On consciousness

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: On consciousness

Postby Jamesh » Fri May 11, 2012 2:31 pm

Dionysus - You are completely wrong. There is nothing about consciousness that is beyond empirical reality. Consciousness is the overall effect of certain forms, of certain casual patterns.

Consciousness "moves" because causes change. Not that it "moves" as such, rather that as it is an overall effect - the effect that is additional to the effects of the parts - it arises only when the causal pattern has the correct form. Consciousness is a coincidental outcome of form, and like all "entities" has no inherent existence as that entity. It does have manifested existence, it is cuasal in itsefl, but it does not have inherent existence.

I'll explain my rationale on this issue in a day or two - in my usual overly detailed and partly incoherent way that no-one seems to understand or find merit in :)
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: On consciousness

Postby ForbidenRea » Fri May 11, 2012 10:23 pm

Oh.....

but, thee sanhedreens...
ForbidenRea
 

Re: On consciousness

Postby Talking Ass » Sat May 12, 2012 2:06 am

Au contraire, James. You write in the way most recommended to a forum like this: complete essays where you spell out your views. I find your posts always readable and 'successful' in the above sense.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Dionysus » Sun May 13, 2012 1:09 am

Jamesh wrote:Dionysus - You are completely wrong. There is nothing about consciousness that is beyond empirical reality. Consciousness is the overall effect of certain forms, of certain casual patterns.

"Consciousness "moves" because causes change. Not that it "moves" as such, rather that as it is an overall effect - the effect that is additional to the effects of the parts - it arises only when the causal pattern has the correct form. Consciousness is a coincidental outcome of form, and like all "entities" has no inherent existence as that entity. It does have manifested existence, it is casual in itself, but it does not have inherent existence."




- But how do you KNOW consciousness IS NOT beyond empirical reality, is it not without an assumption that one can warrant the assertion that "there is no influence of the subject's mind onto that which is being perceived", that in order for you to perceive anything to begin with, your mind has to REPRESENT the world to itself, that without that mechanism, the world, as it exists to your eyes, WOULD HAVE NEVER EXISTED. As I pointed out earlier, for the world to exist within space and time, the mind has to have the necessary faculties within it to EXPERIENCE space and time. This is A priori knowledge; ie, knowledge without experience.
Just simply ask yourself how we have been able to create triangles, to conceive of numbers without that existing anywhere else around us (Geometry as in Space, Numbers as in Time!). Why is it then, that if the world were really as it were , that we are able to perceive solidity in something as infinitely empty as an atom? How is that possible?

- Consciousness DOES NOT MOVE (as in the essential nature of consciousness is immovable) - If you say consciousness has manifested existence, then that MUST imply as a logical necessity that there is a neumenal existence, ie, one that is beyond the manifestation (N.B. manifestation in itself is phenomenon present to us within the representation). Just read up on the ways of the Vedanta, Zen Buddhists, Taoists, Confucius, and the idealistic philosophy of Kant and Schopenhauer (admittedly, even Frederich Nietzsche was a devout follower of Schopenhauer's).
User avatar
Dionysus
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 6:12 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Jamesh » Mon May 14, 2012 1:52 pm

This started off as a response to a comment from someone on one of the threads from a week or so back. Most of it does not relate to what Dionysus said, and I had meant to “fix” some comments in it, but I’ll post it anyway as is as I’m feeling a bit lazy just at present. I've bolded the bits that related to consciousness.

[no basis in reality, one would think that if A= reality then not A is nothing cause everything has a opposite].


My view is that everything or anything does not have an opposite. But instead that which they are, is the state of being relatively lesser or greater.

Form is what we see, and what do we see there? We see lesser and greater patterns relative to whatever our definitions are. The way forces flow within and react to intrusions from outside give things their attributes. A greater pattern can either be a Mirror Pattern or an Elemental Pattern. Btw, these pattern names I just made up are not opposites, but degrees of the same thing.

A Mirror pattern is a complex one, meaning it has a greater number of internally linked causal flows, it has more segmentation, or parts, that link together to create greater internal boundedness. This type of pattern has the attribute of reflecting normal external forces, but may be fragile to others. A Rubber pattern is a far more simple pattern that is less fragile, strongly bound at key points by the very simplicity of that pattern, but with more flexibility to external forces. Stretch it too far though and it fractures.

This form of greater/lesser is before most concepts human mean in reference to greater/lesser. The definition only refers to the manner in which forces equalize. They do not equalize due to being in opposition with each other, they equalize due to their likeness.
A male and a female are not opposites. What is alike in our form is far more significant than what is not alike. That portion that is not alike, is complementary difference, not opposite. A vag fits perfectly with a cock, and a tit with a suckling infants mouth, feminine communal attitude fits well with an adventurous male self-centered ego an so on. In terms of purpose differences merge to make the true one. Differences are parts of the one. All parts “do their own thing” internally, but eternally they are subject to the whole. Parts, including us as individuals, have forms that break down and disassemble, but it is the whole that enables the recreation of those parts. There are no opposites, even death is not opposite to life.

To us of course the loss of the ability to return to consciousness, death is an opposite to life.
But is it really? Firstly consciousness is an attribute, its an effect, not a part. It has no physical presence of its own. It is either caused to arise or to not arise. So we are left with the physical body. Even there though so many lower level parts retain their Rubber forms, and eventually will become food for another conscious entities – this means there is a return to consciousness - just not the one we have now.
The absence of an effect, does not constitute a true opposite, it merely indicates lesser or greater complexity of form, where a particular defined form has been as the standard to compare against. The opposites we create, by limiting definitions to selective attributes, are for necessary convenience (necessary for us to be human, but not necessary in the same way evolution can be simply a convenience to a species).


In a linear sense it goes like this:

Force A has 10% of the power of force B.
Force A is lesser than Force B
What is alike/complementary in the form flow of Force and Force B will shift together
Force A + Force B now become Force C, sort of
Due to non-complimentary form, some of Force A’s power may remain as it was, but it is no longer Force A as it is no longer 10% of what was force B, but is now lesser. A is a different A, and B is a different B.

The problem is that this action is continuous. Time also allows for Forces other than A and B, casual infinity, to affect A and B, thus what was in the process of equalizing now, will have other more equal forces that prevents A and B merging fully into a Force C. All things are transient, and because Time expanding it is always adding more force into the equation, thus full equalization of the Totality is not possible, as it is continuously creating non-equal flows.

So if you add in the time dimension, as soon as anything is defined it is no longer exactly what it was. The problem with Time in its non-absolute sense, in any measured sense, is that it immediately becomes subjective, it depends on the observer. We observers create the quantum concept, it is not truly part of underlying reality. It cannot be possible as it would mean that the totality was not absolutely connected. I know there are theories that propose this, a pulsing universe, but it cannot be so. A quantum based universe would require a gap of nothingness, and were that so then nothing could return from it. Unlike an effect like consciousness, the Totality has no externality from which to recreate itself.

Continuous expansion provides the same ultimate affect as a “universe from nothing”, pulsing or otherwise. One could say that in time expanding, it is expanding from a non-spatial state to a spatial state. The affect of that is pulse-like, it is abrupt as in 0-1, but constant, so the abruptness/quantumness is only on an accumulated scale, due to the internal equalising affects of form. It is not expanding from nothing though, it is expanding from what is was as it expands.

Expansion provides flow and power. The term causality alone is nothing with those attributes, which means causality is a divisible effect of nature. Causality is a limited descriptor - It’s really just logic redefined as causality. To be useful it must deal in specific things, but otherwise it is completely abstract. It seems others view Time in the manner I view causality. They view time as an effect and causality as The Cause, whereas I view Time as The Cause and causality as the effect. I’m being more realistic as Time is not dualistic, it does not have multiple attributes, it is not polarized, yet it causes multiple attributes, as in degrees of lesser/greater, simply by the nature of its sole attribute. Time precedes attributes; causality relies on attributes already being in existence.

There are pulses, there is certainly the appearance of a quantum nature to the universe, but that comes from evolution and devolution of patterns, of form, not what is the content of that form. A pulse, like light, occurs when a simple pattern is caused to explode, rather than simply fracturing into larger segments. What had a semi-steady two way flow, now suddenly has a greater outward flow, and this reverberates outward until equalized. A wave is created, as it pushed out against the infinite onion ring of forces.

As I said above like things act to become more alike, they causally shift from greater to lesser and lesser to greater, all the time creating greater uniformity. Also the more complexity a thing has the more alike it is to other things of equal complexity, and the more they are drawn together, the more they will connect. As all forces always have greater outside forces, then that will cause the formation of parts within that are also alike, but separated.

Their separation occurs as they form. The greatest force of all, Times expansion, is always flowing from the outside in, as it its always enveloping the past. The past therefore is the eternal centre of the totality, the past is the centre of all gravity. As everything has a past, every part of everything also thus is its own centre of gravity, and the more past there is, the greater it is, the stronger gravity will be. Thus by nature everything is competing with everything else to form a circle. Only some win, the rest are “waved away” literally.

Everything, or should I say everywhere, is there due to being caused. It has a past. Forces have acted upon it. We only ever sense the past, our electron flows take time, the actual now is invisible to us, except when we think, it is then that we sense the present.

Thank god it is invisible, as otherwise it would mean the blinding light of immanent death. By this time electrons have stopped being regenerated, and existing ones are siphoning down the plughole from your memory, and the plughole is consciousness. As they flow they pull stored electrons out of your brain, until you are brain dead. Electron flow dead. 21 grams of electrons from memory lighter :) Starvation, hypothermia, hibernation, and suffocation (all only to a degree), tend to progressively shut off the electron tap to the frontal lobes, thus revival is possible.

Thinking is a rest-of-brain-organized flow of electrons through the frontal lobes. Consciousness is where electrons are converted into wave form by a physical part of the brain . It creates a direct link to the totality as there is an immediacy and a completeness. Unlike thinking, wave forms are not so much linear occurrences but holistic. Waves flow out in all directions, rather than from A to B, but only some rebounds. It is mental sonar, not the “specific” thus sense sonar that bats use. Our existence is created from the rebound affect, it tells us we have a mental presence in reality.

Buddhist brain scans show increased EGG detectable activity. Due to having a Rubber Pattern ego, conceptual systems where unlike others, their emotions are not acting like soap powder enzymes that zap out unacceptable memories. Emotions decrease the volume of memory content that is sent to the frontal lobes, and thus limit what is taken into account in ones thinking. There is lesser volume of electrons therefore there is less interaction with the totality via the creation of brain wave feedback. This is because emotions are meant to internalize, they are meant to cause concentration on oneself, so that that self acts in a certain way. Consider anger, does it not create a one-sided, volatile action limited to a certain issue, a certin thing.

Some Buddhists monks, and other that can think non-emotionally, have increased flow through their brains, thus are creating a greater wave stream of consciousness, thus they have a heightened sense of nowness.


nothing is the cause for something before you can have something there has to be a nothing to create that something.


Causality can neither arise from, nor create nothing. Infinity mean endless. Do not be scared off by what this means. Do not discount endlessness.

Why is the point of view that there must be a nothing before existence more valid than existence must always have been. You have to think of this in manner that excludes form as being relevant. Yes any specific form part of existence has to have a beginning, and thus an ending, but as there are many various forms, does that not infer there is a basic form that must always have been.

Well there is - Times expansion is a form. Form is where a segment of X is distinguishable from another segment. The underlying common difference in all form segments is location within the defined form. Everything we physically sense about all form requires the inclusion of spatial location differentiation, whether it is the forms of sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch, the sense of thinking or the awareness sense. We could see nothing without spatial location differentiation within what we are seeing to reflect the light in certain ways. The form of size is an effect of comparative overall spatial location. Speed as a form is an effect of spatial relocation.

Time-space is as inherent in form, as it is in the content of all forms. Expansion of time requires a beginning, whose only cause is its own past. There is no major problem in viewing time as being nothing physical. Call it the Nothing That Expands if you like, because if it did not expand, well yes it would be nothing, non-existent. If it had any other attribute, then it would not be self-caused, as then it would be a thing that was divisible into parts.

Don’t get too hung up about this self-caused concept. As soon as something exists, as in form is recognizable, then it has gravity. If that gravity ever attracts anything then could not one say that it as well as being a present appearance of the infinity of past and present causes, that it also became self-causing?

A thing becomes self-causing when it has a centre of gravity, when it has a shape, and when it has a pattern and thus has many segments with their own centres of gravity. Now while everywhere has a centre of gravity, even what is referred to as empty space, in space each centre is already equal to everything around it thus will not attract. Gravity results from the accumulation of segmented centres of gravity, it makes a thing greater than things with less structure. This is because each segment is in the process of equalising with each other, between segments the gravitation is somewhat “used up” in that process, there is less force that can be equalized outside, and in becoming a lesser affect on the external it becomes a greater affect on itself, it becomes more self-caused. As all segments are trying to equalize with all other segments, where they crisscross the most will be the overall centre of gravity of the thing.

Space, anywhere we can see, is not really empty. There is always an externality affecting it. The great externality in the universe is light, the electromagnetic spectrum. Only some light is ever reflected, that means it converts from a wave to a particle. As light flows through space it causes space to fluctuate, it does this because the sun is round and therefore it comes off the sun from different locations of the circumference, and more importantly it hits things along the way - thus the light is not exactly the same as it flows through space. If it is not the same then it will cause different affects. Light must affect space in some fashion, for its affect to travel from the sun to us requires causality to be occurring every part of the way. Is light a wave of light or is it a wave of space? Does it depart as a light wave and become a wave/particle via interaction with space? I’d say the later. If everything has a centre of gravity, as it must, then that means that space has a sort of murkiness. Does not the speed of light signify this. Does not the fact that everywhere is not blinding light signify this.

When light is present Spaces omnipresent centre of gravity vibrates, it stirs, which causes center of gravity peaks and troughs. This shifting from a uniform state enables the evolution of structure via the accumulation of centre of gravity.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: On consciousness

Postby Dionysus » Tue May 15, 2012 5:07 am

> Jamesh you are completely right about "mirror" and "elemental" reality not being opposites, in the language of German Idealism they are called "empirical" and "transcendental", while being viewed as opposites, they are not. They simply "differ" to a lesser or greater extent, one is present to us within the faculty of perception, the other present through the faculty of understanding. No contradiction :D. I think you have your own language for describing them is all.
User avatar
Dionysus
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 6:12 am

Previous

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jufa and 3 guests