We are not consciousness

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

There is no scientific justification whatsoever to claim that an individual is consciousness on the basis that science has no idea whatsoever what consciousness is.

The individual can control the consciousness experience any time they like.They can decide to go within and they can decide to come back out again.This act changes the consciousness state experienced from an in the moment state of consciousness to an out of the moment state of consciousness.

The individual can therefore engage with the in or out of the moment states of consciousness any time they like or they can let this engaging and disengaging happen automatically.

2

We are not consciousness.

But without consciousness we are not actually human.

3

But yet again that’s merely and atheists stab in the dark view of things.

Just because atheists claim things it doesn’t mean it’s true now does it.They used to claim that they didn’t exist until they were reminded that they needed to exist to claim that they didn’t exist for goodness sake.

Don’t forget that a breathe away from the atheists claim that we are nothing more than consciousness is their other claim that consciousness is their “hard problem” and they know “f*ck all” all about it.

Come on…be realistic….

What does an atheist know? They are last individuals to seek advise about anything.

There are 3 things to consider that are higher in the psychological hierarchy than consciousness which we all know the atheists dismiss out of hand even though they freely admit that they don’t know much at all about anything and their science can be completely dismantled and shown to be the nonsense that it is.

-I am
-Awareness
-Control

All of which have got absolutely nothing at all to do with consciousness.

4

Go further in explaining Jupiterism to the psychotic atheists, Jupiter.

How do those concepts differ from consciousness?

5

Why would we need science to tell us we are conscious when we know this directly through our own conscious experience. We can recognize that we are aware of things including our own thoughts by introspection without knowing exactly what causes consciousness. In fact before we can identify what something is we must be aware THAT it is.

Consciousness is in a special class; it is axiomatic. That means it can’t be defined in terms of more fundamental knowledge. For this reason, axiomatic concepts can only be defined ostensively, by pointing to them. Look, there it is. We do this by introspection.

6

Here’s another “psychotic atheist”, Jupiter. :rofl:

7

I see that I misread your post. I read conscious instead of consciousness. I don’t think we are ONLY consciousness nor do I think we are only matter. We are an integration of both.

8

Yes, whatever “consciousness” is, since there’s no unquestionable definition, nor a complete understanding of its nature, it’s part of us, not the totality of our beings.

9

I think that’s correct. Consciousness is a fundamental part of us. I think it is an inseparable part of us. I do however think that the definition of consciousness as awareness of some object is unquestionable since to question is a type of conscious activity involving an object.

An object being anything we are aware of or consider.

10

Consciousness is vibratory and related to the automated part of our nature.We engage with automated consciousness which is experienced as the in the moment and the out of the moment consciousness states.

We are not the in or out of the moment consciousness states.

We are either aware or unaware of each and can still the vibratory nature of consciousness by not engaging with either state.

The default state of consciousness for the I am (SELF) is the still state of consciousness.

In/out=in/out is binary.

Most individuals don’t control the consciousness experience of course and just operate automatically all the time.

11

This is the usual definition:

Consciousness is the state of being aware of oneself and one’s surroundings. It encompasses a range of subjective experiences, including thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions of the external world. Essentially, it’s your awareness of yourself and your environment.

Here’s a more detailed look:

** Subjective Experience:*

Consciousness is a subjective experience, meaning it’s unique to each individual and cannot be objectively observed or measured by others.

** Awareness of Self and World:*

It involves being aware of both internal states (thoughts, emotions) and external stimuli (sensory input from the environment).

** Different Levels of Consciousness:*

There can be different levels of consciousness, ranging from deep sleep to wakefulness and everything in between.

** Biological Basis:*

Consciousness is believed to be a complex biological process that relies on the functioning of the brain, particularly the cerebral cortex.

** Importance in Human Existence:*

Consciousness is crucial for human experience, allowing us to engage in meaningful interactions with the world, make decisions, and develop relationships.

So, if we ourselves are labelled as objects to our own consciousnesses, yes, that’s acceptable.

1 Like
12

Jupiter, however, won’t accept this definition, for it is “cognitively biased” in his mind.

13

Jupiter won’t accept atheisms definition of consciousness because it’s incorrect.

What do atheists know about consciousness.

Nothing.

As a minimum an individual is a lifeless biological machine who’s binary software computes that they exist and don’t exist.They exist.because they need to exist to claim that they don’t exist and they don’t exist because they don’t possess life.This is why they claim to be an illusion.

They don’t know how the psychological works because they don’t know how science works because they don’t know how philosophy works.

14

And he may be right. Who or what species are we to decide whether Descartes or Husserl/William James was the right approach to the proper experience of reality? Or must we or should we sort of speak, decide at last, or wait to that point when that arrives at last?

Or can we even get to that point, where our consciousness reduces (to) unconscious content?

Will we as sentient beings forget that this discussion is even worthwhile by then, and reassert our supernatural inventions for the coming good, or, alienate most everybody for the sake of someone(s)?

Just like they say that ‘it is what it is’ should satisfy everyone’s curiosity. We live in a world of hidden, mysterious unseen phenomena.

Hope no fun was spoiled during and since the last evolutionary epoch.

Let’s count the ways without sewing up metaphysics as Kant tried. Guess how many indefinite and countless cosmos are going through this timeless time as we speak of a future that never happens?

Nietzche was right on the money on this one. As soon as we speak, timelessness becomes the here and now, and we forget our mistaken idea of the differences is species within the constraints of this here planet earth.

15

Nietzsche went mad because he wasn’t in touch with reality.

1 Like
16

The point I made on PN, when discussing free-will with Big Mikey, is that any cocnept can be defined out of existence…or defined in a way that would make it impossible to exist.
Ironically, they freely CHOOSE to define the term ‘free’ in a metaphysical way, so as to make it physically impossible.

They can do the same with any cocnept.
They can define life in a way that would make our experience of life a mere illusion… ersatz life.

Instead of starting with the act, the experienced act, the phenomenon, they begin with an abstraction…that contradicts the act.

So, now we are not conscious…even if we can experience ourselves consciously…because this fool has intentionally CHOSEN a definition that negates the experience - a definition nothing real can ever match.

This is nihilism.

17

There is no such thing as nihilism.Everything has meaning.

18

Jupiter just autistically says the same axioms while he is floating in space.

Doesn’t give a background, doesn’t explain anything, doesn’t tell a story of how he ended up with his philosophy, just puts it out there with the only context being about some random atheists he may met claiming they are an illusion.

19

Nihilism uses words to disconnect from reality… he’s a classic case.
His words and how he defines them, have nothing to do with the real world, they express his personal relationship with a world he finds unbearable.

20

There are two broad categories in art…representational art, trying to represent reality as closely as possible, and expressive art, expressing the artist’s emotional reactions to the real.
Language is an art-form.
How terms are defined exposes the artist’s motives.

Case in point: how ‘free’ and ‘will’ are defined, reflects the users own motives.
Does he begin with a perceptible, independently falsifiable, phenomenon, an act, or does he begin with a text-book definition - albeit in conventional use - which begins with the supernatural, the metaphysical, what contradicts the perceptible act, claiming it is an illusion, or that appearances are superficial and meaningless.

Even the concept of ‘meaning’ has been defined in ways that make it meaningless.