Definition of Consciousness

[Alex Jacob]

"C'mon Carl, everyone knows life begins with a big bang."

Dan, if you were truly enlightened you wouldn't make statements with such bald-faced, obscene references.

[Carl G]

Bar fight!

*picks up chair*

[Kelly Jones]

A supreme consciousness, a something that has come to exist, or that has always existed, does not have to depend on Kevin Solway's logical premises. The nature of whatever it is that has originated all this, and itself exists, should be able to pretty much set up its own rules.

If it comes into existence, then it cannot originate "all this" (assuming you mean everything), because something was before it.

At the very least, it cannot set up rules to change that fact.

[Dan Rowden]

"C'mon Carl, everyone knows life begins with a big bang."

Dan, if you were truly enlightened you wouldn't make statements with such bald-faced, obscene references.

Sex is obscene? Damn, since when?

Anyway, re: consciousness, the view regarding universal awareness or cosmic consciousness expressed by one or two here is nonsense. The ALL is infinite, which makes it formless, but consciousness abides in form and really is form. Only a finite thing exhibits consciousness (regardless of whether you're defining it simply as differentiation or awareness of the fact of differentiation - which is really just another type of differentiation).

The only actual "universal" consciousness that exists is what we exhibit in every moment. i.e. I am aware of all form, right now.

[Kelly Jones]

Yes, the tricky thing is to know logically that consciousness = form, not = a form. Because non-consciousness = no forms.

The whole thing is based on logic. This is the hardest bit of the entire process. Many people have no idea that science or mysticism are not the only options available. It's no wonder that to scientists, a logical explanation sounds like mysticism and fanaticism. To the superstitious and New Aged, a logical explanation sounds like egotistical navel-gazing. Logic has gone the way of academic philosophy, and no one regards it seriously.

It'd be good to have a stack of clear, simple writings about logic.

[maestro]

I'm keeping it simple. If - hypothetically - there was no life at all anywhere in the Universe, then was there consciousness?

Yes any sub-part of the universe is conscious as it changes with the environment and thus has perception.

[Dan Rowden]

So, if I'm understanding you aright here, maestro, you're basically defining consciousness as "response to stimuli" - with any existent thing responding to said stimuli according to its "type" or form. Is that about right? In short, you're defining consciousness as differentiation in its most brute and basic sense.

[maestro]

Indeed, if you go to the very core this is what it is: The ability of differentiation. With this definition the fog around consciousness vanishes, and many perplexing questions such as life and death can be resolved.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: If - hypothetically - there was no life at all anywhere in the Universe, then was there consciousness?

M: Yes any sub-part of the universe is conscious as it changes with the environment and thus has perception.....Indeed, if you go to the very core this is what it is: The ability of differentiation.

Are you certain that the brain isn't necessary to differentiate things?

[maestro]

Are you certain that the brain isn't necessary to differentiate things?

Differentiation has already occured when the sub-part of universe changes with its environment. The brain stitches together all these perceptual inputs into a 3-d universe (plus sound and smell), and adds memory, recognition and classification (words and language).

[mikiel]

Dan,
In reference to your statements:

Anyway, re: consciousness, the view regarding universal awareness or cosmic consciousness expressed by one or two here is nonsense. The ALL is infinite, which makes it formless, but consciousness abides in form and really is form.

m to Kelly (in the "life after death" thread):

But admitting one has never experienced cosmic consciousness is honest, while denying the possibility of it is outright ignorant arrogance.

The Conscious Cosmos with which I am mystically familiar has a body, cosmos, of scientifically unknown size and shape, tho I have "seen" it mystically as described in my "cosmology and Kosmos" thread and elswere. Cosmos is *not* formless, just because science can not verify its form. Plus, as presented in my post above, consciousness transcends form anyway... and creates it at the same time.
"Pure Reason" has its limits. You are a prime example.

[mikiel]

he Omnipresent One, Universal Awareness,... " I Am "( without the words,) in each and all. And when that " I " sees ItSelf as the Divine, here now, it sees a reflection of the world in ItSelf, on whatever scale of vision one sees as his or her world.

The problem with this unitary consciousness is that the cognitive experience disappears in deep sleep.

What's the problem? Do you think Universal Consciousness (God, for short) ceases to exist when an individual locus/form sleeps? How absurd is that assumption?
Does the Universe depend on you individually being conscious of It for Its continuity of existence? (Those dumb enough to believe in solipsism think so!)

[Dan Rowden]

"Pure Reason" has its limits. You are a prime example.

Oh, I agree, it is limited by its inability to be insane.

[mikiel]

"Pure Reason" has its limits. You are a prime example.

Oh, I agree, it is limited by its inability to be insane.

You are so predictable! Another one liner insult without *any* argument/substance on my comment pertaining to the context of the "limits of pure reason" as contrasted with the possible Truth of mystic gnosis or vision as a legitimate way of "knowing."

Are you seriously asserting that all mystics who *know* Universal Consciousness (Gnosis) are insane?

You are spiritually dumber than a bucketfull of hammers.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: Are you certain that the brain isn't necessary to differentiate things?

M: Differentiation has already occured when the sub-part of universe changes with its environment.

If there is differentiation, then there are necessarily parts (rather than sub-parts). But the question to ask is - are there parts at all?

My view is that parts arise when there is a purpose for them, namely, the presence of an observer who has certain needs.

The brain stitches together all these perceptual inputs into a 3-d universe (plus sound and smell), and adds memory, recognition and classification (words and language).

Classification means giving form via relationships. In other words, it means differentiation.

What I think you're getting at is that the brain constructs forms out of 'raw stuff' based on its instructions. But the raw stuff doesn't have any particular characteristic before then. It is the Universe without differentiation - because there's no observer's purpose to create forms from it.

Causation arises with logic.

[Kelly Jones]

Do you think Universal Consciousness (God, for short) ceases to exist when an individual locus/form sleeps?

Is "Universal Consciousness" identical with "God-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "Messiah-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "enlightenment"?

You have stated that not everyone is enlightened.

[Kelly Jones]

Mikiel, didn't you say something to the effect that God-Consciousness manifests as love, transcendance, and compassion?

Is this love, transcendance, and compassion:

Dan responded to you succinctly and rationally (about pure reason in this thread), and you called his response a one-liner insult.

Kevin gave you a clear reasonable reply (about your definition of consciousness being invalid), and you accused him of evasion.

David pointed out what you yourself say about yourself (you are a Messiah, a 'locus of Universal Consciousness that is enlightened and has Messiah-Consciousness'), but you threatened to sue him.

It looks like paranoia.



Tell me this: is the Consciousness in the phrase "Universal Consciousness" the same Consciousness as in the phrase "Messiah Consciousness"? Or is it a different consciousness?

[Alex Jacob]

Kelly wrote:

"If it comes into existence, then it cannot originate "all this" (assuming you mean everything), because something was before it. At the very least, it cannot set up rules to change that fact."

But I also said 'or that existed always' which is logically the only possibility I'm aware of. So, if you accept that the All has always existed, and that it is the origin of all things, it can logically be whatever it wishes to be, and therefor (whew! and hallelujah!) we are finally in agreement.

I'm going to celebrate by getting drunk!
_________________________________________________

Kelly to Mikiel:

Dan responded to you succinctly and rationally (about pure reason in this thread), and you called his response a one-liner insult.

Kevin gave you a clear reasonable reply (about your definition of consciousness being invalid), and you accused him of evasion.

David pointed out what you yourself say about yourself (you are a Messiah, a 'locus of Universal Consciousness that is enlightened and has Messiah-Consciousness'), but you threatened to sue him.

Alex said your name should really be written out as 'Micky Eel' and you barked that you'd send an assassin after him...

It looks like paranoia.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: "If it comes into existence, then it cannot originate "all this" (assuming you mean everything), because something was before it. At the very least, it cannot set up rules to change that fact."

AJ: But I also said 'or that existed always' which is logically the only possibility I'm aware of.

The problem is this:

A supreme consciousness, a something that has come to exist, or that has always existed, does not have to depend on Kevin Solway's logical premises. The nature of whatever it is that has originated all this, and itself exists, should be able to pretty much set up its own rules.

Here you call it "a supreme consciousness". So...

So, if you accept that the All has always existed, and that it is the origin of all things, it can logically be whatever it wishes to be, and therefor (whew! and hallelujah!) we are finally in agreement.

....the question to explore is: is the All identical with a supreme consciousness?

Consciousness, is about being conscious. It is about awareness. Awareness is of something. It focusses and defines, pushing other stuff to the 'back of the mind'. It shuts out. It is bounded. And it can change from being hardly-aware, with poor focus, to being very aware and with high concentration. All this indicates that consciousness is not the All.

Alex said your name should really be written out as 'Micky Eel' and you barked that you'd send an assassin after him...

Did he? Maybe Mikiel's ego is fragile. It would be understandable if he invented a Universal Consciousness as a wall against the world of chaos and doubt, like an all-seeing, omniscient friend, who makes no mistakes and knows none of the insecurities of having a bounded, fallible consciousness.

It is unlucky that hasn't yet found in reasoning a helpful and benevolent friend.

[Alex Jacob]

L'enfer, c'est toi!
;-)

[mikiel]

KJ:
...."the question to explore is: is the All identical with a supreme consciousness?"
For scientists, "the All" is the universe... just a physical cosmos. For mystics, the All (all there is as manifest cosmos) and the One (God, whose body is the whole cosmos) is one Being, not two entities... same as humans on extremely small scale.

Consciousness, is about being conscious. It is about awareness. Awareness is of something. It focusses and defines, pushing other stuff to the 'back of the mind'. It shuts out. It is bounded. And it can change from being hardly-aware, with poor focus, to being very aware and with high concentration. All this indicates that consciousness is not the All.

You have nailed very well the difference between awareness and consciousness. We say we are aware of... whatever... objects, gross physical to subtle concepts. The confusion is that we also say we are conscious of... whatever. The two words are commonly used as synonymous.
However, consciousness does not require content ... the "awareness of" for its essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation... the above "objects."

The "creators" of this site do not yet know the difference. So the presented dogma is limited to the content of consciousness... what we are aware of... without gnosis of the independence of consciousness itself, transcending and creating all forms, transient as they are.
Consciousness Itself is eternal and unchanging... Not only the passive Witness, but the active Creator. Reason/logic alone *can not* comprehend this Truth... the major gap between true enlightenment and the dimnension of mental clarity which is the forte' of "pure reason."
Yes, I have studied Kant and the champions of "Pure Reason" and know how short he and they fall from enlightenment... as does the Trio 'enforcing!' the dogma of this forum... "THE QRS PHILOSOPY," falsely presented as a free-thinking forum for geniuses. ( They can't handle a polymath perspective.)

Alex said your name should really be written out as 'Micky Eel' and you barked that you'd send an assassin after him...

Did he? Maybe Mikiel's ego is fragile. It would be understandable if he invented a Universal Consciousness as a wall against the world of chaos and doubt, like an all-seeing, omniscient friend, who makes no mistakes and knows none of the insecurities of having a bounded, fallible consciousness.

Kelly,
What the hell is this total fabrication about? I am very curious about the time I allegedly "sent out an assassin" after Alex. I have called him various derrogatory names, including idiot... which is true for me in the non-literal (spiritual) sense.
We did have a poster here, quickly banned, who called himself 'Mickey-el", who was a mystery to me. I pointed out how I got my name, wondering how he got his. A trivial incident in my memory.

It is unlucky that hasn't yet found in reasoning a helpful and benevolent friend.[/quote]

As I have said, I was a debate champion in high school and a state HS debate judge as a post graduate in college. Reasoning and logic are essential elements in debate. I know the rules. I excelled in a class called "Logic and the Scientific Method" in college.

If you would like to challenge me to a logical debate... I accept.
Plus... whether you believe it or not... it's still true. My IQ scores on the big two were 170 on the SBIS and 178 on the WAIS (for children and adults, respectively... with several years in-between the tests.)

Are you properly intimidated? If not you should be. I think you are a fool.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: the question to explore is: is the All identical with a supreme consciousness?

Mikiel: For scientists, "the All" is the universe... just a physical cosmos. For mystics, the All (all there is as manifest cosmos) and the One (God, whose body is the whole cosmos) is one Being, not two entities... same as humans on extremely small scale.

Kelly: Consciousness, is about being conscious. It is about awareness. Awareness is of something. It focusses and defines, pushing other stuff to the 'back of the mind'. It shuts out. It is bounded. And it can change from being hardly-aware, with poor focus, to being very aware and with high concentration. All this indicates that consciousness is not the All.

Mikiel: You have nailed very well the difference between awareness and consciousness. We say we are aware of... whatever... objects, gross physical to subtle concepts. The confusion is that we also say we are conscious of... whatever. The two words are commonly used as synonymous. However, consciousness does not require content ... the "awareness of" for its essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation... the above "objects."

Are you defining consciousness as the "essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation"?

How is awareness of something different to witnessing it?

[mikiel]

KJ:

Are you defining consciousness as the "essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation"?
Yes.

How is awareness of something different to witnessing it?

It is not different. Consciousness is different than awareness in that awareness is passive witnessing while consciousness is not only passive awareness (at rest... just Being) but the Presence of the power (through intention... enter the causal plane...) to create. The result on cosmic scale is the manifest creation/cosmos, and it is, on the human scale, "my life" (and yours, to the degree you are Awake) as a conscious creator(s), a locus or loci of omnipresent consciousness.
The difference between being a participant in concious creation and being a victim of circumstance, an egocentric mired in illusion...
is enlightrenment.

[Kelly Jones]

So you're saying everything is created by people's intentions? What about the weather? lottery results? random password generations? freak accidents? viral mutations? unconscious biological mechanisms like cell regeneration? rocks, gases, minerals, trees, and life itself? How does a common ancestor of any living clades emerge? All of these don't happen by any conscious intention on anyone's part. No one decides and plans for these things to happen - at least, there is no evidence of any such totalitarian consciousness taking part.

If you define consciousness as intentions (making decisions, presumably), then are you saying that consciousness also creates the ability to have intentions, before it is capable of same?

If so, then consciousness as you define it comes up with all its intentions before they appear in consciousness. It's an impossible concept.

[Kelly Jones]

mikiel:Do you think Universal Consciousness (God, for short) ceases to exist when an individual locus/form sleeps?

Kelly: Is "Universal Consciousness" identical with "God-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "Messiah-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "enlightenment"? You have stated that not everyone is enlightened.

Kelly: Tell me this: is the Consciousness in the phrase "Universal Consciousness" the same Consciousness as in the phrase "Messiah Consciousness"? Or is it a different consciousness?

Bump.