|
Post by frankshank on Jan 1, 2011 4:01:25 GMT -5
I really do enjoy the debates between enigma and question. I struggle to grasp things at times but nevertheless its always a good read. I have a feeling now that at some point question will 'walk away' and at some point after that all will become clear. Round of applause for a couple of nobodies anyway!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 1, 2011 9:49:50 GMT -5
Is there consciousness independent of a brain? Once we see that consciousness does not belong to the individual, we can also see that consciousness continues to be around regardless of how many brains have perished. Consciousness is not an individual perspective.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 1, 2011 13:44:44 GMT -5
I really do enjoy the debates between enigma and question. I struggle to grasp things at times but nevertheless its always a good read. I have a feeling now that at some point question will 'walk away' and at some point after that all will become clear. Round of applause for a couple of nobodies anyway! Thanks, Frank. Q has a very good mind, which can be both a blessing and a curse, but in any case it deserves to be engaged and is as valid a 'path' as any. In this case the contemplation is not shallow and less circular than most thinking so it can be fruitful. I do have trouble following it sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 1, 2011 13:57:37 GMT -5
Is there consciousness independent of a brain? Once we see that consciousness does not belong to the individual, we can also see that consciousness continues to be around regardless of how many brains have perished. Consciousness is not an individual perspective. The fact that brain appears in consciousness makes it clear that consciousness cannot be in the brain. We're accustomed to the idea that the subject can see itself because we've mistaken the object for the subject and so it seems reasonable to keep applying that idea. Whatever is actually conscious cannot possibly see itself as an object appearing to itself.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 1, 2011 15:27:07 GMT -5
The fact that brain appears in consciousness makes it clear that consciousness cannot be in the brain. We're accustomed to the idea that the subject can see itself because we've mistaken the object for the subject and so it seems reasonable to keep applying that idea. Whatever is actually conscious cannot possibly see itself as an object appearing to itself. Very good points. I do feel that the initial question is good with regard to individual perspective. There is a very good correlation between brain/body and individual perspective, except some anecdotal out-of-body and other mystical experiences (and even in this cases, it's still a brain/body that relates the story in the end). And as you're saying, the way out is to see that the individual appears in consciousness and not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 1, 2011 16:24:20 GMT -5
I can buy that. I tend to look at consciousness as a grand field that covers go thru and animates everything. I am sure you know of the experiments done to searh to see if we have souls. They have done many kinds but the one that I like the best is weighing the person they take a accurate weight of a person right before they dies like mins not hours. They can do this with people that have a living will. Well when the account for the weight and accurately adding the amount of aire that would be in the body there is always a very small difference and it's always less adter they die and never more. The still have no idea what accounts for this but my theory still is it's consciousness itself. Remember we can weigh anything now air, gases, even electricity is know to have a weight so why not consciousness itself. Michael Happy New Year Day I can The fact that brain appears in consciousness makes it clear that consciousness cannot be in the brain. We're accustomed to the idea that the subject can see itself because we've mistaken the object for the subject and so it seems reasonable to keep applying that idea. Whatever is actually conscious cannot possibly see itself as an object appearing to itself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 2, 2011 0:57:52 GMT -5
Why not? Because it's formless.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 2, 2011 9:03:59 GMT -5
Hehe, yes, but forms are consciousness appearing as those forms.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 2, 2011 12:58:59 GMT -5
Then it's a form that disappears, one that you can point to and describe and slap on a scale and weigh. It's not a consciousness thingy.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 2, 2011 16:22:01 GMT -5
No thing is conscious. Except the scale.
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Jan 2, 2011 20:49:04 GMT -5
So the question is, to what do all of these objects appear, and can that be an object? I sense this is a powerful koan. I know the answer is no, it is not an object, but then what is it if it's not an object?? It's impossible to comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 2, 2011 22:02:11 GMT -5
Yes, if not an object, cannot be objectified by mind. There's no need to. Noticing that what you are is inconceivable does away with your conceptions about that, and that's quite enough.
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 3, 2011 16:29:33 GMT -5
The fact that brain appears in consciousness makes it clear that consciousness cannot be in the brain. We're accustomed to the idea that the subject can see itself because we've mistaken the object for the subject and so it seems reasonable to keep applying that idea. Whatever is actually conscious cannot possibly see itself as an object appearing to itself. When I read this, my first reaction was: "Yeah, but that is only a fact in direct experience only!" (as apposed to the "real" empirical world). I found that to be quite amusing.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 5, 2011 17:06:44 GMT -5
The fact that brain appears in consciousness makes it clear that consciousness cannot be in the brain. We're accustomed to the idea that the subject can see itself because we've mistaken the object for the subject and so it seems reasonable to keep applying that idea. Whatever is actually conscious cannot possibly see itself as an object appearing to itself. When I read this, my first reaction was: "Yeah, but that is only a fact in direct experience only!" (as apposed to the "real" empirical world). I found that to be quite amusing. Yes, very amusing, I often wonder if that's what the laughing Bhudda is contemplating...... ...that which searches and wants to know the unknowable, doesn't exist. lol
|
|