Hey Molly, The trouble that I have in understanding your last statement is where does such a 'viewpoint' oringinate if not in our conciousness. Are you talking some sort of feedback loop then?
On 12 Sep, 19:17, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I see your point. From my view, consciousness just is, and our > viewpoint is the filter. As you say, the difference between us. > > On Sep 12, 12:51 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Also, the undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient, > > realm of all possibility can be experienced in sleep or deep > > meditation and contemplation. > > > The atonement thing - that everything is connected with everything else - > > appears to me to be obvious. But > > > so what? Individuals must still individually reckon with the meaning of > > that experience which is differient for > > > different people.?In reflections about the nature of consciousness I think > > there is entirely too much emphasis > > > on the unity 'thing' and way too little on differences. Case in point - my > > personal and professional experience > > > (I am a practicing psychoanalyst for the past 44 years) indicates there is > > not just one consciousness (such as > > > unconscious, sub conscious, pre conscious, but a continuum of consciousness. > > > Among the states of consciousness along the continuum of consciousness are: > > kaleidoscopic consciousness, > > > symbiotic consciousness, transcendent consciousness, transitional > > consciousness, transformational consciousness, > > > ego consciouness, unity or syntehtic consciousness, and cosmic > > consciousness - perhaps more. > > > Consciousness functions like a filter which enables a person to organize > > the raw data of their experience. Each state > > > of consciousness functions as a different filter or set of filters which > > changes (interprets) what is perceived with alternative > > > perspectives. > > > This way of viewing things is what I think accounts for the stark > > difference in differing interpretations as to the nature of lets say > > synchronicities. Jung's basic unproven assumption about the collective > > unconscious as the core of reality enables his mystical magical > > interpretation of synchronicities to be what it is -? whereas an assumption > > of lets say the personal unconscious generating personal meanings of > > whatever is perceived would result in a purely naturalistic non mystical > > non magical interpretation of the nature of synchronicities. > > > Viva le differance! > > > : consciousness > > > Yes, and I think we generate meaningful connections by the experience > > of consciousness, not the intellectual speculation of consciousness, > > as has been suggested in a couple different threads. I believe that > > states like cosmic consciousness (experience all time and others and > > all that is) can and are experienced in sleep and deep meditation or > > contemplation. Also, the undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient, > > realm of all possibility can be experienced in sleep or deep > > meditation and contemplation. Once accessed, it is carried with us > > like a background program running though all our experience. We all > > have the potentiality. We recognize and experience when a change in > > viewpoint allows the possibility to manifest as real in our > > experience. The intellectual speculation may lead us to a change in > > viewpoint, or it may not. Our viewpoint manifests the experience. > > > On Sep 12, 12:03?am, [email protected] wrote:> Doesn't everything in > > the body have a physiological component? But that is not > > > the point about consciousness. > > > > Whatever else consciousness is - is that it's essence is the awareness of > > > awareness plus. The plus factor are the > > > > idiosyncratic meanings we consciously and unconsciously attribute to any > > > of > > > our individual experiences. So that the > > > > mystery of consciousness I believe is ultimately bound up with > > > understanding > > > the way we individually generate meaningful > > > > connections. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 5:09 am > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness > > > > Hey Just, > > > > Yes that is the idea my claim is that conciousness is held in the > > > brain, and so it must be a biological mechanism, so yes it does assume > > > that answer. > > > > You say: > > > > ' If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does > > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to > > > it.' > > > > Whi > > > ch really is you doing the same thing is it not? > > > > Of course not all mechaninsims can be said to be objects either. Would > > > you not call mathamatical formulea mechinisms? ?Lets take Pi for > > > example, is it not a mechanism by which a carpenter can figure out the > > > diamater of ?round table that he has been asked to build? > > > > On 10 Sep, 16:09, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lee, > > > > > Thanks for the great post it is very clear. > > > > > I think there is a flaw however in your argument. Here it is: You > > > > write: > > > > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > > > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > > > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > > > > In general, if by "use in order to work" you mean anything like what > > > > happens in steering linkages then I think your argument fails because > > > > it assumes the answer. Here is why: > > > > > If our consciousnesses are like steering linkages and if we manipulate > > > > one end of the linkage the other end moves then it is safe to assume > > > > that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses one > > > > end of the linkage" means something like what happens generally in > > > > mechanical linkages. > > > > > If however, our consciousnesses are not like steering linkages and if > > > > we manipulate one end of the linkage and the other end moves > > > > (consciousness is affected by material manipulation) then it is not > > > > safe to assume that our consciousness ?"uses one end of the linkage" > > > > where "uses one end of the linkage" means something like what happens > > > > generally in mechanical linkages. > > > > > The possibility would still exist that if ?our consciousnes > > > ses are not > > > > like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the linkage and > > > > the other end moves (consciousness is affected by material > > > > manipulation) then it is due to some other process than "uses one end > > > > of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means what happens > > > > in linkages. It would the > > > n be due to an entirely different process > > > > > that still allows the cause to be transmitted. > > > > > Whether consciousness can be affected by material manipulation is > > > > given and has been known ever since the cavemen ducked a rock thrown > > > > at their heads. It does not rely on modern advances in neurology in > > > > the slightest. > > > > > If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > > > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does > > > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to > > > > it. > > > > > Furthermore if you understand what a mechanism means to include > > > > roughly it "being an object" and you understand that "consciousness" > > > > means to be an "experiencing of the object" as *opposed* to the object > > > > itself. Then saying that consciousness is a mechanism is a > > > > contradiction in terms and no empirical question is needed to > > > > determine whether it is materially affected. It cannot be affected > > > > materially because what we mean by the term is not something either > > > > objective or material. That does not mean it cannot be manipulated by > > > > manipulating a physical object. It is obvious it can. It only means > > > > that the linkage need not be material indeed cannot be material. > > > > > Consider the mechanism of your brain. If consciousness is an objective > > > > property of that mechanism then you are correct. But if consciousness > > > > is not an objective property (meaning that when say "consciousness" we > > > > mean something other than an objective property ) then describing the > > > > influence of matter on it in terms of a mechanism which is an > > > > interaction between two objects > > > > > I further assert that what I mean by "my consciousness" is not some > > > > property of what I experience. Therefore it > > > is not objective, > > > > therefore it is not material. > > > > > Again thanks for the exasperated attempt at rigor and clarity. It is > > > > actually that kind of clarity that is necessary to sort this out > > > > > On Sep 9, 6:20?am, "[email protected]" <l...@rdfm > > edia.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Umm there seems some flaw here, now what is it? > > > > > > Ahhh yes! > > > > > > If I was to suggest that to manipulate where a car goes you need to > > > > > use the stearing wheel, that sounds about right yes? > > > > > > I was to further say that a stearing wheel does not in fact stear the > > > > > car, it only manipulates where the car can be steared, then maybe > > > > > you'll begin to see what is wrong with your statement above? > > > > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > > > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > > > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > > > > > Or put in another way. ?If I drink a glass of water and notice no > > > > > change in the way my conciousness is working then it is safe to > > > > > suggest that water is not a mechinism that conciousness uses in order > > > > > to work.(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course) > > > > > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > > > > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > > > > > > Actually they do not. > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
