Matter or consciousness?

[Marblehead]

No, you're too fixated on an individual consciousness.

 

And are you, Sir, attempting to insert consciousness into things that possess no ability to attain consciousness?

 

I define consciousness as the ability of self-awareness. I can go no further than that.

 

I have talked to rocks. They have never spoken back. I don't have these kinds of delusions.

 

Yes, we have gone off topic a little but we are still discussing the main premise: Does matter = consciousness?

 

I think I have expressed my understanding of this question. And no one has shown a flaw in my logic. (Yes, others have disagreed but that is different.)

[Marblehead]

If you say "D.O" I will leave the universe!

 

Hehehe. I promise I won't mention it.

[Apech]

People recover from comas ... their consciousness has not been extinguished but has merely become dormant. Because you cant remember being asleep ... or your dreams does not mean you had no consciousness. It is merely a connection problem. So I don't buy the coma argument.

 

If matter is a form of energy ... something we seem to agree on ... then to say you are a materialist or believe in the reality of the objective physical world just means that you think that energy is real. Since we are energy and it is energy (the world) ... there is nothing else ... then logically consciousness must mean energy recognizing itself. Or perhaps it is recognizing the forms which it is able to take up ... a chair, a table, you , me ... etc.

 

So we have energy which has sentience ... we may not completely understand the mechanism of this but it seems an inescapable conclusion to me.

 

Maybe the nature of this energy is ineffable ... maybe that's why we are struggling with definitions.

[Marblehead]

People recover from comas ... their consciousness has not been extinguished but has merely become dormant. Because you cant remember being asleep ... or your dreams does not mean you had no consciousness. It is merely a connection problem. So I don't buy the coma argument.

 

If matter is a form of energy ... something we seem to agree on ... then to say you are a materialist or believe in the reality of the objective physical world just means that you think that energy is real. Since we are energy and it is energy (the world) ... there is nothing else ... then logically consciousness must mean energy recognizing itself. Or perhaps it is recognizing the forms which it is able to take up ... a chair, a table, you , me ... etc.

 

So we have energy which has sentience ... we may not completely understand the mechanism of this but it seems an inescapable conclusion to me.

 

Maybe the nature of this energy is ineffable ... maybe that's why we are struggling with definitions.

 

Hehehe. You must have very elastic arms and fingers because you are stretching a very long way in order to support your belief.

 

Yes, people do recover from comas. This is when they regain consciousness. If they regained it then it must be said that they didn't have it. How much more simplified can I make this?

 

When was the last time a rock spoke to you?

 

And my chair has never told me to get my fat ass off of it. Ah!, my chair. I have used it as an example many times, haven't I?

 

Yep. I live on this objective, physical planet. It is what I relate to when living my life.

 

Are you too perhaps taking your connections and associations a bit too far? But if they work for you then that's fine. Just don't spend too much time sitting in your easy chair, holding your rock and waiting for it to tell you all the answers to the questions you have in life. I think that you might end up finding that you have wasted a lot of your life.

 

BTW I don't talk with dead people either. They never talk back to me.

 

(Edited for spelling.)

Edited November 16, 2011 by Marblehead

[Apech]

Hehehe. You must have very elastic arms and fingers because you are stretching a very long way in order to support your belief.

 

Yes, people do recover from comas. This is when they regain consciousness. If they regained it then it must be said that they didn't have it. How much more simplified can I make this?

 

When was the last time a rock spoke to you?

 

And my chair has never told me to get my fat ass off of it. Ah!, my chair. I have used it as an example many times, haven't I?

 

Yep. I live on this objective, physical planet. It is what I relate to when living my life.

 

Are you too perhaps taking your connections and associations a bit too far? But if they work for you then that's fine. Just don't spend too much time sitting in your easy chair, holding your rock and waiting for it to tell you all the answers to the questions you have in life. I think that you might end up finding that you have wasted a lot of your life.

 

BTW I don't talk with dead people either. They never talk back to me.

 

(Edited for spelling.)

 

I think you are still equating consciousness to human consciousness. Rocks don't talk ... they don't have mouths... plants don't talk either but I believe they have a form of sentience because they seek sunlight etc. in other words they sense something about their environment.

 

If I am in deep sleep and you walk round my bedroom humming quietly to yourself (not that I am suggesting that you regularly break into peoples houses and do this ... I hope :lol: ) then I will not be conscious of you ... but that does not mean I have ceased to have any consciousness in any form whatsoever does it. It just means that my awareness has not distinguished you as an external object and identified your form. In fact I would suggest that it is likely that I would sense you in some way or other and wake with a vague (i.e. ill defined ) notion of some kind of presence in the room last night. Same for the guy in the coma.

 

By the way .. you have started to talk about beliefs (because of my so called stretchy fingers ... err !) I am trying to come from a logical standpoint. Until someone shows me how sentience/consciousness can arise in something intrinsically inert (i.e. matter = energy) I will continue to doubt that this is possible. I'm not saying it is impossible but I am just asking for some kind of descriptive mechanism which stands up to reasoned analysis.

 

My point is that we use these terms glibly. Matter, energy, consciousness ... by trying to define them properly we can get towards an understanding of what we are talking about. Until then saying 'everything is energy' has about as much meaning as 'everything is porridge' ... well almost ...

[Birch]

Easy!

Get a bunch of sentient stuff, pour on conditions for cooperation/symbiosis. Make conditions a bit iffy (require better connections) and there you go. Consciouness arises as a necessity. Or as an experiment. Experiment screws up so it stops and then restarts.

 

Sounds silly. BTW, no implication of any "mover" doing this stuff.

[C T]

Are the little stones 'weeping' the girl, or is girl weeping the little stones?

 

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_meet-the-seven-year-old-indian-girl-who-weeps-stones_1613239

[Marblehead]

My point is that we use these terms glibly. Matter, energy, consciousness ... by trying to define them properly we can get towards an understanding of what we are talking about. Until then saying 'everything is energy' has about as much meaning as 'everything is porridge' ... well almost ...

 

Oh, I totally agree. You know I am a materialist. Manifest reality exists just as surely as does Mystery, Chi, and Tao.

 

It are the physicists who are saying that everything is energy. Going further they say that everything is either a particle or a wave. Seems they haven't decided on that yet.

 

All matter is what it is until it changes form.

 

Consciousness, however, is a bit more tricky. What is it? Your mention to plants; I have already conceded to the thought that there may be consciousness of some form within all living things.

 

While sleeping, are we conscious or unconscious? My answer: Yes. Our eyes are closed but our other senses are still functioning. These senses feed the brain and we may become aware (conscious) of these experiences.

 

But how far do we want to take this concept of consciousness? To non-living thing? I just can't go there.

[Marblehead]

Easy!

 

Hehehe. No problem. Apech enjoys challenging me now and again. We are friends. Friends don't get mad - they just get even. No!!! That's not right. Well, you know what I mean, don't you?

 

Yeah, you go ahead on and create life in your kitchen. I can create mold simply by letting a slice of bread sit out in the open air for a few days.

[Marblehead]

Are the little stones 'weeping' the girl, or is girl weeping the little stones?

 

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_meet-the-seven-year-old-indian-girl-who-weeps-stones_1613239

 

I would suggest that this is some form of moisture loss of the tear while it is seeking an exit. All that is left are the minerials, mostly salt, emerging from her tear duct.

[konchog uma]

 

I have talked to rocks. They have never spoken back. I don't have these kinds of delusions.

 

 

Rocks speak really softly, you have to be very quiet to hear them. Mostly they don't have much to say, crystals talk more. Hermetic thought recognized the mineral realm as possessing consciousness. Plants don't have brains but they respond to speech, and again, if you're very quiet and respectful, they might even say something nice to you

 

The delusion might be in thinking that consciousness is a brain-based thing. You could not possibly prove that it is, but several notable researchers (like Nikola Tesla) had technology that could interface with the spirit world, suggesting that one can be self-aware without a brain. Even if you don't believe those stories or think, for any reason, that I could not possibly prove that consciousness is not brain-based (which i can't by the way), the best thing to do is remain open to the mystery of life.

 

I just heard a story the other night about a woman who came into possession of an ancient crystal skull and it talked to her and gave her guidance which she tested and found to be accurate. I heard the story on coast to coast AM, but she (and her crystal skull) have a website http://einsteinthecrystalskull.com/

Edited November 16, 2011 by anamatva

[3bob]

"Rocks", also known as stars and planets not only talk but sing in Tao all the time, but generally we don't hear their voices beneath the noisy deafness of our mankindness.

 

Om

Edited November 16, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

...as for the "non living", what or who is that really??

 

"...To be one with the Tao is to abide forever.

Such a one will be safe and whole

Even after the dissolution of his body".

from TTC 16

Edited November 16, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

...in some part of Buddhist doctrine the Buddha is recorded as speaking something about mind/brain/aggregates and also consciousness in basically absolute like terms. Then in another section of doctrine (that I could quote instead of parapharse) He is talks about legions of invisible beings that no one there can see or hear yet they are all gathered about in the area to pay their final respects to Him near the time of his passing.

 

Thus go figure (or not) what sounds like a serious contradiction on his part and which I believe some Buddhists overlook in relation to this subject?

 

Om

Edited November 16, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

(oops, double post)

Edited November 16, 2011 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

The delusion might be in thinking that consciousness is a brain-based thing.

 

Please don't think that I am suggest this. Recently a sea creature was discovered that actually has no brain. It has nerve clusters that control various parts of its body.

 

And I agree about the plants.

 

As I said, minerals are a little iffy.

 

I will go no further than that.

[Marblehead]

"Rocks", also known as stars and planets not only talk but sing in Tao all the time, but generally we don't hear their voices beneath the noisy deafness of our mankindness.

 

Om

 

You go ahead on, my friend.

[Marblehead]

...as for the "non living", what or who is that really??

 

"...To be one with the Tao is to abide forever.

Such a one will be safe and whole

Even after the dissolution of his body".

from TTC 16

 

More properly translated as:

 

If you're one with the Tao, to the end of your days you'll suffer no harm.

 

(Henricks' translation)

[konchog uma]

Please don't think that I am suggest this. Recently a sea creature was discovered that actually has no brain. It has nerve clusters that control various parts of its body.

 

And I agree about the plants.

 

As I said, minerals are a little iffy.

 

I will go no further than that.

 

octopi have 3/5 of their grey matter in their arms. but they still have brains in their heads. that new creature sounds neat.. i love anomalies.

 

as to the rest, fair enough. I wasn't trying to start a debate anyway. You are more than welcome to your opinions about rocks

 

peace marblehead

[Birch]

You've forgotten the brain in the human gut

too.

 

Crystals, remember crystal radios? I don't but my dad had one. Maybe i should make one from scratch...

 

Typo...many

Edited November 16, 2011 by -K-

[steve]

And are you, Sir, attempting to insert consciousness into things that possess no ability to attain consciousness?

 

I define consciousness as the ability of self-awareness. I can go no further than that.

 

I have talked to rocks. They have never spoken back. I don't have these kinds of delusions.

 

Yes, we have gone off topic a little but we are still discussing the main premise: Does matter = consciousness?

 

I think I have expressed my understanding of this question. And no one has shown a flaw in my logic. (Yes, others have disagreed but that is different.)

The flaw in your logic is that it fails to recognize the underlying connection between the experiencer and the experienced.

Between the organism and environment.

Between the sentient and the non-sentient and between one sentient and another.

The oneness of existence.

 

The separation of consciousness and matter is an artificial premise which is inaccurate.

The rock will never exist in the absence of its perception.

Some undefinable 'potential to do work' exists, and is the substrate of the brain as well as the rock it observes.

But it is the unique characteristics of the brain that brings "rock" into existence out of that ambiguous potential.

Perception defines it - and the perception may be immediate or may be distant in space, time, or both.

We exist in a universe that is aware of itself, and we're mediators of that self awareness.

And we feel very separate, but that's an illusion created by the very characteristics that allow us to serve in that role.

It's ironic.

 

But no one can ever cause anyone else or themselves to feel the oneness, it is either felt or not.

And it's very interesting that is often felt in association with or maybe even as a consequence of something terribly traumatic.

[Birch]

"But no one can ever cause anyone else or themselves to feel the oneness, it is either felt or not." which is why preaching it is not welcome IMO/IME:-)

[steve]

If you say "D.O" I will leave the universe!

 

 

We're in the Vedanta subforum!

DODODODODODODODODODODODODODODODO!

 

[3bob]

The flaw in your logic is that it fails to recognize the underlying connection between the experiencer and the experienced.

Between the organism and environment.

Between the sentient and the non-sentient and between one sentient and another.

The oneness of existence.

 

The separation of consciousness and matter is an artificial premise which is inaccurate.

The rock will never exist in the absence of its perception.

Some undefinable 'potential to do work' exists, and is the substrate of the brain as well as the rock it observes.

But it is the unique characteristics of the brain that brings "rock" into existence out of that ambiguous potential.

Perception defines it - and the perception may be immediate or may be distant in space, time, or both.

We exist in a universe that is aware of itself, and we're mediators of that self awareness.

And we feel very separate, but that's an illusion created by the very characteristics that allow us to serve in that role.

It's ironic.

 

But no one can ever cause anyone else or themselves to feel the oneness, it is either felt or not.

And it's very interesting that is often felt in association with or maybe even as a consequence of something terribly traumatic.

 

"...But no one can ever cause anyone else or themselves to feel the oneness, it is either felt or not"

 

So true Steve, although I suggest the word [force] may be somewhat better to use than [cause] in your sentence above; and I'd add that the same idea applies to no one being able to force anyone not to feel/know of same.

 

Om

[steve]

"But no one can ever cause anyone else or themselves to feel the oneness, it is either felt or not." which is why preaching it is not welcome IMO/IME:-)

Excellent point - my apologies if I sound preachy.

I've given up discussing this stuff with the gen. pop. entirely for that very reason.

I only discuss it with other like-minded fools interested in worrying about this metaphysical crap, like us.

That is why I hang out here.

And I don't mean to preach - just sharing my perspective and understanding relative to the question at hand, that is every bit as flawed and inaccurate as anyone else's.

 

 

PS - Q: If I feel a oneness and MH feels a twoness, who is "correct"?

 

A: Both, I think....

Edited November 16, 2011 by steve
Added stuff