Consciousness

Let me clarify my answer to #5. One might find an inconsistency with the statement that the universe is conscious, but then I speak of death of the physical body. Let me clarify by first saying that I believe that there is a baseline consciousness to the universe. (If you give me the license to be spiritual for a moment, we could say that this is the body, per se, of Wakan Tanka, the Great Mystery). There are scientists that claim that individual quanta, or the basic particles of the universe, meet the definition of life, i.e. are conscious in some basic form. Therefore there are theories that support the idea that consciousness exists at the very basic building blocks of the universe.

Death, on the other hand, is a breakdown of a larger biological structure that no longer sustains life of that greater structure. Cells are therefore alive with their own basic consciousness, which as an organic structure that is much larger than individual particles, must be still separate from the consciousness of the individual particles. Upon the death of the cell, its consciousness leaves this physical realm, and the cell breaks down into the elements it was composed of.

In the same way, we as individuals are made up of an even greater organic structure with a consciousness that is unique from that of our individual cells, and that of the individual particles that make up the elements we are composed of. Everyday, for example, cells die and new cells are created within our bodies, but we have no existential experience of this, and in most cases it has no impact upon our own consciousness. The death of certain neurons, and the loss of those neural pathways changes elements of our consciousness, but that is because it represents a significant change of our organic structure. (Oddly enough, there are cases of people losing certain memories, skills, or other similar mental dynamics which should be forever, but then later strangely regaining them. To me this suggests that such memories and abilities are stored at a deeper level (i.e. higher dimension) than the mere organic structure of our brains within this physical realm). When our organic structure breaks down and we are no longer able to sustain life through that structure, then death occurs.

The universe is therefore always conscious, probably across all dimensions. But when a specific consciousness enters into this lower 3-Dimensional state, it is usually manifested through an organic structure, composed of the material already manifested within this 3-Dimensional state. (If there is no structure, than it is merely spirit). There is therefore ‘intention’ involved in the creation of this organic structure. If this is true, than we could change Descartes' famous maxim, ‘I think, therefore I am,’ to, ‘I think, therefore we are.’ Because while we as individuals are a single consciousness, as a human being with a physical body, we are multiple points of consciousness, which have been shaped and structured largely by our individual consciousness. This puts a whole new spin on Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, as a field of being. It also explains the common indigenous concept of the human being as multiple souls, which separate upon death. Even early civilizations such as the Egyptians had such concepts of death.

(I actually have a book I have written on this subject, which is at the publishers now. The current working title is, The Mind Dimension, and it is the second of a series of three books (though they are not necessarily being published in that order). If you find this concept of consciousness interesting enough that you would like to share it with others or write about it on your own, or implement it in your own philosophical writings, I would appreciate you giving me credit for it. Contact me and I will let you know more about it, and who to credit it to. This draws from my book, which is copyrighted, and you do after all have electronic footprints coming back to this page. Besides, these two posts are a quick summary of something I can go into much deeper detail on, and which my book does just that).

 

only your unique expression of an idea can be copyright
protected - not an existential viewpoint . i hope you
will be completely unreserved in sharing and that your
book has pictures .

 

Yes you are right Tikoo----but I do hope people will give credit where credit is due. And I am always being warned that I share too much, wait till the book comes out, etc. etc...

But I have also been told that this is my purpose in life---to share my insights, experiences, and so forth.

I have made my suggestions on pictures, but I couldn't get my wife to pose naked (just kidding---she's on page 3----no actually I am just kidding)

 

since conciousness does not depend on language why write about it ?
well , because we can love language especially when this language is of the whole mind . i'll declare these
words i write to you now are an ok loving translation of whole mind language . i am true self in that
i care , write with carefulness , have compassion for the reality that
this modernly stylistic linear language has been ritualized socialized globalized and insanely dis-conciously worshiped .

what say raven when raven stands
upon the ground and talks like a man ? ah eee o

and rainbow peace doggy ? she look to the sky
and say iorugr with eyes of wonderment ..

we have not created language . bless the gift . a
spiral arises , and this is heart .

 

I am glad you pointed out that answer Tikoo. Language and its connection to consciousness is an interesting subject, and probably worthy of more than my quick answer. I will respond in two parts----here is the first part:

Also my answer was a bit of a generalization----languages written via alphabet are the ones that are most linear, and contribute to our alienation from our subconscious selves. Writing that use the likes of hieroglyphics, and kanji (Chinese Characters) is more non-linear, and less alienating in that sense. For example, the kanji character for East as a single character—a picture of the sun rising up within, (i.e. behind) a tree—is a whole word all by itself. We don’t need to read a series of letters as you do with other languages. If you add the Chinese character for capital (now two characters) you have the word Tokyo, or add 2 characters—middle, and kingdom (or country), and you have the word Eastern China (which we need two words to write). Or add 3 characters—sun, base, ocean, and you have one word: East Japan Sea. English needs three words to say the same thing. Even more amazing is that each character is more than a word—it is literally the symbol that a written word is abstractly representing. So you can have multiple meanings attached to one character. The character for base that I referred to above, also has a meaning of origin, root, and even book. This is closer to a natural thought process and the language of the subconscious than any alphabetical language could ever be. Researchers have shown that Chinese and Japanese people process their written language differently than Westerners (though I would have a hard time finding the source right now----it has been a few years since that research came out).

Most non-Western and indigenous languages are more non-linear than Western languages. For example, Chinese follows an English-like grammar, but it is more clunky (by English standards) and filled with more assumptions, context, and unspoken meaning than English. Chinese has less grammatical and structural detail than Westerner’s need.

Another example, Japanese, follows a grammatical structure that is common to numerous indigenous languages. We would say, ‘I will go to the Doctor.’ But the Japanese would say it differently with particles added to the words to amend the meaning of that word. The same sentence, with the particles in parenthesis, would be: ‘I (-as for) (honorific-) Doctor (-to) go.’ Notice that the word ‘will’ is not needed because it is understood already.

Though I would add that written language still programs the conscious mind to adhere more closely to a grammatical structure, which is surely more linear than natural, even among nonlinear languages. An interesting book on this (if I remember the title correctly) is, The Alphabet and the Goddess. The author explains that the advent of writing and linear thought led to the downfall of the goddess (the feminine) and the rise of the God (the masculine).

I have had ecstatic spiritual experiences where I have been ‘told’ or ‘shown’ things, which seemed to occur in an instantaneous fashion, which I seemed to have to verbalize within my own mind. This tells me that at a deeper level, we can understand at an instantaneous moment, what we consciously want to use language to process. Language would then be a process involving time, where at our deepest levels of understanding, we may have a timeless ability to comprehend or communicate. When I was a teenager, I had what Maslow termed a ‘Peak Experience.’ I was on vacation at my Aunt’s house in Seattle. I was the only one home, and I was sitting listening to the Moody Blues, in a very relaxed dreamy state. I started thinking about the yin and the yang and suddenly I had a deep insight over the nature of reality, which I could only describe as if a ball of knowledge exploded in my head. I understood these things in an instant, but then I felt I had to work through (think through, or internally verbalize) this knowledge to retain it. This was not a drug-induced thing, and the insights were not life-changing, but they did give me an early insight into the nature of reality, and the interconnectedness of all things.

This suggests that there is a deeper level of consciousness that is not dependent on language, or at least, time. But consider infants—they are conscious and understand the world based on raw reality and symbols. As we grow into toddlers, children and then adults, language becomes an abstract form of those symbols.

 

Here is the second part:

But is language part of the whole brain as you say Tikoo?

My first, yet unpublished, book is about language and the history of the feminine and the rise of the masculine. It is a different theme than The Alphabet and the Goddess—a major theme of my book being that all humans, regardless of race and culture, are more closely related, including spiritually, than we realize. The book also promotes the indigenous thought process, and that we do still have evidence of primal spirituality (contrary to the consensus of most Anthropologists), and this primal belief system has influenced all beliefs that came after it. (The first two books are tied together in my third book, which deals with the Post-Modern Dilemma. If this dilemma is properly resolved, then our tools of the future would include a quantum computer, if we fail, it will be a sharply-pointed stick).

My first book is not yet finished, but I deal with this question a bit. The language of the subconscious is the language of symbols and archetypes (I use archetype in the Jungian sense). Your statement touches upon the fact that language must surely be tied to archetypes. This would mean that it does stretch across the whole spectrum of mind.

There is an understanding among indigenous people, and our own distant ancestors that language is sacred (hence the ‘profound’ significance of your statement about raven). Christians and those who study the Greek classics are probably familiar with the Ancient Greek concept of logos (though that concept was tainted with rationalism). All writing systems, including alphabetical, were created with magic in mind, including the power of fortune telling.

Lakota (Sioux) is another example. There are those who will tell you that it is ‘dangerous’ to learn the language without learning the spiritual aspects with it, and without learning it properly. Because of the non-linear nature of this language (and its closer attachment to the subconscious), and witnessing its use firsthand in ceremony, I tend to agree with them. They say that the words have a spiritual power to them. To repeatedly experience the ritual use of the phrase, ‘Mitakuye Oyasin, which simply means, ‘all my relatives’ (and implies that all of creation is alive and that we are directly related to it), gives the statement a power and feeling that is hard to verbalize.

The spoken word, as I said before, most certainly began as a verbalization of the symbol of the archetype. The archetypes themselves arise, not form the level of the individual, but from a collective unconscious (or subconscious). Rationalistic objectivism would state that the collective unconscious is an inherited structure, much like animal instinct. Metaphysics, on the other hand, would suggest that it is a deeper consciousness that we collectively share as a people. In the latter sense, an archetype could be the same as Plato’s eternal forms.

There is an archaic word-root that is deeply connected to the feminine. It’s most common form is, k~(vowel)~n(~t). I believe the hard consonant was a little later addition, probably starting around the Middle East. The English word, ****, is the modern English direct descendant and refers to its primary meaning. But it has evolved into a whole constellation of meanings, which are subconsciously connected. They include: sex, country, hollow, center, cave, god/goddess, king/queen, birth, mother, girl, woman, wife, throat, knowledge, anything to do with the genitals, moon, blood, home, hearth, the World Tree, etc, etc, etc. Not all of these connections are obvious in English, but the relationship covers all languages, globally.

Globally, k(~n) (and its devolutions: g~, h~, kh~, ch~, j~, y~ etc) is very feminine. A somewhat later t~ (and its devolutions: d~, ch~, z~, etc) is very masculine.

So the question becomes, is this due to an archetypical nature of a collective human unconsciousness? (Jung used unconscious for Freud’s subconscious). In other words, do we naturally use similarly sounding words for these concepts because of a deep subconscious urging? Do the Welsh say, ‘cont’ as a generic term for vagina, the Filipino’s, ‘kantut’ as a crude word referring to fornication, and the ancient Japanese and Koreans, ‘ku’ to refer to vagina, because this is the archetypical, or spiritual, word for this symbolic concept? New slang that rises up tends to follow this same pattern, suggesting that this may be the case.

Or is it because man has carried this root word around the world with him from his most ancient common ancestors?

As Brainden pointed out, the spiritual cannot be proven, and we are all limited to existential (i.e. human) experience. Therefore my book focuses on the second, more sturcuturalist, scenario. But if that is true, this root has survived tens of thousands of years, which is unusual in human language, suggesting that there is also a collective unconscious component to it as well. Besides, it seems that what happens in a nonphysical irrational (or spiritual) realm that is connected to the physical realm, is manifested in the physical realm in a rational manner. This is why myth and prophecy may sound so amazing and unrealistic, but are reflected in real life in a confusingly ordinary, rational, and common sense manner.

 

so , how fast can you think ? quickness is concious , yet can be
punished as anti-social thought .

yes , i consider children . some will successfully hold and defend their understanding of first conciousness .

one kid on a rez in montana committed himself to special ed in self-defence . funny . i spect
he leads the revolution , the spin , and humbly so .

.
thanks for sharing all this , wolfie .

i think it is a world of peace when the irrational is free
and trusted to do no harm . it's like an angel .

 

In the peak experience I described, it was like an instantaneous understanding--even as if after the instant had passed I was already losing some of the understanding I had. It was as if there was more than I could understand at that point, but for that one instant, I had an extremely deep understanding of reality.

When I speak of ecstatic experiences, I am referring to a shamanistic state of consciousness induced by drumming--I follow a Siberian technique. (This sounds like New Age hocus pocus, and there was a time when I believed that was all this stuff is. I began researching related stuff because of some weird things I had experienced in the Philippines, and other weird things that happened in my wife's family. They were descended from Filipino medicine people, but the Spanish pretty much wiped all that out with Catholicism, but her and her family still have some odd happenings. One thing led to another, and I wanted to try an experiment----it was actually pretty amazing so I experimented some more, and so on). Today I follow Lakota traditions, which I participate with a primarily Lakota lodge community. I am one of the few white people involved. These traditions are very similar in many ways and are very powerful in their own way. But sometimes I will use the Siberian shamanic drumming for help too.

In the shamanic altered state of consciousness, I have had experiences where I have a request, but I am already given the answer of what I need to do, A part of me already knows the answer, but i feel I have to visualize it being given to me verbally. I have also been given other bits of information, which I feel is instantly complete, but I somehow feel obligated, perhaps because I am not used to receiving things that way, to visualize it being verbally given to me.

 

might as well write in shamanic language since it objectifies
quite well - like , " Wow How to Make a Drum " . for one thing
it begins with death , but a human death ? shall we make a drum-
head with father's skin , or a flute from his bone ? not that anything
weird would come of it . i think a good drum is a family drum , and
so very good that it can be the biggest damn buffalo drum played by
the littlest kid
in the circle , in the moonlight ,
respectfully innocent of power .

i've once seen a Sami drum being made . it's a small drum ,
the shell is carved from a small northern tree as a shallow longish bowl ,
the head and lacings are reindeer skin . the drum-maker sings songs of
becoming , of what shall be , a drum shall be .

 

I am an Epiphenomenalist.

I have consciousness. That's all I am aware of (in terms of, 'who has it?'). I would surmise that other humans have consciousness, and that most animals do - though to a lesser degree.

Answer to 3: Consciousness is separate to all things; thoughts, emotions, sensory perception. These are all mechanical processes. Consciousness is merely a viewer. I am the viewer, not the machine. I am a man sitting and watching TV perpetually, until the machine I inhabit dies.

Answer to 4: not sure. I think language heavily bolsters intelligence, but thought processes are often (at least for me) experienced without any correlating words. This would suggest I am still capable of abstract thinking without language, and I would dare so this goes for most if not all people. So no, I don't think so.

Answer to 5: I don't know.

Answer to 6: I think we have some consciousness while sleeping - we are somewhat aware of the passage of time. This can be contrasted with the experience one has when waking from anaesthetic, etc - the experience is very different, where one feels as though they have within an instant gone from one moment to another. With sleep, we still have a sense of time passing, even if we are not aware how long. Though, on second thought, I don't think this is a matter of consciousness - its just automatic processing and lack of data in the second instance, and our consciousness merely becomes aware of this as our brain does. So actually, no.

 

1) Consciousness is the only thing I can say with certainty exists.

2) I can only say that my consciousness exists. I do not know if there is other consciousness.

3) Al perceptions (emotions senses thoughts ect.) are superficial. The consciousness experiences them but cannot be affected by them.

4) Language is superficial. It does not effect consciousness.

5) Consciousness goes on without end. The death of a body does not effect it. I cannot know where it goes after death but I assume it takes the form of another body.

6) Consciousness does not cease to exist during sleep. It just experiences fewer perceptions.

 

It could also be that you experience such an abstract world that it cannot even be sensed (except maybe as an elusive sensation) upon awakening. Maybe it makes such little sense that you can't even fathom it when you see the real world again.

 

Thank you neonspectraltoast. I hadn't even. Considered that.

 

This has been my most favorite subject since I began investigating the nature of reality.
Has anyone here experienced a moment of lucidity? It goes pretty fast and its impossible to define it. It is slippery and it wont stay long.

 

According to Shaivite tantra, and my Kundalini's access to sahasrara, consciousness is directly indicative of God. Simply put, consciousness is divine, and is Siva. All Consciousness. And this consciousness shapes matter, and through inducing matter to form and evolve, it also animates all living things. But the consciousness we're talking about here is not the ego or personality of the person-that entity is a mask that the actual divine consciousness wears.
So in Shaivite terms, actual consciousness is God, and is directly indicative of Gods mind. And this consciousness forms the omnipresent absolute substrate that permeates and supports all reality. In order to be convinced of this reality, perhaps you will have to experience it as your consciousness. No problem-you must awaken the Kundalini and allow Her access to sahasrara. The Kundalini is the key to understanding the polarity of divine consciousness-both as your mind-and as Gods mind. She brings it down from God, and takes it back to God. She is the divine vehicle for consciousness ascent and descent. End of story. Contact me for more details OM

 

great thread great questions. i am gonna have to think about these and come back

 

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

Consciousness is the i of id (id is identity, not ego)

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

Anything with identity (even Earth has an identity. Planets, galaxies, stars and the Universe are all a life form).

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

No, they're not the same thing. You can be conscious, semi-conscious or unconscious of an emotion / thought / sense.

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

Consciousness exists before the Universe itself does. Consciousness does not depend on a human brain to exist and is not a product of the human brain. Yes, consciousness can exist without language.

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

Yes. The Earth plane is not all there is. The human body is only a temporary vehicle (we are not our bodies).

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

Yes, we can be conscious in sleep state, and even coma. See "the sleeping beauty" on YouTube about a woman in a coma for a couple of decades who had been consciously aware, but trapped inside an immobile body.

 

In your opinion:

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

The nature of consciousness is awareness, however I think consciousness goes beyond this in ways which influence the aware autonomous entity beyond it's knowing. (I.e. subconscious/unconscious) I do think that an entity has to exhibit a level of awareness to be considered conscious.

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

I think Human beings and animals certainly have consciousness, plants may have a some sort of awareness which I guess could meet my criteria for consciousness but I don't view it as true consciousness.

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

Consciousness can be involved with each of these processes, sense perceptions is the only one which I think may be inextricably linked with consciousness, however i wouldn't say it's the same thing.

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

Consciousness is not dependent on language, however i think language bolsters awareness and therefore consciousness.

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

I don't believe so, I can point to being blackout drunk, concussed and certain stages of sleep as events where I am not experiencing consciousness, or fading out of consciousness and all these events take place with functioning organs, I can't really imagine consciousness persisting, certainly in any recognizable form beyond 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?

There are stages in between a light snooze and REM sleep where I believe many people are not conscious and those that are When in these stages typically have sleeping disorders. I don't know about comas per ce, I've read some on OBE experiences, these people typically experiencing fascinating events and encounters with white lights, angels and all kinds of stuff. Some of these experiences sound extremely similar to some heavy drug trips such as Ketamine and 5-meo-DMT both of which create significant distortions in time, so I think the brain and body may have sort of have a natural trip mechanism it induces in such moments of extreme shock, excitation, pain, etc. to cope whenever the system feels it's mortally overwhelmed.

 

I think consciousness is what you are, right now. The product of your brain`s processing software. The data that your brain is aware of at this moment.
The data your brain is processing right now is your consciousness.

 

Really I got to disagree. Right now, I was not myself, and my subjective being for it is realizing discontinuity in the knowledge about the Objective. I know the problems with my property.