Mind Expansion 101

[bohemiandonut]

Ah yes, the "Insanity Defense." What a crock of sh*t.

Sorry, but I've been crazy (ask me privately if you want details.) You are conscious. You do know it is you who is acting. There is no such thing as being controlled by something else. You are always in control. Sometimes you feel compelled to act in a strange, even irrational way, but you are always conscious of yourself.

Donut's quote - "Being conscious instead means being aware of yourself as an observer"....mad people can't be held responsible but they are aware. However, they aren't conscious, really conscious of what they're doing. So maybe being drunk falls into that category....I'm somewhat tilted in Nomas' favour.

You are not off-topic at all. I would hope you don't see the law as the ultimate autority on human psychology, as in "Oh well mad people can't be prosecuted and that must be because they are not conscious." That's called circular logic.

Why can't crazy people be prosecuted? - Because they weren't conscious of their behavior.
Really? How do you know they weren't conscious? - Because they can't be prosecuted.

See the fallacy? I hate to be so wordy, but please read this argument against Nomas' insanity defense (that is what I will call the argument for consciousness as only rational behavior from now on):

Let me try to get what you're saying: That since I can't remember making those decisions it wasn't me who was conscious while I was doing so? It was somebody else? Well, I suppose it's possible, but regardless of who was conscious at the time it was still my body, my biology and even neurology performing the actions. So if everything's biological how can you defend the idea of some other conscious being invading my own brain? That would be a real materialist no-no.

I'm not exactly trying to attack your assertion, I'm trying to change the way you see it. A good way to define consciousnes is as a link between emotions and experience. Since our experiences have so much to do with memory, as in how we choose to react to a certain situation, what I hear you saying is that if we seem to be reacting to a situation differently than we normally would, we must not be experiencing it with our normal conscious self. I don't think this is necessarily true. If it were, wouldn't there be some sort of final memory, like in the "blacking out" case, where you were last yourself, right before your actions became posessed?

Since you cannot trace back to such a memory, the reason you don't remember probably isn't a problem involving a self-departure. Rather, it's probably just because of a problem with memory. You could have been making decisions, fully conscious and lucid, but simply not storing the experience in your memory. Almost like a dream. Do you think that someone else dreams for you too? I wish I could live like that conquering consciousness for a while, and get to have people's dreams and be drunk for them! And then they have to wake up with a hangover!

You're supposed to be the pragmatist, remember?

[misombra]

"Sombra..I liked your analogy of the center and spokes..made me think, rather, of a spiral, though: Phi." nomas...

i should amend this a bit, thinking on it more. i'm thinking more of a vortex, or a helix.

also i have been thinking about consciousness and i have to agree with the mis definededness of the word. (is that even a word?)

consciousness is achieved in any state. in meditation people lose awareness of what is going on outside of them and looking into themselves. they're not losing consciousness, they're actually becoming more conscious. (i think this is what you're saying donut boy). and consciousness exists extends beyond that to a preconscious, collective conscious, etc... and i completely agree with the memory thing. having dreams is far from being unconscious, it's simply a memory thing, if anything, we're becomming more conscious in our dreams.

[bohemiandonut]

::donut smiles and bows to misombra. Sweeping his open palm across the sky he whispers...:::

"Welcome to Zen my child."

Peace

[misombra]

lol. you are so weird.

[Chlorine]

Donut----Okay, maybe the law was a bad judgement call. It's definately not the ultimate truth, but honestly, I was down to the Oxford dictionary definitions and encyclopedias, in an effort to straighten out my own thoughts.

*Waving the White flag*

[bohemiandonut]

No white flag necessary. We're all working towards some sort of truth we can all agree on, not just arguing our own postions.

Of course, surrender IS pretty sweet.

Still waiting for nomas to answer my response... Let's not let this thread die!

Hmm, I'll update soon with a temporary philosophical mind-snack until freddie can catch up.

[blue]

I passed out on nomas as soon as he arrived in to my town. I just woke up and now at wrk so im sure i will hear from him sometime today.

[nomas]

allow me to explain Blue's post first:

She didn't actually pass out ON me...she passed out in a totally different geographical location...but that's another story...

Donut..like I said..I had a whole big reply to this when the wireless connection at the hotel room gave out and I couldn't send it. DAMN THEM!!!

Anyhoot..I'll just write a lil something to keep this going:

It seems you read my posts about as carefully as I read yours...I clearly explained in my last post before this one that I'd be gone..yet you go and ***** about me not answering in other threads..and no, I'm not saying this pissed off..I think we're at a point now where we can use harder language and not be offended...just all in good fun and effective in communication as we can be. Which brings me to:

Conciousness...again..I think I read another argument back there about different interpretations as to what we mean by it. Frankly, I'm no longer sure what we're arguing here and as to what we're agreeing/disagreeing on...so to go on, can you clarify that..where you think our differences lie. And don't tell me to go back and read it because I don't have the motivation..I want to read something new..so just paraphrase what you think I'm saying that you disagree with so much. I know there are a couple of tangents and I'll address them as I see them too.

For example the argument on ignorance. I think you said that I glorify ignorance..and this is, of course, wrong. I'm sure you don't think I glorify ignorance nor do you believe I meant that...you just took my words and twisted them into something you could easily argue against...that's what I feel you did because no way do I think you think I think.....um...well, enough on that.

Sombra, what I meant by prove/disprove: When something isn't a hard fact: 1+1=2.. then there are variations on interpretations and theories. What I'm saying is..here's unless there is hard evidence..proof..then it's debateable by definition and since no one has the proof, you cannot say I'm right and you're wrong. We just believe what we believe..what's logical. This is especially true in religion, or else there wouldn't be so many religions...and in a lot of ways, this thread is connected to theology/existentialism so it's all debateable.

I'll grant you, Donut, you probably have read more/seen more about this field than I have. This is why I'm so interested...I can give you the uncontaminated/unbiased opinion and really test your understanding on this matter by having you try to explain it to a non-believer.

Freds

[bohemiandonut]

We have been aruguing about whether consciousness lives on after physical death. You are skeptical because you think that goes against a scientific standpoint, and brings in religious dogma and voodoo, but I have been trying to show that the concept of consciousness changing as opposed to disappearing actually goes hand in hand with modern science.

My main arguments were regarding drugs, dreams, and insanity, and I claim that though you might not remember how you felt during experiences involving these, you most definitely were conscious while experiencing them. Sleeping, for example, though considered by many to be a period of unconsciousness, is in reality only a different state of consciousness. You may not remember your dreams, but that doesn't mean you didn't experience them.

Death is, agreed, an entirely different matter. But if I have succeeded in proving that we are in fact conscious during those times, then we must re-examine the general opinion of consciousness. If it pervades all those aspects of existence, then death itself may just turn out to be another instance of altered consciousness.

I hope this clears up the topic of our little debate. I think we are at least coming to an agreement about the nature of consciousness, which will allow us to define it and delve deeper into related topics.

[Chlorine]

Donut----This is great. A re-cap for the chlorinated one. One thing I must ask, that I seem to have missed earlier on:

Are you suggesting that death is an altered state of consciousness? Like another deep sleep? It's an exciting thought, but what about the body. The body or shell would be long gone. Watts makes a connection between the "I" (the conscience) and the "me" (the body). One cannot live without the other.

So it would seem that, when I die, a conscious version of me is floating around.....Naaahhh?!

*furrowed brow*

[nomas]

Thanks for the recap, D.

I do have comments.

See...in your claim that insanity/dreams/drunkedness are states of a different consciousness from the traditional awake, sane, sober state: That's cool..I'll go with that for now.

BUT...

This is a lot like someone who believes you have past lives. To those who believe this I ask: "What were you in your past life, exactly?". Even if they answer something like, a dog or a tree.. Do you remember experiences during this past life. Most likely the answer is "No". What good is it then? If you cannot recall anything or if it doesn't apply to you in this current consciousness..it may as well be someone else. I want to be able to enjoy any experience in this conscious state..otherwise to me it's no good. It may as well have happened to someone else entirely. If you black out from too much alcohol/drugs and the next day you wake up and your buddies tell you that you hooked up with the best looking girl in a party but you don't recall a thing..it may as well have happened to your buddy because this current fellow has no recollection. Same with an afterlife where you are in on such "different conscious state". If there is basically no link between your current conscious...not even sharing a body at this point, then what's the use?

I know you're not argueing this point..but rather simply the existence of this consciousness and how it is preserved. It's like in "what the bleep"..what is a "thought", really? What's it made of. It's an idea we cannot scientifically identify, we have these theories that they are not quite a matter of matter, but something that kinda exists in the way we percieve them, but maybe there are these parallel universes in some ways related...do you recall that part?

And tell me again, what was that other movie you recommended..something about waking up??

Let me know.

Freddie

[bohemiandonut]

Chlor: You are correct that you missed something earlier. It is indeed worthless to speculate about an intangible soul, and all my arguments thus far have stayed strictly scientific and biological (in terms of consciousness that is.)

So then, how does one argue on a strictly biological basis that consciousness may outlast physical function? That, my friend, is where Einstein comes in. (Yes!) My theory - um... I just realized that I posted this all before (page 1) so if you don't mind I'll just quote from there:

You talk about spirit being seperate from biology. I tend to disagree with this notion. However, I do believe that a certain part of us "goes on" after death. How is this possible without an intangible soul, you ask? I'll tell you.

Think about time for a moment. Einsteinian physics are all well and good, but don't forget that our concept of time is without a doubt a product of our biology, of our brains in particular. So, imagine if death were some sort of lapse into infinite time? A personal infinite. Or to be modern, a relative infinite time. This would mean that the world we left would go on, and we would shrivel and make dust, but that moment would live on forever because we perceived it too.

Nomas: It's possible that you are right, and the experiences you had during drugs, dreams, and mental illness are worthless if you cannot remember them. But let's say you lived an entire year, and then forgot everything about it. You still would have existed during that year, and for all you know it may have affected the person you are now, even if it cannot be recalled.

Of course, this is a somewhat different subject. Death probably is a great forgetting, but I don't think it's nearly "the end."

EDIT: Oh, and the movie is "Waking Life." Definitely give it a try.