Chris - yes, many say many things. But Seth's reporting that he was once a tree has a visceral charm for me, as does others mentioning the spirit of a mountain or a lake. I love the possibility. Could I ever have the calmness, the serenity of a tree, or a mountain or a lake? I'd like to think I could. So I welcome the possibility that my consciousness can be one with such objects. Do you? Jim
On Aug 7, 12:29 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:00 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > It must be out of body - and judging from my OOB > > experience and all those I've read about, when OOB our consciousness > > has our memories. From this I conclude that consciousness and memory > > are on some other plane than the physical. > > Our consciousness retains our memories when OOB because it hasn't gone > anywhere...it's still in our brain, under the deliciously intoxicating > effects of the DMT, and in awe of the universe. > > > > > I wonder about the distinction you propose between active and > > inert. I suppose a tree is inert. Seth, in one of the Jane Roberts' > > books, tells about being a tree for a few centuries. In other words > > his consciousness inhabited a tree. Many Japanese authors talk about > > the spirit of a mountain, or lake or whatever - I guess those objects > > are inert. From all this why not accept that consciousness can be in > > everything - maybe not only in everything but also everywhere? Jim > > I was a mountain for a few centuries. The gold in your ring belonged to me. > You should sent it to me, along with all the gold in your house. > > Many people SAY many things. This does not make them so. Osama Bin Laden > promises heaven for his suicide bombers. From all this, why not accept that > martyrdom for Allah can be your path? > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 6:43 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Any other thoughts on this, RetiredJim? > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Chris Jenkins > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > first, as mentioned in the article, there was a delineation made > > between > > > > awake and self aware. In scientific and philosophical terms, we are > > speaking > > > > of self awareness. > > > > > The rest of my answers are interspersed below. > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > >> Chris - Thanks for such a thorough discussion of consciousness. But I > > > >> humbly submit that no one has any idea if or to what extent a rock or > > > >> cloud is self-aware. Yet they are both a collection of atoms and > > > >> molecules, and when compared to whatever might be next to them, they > > > >> are organized and responsive to their environment. > > > > > The difference between active and inert is a good start. While a rock > > may > > > > be "responsive to its environment" (in the loosest definition possible, > > in > > > > that it will pass through various states of matter in response to > > > > environmental changes), it will take no action representative of will. > > It is > > > > inert. It cannot demonstrate choice or preference or memory. It is > > incapable > > > > of sensing or storing data, and additionally incapable of acting on > > said > > > > data. While it may be possible to imaginatively assign such a thing the > > > > property of consciousness in some sort of universal fashion, there is > > no > > > > scientific basis for such an assignation, simply because there is no > > > > evidence to support such a hypothesis. > > > > >> (To assert that > > > >> conscious is awake is circular, I believe.) So on what basis can you > > > >> conclude that they are not conscious? > > > > > This is the important part here. I do not conclude they are NOT > > conscious. > > > > I do NOT conclude they ARE conscious. Should such evidence present > > itself, I > > > > will add that to my knowledge. Until such time, I have no reason to > > believe > > > > such is true. I would not form an active disbelief which would put me > > in the > > > > position of proving a negative...I'll leave Russell's Teapot to the > > > > Fundamentalist Atheists. ;) > > > > >> You suggest that being conscious is being awake, as opposed to > > > >> being asleep, and that being awake is a mental state. > > > > > No, actually, as stated in the Wiki entry, that's a colloquial usage. > > > > >> This in turn > > > >> suggests to me that you think consciousness is a function of the > > > >> brain, and resides there. > > > > > Yes. Scientifically, consciousness is a function rising from > > > > the organization of sensory input, data storage, and complex data > > analysis, > > > > all functions of the brain. > > > > >> But if you had ever had an out of body > > > >> experience, as I have, you would know that what was out of your body > > > >> was your consciousness. So to me while our consciousness may reside in > > > >> our body for a time, it is not restricted to it. Jim > > > > > And if you had ever experimented with DiMethylTryptamine, like I have, > > you > > > > would know that out of body experiences are also a function of the > > brain, > > > > and can be created and experienced at will. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine > > > > >> On Jul 24, 12:43 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > Sure. To be clear, however, we'd have to start with a definition of > > > >> > consciousness. > > > >> > I think the Wiki entry on consciousness does a pretty fair attempt > > at a > > > >> > clear definition of what we are talking about: > > > > >> > *Consciousness* is often used colloquially to describe being > > > >> > awake<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awake> > > > >> > and aware <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware>—responsive< > > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive> > > > >> > to > > > >> > the environment < > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)>, > > > >> in > > > >> > contrast to being asleep <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asleep> or > > in a > > > >> > coma<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma>. > > > >> > In philosophical and scientific discussion, however, the term is > > > >> restricted > > > >> > to the specific way in which humans are mentally aware in such a way > > > >> that > > > >> > they distinguish clearly between themselves (the thing being aware) > > and > > > >> all > > > >> > other things and events. A characteristic of consciousness is that > > it is > > > >> > reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This > > > >> > "self-awareness<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness>" > > > >> > may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and > > > >> > dreams.[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > > > >> > 1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0>]< > > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > > > > >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#cite_note-0> > > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness > > > > >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness> > > > >> > So, I would limit my assignation of things which could possess > > > >> consciousness > > > >> > by thinking about the function of consciousness, and deciding > > whether it > > > >> is > > > >> > reasonable, based on the structure and organization of that object, > > that > > > >> it > > > >> > was CAPABLE of such. If awareness is a function of sensory input > > (which > > > >> > seems to be a truism, but perhaps you think differently), then by > > what > > > >> > mechanism does a rock gather sensory data? Parse it? Store it? > > Analyze > > > >> it? > > > > >> > I've found that those who think consciousness exists outside of this > > > >> > paradigm often have a different definition of the word itself. Do > > you? > > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:26 PM, retiredjim34 < > > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > Chris - for openers let us agree that humans have the quality we > > are > > > >> > > calling consciousness. Now, what is it about that quality that > > gives > > > >> > > you reason to believe that it is limited in some way or fashion to > > > >> > > some collection of species, rather that being present everywhere > > and > > > >> > > in everything? You say your belief that consciousness is limited > > "has > > > >> > > been demonstrated through a reasonable scientific process." > > Please > > > >> > > explain. I hope you don't see this as just being argumentative. I > > > >> > > would seriously welcome any light you can shed on this topic. Jim > > > > >> > > On Jul 24, 12:05 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > Because as an empiricist, I don't assign properties to something > > > >> without > > > >> > > > having an active reason to believe such is there, in the form of > > > >> > > evidence. I > > > >> > > > don't "limit" the possibilities of conscious; I merely limit my > > own > > > >> > > belief > > > >> > > > to that which has been demonstrated through a reasonable > > scientific > > > >> > > process. > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, retiredjim34 < > > [email protected] > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > Chris - I guess limiting consciousness to some arbitrary > > > >> organization > > > >> > > > > of molecules, or to some set of such organizations, is about > > as > > > >> > > > > arbitrary as not limiting it to anything but contending that > > it is > > > >> > > > > everywhere and in everything (as well as in nothing - i.e; all > > of > > > >> > > > > space). Why do you think it is limited? Jim > > > > >> > > > > On Jul 24, 11:20 am, Chris Jenkins < > > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > Why would it seem that way to you? What seems conscious > > about a > > > >> rock, > > > >> > > or > > > >> > > > > > other inert matter? > > > >> > > > > > I would extend consciousness to any form of "life" (whatever > > > >> that may > > > >> > > > > turn > > > >> > > > > > out to mean), since as I've described, consciousness rises > > from > > > >> > > > > > organization, a function of life. > > > > >> > > > > > I'm locked behind a somewhat restrictive firewall right now, > > but > > > >> will > > > >> > > > > > endeavor to provide you with some quality citation post > > haste. > > > >> :) > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM, retiredjim34 < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
