• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What religion most reflects your views: Belief-O-Matic Quiz with poll (updated)

Choose your favourite belief or religion

  • Agnosticism

    Votes: 114 17.0%

  • Atheism

    Votes: 124 18.5%

  • Buddhism

    Votes: 129 19.3%

  • Christianity

    Votes: 74 11.1%

  • Hinduism

    Votes: 16 2.4%

  • Islam

    Votes: 10 1.5%

  • Judaism

    Votes: 15 2.2%

  • Pagan & Earth-Based

    Votes: 52 7.8%

  • Taoism

    Votes: 47 7.0%

  • Other belief

    Votes: 89 13.3%
  • Total voters
    669
dbailey11 said:
You are aware right now, and it is not the result of any biochemical process... There is no area of the brain where consciousness is located.
Click to expand...

The brain is the hardware; consciousness is the software. We are meat machines :)

I think you'll find contemporary thought on the nature of consciousness a little further ahead than you claim. For example, the ambitiously titled "Consciousness Explained" (Daniel Dennett 1991) covers off all the points you mention quite comprehensively. And that was over 15 years ago...
 
"You are aware right now, and it is not the result of any biochemical process... There is no area of the brain where consciousness is located."

Changes to the physical brain matter result in changes in consciousness. Changes in the Biochemical makeup result in a change in consciousness. Physical molecules alter consciousness. I don't think that there is any part of the brain sending LSD through some magical transmitter to the spiritual realm. So tell me how then is consciousness NOT located in the brain.
 
Last edited:
ayjay said:
The brain is the hardware; consciousness is the software. We are meat machines :)

I think you'll find contemporary thought on the nature of consciousness a little further ahead than you claim. For example, the ambitiously titled "Consciousness Explained" (Daniel Dennett 1991) covers off all the points you mention quite comprehensively. And that was over 15 years ago...
Click to expand...


We will agree to disagree. I have not read this book that you mention but will check it out. But if you would like a comprhensive map of consciousness, check out the work of Ken Wilber. "One Taste" and "A Brief History of Everything" are excellent books. Just remember that indivual consciousness and universal consciousness are like waves on the ocean. The brain is a complex biocomputer, a filter, a radio reciever. :)
 
dbailey11 said:
We will agree to disagree. I have not read this book that you mention but will check it out. But if you would like a comprhensive map of consciousness, check out the work of Ken Wilber. "One Taste" and "A Brief History of Everything" are excellent books. Just remember that indivual consciousness and universal consciousness are like waves on the ocean. The brain is a complex biocomputer, a filter, a radio reciever. :)
Click to expand...

In Ken Wilbers map all interiors have exterior correlates. So there is a correlation between say brainwaves and your state of consciousness. I think this is basically what Ayjay was trying to say. The hardware(exterior) is the brain, the software(interior) is consciousness. The only problem this analogy poses in terms of Wilber's model is there is no differentiation between the mind and consciousness since software is more similar to mind. The mind can be observed and acted upon, the observer is the consciousness.
 
Right, But Ayjay was saying that consciousness is merely an emergent of the brain, thus reducing to only the upper right quadrant- flatland monism.
 
I think the problem is considering the perception of consciousness being different to mind, and taking that as fact. Not quite sure what "universal consciousness" is - sounds like "wishful thinking". Also not sure what "upper right quadrant flatland monism" is either; possibly "ad hominem argument".

By all means present some evidence of a supernatural source of consciousness - haven't seen any yet ;)
 
ayjay said:
I think the problem is considering the perception of consciousness being different to mind, and taking that as fact.
Click to expand...
The distinction is apparent as it directly reveals itself experiently. There is a subject, an observer, and there are objects that the observer sees. Anything that you can be aware of or "see" is an object which includes the mind(can you not be aware of your thoughts, can you not be aware of ego?). The actual observer can see itself no more than the eyeball can see itself.


It seems to me like you guys are talking from two different perspectives. Ayjay is approaching the matter from the "relative" perspective while dbailey is approaching the matter from a non-dual perspective. In a sense you guys are talking about two different things.
 
dbailey11 said:
Right, But Ayjay was saying that consciousness is merely an emergent of the brain, thus reducing to only the upper right quadrant- flatland monism.
Click to expand...

Please prove to me that consciousness is not an emergent of the brain.

As one who has meditated for years (which is recommended by Wilbur) I still fail to be convinced by Wilbur's conception of "spirit" and after reading his work I am increasingly irked by his AQAL theory and even moreso by his lack of engagement in debate with detractors. Face to face, respectful discussion between scientists and Wilbur and philosophers and such rather than Wilbur hanging out with all the people who believe with him so devoutly that they have completely adopted his methodology and rarely have any original philosophical points of there own that don't seem lifted straight from his text.
 
Psychedelic Gleam said:
Please prove to me that consciousness is not an emergent of the brain.

As one who has meditated for years (which is recommended by Wilbur) I still fail to be convinced by Wilbur's conception of "spirit" and after reading his work I am increasingly irked by his AQAL theory and even moreso by his lack of engagement in debate with detractors. Face to face, respectful discussion between scientists and Wilbur and philosophers and such rather than Wilbur hanging out with all the people who believe with him so devoutly that they have completely adopted his methodology and rarely have any original philosophical points of there own that don't seem lifted straight from his text.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we can discuss this in a new thread.

I forked off this discussion into a new thread if anyone wishes to follow it.
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?p=4816555#post4816555
 
ayjay said:
I think the problem is considering the perception of consciousness being different to mind, and taking that as fact. Not quite sure what "universal consciousness" is - sounds like "wishful thinking". Also not sure what "upper right quadrant flatland monism" is either; possibly "ad hominem argument".

By all means present some evidence of a supernatural source of consciousness - haven't seen any yet ;)
Click to expand...

Mind is awarness + thought; consciousness is awareness - thought. Facts are thoughts. Universal consciousness is awareness itself, beyond self or other, true or false, is or isn't, right or wrong. Individual consciousness is you and I having this discussuion. You can experience awareness any old time, no wishful thinking there. Upper right quadrant flatland monism refers to the Wilber AQAL model and the upper right refers to its- it language. Simple, right. I just used that phrase because Yougene said he is familiar with Wilber's work. But the AQAL model is a theoretical map of consciousness and phenomena. It basically states that there are four quadrants to all phenomenon. The upper half is singular, the lower is plural. The left side is internal, the right side is external. The upper left quadrant is I language- personal, internal phenomena. The lower left is we language- collective, internal. Upper right is you/it language- singular,impersonal, external. The lower right is you all/ it language- collective, impersonal, external. So, this is a way of seeing things; a way of seeing consciousness; and this theory states that basically everything has these four attributes, and can be spoken of in these perspectives.

So when I said upper right flatland monism I meant to say that you expressed your perspective by stating that all experience and phenomena can basically be reduced to one quadrant of this model- which is th upper right. And that means that everthing is merely matter; there is only the external reality, and nothing else. This is your position. So according to your position there is really no such thing as mind, let alone soul or spirit, because mind is internal, personal, which doesn't exist since it can't be experienced through the sense faculties.Therefore you basically contradict yourself because you already said that you admit the existence of mind/ consciousness.

I still haven't offered you any proof yet. Well I already said I don't know ultimately know what consciousness is. Therefore I have no external evidence to offer you. So you won't believe me when I say that the answer can only be directly experienced- beyond thought, right now. You can know this for yourself, if you would take up the experiment of looking into your own mind- your own experience. I'm pretty sure that if you do this often enough you will begin to see from a different perspective- a higher, more inclusive one, if you will. You can know what reality is beyond beliefs or wishful thinking. Then you will have a new belief, not based on faith or religion or somebody elses words. You will believe because you can experience the truth directly, without external aid. Then all doubt is removed even though the original question can never be answered. So, if you like, try taking up some kind awareness training such as meditation and see for yourself. I'm not here to prove my point just to be arbitrary, even though I originally made a remark about your age. I don't know how old you are, sorry for that.;)
 
Hmmm - I think my position was something like - "consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes". I'm not really sure how any of your assertions about my position match this statement.

As for "universal consciousness" - you lost me there. That really is a load of garbage. Again - some evidence please.

As for "awareness training" - I'm quite familiar with a number of methods, and adept at a few too. Not really sure what this has to do with the biological basis of mind, though.... (well - actually I'm quite sure that the two are completely compatible - but again - feel free to explain otherwise :) )
 
ayjay said:
As for "universal consciousness" - you lost me there. That really is a load of garbage. Again - some evidence please.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is more in reference to the fact that the space accessible to us, to our consciousness, is available to every human being alive, there is a common "landscape" that we all have within our heads.

Evidence would be "shared" mental head spaces, whether during psychedelic usage or meditation.

I know this could be said better but I hope you get my point.
 
Well, I gave only the answer I could, not the one one you're looking for. There is no proof for your assertion, only educated guessing. Sorry, but we're only going in circles now, but I truly enjoyed our debate. =D
 
I would say that I personally fall in between Pagan/earth based religion and agnosticism. While I do not know the exact nature of existence, I do find that we as humans have a deep and primal connection to nature and the earth from which we came.
 
I had been a staunch atheist who rejected all religion after my family tried to force catholicism on me from a young age, but i have been having a bout of agnosticism as of late. I am just not ready to give myself over to an omnipotent being who will not make his presence known and allows atrocities like darfur or the killing of the 1st born sons to occour. I have really been pondering the meaning of it all as of late, but I have not gotten near a conclusion. I guess I still have alot of soul-searching to do:\

Guess this is what a psycho-spiritual crisis is all about, as it has really been weighing heavily on my mind recently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top