Consciousness

[Anonymous No.14797162]

Why does consciousness exist?
Some people argue it's because Adam and Eve ate the fruit, others say it's just a little voice in their heads, third think it's what species inherit over the many layers of evolution, or people preach it's a product of outside influence(or environment).
Who had the greatest input in determining what consciousness is? Locke? Abrahamic religions? Stirner? Scientists? Or someone else?
Discuss.

[Anonymous No.14797167]

>>14797162
because of all the onions beans you consumed

[Anonymous No.14797187]

The creation principle trickles down into matter spawning all kinds of organisms all which approximate God to some degree. The closer your being is to perfection/100%/God the more you will be like him. At some point, say 70% (completely arbitrary number) you are in likeness close enough to 'unlock' consciousness. Humans from all the organisms on earth have the highest "percentage" which is also why it's commonly believed that God created man in his image. As your percentage increases the more human like will you become. Avatars like Jesus or Krishna and whoever were just humans with an exceptionally high percentage.

[Anonymous No.14797215]

>>14797187
Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.14797225]

>>14797215
Dunno it came to me when I was washing my feet and it makes sense imo.

[Anonymous No.14797232]

>>14797162
>consciousness
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.14797261]

Nobody actually knows what consciousness is. There are some scientists who denies it exists at all, since there is no empirical evidence for it. Of course, that's just due to being unable to admit physicalism is dead.

[Anonymous No.14797307]

>>14797162
I think that ultimately it might be impossible to adequately describe consciousness, for similar (well, metaphorically similar anyway) reasons as why any consistent system of axioms in a first order logic cannot possibly prove its own consistency (Godel's second incompleteness theorem)
I know very little about consciousness, except for my own particular experiments and experiences.

[Anonymous No.14797420]

>>14797232
t. zombie

[Anonymous No.14797463]

>>14797162

What we call consciousness today is actually a ontological shortcircuit; the "voice" in your head is the Adversary, which in our modern world has a well established and "vital" place. You can see where that leads us.

This duplication of consciousness in a mirror-principle of negation is the main drive; "I think therefore I am" postulates the existence of a anomalous cognitive entity, known as the Serpent

So what we term as "pre-consciousness" is actually the original, more ample form of Consciousness; today we are more and more enraptured by what is not only a lesser aspect of our being, but also a death-trap we choose willingly.

I can expand on this in detail if someone wishes.

Otherwise you can listen to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN9MwZEX75c

[Anonymous No.14797494]

>>14797463
buddy I'm not clicking on your youtube video when you say things like
>This duplication of consciousness in a mirror-principle of negation is the main drive; "I think therefore I am" postulates the existence of a anomalous cognitive entity, known as the Serpent
without explaining any further
I like where you're going with the whole preconsciousness thing tho

[Anonymous No.14797502]

>>14797463
(.cont)

just to get the point across; "pre-consciousness" is indeed what we see in nature but expect from man who has "gone astray", no other known being exhibits the same degree of high-level "pre-consciousness" today. Most human beings operate at best on varying levels of sin, meaning that they cling to parts of this lesser aspect which is mortal and calls "unto the dust". The solution to this is to voluntarily act "against" our now-natural being, namely the egotistic principle, and turn back towards the universal being, which is communion. Any form of attempting to achieve this through coercion, extortion or any other negative context actively invalidates the essence of communion, which is unconditional love.

Moving on, consciousness can and is experienced today in varying altered states as a "bliss", because from our relative standpoints the experience of our everyday lives is defined mostly through barriers (negations), not positive charges. "The light," in other words,"shines into darkness but the darkness does not overcome it." (John 1:1-2)

So mostly we can say what consciousness is not more than what it is. This is why apophaticism (negative theology) is the most effective way of drilling towards the truth

[Anonymous No.14797548]

>>14797502
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Anonymous No.14797552]

>>14797494
think (sic) of when you are enjoying a trip in the mountains, or a moment with your family, or a good book or videogame, or whatever immerses you completely.

now imagine while you do this that that "voice" in your head constantly undermines what you experience with various distractions such as "when should I go shopping" , "did my girlfriend ever cheat on me", "is my mom secretly ill" or other, more meager rummaging.

the idea is that this can be seen as a relative example on how our "normal" consciousness compares to the original, more ample ("pre-")consciousness : what we experience today mostly in our souls/minds is noise, it is re-collection, constant self-doubt and negation of others. What we experience in the background: silence.

This silence once cultivated reveals itself as consciousness also, but a different type, not based on circle-entropy based self-reasoning, but rather is like a flow, a harmonization between your personal coordinates and those of the higher and lesser planes of consciousness. It can be actively accessed through Creation (Art, Music, Poetry, playing, writing, etc) or through Vigil (Dream, Prayer, etc), none of which are "passive" forms of consciousness, but are deemed so by a lesser form who "hates" anything it cannot compare itself with on it;s own terms. That's why the word ego is used a lot when talking about "normal" (fallen-state) consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14797561]

>>14797548
sure, that's the circle I was talking about. enjoy it if you so wish

[Anonymous No.14797612]

>>14797552
>What we experience in the background: silence
I think I understand what you're saying. My own experience is that there is no final level of "silence". I think it might always be possible to keep observing the "silence" from another, deeper level that has yet to be explored.
what do you think of this>>14797307?

>>14797548
dawkins-tier comment

[Anonymous No.14797726]

>>14797612
>My own experience is that there is no final level of "silence". I think it might always be possible to keep observing the "silence" from another, deeper level that has yet to be explored.

Totally agree. It was actually what I tried to express previously when saying that the silence can be cultivated but you nailed it better

>>14797307
>Gode's Second Incompleteness Theory
>: any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency if it is inconsistent.

This is one of the best scientifical arguments I have ever seen in support of spirituality. It help me revisit some older notes about the brain is not an epistemological engine - it is more accurate to describe it as an 'uncertainty engine'. You gave me a big bone to chew, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.14797894]

>>14797726
the privilege is mine, anon

[Anonymous No.14797940]

>>14797261
>since there is no empirical evidence for it
On the contrary, there is empirical evidence for it. I think you mean to say, that there is no scientific evidence for it. That's an important distinction. Every moment that you experience your own consciousness constitutes empirical evidence for consciousness. As an aside, it just occurs to me that one of the consequences of those contemporary thinkers who deny the existence of consciousness is that it would undermine the empirical basis of science. If consciousness does not exist then we cannot gather experience / experiential data, and if that is the case how can we engage in scientific activity, one of the bases of which is empiricism?

[Anonymous No.14798247]

[Anonymous No.14798330]

>>14797894
same here, anon

>>14798247
jackpot, this guys knows

I'm gonna paste some notes of mine:

"We cannot measure both the position and momentum of a particle,simultaneously, beyond an accuracy which is limited as a function of the Planck constant. A range of results can be predicted, or a statistical average of results, but there will be no predicting individual events dependent on the indeterminate input. This is a rejection of the the determinacy of prior Newtonian, and Einsteinian physics.

The prior epistemology, was, I submit, modeled on Newtonian science, with its determinism, and that created expectations of possible knowledge --unknown elements becoming known, which are disappointed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, I think this does tell us something about epistemology. This strikes me as quite similar to the epistemological effect of Einstein's work --with its rejection of Newtonian space and time--along with his modifications of the idea of simultaneity. Or, again, Einstein supplanted the Newtonian definition of force, F=ma, to take into account relativistic effects. Even definitions may fall as science advances. Likewise, the uncertainty principle tells us that particular descriptions, say, involving exact location and momentum of a particle, have no application. There is no such thing there to be known or unknown.

The Planck constant seems so basic, that I can't quite imagine how any quantum theory could start out without it. Maybe I am wrong about this, though. I'd like to hear from those who may know a bit more about the topic. The role of time in Planck's constant suggest that time is basic to quantum mechanics. Even the uncertainty relation is defined by reference to Planck's constant. So, it appears that Planck's constant, too, tells us something about possible knowledge"

...

My own research implicates a solitonic tunneling quantum coherent matter wave (BEC) as the neural corellate of consciousness. The formation of the soliton depends upon invariance in the boundary conditions (environment) to provide the necessary 'fixed points' (or points of ambiguity) whereby tunneling can take place. So, cognitive states depend upon the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for their very existence! In this respect, the Fractal Catalytic Model suggests that the brain is not an epistemological engine - it is more accurate to describe it as an 'uncertainty engine'.

[Anonymous No.14798356]

>>14797232
Fuck off Dennett

[Anonymous No.14798359]

>>14797420
https://vitrifyher.com/2020/01/20/why-other-people-might-not-be-conscious/

[Anonymous No.14798364]

Define consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14798383]

>>14797162
Because its evolutionary beneficial to plan.
Planning is better done when you can imagine in advance and the more complex maps you imagine the better you are.

Why did this all happen tho, I have no idea

[Anonymous No.14798614]

>>14798356
Gautama Buddha (pbuh) retroactively refuted Socrates

[Anonymous No.14798619]

>>14797162
>Why does consciousness exist?
does it really tho?

[Anonymous No.14798654]

>>14798614
>Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. >Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.

[Anonymous No.14798682]

>ctrl f jaynes
>0 results
come on, /lit/

[Anonymous No.14798702]

>>14798682
Pseud book

[Anonymous No.14798796]

>>14798654
in english pleasee!?

[Anonymous No.14798812]

>>14798796
For consciousness to be an illusion there's no requirement of something to be deluded

[Anonymous No.14798878]

Consciousness is the opposite of the unconscious.

[Anonymous No.14798890]

>>14797940
I have no idea, ask Daniel Dennet.

[Anonymous No.14798925]

>>14798812
That seemed to be saying that we don't control consciousness, not that it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.14798939]

>>14798925
Consciousness is not something that we have

[Anonymous No.14798949]

>>14797232
I think, therefore I am.

[Anonymous No.14798959]

>>14798949
>implying you
>implying thoughts belong to you

[Anonymous No.14798962]

>>14797162
>Who had the greatest input in determining what consciousness is?
Probably Jung

[Anonymous No.14798981]

>>14798939
By consciousness, does the Buddha mean awareness, or something else, such as thoughts or sensations?

[Anonymous No.14799017]

>>14798981
Depends on the translation.
He says that self awareness, or metareflection (what we call conscience) is an illusion

[Anonymous No.14799043]

consciousness is being

[Anonymous No.14799106]

>>14799017
Ok that makes sense. I usually interpret consciousness to just mean awareness of anything at all, not cognition or meta-reflection. I don't think he's denying awareness is real.

[Anonymous No.14799125]

>>14797232
I AM that I AM

[Anonymous No.14799141]

>>14797225
Based

[Anonymous No.14799169]

>>14799106
This. When you experience something, what you are is that experience. When you experience yourself experiencing something, you are no longer the experience of that something, but rather the metaexperience. It's like trying to see your consciousness by turning your head around. You bring it with you to the new experience.

[Anonymous No.14799188]

>>14797162
>Why does consciousness exist?
Does it? That's a hell of a premise.

[Anonymous No.14799217]

>>14797162
>>14797232
this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdeLUNi2uJs

[Anonymous No.14799220]

>>14797162
It does?

Seems we're just calling complex mind-mapping which would be necessary for survival and future planning consciousness, which doesn't have anything special about it.

The only interesting theory about it I recall was that basically all matter can be conscious and shit works on a field we haven't discovered yet … though it still just ends up creating more problems and questions when the process of consciousness doesn't necessary deserve.

[Anonymous No.14799228]

>>14799188
Do you not experience things?

[Anonymous No.14799239]

>>14799220
No? There doesn't need to be a Cartesian theater for any of that, no awareness. Just reaction to inputs.

[Anonymous No.14799256]

>>14798682


>>14798702
>t.dregs of the pseud filter

[Anonymous No.14799275]

>>14799239
How does that explain our ability to map out the future?

[Anonymous No.14799294]

>>14797162
The definition of consciousness I subscribe to is "experience", rather than "higher-order mental processing" or other definitions ascribed to it. And my views on the subject are best explained by a book series called the Law of One, which you can read online for free if you're interested:

https://www.lawofone.info/

[Anonymous No.14799296]

>>14798383
Planning doesn't require consciousness. Laptop computers can do it.

[Anonymous No.14799302]

>>14799275
The brain could just do that without there being anything to perceive the process, as it's just a computation. You don't think computers are conscious because they can run algorithms to forecast the future right?

[Anonymous No.14799317]

>>14799302
>You don't think computers are conscious because they can run algorithms to forecast the future right?
If it's complex enough to create the idea of self as an individual, it'd qualify for the definition.

[Anonymous No.14799343]

occultism and paranormal /x/ server

https://discord.gg/YCtf37

[Anonymous No.14799470]

>>14799296
I think his definition of consciousness regards that of higher-order mental processing, rather than mine and presumably yours, which concerns "experience" or "awareness". The word consciousness is used quite vaguely a lot of times, resulting in different people referring to different entities by it.

[Anonymous No.14799492]

>>14799317
But consciousness concerns the awareness or experience of information, rather than the information itself. The question is not whether a computer could create a concept of self, but whether it has any dimension which is actually aware or experiencing that (or any other) information.

[Anonymous No.14799501]

>>14799492
Read this
>>14798654

[Anonymous No.14799565]

>>14798614
t. hylic spreading memes he does not understand.

[Anonymous No.14799576]

>>14799470
People shouldn't be chiming in if they haven't attended at least one philosophy class, or read at least one academic paper or book on the subject of consciousness. It just muddies up the thread with irrelevant gibberish.

[Anonymous No.14799587]

>>14799565
Did Heraclitus (pbuh) believe in consciousness?
No!
Did Gautama Buddha believe in consciousness (as subhumans like you believe in it)?
No!
Without the 5 aggregates there's no "consciousness". This is fact!
The only "consciousness" that exists is present in everything.
Of the soul means fake and gay, "you" are your body!

[Anonymous No.14799588]

>>14799317
False.

[Anonymous No.14799606]

>>14799587
What kinds of things does a helium atom experience and ruminate over? How does it experience pain without nerve endings?

[Anonymous No.14800778]

>>14798959
The notion of thought is inconceivable without reference to a subject.

[Anonymous No.14800850]

>>14799576
The academics themselves use the concept differently though, from what I've seen. I'd say that we should just switch to the word "awareness" or "experience" rather than "consciousness", for more directness, since the word "consciousness" has been used for some time in several senses, including the way others in this thread are using it. They're not using it that way out of nowhere, but in response to an existing usage in our cultural vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.14800867]

>>14797548
Unfortunately you didn’t provide evidence for this statement so I will dismiss it

[Anonymous No.14800912]

>>14800867
It's a directive not an assertion.

[Anonymous No.14800966]

>>14800912
Evidence? Sorry you submitted this without evidence so I’m going to dismiss it

[Anonymous No.14801162]

>>14800966
An assertion states what is.
A directive tells you to do something.

[Anonymous No.14801197]

>>14797162
The only things we "know", we know through science.

[Anonymous No.14801213]

>>14801197
How do you know that?

[Anonymous No.14801229]

>>14801213
When I need anything reliable in my life I tend to use things built out of scientific findings. Not because I'm specifically looking for them.
It just happens to be the case that those things work better. Whatever knowledge science is putting out seems to be hitting the mark better on average.

[Anonymous No.14801231]

>>14801162
And the directive has no evidence to support it so I will dismiss following it. Whoops!

[Anonymous No.14801232]

>>14797162

[Anonymous No.14801244]

>>14801232

[Anonymous No.14801254]

>>14801229
>pragmatism
Yawn.

Anyways math isn’t a science and is known a priori.

[Anonymous No.14801271]

>>14801231
>And the directive has no evidence to support it
No directives do, by definition.

>so I will dismiss following it. Whoops!
Wrong. >>14797548 applies only to assertions.

[Anonymous No.14801281]

>>14798356
If only the Greeks understood or knew about the unconscious part of mind. All consciousness is a post-hoc rationalization as gathered via the working sense organs and translated by the unconscious brain.

[Anonymous No.14801285]

>>14801232
>>14801244
Post-2016 retards are chiming in. Nice.

[Anonymous No.14801299]

>>14801285
What the hell does that mean? Did you even read the articles? The second is 2013.

[Anonymous No.14801582]

>>14801232
Based.

[Anonymous No.14802106]

>>14801232
>>14801244
tl;dr?

[Anonymous No.14802369]

>>14797940
Self-Consciousness does not fall under the definition of an Empirical intuition.

[Anonymous No.14802699]

>>14802106
These essays are each only two pages long. Read.

[Anonymous No.14802743]

If human beings are the only things capable of achieving a connection to God then that would be rather odd. Think about how big the Universe is. And only one race is apparently capable of achieving Gnosis or Theosis? Very odd to me.

[Anonymous No.14802763]

>>14801271
Directives require a normative force, usually provides by evidence l. There is no evidence supporting following the directive so I’ll dismiss it. Unless you believe in certain directives having normative force a priori, but that would make your stupid assertion worthless because then there are categories of things that can be presented and asserted without evidence.

[Anonymous No.14802921]

>>14802106
Mindless ramblings with a few nods to psychoanalysists, a solid baw about muh global warming environment and how humans are and destructive. He says absolutely nothing about what consciousness actually is. Dude should run for politics. All this talking without saying anything about the matter at hand. I bet he sniffs his own farts like a sommelier.

[Anonymous No.14803088]

>>14797502
Prove it
>>14797548
This

[Anonymous No.14803093]

>>14798330
>function of the Planck constant
A function of a constant is also a constant. Didn't read the rest as you obviously don't know what you're talking about and it's going to be guru/quantum coach tier.

[Anonymous No.14803216]

>>14803088
He did prove it

[Anonymous No.14803227]

>>14797187
Yeah... I tend to agree with you. You must be familiar with Hinduism?

[Anonymous No.14803519]

>>14801232
>can consciousness help humans create a large, complex, egalitarian society?
>can consciousness prevent future wars and tribal conflicts?
>can consciousness prevent ubiquitous predatory human behaviors, both toward other humans and other species?
>can consciousness allow us to effectively address global warming and other self-created existential threats?
>does consciousness give us the ability to know when we are bullshitting and when we are not?

Yes, incidentally, but the point being it is there precisely for opposing the world and that which obeys it, not for further prostrating yourself before it. What a fag.

[Anonymous No.14803528]

>>14797187
highschool drivel. go read