That would be a no, imo.

In order to solve the mystery of consciousness objectivly we need to use our fave tool the mind, but, the mind can only go.. so far, it is limited, finite, a little dap will do ya....consciousness is...unbounded...but, our mind, is not, so, if we want to solve the mystery of the mind we must go beyond our little tool of the trade, and reach for the direct experience. Now, we can share our little story about having a direct experience but we cannot share the direct experience itself...objectively speaking.

The mystery of consciousness is a trip down the lonesome trail with the ONE and the ONLY.

In order to solve the mystery you have to become the mystery....you cannot stand outside the mystery and in order to give an objective answer one needs to stand outside.... and there is no answer outside the mystery itself.

hmmmmm..this sounds good to me...I'll submit it:)ruth

For those who can't or don't watch the videos, basically I said,
I don't know, maybe.

And there you have it.

derek

correction...if we want to solve the mystery of consciousness we need to go beyond the mind, our little tool of the trade, and reach for the direct experience......

Hummm ... I think it must always be subjective, because when we explore consciousness objectively, we have already become blind by the mere process before we begin. This really upset me to hear at first, then I took a deep breath (lots of them with some anger mixed in), and then I looked up the two words, as I pondered with an open mind. I listened again to this video, and had a little ah'ha, which still kind of hurt. I know the pain was from not fully understanding how great spirit is, which I'm going to call consciousness or the one mind or God at this moment in time.

Love, Char

PS: For me, the one mind is not the physical brain, but the whole of all brains as one.

Hi Ruth,

great answer :)

I fully agree with you. And Char you know it too :)

Subjectivity will always be involved, be it the intuition that can also be named as that inner voice. One's own subjective inner truth.

Mieke

Mieke

Objectivity is the work of the brain
Subjectivity is the work of the intuition

Brain/intuition together might give the ultimate solution. So to me again a kind of transcendence into the androgyn unity.

Being the mystery and having peace with that.

Dose the brain secrete consciousness or dose consciousness secrete the brain?

Well ... GOD is still GOD to me and every bit there for me, however, my definition of GOD is growing and developing. That's what I know and my GOD is still real and my GOD :-) ... as long as I exist, my GOD does as well and will always be eternal, like me. GOD just gets bigger and greater - that's all. I think Spirit is what connects us all individually as the human race, which also includes animals, plants, insects, etc. And if consciousness can be described as a thing, then surly, it's the atom, i.e., physical light; and if a non-thing, then it must be Spirit, such as what light means in the form of an enlightened sage. That's my 4 cents today or at this moment.

Love, Char

PS: No one can destroy another person's GOD or what they might understand as GOD, since each person must expand within their own context of GOD, while still retaining all that was there before. I think it is really more like the opening of the eyes or waking up to the truth or being fully aware, i.e., the enlightened.

This is a reprint of what I wrote from march of 2007.

I think this is all much simpler than it "sounds" yet still remains incomprehensible to a mind working with the conventional model of the universe.

About 40% of the brain is thought to be involved in vision. Data from the visual field disperse to 30 different locations in the brain interconnected by about 300 circuits (pathways). Each of the areas have specialized functions. No one area mediates one perceptual quality exclusively.

Somehow all this information is combined in the end into a unitary perception of objects. Neuroscientists do not know how this comes about.

The reason that they don't know is that there is no physical structure receiving this combined output. They have nothing to look at or dissect. All these neurons and their output are physically separate. The final step of the process **leaves the realm of physicality.**

There is no physical combiner. There is no physical element to combine the outputs and summarize them into a WHOLE. It simply does not exist; science cannot process this fact because it does not fit the conventional understanding of the universe.

So where is it? It does not appear to be in the brain because we have that all mapped out. There is no single physical processing point in the brain. So the empirical evidence implies that it is elsewhere or simply has no physical representation in the observable universe.

This knowledge does not fit our conceptual model of reality. This means that our conceptual model of reality is not complete, or erroneous.

This would invite the thought that the brain is not what it appears to be. It could very well be that when we go to look at what is producing the mind, we see neurons which are the symbolic representation of something that exists that is intangible.

The real component broken down to it's elementary "particles" of a video stored on your computer is zero and ones abstract, intangible data. We view a symbolic representation of these zero and ones converted into light. With out the observer the data is meaningless. The observer gives the data meaning.

What we are talking about is an information universe as the "real" from which the observer generates a symbolic representation. In other words what we see and hear is a symbolic representation of a subset of data.

What I am saying is that the physical brain, the individual cells are symbolic representation of a underlying data structure.

I don’t know if I can get this next concept across or if it makes sense.

The physical structure of universe could be viewed as actual data storage. I have no idea how the quantum particles store data, since it seems that they are in constant flux. We can say that the collapse of this flux into a single state creates the data set of an observable universe. How the logic and constants come into play within the quantum flux is not obvious but it seems to involve a strange artifact called awareness.

When you look at the physical moon, you are really experiencing is a stored data structure produced by some incomprehensible number of units of quantum processing, each little grain of dust or molecule. So an incomprehensible number of quantum functions produce the moon. In other words that is the physicality of the moon. Stored data which when summarized creates a data set.

There is no escaping the need for some element to summarize the product of the underlying quantum output based on that elements input. To the “quantum computer”. That element is the observer which when compared to all else in the universe is a freak phenomena, that gives rise to the whole universe. There is nothing like it, or comparable to this elemental phenomena.

I think there for I am...

Consciousness can be fully understood, Unwrapped, taken apart, controlled, Interfiered with and solved Objectively only by one thing.

This one thing how ever is an even greater Mystery than Consciousness itself. It is the Divine Lord our God.

The Source of Conscious light.

So the question could possibly be..

"Can the Mystery of God Be Solved Objectively?"

Probably not but it is a lot of fun trying all the same... i t is easy to abandon hope when as a limited being we place so much hope in God... I just hope the old fellow can live up to our expectation...

Deepak..... You know that God is very present in your voice? I feel a deep connection to the Divine every time I listen to you speak. It is beautiful, thank you.

Love

Simon xx

Tammy,

My answer to your question would be both.

If we can accept and and situations, we might eventually transcend above duality.

It seems to become the only way to really start to solve problems in this world.

Love, Mieke

PPS: I do not believe that we are alone on our journey, as we are all connected as ONE, i.e., two minds (or more) can connect, thereby, crossing all boundaries of distance and space. This is what a guru does for the student, even if it is Jesus Christ or a person alive now. However, we each must awaken on our own and at the time that's most perfect for each and every one of us. All will be enlightened and no one will be left in the dark.

Love, Char

Interesting topic!

In past few years of my search, I have found several methodologies of meditation and the "path" to get to consciousness - but none ever resonated with me. Until I saw this very beautiful explanation of the age old philosophy of "Neti/Neti" by Mooji (a Jamaican mystic from the Ramana Maharishi school).

This is also the first time I really understood the meaning of "VIVEK" - or discrimination that proliferates in Upanishads. Mistakenly, most Saints have defined the word Vivek as discriminating between "Good" and "Bad".. to me that was nonsense to start with! Only after listening to this discourse from Mooji did I first understand "what" one needs to distinguish from "what".

http://drishtikone.com/?q=blog/i-am-not-not-neti-neti

The getting to the observer (consciousness) using Vivek while employing your Mind - is a tough thing to conceptualize. But this way explains very effectively how it can be done.

So, to discuss on the topic - whether one can get to consciousness by consciousness or by mind.. my take is this:

Mind is a limited form of consciousness. Afterall everything is consciousness. The journey from Mind to consciousness NEEDS (and has) to be taken through Mind (because consciousness anyways is in consciousness - it doesnt need any "effort")...

... and this journey is like peeling an onion. Out of the depths of our Mind arises that pure consciousness that was twirled into Mind for some reason.

Why?

Thats another rhetorical question in that realm. :-)

Cheers,
Desh
drishtikone.com

Here is a great question...

What about If.... Somene Invented a machine that could scan and break down a persons body into a molecular binary code and then send it via the Internet like an E-mail to another part of the world or maybe even somewhere outside of the earths orbit. Then at the other side the persons body was decoded and restored and the person woken up.

Would consciousness stay with the body even though the body had been broken down, encrypted and sent at light speed to another location?

I would say yes it would... for very genuine reasons. As long as the body could survive then Conciousness would remain in any location.

Interesting to see what you think.

I had two things happen to me today that sort of confirm this. The first thing was that a year or so ago I got a Syst that appeared next to my eye. It didn't hurt or anything but I was aware of it being there. I was driving from the Gym this morning back to my house feeling very refreshed and happy. I had not even thought about my syst in ages. I can't remember the last time I noticed that I had a Syst.. So I glanced into the rear view mirror at my eye and saw that my eye was perfect. There was no sign of the syst. I wondered where it had gone to and as I looked at myself longer in the mirror when I got home I realised that I had died and my syst had died along with me. I had died and not even noticed. My face had a look of newness and freshness even though I still recognised it as me It was a new me.

Thats the only time I have caught myself out dying before. It was an amazing experience.

The other thing was about my meditation later that day which is related but is also quite personal and involves another person - So I have decided not to go into detail about that.

Love

Simon xx

BTW: When I read my first book of Deepak's, "Grow Younger, Live Longer," and read the word GOD, I felt spirit touch me. At the time, I was very anti anything GOD due to the pounding I endure in the Bible Belt, as well as from my sister who is married to a pastor. I knew that I loved Jesus Christ and was not against what I believed to be GOD, which is LOVE, but I was more against the whole "going to hell" part of the religion of Christianity. So as Simon says, when Deepak talks about GOD, you just feel GOD in Deepak's written and spoken words and it's very powerful. I suppose we are connecting in some way and experiencing GOD within ourselves, as that's the only way to know GOD and it must be experienced individually. ... my 6 cents for the moment, even tho I'm not counting and think I ran over.

Yes, this is getting interesting. I've read and heard about gurus, who they say can transport themselves who are living now or they were here on earth recently in this physical plane from one place to another place and over distance as well in the blink of an eye (can't remember it all exactly). Also, I've read that the monks in this one area, can fly and there was a nun who flew as well. And in the Bible, Jesus disappeared in an angry crowd of people, as it was not his time and then he reappeared in another place. Plus, Jesus did all sorts of other things too that changed/overrided the common laws of physics that we know and abide by today. There is so much that we cannot explain even in our own physical world and maybe it can only be done in the spiritual world or by Spirit, as we experience the union of both worlds.

Love, Char

Dear Dr. Chopra,

Our scientists are wrong in believing that consciousness is a product of the brain. As David Wilcock points out in his "Science of Oneness", (Convergence Vol. 2 ) series - Thought is a circulating vibration of energy throughout the neurons in the brain. This "love" energy is simply a vibration of the aetheric (zero point) energy that creates everything around us.

Through meditation and discipline it is possible to connect with the Supraconscious Mind or Universal Mind where knowledge is contained. This is how inventors and writers most often find their inspiration - by receiving input from the higher realms. When one learns to distinguish one's own ego-mind thought processes from those that are from a higher realm then it is possible to be objective about consciousness.

Best Wishes

"Betsy" S.

Interesting thoughts everybody, I enjoyed reading them all. Thanks.

pax vobiscum

Wavelengths Frequencies
158 98 Red
25 21 Orange
20 17 yellow
85 90 green
37 49 blue
65 110 violet

Color Wavelength (nm) Frequency (THz)
Red 780 - 622 384 - 482
Orange 622 - 597 482 - 503
Yellow 597 - 577 503 - 520
Green 577 - 492 520 - 610
Blue 492 - 455 610 - 659
Violet 455 - 390 659 - 769

Dear Deepak

Universal consciousness manifested in the eternal and omnipresent laws of the universe and universal phenomena such as expansion of the universe can be and is studied objectively. Holistic Relativity is such an objective study of the universal consciousness. The consciousness of the genuine spirituality such as the Buddha’s is objectively verifiable because of its universality even if considered to be subjective. Eternity, enlightenment, and timelessness are aspects of the universal consciousness that are fully predictable objectively and mathematically in spite of the fact that they are (mis)considered to be only subjective spiritual experiences. Nature or God has not censored anything from free-willed human comprehension or experience. A universal experience is completely objective and predictable howsoever it is not measurable in direct materialistic terms – seconds, kilograms and meters.

The so-called biological consciousness or mind (ego) cannot be studied objectively because it is subjective to the individual thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and convictions etc. It is only a relative (individual) reality or illusion and hence has no universal or objective basis. Time, a relative reality of the illusive mind, is claimed to be objectively measurable with the precision of an atomic clock but no objective physical experiment can be done to prove its objective existence. Biological consciousness is merely a stubborn illusion just like time.

Unfortunately, the mainstream science is mostly entangled in the (neuro)biological consciousness to resolve the problems of consciousness. It may be a futile pursuit due to its illusory and non-objective nature. The concept of universal consciousness is not even a remote consideration by the mainstream science, especially neuroscience.

Love
Avtar

Dear Deepak,

When we repress something, it becomes an obsession and obsession poisons our life. When we repress something, it goes into our unconsciousness and disturbs the very equilibrium, leaving us in deep misery said the great Gautama Buddha.To understand consciousness, we need equanimity or to be more precise detach ourselves from us and take a third party view. This is possible as every human being does it in his everyday life when he TRIES to objectively looks at his flaws( by being detached from his own consciousness) and makes an attempt to iron them out.

Dearest Deepak,

It is so amazing when you look at it. There isn't a single thing in the Universe that is objective. A thing becomes "something" only through a filter of perception, otherwise it doesn't exist. Things become alive only through our imaginative perspective.. how incredibly powerful we are. Our imagination gives form to the Universe. Since each and every one of us is so unique, how could there be an "objective" reality.
I belive that we decide that something is objective when many of us have similar subjective expirience of it.

Every event of consciousness becoming aware of itself is intensely intimate, personal and unique and therefore cannot be objectified in any way.

How incredibly wonderful.

Thank you Deepak on all that you are
I love you

Hi Deepak,
When the human body in all its parts is seen as one whole brain because it's one whole in expression will there be subjective and objective or will there be a new word via new language?

Rather than describing consciousness from outside-in we will be reflecting it inside- out. We will beam consciousness across the universe. Now that will be one electro-magnetic and orgasmic light show giving sexual expression new meaning. It will be a complete turning of energetic-motion -- multi-dimensionally.

Trish~~

I'm a consumer ethnographer. That means I apply anthropological concepts and framework, to understand contemporary life and how people make sense of it. I think this as also a lot to do with my own personal searches.

The word objective for me is a "justification" concept, for doing things disconnecting from the means.
If you can, please look at this video, it's Dr. Quantum, explaining how objectivity in the sense of technologies calibrated to measure reality, come with surprises: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

This is the embedded version:

Trish
In my video above I talk about objective and subjective as the right and left hemispheres of our brain. When balanced they works as one.

Can subject and objective, if balanced, work as one creating the need for a new word? A new language?

derek

Aloha Deepak and Everyone

I loved when Neale Donald Welsh shared that life is a mystery not to be figured out, but realized.

And derek... the imaging posting is great. It resonates peace.

love patty

What do ya'all think of this? I vehemently disagree!

“Donald Symons has argued that we have genetic conflict to thank for the fact that we have feelings toward other people at all. Consciousness is a manifestation of the neural computations necessary to figure out how to get the rare and unpredictable things we need. We feel hunger, savor food, and have a palate for countless fascinating tastes because food was hard to get during most of our evolutionary history. We don’t normally feel longing, delight, or fascination regarding oxygen, even though it is crucial for survival, because it was never hard to obtain. We just breathe.

The same may be true of the conflicts over kin, mates, and friends. I mentioned that if a couple were guaranteed to be faithful, to favor each other over their kin, and to die at the same time, their genetic interests would be identical, wrapped up in their common children. One can even imagine a species in which every couple was marooned on an island for life and their offspring dispersed at maturity, never to return. Since the genetic interests of the two mates are identical, one might at first think that evolution would endow them with a blissful perfection of sexual, romantic, and companionate love.

But, Symons argues, nothing of the sort would happen. The relation between mates would evolve to be like the relation among the cells of a single body, whose genetic interests are also identical. Heart cells and lung cells don’t have to fall in love to get along in perfect harmony. Likewise, the couples in this species would have sex only for the purpose of procreation (why waste energy?), and sex would bring no more pleasure than the rest of reproductive physiology such as the release of hormones or the formation of the gametes:

‘There would be no falling in love, because there would be no alternative mates to choose among, and falling in love would be a huge waste. You would literally love your mate as yourself, but that’s the point: you don’t really love yourself, except metaphorically; you are yourself. The two of you would be, as far as evolution is concerned, one flesh, and your relationship would be governed by mindless physiology. . . . You might feel pain if you observed your mate cut herself, but all the feelings we have about our mates that make a relationship so wonderful when it is working well (and so painful when it is not) would never evolve. Even if a species had them when they took up this way of life, they would be selected out as surely as the eyes of a cave-dwelling fish are selected out, because they would be all cost and no benefit.’

The same it true for our emotions toward family and friends: the richness and intensity of the feelings in our minds are proof of the preciousness and fragility of those bonds in life. In short, without the possibility of suffering, what we would have is not harmonious bliss, but rather, no consciousness at all” (267-8).

Pinker, Steven. “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.” New York: Penguin, 2002.

I was just reading this "The Consciousness of the Atom," by Alice A. Bailey, [1922], at sacred-texts.com, which is very interesting, even tho from 1922, in case anyone is interested.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/cota/cota06.htm#an_lect4

Here the first part of it, with the total of #4 being a few pages. I have read the part lectures yet.

LECTURE IV.
THE EVOLUTION OF MAN, THE THINKER.

This is the fourth in the series of talks which we have had the past month, and perhaps by means of them we have been able to get an idea of one of the fundamental principles which underlie evolution, and which can be seen working out in the solar system.

Let us first briefly recapitulate, in order that we may approach our subject tonight with certain ideas clearly formulated. We have seen that our interpretation of the processes of nature necessitates a threefold concept, which concerns itself with the life aspect, with the substance aspect, and with their close interrelation through the faculty of intelligence manifesting as consciousness of some kind or other. This interrelation will produce, finally, the perfected expression (through the medium of matter) of the conscious purpose of some indwelling entity. I seek to emphasise the fact that the goal of my endeavour is to put before you a hypothesis and a suggestion which may have within it the germ of a possible truth, and which seems to some of us the clearest way of explaining the mystery of the universe. We have seen that the three parts of the one great whole are Spirit, or Life, manifesting through a second factor which we call substance or matter, and utilising a third factor, which we call the intelligence. In the gradual synthesis of these three component aspects of deity can be seen the evolution of consciousness.

p. 48

We next arrived at a more technical discussion of the subject of substance itself, dealing not with the differentiated substances or elements, but with the concept of a primordial substance, and endeavouring to get back as far as possible toward that which has been called by Sir William Crookes "protyle", or that which lies back of the tangible, or objective. We considered the atom, and found that its latest definition was that it was in reality a unit of force or energy consisting of a positive charge of electricity energising a number of negative particles. It became apparent to us that the tiny atom of the chemist and the physicist was within itself a solar system, with the same general conformation as the greater system, demonstrating a similar activity and governed by analogous laws. We found that it had a central sun, and that around this central sun, pursuing their definite orbits, night be seen the electrons. We noted, also, the fact that the elements differ only according to the number and the arrangement of these electrons around the central positive charge. From this we passed on to the consideration of the soul, or the psyche, of the atom, and found that scientists recognise the truth that atoms themselves possess quality, show symptoms of mind or intelligence, and can discriminate, select, and choose.

[...........etc.]

Love,
Char

So, now I'm thinking ... maybe "YES," on objectively and I suppose the resolution is still on going.

BTW: I really liked Avtar's comment above, as it pulled me in the opposite direction that I was first thinking. Thanks!

Love, Char

Now, I've going some thing to read in the morning ... will, I'll finish all the lectures in the morning, then I'll need to find something else to read.

THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE ATOM.
LECTURE I.
THE FIELD OF EVOLUTION.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/cota/cota03.htm#an_lect1

Love, Char

You know Miss that genuine laugh is truly priceless.

Priceless!

Write that book!

And Derek, your demeanor is so, just, well, you seem like a very kewl brother man.

And Richard, and, well, everybody, I mean, jeeez, this is just so way cool.

And good stuff Char4! Yes I have often utilized that sacred texts website. Thank you.

pax vobiscum

Derek #25:
Thanks for your comments. Before left and right/male and female can balance they have to connect, right? It's like seeing with one eye and then when connected and in focus (is the focusing the balancing?) you see with two eyes and like magic...it's a new world.

When the two merge perhaps the third eye comes into the picture igniting and expanding all the senses. New seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, knowing (more than mental mind) would naturally create new words and language. But even more magical is that the whole now refects the parts and the parts reflect the whole as words and language start bouncing and beaming person to person.

For example today at work our CEO used the word "lens" when describing something. That word then reverberated in another meeting and became more than a word. It was the actual "tool" we were using in a refinement process allowing us to see something new.

Trish~~

This is interesting click my name for the rest but perhaps this is a clue?

"Neuroscientists have also determined that the name “Paris Hilton” lights up the limbic system in most people like fire works as well as numerous key neural pathways in the cerebral cortex, some leading to those powerful regions connected to sex. This means she is able to easily leave imprints of new information that are remembered with new memories easily formed on a large activated neural backbone."

SEED: Questioning Consciousness

'To understand consciousness and its evolution, we need to ask the right questions.'

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/questioning_consciousness.php

***

Interesting! It poses the possibility that the failure of science (as yet) to explain how the brain creates consciousness is due to looking for the wrong X such as a thing, phenomenon, or event separate and above the electrical impulses of sense data. What if consciousness is like wetness? Wetness is a property of liquids. It can not be separated from liquids. It doesn't independently exist, like light exist apart from the sun.

So, maybe the best we can do is to say, consciousness is the way electrical nerve impulses feel to a brain. And that is that.

The author also asks, What can we do when conscious that we can't do without being conscious? He concludes, nothing. He cannot see any contribution consciousness has made to evolution. I disagree. We can't learn without being conscious. Consciousness moved evolution from the slow random process of improving genes to the fast lane of improving memes.

Think of ants. Their very sophisticated societies are carved in stone. Ours by comparison changes at an explosive rate. Right now, we are about to give evolution a quantum leap by tinkering with bioengineering. Without consciousness we couldn't have done that.

Also, check this out by Rama, Deepak Chopra's good friend and neighbor:

SEED: On Consciousness Evolved

by V.S. Ramachandran

"What is consciousness? This really breaks down into two questions: The first is the nature of qualia--how does the awareness of sensations like bitter, or painful, or red arise from the activity of neurons? The second: How does the sense of self—the person who experiences qualia—arise?

It has been suggested that the first problem is more tractable and should be tackled before going on to the issue of the self, which has elements of unity, continuity, a sense of agency and less obviously, the attachment of meaning to mere sensations. I disagree. I suggest that qualia (e.g., visual awareness) and self are two sides of a coin; you cannot solve the qualia problem without understanding the self. The reason is obvious: You cannot have "free floating" qualia without a self to experience them and to give them meaning.
Advertisement

We know that awareness is not a property of the whole brain, so the problem can be reduced to, "What particular neural circuits are involved in consciousness? And what's so special about these circuits that they can explain consciousness?"

I suggest that a new set of brain structures evolved during hominid evolution, turning the output from more primitive sensory areas of the brain into what I call a "metarepresentation." I think they edited, enhanced and packaged sensory information into more manageable chunks, used for juggling symbols and language. And most important, they made the link to meaning—whereby the sensory objects we perceive evoke multiple parallel implications in our minds. For example, an apple has potentially infinite nuances of meaning for humans, such as baking, keeping the doctor away, tempting Eve. But for a lemur, apple has no "meaning"; it's simply identifiable as food.

I believe the anatomical structures involved in creating this metarepresentation include the inferior parietal lobule, Wernicke's language comprehension area and the anterior cingulate cortex. Find out how these structures perform their job and we will have figured out what it means to be a conscious human being."

Vilayanur S. "Rama" Ramachandran (born 1951) is a neurologist best known for his work in the fields of behavioral neurology and psychophysics. He is currently the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, Professor in the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Ramachandran has been elected to fellowships at All Souls College, Oxford, and the Royal Institution, London (which also awarded him the Henry Dale Medal). He gave the 2003 BBC Reith Lectures and was conferred the title of Padma Bhushan by the President of India in 2007.

He has been called “The Marco Polo of neuroscience” by Richard Dawkins and "the modern Paul Broca" by Eric Kandel.

Newsweek magazine named him a member of "The Century Club", one of the "hundred most prominent people to watch" in the 21st century.

Re. 34

This is so amazing!

I can't speak of anything else but coincidence and synchronicity, i was defending the same issue with almost exactly the same arguments yesterday at a philosophy/socrates café here at Harvard Square and a tiny little man with a tiny little voice stood up and told me with a quiet almost fading voice:

"This is fallacious bullshit, go back to school and learn to build an argument that does not collapse as it proceeds, contradicts itself as it goes, flawed with weaknesses in reasoning and impotence in reaching any satisfying conclusion because it reeks of aimlessness and idle mind that would better spend its time learning haiku poetry about toads mating on the crust of dry summer ponds."

Scott,

Well, I hope, that you right away recognized that the impish elf gave you the famous fallacy of "argument from outrage." He didn't advance a single reasoning to rebut your arguments. He just unloaded a truckload of indignation and anger on you and hoped that you were wimpy enough not to want to argue against the gale of his abuse.

It's a common trick of politicians and priests.

#36 lol, now I see why my longish laborious post got lost to the ethers. Sync?

It could also be my slow typing which admin doesn't allow for when setting the login time allowance.

Yay, back to the Haiku

Re. Deepak Chopra Re. Avatar Re. Irvine Welsh (SEED article #34)

Consciousness is relative.
One can be more, or less, conscious.

Bill Gates is conscious enough to run a 90,000 employee company and amass 60 Billion dollars, as being alive and upright is all that is required for the second state, or as Gurdjieff termed it, "waking sleep", but he has most likely never even experienced the third state - consciousness of self, "self consciousness" - and certainly not the fourth state - "objective consciousness".

Everything that humans do out there in the physical world merely requires getting out of bed, walking upright and eating properly. Anything beyond that - like all the silliness discussed here and elsewhere - requires third and fourth state, and even then, the fourth state is too rare to even talk about, let alone claim it publicly.

If a person can not remember himself in the scene - like leaning over your keyboard and viewing this paragraph right this moment... because you were just reminded to do it, to remember - and continue to remember, even though forgetting all about remembering yourself in the scene is automatic, mechanical, then the third state is just a theory, and obviously the fourth state is just a meaningless concept.

Some people experience the third state quite by accident, but it doesn't last, is burned off quickly by the experience and the environment, and they have no idea how to produce it again at the same intensity nor how to make it last. It is not a permanent state, and one does not "fall back" into the third state of consciousness, the way one always "falls back" into the second state... just exactly the same way YOU have already fallen back into the second state, having quite forgotten all about remembering yourself in the scene, which you were reminded to do in the previous paragraph.

There are even occasions where someone experiences the fourth state, quite by accident, and they almost always immediately black out, their eyes roll back into their head, and they lose consciousness, having not the "preparation" to contain such a state otherwise - that is, they can not function at all. But, the third state can be brought on, controlled, made permanent, and after days/weeks/months of such permanence, the fourth state is accessible, and (theoretically) can also be made permanent.

All the nay-saying in the world changes nothing - except that it closes the door on your own possibilities in this area, so have at it. Also, endless yammering on about philosophy, theory and the non-necessity of practice, the non-existence of self and reality and existence, and all the other diversions that keep you "suitably occupied" so that you don't have to make any effort at all, closes that same door... that you don't even believe exists in the first place ;^)

Irvine,

Still one must admit with our:
- consciousness that does
- unconsciousness that does
- consciousness that does not
- unconsciousness that does not
...
we had it coming;
and he looked quite quiet, as if reading aloud some obituary page from 1956.

Ed, don't confine yourself to haiku (if because of technical difficulties, i.e,) write a sonnet or an ode! But, before you press the post button, SELECT the text and COPY, just in case the log-in session expires you can then PASTE your work with just a mouse click.

Yes, I know, Scott. With Firefox I could hit the 'back' button and retrieve. Back with Yahoo IE. interim... blank. In my moment of inspiration and eagerness and stimulus from Irv, I forgot the technicalities. It's still annoying, whatever one does, and consciousness needs a kick up the dirt-box ;)

Nice Indy

So I push myself from the shore a bit
I leave all these most important discussions behind
and ...........drift
The most beautiful rays of light
dance for me and only me
as I gaze lazily into the depths

I am here drifting alone
who will I tell......no one
how could I share such a moment
except through the pure joy
that wells out of me
through my words
and onto
this page

And after 15 comments
or an new thread or two
these words do fade

But I am still drifting
and gazing
at the lights that dance
only for me

derek

Irvine #33:
..."most people"...I hope not! Is such a statement from scientists' ego or limited lens?

Just imagine the power and fireworks when energies move beyond the lower vibrational sex chakras and are integrated into higher vibration.

Scientists use their individual lens of consciousness and are directed along what lines? This phrase comes up: Ye shall know them by their words and actions.

What do shamans determine? Perhaps you would consider reporting on this angle of "science".

In the Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot there is a sentence that says when science and shamanism meet we will discover fire for the second time. Another sentence says that we may be witnessing the shamanizing of modern humanity.

What is the difference between shamanism and science?

Trish~~

OOOOPS...sorry Irvine I meant Richard!

Trish~~

From all of us:
Irvine Welsh, you rock and rule!
Brilliant posts!

Hey Trish
I do believe we are seeing humanity transform before our very conscious eyes.
There is no difference between shamanism and science. Just two different paths. They will eventually merge. I believe I see the intersection just ahead.

And CS+DDHPZ
I agree.
I enjoyed reading Irvine's posts as well. The whole series of posts were great to read.

IB has been a pure joy lately.

We tend to see what we look for.

derek

Yo Carl Sagan
Thank You

Indy,

Quite funny that something only sells well when classified as higher. In that sense, a numbering system of levels of consciousness seemingly adds value. Those with an experience of samadhis as enumerated in the Patanjali sutras know that there are levels of clutter (& ignorance) but some clutter is so persistent that it isn't recognized. On the contrary, the state [awareness + less mental clutter] is thought to be a new state of consciousness whereas unless such a state is followed by another one (less clutter than the previous), it's a case of epiphany or satori. Hence the logical development of a yogi (or the Western equivalent) towards nirvana / moksha and nirvikalpa samadhi (whatever comes first).

After nirvikalpa samadhi, best (yet not completely) comparable to a state of deep dreamless sleep while yet wide awake, having come to your senses again, it is known that the [aware-of function] suspended, doesn't turn off awareness, just like the rotation of the earth doesn't turn off the (light of the) sun.

Trish "people" in this context applies to the sleepers as alluded to in comment #39.

The awakened, the supreme being, verb, see all as one and therefore cannot be divided with the label people.

Derek says, “There is no difference between shamanism and science. Just two different paths. They will eventually merge.”

For this to happen we all need to accept evidence from the real world, the one we “know” exists. We need to realize what a miracle it is to be alive!

Back to enjoying the real world and its AWE.
All the best to all of you.
Ya, even to Diablo.

every thing has an answer and no thing doesn't even have a question?????hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.ruth

Indeed, Scott (#47). It isn't too difficult to understand or to translate to yogic terms quotes from Gurdjieff or Chopra, the issue of "bringing spiritual teachings to the Western world" could be compared to giving a cat a pill:

http://tinyurl.com/4dqa49

Some thought to overcome that by issuing stories like weekly meetings in the astral world with Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna etc. and others dressed up the uninspiring samadhi terminology by terms like "higher levels of consciousness". All with the presumption that eventually, the practitioners discover they've been "had but for their own good" and understand.

Yo, no doubt CS+DDHPZ
I for one accept evidence from the real world. I'm typing on one of those real things brought to us through science and intuition. From a working together of the right and left brain.

Art, poetry, music, creative writing.................sending the song 'Across the Universe", across the universe...............a blending of science and intuition........the left and right brain working together not against each other.

Science and spirituality are not at odds unless we put them there. The paths will merge when we stop putting up signs that say 'This Way Only'.

I feel the same compassionate energy from Carl Sagan as I do from the Dali lama. They are the same to me.

Hi Scott
We have not met you yet.
Well hello.

I have a saying

be more awake while dreaming and more dreaming while awake

derek

Hi Scott again
Should say
We have not met yet.

First impressions

yo

derek

Questions

Hung on the restive edge of secrets nearly told.
A breath away from mysteries revealed.
Not yet satisfied.
The end of one question is only the beginning of the next.

Knowing the what, now surely, we must solve the why.

What flickers there? A pale shaft dancing for an instant through the quiet. Dust motes captured in an errant beam of light. It was there and it was gone and it wasn't gone at all.

I AM right here.

Ahhhhhhhh.......very nice, Bonnie:))ruth

I thought I would mention this here which is from Avtar's thread; I think it sheds light on what Deepak is alluding to in many contexts regarding consciousness.

Dear Heath,

I disagree you said in #20 "the outcomes have been powerfully influenced by human choice, which compresses the natural selection cycle immensely."

I would rewrite that to be "the outcomes have been powerfully influenced by human *consciousness* and not physical selection"

There is this research where they domesticated the fox in Russia. The Natural Selection was based on temperament not physical attributes, but what happened was changes in physical attributes not selected for.

The Tame Silver Fox is the result of nearly 50 years of experiments in the Soviet Union and Russia to domesticate the silver morph of the Red Fox. Notably, the foxes not only become more tame, but more dog-like as well: the new foxes lost their distinctive musky "fox smell", became more friendly with humans, put their ears down (like dogs), wagged their tails when happy and began to vocalize and bark like domesticated dogs. The breeding project was set up by the Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev.

You see the dogs are products of our consciousness and the genetic changes initiated by the higher consciousness affiliation and intent, the affiliation with humans,

It’s a little bit hard to grasp, what is going on here….. a major revelation.

There is even greater insight here! which I have pointed out numerous times in Socratic dialogs.

Medical researchers are currently doing research regarding the human like diseases that dogs get. They are not doing research regarding the human diseases dogs do not get, and why, which would be for example clogged arteries.

A researching in their right mind would be trying to figure out why dogs do not get a certain disease. However there intention is to develop a monopoly drug from which to profit rather than health. See their consciousness produces a different type of result.

The reason dogs don’t have this problem is that they manufacture 10 grams of vitamin C for every 150 lbs. of body weight.

For the bright ones amongst you we might realize that if everyone in the US for example were to take 1 gram of vitamin three times a day it would save us billions in health care costs and would reduce your taxes dramatically eliminating the cost burden of Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact any wise corproation would sugest this to their employees to help reduce the number one corporate cost burden health care. However since people tend to elect lower consciousness beings to represent them in congress (some exceptions noted) this will never happen until your own consciousness evolves. Also the medical industry does not promote this because it would eliminate their revenue streams. But the information isn’t being kept secret! You are reading it now.

The other thought is that for all you consumers out there the cost of dieseas is added to the cost of the products you purchase. If we changed the health system the stuff you buy would be cheaper and you would have more money to spend.

What actually starts the process of clogged arteries is a lack of vitamin C or ascorbate. Technically, this is called subclinical scurvy. Tiny cracks form in the arteries due to a lack of ascorbate. The body uses cholesterol to bandage over and patch these cracks. This is a protective measure on the body's part to overcome the existence of these cracks. Otherwise, there would be internal bleeding. So it is not actually the cholesterol that starts the process of clogged arteries, it is the lack of ascorbate that begins the process of plaque being created in the arteries. Plaque is the name given to cholesterol as it builds up to cover the arterial cracks and then hardens in the arteries to form clogged arteries.

What do they tell you though? That the cause is high cholesterol … by the way vitamin C increases the volume of cholesterol that is eliminated from the body.

So imagine what happens when you take drugs that impair the bodies patching process?

Everyone want a laugh? Any scientific or news article or news that mentions “strong genes” there is no such animal and it is part of the ignorance and fiction.

I have the biochemical keys to potential immortality you could still get killed in accident. What do you think they are worth on today’s market? What would the rich pay? It’s okay I am going to give them away to the higher consciousness. In fact I have already posted the links and pathways that lead to them but they are designed to filter out the egoic mind which would never follow them.

This is all about evolution and the culling of lower consciousness from humanity. Of course there is no being doing the selection, it each individual’s choice based on where they choose to place their attention and invest their time.

If the ego is dominant in directing the placement of attention and investment of time, representing lower consciousness for example watching base fiction, sports, soap opera’s or Jerry Springer type shows, this class of being and the fictions they host will be culled from humanity over the course of several generations demonstrating natural selection in the evolution of life and consciousness.

Everyone want a laugh? Any scientific or news article or news that mentions “strong genes” there is no such animal and it is part of the ignorance and fiction.

I have the biochemical keys to potential immortality you could still get killed in accident. What do you think they are worth on today’s market? What would the rich pay? It’s okay I am going to give them away to the higher consciousness. In fact I have already posted the links and pathways that lead to them but they are designed to filter out the egoic mind which would never follow them.

This is all about evolution and the culling of lower consciousness from humanity. Of course there is no being doing the selection, it each individual’s choice based on where they choose to place their attention and invest their time.

If the ego is dominant in directing the placement of attention and investment of time, representing lower consciousness for example watching base fiction, sports, soap opera’s or Jerry Springer type shows, this class of being and the fictions they host will be culled from humanity over the course of several generations demonstrating natural selection in the evolution of life and consciousness.

Why would one go to the disease industry for health information?

Bonnie
beautiful

derek

#49 Richard Thomas

Thanks for the explanation, you fans had a minute of doubt and terror
(hi peks!)

Clarification; The reason dogs don’t have this problem is that they manufacture 10 grams of vitamin C for every 150 lbs. of body weight *each day* and more under stress.

One of the observations I brought to light decades ago is that they pump livestock full of vitamins but were telling humans they don't need them. Look at the profit centers... it explains why.

"Thanks for the explanation, you fans had a minute of doubt and terror"

You are very competitive irv... very egoist....

I thought I felt a little perky there.
Like old times.

peace bro, I bet there is much to be in AWE of where you are.

derek

Actually Irvine Paris is smart and plays the lower consciousness general population like a violin. You know the puritanical sexually repressed mind set duped into living mundane lives.

She could do a lot to bring awareness. I notice that when she was faced with jail she took a great interest in The Power of Now, the Kabbalah, Buddhism etc. part of her own evolution.

If we look deeper we realize that people of fame are a creation of the collective consciousness.

Many people are yet unable to manifest Deepak Chopra in their lives... when they get to a certain stage in their evolution they will manifest him in their consciousness.

The same way you all manifested these words.

I better go and attend to the things of the world now.

derek

It's unfinished.... just like questions :)

B

I thought I felt a little perky there.
Like old times.

peace bro, I bet there is much to be in AWE of where you are.

derek

Hey Derek, I liked your video posts :).

Bonnie
May it never end

Thanks Richard
I hope to become more comfortable with it, with seeing me talk.

derek

Thank you ruth.

B

"You are very competitive irv... very egoist...."~mani

When you use qualifications for a person in terms of spirituality keep in mind what adds to the burden of suffering and what brings alleviation or closure, what brings peacefulness in the long term, what kill the potential for endless suffering, like starting an endeavor or a relationship or a task that is beyond your competent, keep all actions, thoughts and words within the manageable consequence-wise. When your mind had gone "cat-herding" and chasing wild geese, you know it by depression and anger.
(a question?)

***

"Actually Irvine Paris is smart and plays the lower consciousness general population like a violin..." ~Richard Thomas

Of course she is.

http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2008/08/paris-hilton-outs-herself.html

As one commenter put it:

"There is a long history of smart, or at least reasonably intelligent, women playing dumb. Read some Anita Loos. Remember, for a long time women didn't have much opportunity to use their brains except in manipulating men. If playing dumb worked, then a smart woman would play dumb."

I love every post up to 72 thank you everybody. The following is just some stuff bout consciousness if anybody wants 2 read. Peace all.

I read the Questioning Consciousness http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/01/questioning_consciousness.php (concluding excerpt; “I think the plain and simple fact is that consciousness—on various levels—makes life more worth living.”) article Irvine thanks! And alright! Here is to Paris Hilton saving the world (courtesy of Richard Thomas)!

Consciousness. Hmmmm . . .

Animals “remember.” That is, they will employ the same tactics in hunting, mating, child-rearing . . .

Animals show emotions; grief, tenderness, sense of loss (this is quite interesting because this last week a neighbor who had a mom and son dogs, for some reason that I don’t why, i.e., maybe the mom dog died, but the mom dog is gone, and the poor son dog has been bellowing o so quite mournfully, it is really sad) . . .

Do animals have a sense of time I wonder . . .

Before and after . . ., reflection, hmmmm . . .

I would still be conscious if there was only I,

wouldn’t I?!?

What about language? Yet animals too have languages! Hmmmm . . . (poor puppy moaning right now . . ., so sad . . .).

And then we have Pinker’s latest book (that I know of) that I am getting at the library today [even though I am only halfway through “The Blank Slate” right now: sheesh!] and here is the Wiki entry for it:

The Stuff of Thought: Language As a Window Into Human Nature is a New York Times best-selling book by Harvard experimental psychologist Steven Pinker published in 2007. It is his fifth book on the topics of language and cognitive science written for a general audience. In it, Pinker "analyzes how our words relate to thoughts and to the world around us and reveals what this tells us about ourselves."[1] Put another way, Pinker "probes the mystery of human nature by examining how we use words".[2]
Pinker argues language provides a window on human nature, and "analyzing language can reveal what people are thinking and feeling." He asserts the idea that language must do two things:
1. convey a message to an audience, and
2. negotiate the social relationship between the speaker and the audience.
Therefore, language functions at these two levels at all times. For example, a common-place statement such as, "If you could pass the salt, that would be great," functions as both a request (though none is inherent to that statement) and a means of being polite or non-offensive (through not directing the audience to demands). Pinker says of this example:
“ It's become so common that we don't even notice that it is a philosophical rumination rather than a direct imperative. It's a bit of a social dilemma. On the one hand, you do want the salt. On the other hand, you don't want to boss people around lightly. So you split the difference by saying something that literally makes no sense while also conveying the message that you're not treating them like some kind of flunky.[3]
”
Through this lens, Pinker asks questions such as "What does the peculiar syntax of swearing tell us about ourselves?" Or put another way, "Just what does the 'fuck' in 'fuck you' actually mean?",[1] which is covered in the chapter The Seven Words You Can't Say on Television. The arguments contained within ride on the backs of his previous works, which paint human nature as having "distinct and universal properties, some of which are innate – determined at birth by genes rather than shaped primarily by environment."[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stuff_of_Thought
Here is the entry for “consciousness” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/ at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website (long, often abstruse, yet quite interesting discussion there –whew– ): excerpt; “As phenomenologists have known for more than a century, discovering the structure of conscious experience demands a rigorous inner-directed stance that is quite unlike our everyday form or self-awareness (Husserl 1929, Merleau-Ponty 1945). Skilled observation of the needed sort requires training, effort and the ability to adopt alternative perspectives on one's experience.” And here is “consciousness” at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness: excerpt; “The bilateral removal of the centromedian nucleus (part of the Intra-laminar nucleus of the Thalamus) appears to abolish consciousness, causing coma, PVS, severe mutism and other features that mimic brain death. The centromedian nucleus is also one of the principal sites of action of general anaesthetics and anti-psychotic drugs. This evidence suggests that a functioning thalamus is necessary, but not sufficient, for human consciousness.”

Yes, something more is needed indeed eh . . .

I never really thought about being conscious of thought before. At the age of 41 I am rather embarrassed to make such an admission . . ., Oh well . . ., Hmmm . . .

Are animals self-conscious?

Is the “moral sense” consciousness? No! Because the “moral sense” is naught but a social construct manufactured by those who first wanted to keep “more than” away from the other, which intensified a thousandfold with the advent of agriculture. Yeah baby! A Marxian conflict theorist to the end!!!! Hmmmm . . .

Will put these assorted thoughts in thesis form as soon as I learn more about . . .

Consciousness

Har har. All I know is that the last sentence of an nigh unintelligible entry in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy for “philosophy of mind” (“philosophy of mind.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge, 1999, pgs. 684-94.), which contains such (to just name a couple) concepts as “token epiphenomenalism,” “global supervenience thesis,” “intentional systems theory,” etc., etc., reads: “The nature of consciousness thus remains a matter of dispute.”

To say the least!

Peace

Hmmmm . . .

whatever irvine im just saying you are very competitive and egoistical.
this has nothing to do with spirituality.
the beginning of spirituality is the death of the ego.
if the consequences are that you who are blind shall begin to see then great.

Smile. Sounds like the conversation going on in One mind. The little voice that is the resultant terror of everything we have ever heard, thought, dreamed, felt, cognized, theorized, remembered or intuited, brought up again and again from a biochemically-engineered being and mass hypnosis thrombosis and symbiosis: the bicameral mind of the sleeper who awakens. Again and again.

Hi everyone. Miss me?

Love.

Vanessa

All the Seesmic video links seem to have dissolved into nothing.

A mystery?

My name has the link to the one above.

All the Deepak Chopra seesmic video links seem to have disappeared from Inten Blog.

A mystery?

My name links to this one above.

All the Seesmic video links seem to have dissolved into nothing.

A mystery?

My name has the link to the one above.

"whatever irvine im just saying you are very competitive and egoistical.
this has nothing to do with spirituality.
the beginning of spirituality is the death of the ego." ~mani

You're not sure if it is related or not then?

All the Seesmic video links seem to have dissolved into nothing.

A mystery?

My name has the link to the one above.

whatever irvine
all im saying is that your very competetive and egoist.
so...
forget about it ..I cant be bothered to competetively discuss it
with you.

Hello Vanessa! Great 2 c u back!

What in the world are you talking about Richard?!?

peace all

mani

Keep focused on your liberation, keep your eyes on it at all times, leave ppl's assumed motives where they are, outside of your scope and a source of unnecessary worries.

This is from BBC

Council ban on atheist websites

The city council said the system helped managers monitor staff web access
A city council has blocked its staff from looking at websites about atheism.

Lawyers at the National Secular Society said the move by Birmingham City Council was "discriminatory" and they would consider legal action.

The rules also ban sites that promote witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity.

The city council declined to comment on the possible legal action, but said the new system helped make it easier for managers to monitor staff web access.

'Very strong case'

The authority's Bluecoat WebFilter computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".

Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief, which includes atheism.

National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said the city council's rules also discriminated against people who practise witchcraft, which is also classed as a legitimate belief.

We feel very strongly that people who don't believe should not be denied the access that people who do believe have got

Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society

He said the society would initially contact the council and ask for the policy to be changed, and otherwise pursue legal action.

He said he believed he would have a "very strong case".

Mr Sanderson said: "It is discriminatory not only against atheists but they also are banning access to sites to do with witchcraft.

"Witchcraft these days is called Wicca, which is an actual legitimate and recognised religion.

"We feel very strongly that people who don't believe should not be denied the access that people who do believe have got."

He added that some opinion polls said that up to 25% of the UK population now considered themselves atheist.

A city council statement said the authority had a "long-standing internet usage policy for staff".

It added: "We are currently implementing new internet monitoring software to make the control of internet access easier to manage.

"The aim of this is to provide greater control for individual line managers to monitor internet usage, and for departments, such as trading standards and child protection, to gain access, if needed, to certain sites for business reasons."

Here is another what is interesting here is that England is blocking US web sites. Ironically China is not blocking these web sites they let the people there read them. Of course everyone is judging China for censorship.

I guess there is truth to the saying that we become what we judge. That in mind we should judge the rich, so we can be put in their shoes and better understand their flaws. :)

Click my name and scroll down for the full story. People in england should take notice that something is trying to keep them in the dark and controlled.

Get Outraged And Get Active About Internet Censorship


Alex’s rant, August 4, 2008.
Download a high quality WMV file here.
Check out the latest entries here.

In response to increasing flagrant attempts to censor political websites, including Infowars and Prison Planet, not in Communist China, but in the U.S. and the UK, we are running a special contest with a top prize of $5,000 in order to encourage people to get active and educate others about the growing threats to Internet freedom.

As we reported yesterday, major transportation hubs like St. Pancras International, as well as libraries, big businesses, hospitals and other public outlets that offer wi-fi Internet, are blacklisting alternative news websites and making them completely inaccessible to their users.

"Indy,

Quite funny that something only sells well when classified as higher. In that sense, a numbering system of levels of consciousness seemingly adds value." #48

It's not like Master Indy has any choice at all in the matter, they told him, Gurdjieff, fourth way, straight ahead to St Peterburg until you
hit the perspective Nievsky and he's been going ever since.

Hi Vanessa, nice verbage.

Irvine,

Still wondering, "what if... what if?"

In the meantime, till you're 70 or more, post all day every day at IB and elsewhere if it makes your "I" calm down. God knows, talk is all you are.

"You are very competitive irv... very egoist...."

Irvine is very concerned about his status here. He needs to be thought of as intellectual, spiritual, enlightened. But he can't remember himself for 5 minutes, let alone 15 minutes. He can't even remember to remember, except when reminded by somebody else... like right now.

All the bullshit notwithstanding, sleep is still sleep, and he knows it - that's why he is so concerned about his status here.

well said indy.
I just got to know him a little and he does seem full of himself...

.........Bad boy irvine! Time out for you....
and just wait till your father gets home.......

"very egoist" is very funny. As if there are varying degrees of ego, as if a person has more or
less ego than another.

It would seem that someone is having a dialog with their own self.

Hi Richard,

Aren't we all? :)

Good learning school, don't your think?

Thanks for all your efforts. I read all your entries and admire you much :)

Love,

Mieke

Hey Richard
I would love to see that on video

I'm not sure the word "try" in the phrase "trying to understand consciousness" is helpful phrasing in the question (sorry to keep knocking your questions).

If you're trying, you're trying, you're not understanding. In sentence structure, understanding is then demoted to a mere object of the preposition. It's a mere footnote to intense strain.

I can take a page from Lucid Dream training. You'd think that in a Lucid Dream, you could do absolutely anything.

You can, except you can't try. If you try to try, you either go back to sleep or wake up. Dream's over.

So...the moment you stop trying, you don't have to try anymore.

Mieke, thank you, I am still trying to figure out what compels me to write. I also wonder what compels each of you to write. Why do others not feel compelled to write? Is there something greater that compels us?

Is it the readers that actually compel the writers to write?

George Orwell said, "All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some powerful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand."

I am sure the medical industry would classify writing as a disease "writing compulsive disorder" and prescribe a Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

Why does compelled have two L's and compel only one?

Perhaps we are looking for clarity and understanding in an insane world which perhaps isn't as insane as we think from a larger perspective it all must have a reason.

CS+DDHPZ, doodleman

Amazing discussion here on "What is it about science that so enthuses all of you?":

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/hi_there_everyone.php#more

"whatever irvine
all im saying is that your very competetive and egoist.
so...
forget about it ..I cant be bothered to competetively discuss it
with you."

Conversation is combat.

There are really two ways to go at this: Kant or peek-a-boo.

What Kant, Hegal, Marx and others overlooked was humor. Probably heavy Lutheran influence. Dark oak and dark days. There's genius in a warm belly laugh.

When you watch a one year old play peek-a-boo, you're watching the Universe momentarily recognize itself.

Flash in the pan.

Shear glee.

BOO!!!!!!!!!!

See?

The Universe loves itself.

It ought to.

Yo, dana, laugh to see a pudding (Earth?) roll!
Some think me a simpleton....lol.
I gave my mom some belly wobbles even before I was conceived, certainly when she carried me....and she still does!

Where's u bin?

snd when you really see the child playing peek-a-boo, you're the universe watching the universe watching itself.

And I, in turn, see you!

Boo!

""very egoist" is very funny. As if there are varying degrees of ego, as if a person has more or less ego than another." #91

It could be argued that the act of highlighting another's faults or shortcomings is as egoistical an act as any.

In that sense, who amongst is, in this room is not "full of" his or her own opinions?

Here's a cool little video on a related subject from the people at ScienceBlogs:

Maybe we humans on ly know measurable things
http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2008/08/maybe_we_humans_know_only_meas.php

I have only time for my short answer:

I think the question needs rephrasing. In terms of the mystic, the question is "what is the experience of consciousness?"

In science the question is "what can we discover about consciousness"?

The mystic chooses the experiential, subjective path (ultimately this leads to meditation as the way to observe consciousness).

Science loves reverse engineering - what can we find out by working backwards from known effects of consciousness?

I think both approaches have validity, and each leads to a different kind of knowledge.

The pursuit of knowing how the brain processes consciousness is going to teach us a lot about ourselves, and will probably result in discoveries that improve our quality of life, our knowledge, and hopefully contribute to our wisdom.

The meditative approach will also improve our lives and add to our wisdom, but in different ways.

I think humanity needs both.

Maybe the brain is not the source of consciousness, I don't know.

But even if it isn't, increasing our understanding of how the brain processes consciousness will greatly benefit humanity.

So don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Maybe science can't explain God.

But that is not a good reason to shun science.

"It could be argued that the act of highlighting another's faults or shortcomings is as egoistical an act as any.

In that sense, who amongst is, in this room is not "full of" his or her own opinions?"

Who?
You, Mini, of course ;^)

However, from another view, all comment is criticism. Just as any statement can be argued, even "The sky is blue, the grass is green,
the water is wet."

""very egoist" is very funny. As if there are varying degrees of ego, as if a person has more or
less ego than another." #91

have you not noticed that ....
some people are not so self obsessed...
some people just care about them selves and others are more sharing!

"Who?
You, Mini, of course ;^)"

Of course!

Me, especially.

;-)

"However, from another view, all comment is criticism. Just as any statement can be argued, even "The sky is blue, the grass is green,
the water is wet."

Perhaps on some level.

I would see a distinction between the comment,

"the sky is blue"

and that of

"the sky is an ugly blue"

in that the first comment doesn't give any clue as to someone's personal preferences (ego preferences): one's likes, dislikes, expectations;

while the second one does."

Mini

"It could be argued that the act of highlighting another's faults or shortcomings is as egoistical an act as any.

In that sense, who amongst is, in this room is not "full of" his or her own opinions?"

Mini ...I totally dissagree with you...
perhaps you are his friend ...or your both into the same things...I
dont know..

you say highlighting anothers faults is egoistical...

for one faults need no highliting when they are so blaringely obvious

he's an egoist...

and what about you mini????

want to introduced yourself???????

"When you use qualifications for a person in terms of spirituality keep in mind what adds to the burden of suffering and what brings alleviation or closure, what brings peacefulness in the long term, what kill the potential for endless suffering, like starting an endeavor or a relationship or a task that is beyond your competent, keep all actions, thoughts and words within the manageable consequence-wise." Irvine Welsh

You're on the ball, honey.

Preity

"have you not noticed that ....
some people are not so self obsessed...
some people just care about them selves and others are more sharing!" mani

.......Ego either runs the show or it doesn't. There are no gradients. No 'almost there'. Some people share, some are selfish and it's all ego, all the time.

How are the words " Sky, Blue, and Ugly " any different? Because more people agree that the sky is blue? And less people agree its ugly? Do you realize that before the sky even had a name or a color, there was ego, thats what gave it " Name " do you get it?

Just keep trying your little heart out to classify EVERYTHING that seems to help, not.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, mani, over your evaluation of irvine.

I'm saying that the statement "He's an egoist" is a conclusion reached by an ego, and promoted by an ego.

I mean, what else but the ego would care whether someone was 'full on himself' or not???

"and what about you mini????

want to introduced yourself???????"

Oh, sure!

Is there something specific you would like to know?