, they are reactions aka fictions...aka the illusory dream of separation.

There cannot be any knowledge of anything in the immediacy of the eternal now moment of experiencing because to know anything is born of memory which is a fictional overlay upon the eternal unknown unborn now.

.
If you insist on defining the word Knowledge as meaning All Possible Knowledge then what you are saying can make sense. But it is not sensible to define Knowledge that way. I think Science only has partial Knowledge of the Universe. I think other Knowledge exists and that it has not been discovered yet.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Sculptor » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm
You are missing the fine points of the question. By asking how Neural Activity produces Redness I am implicitly asking the Deeper question of What is Redness in the first place.
This is the exact moment where you leave your reason behind. There is no "first place". Neural activity with redness starts when light hits the retina. A signal from the retina indicates a specific message that is a response to a specific wavelength of light. The redness is the result of that message.

Your analogy misses the point because we already know what an Apple is and what the Ground is. However we don't even know What Redness is in the first place.
There is no practical difference with apples and the ground. These are just terms applied to the objects of our perception just like redness. The mechanisms that give us our perceptions precede the nomination and sundering of the field of view into the conceptual objects we subsequently take for granted.

The answer to when this all happened is lost in the dim evolutionary past. We have inherited redness, and the ability to distinguish apples from rocks.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:52 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm
You are missing the fine points of the question. By asking how Neural Activity produces Redness I am implicitly asking the Deeper question of What is Redness in the first place.
This is the exact moment where you leave your reason behind. There is no "first place". Neural activity with redness starts when light hits the retina. A signal from the retina indicates a specific message that is a response to a specific wavelength of light. The redness is the result of that message.
You say the Redness is a result of that Message. You have a huge Explanatory Gap to fill with a statement like that.

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm

Your analogy misses the point because we already know what an Apple is and what the Ground is. However we don't even know What Redness is in the first place.
There is no practical difference with apples and the ground. These are just terms applied to the objects of our perception just like redness. The mechanisms that give us our perceptions precede the nomination and sundering of the field of view into the conceptual objects we subsequently take for granted.

The answer to when this all happened is lost in the dim evolutionary past. We have inherited redness, and the ability to distinguish apples from rocks.
We have inherited Redness but how do we See Redness? That is the question.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Sculptor » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:57 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:52 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 pm
You are missing the fine points of the question. By asking how Neural Activity produces Redness I am implicitly asking the Deeper question of What is Redness in the first place.
This is the exact moment where you leave your reason behind. There is no "first place". Neural activity with redness starts when light hits the retina. A signal from the retina indicates a specific message that is a response to a specific wavelength of light. The redness is the result of that message.
You say the Redness is a result of that Message. You have a huge Explanatory Gap to fill with a statement like that.
Maybe but all the evidence suggest that neural activity is where the answer is.
What have you got?

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm

Your analogy misses the point because we already know what an Apple is and what the Ground is. However we don't even know What Redness is in the first place.
There is no practical difference with apples and the ground. These are just terms applied to the objects of our perception just like redness. The mechanisms that give us our perceptions precede the nomination and sundering of the field of view into the conceptual objects we subsequently take for granted.

The answer to when this all happened is lost in the dim evolutionary past. We have inherited redness, and the ability to distinguish apples from rocks.
We have inherited Redness but how do we See Redness? That is the question.
The answer lies in neural activity.
What's your answer?

SteveKlinko
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:50 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:57 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:52 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm

This is the exact moment where you leave your reason behind. There is no "first place". Neural activity with redness starts when light hits the retina. A signal from the retina indicates a specific message that is a response to a specific wavelength of light. The redness is the result of that message.
You say the Redness is a result of that Message. You have a huge Explanatory Gap to fill with a statement like that.
Maybe but all the evidence suggest that neural activity is where the answer is.
What have you got?

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm

There is no practical difference with apples and the ground. These are just terms applied to the objects of our perception just like redness. The mechanisms that give us our perceptions precede the nomination and sundering of the field of view into the conceptual objects we subsequently take for granted.

The answer to when this all happened is lost in the dim evolutionary past. We have inherited redness, and the ability to distinguish apples from rocks.
We have inherited Redness but how do we See Redness? That is the question.
The answer lies in neural activity.
What's your answer?
I always say nobody knows. The Physicalists say it is all in the Neurons and that is all the Explanation you need. It's ok to say it is all in the Neurons as long as you understand the huge Explanatory Gap that Exists in the statement.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6899
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Consciousness IS - but it's NOT a ''Conscious Experience''

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:23 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:48 am
If you insist on defining the word Knowledge as meaning All Possible Knowledge then what you are saying can make sense. But it is not sensible to define Knowledge that way. I think Science only has partial Knowledge of the Universe. I think other Knowledge exists and that it has not been discovered yet.
Knowledge is a fiction Steve...it's never going to get you any closer to knowing anything about who you are or why you are happening because you never existed except as a fictional character in the mind.


For the mind ...Knowledge is what helps make sense to the sense of I'' exist'' in the world.
The sense of 'I exist' is a fictional idea made up of no-thing aka words aka (mind mentation) of which there is no word for. There is no word for the creator of a word, because all creation is uncreated. Words are empty, so there is no thing in a word that can know anything about it's existence.

There is no thing in reality that has any knowledge of itself...because all 'things' are knowledge. And knowledge informs the illusory nature of knowledge. For example, a tree has no knowledge of itself. The tree is known via the word, but there is no actual tree in the word tree. A 'word' is a mental construct, a concept. In reality no tree has ever been seen because there is no thing known about what is knowing or seeing the known seen world of words.

Likewise, there is no knowledge of what is sensing reality...there is no thing known of what is looking out of our eyeballs...just as there is no knowledge of what is remembering images seen after waking up from a nightly dream.
All we can do to know anything is to use 'words' to describe what we want to know, even though those words are unknown to us as well, because words are just as mysterious as is everything else we want to know.
The mind which has no known knowledge of whether is it alive or dead except what a WORD informs it

...the mind therefore is basically using it's self-created imagined words aka (mental concepts) to build what appears to be a living world...namely referred to as MAYA


All knowledge is a made-up fiction. All Knowledge is imagined. Language is a unique auditory illusion of EMPTY light and sound within the mind appearing as WORDS. In life there is nothing separating the apparent gap between two objects because in reality mind is one unitary movement without beginning nor end. We only know knowledge via a WORD which is an empty manifestation of sound and light within the mind which is an illusory observer, since light cannot observe itself, it is the observing as one unitary movement.

Every moment in life and in the mind only light and sound exist. Light and sound are together and not separate from each other.
Life and mind is a singular movement. The singular movement in daily life cannot have a gap because, in a singular movement, a gap does not exist.

The gap seen in daily life between the observer and the observed, for example, a tree, is filled with atmosphere. The atmosphere in the gap is made up of atoms and the observer and the tree are also made up of atoms, which reveals that light and sound appear as illusory observer, illusory tree and illusory gap.

The mind is also a singular movement and, in this singular movement of the mind, words appear intermittently with gaps in between two words revealing the gap between two words is illusory and not real because the mind is a singular flow and, in a singular flow, a gap does not exist. Any gap, meaning a distance seen in daily life, be it between two thoughts or between two letters of the alphabet is known to be a word as well, which is illusory because a word in the mind is illusory and not real.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests