Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 You didn't know it then, but it's known now that consciousness can't happen without the frontal lobes of the brain. This is known because there are people who due to trauma have lost the wiring between the vision centers and the front lobes. This people are not conscious of seeing, but can catch an object if one is thrown to them. If asked to describe the object they just caught, they have to feel it with their fingers as blind people do. They never bump into things, but do not know what kind of object they avoided. They just say they just felt like having to sidestep without knowing why. So get updated, and don't talk about consciousness as being an entity, it's just a moment to moment activity. No entities inhabit the brain. Do you think little robot cars with tiny cameras and a small computers are conscious when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness anyway? Anyone has a good definition? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > You didn't know it then, but it's > known now that consciousness can't happen > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > This is known because there are people > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > between the vision centers and the front > lobes. This people are not conscious of > seeing, but can catch an object if one > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > the object they just caught, they have > to feel it with their fingers as blind > people do. They never bump into things, > but do not know what kind of object they > avoided. They just say they just felt like > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > So get updated, and don't talk about > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > a moment to moment activity. No entities > inhabit the brain. > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > cameras and a small computers are conscious > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > Pete It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as an activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than a property only of the brain. It makes sense to me that a dancer includes consciousness in the joints, along with consciousness in the brain, with communication between brain and joints, resulting in synchronized movements. Just to give what works for me: To be conscious: To be attending to, or able to attend to, an image, sensed object, or feeling. To be unconscious: Not to be attending to, or unable to attend to, an image, sensed object or feeling. Do you notice, in the research you cited, that " to be conscious " is linked with the ability to speak coherently about a situation? Indeed, that research could be construed as showing there is consciousness going on outside of the frontal lobes, but there is no ability to talk about it when that connection is severed. To be conscious often implies the ability to exhibit voluntary movements and responses (as opposed to merely reflexive responses). Such as in the example you gave, to be able to give responsive answers to questions that are not reflexive, but show a review of information in memory and putting together coherent speech as a result of the review. The concept of " volition " generally is linked with " being conscious. " Which raises the question, " what is it to be conscious and responsive, yet have no sense of volition " ? To be able to respond to one's name, to requests, to make choices about what to eat for lunch, but to have no sense of volition involved in the choice-making and responding. Consciousness then is not taken as the seat of a volitional entity. And that raises the question of whether volition isn't a kind of feeling and an interpretive notion rather than anything more definite. A feeling of volition may arise without any volition involved in the feeling having arisen. The interpretation that someone is showing volition may occur, without any volition being involved in that interpretation occurring. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > You didn't know it then, but it's > known now that consciousness can't happen > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > This is known because there are people > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > between the vision centers and the front > lobes. This people are not conscious of > seeing, but can catch an object if one > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > the object they just caught, they have > to feel it with their fingers as blind > people do. They never bump into things, > but do not know what kind of object they > avoided. They just say they just felt like > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > So get updated, and don't talk about > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > a moment to moment activity. No entities > inhabit the brain. > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > cameras and a small computers are conscious > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > Pete > Thanks Pete, This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a ball, move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards their head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me ponder why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without needing it ? The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for communication. Consciousness is a social function. The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share the world presented by consciousness. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a property only of the brain. The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. A movement. As is everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > property only of the brain. The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. A movement. As is everything. geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the brain itself. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > property only of the brain. > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > A movement. > > As is everything. > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the > brain itself. LOL Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan? Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " . There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually. One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'. It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption and guessing and surmisal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:36 PM Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > property only of the brain. > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > A movement. > > As is everything. > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain > w/o > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click > that > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of > the > brain itself. LOL Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan? -tim- That is pete's post. Pete. You sniped his part - as always. :>) -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:36 PM > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > > property only of the brain. > > > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > > > A movement. > > > > As is everything. > > > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain > > w/o > > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click > > that > > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of > > the > > brain itself. LOL > > Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan? > -tim- > > That is pete's post. Pete. You sniped his part - as always. :>) > -geo- Ahh, OK. Our resident brain surgeon, Pete ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > > property only of the brain. > > > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > > > A movement. > > > > As is everything. > > > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o > > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that > > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the > > brain itself. LOL > > Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan? > > Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " . > > There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually. > > One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'. > > It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption and guessing and surmisal. > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question. Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually. To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > You didn't know it then, but it's > known now that consciousness can't happen > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > This is known because there are people > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > between the vision centers and the front > lobes. This people are not conscious of > seeing, but can catch an object if one > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > the object they just caught, they have > to feel it with their fingers as blind > people do. They never bump into things, > but do not know what kind of object they > avoided. They just say they just felt like > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > So get updated, and don't talk about > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > a moment to moment activity. No entities > inhabit the brain. > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > cameras and a small computers are conscious > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > Pete > It's that thinky stuff in your head? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > You didn't know it then, but it's > > known now that consciousness can't happen > > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > > > This is known because there are people > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > > between the vision centers and the front > > lobes. This people are not conscious of > > seeing, but can catch an object if one > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > > the object they just caught, they have > > to feel it with their fingers as blind > > people do. They never bump into things, > > but do not know what kind of object they > > avoided. They just say they just felt like > > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > > > So get updated, and don't talk about > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > > a moment to moment activity. No entities > > inhabit the brain. > > > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > > cameras and a small computers are conscious > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > > > Pete > > > > > Thanks Pete, > > This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a ball, move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards their head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me ponder why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without needing it ? > > The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for communication. Consciousness is a social function. > > The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share the world presented by consciousness. > > Werner > Consciousness is a survival program. It evolved simply because it helps the physical organism survive and reproduce. It is not a thing any more than sight is a thing. In the human species......it evolved to the point where it objectifies its perceptions and thereby creates a pseudo-reality from which a few try to escape. toombaru toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > property only of the brain. > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > A movement. > > As is everything. > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the > brain itself. LOL > I heard of a brain surgeon who didn't trust any other doctor to operate on his brain....so he did it himself. I don't remember what happened to him. He doesn't either. :-0 toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a property only of the brain. > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > A movement. > > As is everything. Absolutely. All any explanation can do, is end in " -ing " ---ing well right! -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > > property only of the brain. > > > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > > > A movement. > > > > As is everything. > > > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o > > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that > > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the > > brain itself. LOL > > Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan? > > Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " . > > There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually. > > One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'. > > It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption and guessing and surmisal. Sure. All concepts are second-hand. And one wants to be right, and say it right, etc., etc. And there is no right. What is right, is what isn't said. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > > > property only of the brain. > > > > > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > > > > > A movement. > > > > > > As is everything. > > > > > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > > > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o > > > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that > > > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the > > > brain itself. LOL > > > > Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan? > > > > Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " . > > > > There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually. > > > > One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'. > > > > It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption and guessing and surmisal. > > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question. > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually. > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'. What is known directly, is known directly. And it isn't advaita. I can tell you that. I just can't say what it is. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question. > > > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually. > > > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'. > > > What is known directly, is known directly. > > And it isn't advaita. > > I can tell you that. > > I just can't say what it is. > > - D - The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM > > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an > > > > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a > > > > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a > > > > > property only of the brain. > > > > > > > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object. > > > > > > > > A movement. > > > > > > > > As is everything. > > > > > > > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to > > > > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o > > > > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that > > > > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the > > > > brain itself. LOL > > > > > > Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan? > > > > > > Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " . > > > > > > There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually. > > > > > > One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'. > > > > > > It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption and guessing and surmisal. > > > > > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question. > > > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually. > > > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'. > > > What is known directly, is known directly. > > And it isn't advaita. > > I can tell you that. > > I just can't say what it is. > > - D - > Your new name shall be: " Isnsed " toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question. > > > > > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually. > > > > > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'. > > > > > > What is known directly, is known directly. > > > > And it isn't advaita. > > > > I can tell you that. > > > > I just can't say what it is. > > > > - D - > > The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'. Is " pass me the ketchup " not talk about it? -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question. > > > > > > > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually. > > > > > > > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'. > > > > > > > > > What is known directly, is known directly. > > > > > > And it isn't advaita. > > > > > > I can tell you that. > > > > > > I just can't say what it is. > > > > > > - D - > > > > The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'. > > Is " pass me the ketchup " not talk about it? > > -- D -- " Pass me the ketchup " is thought arising as it. So is this talk. So, you're right, talk of ketchup and talk of advaita are not different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question. > > > > > > > > > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually. > > > > > > > > > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is known directly, is known directly. > > > > > > > > And it isn't advaita. > > > > > > > > I can tell you that. > > > > > > > > I just can't say what it is. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'. > > > > Is " pass me the ketchup " not talk about it? > > > > -- D -- > > " Pass me the ketchup " is thought arising as it. > > So is this talk. > > So, you're right, talk of ketchup and talk of advaita are not different. Yes. There is something so obvious, that it is diminished by any commenting about it, implying it needs something more, something to be said. Just as sitting meditation implies it needs some kind of special refinement, some kind of special disciplined silence. These are ways one gets fooled by society, which relies on messages about how something needs to be added, be made different, altered by imparting it to someone, or doing something special with it. Society always needs to put someone in a special position, as the spokesperson, the expert. It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. I don't know what I mean by this. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > - D - I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to come up fairly commonly. I don't know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > - D - > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to come up fairly commonly. > > I don't know why. > Tell me why... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim. > > > > > > I don't know what I mean by this. > > > > > > - D - > > > > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to come up fairly commonly. > > > > I don't know why. > > > > Tell me why... Why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > You didn't know it then, but it's > > > known now that consciousness can't happen > > > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > > > > > This is known because there are people > > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > > > between the vision centers and the front > > > lobes. This people are not conscious of > > > seeing, but can catch an object if one > > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > > > the object they just caught, they have > > > to feel it with their fingers as blind > > > people do. They never bump into things, > > > but do not know what kind of object they > > > avoided. They just say they just felt like > > > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > > > > > So get updated, and don't talk about > > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > > > a moment to moment activity. No entities > > > inhabit the brain. > > > > > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > > > cameras and a small computers are conscious > > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pete, > > > > This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a ball, move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards their head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me ponder why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without needing it ? > > > > The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for communication. Consciousness is a social function. > > > > The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share the world presented by consciousness. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Consciousness is a survival program. > > It evolved simply because it helps the physical organism survive and reproduce. > > It is not a thing any more than sight is a thing. > > In the human species......it evolved to the point where it objectifies its perceptions and thereby creates a pseudo-reality from which a few try to escape. > > > > toombaru > Still to philosophical, Toomb, Can we meet that way: Consicousness is part of the organisms's survival pack crystallized int the last billion years. I am hesitationg to call consciousness a survival strategy because then who is the strategist ? We can just deal here with ideas and concepts but they are fun enough. Werner > > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You didn't know it then, but it's > > > > known now that consciousness can't happen > > > > without the frontal lobes of the brain. > > > > > > > > This is known because there are people > > > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring > > > > between the vision centers and the front > > > > lobes. This people are not conscious of > > > > seeing, but can catch an object if one > > > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe > > > > the object they just caught, they have > > > > to feel it with their fingers as blind > > > > people do. They never bump into things, > > > > but do not know what kind of object they > > > > avoided. They just say they just felt like > > > > having to sidestep without knowing why. > > > > > > > > So get updated, and don't talk about > > > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just > > > > a moment to moment activity. No entities > > > > inhabit the brain. > > > > > > > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny > > > > cameras and a small computers are conscious > > > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness > > > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition? > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Pete, > > > > > > This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a ball, move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards their head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me ponder why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without needing it ? > > > > > > The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for communication. Consciousness is a social function. > > > > > > The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share the world presented by consciousness. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is a survival program. > > > > It evolved simply because it helps the physical organism survive and reproduce. > > > > It is not a thing any more than sight is a thing. > > > > In the human species......it evolved to the point where it objectifies its perceptions and thereby creates a pseudo-reality from which a few try to escape. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Still to philosophical, Toomb, > > Can we meet that way: > > Consicousness is part of the organisms's survival pack crystallized int the last billion years. > > I am hesitationg to call consciousness a survival strategy because then who is the strategist ? Who is the strategist behind the peacock's tail or the hummingbird's beak? toombaru > > We can just deal here with ideas and concepts but they are fun enough. > > Werner > > > Ideas and concepts are all we can deal with. toombaru 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.