Thread: Would you rather be an animal or a human?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

It seems to me that consciousness now in my view has three aspects. A absolute aspect, a relative aspect and an active aspect. I am playing with the idea of a fourth aspect , that being inactive or passive. Not sure what to label it yet.

What do you mean by 'aspects', exactly?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

From people to baseball bats, I know it all connects, but I'm still opening up to seeing just how the connections are.

Any hypothetical ideas ?

The only real connection I see is that we are all energy. Are you looking for something else?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The only real connection I see is that we are all energy. Are you looking for something else?

We come from the same source; we're all connected even now. Which is why our universal consciousness is infinite, as the universe. What about remote viewing; unlimited to distance and time? The psychic activity - the intuition?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

What do you mean by 'aspects', exactly?

I'm not quite yet sure how to put it, as I am still in process of setting definitions and or labels. I started with two distinct parts I called inner and outer consciousness. I associated Inner with immaterial being and outer with material existance. Both distinct conscious perceptions that an individual has or even perhaps is.
Then I brought into the mix the idea of absolute and relative. I applied absolute to the Inner dealing with the immaterial. I applied relative to the outer or dealing with the physical/existential .

Since then I have brought into the mix the idea of an "active" perception or aspect. With that to complete the duality to make the whole I see a need to add another aspect, that being a inactive or passive aspect.

All of these labels or components work together in some manner as the totality consciousness. This is where i am at now.

As you stated earlier:

Originally Posted by thegnome54
I've considered consciousness as being a property of matter before, but then it wouldn't make sense for it to only show up in specific, similar systems - that is, the brains of animals. Umbrellas, desks, onions, and baseball bats, though also made of energy, do not exhibit any consciousness.

And say here:

The only real connection I see is that we are all energy. Are you looking for something else?

If its all energy, of which I do believe, then its all consciousness as well, as consciousness is all energy.

So take a ball bat and a human being. Both are consciousness, but only one is defined as being actively conscious. You see? theres one aspect i put forth - active consciousness. That would leave the ball bat to being defined in a way as passive consciousness. Active consciousness would then be further defined as something capable of self perception. A person is, a ball bat isnt.
We can also take a example relative to this whole thread, that being a animal is capable of self perception but a cloud isnt.

Then of course come the notion of higher and lower forms of living self aware things. You have those that are self aware, but then there is an awareness of consciousness itself, which would seem to be in a different league than simple self awareness. This is where the idea of relative consciousness comes into play. Also herein is the idea you brought up of the arrangemet of energy, or energy patterns as I may see such.

In the idea of an aspect of absolute consciousness, I see this as pertaining to the interconnection of all that is through the base energy. Everything percieved as distinct and seperate is merely differing arrangemets of that base energy, or base consciousness. The arrnagements themselves are the relative aspect.
At the moment I am wondering if the relative aspect itself has more than one layer.

You see what I am looking at and perhaps what I am looking for now?

With the above in mind, again, any hypothetical ideas on the interaction or even the definition of these components?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

If its all energy, of which I do believe, then its all consciousness as well, as consciousness is all energy.

No, that's faulty logic. The statue of liberty may be all copper, and old pennies may also be all copper, but all old pennies are not the statue of liberty. I said consciousness was an emergent property of energy, just like the ability to compute things is an emergent property of the parts of a computer. This does not mean that everything made of energy is conscious, just like it doesn't mean that every combination of computer parts creates a working computer.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

So take a ball bat and a human being. Both are consciousness, but only one is defined as being actively conscious. You see? theres one aspect i put forth - active consciousness. That would leave the ball bat to being defined in a way as passive consciousness. Active consciousness would then be further defined as something capable of self perception. A person is, a ball bat isnt.

I would argue that there's really no reason to associate any manner of consciousness with a baseball bat.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Then of course come the notion of higher and lower forms of living self aware things. You have those that are self aware, but then there is an awareness of consciousness itself, which would seem to be in a different league than simple self awareness. This is where the idea of relative consciousness comes into play. Also herein is the idea you brought up of the arrangemet of energy, or energy patterns as I may see such.

I think there's quite a gradient of consciousness, rather than 'high' and 'low' forms. The 'level' of consciousness is really just determined by the system which generates it - in this case, the brains of the animals in question. I think your 'relative consciousness' is really the only sort there is. What makes you think there is any 'immaterial being' present?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

In the idea of an aspect of absolute consciousness, I see this as pertaining to the interconnection of all that is through the base energy. Everything percieved as distinct and seperate is merely differing arrangemets of that base energy, or base consciousness. The arrnagements themselves are the relative aspect.

Again, I think it's quite faulty to associate consciousness with all energy.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

With the above in mind, again, any hypothetical ideas on the interaction or even the definition of these components?

You alluded earlier to the notion that all objects are really the same stuff - the idea of a 'thing' is really just a human notion which we have evolved in order to better cope with the intricacies of matter and energy around us. Knowing this, I don't understand why you keep these false dichotomies in reference to consciousness. You said that a baseball bat, or a cloud, would have its own sort of consciousness. If we see consciousness as an emergent property of specific systems of energy (which all evidence points towards quite clearly), then there is no reason to differentiate between 'objects' which do not contain these systems. When it comes to consciousness, they are all just 'background energy', and not a part of any sort of conscious systems. The fallaciousness of attributing consciousness to inanimate objects individually is obvious if you consider an axe - you might associate the rock the head came from with a consciousness, and the tree the handle came from with one. Why, then, would the combined parts of both create a new consciousness? The only reason to consider the axe as one 'thing' is because that is how humans think. In relation to conscious systems, there is no difference between the atoms in the axe and the atoms in the table it is laying on.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

No, that's faulty logic. The statue of liberty may be all copper, and old pennies may also be all copper, but all old pennies are not the statue of liberty. I said consciousness was an emergent property of energy, just like the ability to compute things is an emergent property of the parts of a computer. This does not mean that everything made of energy is conscious, just like it doesn't mean that every combination of computer parts creates a working computer.



I would argue that there's really no reason to associate any manner of consciousness with a baseball bat.

Again, I think it's quite faulty to associate consciousness with all energy.

You know, you are right. This tells me I have failed to acurately communicate how I am seeing this.

Let me try and put it another way. Perhaps the term I am looking for is potentiality. The statue of liberty is copper, pennies are copper, therefore there is the potentiality for the statue of liberty to be pennies and potentiality for pennies to be the stature of liberty. Now that seems more logical doesnt it?

How I am seeing it is that energy is consciousness, in that the potentiality for consciousness to emerge is present in everything there is , RELATIVE to how that energy is arranged.

A human and a ball bat both carry the same potentiality, yet it is from the arrangement of the energy patterns in the human that active consciousness emerges. The ball bat is arranged so that consciousness is held in a passive- non emergent state.

Is that a better expalnation?

I think there's quite a gradient of consciousness, rather than 'high' and 'low' forms. The 'level' of consciousness is really just determined by the system which generates it - in this case, the brains of the animals in question. I think your 'relative consciousness' is really the only sort there is. What makes you think there is any 'immaterial being' present?

Again, back to the arrangement of energy patterns. If this is the case, then what sort of arrangemets are we looking at or for? That a big question.

To address the stament below as well, the arrangement of atoms wouldnt seem to be the relavent factor in the emergence of consciousness. The arrangemet of atoms themselves would only help to fascillitate another sort of arrangement, but what sort?

You alluded earlier to the notion that all objects are really the same stuff - the idea of a 'thing' is really just a human notion which we have evolved in order to better cope with the intricacies of matter and energy around us. Knowing this, I don't understand why you keep these false dichotomies in reference to consciousness. You said that a baseball bat, or a cloud, would have its own sort of consciousness. If we see consciousness as an emergent property of specific systems of energy (which all evidence points towards quite clearly), then there is no reason to differentiate between 'objects' which do not contain these systems. When it comes to consciousness, they are all just 'background energy', and not a part of any sort of conscious systems. The fallaciousness of attributing consciousness to inanimate objects individually is obvious if you consider an axe - you might associate the rock the head came from with a consciousness, and the tree the handle came from with one. Why, then, would the combined parts of both create a new consciousness? The only reason to consider the axe as one 'thing' is because that is how humans think. In relation to conscious systems, there is no difference between the atoms in the axe and the atoms in the table it is laying on.

You see from the recent posts including this one, I havnt made my mind up to how any of it is as yet, I am still looking. Thats why I value your prodding and input to help move things along.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Let me try and put it another way. Perhaps the term I am looking for is potentiality. The statue of liberty is copper, pennies are copper, therefore there is the potentiality for the statue of liberty to be pennies and potentiality for pennies to be the stature of liberty. Now that seems more logical doesnt it?

Ah, I see what you're saying now. For example, if we say that a droplet of water is not conscious, and then a human being licks it, then the molecules within the droplet could become a part of the functioning, conscious system which makes up the human being. As parts of us die and slough off, we pick up new bits of energy to keep us running - the parts are really interchangeable, it is only their interactions with each other which matter. As soon as a bit of energy displaying 'active consciousness' stops interacting properly with the system, it loses this consciousness - and vice versa.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

How I am seeing it is that energy is consciousness, in that the potentiality for consciousness to emerge is present in everything there is , RELATIVE to how that energy is arranged.

Well, I still have a bit of a problem with this. Keeping with the computer analogy, and using the emergent property of 'the ability to compute' as an analog for consciousness, we know that pretty much anything can be made into a computer. You can make a computer out of legos, macaroni, wood... you name it. The material that the individual components are made of does not matter, it is only their interaction which is relevant to this emergent ability to compute. We could therefore say that all energy has the potentiality for computation, right? The problem is, I don't think there is any 'dormant' computation ability in a noodle or a piece of lego. The emergent property is an "all-or-nothing" deal, so there seems to be a difference between saying that any bit of matter could be used in part of a conscious system and saying that any bit of matter has some dormant consciousness by default. I can see a nice sort of compromise between consciousness as an emergent property of systems of matter and consciousness as an intrinsic property of matter (matter is energy, so everything is also a form of matter) - what if we say that the ability to produce conscious systems is an intrinsic property of matter/energy? This gets rid of the 'dormant' consciousness and just explains how active consciousness is able to arise.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Again, back to the arrangement of energy patterns. If this is the case, then what sort of arrangemets are we looking at or for? That a big question.

This is what neuroscience is all about

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

To address the stament below as well, the arrangement of atoms wouldnt seem to be the relavent factor in the emergence of consciousness. The arrangemet of atoms themselves would only help to fascillitate another sort of arrangement, but what sort?

I would be inclined to say that it's an arrangement of information - that is, an arrangement of matter/energy which is somehow reflective of the matter/energy outside of the system of consciousness. Awareness might consist of internal models of different things in the outside world, while self-awareness might simply consist of a model of our own internal workings. Granted, this doesn't really explain how consciousness pops up, but if it is indeed a property of energy to be able to produce consciousness in these modelling systems, then we don't really need to quite yet.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

You see from the recent posts including this one, I havnt made my mind up to how any of it is as yet, I am still looking. Thats why I value your prodding and input to help move things along.

Same here, and I've already had a few 'hmm' moments where I suddenly see things from a slightly different angle that I hadn't considered before. Thank you for that

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Ah, I see what you're saying now. For example, if we say that a droplet of water is not conscious, and then a human being licks it, then the molecules within the droplet could become a part of the functioning, conscious system which makes up the human being. As parts of us die and slough off, we pick up new bits of energy to keep us running - the parts are really interchangeable, it is only their interactions with each other which matter. As soon as a bit of energy displaying 'active consciousness' stops interacting properly with the system, it loses this consciousness - and vice versa.

That is a really interesting angle to look at this from. It sparks another thought, from yet another angle in me, but I need to mull it over to describe it and get back to it in another reply later.

(EDIT)

You know what this description reminds me of? It reminds me of accounts of persons being in the presence of spiritual guru's or matsers. When in the presence of such a individual whos love is so complete and untatinted that those who are in their proximity share in this same love, same peace, same contentment.
One who was in the presence of Shri Neem Karoli Baba recounted of how amazing it was to experience the selfless love this person had for others while in his presence, but even more astounding was in that how the teller shared this selfless love for others himself at the same time, while being there in the gurus proximity.

Well, I still have a bit of a problem with this. Keeping with the computer analogy, and using the emergent property of 'the ability to compute' as an analog for consciousness, we know that pretty much anything can be made into a computer. You can make a computer out of legos, macaroni, wood... you name it. The material that the individual components are made of does not matter, it is only their interaction which is relevant to this emergent ability to compute. We could therefore say that all energy has the potentiality for computation, right? The problem is, I don't think there is any 'dormant' computation ability in a noodle or a piece of lego. The emergent property is an "all-or-nothing" deal, so there seems to be a difference between saying that any bit of matter could be used in part of a conscious system and saying that any bit of matter has some dormant consciousness by default. I can see a nice sort of compromise between consciousness as an emergent property of systems of matter and consciousness as an intrinsic property of matter (matter is energy, so everything is also a form of matter) - what if we say that the ability to produce conscious systems is an intrinsic property of matter/energy? This gets rid of the 'dormant' consciousness and just explains how active consciousness is able to arise.

Excellent! That makes a good platform from which to go on. I need to spend some time thinking before I continue.

(EDIT) I see now why I was trying to incorporate the idea of "dormant" consciousness now. Your statement above has showed me how I was trying to use/define this concept in an innacurate manner as to how I am seeing it in my view. I am still holding onto the idea of dormancy, but not at all in the way I had been looking at it. You have brought some much needed light into my view on this. My thanks to you

I would be inclined to say that it's an arrangement of information - that is, an arrangement of matter/energy which is somehow reflective of the matter/energy outside of the system of consciousness. Awareness might consist of internal models of different things in the outside world, while self-awareness might simply consist of a model of our own internal workings. Granted, this doesn't really explain how consciousness pops up, but if it is indeed a property of energy to be able to produce consciousness in these modelling systems, then we don't really need to quite yet.

Now heres something else to think about that goes back to spritual texts.

First, we already know that the arrangement of energy or patterns of energy are present in the human body for consciousness, that is a given isnt it? This being a physical flesh and blood body, at least this body to carry the arrangemet itself.

What about something not considered really material, say light for instance?.. as a carrier for this arrangement?

What I get from the texts I have read is that There is another form other than a physical flesh and blood body capable of having, or carrying, this pattern or arrangement. It is directly called a body of light.

What I am getting at is for consciousness to emerge and be sustained, there seems to be a need for a structure to carry or house the arrangement or pattern.

Is it feasable that something like light could be a carrier for such a pattern or arrangement. I have wondered about this seeing as how light is capable of quite a few things when you think about it. Carying information is one such thing. What do you think? I cant see why not.

Same here, and I've already had a few 'hmm' moments where I suddenly see things from a slightly different angle that I hadn't considered before. Thank you for that

You just made a couple of Hmmmm moments for me here.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Spirituality ( held hostage by Religion) is dealing with an overall picture yet is seemingly blind to the individual components.

Both need each other, yet both are too proud to let themselves recognize that need, or even to some extent that relationship.

I just wanted to say that I disagree with this statement. I dont know what spiritual people youve met, but almost every spiritual person I have met acknowledges science.

religion maybe may not acknowledge science

but the spiritual community is actually pretty confident that as science advances it will start to explain the mechanics of the spiritual reality. they welcome the advancement of science

its religion that fears science. not spirituality. spirituality simply doesn't like how science, in their opinion, is biased materialism

Originally Posted by juroara

I just wanted to say that I disagree with this statement. I dont know what spiritual people youve met, but almost every spiritual person I have met acknowledges science.

religion maybe may not acknowledge science

but the spiritual community is actually pretty confident that as science advances it will start to explain the mechanics of the spiritual reality. they welcome the advancement of science

its religion that fears science. not spirituality. spirituality simply doesn't like how science, in their opinion, is biased materialism

No argument from me, as this is why I stated in parenthesis - "held hostage by religion". Perhaps it should have been written "AS held hostage by religion".

Originally Posted by really

We come from the same source; we're all connected even now. Which is why our universal consciousness is infinite, as the universe. What about remote viewing; unlimited to distance and time? The psychic activity - the intuition?

This kind of post really isn't helpful. It's just a load of assertions with no justification like they're just obviously true.

Animal without a doubt. Humans have too many stupid things to worry about. The most important thing about life is not dying. I'd like to be a dog or cat because they don't have to worry about predators but still don't need to go to work or buy stuff. As long as I had a nice owner I would be happy.