Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I deny that consciousness exists in any interesting way and have always strongly believed against the idea that consciousness exists. The fact that we are conscious and can understand is direct evidence that there was once the impossibility of consciousness and understanding, and in that impossibility there is no consciousness or understanding. In addition, that there IS consciousness at one point but not another, proves that consciousness is not all-knowing or reliable as a sense in ANY way, including any facts or wisdom consumed. Therefore, consciousness cannot exist and definitely does not exist.
The idea of a higher consciousness is a development not to celebrate the idea of a higher consciousness, but to celebrate the idea of our initial consciousness. Again, we have no grasp of higher consciousness at all, and a tentative grasp on our own realities, because they are so strongly governed by instinct, emotion, celebration and ritual. The idea of higher consciousness weakens the original concept of consciousness further, as it is an aspect out of reach, but to validate the former as a reachable object, which it is not.
I deny that consciousness exists in ..... Therefore, consciousness cannot exist and definitely does not exist.
. The idea of higher consciousness weakens the original concept of consciousness further, as it is an aspect out of reach, but to validate the former as a reachable object, which it is not.
You contradict yourself. Consciousness does not exist, ergo, there is no original concept of consciousness. It either is, or is not.
Simple fact that you are conscious proves, unfortunately, that you are conscious. Not only conscious but, also, self conscious as conscious being. No matter how much you attempt to dumb it down. It is, be grateful you can use it.
Consciousness has been attempted to be defined by many, starting with the dualistic meme of Descartes, "I think therefore I am" to Sam Harris who does not see a higher state from a dualism perspective at all. So, where on this continuum does a "higher level of consciousness" fall?
Is it something that evolves solely through meditation (which Harris and Tolle endorse), do psychotropic drugs unlock some of it, or is it something completely different? What does "a higher level of consciousness" mean?
I'd be interested in discussions on that question, as there is enough problems with agreement on what consciousnesses itself even is. Most of us agree that humans have a higher level than a mouse, but what about going down the evolutionary time scale. What about an octopus? A fish? A shrimp? Is there a collective consciousness when one sees a murmur of birds? What about bacteria? Or a plant? Does every biological organism have some level of consciousness? I would suspect not, but when does it dim?
Drugs do not raise your consciousness to a higher level. They ALTER it.
However you feel about that, a "higher" consciousness cannot be achieved while spliffed. I will admit that on some occasions and for some (a minority of) people, one MIGHT achieve some insight via the use of drugs which , IF you can remember it later, might help one to achieve a "higher" level of consciousness through conscious effort and the daily application of one's self to one's betterment - but that's pretty much a crap shoot. Much as I enjoy relaxing with a bit of weed, I'm not silly enough to think that's going to lead me to Nirvana any time in this lifetime.
I don't think you can "rank" levels of consciousness between living creatures. Consciousness doesn't work that way. We can only discuss HUMAN consciousness because that is all we truly (sort of) understand.
Among humans, "higher" consciousness most often has to do with holding to ethical standards of altruism, non-harm, and being fair and kind to others. If we could ALL aspire to such, the world would be a far better place than it is.
You can be reductionist and state that it's ONLY neurons firing, OR you can suggest that there is a "source" of energy external to us that all living creatures draw from. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The truth is in the middle only until reductionism eventually explains all. Gods of the gaps can exist only so long as the gaps themselves exist--I say this as an analogy, not a literal accusation that you're making a gods of the gaps argument. (In actuality, I don't know what argument you're making, because external energy sources drawn on by all species...well, that's pretty vague and probably intentionally so, if you ask me). Pretty sure Chalmers (if not also Searle) has made unscientific theory of mind arguments, although I'd have to research to confirm my terribly residual memories of this topic
Single cell paramecium move about, seek mates, find food, escape from a maze , learn to escape faster.
They don't have any neural synapses.
I would say they are aware to the degree that is required for them.
They're not aware at all. They're biological automatons.
Some very bright people think so.
Most mathematicians are platonists, the believe all ideal forms exist on a different plane or are embedded at the planck scale of the universe. Thats pretty wild stuff for mathematicians but they think so.
What I see is people who think there is nothing going on externally don't fend so well over the long run in life.
Most mathematicians are platonists? Maybe in 300 BC[E].
They're not aware at all. They're biological automatons.
Not aware. Conscious. Conscious as its function only.
There is principle difference between awareness and being conscious. Those terms and there application should not be confused. Conscious does not mean aware. Aware is aware that I am conscious. Cogito ergo sum.
VERY different.
Most mathematicians are platonists? Maybe in 300 BC[E].
No, today.
Most mathematicians believe there exists perfect platonic forms .
Physicist Roger Penrose says the platonic forms are embedded in the universe at the planck scale.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
