Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

August 13, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> toombaru2006

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:38 PM

> Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

>

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

> >

> > -

> > toombaru2006

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:12 PM

> > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > toombaru2006

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:59 AM

> > > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > toombaru2006

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:46 AM

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > toombaru2006

> > > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > > Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:56 AM

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

> > > > >

> > > > > 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

> > > > >

> > > > > Unless its all one big deal

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The mind mashes all of its labels together and calls the stack " One " .

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > > OK..then show me the stuff thats outohere.

> > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > >

> > > Anything that doesn't have a name.

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > > I see...so anything that has no name is not here but over there?

> > > Where...in

> > > that other universe?

> > > -geo-

> > >

> >

> > It is the naturalness of which Nisargadatta speaks.

> > It it the trackless space....the area outside the city.... of Jan Cox.

> > It is the simple, unadorned awareness into which your were born....

> >

> > It is on the flip side of here and now.

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> > And you call that " anything that doesn't have a name " ? Anything?

> > -geo-

> >

>

> Words can take you the the edge of words.

>

> From there on.......

>

> well..........

>

> ..............

>

> toombaru

>

> What? All this round trip for what then??

> Roll the third one.

> ======

> Ideas and concepts are all we can deal with.

> toombaru

> Unless its all one big deal

> -geo-

> The mind mashes all of its labels together and calls the stack " One " .

> toombaru

> ====

> -geo-

>

There is no purpose.

toombaru

August 13, 2009

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> >

> > Yes, consciousness is all about survival.

> >

> > Therefore, consciousness is a repository of suffering, of trauma.

> >

> > Survival involves contending with trauma.

> >

> > Thus, the program evolves a controller of trauma and the experienced trauma.

> >

> > Perceived separation is required by the program, along with its ability to

organize perception as time and space.

> >

> > The drama of survival is understood as such, not from within the program,

but from/as that which has no existence in the program.

> >

> > The program is time.

> >

> > The timeless is the understanding.

> >

> > Being that, it is understood.

> >

> > The timeless cannot be named, because names refer to perceived things and

qualities within the program.

> >

> > - D -

> >

>

> So who ya gonna call?

>

> :-0

>

> toombaru

Ghostbusters.

Nanu nanu,

- D -

August 13, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:52 PM

> Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:15 AM

> > Re: Consciousness for 19th Century Dummies

> >

> > 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.

> > -tim-

> >

> > Because most of the time statements referr to a wiew that is personal -

> > very

> > rarely seeing is completely impersonal.

> > -geo-

>

> Very rare to be timelessly aware amidst time.

>

> Time doesn't exist, but is observed.

>

> Time is snowing.

>

> Particles of time are falling all around - glistening as they pass through

> empty, aware, timeless space.

>

> The selves and worlds contained in time dissolving in this vast emptiness.

>

> - D -

>

> It is difficult to see time as just another thing in consciousness.

> -geo-

That's because time isn't in consciousness.

It is the structuring of consciousness.

- D -

August 13, 2009

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> 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

> >

> > Edg: This kind of research points to consciousness being omnipresent

throughout the body even if the ego, a mere object of consciousness, is not

privy to how the clockworks are managing to run things such that one can catch a

ball that cannot be seen. To me this is a very revealing experiment that shows

that consciousness is beyond the ego's purview, and that integrating this fact

can help an ego to " de-puff " its opinion of itself. It shows that maybe just

maybe consciousness is the " doer, " but certainly it's not the ego -- it helps

the ego to see that it is an object of consciousness -- not consciousness

itself. From that realization, one can begin to try to see if there is a

difference between consciousness and awareness -- a far more subtle distinction.

P: Concepts have a value hierarchy. There are sine qua

non concepts in any conceptual hierarchy. For example,

a monarch is a sine qua non concept in a monarchical

system. Consciousness, and Awareness seem to be sine qua

non concepts for most nondualists. Are they for you? It's

natural that people defend their SQN concepts fiercely

because without them their belief card house would

collapse.

When reading what I wrote, you seem to have interpret it

in a way that supports your SQN concept. To me, it's

clear the experiment seems to prove that consciousness

is local and momentary. You on the other hand, overlooked

the fact that the blind person is not conscious in any

way of the object, and when asked why he made a sidestep,

answers that he just felt like doing it. You seem to

claim the sidestep was itself consciousness, even if

that means redefining consciousness as not needing to

convey any information. This looks like confabulation

on your part. Maybe, you will profit by inquiring into

your investment in making consciousness a SQN concept.

Nis tried to prompt those who seem ready to let go

of their attachment to consciousness, and awareness

by saying things like: " Consciousness is but a

passing illness " , and " The Absolute is not aware of

itself. "

> >

>

August 13, 2009

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> 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

> > >

> > > Edg: This kind of research points to consciousness being omnipresent