The consciousness issue

[FurtherSuntime]

Well…I just watched half of the clip and have a quick snapshot in hasty impression. I could be very wrong, although getting things down is part of the exercise.

With regards to the house with the snowfall and the chicken foot, he new perfectly well in mind the home was under siege and in threat due to the snow, and therefore chose the shovel. The only difference was immediate access to language in communicating what he knew was home, otherwise the shovel would not have been chosen, and the idea in protection would not have been imposed on the imaginary threat in the **** idea in the chicken coup.

Therefore the left H. may only seem to be doing what its doing, as a translation bridging outward in communication what is fully known and fully interpreted in mind. And not all together an interpreter of the situation, but in translating the known circumstance outward on demand. Possible evidence, a real situation on live tape, with behavior reaction. Same idea with the fire or threatening movie, in fact this is exactly what happens and the commentary seems to avoid and calls it just troubling emotion.

The other one with the …Banana+Red…draw what you see, and he draws a red banana selecting the red pen. Ok, we read from left to right, Banana is red, perfect outcome. Music+Bell, ok…he says he just heard music from a bell in the street and was getting at showing hes paying attention…unconsciously he prob was trying to impress and was showing alertness, general environment awareness ( a good) and picked the bell. And then even tells them why, underlining this possible analogy.

If the conclusion in the study finds in some mysterious way we have 2 consciousness, or one the leftH which dominates as a type of actual self, at this time I’m having confusions with any justification. Anyway, I did not expect to learn this, and will press forward with the exploration. This was written hurriedly and is not a firm stance of any sort at all, simply a possible blunder on my part somehow, which is fine but none the less the implications in the subject explain the OP setting, for discovery.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Ok …I watched the rest of the clip and am comfortable with a position holding not only dis-agreement for many reasons, but an absolute rejection in the entire translation of testing & conclusions. A full inability to understand how the mind works, clearly evidenced in the majority of comments offered in translating, including and very importantly the chess players explanation. The management of particulars in testing-conclusions most disappointing. .

A well noticed bias in ability & as well toward restricting the whole operations of the mind from a limited and obvious left brain saturation of thought. A well known deficiency in male comprehensions in support of the obvious completion of self in gender contribution re bonding. ( Female is predominately more Right H ( I’m male obviously, and not being a whatever here.

The pushy alpha like manner shows itself very well indeed in the conclusion remarking what is suggested to be the “current view”. There are so many flaws in this presentation it is past my patience for deconstruction, including the theme in whats called the current view.

There are many views and this view is the worst I have ever seen. Anyway the great news is that consciousness is real, awareness is real. I did not hear the implications of survival once in the clip, how can that be possible in exploration? Well its not to difficult to figure out.

I will see if I can find something half decent without the quick assumptions.

 

[Gaber]

With respects to what is called the Hard Problem in the origin of consciousness, I’m wondering if there are any philosophical approachs or, what the most popular address of the question would be of late. I don’t think its all that un-reasonable for example to limit a God potential in equipping creation itself by physicality in actual concept toward the age ole query in the origin of consciousness. I don’t really find Chalmers approach on things that well put forward for a few reasons and if evolution-Darwinism is workable, in principal or theory consciousness should be explainable.

The most reasonable and practical answer to this comes from the stream of people who call themselves non dualists. Unfortunately, though many Catholic mystics and contemplatives to all appearances come to the same conclusion by the back door, so to speak, and are often reviled for it, that particular understaning seems to stand the test of time even longer, far longer. than the Church in consitency and uniformity of conclusion from similar and independent practicel. In other words it has a component of repeatability. Many even make the case the Jesus was of that school because His statements are congruent with it.

You might enjoy a book called The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object, or another, The Experience of No SelfBring a dictionary, patience, and an open mind. This isn’t about living as we ordinarily think it.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The most reasonable and practical answer to this comes from the stream of people who call themselves non dualists. Unfortunately, though many Catholic mystics and contemplatives to all appearances come to the same conclusion by the back door, so to speak, and are often reviled for it, that particular understaning seems to stand the test of time even longer, far longer. than the Church in consitency and uniformity of conclusion from similar and independent practicel. In other words it has a component of repeatability. Many even make the case the Jesus was of that school because His statements are congruent with it.

You might enjoy a book called The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object, or another, The Experience of No SelfBring a dictionary, patience, and an open mind. This isn’t about living as we ordinarily think it.

Thank-you Gaber for the excellent expertise in this area. A few years ago I did some reading in the ancient approach and practiced meditation including hatha yoga for quite a while as a hobby. I did enjoy it and will look forward to looking in on the book mentioned. Very much appreciated:thumbsup:

Continuing

Copied from Wikp:

Nondualism ultimately suggests that the referent of “I” is in fact an artificial construct (merely the border separating “inner” from “outer,” in a sense), the transcendence of which constitutes enlightenment.

FS

So here we have the articulated definition of the actual self, the known self and the societal self ( three distinct properties of person-hood in one.)

Wikp…

Nondualism proper holds that different phenomena are inseparable or that there is no hard line between them, but not that they are the same.

FS

This is consistent with the standing vibratory rate of wave energy in mass. All is energy including constructive thought. Can’t be measured but either can dark energy which makes up a huge percentage of this very interesting universe. ( possibility which can’t be ruled out

( just a side note for desert re the clip… Can you imagine an alien who exists in some kind of vapor environmental, trying to figure out how a cow walks? and then says hey Ive got it!

…theres a couple of cows moseying along after a hurricane and the legs are not attached …?

 

[levinas12]

So this is good. I think you explained this really well.

In fairness the path “datives of manifestation” and as well the disclosure in greater truth can be also attributed to the flight of an eagle. Not suggesting flight is the preferred specialty.

Also, an explanation for the birds eye view, not the flapping and so on in the eagle, but the birds eye view cannot be explained in the anatomy or science.

It could be politely said therefore what?.. I know, thats what I’m trying to figure out

I agree that non-human “awareness” is not reducible to neurons in a classic materialist model.

But there is a related question. What is the difference between non-human awareness and human awareness? Or, more ontologically precise, between animals and humans?

Heidegger with his notion of “dasein” is helpful here. The “da” in “dasein” is the “there” which is the basis of our sense of “now”, “then”, “not yet”, “here” as opposed to “over there”, “me” and “you”, etc. In short, of “being-in-the-world”.

The eagle’s being is different from “dasein”. It’s “being” is “something else”. What this “something else” is hard to describe. But we can contrast “it” with “dasein”. For example, the eagle is not aware of the possibility of its own death - the eagle does not have a past, a present or a future - i.e., does not “lead” a life - can’t talk about the world - yes, the eagle can “signal” but cannot make statements or ask questions or make promises, etc -

The eagle is incapable of truth, of “disclosing” beings as they are in themselves.

Well, I’ve said enough to at least provoke a discussion.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I agree that non-human “awareness” is not reducible to neurons in a classic materialist model.

But there is a related question. What is the difference between non-human awareness and human awareness? Or, more ontologically precise, between animals and humans?

Heidegger with his notion of “dasein” is helpful here. The “da” in “dasein” is the “there” which is the basis of our sense of “now”, “then”, “not yet”, “here” as opposed to “over there”, “me” and “you”, etc. In short, of “being-in-the-world”.

The eagle’s being is different from “dasein”. It’s “being” is “something else”. What this “something else” is hard to describe. But we can contrast “it” with “dasein”. For example, the eagle is not aware of the possibility of its own death - the eagle does not have a past, a present or a future - i.e., does not “lead” a life - can’t talk about the world - yes, the eagle can “signal” but cannot make statements or ask questions or make promises, etc -

The eagle is incapable of truth, of “disclosing” beings as they are in themselves.

Well, I’ve said enough to at least provoke a discussion.

Several months ago I browsed through some of Heidegger’s contribution in this area of existence and consciousness.

A short note just researched in keeping with your entry from wikp…

Heidegger attempted to maintain the definition of existence(dasein) as we all are, in our average everydayness. Dasein does not spring into existence upon philosophical exploration of itself. Heidegger intended Dasein as a concept, in order to provide a stepping stone in the questioning of what it means to be.

Continuing,

The philosopher continues by emphasizing that existence should not be mistaken for a subject, that is to say, something definable in terms of consciousness or a self.

Would it be fair to recognize three properties of being ?

a)actual self
b) known self
c)societal self

( Ive got some responsibilities for a day or two, if I don’t report back quickly its
timing …I think this is going really well, the last few posts have been invaluable)

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Part 1 ( good luck, you’ll need it

Lets place the above suggested properties of the human experience aside and return at a later time to try and determine if the general construction conforms with the next topic offered in discovery, the nature of the setting.

The following is an attempt to make a suggestion which may or may not be true, but none the less can offer further insight into the realities of human existence by, the factual conditions and restrictions in and about his setting.

The laws which man is subject in biological nature, and the laws which allows for the biological happening are absolute and allow for the absolute consequence in every and all
circumstance of experience without exception. IOW nothing escapes consequence and nothing escapes reason for happening.

A happening for example such as a leaf dwindling down from the tree in the fall breeze is justified for not only one reason, but “all reason known”. The leaf then becomes both a representation of all, and at the same time is a participant of consequence itself contributing its existence in every way toward all, that allows its existence.

The leaf can do nothing but comply in its existence with setting and its peculiar construction which as well must comply in the same manner as the leaf. The effect then is a fence has been erected in consequence conceding to law. Boundaries in clear view describing what laws ultimately are.

Nothing including man can escape or climb over the fence fully against the laws of his existence and surrounding. In principal a skunk is a skunk, ok I will try a different critter,
A lovely deer is a lovely deer and it becomes very interesting in comparing the leaf or tree with the active biological deer… …

Does the tree run about on legs looking for nourishment says the skeptic? Well yes Iwould say the root system behaves in exactly the same manner. The tree although you might say enjoys the comfort and solidity of its construction in a way that allows it to remain stationary. It also enjoys the comfort of a more silent growing mechanism and in extreme can and does go into shock. If the tree survives the shock it is unquestionably stronger and will equip itself with this experience fortifying its vitality. Ive seen this, its remarkable. One of those bright orange berry trees experienced a ferocious winter and that following spring the berries were about twice the size and incredible in hue pronounced texture.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Part 2…(this will make no sense if read out of order

It seems to me that the above grouping of things or life have the doorway to progress open although the choice is absent in experience. The doorway is subject to random chance in nature which may appear without reason relative to the critter or vegetation but then the contribution which these things have in nature demands a reason for the happening by virtue of the setting which was necessary for them to come about. So while we know that nothing directly in behavior caused a coarse happening, the survival of this event can increase potential.

Now we have introduced a very important word, potential. .Two properties in mans setting have now been established, potencial in being and the restrictions of law in which the existence must oblige.

It seems to me that rather then simply being contained in the universal fence boundary, man is presented with yet another fence. The ability in awareness allows a choice in the interaction of his species and as well the interaction with self , by an acknowledged presentation of understood being realism. Because biological life is dynamic in survival the
outcome in human existence collectively becomes absolutely dynamic by specie progress.

The outcome cannot be anything but a maze of emotion . Imagine one of those space shots taking in the earth, say from mars. If the emittance of emotion from earth could be
filtered and seen, it would prob look like a white vapor gusting from the surface into the cosmos.

Whether humanity likes it or not the product is very evident.

Whether it’s true or not and makes no difference because it’s factual, man is in the absolute condition of herd on product emotion caused by his given nature.

Whats the point?

Well the question becomes why does individual man have an additional fence which can be approached in order to act, either closer to the progress of humanity’s unity, or further away by faculty consciousness? if not to strain out the product of individual and collective nature in the two described approach’s made available by choice in interaction with self and others.

So lets draw a picture of that space shot again from mars. The vapor product has been strained and is emitted in a possible pure energy form continuously outward since mans gathering or founded unique consciousness. The orange berry after the difficult winter is now a little more interesting I would think.

If above is wildly true, thats a nice natural word, there is some reason I would think to suspect that humanities strained product is in the condition collectively and individually of an interaction of some form.

If this is appropriately, less wildly true by preference in design or consequence is the word I like, it is without interruption including the harvest of condition by virtue of outcome .Why don’t we then navigate back to the earlier consciousness description non-dualism proper, holding that different phenomena are inseparable or that there is no hard line between them, but not that they are the same. Here we interestingly find a potential in value to all that was, before mans appearance. An unfolding nature in initialized in the potential becoming of the harvest. A harvest which is governed by an unfolding initiative in suggested emittance value itself. ( if some got this far I will let the world know how tasty a white shirt is)

BTW…theoretically it is wildly possible The Creator is the cumulation of this white vapor and is becoming so to say alongside his creation. To know me is to know the Father, if anything a sacrifice, as well joining principal in the becoming process. The corner stone in the Son Jesus an inevitable self defining signature , defining the greatness in virtue of over all happening. I’m not at all trying to promote, but it is interesting when the idea in value becomes so obviously segregated. The interaction then in this nature of Creator is then in shown reception by inner peace in establishing a good product.What is this inner peace? It is a confirmation of joining, the mind understands it has company, what we call the spirit. ( again these are simply thoughts and in no way beliefs of any kind. Simply attempting to draw out possible forms in the construction of what we know.

( please forgive the mistakes. Its not normal for myself to re-read a passing thought over…