The Source of Consciousness

[Gee]

consciousness has two components (thought and emotion). Science studies thought and the brain, religion studies emotion and "God", and they have argued about who is right for at least a thousand years.

Organism consciousness has no clearly distinct components.

Although I can see why you might believe this as it is a common belief, it is simply not true. As long as people insist that thought, and only thought, is consciousness, then there are no clearly distinct components -- there is only thought which only some species with brains can have.

But facts do not back up that nonsense. You can not think yourself alive. You can not think away your need for sleep, or food. You can not think yourself aware. You can not think up your children, or your ability to produce children, or your need for children, or your bond with your children. These things require feeling, emotion, and awareness.

If you stop and think about it, you will realize that all life has survival instincts (self-preservation), and that no species can survive without these instincts, and all of these instincts work by and/or through awareness, feeling, and emotion. These instincts are the "drives" that keep life going very much like the "drives" that are described in the Id, which is part of the unconscious aspect of mind, which is part of consciousness. Life "feels" the need to do things that will ensure it's survival, it does not "think" about the need to do these things. Thinking and feeling are "clearly distinct" and are components of consciousness.

And organism consciousness isn't all there is to consciousness either.

Never said it was, but you must admit that "organism consciousness" gives us most of our evidence about consciousness. Unless I am wrong and the Universe is a huge organism, the "source" and/or the One is an example of consciousness that is not an organism.

And in 50 years you never heard of science studying emotions?

Emotions? Yes, science studies emotions in a variety of ways. Emotion? No, science does not have a clue what it is. As objective as science tries to be, it continues to study emotion in only a personal subjective manner and will not even consider any objective evidence of it even when presented with facts.

Gee

[Atla]

consciousness has two components (thought and emotion). Science studies thought and the brain, religion studies emotion and "God", and they have argued about who is right for at least a thousand years.

Organism consciousness has no clearly distinct components.

Although I can see why you might believe this as it is a common belief, it is simply not true. As long as people insist that thought, and only thought, is consciousness, then there are no clearly distinct components -- there is only thought which only some species with brains can have.

But facts do not back up that nonsense. You can not think yourself alive. You can not think away your need for sleep, or food. You can not think yourself aware. You can not think up your children, or your ability to produce children, or your need for children, or your bond with your children. These things require feeling, emotion, and awareness.

If you stop and think about it, you will realize that all life has survival instincts (self-preservation), and that no species can survive without these instincts, and all of these instincts work by and/or through awareness, feeling, and emotion. These instincts are the "drives" that keep life going very much like the "drives" that are described in the Id, which is part of the unconscious aspect of mind, which is part of consciousness. Life "feels" the need to do things that will ensure it's survival, it does not "think" about the need to do these things. Thinking and feeling are "clearly distinct" and are components of consciousness.

And organism consciousness isn't all there is to consciousness either.

Never said it was, but you must admit that "organism consciousness" gives us most of our evidence about consciousness. Unless I am wrong and the Universe is a huge organism, the "source" and/or the One is an example of consciousness that is not an organism.

And in 50 years you never heard of science studying emotions?

Emotions? Yes, science studies emotions in a variety of ways. Emotion? No, science does not have a clue what it is. As objective as science tries to be, it continues to study emotion in only a personal subjective manner and will not even consider any objective evidence of it even when presented with facts.

Gee

I've never seen people insist before that only thought is consciousness. Not laymen, not scientists.

[Consul]

I've never seen people insist before that only thought is consciousness. Not laymen, not scientists.

Historical remark: Descartes equates consciousness with thought ("cogitatio" in Latin, "pensée" in French); but his concept of thought is much broader than our concept of thought, because he subsumes what Hume calls impressions, i.e. sensations and emotions, under thoughts. All contents of consciousness, i.e. both impressions and ideas/images, are Cartesian thoughts.

[killing raven sun]

"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla

Most discussions concerning the nature of consciousness avoid the essential question as to the source of consciousness.

all experience is consciousness, it is the infinite fabric of reality, the electric charge that creates matter and the whole universe

consciousness comes from the future perfect self, a being outside of our reality that we(the universe) are becoming, it communicates with us through the intuition and can be friended or ignored

everything that happens to you, every word you read is a message from the future perfect self guiding you towards it

[Consul]

consciousness has two components (thought and emotion). Science studies thought and the brain, religion studies emotion and "God", and they have argued about who is right for at least a thousand years.

Organism consciousness has no clearly distinct components.

Although I can see why you might believe this as it is a common belief, it is simply not true. As long as people insist that thought, and only thought, is consciousness, then there are no clearly distinct components -- there is only thought which only some species with brains can have.

There are three basic kinds of subjective experiences (experiential contents of consciousness):

1. sensation
2. emotion
3. imagination
(3.1 cogitation)

Cogitation or thought is a kind of imagination, because it consists in the inner use of linguistic or other symbolic imagery.

However, depending on one's ontology of emotions, emotions can be interpreted as bodily sensations, and thus as a kind of sensations; and depending on one's ontology of imagination, imagination can be interpreted as the simulation of sensory perception, with so-called mental images being regarded as simulated or virtual sensations (called Sinnesphantasmen/sense-phantasms by Husserl).

[-0+]

without reawakening and acquiring conscious freedom from imagination, can we really discern right from wrong?

No reawakening or conscious freedom from imagination is needed for people to assert what they believe is right/wrong. This can happen in a dream. Can ideas about right and wrong survive a full awakening?

John may need to fully awaken before he can answer this question ... He may feel he is more awake now than he was before, but how can he tell if he is fully awake now or still trapped in some level of dreaming or imagination? What test can he apply to tell for sure?

[Count Lucanor]

"Now we are even."? Are we back in grade school?

If someone wants to behave like being back in grade school, they get what they asked for. If you rely on sweeping assessments, making assumptions, I'm in no obligation of providing anything better. It's called leveling the field.

I have been studying consciousness off and on for the past 50 years, and you will find that I post mostly in threads that deal with consciousness because that is what I know.

Correction: that is what you think you know or what you wish you would know. Whether that is true or not, is yet to be seen.

I have read posts that you have made that I considered intelligent responses -- but not in threads about consciousness. When it comes to consciousness, you give responses and opinions that are quite clueless, so my assessment is not just from this thread.

Too bad you couldn't jump in right at those moments when you read my responses to actually demonstrate that they were clueless. Your assessment now, without the matter at hand, is then irrelevant and off-topic.

Consciousness is a massive subject, so there are few people, who have a decent understanding of it. My health is bad, so I do a lot more reading threads than I do posting. I have found you to be one of the members, who is more interested in arguing about consciousness, rather than learning about consciousness.

I had a close friend, whom I debated for a long time, who was very old and suffered from very bad health. He happened to be related to the field of cognitive research, and he wrote articles on the subject. So we discussed quite a lot about cognition, sometimes very passionately. Despite his bad health, he did write a lot right to the very end of his life. Your lame excuse for not posting is irrelevant to me.

That was my point. It is clear to you that consciousness does not seem to be a substance, therefore it must be true that it is "a name for a set of neurological processes". That is like saying that the animal that I am looking at does not seem to be a donkey, therefore it must be a goat. No logic whatsoever, which was my point.

Your bad health might be impairing your reasoning. If I see a goat, but you claim it is a donkey, then I will say: "sorry, but it does not seem to be a donkey, it is just a goat". I never said the order of the terms is inverted, nor I have ever implied a causal connection between the affirmative statement and the negative one. Also, saying "it does not seem..." merely implies: "you can try to prove that it is a donkey (or a substance) if you like".

If you are going to talk about beliefs, then consider that there is good reason to believe that consciousness is physical -- unless you believe in magic.

Have I ever said here or anywhere else that consciousness is not related to the physical body of a living organism?

It should embarrass you to have made such a ridiculous response while posting in a philosophy forum. Of the three disciplines, science has given us the least of our information on consciousness.

Three disciplines? What exactly is the "third discipline"?, if you don't feel embarrassed to tell us. In any case, speculating about consciousness hardly gave us any insight, and for centuries produced all the nonsense associated with idealist philosophies and the clumsy rationalizations of ignorant, superstitious minds. Only when natural science arrived things finally made real sense.

[Nick_A]

without reawakening and acquiring conscious freedom from imagination, can we really discern right from wrong?

No reawakening or conscious freedom from imagination is needed for people to assert what they believe is right/wrong. This can happen in a dream. Can ideas about right and wrong survive a full awakening?

John may need to fully awaken before he can answer this question ... He may feel he is more awake now than he was before, but how can he tell if he is fully awake now or still trapped in some level of dreaming or imagination? What test can he apply to tell for sure?

Does objective good and evil exist for Man at a higher level of understnding than what our senses are capable of?

According to the Bible the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed before Man so man didn't create it. If objective good and evil does exist as a universal principle can a person admit intellectually that they can become able to experience it?

[-0+]

Life "feels" the need to do things that will ensure it's survival, it does not "think" about the need to do these things. Thinking and feeling are "clearly distinct" and are components of consciousness.

The need to to do things can be expressed and experienced as thought. In everyday language, concepts like thought, feeling, emotion, awareness, etc, are quite nebulous. "I think" and "I feel" can often be used interchangeably. Where can a line be clearly and meaningfully drawn between the two? Emotion is commonly defined as strong feeling. What meaningful level of strength is required before feeling qualifies as emotion? Awareness is commonly defined as the state of being conscious; consciousness is commonly defined as the state of being aware ...

People often create artificial distinctions by drawing arbitrary lines in continuums where there are no real discrete differences (like between: big and small; hot and cold; black and white).

What definitions of thought, feeling, emotion, etc, allow these to be clearly distinct?

[-0+]

Does objective good and evil exist for Man at a higher level of understnding than what our senses are capable of?

What can be done to conclusively answer this question? If it was somehow revealed that objective good and evil do exist, what could be done to verify that this revelation is genuine and not hallucinatory? What practical difference might it make if this does really exist?

According to the Bible the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed before Man so man didn't create it.

The Bible suggests it was wrong for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from this tree, perhaps because it was wrong for them to have this knowledge, either because it was meant to remain hidden from them (like a spoiler), or there was something wrong with this knowledge (it could be unhealthy and corruptive like poison or a drug that results in internal conflict and suffering for anyone who consumes this)?

What if objective good and evil does exits and it is objectively wrong to acquire knowledge of this?

If objective good and evil does exist as a universal principle can a person admit intellectually that they can become able to experience it?

It could be experienced but what could be done to confirm the validity of this?

Rather than speculate on a source that may be inaccessible and unknowable, another approach is to become the source of a "universe" about which a lot more can be known.

Imagine that John develops a computer game "universe". This CGU is powered by John's universe which is physical relative to him and supernatural relative to inhabitants of the CGU. The CGU is virtual relative to John, but is "physical" relative to its inhabitants with its own "laws of physics" (as defined by John's program).

John can claim to be "God" of the CGU he created without claiming to be anything like the source of his universe, nor that his universe is much like his computer game. This is just one way for him to be on the supernatural side of a physical-supernatural relationship between universes (relative to the CGU) with significant access to the "supernatural" side and access to all the data of the "physical" side, allowing him to investigate what inhabitants of a physical universe are capable of accessing/knowing about their supernature (if anything).

The CGU could be inhabited by characters who are able to sense and explore their shared environment and scientifically reverse engineer "laws of physics" that fit what they observe.

If the CGU doesn't allow any external inputs then these characters don't have access to anything beyond their universe. They can only speculate what the source of their universe might be.

If the CGU allows characters to be controlled to some extent by players who exist in John's universe (beyond the CGU), then things become more interesting.

If Jane is playing character Sue then Sue may receive supernatural input from Jane. But unless Sue has total knowledge of the CGU's "laws of physics" how can she tell which aspects of her own behaviour are controlled by the program and which aspects are controlled by her player? How can she even tell if she has a player?

If Jane consciously experiences playing Sue, she may wonder if Sue also has conscious experience. If Jane feels like she is becoming one with Sue while she is playing her then perhaps they share the same experience? On the other hand, Sue may have private data that Jane doesn't have access to, and Jane's private thoughts may not transfer to Sue. They may have totally separate consciousness, partly separate consciousness with some overlap, or Sue may not have any consciousness at all. How can Jane tell?

John can observe all the data flow associated with Sue but how can he tell if Sue is experiencing any consciousness or not? He can only tell what he he is experiencing.

Sue and other characters may gain a good understanding of what their "laws of physics" allow them to do. Then they may start to wonder: "Are some things we are able to do more right or wrong than others?"

What might John's view of this be? He might say: "Here are all the ways characters may behave, but I declare some of these ways are wrong and it would evil to behave in these ways that I have allowed. In particular, it would be wrong to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that is growing accessibly in the garden of CGU."

Would this qualify as objectively wrong? This is John's subjective opinion. Jane may have a different opinion. As "God" of CGU, John's opinion may be more influential but it is still just his subjective opinion.

In order for right and wrong to be universally objective, this would have to be coded into the universe somehow. If John codes this into the CGU then this would just be objective relative to the CGU.

Then it may be asked what effect will any "wrong-doing" have? If this has a physical effect then Sue may be able to observe this like any other physical effect. If this just affects something that Sue isn't able to observe, like a game score, then what difference does it make to her if she does anything "wrong" or not?

If Jane has access to the score then this may make a difference to her, but the importance of this score is not objective relative to her universe. She may or may not care if she scores highly or not. She may just play for the joy of playing.

[Nick_A]

-O+

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:50 pm
Does objective good and evil exist for Man at a higher level of understnding than what our senses are capable of?

What can be done to conclusively answer this question? If it was somehow revealed that objective good and evil do exist, what could be done to verify that this revelation is genuine and not hallucinatory? What practical difference might it make if this does really exist?

N: A person can only sufficiently answer the question for themselves. Plato described remembering why Man is here as anamnesis or remembering what has been forgotten. Remembering comes through noesis rather than dualistic thought. In Christianity it is being born again.

As I understand it, the structure of our universe is sustained through the opposite but complimentary flows of the three elemental forces. These three forces, positive, negative, and reconciling interact and create the involutionary flow or away from the source and into creation and the evolutionary force or return to the source.

Existence below Plato's divided line follows the law of involution and the cycles of dust to dust. Man is dual natured. Animal Man existing below the line follows the law of involution. However above the line is where human consciousness becomes possible and a person can feel the natural attraction to evolve back to the source. The human condition is the struggle between human and reactive animal consciousness

There was cosmic need at one time to forget human purpose but no longer exists. But forgetting what was normal introduced many bad habits into the psych of Man. Plato describes them in the Chariot analogy where the dark horse has become corrupted and pulls the driver and the white horse down into the earth.

The objective good for Man is returning to its source while objective evil for Man is mindlessly involving further into creation and away from its Source.

Now Man is free to remember but unable to do it without help. In Christianity it is help from the spiritual energy of grace which heals the heart.

[Gee]

I've never seen people insist before that only thought is consciousness. Not laymen, not scientists.

I find that difficult to believe. It is possible that you have seen it, but not recognized what you were looking at, so I will give you some examples.

AI is where we artificially process knowledge, information, or thought that is man made. Many people think that because AI "thinks", it could be conscious or become conscious. This is a simple association between consciousness and thought.

A large percentage of people will state that to be sentient, a form of consciousness, is to be a thinking life form. Many believe that only humans are sentient; others believe a brain is necessary for sentience. Another simple association between consciousness and thought. Sentience requires neither thought nor a brain.

When Descartes stated, "I think; therefore, I am" he also implied that if I do not think, it is because I am not. Another simple association between consciousness and thought.

Many people took Descartes ideas and looked for proof of what/who was conscious, but the only way to prove that someone can think was through language, so language became the measure of thought and consciousness. This left questions about the deaf, the mentally handicapped, infants, and people who spoke an unintelligible language (heathens) for many years. It also denied the consciousness of almost all other life. Another association between consciousness and thought.

Early in this thread, we learned that Dr. Fenwick believed that when the brain died, there was no consciousness, but was surprised to learn that NDE's are real. He knew that if the brain died, there would be no more thought, so he assumed that there would be no more experience -- he was wrong. This simple association between thought and consciousness was proven invalid.

These are only a few examples. I don't want to type this post all night long. There are more examples, and you can find them yourself if you look. People associate thought and the brain with consciousness. This is a simple truth that you can accept or you can lie to yourself. It makes no difference as to the truth of the matter.

Gee

[Gee]

I've never seen people insist before that only thought is consciousness. Not laymen, not scientists.

Historical remark: Descartes equates consciousness with thought ("cogitatio" in Latin, "pensée" in French); but his concept of thought is much broader than our concept of thought, because he subsumes what Hume calls impressions, i.e. sensations and emotions, under thoughts. All contents of consciousness, i.e. both impressions and ideas/images, are Cartesian thoughts.

Consul;

Thank you for this information. Descartes and Hume lived a long time ago, and although they were both brilliant men, they did not have the information on communication that science gives us now. So there is a great deal that they could not possibly know.

Have you ever wondered why we can not communicate emotion very well; it is much easier to communicate thought? This is because knowledge, memory, and thought are digital. This division of consciousness is digital, static, and works well within the rational aspect of mind and language because it breaks down into pieces.

The other division, awareness, feeling, and emotion is analogue and does not break down into language well at all, which is why we use poetry, art, music, dance, etc. to try to convey emotion. This division is fluid, and powerful; emotion is known as the motivator, it is capable of self-motivation without thought.

So I would never put emotion under thought, as they are two entirely different things. It is true that all the components of consciousness tend to work together and seem to be interdependent, but when looking for the "source" it is beneficial to keep in mind the properties of each component.

Gee

[Atla]

I've never seen people insist before that only thought is consciousness. Not laymen, not scientists.

I find that difficult to believe. It is possible that you have seen it, but not recognized what you were looking at, so I will give you some examples.

AI is where we artificially process knowledge, information, or thought that is man made. Many people think that because AI "thinks", it could be conscious or become conscious. This is a simple association between consciousness and thought.

A large percentage of people will state that to be sentient, a form of consciousness, is to be a thinking life form. Many believe that only humans are sentient; others believe a brain is necessary for sentience. Another simple association between consciousness and thought. Sentience requires neither thought nor a brain.

When Descartes stated, "I think; therefore, I am" he also implied that if I do not think, it is because I am not. Another simple association between consciousness and thought.

Many people took Descartes ideas and looked for proof of what/who was conscious, but the only way to prove that someone can think was through language, so language became the measure of thought and consciousness. This left questions about the deaf, the mentally handicapped, infants, and people who spoke an unintelligible language (heathens) for many years. It also denied the consciousness of almost all other life. Another association between consciousness and thought.

Early in this thread, we learned that Dr. Fenwick believed that when the brain died, there was no consciousness, but was surprised to learn that NDE's are real. He knew that if the brain died, there would be no more thought, so he assumed that there would be no more experience -- he was wrong. This simple association between thought and consciousness was proven invalid.

These are only a few examples. I don't want to type this post all night long. There are more examples, and you can find them yourself if you look. People associate thought and the brain with consciousness. This is a simple truth that you can accept or you can lie to yourself. It makes no difference as to the truth of the matter.

Gee

Not true today, times have changed. Many consider thinking to be perhaps the most important part of consciousness, but neither laymen nor scientist insist that only thought is consciousness. Obviously there are always a few weirdos who will believe anything, but aside from that, I honestly haven't seen this. Thinking-feeling AI is also a totally explored thing.

[Atla]

Early in this thread, we learned that Dr. Fenwick believed that when the brain died, there was no consciousness, but was surprised to learn that NDE's are real. He knew that if the brain died, there would be no more thought, so he assumed that there would be no more experience -- he was wrong. This simple association between thought and consciousness was proven invalid.

The problem with NDE's is that people with low, lingering brain activity can have the wildest experiences, that may tend to happen in smaller portions of the brain, because the brain-wide synchronization has fallen apart. So, many brain regions no longer contribute in shaping these experiences, these experiences can seem "unfiltered", raw, vivid and outside space and time.

It's pretty dumb to attribute these unusual experiences to a consciousness that exists independently and outside of the brain. As neuroscientists age, they sometimes fill the need to come up with this kind of nonsense. Though you were at least somewhat right, according to science, phenomenal consciousness can't be traced to the brain, only these particular experiences can be.