"We can never experience pure consciousness because we can never
continuous influx of sensory data;" This is debatable, I have heard of
a certain toxic substance extracted from fogs in Haiti, that if
administered, results in a effect that is said to be a total
dislocation and abstraction from the senses, a pure abstraction of
consciousness from the senses in the zone of a absolute
subjectivity.... it is administered as a grave and extreme punishment.
But who knows what the "individual" actually experiences. Also I have
heard that there are highly abstract states of meditation or
hallucination that can effectively constitute a more or less complete
abstraction from the senses and a feeling of a "out of body
experience".... but who knows...
"but we intuit its existence so strongly
that we speak of it with absolute confidence in its facticity."
what is this "it" that "you" speak of with such confidence? If you
have any perception of this it, then it is an object of perception,
clear and distinct, and separate from any coherent notion of "you".
There is always dualism in perception, and by definition a postulated
subject can never become the object of perception.... this is why
Schopenhauer postulated that we are the Kantian thing-in-itself....
but not quite.
And just because we infer something with confidence doesn't mean its a
coherent object of knowledge or that it actually exists.
> I believe consciousness is a carrier signal like the faint hum we hear when
> a radio station is on but silent. It is modulated like a radio signal by
> sensory input from external and internal sources. All animals have it but
> only man with his abstract reasoning ability is able to theorize its
> existence. Modern man experiences as many inputs from the speech and
> conceptual centers of his mind as he does from the world outside. We can
> never experience pure consciousness because we can never silence the
> continuous influx of sensory data; but we intuit its existence so strongly
> that we speak of it with absolute confidence in its facticity. m.a.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "selva" <selvakr1...@gmail.com>
> To: "Everything List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 4:36 AM
> Subject: Re: consciousness
> On Jul 1, 4:23 pm, selva kumar <selvakr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is consciousness causally effective ?
> > I found this question in previous threads,but I didn't find a answer.
> I believe consciousness is a monitoring system (aka awareness)
> When our hand is moved obeying some computations,there is a ON-SCREEN
> DISPLAY going on in the brain: " my hand is moving "
> When we are learning something ,DISPLAY : "your are learning this and
> this " and saves it with a lot of tags in it,so that when you learn
> something new which includes a tagged word,it opens the old saved data
> and updates it.
> Without this monitoring and liaison system our brain stumbles.
> And this monitoring system is acts only when the actions are related
> to the cerebrum of the brain and not to cerebellum where primary motor
> functions are saved.
> This is why we are not concentrating on our speech while we are
> Thus,in my belief, in the absence of this monitoring system,the
> functions of cerebrum gets affected but not that of cerebellum.
> Thats why we can speak even while we are asleep. so,casually effective
> in case of cerebrum but not in case of cerebellum.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at