Consciousness

I doubt that Darwin thought that consciousness resided in all living things. I've never read anything by Darwin that suggested this.

As for Alfred Russel Wallace, he also believed that he could communicate with the dead. Unlike Darwin, he wasn't exactly the best scientist.

Behaviorism says nothing about consciousness. Strict behaviorists are trying to explain behavior in terms of stimuli and response, and view the mind as being messy and theoretically useless. Behaviorists don't think that consciousness is nothing at all, they just think that you don't need to postulate a mind in order to explain behavior.

 

...but, it's being aware of it..then perhaps utilizing it..

 

..but, it's being aware of it..then perhaps utilizing it.

 

consciousness is a fluke, a burden and a curse

 

1) What is the nature of consciousness? Explain what it means to you.

Consciousness is essentially mysterious. Since you begin from a standpoint of a conscious observer, not knowing what consciousness is, there are no grounds to say it is a good tool for deducing what it is. It's a Catch-22.

2) What has consciousness (other human beings, animals, plants, etc.) and what leads you to this conclusion?

Everything has consciousness. Meaning there is an experiential component to all chemical interactions. Everything that is possesses a "being." I can't prove that. I just like to think so.

3) Are consciousness and emotions separate or the same thing? What about consciousness and thought? Consciousness and sense perceptions?

I think there are different forms of consciousness, but that said, everything that is experienced is a part of consciousness, inextricable from it. You can't have any of the things you mentioned without consciousness.

4) Is consciousness dependant on language or can it exist without language?

It depends on what is meant by language, I guess. Even animals and insects have forms of language (even if just body language.) They communicate. As long as there is something to communicate with, I would say consciousness exists along with language. But I'm not sure if there exists a state of being that is complete solitude.

5) Does consciousness live on after death? How or why not?

Well I know it wouldn't be the exact same thing as being a human being. Since we only have our five senses to experience with and no way of discerning how much they're capable of grasping, it's really hard to tell how reality is actually structured. How? Maybe time is an illusion and there's an imbedded memory of every living thing that never dies. I don't know.

6) Aside from when we are dreaming, are we conscious when we sleep? What about when we pass out or are in a coma?

Maybe all there is is consciousness and the time that appears to pass when a person is allegedly unconscious is only a part of the awake's imagined mental construct. There's nothing to suggest that time passes at all for an "unconscious" person. All that ever happens is experienced.

 

The beautiful thing about existentialism is that there is no wrong way or answer. The only time anyone can ever be wrong is if they're using values as excuses for their choices or they're betraying their own beliefs.

1) What is the nature of consciousness? Explain what it means to you.
The nature of consciousness. To me. I used to think that consciousness was just being physically awake, but there's so much more. Consciousness is the moment when you stop living your life to look around and watch others live theirs. You see yourself through their eyes for a moment and try to capture every moment you once thought insignificant. You disconnect from your true self to connect to another. To me, consciousness is just as beautiful as it is tragic. Essentially, I believe that consciousness causes anxiety. You ever feel anxious? You were conscious.

2) What has consciousness (other human beings, animals, plants, etc.) and what leads you to this conclusion?
Doesn't matter. Or maybe it does, I don't know. At the end of the day, it could be that only I have consciousness. Or only humans. Or only mammals. Or only humans and animals. Or plants, too. What I believe? That anything is possible. I don't really believe or disbelieve that any of those have consciousness.

3) Are consciousness and emotions separate or the same thing? What about consciousness and thought? Consciousness and sense perceptions?
Consciousness and emotions are different things. I previously explained what consciousness means to me. Emotions, however, can be felt while you are not in a state of consciousness, only connected to yourself and your own life and actions. They can also be felt while you are conscious. Emotions are merely reactions to thoughts.
Consciousness and thoughts. Again, rather unrelated in nature, but work together. Like blood and the veins. One in the same? No. But they work together.
Sense perceptions... not quite sure what you mean by that. Forgive my ignorance.


4) Is consciousness dependant on language or can it exist without language?
Oh no. Consciousness must've existed before language itself, definitely. There is no language in consciousness. It just is. It's the realization of things being and not being. There need not be language for that realization.

5) Does consciousness live on after death? How or why not?
Depends on what you believe. I believe that there is some kind of after life, whether it be heaven, hell, reincarnation, or floating spirits... there must be something. One cannot just cease existing altogether. Therefore, I do believe that consciousness exists after death. Example: Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus.


6) Aside from when we are dreaming, are we conscious when we sleep? What about when we pass out or are in a coma?
There is a possibility, I believe of being conscious while asleep or passed out. In a coma, I wouldn't know because I've never been in a coma, but the moment of consciousness, I think, is definitely possible while asleep or passed out.

 

I don't think you truly understand what the word conscious means, no you're not conscious when you sleep, nor in a coma.

 

Do you understand that this is an existentialism post? Do you understand what existentialism is? If you do, then you should understand the questions, which you apparently do not.

 

Consciousness, or subjective awareness, is what separates us from the walking dead. It is the only thing we can be sure of--the most immediately knowable aspect of our existence. And I agree with the previous poster: we can't be conscious when we're unconscious. Even existentialists should make some concessions to simple logic.

 

The mind is naturally abstract and everything is exchanging information.

 

This.

The whole universe is concious, but through one conciousness.
We are concious when we sleep, our dreams prove that through the subconcious.
Conciousness doesnt mean you think or feel, it just means you are.
You can feel it in the wind.

Although we appear seperate from each other, we are just individual beings all sharing the same concious.

 

1) What is the nature of consciousness? Explain what it means to you.

being aware of something, anything, either external or internal. consciousness begins (and only exists in) the moment in which you become aware of something and ends when you are no longer able to become aware of anything.

2) What has consciousness (other human beings, animals, plants, etc.) and what leads you to this conclusion?

other humans, most animals (not all). pretty much nothing but an educated guess. i think therefore i am, and (if i choose to believe that the world as i perceive it exists at all, i accept that this is largely a baseless assumption) there appear to be certain pre-requisites for awareness in creatures, mainly the presence of a brain. so i can logically assume that things which have brains may well also have a sense of awareness, but that things which don't are altogether less likely to. plus being able to communicate and interact with other people/animals tells me they most likely have a consciousness, if they exist outside of my head (i like to think they do, i don't think i'm quite this imaginative lol) i guess that it could be argued that some of the chemical reactions in plants in response to sunlight and so forth could be seenas an extremely limited form of awareness. tricky ground, though. if your going down that route, i'd say that the difference is that once a threshold of intelligence is reached, thought and consciousness can begin to have a productive symbiotic relationship, with consciousness making you aware of stuff and thought helping you understand it, and that this is what separates an EXTREMELY limited form of consciousness (like a plant bending toward the light) and a more advanced one, like ours.

obviously, i can't PROVE that a rock doesn't have consciousness, but i can make a pretty good guess based on past experience and observation.

3) Are consciousness and emotions separate or the same thing? What about consciousness and thought? Consciousness and sense perceptions?

consciousness and emotions are separate. although consciousness is a prerequisite for emotion; you can't feel an emotion without a cause, the cause comes from an awareness of something. but emotion is not necessary to become aware of something, so it doesn't work both ways.

consciousness and thought are not the same thing, although you cannot have one without the other. consciousness is to become aware of things, thought is when we try to work out their values or meanings in relation to each other/us.

sense perceptions are necessary for us to become aware of external things, so they are very closely tied to consciousness. but again, not the same thing.

4) Is consciousness dependant on language or can it exist without language?

language helps to enhance our state of awareness (see people from cultures with less/more colours in their language being able to percieve more colours where some see no difference) but limited awareness can exist without it. language is just one of many structures which we create in order to place things of which we are aware in relation to each other, that we might, through comparison, understand their individual values. language enhances our understanding of the world (arguably, although it is a false construct, it's very useful and necessary for us either way) and allows us to become aware of more things and of their values and implications.

5) Does consciousness live on after death? How or why not?

if the world as i percieve it exists (big ask, i know) and consciousness appears to have biological prerequisites then it follows that, after death, these preconditions are no longer being met, therefore, no more consciousness. (of course, to a certain extent, this varies based on your definition of "death", once the heart stops, the preconditions for consciousness are being met for a short while. we also know that time, as we perceive it, can behave in extremely peculiar ways, was it timothy Leary who proposed "the last great trip" at the moment of death?)

6) Aside from when we are dreaming, are we conscious when we sleep? What about when we pass out or are in a coma?

not when we're unconscious, no. (hence the name) when asleep and dreaming, yes. when asleep and not dreaming? well, maybe an incredibly limited one, just enough to wake up if our senses perceive imminent danger- loud noises etc.

thats my take on it. bangin' thread

 

unconciousness would relate most to non'existence .

once i had a lover who considered her circle of cosmic'
minded friends to be so much more concious than i - and
she forbid that we would even be casually introduced .

i felt non'existence , and also matter-of-factly unforgiving .
so i didn't much mind when she ran far away to join an aztec
cult .

 

You're an idiot. Because it's referring to existentialism it distorts the reality of what consciousness is? Philosophy is dead. Before you ignorantly post such an illogical comment like that, analyze what you're saying. The brain and mind work the way it does without your existentialist philosophy. You really should understand Sartre and Heidegger wrote these philosophical/ontological essays before neuroscience and cognitive science was properly developed. So to say this philosophy means something before we even knew how the brain works and creates identity, meaning, ethics, and views, make philosophy insignificant. All philosophy is is intelligent wordplay to create elaborate meaning. Arbitrary and subjective worldviews which hold no significance to the big picture. To think about the meaning of life is illogical, you'll never got a meaningful answer, no one can tell you with 100% certainty their view is correct. Life's meaning is what you make it.

 

you say with 100% certainty that you will not accept
anyone's view as correct .

*
i think music is an ultimate reality . whether music exists or not
doesn't matter - i still hear it , and dance , and have power .
what's to do with this kind of power ? it is indeterminate will .

 

no, I'm saying it's not worth pondering all these different arbitrary philosophies, no one is going to be correct. it's a pointless subject.

 

philosophy? at it's root philosophy is just clear and careful thinking
and especially careful social communication . since it is pointless
to care then conciousness is wavy gravy .

indeterminate will : a manner of causation that shall not dictate reality

 

Wow, man, that's so like, philosophical, man...


Wait a minute, man. ....You said, like, philosophy was dead, and then you went on that philosophical rant... Like, wow---so circular, man...

 

Let's examine these two statements using the Post-Structural deconstruction theories of Jaque Derrida:

"Philosophy is dead..." deconstructed becomes: philosophy/non-philosophy is/isn't dead/alive.

"All philosophy is, is intelligent wordplay to create elaborate meaning..." deconstructed becomes: All/none philosophy/non-philosophy is/isn't, is intelligent/dumb wordplay/incoherent mumblings to create/destroy elaborate/simple meaning/meaninglessness.

Ah! Now I understand... By saying that philosophy is dead, you are actually attempting to shock us into a state of broken dualities where meaning becomes (in fact) a post-structuralist multiplicity of philosophical...


Ok---yes, when philosophy is improperly, or ignorantly, applied it becomes elaborate wordplay trying to create elaborate meanings. (...And I'm just having some fun with your comments). LOL

But to then dismiss philosophy, including philosophies as rich in meaning and insight as existentialism, is a very simplistic way of thinking. Neither atheism nor religion can be proved---but does that mean that we should stop asking those questions? Do you think you can make people stop considering such things? How about ethics and morals---shall we just drop that whole thing and never think about it again because, you think that philosophy, and therefore, life, is meaningless since nothing can be proved anyway? But without ethics and morals, there is no right nor wrong, so our judicial system becomes meaningless, without political philosophies, our political process becomes a meaningless waste of time and should be disbanded. Value and meaning are no longer viable concepts and therefore we have no way to determine fair trade, whether by currency or barter. I could go on...

But the really comical thing about it, is how can you say philosophy is dead and meaningless on a philosophical forum, without being philosophical? Do you know how many philsophers have made similar claims----including existentialists...

 

I have struggled with this issue for years. At one point I sought a very rationalistic, and scientific response to some of these questions. As Brainden seemed to point out, there really is no way to prove one way or another the reality of the mind-body dilemma. Though I would say that this inability is based only on our current level of science, and insofar as proof is defined by scientific method. At the individual level, I would say that if this problem is important enough to you, and you look in the right places, proof will come to you. I say that because proof came to me that there is much more to human 'being' than we perceive based on our physical reality. I will not elaborate, because it was meant for me, and only I can know whether this event really happened or not (and yes, I went over the events many many times, even returning to where it happened). Besides, I think I have told the story elsewhere on this site. Since that experience, I have followed the Red Road (Native American spirituality) and I have experienced many things that validate that first experience. In this way, the question of 'if' regarding the mind-body dilemma, was no longer a problem for me, it now became a question of 'how.'

A year or two or more after that experience, while dealing with the question of 'how,' I had a very lucid dream that provided insight into this question. It provided me with a rational model that may provide the answer, or it may not. But as a theory I do not see it worse than any of the others out there, and probably better than many others. Here are my answers based on this model:

1) What is the nature of consciousness? Explain what it means to you.
There are two primary levels of human consciousness, the physical level and our true consciousness that exists on a greater dimension. We are trapped within this 3-dimensional (4 if you add time, which may or may not truly exist) physical level of consciousness by the ego (which I use in Jungian terms as a filter whose purpose is to maintain a consistent personality). Anything that is not significant to us at the conscious level is filtered out to the subconscious mind by the ego. The subconscious is our link to the higher dimension of consciousness that represents who we truly are. We are still individuals at this higher level, and all that happens to us within the physical level is remembered at the higher level too. Being of a higher dimension, it can manipulate who and what we are at the physical level, and to an extent our reality at the physical level. Since our ego tends to block us from experiencing our higher self (though we get hints through dreams and spiritual experiences), we can only affect our consciousness through our subconscious, via such tools as deep belief, and certain ritual. At higher dimensions there is a more unified level of consciousness (God or the Great Mystery, if you will), but unlike most Eastern religions that have evolved from or been influenced by the early Hindu traditions, I believe our focus should be on our individuality (individual consciousness), because we are here to experience, and it is this that gives us meaning, rather than attempting to re-merge with the universe.

2) What has consciousness (other human beings, animals, plants, etc.) and what leads you to this conclusion?
The universe is consciousness---it is only physical within our 3-dimensional (or 4-dimensional) reality, and our rational minds do not perceive consciousness within much of that physical manifestation. However, animals, plants, rocks, and so forth have a level of consciousness that is archetypical, and surprisingly interactive with our own---if you haven’t experienced this, spend some ‘serious’ time in sweat lodges, on hanblechiya (vision quests), and at sundances, and you will see. Or read the research of Dr. Stanislav Grof on transpersonal experiences.

3) Are consciousness and emotions separate or the same thing? What about consciousness and thought? Consciousness and sense perceptions?
All that we experience is probably recorded within our higher level of consciousness just as we believe that it is recorded within our subconscious, this includes our emotions. However, Thoughts and perceptions, being more than experience, are examples of the dynamic of consciousness.

4) Is consciousness dependant on language or can it exist without language?
Language is merely an external complex of symbols that we have created to communicate with each other, retain and pass on knowledge, and so forth, within our ego-limited physical world. Consciousness does not depend on language, and in fact it has served to alienate us further from our true self. For example, whenever a writing system develops, it forces us to think in a more linear fashion, promoting objectivistic rationalism, and a stronger focus on a conscious reality (as opposed to subconscious reality and its connection to the true self).

5) Does consciousness live on after death? How or why not?
Our physical selves actually manifest as a penetration within these 3-dimensions by higher dimensional consciousness. Our physical body and its organic structure are formed from the physical material of this dimension, and death is simply the death of the physical body, including the ego that keeps us rooted in the physical universe. Therefore upon death we simply return to our true self. The bits and pieces of documented cases of reincarnation, including the documented evidence of this within Dr. Stanislav Grof’s research, suggests that we can return to this physical realm if we so choose. (By the way, caterpillars, within their cocoons, turn to mush, losing all organs necessary for life to continue, before turning into a butterfly or moth. Yet they still emerge alive. Similarly woolly caterpillars in the subarctic spend much of the year frozen stiff, yet return to life each spring-summer as it takes them several years to eat enough to develop into a cocoon building stage. This is not unlike cryogenically frozen life forms that are thawed out and revived back to life).

6) Aside from when we are dreaming, are we conscious when we sleep? What about when we pass out or are in a coma?
Within physical terms, we are unconscious. At a higher level, we are always conscious.

Such Platonic and essentialist answers may make one wonder why I post an answer to something in an existentialist forum. Because, while I see ‘being’ itself as based on essence (essentialism), I also believe that man as long as he is in this physical realm, is limited to human experience, and even when he does have experiences of a deeper spiritual nature, it is not something that he can prove to others, and is therefore still an individualistic human experience. (This is true even when such experiences are collective among several individuals as you have in some experiences within indigenous spirituality). In this way, like Brainden (whether he knows it or not), I am an existentialist.