Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

Originally Posted by juroara

Doesn't mean it's true? We have definitions for a reason, you're going up against the very definition of what God is or any definition of god and deities all together combined

The definition of God or gods require for said God or gods to be a 'being'. And being by definition has consciousness.

You can say God is not conscious. But all you are saying is "God does not exist". You can't argue that DEFINITION of God is something without consciousness. That doesn't work. God that does not have consciousness is not God, it is only a force. Do you understand what I mean? I am not attacking your beliefs. I am only saying you are ignoring that by definition God or gods define a BEING, and beings are always conscious!

Can you not say that a rock is being?

A stone has a sense of being. That does not mean it is sentient or conscious.

Also, consider that definitions have been revised constantly in the past. It is possible that you, or I, am wrong. Never presume that a definition or a belief is undeniably and irrefutably true.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Can you not say that a rock is being?

A stone has a sense of being. That does not mean it is sentient or conscious.

Also, consider that definitions have been revised constantly in the past. It is possible that you, or I, am wrong. Never presume that a definition or a belief is undeniably and irrefutably true.

~

No, you're right, definitions aren't the same as beliefs or truth. They're just convenient for conversations sake

I just discovered this thread, and I have read through many pages to get an understanding of what the arguments are about, however, I lost patience along the way and skipped to the end. I'd like to address a few things.

1. Ise ope twingotrord

2. If you ask me, consciousness is not dependent on time. But then that brings in the issue of what consciousness is. Nobody here can agree what consciousness is. Stop thinking about it. Let me offer my understanding: consciousness is that which I am pointing to when I say that you are conscious of reading this at this moment but without all the thoughts. Thoughts are the contents of your consciousness. But your consciousness can exist without thoughts, in which case you would see things for how they really are. Thoughts distort perception. If you were here in front of me in person I could demonstrate how by a wave of my arm and looking into your eyes. Thoughts are a filter between direct perception and consciousness. Consciousness is the screen that the movie of perceptions appears on. And, yes, the gross everyday day to day consciousness that you know of is dependent on the brain, but not pure consciousness.

2. Nature is unconsciousness, except in humans and other similar beings who are self-aware. Or rather, the mineral kingdom is unconscious, the plant kingdom is subconscious, and the animal kingdom has a spectrum of consciousness from subconsciousness to consciousness.

3. The contents of consciousness are dependent on time, but not empty consciousness.

4. What is time? You say it is a sequence of events, but look at time directly right now. How long is this present moment. When does the future become present? When does the present become past? Does the future exist? Does the past exist? Does the present exist? What is the reality? What exists? When do you exist?

Maybe you can argue that the past exists because you remember it, and other people remember it, or that you see the effects now that had causes in the past, but the future doesn't exist. And nevertheless, if the past exists your consciousness doesn't exist in the past, it exists now. The past exists in your consciousness, not the other way around. time is a horizontal line, consciousness is a vertical line, they intersect in the present moment. This is the mystery of dimensions revealed right here, right now. This intersection is the only reality. Observe your mind with your mind. Observe time. Observe the universe.

No need to look at god, look at your own consciousness, without thoughts because thoughts only hide the direct perception of consciousness. It is like looking at the trees instead of the forest.

5. I am not a scientist but I think that most educated scientists believe that there are dimensions that exist beyond time in which the third dimension which we are all familiar with is just one of maybe an infinite intersecting plane or line. Something which is in this higher dimension can affect a cause in this dimension hypothetically without being subject to it. For this thing, or being, it would be like putting the needle of a turntable down on a record album halfway through a song or at the beginning. Time would be irrelevant to it in the way that WE know it.

6. I think that your definition of God is a little childish and superstitious and human-centered. But that is not your fault. That is all that you were exposed to and able to understand in this backwards primitive culture. And the word God has a lot of stigma attached to it, it is basically a dirty word. So you say that a god is an omniscient omnipresent being. Funny, I wonder why that doesn't make sense logically? *sarcasm*

7. Your argument here reminds me of a fish in the tank trying to logically prove that there is no god sprinkling food on the surface of the water once a day. The fish is right, but for the wrong reasons. The fish cannot conceive that there is a whole universe outside its fish tank. So it denies there is one. But the fish is right that there is no God sprinkling food on the water miraculously everyday, because it is not a God, it is a human.

8. I see no reason to believe in a god. It is just nature to me. And forces of nature, but even nature, which is sleeping and dreaming, except for man, is vastly more intelligent than you or I even with all our rationalitiy. To think that whatever conclusion you reach about whether or not a god can have consciousness actually matters or affects the actual truth of reality is arrogant. Each word of the question is ignorant, and the logic used is both ignorant and arrogant. Be assured that no matter what conclusion you come to about the nature of reality (or God) you come to is wrong.


To Xei: As someone who can see auras and someone who feels chi I will tell you what I know of it:
Auras are an emanation of the chi. So I will define chi first. Chi is also called prana. There are different grades of prana. Every single one of us can feel the prana within us and we all do everyday, we just don't recognize it. Have you ever felt horny but had no outlet for it so you go run a few laps or you do some pushups or you get real ambitious to be successful in business or to prove that you are right or you masturbate or get laid? That is prana that you are burdened with. You are seeking to release it, to unburden yourself. That is it's expression through the sexual organs. You also feel it in your emotions. You also can feel it in your body, it is very easy, and you can affect the physical world with it if you practice harnessing it through your body. I doubt that you can argue that Martial Arts like Kung Fu, Tai Chi, and Aikido proves this. If you don't leak the energy through sexuality it will express itself through what people have called spiritual experiences. Just like sex is the desire to unite bodily, there is the urge to unite emotionally, there is an urge to unite menatally or to be understood, and the urge to unite spiritually. I realize that spirituality is a dirty word and a dirty subject because people get it confused with religiosity and supernaturalism, but it is not those. Spirituality is another level of our being just like we have physical, mental, and emotional.

So prana or chi is like the energy or elctricity that gives off the light of the aura. The aura is the emanation of the prana.

Where does prana or chi come from? It comes from food, it comes from air, it comes from sunlight, and a little comes from starlight. It is stored in matter, it is stored in our body, we have some from our mother and father.

If you like, you could just call it energy. But it is an energy that science has not understood yet.

Also:

9. googled definition of Reductive Materialism:

The view that only the material world (matter) is truly real, and that all processes and realities observed in the universe can be explained by reducing them down to their most basic scientific components, e.g., atoms, molecules, and everything else thought to make up what we know as "matter." For example, a reductive materialist would view the miraculous and unexpected healing of a supposedly terminal cancer patient as a random coincidence of solely biological and physiological processes in the person's body. While, on the other hand, some might view the healing as stemming from factors contributing to the biological factors, e.g., prayer or meditation.

It is a common misconception that science has proven reductive materialism to be true. In fact it is just an unscientific bias. There is a very big debate in the scientific community right now as we speak regarding this issue.

I understand and respect that whatever you viewpoint you all have it is self-evident to you, just as mine is self-evident to me and many others. But I laugh at the arrogance of trying to use rationality and/or logic to argue about God and/or the reality of th universe.
A lot of the time it seems to me that you are all just trying to show off how intelligent you are but you get logic and rationality confused with intelligence. What's more intelligent, a clam or an oyster?

Hypothetically, just because a fish uses logic to figure out that there must be a world outside the tank doesn't mean that it has any perception or experience of it, so it is all meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, science is the search for truth and therefore it is good, and it is a good method for observing matter and energy.

One question: has science ever observed energy, rather that just the effect of energy? Someone said that light is a wave that carries energy, so therefore when we see light what are we seeing? Energy or a wave or the effect of energy? Heat is the effect of energy on matter. Sound is the effect of energy on matter. I am trying to figure out experiencing raw energy rather than just the effect of it. Getting struck by lightning you are bound to experience energy, but logically I can say that what you experience is the effect of the energy. Any answers?

So:

If a God doesn not have consciousness, what does? Where is the source of your consciousness? Don't look to the internet or the books or the philosophers or the priests or society or the scientists to tell you. Forget all that you were told; You are conscious right now. Look for yourself, right here, right now. No, don't think, look, see.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You must remember events to make any sort of thought at all. How do you think if you do not remember how to? How can you keep any sort of train of thought without memory? Without memory, you are basically a video recorder, looking at the world, but never understanding anything at all.

Pretty much. I guess there are different layers of consciousness, or perhaps we're just speaking in different contexts.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If a God doesn not have consciousness, what does? Where is the source of your consciousness? Don't look to the internet or the books or the philosophers or the priests or society or the scientists to tell you. Forget all that you were told; You are conscious right now. Look for yourself, right here, right now. No, don't think, look, see.

That's interesting. I think that stresses the importance that consciousness must be part of God; not something separate.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

1. Ise ope twingotrord

...?

2. If you ask me, consciousness is not dependent on time. But then that brings in the issue of what consciousness is. Nobody here can agree what consciousness is. Stop thinking about it.

If we stop thinking about it, then it will become entirely relative. I am not trying to make a subjective argument but to objectify it so that we can debate about it. If we avoid objectifying that which is subjective to the world, then we cannot properly debate about it.

Let me offer my understanding: consciousness is that which I am pointing to when I say that you are conscious of reading this at this moment but without all the thoughts. Thoughts are the contents of your consciousness. But your consciousness can exist without thoughts, in which case you would see things for how they really are. Thoughts distort perception. If you were here in front of me in person I could demonstrate how by a wave of my arm and looking into your eyes. Thoughts are a filter between direct perception and consciousness. Consciousness is the screen that the movie of perceptions appears on. And, yes, the gross everyday day to day consciousness that you know of is dependent on the brain, but not pure consciousness.

Within cognitive psychology, we can objectively identify functions of consciousness. This is what neuroscience is doing as well! Ought we just cast aside and ignore all this tremendous work?

You can simply refer to your sensory memory as a form of consciousness, but what you are viewing right now is but a glimmer of the functions of your mind. You are not always aware of your decisions and psychology nor your own biology. This is what your "unconscious" is doing. However, I use that term loosely because I do not want to confuse the idea that you are actually a conscious being free of making any decision you want.

The fact is that you are not as conscious as you think you are. You are not in control of all your thoughts and you are not as sentient as we like to think we are. See my "Experience and Your Unreliable Consciousness" thread for more details.

The point is that you cannot be mislead into thinking you are a perfect sentient creature free from erroneous ways of thinking.

Furthermore, those forms of consciousness you are specifying are still dependent on time. Each one of them must be juxtaposed with time in order to function. Time is a key component of consciousness. Without it, there is no memory and without memory there is no consciousness.

2. Nature is unconsciousness, except in humans and other similar beings who are self-aware. Or rather, the mineral kingdom is unconscious, the plant kingdom is subconscious, and the animal kingdom has a spectrum of consciousness from subconsciousness to consciousness.

You're using a lot of terms and not defining them for the sake of avoiding ambiguity. What do you mean unconscious?

3. The contents of consciousness are dependent on time, but not empty consciousness.

What is empty consciousness? How is this different than no consciousness?

4. What is time? You say it is a sequence of events, but look at time directly right now. How long is this present moment. When does the future become present? When does the present become past? Does the future exist? Does the past exist? Does the present exist? What is the reality? What exists? When do you exist?

I see, this type of debate has been around since the classical times and it still holds no water. I think you'll find that you are actually arguing yourself here then;

Each moment in time is a completely new moment in which all things have changed a minutely degree. Time is chaotic in that it is constantly an infinite number of variables changing gradually.

What holds it all together is memory. If we did not have memory in this chaotic thing called time, all things would be dead.

Maybe you can argue that the past exists because you remember it, and other people remember it, or that you see the effects now that had causes in the past, but the future doesn't exist. And nevertheless, if the past exists your consciousness doesn't exist in the past, it exists now. The past exists in your consciousness, not the other way around. time is a horizontal line, consciousness is a vertical line, they intersect in the present moment. This is the mystery of dimensions revealed right here, right now. This intersection is the only reality. Observe your mind with your mind. Observe time. Observe the universe.

How can you simply just preposition the mind as such and give absolutely no justification? You cannot just whimsically reason something as such and have it be true just because it sounds proverbial.

Proverbial knowledge is just that; proverbial. And proverbial knowledge is not valid. If you want to rely on such reasoning, then you open the dam to a lot of unreasonable beliefs.

The fact is that memory is a key function to understanding time. I am not saying that it is reminiscence that creates an "illusion" of time but that the illusion is that you have an ultimate consciousness. Consciousness is an illusion and you are falling victim to it by believing it is something untouched and divine.

Consciousness is nothing more than a survival mechanism for time.

No need to look at god, look at your own consciousness, without thoughts because thoughts only hide the direct perception of consciousness. It is like looking at the trees instead of the forest.

Again, proverbial knowledge. In fact, to the point that I am not even sure what you are trying to say. It is so vague that one could take many interpretations from this sentence. Perhaps you rely on that fact?

I understand the desire to think that you consciousness is an intangible and divine thing that "cannot be reasoned by objective means" but, the truth is, it can and you are using objective means to say so.

5. I am not a scientist but I think that most educated scientists believe that there are dimensions that exist beyond time in which the third dimension which we are all familiar with is just one of maybe an infinite intersecting plane or line. Something which is in this higher dimension can affect a cause in this dimension hypothetically without being subject to it. For this thing, or being, it would be like putting the needle of a turntable down on a record album halfway through a song or at the beginning. Time would be irrelevant to it in the way that WE know it.

Whatever the fourth dimension or further dimensions are, they are not where your consciousness are. Again, do not be mislead by this thing called consciousness and think that you are special and allowed into these further dimensions via your self-awareness.

No, this is not true. Your consciousness is a fragile mechanism held together by a lump of flesh and it serves you best to survive this thing called life and time. It does nothing more than that.

If there was a God, it would not need this survival mechanism. It would simply be.

6. I think that your definition of God is a little childish and superstitious and human-centered. But that is not your fault. That is all that you were exposed to and able to understand in this backwards primitive culture. And the word God has a lot of stigma attached to it, it is basically a dirty word. So you say that a god is an omniscient omnipresent being. Funny, I wonder why that doesn't make sense logically? *sarcasm*

I find it amusing that you attribute these sophomoric characteristics to me and yet here you are saying those things that I have already said you would say.

You think that a God would have the same type of consciousness as you?

If a God has a consciousness, it would be nothing at all like how ours is.

Your consciousness is objectively capable of being studied; a Gods would not be. We could only speculate.

However, our speculation can specify (to a point) what it is.

That point is that your consciousness is feeble and naive enough to think it is not bound to this physical realm.

7. Your argument here reminds me of a fish in the tank trying to logically prove that there is no god sprinkling food on the surface of the water once a day. The fish is right, but for the wrong reasons. The fish cannot conceive that there is a whole universe outside its fish tank. So it denies there is one. But the fish is right that there is no God sprinkling food on the water miraculously everyday, because it is not a God, it is a human.

This is digressive. I think you are exaggerating something which I am not saying.

I have given room for the fact that there could be a God. I am saying that it could be.

However, I am saying that its consciousness would be nothing, whatsoever, like yours or mine. In fact, I do not think I would even call it a consciousness.

It would simply be energy without mass and consciousness without thought.

But you want to add adjectives to a noun-less concept.... and call me sophomoric. Go for it.

8. I see no reason to believe in a god. It is just nature to me. And forces of nature, but even nature, which is sleeping and dreaming, except for man, is vastly more intelligent than you or I even with all our rationalitiy. To think that whatever conclusion you reach about whether or not a god can have consciousness actually matters or affects the actual truth of reality is arrogant. Each word of the question is ignorant, and the logic used is both ignorant and arrogant. Be assured that no matter what conclusion you come to about the nature of reality (or God) you come to is wrong.

Perhaps you should consider the depth of my argument then.

If it is just nature and forces around us, then consciousness is nothing more than physical energy emanating in our bodies. With that, a "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No morality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No subjectivity - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

Just existence.

If a God doesn not have consciousness, what does? Where is the source of your consciousness? Don't look to the internet or the books or the philosophers or the priests or society or the scientists to tell you. Forget all that you were told; You are conscious right now. Look for yourself, right here, right now. No, don't think, look, see.

Interesting that you say to not look for an answer or seek that answer to what your consciousness is but then you lead the question by saying, "Where is the source of your consciousness?"

You're prepositioning your own argument and then contradicting yourself in such a way that you make it sound so proverbial than it must be true. But what are you saying?

What are you saying that is different from what I am saying?

Do you even understand that? Or are you so in love with your proverbial subjective knowledge that you completely plug your ears and close your eyes to what the objective can offer?

I'd like to elaborate, but I am really curious if you know. I've laid it out to you. I do not think we completely disagree at all. Yet you seem, just like really, to be willfully neglectful of what others can offer your side. Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by really

Pretty much. I guess there are different layers of consciousness, or perhaps we're just speaking in different contexts.

See this is where I'd agree. Although we only know of one form of "consciousness" there could easily be others. What they would be, I cannot imagine, and no one rightfully could.

That's interesting. I think that stresses the importance that consciousness must be part of God; not something separate.

What? Did you not read that he does not think there is a reason to believe in God?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

...?



If we stop thinking about i...

Then maybe we can just look at it without our subjective thoughts and biases.

Within cognitive psychology, we can objectively identify functions of consciousness. This is what neuroscience is doing as well! Ought we just cast aside and ignore all this tremendous work?

And mysticism like yoga and gnosticism and hermetics has bee doing it for 10,000 years. Ought we just cast aside and ignore this tremendous work?

You can simply refer to your sensory memory as a form of consciousness, but what you are viewing right now is but a glimmer of the functions of your mind. You are not always aware of your decisions and psychology nor your own biology. This is what your "unconscious" is doing....

The fact is that you are not as conscious as you think you are. You are not in control of all your thoughts and you are not as sentient as we like to think we are.

The point is that you cannot be mislead into thinking you are a perfect sentient creature free from erroneous ways of thinking

.

I agree 100% with all of this. I believe that humanity is at least 98% unconscious. Or about that. Hence all the wars and violence and destruction of the Earth and the compulsive breeding.

Furthermore, those forms of consciousness you are specifying are still dependent on time. Each one of them must be juxtaposed with time in order to function. Time is a key component of consciousness. Without it, there is no memory and without memory there is no consciousness.

This is where I don't get you. I just don't understand. We are speaking different languages. We have different worldviews that might not be reconcilable. But I respect that it makes sense to you and it must seem self evident but I just don't even get what you mean. Why does consciousness need memory? Consciousness as you know it might. But do single celled animals that hunt other single celled animals have memory? They don't even have a brain. Even plants have demonstrated that they have some kind of consciousness, mostly unconscious.

You're using a lot of terms and not defining them for the sake of avoiding ambiguity. What do you mean unconscious?

Unconscious I mean consciousness that is asleep, not even aware of itself. For example: our temperature, our heartbeat, digestion and the dilation of our pupils are all unconscious. This is the realm of the autonomic nervous system.

What is empty consciousness? How is this different than no consciousness?

Look at it this way: if you are lucid dreaming and you make the dream disappear without losing lucidity you have empty consciousness, sometimes called super-consciousness. It is extremely conscious, but without those pesky thoughts that hide the brilliant light of empty consciousness. This is the movie screen with just pure white light projected on it.

I see, this type of debate has been around since the classical times and it still holds no water. I think you'll find that you are actually arguing yourself here then

I am not concerned that other people have also argued this. I am not arguing, I am saying try it. Look. Some say this, some say that, find out for yourself. I was not aware that others did this when I started doing it at the age of eight because I was curious about these same things. But what do you mean that it holds no water? How am I arguing myself?

Each moment in time is a completely new moment in which all things have changed a minutely degree. Time is chaotic in that it is constantly an infinite number of variables changing gradually.

Agreed

What holds it all together is memory. If we did not have memory in this chaotic thing called time, all things would be dead.

So single celled creatures are dead? Coral is dead? Clams are dead? Plants are dead? I don't understand this reasoning. Why do you insist that memory is life? Where is this coming from?

How can you simply just preposition the mind as such and give absolutely no justification? You cannot just whimsically reason something as such and have it be true just because it sounds proverbial.

All I said about the mind is observe the mind with the mind. I didn't make any prepositions. Isn't the word presupposition?

Proverbial knowledge is just that; proverbial. And proverbial knowledge is not valid. If you want to rely on such reasoning, then you open the dam to a lot of unreasonable beliefs.

Just because sometimes my talk sounds proverbial doesn't mean that I am wrong. If I stutter it doesn't mean that I am stupid.

The fact is that memory is a key function to understanding time. I am not saying that it is reminiscence that creates an "illusion" of time but that the illusion is that you have an ultimate consciousness. Consciousness is an illusion and you are falling victim to it by believing it is something untouched and divine.

I don't think that I said anything about divine. What does divine mean? Consciousness is consciousness, that's all. I agree that memory is a key function to understand time. What is ULTIMATE consciousness? And I don't have it, it has me.

Consciousness is nothing more than a survival mechanism for time

.

In order for time to survive? Or for us to survive time? We cannot survive time. No one gets out alive.

Again, proverbial knowledge. In fact, to the point that I am not even sure what you are trying to say. It is so vague that one could take many interpretations from this sentence. Perhaps you rely on that fact?

Perhaps it is just that you don't understand me just like I don't understand you. I am not being vague on purpose. Let me see if I can explain it: If you are looking at a candle flame and you have a thought, for that moment that you are thinking your eyes still recieve the light and your brain translates it so that you are subconsciously aware of the flame, while your conscious attention is on your thoughts. However there are layers and layers of thoughts in the average person's mind going all the time that distract attention, hypnotize awareness and use up consciousness like when you have too many tasks going on on your computer at the same time and the CPU is overloaded. This is the average human state of consciousness. That is why I agree that we are not as conscious as we think. Everywhere we look we see our thoughts, presuppositions, biases, and beliefs. Like Jimi Hendrix's song Room full of Mirrors.

"I used to live in a room full of mirrors,
and all I could see was me,
So I took my spirit and smashed all the mirrors,
And now the whole wide world is there for me to see!"

I understand the desire to think that you consciousness is an intangible and divine thing that "cannot be reasoned by objective means" but, the truth is, it can and you are using objective means to say so.

Is it tangible? Has it ever even been observed objectively? I am not talking about the effects of consciousness, I am talking about actual consciousness. Has anyone put consciousness under a microscope? But I never said the word divine, I don't know what that means.

I believe that thoughts are subjective so the only way people have objectively observed consciousness for at least 10,000 years is by stilling their thoughts until the screen is blank. Like being lucid without a dream or thoughts.

Whatever the fourth dimension or further dimensions are, they are not where your consciousness are. Again, do not be mislead by this thing called consciousness and think that you are special and allowed into these further dimensions via your self-awareness.

All the dimensions are right here, right now. Where or when else would they be? I do not think that I am more special than anything or anybody else; we all are part of this Universe. It is not that we aren't allowed or are allowed into these dimensions, but the dimensions are right here and right now where I am (or you in your case) whether we are aware of them or not. But being aware of them makes us...well...aware of them.

No, this is not true. Your consciousness is a fragile mechanism held together by a lump of flesh and it serves you best to survive this thing called life and time. It does nothing more than that.

Well we can agree to disagree on this point. Although I agree that what we know of as consciousness is dependent on the brain. But I know that there is a subtle consciousness that is not. But you will just say that I am deluded or it is wishful thinking. But it is like the stars and the sun. In the daytime you cannot see the stars because the sun is so bright. When the sun goes down you can see the stars. The stars don't come out, they were always there, you just couldn't see it because the sun was there. So as a metaphor, if you were born in the morning and by noon you were an adult and I said to you that there were stars in the sky you wouldn't believe me, and if I said that i've seen them you would say that I was deluded or that I have hypnotized myself into believing that. So I would no that there is no point in logically arguing the existence of stars with you, I would just wait and tell you to look up at the sky once it got dark out.

The consciousness that we all know of is dependent on the brain, it is like the sun. But it gets it's energy from a subtle consciousness that is not dependent on the brain. This subtle consciousness is always here, in you and me, right now. I can see it if I relax my mind and still my thoughts. I am aware of it through out the night while I am sleeping. This consciousness is not affected by chemicals or drugs. It can only be hidden by the ordinary bodily consciousness.

But you don't believe in all that. And, you won't look. You want the scientists to tell you that it is there.

If there was a God, it would not need this survival mechanism. It would simply be.

Agreed. But not everything that exists is utilitarian. We don't need a sense of humor. We don't need music. But it helps make us happy. We are beyond evolving to survive. Now we are evolving to be happy. We are unique on this planet that we have a sense of humor. Nature is waking up in us. Let's help by becoming more lucid.

I find it amusing that you attribute these sophomoric characteristics to me and yet here you are saying those things that I have already said you would say.

Sorry for saying that, I had a couple glasses of wine.

You think that a God would have the same type of consciousness as you?

NO, I don't even believe in God

If a God has a consciousness, it would be nothing at all like how ours is.

Agreed, that would be pretty scary.

However, our speculation can specify (to a point) what it is.

What what is? Consciousness? Well, what IS it? I only know what it is not.

That point is that your consciousness is feeble and naive enough to think it is not bound to this physical realm

.

What do you mean 'physical' realm, as opposed to what? What realms are there?

It would simply be energy without mass and consciousness without thought.... (emphasis mine)


A "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality...

No morality...

By God, I think we agree!

Just existence.

AMEN! Can I get a hallelujah!

Interesting that you say to not look for an answer or seek that answer to what your consciousness is but then you lead the question by saying, "Where is the source of your consciousness?

"

I said don't think about it. I want you to look for it. Thinking about consciousness is thinking ABOUT consciousness. Actually pulling away the curtains of thought and looking out the window is different than thinking what might be out there if there is even a window behind that curtain or arguing whether or not there is a window behind the curtain or waiting for 'experts' to tell you that there is a window. The point is that I don't want you to believe anybody that tells you that there is a window behind the curtain, that is not the point; the point is that I want you to pull back the curtain, look out the window, and see what's out there for yourself.

It is like if a beautiful woman is in love with you and she wants you to fall in love but you say "first prove to me that love exists. Where is the scientific proof?" She doesn't want to prove anything to you, she wants to seduce you. She wants you to take a risk and experience it for yourself. She wants to share in the experience with you, because it is more beautiful than dry intellectual facts and figures and philosophies and account balances.

While I think we quintessentially agree, I will comment on what you have said.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Then maybe we can just look at it without our subjective thoughts and biases.

Yes, objectively. We can take both objective and subjective paradigms into consideration; not just one or the other.

This is where I don't get you. I just don't understand. We are speaking different languages. We have different worldviews that might not be reconcilable. But I respect that it makes sense to you and it must seem self evident but I just don't even get what you mean. Why does consciousness need memory? Consciousness as you know it might. But do single celled animals that hunt other single celled animals have memory? They don't even have a brain. Even plants have demonstrated that they have some kind of consciousness, mostly unconscious.

Plants have memory.

Look at it this way: if you are lucid dreaming and you make the dream disappear without losing lucidity you have empty consciousness, sometimes called super-consciousness. It is extremely conscious, but without those pesky thoughts that hide the brilliant light of empty consciousness. This is the movie screen with just pure white light projected on it.

I would much prefer to look at it as a phenomenological state of "epoche" than make a misleading term as "empty consciousness".

I am not concerned that other people have also argued this. I am not arguing, I am saying try it. Look. Some say this, some say that, find out for yourself. I was not aware that others did this when I started doing it at the age of eight because I was curious about these same things. But what do you mean that it holds no water? How am I arguing myself?

Zeno's Paradox's:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

So single celled creatures are dead? Coral is dead? Clams are dead? Plants are dead? I don't understand this reasoning. Why do you insist that memory is life? Where is this coming from?

I purported it in my OP; memory is the necessary function of time. Without time, there could be no consciousness.

Essentially, it goes like this;
- Time is necessary for consciousness
- If something created time, then it could not be subject to time
- If it is not subject to time, it cannot have a consciousness

All I said about the mind is observe the mind with the mind. I didn't make any prepositions. Isn't the word presupposition?

No, I was saying that you are prepositioning the mind by saying, "The mind is vertical" etc.

Just because sometimes my talk sounds proverbial doesn't mean that I am wrong. If I stutter it doesn't mean that I am stupid.

Right, but this also does not mean you are right. Actually, it means nothing. Proverbial is nothing but proverbial.

I don't think that I said anything about divine. What does divine mean? Consciousness is consciousness, that's all. I agree that memory is a key function to understand time. What is ULTIMATE consciousness? And I don't have it, it has me.

Ultimate consciousness..?

In order for time to survive? Or for us to survive time? We cannot survive time. No one gets out alive.

..

Of course.. you think I was arguing that..?

I am saying that consciousness is a contingent of time.

Perhaps it is just that you don't understand me just like I don't understand you. I am not being vague on purpose. Let me see if I can explain it: If you are looking at a candle flame and you have a thought, for that moment that you are thinking your eyes still recieve the light and your brain translates it so that you are subconsciously aware of the flame, while your conscious attention is on your thoughts. However there are layers and layers of thoughts in the average person's mind going all the time that distract attention, hypnotize awareness and use up consciousness like when you have too many tasks going on on your computer at the same time and the CPU is overloaded. This is the average human state of consciousness. That is why I agree that we are not as conscious as we think. Everywhere we look we see our thoughts, presuppositions, biases, and beliefs. Like Jimi Hendrix's song Room full of Mirrors.

"I used to live in a room full of mirrors,
and all I could see was me,
So I took my spirit and smashed all the mirrors,
And now the whole wide world is there for me to see!"

Right.. I agree, of course objectively. In the science of cognition we can identify many of these "layers" of consciousness. This does not mean we should not be mislead into thinking it is anything more than that.

Is it tangible? Has it ever even been observed objectively? I am not talking about the effects of consciousness, I am talking about actual consciousness. Has anyone put consciousness under a microscope? But I never said the word divine, I don't know what that means.

You can observe what parts of the brain are active during cognition.

You can create lesions and see what they affect the cognition.

You can articulate cognition and manipulate it via technology.

You can even specify parts of the brain responsible for morality:



We are even coming to the point of sharing consciousness:

Well we can agree to disagree on this point. Although I agree that what we know of as consciousness is dependent on the brain. But I know that there is a subtle consciousness that is not. But you will just say that I am deluded or it is wishful thinking. But it is like the stars and the sun. In the daytime you cannot see the stars because the sun is so bright. When the sun goes down you can see the stars. The stars don't come out, they were always there, you just couldn't see it because the sun was there. So as a metaphor, if you were born in the morning and by noon you were an adult and I said to you that there were stars in the sky you wouldn't believe me, and if I said that i've seen them you would say that I was deluded or that I have hypnotized myself into believing that. So I would no that there is no point in logically arguing the existence of stars with you, I would just wait and tell you to look up at the sky once it got dark out.

See, you are doing it again and I do not think you are realizing it.

There is no difference between your "unconscious" and "consciousness" (that in which you are thinking right now). It is just the risen linguistic representation of your stimuli; nothing more than that.

But you give more credit to the consciousness than it deserves, as though it is something special and distinguished completely from the unconscious.

The consciousness that we all know of is dependent on the brain, it is like the sun. But it gets it's energy from a subtle consciousness that is not dependent on the brain. This subtle consciousness is always here, in you and me, right now. I can see it if I relax my mind and still my thoughts. I am aware of it through out the night while I am sleeping. This consciousness is not affected by chemicals or drugs. It can only be hidden by the ordinary bodily consciousness.

Really?

Does this consciousness develop? How? What if I smash your head in with a hammer, is it the same as before?

But you don't believe in all that. And, you won't look. You want the scientists to tell you that it is there.

You must realize that scientists spend a significant more time telling you what not to believe.

NO, I don't even believe in God

I meant hypothetically.

What do you mean 'physical' realm, as opposed to what? What realms are there?

The immaterial, intangible, etc. Energy without mass. This is even scientifically possible.

By God, I think we agree!

AMEN! Can I get a hallelujah!

It is like if a beautiful woman is in love with you and she wants you to fall in love but you say "first prove to me that love exists. Where is the scientific proof?" She doesn't want to prove anything to you, she wants to seduce you. She wants you to take a risk and experience it for yourself. She wants to share in the experience with you, because it is more beautiful than dry intellectual facts and figures and philosophies and account balances.

As I said, we mostly agree. However, I think you still give too much credit to consciousness.

Consider my thread "Experience and Your Unreliable Consciousness" for more on what I would likely say to you here.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Really?

Does this consciousness develop? How? What if I smash your head in with a hammer, is it the same as before?
~

This consciousness doesn't develop, it is the same all the time. It is the background consciousness. It was there for as long as I could remember, it will be there if my head gets smashed in and if I become brain damaged. It is there if I drink too much and pass out. Once I stilled my mind via meditation I recognized it. I meditate every night in bed before I go to sleep and that is how I WILD. That consciousness is there throughout all stages of sleep.

You may think that I overestimate consciousness and I think that you underestimate it. But other than that, we both probably agree that if there is a God it isn't some dude with a beard who wants us to worship him and behave ourselves. It would have no desires but our desires we project on to it. Or, in other words, our desires are its desires.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

This consciousness doesn't develop, it is the same all the time. It is the background consciousness. It was there for as long as I could remember, it will be there if my head gets smashed in and if I become brain damaged. It is there if I drink too much and pass out. Once I stilled my mind via meditation I recognized it. I meditate every night in bed before I go to sleep and that is how I WILD. That consciousness is there throughout all stages of sleep.

Can you distinguish this consciousness from nothing?

You may think that I overestimate consciousness and I think that you underestimate it. But other than that, we both probably agree that if there is a God it isn't some dude with a beard who wants us to worship him and behave ourselves. It would have no desires but our desires we project on to it. Or, in other words, our desires are its desires.

I don't necessarily think you overestimate it, and I don't think I underestimate it. I think the mind is an incredible thing, even enough to mislead someone into thinking it is something more than it is. It's like Plato's cave, but can you come out of the restraints..? Perhaps you think I am in the restraints just because I pontificate materialism, but if I acknowledge that prospect, does that affect your perspective of my position..?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

See this is where I'd agree. Although we only know of one form of "consciousness" there could easily be others. What they would be, I cannot imagine, and no one rightfully could.

There may be varying degrees or intensities, but I think they're all the same in quality. Otherwise, how can there be more forms if there's nothing but consciousness?

Originally Posted by O'nus

What? Did you not read that he does not think there is a reason to believe in God?

~

Obviously I'm supporting my argument for God and not "just nature" arguments.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Can you distinguish this consciousness from nothing?
~

How do you define "nothing?" If we're speaking of pure consciousness, its nature is the unbound reality where nothing and everything are indistinguishable, so no.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Perhaps you should consider the depth of my argument then.

If it is just nature and forces around us, then consciousness is nothing more than physical energy emanating in our bodies. With that, a "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No morality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No subjectivity - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

Just existence.

I don't really see what you're getting at here. There is no existence without consciousness, and pure subjectivity and pure consciousness are inseparable. I also don't know why you're agreeing with this, Dannon Oneironaut (particularly, "Just existence").

I don't really have much to contribute except that video you posted Onus is absolutely fucking brilliant;I never knew most of that stuff.

Originally Posted by really

There may be varying degrees or intensities, but I think they're all the same in quality. Otherwise, how can there be more forms if there's nothing but consciousness?

If there are varying degree's of intensities, but all the same qualitatively, then how do you distinguish them?

How do you define "nothing?" If we're speaking of pure consciousness, its nature is the unbound reality where nothing and everything are indistinguishable, so no.

No, I mean absolutely nothing. Nothingness.

How can you distinguish this "ethereal consciousness" from nothingness? If it truly is not affected by the body or anything else material, how can you distinguish it from emptiness/void/nothing/imaginary?

I don't really see what you're getting at here. There is no existence without consciousness, and pure subjectivity and pure consciousness are inseparable. I also don't know why you're agreeing with this, Dannon Oneironaut (particularly, "Just existence").

Of course, you are too wound up in subjectivity again that you fail to see the objective side of things. You really ought to take all sides into account, not just your own.

You won't understand the objectivity of subjectivity if you can only see the subjective side of things.

Observe the observer for a change.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

If there are varying degree's of intensities, but all the same qualitatively, then how do you distinguish them?

Consciousness layers/levels (etc) can be said to have differing qualities or experiential paradigms. What I am pointing out however is a generalization that these can be qualified in the same category, and distinguish them apart in their prevailing intensities or degrees.

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, I mean absolutely nothing. Nothingness.

So do you mean non-existence? I will argue as if the answer is no, and that you mean, "void", because to compare anything with non-existence is absurd. Void is not non-existence, as it is defined as emptiness or nothingness while it still has a quality of existence.

Originally Posted by O'nus

How can you distinguish this "ethereal consciousness" from nothingness? If it truly is not affected by the body or anything else material, how can you distinguish it from emptiness/void/nothing/imaginary?

I've already pointed that pure consciousness is no different than pure subjectivity, and at this level, nothing and everything are experientially identical. So what's your question? Consciousness is present in nothing and everythingness, or at least related to a prevailing degree. Hence the attribute of "all-encompassing."

According to my research, we can say it is energy, or power. It is hard to describe because of its non-linear properties, but without it, nothing has the intelligence to manifest life, much less a manifest universe, or even existence at all.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course, you are too wound up in subjectivity again that you fail to see the objective side of things. You really ought to take all sides into account, not just your own.

You won't understand the objectivity of subjectivity if you can only see the subjective side of things.

Observe the observer for a change.

~

What's the "objective side of things" you speak of, when consciousness itself is a radically subjective term? You can validly speak of neither observing nor objectivity while pretending that the all-prevailing subjective context: consciousness, doesn't exist! Nothing of observing, an observer, an observation nor even objectivity itself can independently exist, hence there cannot be "just existence" without consciousnesses. This is not only taking all "sides" of the argument into account, it is accepting the context that you seem to have ignored. You cannot escape the subjective context, which is infinite, and of course that means I'm not talking about opinions.

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness layers/levels (etc) can be said to have differing qualities or experiential paradigms. What I am pointing out however is a generalization that these can be qualified in the same category, and distinguish them apart in their prevailing intensities or degrees.

You do a very good job at making a circular argument seem not circular.

You cannot simply excuse something off as "outside of generalization" just because "it is beyond characteristics".

If you cannot distinguish it because it is indistinguishable.. then it is simply that; indistinguishable.

You, by your own words, have just shown that there is no difference in any of the qualities. Your own definition of consciousness defeats itself. You say that there are different levels, but that they cannot be distinguished because they are indistinguishable by the differing levels of distinguished consciousness.

In other words, there are no varying levels of consciousness.

So do you mean non-existence? I will argue as if the answer is no, and that you mean, "void", because to compare anything with non-existence is absurd. Void is not non-existence, as it is defined as emptiness or nothingness while it still has a quality of existence.

Ok.. you didn't actually say anything here..?

I've already pointed that pure consciousness is no different than pure subjectivity, and at this level, nothing and everything are experientially identical. So what's your question? Consciousness is present in nothing and everythingness, or at least related to a prevailing degree. Hence the attribute of "all-encompassing."

Again, if you cannot distinguish them, then they are the same.

According to my research, we can say it is energy, or power. It is hard to describe because of its non-linear properties, but without it, nothing has the intelligence to manifest life, much less a manifest universe, or even existence at all.

What's the "objective side of things" you speak of, when consciousness itself is a radically subjective term? You can validly speak of neither observing nor objectivity while pretending that the all-prevailing subjective context: consciousness, doesn't exist! Nothing of observing, an observer, an observation nor even objectivity itself can independently exist, hence there cannot be "just existence" without consciousnesses. This is not only taking all "sides" of the argument into account, it is accepting the context that you seem to have ignored. You cannot escape the subjective context, which is infinite, and of course that means I'm not talking about opinions.

lol.. seriously really.. I cannot believe what's happening here.

You ask me to consider that it is the subjective person that's looking at all these consciousness.. but you ignore that this subjectivity can be objectively observed!

Why do you think psychology exists? Because there are consistencies in people's consciousness. We can objectively find characteristics common in all humans. For example, cognitive reasoning.

Are you willing to argue that there are no objective consistencies in peoples cognitive reasoning because, subjectively, we could all subjectively decide our own ways to cognitively reason?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You do a very good job at making a circular argument seem not circular.

You cannot simply excuse something off as "outside of generalization" just because "it is beyond characteristics".

If you cannot distinguish it because it is indistinguishable.. then it is simply that; indistinguishable.

You, by your own words, have just shown that there is no difference in any of the qualities. Your own definition of consciousness defeats itself. You say that there are different levels, but that they cannot be distinguished because they are indistinguishable by the differing levels of distinguished consciousness.

In other words, there are no varying levels of consciousness.

Nevermind. It was simply another method of explaining the same thing. Don't worry about it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ok.. you didn't actually say anything here..?

You mean you think there is no difference between non-existence and nothingness/void?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Again, if you cannot distinguish them, then they are the same.

Thankyou, yes that was my point. Consciousness cannot be distinguished from nothing as it is in everything. However, it exists as a quality of all existence, which can be interpreted as the vague term "life force." This is nothing new in the spiritual world. You call it energy.

Originally Posted by O'nus

lol.. seriously really.. I cannot believe what's happening here.

You ask me to consider that it is the subjective person that's looking at all these consciousness.. but you ignore that this subjectivity can be objectively observed!

Why do you think psychology exists? Because there are consistencies in people's consciousness. We can objectively find characteristics common in all humans. For example, cognitive reasoning.

That "subjectivity can be objectively observed" is a misconception. You can't truly escape or individualize subjectivity because it all boils down to the intangible substrate of consciousnesses itself. To (objectively) observe something is for it to become an object. Hence, infinite subjective context.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you willing to argue that there are no objective consistencies in peoples cognitive reasoning because, subjectively, we could all subjectively decide our own ways to cognitively reason?

~

No, because that's not what I am saying. Not the "objective consistencies", but the one subjective consistency is far more profound and is worth our attention. What does cognitive reasoning have to do with this anyway?

Originally Posted by really

You mean you think there is no difference between non-existence and nothingness/void?

Non-existence is a prepositional adjective of something. It is saying that something does not exist. To say nothingness void is to say of all things non-existence. Nay?

Thankyou, yes that was my point. Consciousness cannot be distinguished from nothing as it is in everything. However, it exists as a quality of all existence, which can be interpreted as the vague term "life force." This is nothing new in the spiritual world. You call it energy.

I call it energy but you attach conscious thoughts to it.

I do not understand why you would attach cognizance to energy and say that it varies in degree's.

That "subjectivity can be objectively observed" is a misconception. You can't truly escape or individualize subjectivity because it all boils down to the intangible substrate of consciousnesses itself. To (objectively) observe something is for it to become an object. Hence, infinite subjective context.

What is psychology then?

If you can explain how the scientific paradigm of psychology is in subjective terms, then I agree with you.

The science of psychology is not a person, nor does it have a consciousness, it is the collection of data and research of many people. You may argue that all these people are it's collective consciousness, but psychology exists as a perpetuating science of peer reviewed journals, experiments, scientific method, and more. How could you argue that such a thing is "infinitely subjective" when it is often defined as the most objective thing to exist resting on an objective scientific grounding?

Can you not see why I accuse you of being grossly obsessed with the subjective?

Believe it or not, there would still be a universe if there was nothing to perceive it. A tree makes a sound when it falls down in a forest and there's no one to hear it.

No, because that's not what I am saying. Not the "objective consistencies", but the one subjective consistency is far more profound and is worth our attention. What does cognitive reasoning have to do with this anyway?

I was using cognitive reasoning as a example of something objective we can observe of all humans psychology.

You are going to ignore this objective consistency in favour of something which you cannot define nor distinguish from nothingness.

Your subjective view of the world is so wound up in subjectivity that it loses all touch with objective reality.

I could be wrong.. please show me how you appreciate the objective side of life.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Non-existence is a prepositional adjective of something. It is saying that something does not exist. To say nothingness void is to say of all things non-existence. Nay?

Nay. I'm not using prepositional adjectives. I'm using broad terms as "in and of themselves." Non-existence is noun in my case. It means “the absence of existence” itself, and so objective references to such are only hypothetically true. I am saying there is a difference between non-existence and nothingness, as nothingness has a context in existence but has qualities of emptiness. In this way you can say nothing about consciousness being like non-existence, but rather, like nothingness, and therefore, everything. “All encompassing” is the attribute that makes “nothingness” and “everything” indistinguishable from each other, not to mention non-dual.

Also, going from what’s been mentioned a lot in this thread, the term “pure” can be said to be related to this. Pure consciousness can be analogously related to the screen background or light in a movie theater. Even when there are no objects displayed (I.e. nothingness), the screen/light is still present. This is the case regardless of what is displayed, hence again “all-encompassing.” Just because there is nothing on the screen doesn't mean that the background or light is also non-existent.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I call it energy but you attach conscious thoughts to it.

I do not understand why you would attach cognizance to energy and say that it varies in degree's.

Huh? Please quote me where I’ve said that. That’s not what I meant at all.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What is psychology then?

If you can explain how the scientific paradigm of psychology is in subjective terms, then I agree with you.

The science of psychology is not a person, nor does it have a consciousness, it is the collection of data and research of many people. You may argue that all these people are it's collective consciousness, but psychology exists as a perpetuating science of peer reviewed journals, experiments, scientific method, and more. How could you argue that such a thing is "infinitely subjective" when it is often defined as the most objective thing to exist resting on an objective scientific grounding?

Can you not see why I accuse you of being grossly obsessed with the subjective?

Believe it or not, there would still be a universe if there was nothing to perceive it. A tree makes a sound when it falls down in a forest and there's no one to hear it.



I was using cognitive reasoning as a example of something objective we can observe of all humans psychology.

You are going to ignore this objective consistency in favour of something which you cannot define nor distinguish from nothingness.

Your subjective view of the world is so wound up in subjectivity that it loses all touch with objective reality.

I could be wrong.. please show me how you appreciate the objective side of life.

~

Sorry I think we’ve got pretty lost here. I don’t see what this is really about. Let’s go back to the original point you made, which I'm sure had nothing to do with psychology or researching people:

Originally Posted by O'nus

Perhaps you should consider the depth of my argument then.

If it is just nature and forces around us, then consciousness is nothing more than physical energy emanating in our bodies. With that, a "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No morality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No subjectivity - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

Just existence.

The last line “Just existence” implies an independent, objective existence. Is that not what you mean? Are you not excluding subjectivity from the matter? I am saying this can never be done while speaking of consciousness, which is, for the third time, all-encompassing. As is infinite subjectivity as context (not content). You can have neither consciousness nor existence without subjectivity.

Originally Posted by really

Nay. I'm not using prepositional adjectives. I'm using broad terms as "in and of themselves." Non-existence is noun in my case. It means “the absence of existence” itself, and so objective references to such are only hypothetically true. I am saying there is a difference between non-existence and nothingness, as nothingness has a context in existence but has qualities of emptiness. In this way you can say nothing about consciousness being like non-existence, but rather, like nothingness, and therefore, everything. “All encompassing” is the attribute that makes “nothingness” and “everything” indistinguishable from each other, not to mention non-dual.

I am going to take a clarifying approach to this reply. I think it is needed and you will agree.

The consciousness above you are speaking of; although it is within everything, it is not the type we are utilizing in everyday cognizance, right?

Also, going from what’s been mentioned a lot in this thread, the term “pure” can be said to be related to this. Pure consciousness can be analogously related to the screen background or light in a movie theater. Even when there are no objects displayed (I.e. nothingness), the screen/light is still present. This is the case regardless of what is displayed, hence again “all-encompassing.” Just because there is nothing on the screen doesn't mean that the background or light is also non-existent.

Again, this is not the same type of consciousness that we are using right now, correct? It is often used as an example that the light houses's light is directed in a certain direction, but it still certainly observes all directions.

But that is only one type of consciousness and actually completely irrelevant to my original argument.

The last line “Just existence” implies an independent, objective existence. Is that not what you mean? Are you not excluding subjectivity from the matter? I am saying this can never be done while speaking of consciousness, which is, for the third time, all-encompassing. As is infinite subjectivity as context (not content). You can have neither consciousness nor existence without subjectivity.

Let me simplify my argument just for you;

+ Consciousness is a function of time
- Consciousness is dependent on memories
- Memories are dependent on time
+ Any being that had to of created time, could not have consciousness

Now, you've gone a different path and completely tried re-defining what "consciousness" is instead of my propositions.

You cannot simply define it as "everything" because I am including the creation of "everything" in the premise.

I am arguing that a conscious being that creates "everything" must also create that variables that function consciousness. A creator ought not to have any morality or consciousness, at least, as we know of it. It would be completely and utterly different.

It would just be existence. The very foundations in which you define subjectivity would have to have been created, as well as objectivity, by something. This something cannot be bound by subjective or objective terms, it is neither. As you said, it would be non-dual. Do not confused your affinity for non-duality to actually be subjectivity in disguise (I would say that you are inclined to do).

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am going to take a clarifying approach to this reply. I think it is needed and you will agree.

The consciousness above you are speaking of; although it is within everything, it is not the type we are utilizing in everyday cognizance, right?

[...]

Again, this is not the same type of consciousness that we are using right now, correct? It is often used as an example that the light houses's light is directed in a certain direction, but it still certainly observes all directions.

Not directly, but it still prevails and can be known as such. You cannot have cognizance if pure consciousness or subjectivity didn't exist. These fields are interacting in everything, regardless of what somebody thinks.

Originally Posted by O'nus

But that is only one type of consciousness and actually completely irrelevant to my original argument.

Why is it irrelevant? It's not "only one type of consciousness", it's pure consciousness. It's unwise to exclude it, so please tell me why it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Let me simplify my argument just for you;

+ Consciousness is a function of time
- Consciousness is dependent on memories
- Memories are dependent on time
+ Any being that had to of created time, could not have consciousness

Now, you've gone a different path and completely tried re-defining what "consciousness" is instead of my propositions.

Perhaps I am justifying why these propositions are unfulfillable and limited. Is there anything greater than consciousness? You yourself may have even alluded to this, but I don't know where it's coming from.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You cannot simply define it as "everything" because I am including the creation of "everything" in the premise.

I am arguing that a conscious being that creates "everything" must also create that variables that function consciousness. A creator ought not to have any morality or consciousness, at least, as we know of it. It would be completely and utterly different.

It would just be existence. The very foundations in which you define subjectivity would have to have been created, as well as objectivity, by something. This something cannot be bound by subjective or objective terms, it is neither. As you said, it would be non-dual. Do not confused your affinity for non-duality to actually be subjectivity in disguise (I would say that you are inclined to do).

~

How so is this "just existence?" Without consciousness?

Originally Posted by really

Not directly, but it still prevails and can be known as such. You cannot have cognizance if pure consciousness or subjectivity didn't exist. These fields are interacting in everything, regardless of what somebody thinks.

Why is it irrelevant? It's not "only one type of consciousness", it's pure consciousness. It's unwise to exclude it, so please tell me why it is irrelevant.

Perhaps I am justifying why these propositions are unfulfillable and limited. Is there anything greater than consciousness? You yourself may have even alluded to this, but I don't know where it's coming from.

How so is this "just existence?" Without consciousness?

I think I can properly respond to all your points with this;

You only know of one type of consciousness.

You can and have only experienced one type of consciousness.

You cannot know or even could know of any other types of consciousness.

If there are other types of consciousness, they are not what we know of.

If there is a God, they would definitely not have a consciousness like ours.

What do you think...?

~

If you want to know what "God consciousness" is like, you can experience it in a lucid dream.

In one lucid, I realized that I was all the DCs, all the buildings, the ground the sky. My consciousness kept expanding to encompass more and more, until I got down to the molecular level. I was every molecule and atom, countless particles all just humming away.

A strange thing happened at that point. I lost all will to act or do anything. I couldn't even want to do anything, couldn't even think. All I could do was be aware, and no one thing was more important than the other. In fact, there was no separation, everything was one.

When you hear people say "How could a god allow terrible things to happen?", it's because he can't do anything other than be aware. It's just impossible. Try it yourself if you don't believe me, it's an interesting experience.

If god gave us free will, then he did so by limiting our consciousness so that we are not aware of everything. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to act. Would you really be able to wear Nike shoes if you were truly aware of the horrors of forced child labour? No way in hell! Our free will is born of ignorance.

If you've read Castaneda's books, they describe Don Genaro as being incapable of acting or wanting or desiring anything because he was trapped in the second attention. (he wasnt really trapped in that type of attention, it was just a trick the played on Castaneda to get the point across)

Originally Posted by The Cusp

If you want to know what "God consciousness" is like, you can experience it in a lucid dream.

In one lucid, I realized that I was all the DCs, all the buildings, the ground the sky. My consciousness kept expanding to encompass more and more, until I got down to the molecular level. I was every molecule and atom, countless particles all just humming away.

A strange thing happened at that point. I lost all will to act or do anything. I couldn't even want to do anything, couldn't even think. All I could do was be aware, and no one thing was more important than the other. In fact, there was no separation, everything was one.

When you hear people say "How could a god allow terrible things to happen?", it's because he can't do anything other than be aware. It's just impossible. Try it yourself if you don't believe me, it's an interesting experience.

If god gave us free will, then he did so by limiting our consciousness so that we are not aware of everything. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to act. Would you really be able to wear Nike shoes if you were truly aware of the horrors of forced child labour? No way in hell! Our free will is born of ignorance.

If you've read Castaneda's books, they describe Don Genaro as being incapable of acting or wanting or desiring anything because he was trapped in the second attention. (he wasnt really trapped in that type of attention, it was just a trick the played on Castaneda to get the point across)

It's interesting how our experiences can also be much like the dreamworld. This sounds very real as the higher states have been described, but I wonder how much a dream can influence our awareness compared to the waking state? I also wonder if your experience you describe could occur if you were not lucid. :/

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think I can properly respond to all your points with this;

You only know of one type of consciousness.

You can and have only experienced one type of consciousness.

You cannot know or even could know of any other types of consciousness.

If there are other types of consciousness, they are not what we know of.

If there is a God, they would definitely not have a consciousness like ours.

What do you think...?

~

You know of many states of consciousness through experience.

You can experience one state of consciousness at a time.

You can know of other states of consciousness, and can grow or descend from others.

Consciousness is infinite in dimension.

God would have to be related to any state of consciousness. There is no exclusion if God encompasses and has Created all.

Pure consciousness can be said to be the closest state to God in the human domain.

I like this way of debate! Very simplistic! Haha!

It really shows how much we really agree.

Originally Posted by really

You know of many states of consciousness through experience.

Agreed.

Thought, you only know of one kind of consciousness.

You can experience one state of consciousness at a time.

Agreed.

You can know of other states of consciousness, and can grow or descend from others.

Agreed.

You can sleep, meditate, take drugs, etc. Though, it is still one kind of consciousness.

Consciousness is infinite in dimension.

Disagree.

Consciousness is limited to the brains capacities. If the brain is damaged, so is your consciousness.

God would have to be related to any state of consciousness. There is no exclusion if God encompasses and has Created all.

Pure consciousness can be said to be the closest state to God in the human domain.

I would say that a God would have to have a "pure consciousness" but that it is nothing like how ours is.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Agreed.

Thought, you only know of one kind of consciousness.

Then what are you agreeing on?

Originally Posted by O'nus

You can sleep, meditate, take drugs, etc. Though, it is still one kind of consciousness.

-

Disagree.

Consciousness is limited to the brains capacities. If the brain is damaged, so is your consciousness.

Isn't it all still one kind of consciousness? Then what is limited about it? Pure Consciousness is contextual and therefore invulnerable to the contents of consciousness, which are related to the mind, whereas Pure Consciousness is obviously independent. Hence it is always there.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I would say that a God would have to have a "pure consciousness" but that it is nothing like how ours is.

~

Why? I've backed up my opposing statements already: Pure Consciousness is contextual.