Definition of Consciousness

[maestro]

Concepts in mysticism that pop up frequently are universal consciousness, witness, awareness, emptiness.

People have discussed these ideas endlessly for centuries without even bothering to define consciousness.

Without a clear definition of consciousness, there could be no progress towards enlightenment. With that in mind I invite all posters to give their definition of consciousness.

I will start with mine, consciousness is simply the ability to sense the environment. The whole universe is conscious, due to this fact alone. Systems can be built which can sense and adapt to the environment using memory and logic, heurisitics etc: an animal would be one such system, the system as a whole could be said to be on a higher level of consciousness due to the adaptive and self preservation capabilities. Finally, we can build systems that create a fake core (the self) (eg humans).

[Sarge_Jr]

It depends on the context. Consciousness would be what we see through our "senses". Sight, In my opinion, would be the main indication of contact with the earth. Without eyes or sight, A human being would have a really tough time performing the simplest of tasks.

Think of sub Consciousness. Would you say its the opposite of consciousness, or would you say death is the opposite of consciousness? Some may say its an alternate reality, played out somewhere in your mind, The part that isnt displayed in front of your eyes, the part you can't smell or hear.

The universe has mass, indeed. We can feel solid mass easily... And we can see that mass has a certain colour or feel to it. Its attributes.

Are we alive? It all depends in which way you mean. We are alive in emotion, spiritually or physically. One must seriously have a mind way out of the box to work out what consciousness is.

[Leyla Shen]

Consciousness would be what we see through our "senses".

Think of sub Consciousness. Would you say its the opposite of consciousness, or would you say death is the opposite of consciousness?

If consciousness is 'what we see through our "senses"', then death resides in consciousness and cannot be its opposite.

[Sarge_Jr]

Consciousness would be what we see through our "senses".

Think of sub Consciousness. Would you say its the opposite of consciousness, or would you say death is the opposite of consciousness?

If consciousness is 'what we see through our "senses"', then death resides in consciousness and cannot be its opposite.

Define Death resides in consciousness, I'm having a hard time understanding that one ^.^

[Leyla Shen]

If, as you say, consciousness is what we see through our “senses” [sic], then since you would need to see death to be conscious of it, death and consciousness aren’t mutually exclusive--that is, both cannot occur at the same time. Thus, neither can oppose the other, except in fairytales, of course.

[Kevin Solway]

Consciousness requires something other than itself to be conscious of. That's why the Universe can't be conscious.

Why? I hope you have more evidence then that a finger cannot touch itself.

If there's nothing other than itself, then there's nothing for it to be conscious of. And if it's not conscious of anything, then it can't be appropriately called "consciousness."

I imagine you might say that "It can be conscious of part of itself." But can a fingertip touch part of itself? No, it cannot — not even a part of itself.

In the case that consciousness is aware of a part of something, it is always apart from that part.

[maestro]

If there's nothing other than itself, then there's nothing for it to be conscious of. And if it's not conscious of anything, then it can't be appropriately called "consciousness."

You are positing a unitary thing, a thing can be broken in to sub-parts which can be conscious of each other.

I think this is one of the confusions created by meditation. As people become more aware of their mind's functioning, they reason that there must be something besides the mind that is becoming conscious of it, and so ideas such as witness and the real self take hold. I think Ryan is currently in the grip of such ideas.

[Kelly Jones]

To my mind, Kevin's concepts of "it being conscious" and "things to be conscious of" are not the same ones that Mikiel's using, ie. "witness" and "witnessed".

Kevin seems to be saying that Everything cannot be conscious of itself, because it can't define itself. It can't say, "I'm this bit, and the rest is not me". By definition.

Consciousness, however, can say "there is something that is not this bit". It can say, "there is a bit beyond and apart from what is happening right now".

Whereas Mikiel's bits both happen in consciousness.

[Kelly Jones]

Also, consciousness cannot be conscious of itself, ie. experience itself as a specific experience, but it can know what it does.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Maestro,

As people become more aware of their mind's functioning, they reason that there must be something besides the mind that is becoming conscious of it, and so ideas such as witness and the real self take hold. I think Ryan is currently in the grip of such ideas.

All I’m suggesting is that the mind can be conscious of itself in hindsight, and there can also be self-awareness that assesses the quality of ones thoughts. That is the closest thing to the fingertip that touches itself. Although, I’m not as quick to come to some of the logical conclusions that Kevin does because many of his conclusions are based on assumptions that he cannot be absolutely certain of. For instance: I’ve had a few bizarre experiences that suggest consciousness could be a force that extends beyond the brain. However, I do not personally hold this belief, but I will throw it out as a possibility.

The contradiction I see in Kevin’s reasoning is that he’ll agree to a statement that suggests that we cannot be certain that this reality isn’t a matrix world, but if you suggest that there is the possibility that the universe could be part of some larger conscious force, then he totally denies that with certainty. However that possibility seems just as likely as the matrix world. For instance: I have had experiences of telepathy, clairvoyance, or I’ll become aware that someone is thinking about calling me, so I’ll reach for my phone before they call, and that is strange, it doesn’t make add up in a materialist world….

The biggest beef I have with Kevin’s reasoning is the materialist certainty that he derives from assumptions. Myself, I don't claim to ultimately know what this reality is at its deepest level, and anyone who claims otherwise is not only lying to you, but lying to themselves....

[Kevin Solway]

The contradiction I see in Kevin’s reasoning is that he’ll agree to a statement that suggests that we cannot be certain that this reality isn’t a matrix world, but if you suggest that there is the possibility that the universe could be part of some larger conscious force, then he totally denies that with certainty.

This is because "the Universe" is absolutely Everything, by definition, so it's logically impossible for it to be a part of something bigger.

I have had experiences of telepathy, clairvoyance, or I’ll become aware that someone is thinking about calling me, so I’ll reach for my phone before they call, and that is strange, it doesn’t make add up in a materialist world….

If it actually happens, then I don't consider it "strange." It's just something that we don't understand how it works, and there are many things that happen that we don't yet understand, and many that we will never understand.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin,

If it actually happens, then I don't consider it "strange." It's just something that we don't understand how it works, and there are many things that happen that we don't yet understand, and many that we will never understand.

How are you using the term strange though? Because it seems to me that there is everyday ordinary experience, and then there are instances when some experiences are out of the ordinary, they are rare, and they don’t quite fit into our normal experience of how things usually unfold….

This is because "the Universe" is absolutely Everything, by definition, so it's logically impossible for it to be a part of something bigger.

Actually, if I remember correctly, you define the totality as everything, and the universe is simply our local microcosm. Our local expanding cosmos…

[Kevin Solway]

there is everyday ordinary experience, and then there are instances when some experiences are out of the ordinary, they are rare, and they don’t quite fit into our normal experience of how things usually unfold….

Yes, those things are unusual, but I don't think of them as "strange", as such, because "strange" tends to have emotional or spooky connotations.

This is because "the Universe" is absolutely Everything, by definition, so it's logically impossible for it to be a part of something bigger.

Actually, if I remember correctly, you define the totality as everything, and the universe is simply our local microcosm. Our local expanding cosmos…

Yes, the word "universe" can be very misleading. Originally, so far as I know, it was used to mean "Everything", which is hinted at by the construction of the word, "Uni-verse", meaning that there is only One. But scientists now use the term, "universe", to mean any particular part of the Universe. So now I tend to spell the word "Universe" with a capital "U" to make it clear which one I'm talking about.

I think scientists should use some other term to indicate what they are talking about, even if they say "local-universe", to avoid confusion.

So if I've ever said that there is no possibility that the Universe could be part of some larger conscious force, then I'm talking about the real Universe, and not some local or micro-"universe".

It's certainly possible that our entire local-universe is so incredibly small that its existence is not even noticeable to beings who exist on a much larger scale.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin,

It's certainly possible that our entire local-universe is so incredibly small that its existence is not even noticeable to beings who exist on a much larger scale.

Intuitively, I speculated on such an arrangement because in the natural world, hierarchy emerges in almost all scientific disciplines, it seems to be an embedded law of the cosmos, much like gravity, thermodynamics, and the strong and weak nuclear forces… For instance: In the neocortex, there are small cells that’s sole purpose is to register specific electrical impulses from images, and there are millions of them, but their existence makes it possible for larger types of image recognition, and eventually cognition to occur. Moreover, in society, you have low level jobs that slaves tend to gravitate towards, such as janitors, garbage men, laborers and so on. However, these positions make a philosopher’s existence possible.

So if there were larger scale beings, as you say, they probably wouldn’t take any notice of us at all, or they may even be incapable of taking any notice to us.

However, the main point here is that the law of hierarchy is an necessary condition to the survival of consciousness, as it is embedded in many aspects of reality.

[Carl G]

Kevin: Consciousness requires something other than itself to be conscious of. That's why the Universe can't be conscious.

Carl: Why?

Kevin: If there's nothing other than itself, then there's nothing for it to be conscious of.

Itself. Self-conscious.

I imagine you might say that "It can be conscious of part of itself."

I imagine you think consciousness cannot be self-aware without splitting into separate things -- the observer and observed -- thus negating the unity you believe intrinsic to the term consciousness as you define it? How do you prove this?

I hope you have more evidence then that a finger cannot touch itself.

But can a fingertip touch part of itself? No, it cannot -- not even a part of itself.

Doh! You apply a physical example to a sensory issue. It is like saying I cannot physically touch the moon, thus I cannot be aware of my awareness. It's ridiculous. I can demonstrate to myself my own self awareness, in a minute.

[Alex Jacob]

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.

[Carl G]

Kevin is just saying he knows what those rules are. I'm saying he maybe doesn't, that's all.

[geniuine]

...But what if he does!?

[mikiel]

Here is the link to my meditation page and a couple of exerpts from the opening and closing:
http://www.consciousunity.org/med.htm

Meditation is turning the attention from the usual preoccupations of life,... one's thoughts, feelings, and sensations/perceptions ,toward Consciousness Itself, the awareness or Ultimate Identity in Whom all these experiences a rise.

Each way of meditating eventually reveals that there is only the stream of consciousness, full phenomena, and " home ", " the 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.

Ultimately, as one's sense of separate identity is, by grace, surrendered, the Seer and the seen become One in compassionate, loving transcendence.

I Am/ We Are/ the Divine Is ...One...Consciousness ItSelf...Here, Now and Omnipresent!

Anyone here read Franklin Merrell-Wolff's "Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object" ?
It gives the lie to the myopic view that "objects" are a requirement for consciousness to exist.
Here is an excerpt from the intro of the keynote address at a convention on F M-W a few years ago given by a friend of mine, James McFarlane:
(I'll post and then retrieve it and edit)

The Fundamental Realization which is at the heart of Wolff's philosophy transcends conceptual understanding. Conception is a mode of cognition that involves objectification. When we know conceptually, we are creating an object of knowledge. Fundamental Realization, in contrast, involves the turning of the Light of Consciousness back upon Itself toward Its Source, a mode of cognition in which outward objectification is surrendered and Consciousness prior to objectification spontaneously Recognizes Itself. This Recognition is a Knowledge Through Identity wherein the knower, known, and act of knowing are identical. In this identity of subject, object, and knowing, Consciousness is the knower, Consciousness is the known, and Consciousness is the knowing. In other words, Consciousness is the knowingness that, in Fundamental Realization, Knows Itself through Identity with Itself, prior to any division of subject and object. This knowingness is inherent in the essential nature of Consciousness. It is, was, and always will be, right here and now, in the pure and simple immediacy of this very awareness.

The full text of the address is at:
http://www.integralscience.org/wolffsheart.htm

[Kelly Jones]

What about when there is no life, such as at the 'Big Bang'?

[Carl G]

How do we know there is no life at the 'Big Bang'?

[Dan Rowden]

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

[Kelly Jones]

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

[Carl G]

Consciousness implies life.

[maestro]

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.