[Nonduality Salon] Material Consciousness

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stephen " <cracker.jack wrote:

>

> cerosoul

> [Nonduality Salon] Re: Material Consciousness

>

> >P: Well, James, notice I didn't write that

> consciousness is life, but that consciousness

> requires life. So your syllogism is directed

> to a straw man of your own creation, and it

> doesn't fit what I wrote.

>

> May I ask how you are defining " life " exactly? What property would

you say a plant or animal has that a television set doesn't that makes

it " alive " ?

>

> To the biologist life is defined by such things as metabolism,

reproduction, growth, response to stimuli and/or adapatation to the

environment. (Though not all are necessarily present at the one time.)

>

> What specifica process or chemical substance to you think leads to

(or is equivalent with) consciousness?

>

> >The fact is believers

> will always find excuses to believe that

> consciousness doesn't require life because they

> want to keep being conscious after death.

>

> I really hope you can define how you are using the word " life " here

as I'm getting confused! )))

>

> Anyhow, to answer your point. Yes, wanting (raw desire or hope) to

continue on in an afterlife could very easily predispose someone to

believe that individual consciousness is a phenomenon distinct from

the brain.

>

> But, 'believers' may also 'believe' as they do due to some direct

personal experience of the otherworldly or because they feel another

philosophy, aside from materialism, is a better framework from which

to discuss reality and experience.

>

> <snip>

> >So why

> imagine omnipotent Gods that create an

> unnecessary mess?

>

> Who's imagining things?

>

> The everpresent and perpetual " Other " is apperceived in

consciousness directly just as much as the " Self " , while the empirical

observations of phenomenal reality have to be filtered through the

senses before they even reach consciousness!

>

> Why should I or anyone give more credence to such secondary rather

than our primary experience? (Particularly, when this whole idea

inherently requires us to place our faith unquestioningly in the idea

that phenomenal reality has some hidden self-perpetuating and

self-generating substance or other governing it's laws.)

>

> > Or divine tricksters and tests,

> when is so much simpler to propose that life

> and consciousness evolved from matter just

> because it was possible given change and time

> enough.

>

> Given that we have very direct evidence that consciousness exists

(in the form of personal experience) and absolutely no evidence

whatsoever that there is any fundamtal substance that exists how

exactly can it be " much simpler to propose " that there actually is a

substance and it's ultimately responsible for our existence and our

being conscious? Surely, it is much more realistic to say there is a

consciousness governing reality?

>

> >Of course, I have no proof, only the arrow of

> reason pointing that way. Let believers wander

> down the twisting alleyways trying to make the

> crooked ways straight.

 

 

 

 

>

> You have no proof - but the other guy is the 'believer'.... Hmm....

Are you sure?

 

 

There is no belief without a believer...believe that or not...

 

However, the lie is in the beLIEf/ beLIEver.... and truth? Truth is

greater than any fiction and there is no greater fiction than truth.

 

Consciousness is the act of recognizing all things as oneself.

Awareness is remote viewing.

 

Eh?

 

~Anna

 

 

>

> Regards,

> Stephen

>