Guest guest Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Few people would argue that life has a material base, that living cells are made of protein, molecules, and atoms. Few people doubt that emotions and thoughts are the result of chemicals in the brain. So why not consciousness? What is the difficulty? What would consciousness lose if declared material too? In my opinion nothing, except that it would no longer keep the hope of surviving death alive. And there is the rub! IMO If consciousness requires life, and life is material, then, consciousness must be material too. It wasn't a hard case. Case close! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Few people would argue that life > has a material base, that living > cells are made of protein, molecules, > and atoms. Few people doubt that > emotions and thoughts are the result > of chemicals in the brain. So why > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > What would consciousness lose if declared > material too? In my opinion nothing, > except that it would no longer keep the > hope of surviving death alive. And there > is the rub! > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > life is material, then, consciousness > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > case. Case close! ) > Yeah...........well..............when Christ comes back..... ......we'll just see if you're right about all THAT! toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Few people would argue that life > > has a material base, that living > > cells are made of protein, molecules, > > and atoms. Few people doubt that > > emotions and thoughts are the result > > of chemicals in the brain. So why > > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > What would consciousness lose if declared > > material too? In my opinion nothing, > > except that it would no longer keep the > > hope of surviving death alive. And there > > is the rub! > > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > life is material, then, consciousness > > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > case. Case close! ) > > > Nothing exists that is not material. (bumper sticker) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Few people would argue that life > has a material base, that living > cells are made of protein, molecules, > and atoms. Few people doubt that > emotions and thoughts are the result > of chemicals in the brain. So why > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > What would consciousness lose if declared > material too? In my opinion nothing, > except that it would no longer keep the > hope of surviving death alive. And there > is the rub! > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > life is material, then, consciousness > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > case. Case close! ) yes.....consciousness is material too.... just like thoughts etc.... ..... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Few people would argue that life > > > has a material base, that living > > > cells are made of protein, molecules, > > > and atoms. Few people doubt that > > > emotions and thoughts are the result > > > of chemicals in the brain. So why > > > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > > What would consciousness lose if declared > > > material too? In my opinion nothing, > > > except that it would no longer keep the > > > hope of surviving death alive. And there > > > is the rub! > > > > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > > life is material, then, consciousness > > > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > > case. Case close! ) > > > > > > > > > > Nothing exists that is not material. P: Well, you meant: " no thing... " But things are not really material entities, but conceptual divisions of a physical whole floating in nothingness. > > > > (bumper sticker) > > > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Few people would argue that life > > > > has a material base, that living > > > > cells are made of protein, molecules, > > > > and atoms. Few people doubt that > > > > emotions and thoughts are the result > > > > of chemicals in the brain. So why > > > > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > > > What would consciousness lose if declared > > > > material too? In my opinion nothing, > > > > except that it would no longer keep the > > > > hope of surviving death alive. And there > > > > is the rub! > > > > > > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > > > life is material, then, consciousness > > > > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > > > case. Case close! ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing exists that is not material. > > P: Well, you meant: " no thing... " > But things are not really material entities, > but conceptual divisions of a physical whole > floating in nothingness. > > > > > > > > (bumper sticker) > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > If there were a " physical whole " or such a thing as " nothingness " ........they never will be available to the conceptual mind and its child. Bummer huh? :-) t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 "cerosoul" <pedsie6@> wrote:> >> > Few people would argue that life> > has a material base, that living> > cells are made of protein, molecules,> > and atoms. Few people doubt that> > emotions and thoughts are the result> > of chemicals in the brain. So why> > not consciousness? What is the difficulty?> > What would consciousness lose if declared> > material too? In my opinion nothing,> > except that it would no longer keep the> > hope of surviving death alive. And there> > is the rub!> > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and> > life is material, then, consciousness> > must be material too. It wasn't a hard> > case. Case close! )> > > > yes.....consciousness is material too....> > just like thoughts etc....> > ....> > > Marc That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one.David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem.The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors associated with consciousness and include questions such as these:How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless experience?"Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive sciences," Chalmers says.The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience.The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect of the universe, like space and time and mass. Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok wrote: > > " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Few people would argue that life > > > has a material base, that living > > > cells are made of protein, molecules, > > > and atoms. Few people doubt that > > > emotions and thoughts are the result > > > of chemicals in the brain. So why > > > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > > What would consciousness lose if declared > > > material too? In my opinion nothing, > > > except that it would no longer keep the > > > hope of surviving death alive. And there > > > is the rub! > > > > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > > life is material, then, consciousness > > > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > > case. Case close! ) > > > > > > > > yes.....consciousness is material too.... > > > > just like thoughts etc.... > > > > .... > > > > > > Marc > > That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > > David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > > The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of > sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > experience? > > " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, > but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > sciences, " Chalmers says. > > The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > > The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained > in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other > areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, > which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can > be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect > of the universe, like space and time and mass. > > > Era > Can consciousness see itself? t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 toombaru2006 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok wrote: > >> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: >> >>>> Few people would argue that life >>>> has a material base, that living >>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, >>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that >>>> emotions and thoughts are the result >>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why >>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? >>>> What would consciousness lose if declared >>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, >>>> except that it would no longer keep the >>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there >>>> is the rub! >>>> >>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and >>>> life is material, then, consciousness >>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard >>>> case. Case close! ) >>>> >>> >>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... >>> >>> just like thoughts etc.... >>> >>> .... >>> >>> >>> Marc >>> >> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. >> >> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' >> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. >> >> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors >> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: >> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of >> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless >> experience? >> >> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, >> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive >> sciences, " Chalmers says. >> >> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. >> >> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained >> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other >> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, >> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can >> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect >> of the universe, like space and time and mass. >> >> >> Era >> >> > > > Can consciousness see itself? > > > > t. > > > --- > There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience anything at all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 > > > > " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Few people would argue that life > > > > has a material base, that living > > > > cells are made of protein, molecules, > > > > and atoms. Few people doubt that > > > > emotions and thoughts are the result > > > > of chemicals in the brain. So why > > > > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > > > What would consciousness lose if declared > > > > material too? In my opinion nothing, > > > > except that it would no longer keep the > > > > hope of surviving death alive. And there > > > > is the rub! > > > > > > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > > > life is material, then, consciousness > > > > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > > > case. Case close! ) > > > > > > > > > > > > yes.....consciousness is material too.... > > > > > > just like thoughts etc.... > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > > > > David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > > problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > > > > The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > > associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > > How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds > > of > > sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > > experience? > > > > " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > > trivial, > > but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > > sciences, " Chalmers says. > > > > The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > > > > The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > > explained > > in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in > > other > > areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical > > world, > > which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > > which can > > be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > > aspect of the universe, like space and time and mass. > > > > > > Era > > > > > Can consciousness see itself? > > > > t. Wich one toombaru ? The term Nisargadatta uses with capitol " C " Consciousness, or the one 'held' by life, with small " c " consciousness ? I let you talk this out WITH Pete :-) bye for now, Era ps: I would use an other verb than see.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok wrote: > > " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Few people would argue that life > > > has a material base, that living > > > cells are made of protein, molecules, > > > and atoms. Few people doubt that > > > emotions and thoughts are the result > > > of chemicals in the brain. So why > > > not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > > What would consciousness lose if declared > > > material too? In my opinion nothing, > > > except that it would no longer keep the > > > hope of surviving death alive. And there > > > is the rub! > > > > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > > life is material, then, consciousness > > > must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > > case. Case close! ) > > > > > > > > yes.....consciousness is material too.... > > > > just like thoughts etc.... > > > > .... > > > > > > Marc > > That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > > David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > > The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of > sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > experience? > > " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, > but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > sciences, " Chalmers says. > > The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > > The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained > in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other > areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, > which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can > be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect > of the universe, like space and time and mass. > > > Era P: That it is irreducible, that it's like space and time is just his belief. What gives a belief credibility is how it conforms with reason, and how it fits with others things we know. It would be reasonable to expect that if his belief where true, consciousness would not need brains. Space and time can be seen at work in distant stars which were born and died before there were brains anywhere. If consciousness were in that category rocks and plants would have consciousness too. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 David Chalmers: > > The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > > explained> > in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in > > other> > areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical > > world,> > which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > > which can> > be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > > aspect> > of the universe, like space and time and mass.> > P: That it is irreducible, that it's like space> and time is just his belief. What gives a belief> credibility is how it conforms with reason, and> how it fits with others things we know. It would> be reasonable to expect that if his belief where> true, consciousness would not need brains. Space> and time can be seen at work in distant stars> which were born and died before there were brains> anywhere. If consciousness were in that category> rocks and plants would have consciousness too. Yes. From the same page cons.net as David Chalmers here are some other thinkers:There are many type of consciousness, the animals and humans differ due to language consciousness is closely tied to the ancient notion of the soul, the idea that in each of us, there exists an immaterial essence that survives death and perhaps even predates birth. It was believed that the soul was what allowed us to think and feel, remember and reason. Susan Greenfield (prof of pharmacology) says the mind is made up of the physical connections between neurons. These connections evolve slowly and are influenced by our past experiences and therefore, everyone's brain is unique.But whereas the mind is rooted in the physical connections between neurons, Greenfield believes that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, similar to the 'wetness' of water or the 'transparency' of glass, both of which are properties that are the result of -- that is, they emerge from -- the actions of individual molecules. > > "cerosoul" <pedsie6@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Few people would argue that life> > > > has a material base, that living> > > > cells are made of protein, molecules,> > > > and atoms. Few people doubt that> > > > emotions and thoughts are the result> > > > of chemicals in the brain. So why> > > > not consciousness? What is the difficulty?> > > > What would consciousness lose if declared> > > > material too? In my opinion nothing,> > > > except that it would no longer keep the> > > > hope of surviving death alive. And there> > > > is the rub!> > > >> > > > IMO If consciousness requires life, and> > > > life is material, then, consciousness> > > > must be material too. It wasn't a hard> > > > case. Case close! )> > >> > >> > >> > > yes.....consciousness is material too....> > >> > > just like thoughts etc....> > >> > > ....> > >> > >> > > Marc> > > > Era: That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one.> > > > David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy'> > problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem.> > > > The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors> > associated with consciousness and include questions such as these:> > How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds > > of> > sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless> > experience?> > > > "Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > > trivial,> > but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive> > sciences," Chalmers says.> > > > The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience.> > > > The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > > explained> > in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in > > other> > areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical > > world,> > which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > > which can> > be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > > aspect> > of the universe, like space and time and mass.> > > > > > Era> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: > > > >> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > >> > >>>> Few people would argue that life > >>>> has a material base, that living > >>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, > >>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that > >>>> emotions and thoughts are the result > >>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why > >>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > >>>> What would consciousness lose if declared > >>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, > >>>> except that it would no longer keep the > >>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there > >>>> is the rub! > >>>> > >>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and > >>>> life is material, then, consciousness > >>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard > >>>> case. Case close! ) > >>>> > >>> > >>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... > >>> > >>> just like thoughts etc.... > >>> > >>> .... > >>> > >>> > >>> Marc > >>> > >> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > >> > >> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > >> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > >> > >> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > >> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > >> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of > >> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > >> experience? > >> > >> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, > >> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > >> sciences, " Chalmers says. > >> > >> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > >> > >> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained > >> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other > >> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, > >> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can > >> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect > >> of the universe, like space and time and mass. > >> > >> > >> Era > >> > >> > > > > > > Can consciousness see itself? > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > --- > > > There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. > > We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively > proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience anything at > all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. > > tyga > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. But is there really such a thing as " you " ? Do " you " really experience " things " ? Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the experiential arena as a phantom? Eyes do not see. Brains do not see. The imaginary individual does not see. Eyes cannot see sight. Consciousness cannot see itself. Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. So....what can you do with that understanding? Nothing. But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > experiential arena as a phantom? > > Eyes do not see. > Brains do not see. > The imaginary individual does not see. > Eyes cannot see sight. > Consciousness cannot see itself. > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > Nothing. > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > toombaru perhaps if we think the universe in terms of vibrations, then what we call material things are just a different class of vibratory signatures. and consciousness perhaps are the very subtle vibrations. imagine, what if all vibrations stop.? what is left? nothing and yet we cannot ignore this nothingness. for why there is something instead of nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: > > > > > >> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > >> > > >>>> Few people would argue that life > > >>>> has a material base, that living > > >>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, > > >>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that > > >>>> emotions and thoughts are the result > > >>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why > > >>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > >>>> What would consciousness lose if declared > > >>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, > > >>>> except that it would no longer keep the > > >>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there > > >>>> is the rub! > > >>>> > > >>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > >>>> life is material, then, consciousness > > >>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > >>>> case. Case close! ) > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... > > >>> > > >>> just like thoughts etc.... > > >>> > > >>> .... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Marc > > >>> > > >> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > > >> > > >> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > > >> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > > >> > > >> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > > >> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > > >> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of > > >> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > > >> experience? > > >> > > >> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > trivial, > > >> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > > >> sciences, " Chalmers says. > > >> > > >> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > > >> > > >> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > explained > > >> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success > in other > > >> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, > > >> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > which can > > >> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > aspect > > >> of the universe, like space and time and mass. > > >> > > >> > > >> Era > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Can consciousness see itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. > > > > We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively > > proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience anything at > > all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. > > > > tyga > > > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > experiential arena as a phantom? > > Eyes do not see. > Brains do not see. > The imaginary individual does not see. > Eyes cannot see sight. > Consciousness cannot see itself. > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > Nothing. > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > toombaru > What if everything is resolved in awareness? ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: > > > > > > > >> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> Few people would argue that life > > > >>>> has a material base, that living > > > >>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, > > > >>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that > > > >>>> emotions and thoughts are the result > > > >>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why > > > >>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > > >>>> What would consciousness lose if declared > > > >>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, > > > >>>> except that it would no longer keep the > > > >>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there > > > >>>> is the rub! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > > >>>> life is material, then, consciousness > > > >>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > > >>>> case. Case close! ) > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... > > > >>> > > > >>> just like thoughts etc.... > > > >>> > > > >>> .... > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Marc > > > >>> > > > >> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > > > >> > > > >> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > > > >> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > > > >> > > > >> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > > > >> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > > > >> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different > kinds of > > > >> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > > > >> experience? > > > >> > > > >> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > > trivial, > > > >> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > > > >> sciences, " Chalmers says. > > > >> > > > >> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > > > >> > > > >> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > > explained > > > >> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success > > in other > > > >> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical > world, > > > >> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > > which can > > > >> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > > aspect > > > >> of the universe, like space and time and mass. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Era > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can consciousness see itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. > > > > > > We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively > > > proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience > anything at > > > all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. > > > > > > tyga > > > > > > > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > > experiential arena as a phantom? > > > > Eyes do not see. > > Brains do not see. > > The imaginary individual does not see. > > Eyes cannot see sight. > > Consciousness cannot see itself. > > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > > > > Nothing. > > > > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > What if everything is resolved in awareness? > > ~A > When everything is seen for what it is'nt.......one cannot tell the difference between awareness and things. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: > > > > > >> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > >> > > >>>> Few people would argue that life > > >>>> has a material base, that living > > >>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, > > >>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that > > >>>> emotions and thoughts are the result > > >>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why > > >>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > >>>> What would consciousness lose if declared > > >>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, > > >>>> except that it would no longer keep the > > >>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there > > >>>> is the rub! > > >>>> > > >>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > >>>> life is material, then, consciousness > > >>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > >>>> case. Case close! ) > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... > > >>> > > >>> just like thoughts etc.... > > >>> > > >>> .... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Marc > > >>> > > >> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > > >> > > >> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > > >> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > > >> > > >> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > > >> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > > >> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of > > >> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > > >> experience? > > >> > > >> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > trivial, > > >> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > > >> sciences, " Chalmers says. > > >> > > >> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > > >> > > >> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > explained > > >> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success > in other > > >> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, > > >> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > which can > > >> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > aspect > > >> of the universe, like space and time and mass. > > >> > > >> > > >> Era > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Can consciousness see itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. > > > > We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively > > proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience anything at > > all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. > > > > tyga > > > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > experiential arena as a phantom? > > Eyes do not see. > Brains do not see. > The imaginary individual does not see. > Eyes cannot see sight. > Consciousness cannot see itself. > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > Nothing. > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > toombaru yes.... i don't see the need in finding out the exact " construction " of " consciousness " ..... i'm wondering why it is of important subject for some people..... why people have such intention ....in whatver research about " consciousness " ......?..... maybe they feel to better " control " their form of imaginary being.....in knowing " everything " about consciousness.... .....if so....it's of wasted time & space.... better to simply breath relaxed.... and have some good and deep sleep.... then everything will be fine....again....like ever before..... ...... some time ago....following endless discussions about " thoughts " ..... " mind " ....etc.... personally, i " see " ..... " mind, body, thoughts....consciousness " .....as material.....in constant move.... what would be the benefit in getting the definition of something.....which already need a new definition few moments later?..... better to " see " the source of All this.....which is constantly the Same...... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: > > > > > > > >> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> Few people would argue that life > > > >>>> has a material base, that living > > > >>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, > > > >>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that > > > >>>> emotions and thoughts are the result > > > >>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why > > > >>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > > > >>>> What would consciousness lose if declared > > > >>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, > > > >>>> except that it would no longer keep the > > > >>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there > > > >>>> is the rub! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and > > > >>>> life is material, then, consciousness > > > >>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard > > > >>>> case. Case close! ) > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... > > > >>> > > > >>> just like thoughts etc.... > > > >>> > > > >>> .... > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Marc > > > >>> > > > >> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > > > >> > > > >> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between > the 'easy' > > > >> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > > > >> > > > >> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and > behaviors > > > >> associated with consciousness and include questions such as > these: > > > >> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different > kinds of > > > >> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a > seamless > > > >> experience? > > > >> > > > >> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > > trivial, > > > >> but because they fall within the standard methods of the > cognitive > > > >> sciences, " Chalmers says. > > > >> > > > >> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > > > >> > > > >> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > > explained > > > >> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success > > in other > > > >> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical > world, > > > >> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > > which can > > > >> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an > irreducible > > aspect > > > >> of the universe, like space and time and mass. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Era > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can consciousness see itself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am > aware of. > > > > > > We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of > definitively > > > proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience > anything at > > > all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. > > > > > > tyga > > > > > > > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it > appears > > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > > experiential arena as a phantom? > > > > Eyes do not see. > > Brains do not see. > > The imaginary individual does not see. > > Eyes cannot see sight. > > Consciousness cannot see itself. > > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > > > > Nothing. > > > > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > yes.... > > i don't see the need in finding out the exact " construction " > of " consciousness " ..... > > i'm wondering why it is of important subject for some people..... > > why people have such intention ....in whatver research > about " consciousness " ......?..... > > maybe they feel to better " control " their form of imaginary > being.....in knowing " everything " about consciousness.... > > ....if so....it's of wasted time & space.... > > better to simply breath relaxed.... > > and have some good and deep sleep.... > > then everything will be fine....again....like ever before..... > > ..... > > some time ago....following endless discussions > about " thoughts " ..... " mind " ....etc.... > > personally, i " see " ..... " mind, body, > thoughts....consciousness " .....as material.....in constant move.... > > what would be the benefit in getting the definition of > something.....which already need a new definition few moments > later?..... > > better to " see " the source of All this.....which is constantly the > Same...... > > > Marc > > > It is the cells in the frontal cortex that ask the questions. They are the outer edge of awareness.... They are the furnace out of which the conceptual overlay emerges. They are the plenum out of which the phantom of self materializes......and struts out on to center stage in its personal dream of separation. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 toombaru2006 wrote: > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > >> toombaru2006 wrote: >> >>> Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Few people would argue that life >>>>>> has a material base, that living >>>>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, >>>>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that >>>>>> emotions and thoughts are the result >>>>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why >>>>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? >>>>>> What would consciousness lose if declared >>>>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, >>>>>> except that it would no longer keep the >>>>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there >>>>>> is the rub! >>>>>> >>>>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and >>>>>> life is material, then, consciousness >>>>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard >>>>>> case. Case close! ) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... >>>>> >>>>> just like thoughts etc.... >>>>> >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. >>>> >>>> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' >>>> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. >>>> >>>> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors >>>> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: >>>> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of >>>> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless >>>> experience? >>>> >>>> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're >>>> > trivial, > >>>> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive >>>> sciences, " Chalmers says. >>>> >>>> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. >>>> >>>> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being >>>> > explained > >>>> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success >>>> > in other > >>>> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, >>>> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, >>>> > which can > >>>> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible >>>> > aspect > >>>> of the universe, like space and time and mass. >>>> >>>> >>>> Era >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Can consciousness see itself? >>> >>> >>> >>> t. >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >> There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. >> >> We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively >> proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience anything at >> all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. >> >> tyga >> >> > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > experiential arena as a phantom? > > Eyes do not see. > Brains do not see. > The imaginary individual does not see. > Eyes cannot see sight. > Consciousness cannot see itself. > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > Nothing. > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > toombaru > > > > --- > > Indeed but we were discussing " material " consciousness, were we not? tyga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga wrote: > > toombaru2006 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , tyga <tyga@> wrote: > > > >> toombaru2006 wrote: > >> > >>> Nisargadatta , " Era " <mi_nok@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> Few people would argue that life > >>>>>> has a material base, that living > >>>>>> cells are made of protein, molecules, > >>>>>> and atoms. Few people doubt that > >>>>>> emotions and thoughts are the result > >>>>>> of chemicals in the brain. So why > >>>>>> not consciousness? What is the difficulty? > >>>>>> What would consciousness lose if declared > >>>>>> material too? In my opinion nothing, > >>>>>> except that it would no longer keep the > >>>>>> hope of surviving death alive. And there > >>>>>> is the rub! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMO If consciousness requires life, and > >>>>>> life is material, then, consciousness > >>>>>> must be material too. It wasn't a hard > >>>>>> case. Case close! ) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> yes.....consciousness is material too.... > >>>>> > >>>>> just like thoughts etc.... > >>>>> > >>>>> .... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Marc > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> That is just one aspect of it, not the 'hard' one. > >>>> > >>>> David Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' > >>>> problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem. > >>>> > >>>> The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors > >>>> associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: > >>>> How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of > >>>> sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless > >>>> experience? > >>>> > >>>> " Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're > >>>> > > trivial, > > > >>>> but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive > >>>> sciences, " Chalmers says. > >>>> > >>>> The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience. > >>>> > >>>> The subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being > >>>> > > explained > > > >>>> in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success > >>>> > > in other > > > >>>> areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, > >>>> which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, > >>>> > > which can > > > >>>> be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible > >>>> > > aspect > > > >>>> of the universe, like space and time and mass. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Era > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Can consciousness see itself? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> t. > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> > >> There is no practical way to falsify consciousness that I am aware of. > >> > >> We are aware that we are conscious but we have no way of definitively > >> proving it. I have no way of knowing whether you experience anything at > >> all for example, I can only know that I do experience things. > >> > >> tyga > >> > >> > > > > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > > experiential arena as a phantom? > > > > Eyes do not see. > > Brains do not see. > > The imaginary individual does not see. > > Eyes cannot see sight. > > Consciousness cannot see itself. > > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > > > > Nothing. > > > > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Indeed but we were discussing " material " consciousness, were we not? > > tyga > Putting an adjective on an adjective will only lead deeper into the conceptual tar pit. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2008 Report Share Posted September 6, 2008 Nisargadatta , " vic alcabasa " <vicalcabasa wrote: > > > > > > What if there were no such thing as " consciousness " > > > > What if there were no such thing as " mind " ? > > > > Oh.....I know.....you think that you are conscious because it appears > > that there is a you thing that is aware of its own thought. > > > > But is there really such a thing as " you " ? > > > > Do " you " really experience " things " ? > > > > Do " things " actually have an existantial reality? > > > > Or does the sense of being a separate entity emerge within the > > experiential arena as a phantom? > > > > Eyes do not see. > > Brains do not see. > > The imaginary individual does not see. > > Eyes cannot see sight. > > Consciousness cannot see itself. > > Consciousness in not a thing anymore than sight is a thing. > > Consciousness can be aware of everything but itself. > > > > So....what can you do with that understanding? > > > > > > Nothing. > > > > > > But it sure makes the struggle evaporate. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > perhaps if we think the universe in terms of vibrations, then what we > call material things are just a different class of vibratory > signatures. and consciousness perhaps are the very subtle vibrations. > > imagine, what if all vibrations stop.? > what is left? nothing > and yet we cannot ignore this nothingness. > for why there is something instead of nothing > In your dreams at night.....there appears to be a material world.....when in truth......there is none. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2008 Report Share Posted September 7, 2008 Where could HE Not be? When could HE NOT be? What shape could HE NOT be? Time, place, form, event,circumstance, space....on and on>>>> could HE NOT be? So if the answer NO EXCEPTION......that would mean NO QUANITY...or maybe said NO VOLUME. CREATION -------CONTINUATION--------DESTRUCTION are then not separate from HIM and I guess it could be said we just beamed out of ALL RELATIVE worlds. Like what happens on a smaller scale when one 'beams out of' his personal relative dream' by waking up. It sure seemed that it was there but it wasn`t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.