Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

[Guest guest]

You didn't know it then, but it's

known now that consciousness can't happen

without the frontal lobes of the brain.

 

This is known because there are people

who due to trauma have lost the wiring

between the vision centers and the front

lobes. This people are not conscious of

seeing, but can catch an object if one

is thrown to them. If asked to describe

the object they just caught, they have

to feel it with their fingers as blind

people do. They never bump into things,

but do not know what kind of object they

avoided. They just say they just felt like

having to sidestep without knowing why.

 

So get updated, and don't talk about

consciousness as being an entity, it's just

a moment to moment activity. No entities

inhabit the brain.

 

Do you think little robot cars with tiny

cameras and a small computers are conscious

when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness

anyway? Anyone has a good definition?

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> You didn't know it then, but it's

> known now that consciousness can't happen

> without the frontal lobes of the brain.

>

> This is known because there are people

> who due to trauma have lost the wiring

> between the vision centers and the front

> lobes. This people are not conscious of

> seeing, but can catch an object if one

> is thrown to them. If asked to describe

> the object they just caught, they have

> to feel it with their fingers as blind

> people do. They never bump into things,

> but do not know what kind of object they

> avoided. They just say they just felt like

> having to sidestep without knowing why.

>

> So get updated, and don't talk about

> consciousness as being an entity, it's just

> a moment to moment activity. No entities

> inhabit the brain.

>

> Do you think little robot cars with tiny

> cameras and a small computers are conscious

> when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness

> anyway? Anyone has a good definition?

>

> Pete

 

 

It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as an activity

of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a cellular property that is

maximized through the brain, rather than a property only of the brain. It makes

sense to me that a dancer includes consciousness in the joints, along with

consciousness in the brain, with communication between brain and joints,

resulting in synchronized movements.

 

Just to give what works for me:

 

To be conscious: To be attending to, or able to attend to, an image, sensed

object, or feeling.

 

To be unconscious: Not to be attending to, or unable to attend to, an image,

sensed object or feeling.

 

 

Do you notice, in the research you cited, that " to be conscious " is linked with

the ability to speak coherently about a situation?

 

Indeed, that research could be construed as showing there is consciousness going

on outside of the frontal lobes, but there is no ability to talk about it when

that connection is severed.

 

 

 

To be conscious often implies the ability to exhibit voluntary movements and

responses (as opposed to merely reflexive responses).

 

Such as in the example you gave, to be able to give responsive answers to

questions that are not reflexive, but show a review of information in memory and

putting together coherent speech as a result of the review.

 

The concept of " volition " generally is linked with " being conscious. "

 

Which raises the question, " what is it to be conscious and responsive, yet have

no sense of volition " ?

 

To be able to respond to one's name, to requests, to make choices about what to

eat for lunch, but to have no sense of volition involved in the choice-making

and responding.

 

Consciousness then is not taken as the seat of a volitional entity.

 

And that raises the question of whether volition isn't a kind of feeling and an

interpretive notion rather than anything more definite.

 

A feeling of volition may arise without any volition involved in the feeling

having arisen.

 

The interpretation that someone is showing volition may occur, without any

volition being involved in that interpretation occurring.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> You didn't know it then, but it's

> known now that consciousness can't happen

> without the frontal lobes of the brain.

>

> This is known because there are people

> who due to trauma have lost the wiring

> between the vision centers and the front

> lobes. This people are not conscious of

> seeing, but can catch an object if one

> is thrown to them. If asked to describe

> the object they just caught, they have

> to feel it with their fingers as blind

> people do. They never bump into things,

> but do not know what kind of object they

> avoided. They just say they just felt like

> having to sidestep without knowing why.

>

> So get updated, and don't talk about

> consciousness as being an entity, it's just

> a moment to moment activity. No entities

> inhabit the brain.

>

> Do you think little robot cars with tiny

> cameras and a small computers are conscious

> when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness

> anyway? Anyone has a good definition?

>

> Pete

>

 

 

Thanks Pete,

 

This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a ball,

move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards their

head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me ponder

why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without needing it

?

 

The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for

communication. Consciousness is a social function.

 

The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share the

world presented by consciousness.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

property only of the brain.

 

The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

 

A movement.

 

As is everything.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> property only of the brain.

 

The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

 

A movement.

 

As is everything.

 

geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o

consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that

it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the

brain itself. LOL

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > property only of the brain.

>

> The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

>

> A movement.

>

> As is everything.

>

> geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o

> consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that

> it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the

> brain itself. LOL

 

Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan?

 

Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to

situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " .

 

There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually.

 

One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on

about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'.

 

It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption and

guessing and surmisal.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:36 PM

Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > property only of the brain.

>

> The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

>

> A movement.

>

> As is everything.

>

> geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain

> w/o

> consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click

> that

> it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of

> the

> brain itself. LOL

 

Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan?

-tim-

 

That is pete's post. Pete. You sniped his part - as always. :>)

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:36 PM

> Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > > property only of the brain.

> >

> > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

> >

> > A movement.

> >

> > As is everything.

> >

> > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain

> > w/o

> > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click

> > that

> > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of

> > the

> > brain itself. LOL

>

> Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan?

> -tim-

>

> That is pete's post. Pete. You sniped his part - as always. :>)

> -geo-

 

Ahh, OK.

 

Our resident brain surgeon, Pete ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > > property only of the brain.

> >

> > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

> >

> > A movement.

> >

> > As is everything.

> >

> > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o

> > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that

> > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the

> > brain itself. LOL

>

> Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan?

>

> Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to

situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " .

>

> There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually.

>

> One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on

about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'.

>

> It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption

and guessing and surmisal.

>

 

P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question.

 

Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually.

 

To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> You didn't know it then, but it's

> known now that consciousness can't happen

> without the frontal lobes of the brain.

>

> This is known because there are people

> who due to trauma have lost the wiring

> between the vision centers and the front

> lobes. This people are not conscious of

> seeing, but can catch an object if one

> is thrown to them. If asked to describe

> the object they just caught, they have

> to feel it with their fingers as blind

> people do. They never bump into things,

> but do not know what kind of object they

> avoided. They just say they just felt like

> having to sidestep without knowing why.

>

> So get updated, and don't talk about

> consciousness as being an entity, it's just

> a moment to moment activity. No entities

> inhabit the brain.

>

> Do you think little robot cars with tiny

> cameras and a small computers are conscious

> when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness

> anyway? Anyone has a good definition?

>

> Pete

>

 

 

 

It's that thinky stuff in your head?

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> >

> > You didn't know it then, but it's

> > known now that consciousness can't happen

> > without the frontal lobes of the brain.

> >

> > This is known because there are people

> > who due to trauma have lost the wiring

> > between the vision centers and the front

> > lobes. This people are not conscious of

> > seeing, but can catch an object if one

> > is thrown to them. If asked to describe

> > the object they just caught, they have

> > to feel it with their fingers as blind

> > people do. They never bump into things,

> > but do not know what kind of object they

> > avoided. They just say they just felt like

> > having to sidestep without knowing why.

> >

> > So get updated, and don't talk about

> > consciousness as being an entity, it's just

> > a moment to moment activity. No entities

> > inhabit the brain.

> >

> > Do you think little robot cars with tiny

> > cameras and a small computers are conscious

> > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness

> > anyway? Anyone has a good definition?

> >

> > Pete

> >

>

>

> Thanks Pete,

>

> This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a ball,

move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards their

head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me ponder

why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without needing it

?

>

> The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for

communication. Consciousness is a social function.

>

> The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share the

world presented by consciousness.

>

> Werner

>

 

 

 

Consciousness is a survival program.

 

It evolved simply because it helps the physical organism survive and reproduce.

 

It is not a thing any more than sight is a thing.

 

In the human species......it evolved to the point where it objectifies its

perceptions and thereby creates a pseudo-reality from which a few try to escape.

 

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > property only of the brain.

>

> The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

>

> A movement.

>

> As is everything.

>

> geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o

> consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that

> it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the

> brain itself. LOL

>

 

 

 

 

I heard of a brain surgeon who didn't trust any other doctor to operate on his

brain....so he did it himself.

 

I don't remember what happened to him.

 

He doesn't either.

 

 

:-0

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

property only of the brain.

>

> The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

>

> A movement.

>

> As is everything.

 

 

Absolutely.

 

All any explanation can do, is end in " -ing "

 

---ing well right!

 

 

-- D --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > > property only of the brain.

> >

> > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

> >

> > A movement.

> >

> > As is everything.

> >

> > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain w/o

> > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click that

> > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of the

> > brain itself. LOL

>

> Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan?

>

> Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want to

situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " .

>

> There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate' conceptually.

>

> One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on

about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'.

>

> It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption

and guessing and surmisal.

 

 

Sure.

 

All concepts are second-hand.

 

And one wants to be right, and say it right, etc., etc.

 

And there is no right.

 

 

What is right, is what isn't said.

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > Tim G.

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as > an

> > > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > > > property only of the brain.

> > >

> > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

> > >

> > > A movement.

> > >

> > > As is everything.

> > >

> > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> > > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain

w/o

> > > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click

that

> > > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of

the

> > > brain itself. LOL

> >

> > Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan?

> >

> > Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want

to situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " .

> >

> > There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate'

conceptually.

> >

> > One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken on

about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'.

> >

> > It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and assumption

and guessing and surmisal.

> >

>

> P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question.

>

> Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually.

>

> To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'.

 

 

What is known directly, is known directly.

 

And it isn't advaita.

 

I can tell you that.

 

I just can't say what it is.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question.

> >

> > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually.

> >

> > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'.

>

>

> What is known directly, is known directly.

>

> And it isn't advaita.

>

> I can tell you that.

>

> I just can't say what it is.

>

> - D -

 

The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > Tim G.

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

> > > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It makes sense, as you say, in many cases, to view consciousness as >

an

> > > > > activity of the brain -- although it seems to me to be a

> > > > > cellular property that is maximized through the brain, rather than > a

> > > > > property only of the brain.

> > > >

> > > > The brain is an " -ing " , as well, not an object.

> > > >

> > > > A movement.

> > > >

> > > > As is everything.

> > > >

> > > > geo> It has been said to him hundreds of times - he just pretends not to

> > > > read. The brain is a consciousness construct itself. There is no barain

w/o

> > > > consciousness. As you say...it is just an ing. It doesnt seem to click

that

> > > > it is the brain itself analysing the brain that is an interpretation of

the

> > > > brain itself. LOL

> > >

> > > Not sure who you're referring to with " him " above... Werner or Dan?

> > >

> > > Anyway... we're dealing with concepts here, and there's a tendency to want

to situate in/as concept. This is the tendency of the " I " .

> > >

> > > There is a desire to 'be outside oneself' somehow, to 'situate'

conceptually.

> > >

> > > One wants a friendly conceptual " place to sit " , and so beliefs are taken

on about various concepts and mental pictures such as 'the brain'.

> > >

> > > It's all second-hand, based on hearsay and " common knowledge " and

assumption and guessing and surmisal.

> > >

> >

> > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question.

> >

> > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually.

> >

> > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'.

>

>

> What is known directly, is known directly.

>

> And it isn't advaita.

>

> I can tell you that.

>

> I just can't say what it is.

>

> - D -

>

 

 

Your new name shall be:

 

 

" Isnsed "

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question.

> > >

> > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand, conceptually.

> > >

> > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'.

> >

> >

> > What is known directly, is known directly.

> >

> > And it isn't advaita.

> >

> > I can tell you that.

> >

> > I just can't say what it is.

> >

> > - D -

>

> The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'.

 

Is " pass me the ketchup " not talk about it?

 

-- D --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question.

> > > >

> > > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand,

conceptually.

> > > >

> > > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'.

> > >

> > >

> > > What is known directly, is known directly.

> > >

> > > And it isn't advaita.

> > >

> > > I can tell you that.

> > >

> > > I just can't say what it is.

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'.

>

> Is " pass me the ketchup " not talk about it?

>

> -- D --

 

" Pass me the ketchup " is thought arising as it.

 

So is this talk.

 

So, you're right, talk of ketchup and talk of advaita are not different.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > P.S. " What can be 'known' directly? " is always the question.

> > > > >

> > > > > Advaita isn't about what is 'known' indirectly, second-hand,

conceptually.

> > > > >

> > > > > To me, this is what distinguishes 'advaita' from 'everything else'.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > What is known directly, is known directly.

> > > >

> > > > And it isn't advaita.

> > > >

> > > > I can tell you that.

> > > >

> > > > I just can't say what it is.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > >

> > > The talk about it can be termed 'advaita'.

> >

> > Is " pass me the ketchup " not talk about it?

> >

> > -- D --

>

> " Pass me the ketchup " is thought arising as it.

>

> So is this talk.

>

> So, you're right, talk of ketchup and talk of advaita are not different.

 

Yes.

 

There is something so obvious, that it is diminished by any commenting about it,

implying it needs something more, something to be said.

 

Just as sitting meditation implies it needs some kind of special refinement,

some kind of special disciplined silence.

 

These are ways one gets fooled by society, which relies on messages about how

something needs to be added, be made different, altered by imparting it to

someone, or doing something special with it. Society always needs to put

someone in a special position, as the spokesperson, the expert.

 

It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim.

 

I don't know what I mean by this.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim.

>

> I don't know what I mean by this.

>

> - D -

 

I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to come up

fairly commonly.

 

I don't know why.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim.

> >

> > I don't know what I mean by this.

> >

> > - D -

>

> I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to come

up fairly commonly.

>

> I don't know why.

>

 

Tell me why...

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > It's rare to hear someone speak truth without making a claim.

> > >

> > > I don't know what I mean by this.

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> > I've noticed that when talking with you, the notion of 'rarity' seems to

come up fairly commonly.

> >

> > I don't know why.

> >

>

> Tell me why...

 

Why.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > >

> > > You didn't know it then, but it's

> > > known now that consciousness can't happen

> > > without the frontal lobes of the brain.

> > >

> > > This is known because there are people

> > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring

> > > between the vision centers and the front

> > > lobes. This people are not conscious of

> > > seeing, but can catch an object if one

> > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe

> > > the object they just caught, they have

> > > to feel it with their fingers as blind

> > > people do. They never bump into things,

> > > but do not know what kind of object they

> > > avoided. They just say they just felt like

> > > having to sidestep without knowing why.

> > >

> > > So get updated, and don't talk about

> > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just

> > > a moment to moment activity. No entities

> > > inhabit the brain.

> > >

> > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny

> > > cameras and a small computers are conscious

> > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness

> > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition?

> > >

> > > Pete

> > >

> >

> >

> > Thanks Pete,

> >

> > This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a ball,

move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards their

head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me ponder

why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without needing it

?

> >

> > The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for

communication. Consciousness is a social function.

> >

> > The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share

the world presented by consciousness.

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

>

>

> Consciousness is a survival program.

>

> It evolved simply because it helps the physical organism survive and

reproduce.

>

> It is not a thing any more than sight is a thing.

>

> In the human species......it evolved to the point where it objectifies its

perceptions and thereby creates a pseudo-reality from which a few try to escape.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

 

Still to philosophical, Toomb,

 

Can we meet that way:

 

Consicousness is part of the organisms's survival pack crystallized int the last

billion years.

 

I am hesitationg to call consciousness a survival strategy because then who is

the strategist ?

 

We can just deal here with ideas and concepts but they are fun enough.

 

Werner

 

 

 

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > You didn't know it then, but it's

> > > > known now that consciousness can't happen

> > > > without the frontal lobes of the brain.

> > > >

> > > > This is known because there are people

> > > > who due to trauma have lost the wiring

> > > > between the vision centers and the front

> > > > lobes. This people are not conscious of

> > > > seeing, but can catch an object if one

> > > > is thrown to them. If asked to describe

> > > > the object they just caught, they have

> > > > to feel it with their fingers as blind

> > > > people do. They never bump into things,

> > > > but do not know what kind of object they

> > > > avoided. They just say they just felt like

> > > > having to sidestep without knowing why.

> > > >

> > > > So get updated, and don't talk about

> > > > consciousness as being an entity, it's just

> > > > a moment to moment activity. No entities

> > > > inhabit the brain.

> > > >

> > > > Do you think little robot cars with tiny

> > > > cameras and a small computers are conscious

> > > > when they avoid obstacles? What is consciousness

> > > > anyway? Anyone has a good definition?

> > > >

> > > > Pete

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thanks Pete,

> > >

> > > This strange effect that factual blind people nevertheless can catch a

ball, move their head quickly to the side when hitting with one's fist towards

their head or can walk through a room without bumping at the furniture, let me

ponder why the hell is there consciousness when survival is possible without

needing it ?

> > >

> > > The only satisfying answer I found was that consciousness is needed for

communication. Consciousness is a social function.

> > >

> > > The world we share and commuicate is the world of consciousness. We share

the world presented by consciousness.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > Consciousness is a survival program.

> >

> > It evolved simply because it helps the physical organism survive and

reproduce.

> >

> > It is not a thing any more than sight is a thing.

> >

> > In the human species......it evolved to the point where it objectifies its

perceptions and thereby creates a pseudo-reality from which a few try to escape.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

>

>

> Still to philosophical, Toomb,

>

> Can we meet that way:

>

> Consicousness is part of the organisms's survival pack crystallized int the

last billion years.

>

> I am hesitationg to call consciousness a survival strategy because then who is

the strategist ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who is the strategist behind the peacock's tail or the hummingbird's beak?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> We can just deal here with ideas and concepts but they are fun enough.

>

> Werner

>

>

>

 

 

 

Ideas and concepts are all we can deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru