• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness question

GaryLifo said:
ok, I will define it only in the context of which I ask this question.

The state where I am able to think in a way where I can attempt to interpret whichever environment I am and make continuous legible thoughts about that environment.

Let us say the state of mind I would be in were I sat in a chair in a room and was awake and free to think as I wish.

If the conscious is truly separate from the body, I should be able to continue my awareness of what is around me regardless of whether my body has been made medically unconscious.
Click to expand...
Well gosh, you don't have to go to surgery to satisfy that example. You become unconscious (by that definition) practically every night. During REM sleep, you may skirt consciousness what with dreams and such, but for most of the night you do not have continuous, (legible?) thoughts about your environment.

Idealists/dualists have never been able to give a reasonable answer to that question either.
 
Welcome. If you see someone named "Interesting" Ian lurking, just start whistling and walk quickly.
 
Ryokan said:
WE'VE MADE A BREAKTHROUGH!
Click to expand...
How so? That God is progressive, as opposed to static which, is what the YEC's would have us believe? Of course the theory of evolution still doesn't explain how God puts His spirit into everything. Perhaps the Book of Genesis is right, about the later acclimation of man? And of course if man were in effect a fallen angel, a thoughtful and progressive God would have provided a place for this to happen, by means of time and space that is.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Well gosh, you don't have to go to surgery to satisfy that example. You become unconscious (by that definition) practically every night. During REM sleep, you may skirt consciousness what with dreams and such, but for most of the night you do not have continuous, (legible?) thoughts about your environment.

Idealists/dualists have never been able to give a reasonable answer to that question either.
Click to expand...
When you dream, and the signals from the bodily senses are overriden, you are immersed into another realm. This is why we also remain conscious in our dreams ... well, at least in my opinion. ;)
 
Iacchus said:
How so? That God is progressive, as opposed to static which, is what the YEC's would have us believe? Of course the theory of evolution still doesn't explain how God puts His spirit into everything. Perhaps the Book of Genesis is right, about the later acclimation of man? And of course if man were in effect a fallen angel, a thoughtful and progressive God would have provided a place for this to happen, by means of time and space.
Click to expand...

Disregard my previous exclamation, we're back to square one.

Sorry for messing up your thread, GaryLifo.

The state where I am able to think in a way where I can attempt to interpret whichever environment I am and make continuous legible thoughts about that environment.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this make advanced computers conscious?
 
Ryokan said:
Disregard my previous exclamation, we're back to square one.

Sorry for messing up your thread, GaryLifo.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, there's no need to discuss souls and spirits then? Fine. Just remember, I'm not the one who started the thread. Nor was it me who invoked my name. Perhaps you folks should be a little bit more careful in this regard?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Oh I see, there's no need to discuss souls and spirits then? Fine. Just remember, I'm not the one who started the thread. Nor was it me who invoked my name. Perhaps you folks should be a little bit more careful in this regard?
Click to expand...

A warning is not an invitation.

We'll get to souls and spirits after we've discussed minds, leprechauns, the IPU and other made up things.
 
Piscivore said:
A warning is not an invitation.

We'll get to souls and spirits after we've discussed minds, leprechauns, the IPU and other made up things.
Click to expand...
Whatever, you folks can return to your regular scheduled programming now. ;)
 
So, how would one know the truth is "out there" if, the truth wasn't inside of you, telling you about the truth that is out there? How would we in fact know anything if, it wasn't for consciousness telling us that "things are so?"
 
Tricky said:
Well gosh, you don't have to go to surgery to satisfy that example. You become unconscious (by that definition) practically every night. During REM sleep, you may skirt consciousness what with dreams and such, but for most of the night you do not have continuous, (legible?) thoughts about your environment.

Idealists/dualists have never been able to give a reasonable answer to that question either.
Click to expand...
According to the Jungian model of human consciousness (see sig), ego consciousness is not the entirety of human consciousness. According to the Jungian model, human consciousness looks something like this:

Ego: waking thoughts; what most consider the "I" of the self

Personal unconscious: what you are not thinking of but can easily pull up into memory

Individual unconscious: personal repressed memories and forgotten memories which can't be brought "up" into ego consciousness

Collective unconscious: the "hard wiring" of all human consciousness; where cross cultural myths find their origin

Superconscious: The "transcendental" monad imminent in human consciousness
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html

Though we are asleep, drugged, comatose, or even dead, doesn't necessarily mean that, according to the Jungian model, we are ever separate from consciousness being that consciousness, in its totality and to which we are all attached, exists independent of ego/brain consciousness of the individual.
 
Last edited:
ruach1 said:
According to the Jungian model of human consciousness (see sig), ego consciousness is not the entirety of human consciousness. According to the Jungian model, human consciousness looks something like this:

Ego: waking thoughts; what most consider the "I" of the self

Personal unconscious: what you are not thinking of but can easily pull up into memory

Individual unconscious: personal repressed memories and forgotten memories which can't be brought "up" into ego consciousness

Collective unconscious: the "hard wiring" of all human consciousness; where cross cultural myths find their origin

Superconscious: The "transcendental" monad imminent in human consciousness
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html
Click to expand...
I was responding to the definition GaryLifo gave. What you have described are five completely separate things which are somewhat loosely related. And this is always the problem when discussing consciousness. We all have several usages for the word which are quite different in their application. That's why it is imperative when discussing consciousness to know what definition you are using, and to not change the model of consciousness without indicating you are doing so.

ruach1 said:
Though we are asleep, drugged, comatose, or even dead, doesn't necessarily mean that, according to the Jungian model, we are ever separate from consciousness being that consciousness, in its totality and to which we are all attached, exists independent of ego/brain consciousness of the individual.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with Jung. It seems obvious to me that consciousness is generated by the brain, and even then only when the brain is in certain states that we might call "full capacity". When the brain is not working, consciousness disappears, even though it can be regained once the brain starts working at full capacity again. These are generaliztions of course, because consciousness is not an "on/off" switch. It is a continuum ranging from hyperalert to brain-dead.

As for myself, I am only pretending to be conscious.
 
ruach1 said:
Though we are asleep, drugged, comatose, or even dead, doesn't necessarily mean that, according to the Jungian model, we are ever separate from consciousness being that consciousness, in its totality and to which we are all attached, exists independent of ego/brain consciousness of the individual.
Click to expand...
Except that in fact we are, so Jung was wrong. Inasmuch as he was even coherent in the first place. Jung was a woo of the Sheldrake school - or rather, vice versa.
 
Iacchus said:
It all comes from the same place.
Click to expand...

duh, me Iacchus, and me poo-poo head, me also have no genitalia because me lost it...

me, Iacchus, need help with direction to me genitalia...

me, Iacchus, lost like show with same name ( me like rhyme ) on shiny picture box....

ddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom