Plans for a religion

[Fixed Cross]

shadow side.jpg

http://thoughtsofamisfit.weebly.com/our ... hadow.html

Jung ... a life lived extraordinarily well. There is no end to this guys path, and it keeps getting richer. He died like Crowley died, anticipating.
Id say he is the standard for how we should approach the drive to philosophize in ourselves.

[Ecmandu]

I'm going to point out the obvious to people, though they may struggle with the idea...

Churches and marriages are stages of our and others' evolution...

We'll always have what we're true towards, which in a practical sense is mutual experiences of beauty... even those we consider wicked rely on the kindness of others to do these things... once they figure out that this is what's the important part, they begin to nurture it more and more...

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

To enter the night safely one must be tethered to mighty strong spirits

That, and spend a lot of time developing one's self where possible.
The universe is packed full of spirits. But finding a good one is up to the person in question.

Dan ... my experience tells me spirits find us ... we do not find them.

If you check out my writings on the subject "My Spiritual Family" I describe to the best of my limited capabilities how I met the spirits currently in my life. You may also note the list starts with Jesus and Mary ... followed by a community of well known Catholic Saints and ends with two non Catholic historic personages ... Mao Zedong and Lao Tzu. This confirms what I shared with you in a recent PM.

https://pilgrimtom.weebly.com/spiritual-family.html

[Ierrellus]

A religion with hope would be concerned with the ultimate destiny of Man. It would therefore be this-worldly, here and now perpetuation of ecosystems. In the past Utopias such as Brook Farm failed because nobody wanted to do the down to earth menial tasks necessary for maintenance of a viable community. I think Gaskin's Farm still prospers. The former was an ideal; the latter is a practice. A religion of the future cannot afford to be impractical.

[James S Saint]

A religion with hope would be concerned with the ultimate destiny of Man. It would therefore be this-worldly, here and now perpetuation of ecosystems. In the past Utopias such as Brook Farm failed because nobody wanted to do the down to earth menial tasks necessary for maintenance of a viable community. I think Gaskin's Farm still prospers. The former was an ideal; the latter is a practice. A religion of the future cannot afford to be impractical.

As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

A religion with hope would be concerned with the ultimate destiny of Man. It would therefore be this-worldly, here and now perpetuation of ecosystems. In the past Utopias such as Brook Farm failed because nobody wanted to do the down to earth menial tasks necessary for maintenance of a viable community. I think Gaskin's Farm still prospers. The former was an ideal; the latter is a practice. A religion of the future cannot afford to be impractical.

As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.

And when has it been any different?

What's the difference between the strategy employed by the current media and the ancient priestly class of Judaism ... why do all world religions require heresy, apostasy and so on?

[James S Saint]

As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.

And when has it been any different?

What's the difference between the strategy employed by the current media and the ancient priestly class of Judaism ... why do all world religions require heresy, apostasy and so on?

Such wasn't the point, but there have been times throughout history, far less technological times, when the general populous was far more free of Media mental oppression. Early USA was one of those times when organized propaganda Media was illegal with competition being the primary enforcer. Today, with monopolies reinstated, there is no competition, merely the feigning of it, "Let's all pretend to argue, while never mentioning the actual truth".

The point was that if you are to base your new religion upon popular beliefs, you are merely extending the current religion.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

As an issue of being practical, the current Media has control over what people believe to be hopeful and worthy of effort.

And when has it been any different?

What's the difference between the strategy employed by the current media and the ancient priestly class of Judaism ... why do all world religions require heresy, apostasy and so on?

Such wasn't the point, but there have been times throughout history, far less technological times, when the general populous was far more free of Media mental oppression. Early USA was one of those times when organized propaganda Media was illegal with competition being the primary enforcer. Today, with monopolies reinstated, there is no competition, merely the feigning of it, "Let's all pretend to argue, while never mentioning the actual truth".

The point was that if you are to base your new religion upon popular beliefs, you are merely extending the current religion.

oops

[Arcturus Descending]

gib"

Here!

Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness? I do not mean to simplify things here.

The write-up sounded made it sound really interesting.

[gib]

Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness?

Well, that's just the rub. I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being. To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am". Everything that exists, exists in virtue of experiencing its existence in some form.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness?

Well, that's just the rub. I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being. To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am". Everything that exists, exists in virtue of experiencing its existence in some form.

The reluctant saint is waking up.

[gib]

The reluctant saint is waking up.

The reluctant saint wants to hit snooze a few more times.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

The reluctant saint is waking up.

The reluctant saint wants to hit snooze a few more times.

Gib ... have you ever taken an overnight train? ... I have many times. It's impossible to sleep ... the train consistently though in an irregular pattern jerks and lurches throughout the night.

So it is on our life's journey ... some of us though we are desperate to sleep feel the jerking and lurching of the pulse of the universe. At the appointed time we wake up ... there are many ways to wake up ... though the process is fraught with peril.

[Arcturus Descending]

Can you say then in one sentence what to you produced consciousness?

Well, that's just the rub. I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being. To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am". Everything that exists, exists in virtue of experiencing its existence in some form.

Hmmm, I do not know, gib.

Here is the definition of *produced*.

pro·duce
verb
past tense: produced; past participle: produced
prəˈd(y)o͞os/Submit

1.
make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
"the company has just produced a luxury version of the aircraft"
synonyms: manufacture, make, construct, build, fabricate, put together, assemble, turn out, create; More
2.
cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.
"no conventional drugs had produced any significant change"
synonyms: give rise to, bring about, cause, occasion, generate, engender, lead to, result in, effect, induce, set off;


I would have, from the above definition, no problem with thinking that consciousness can, in a large sense, be produced - especially the first one...from components and raw materials..if we stretch our imaginations insofar as what those components and raw materials would include. I do not think that consciousness came from absolutely nothing.

I don't think consciousness is "produced" at all. I think it is the foundation of being.

Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are.
I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.

To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am"

As self-awareness or did you mean something different?


Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.

The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing.
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?

Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).

If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?

[gib]

Hmmm, I do not know, gib.

No... no you do not.

Here is the definition of *produced*.

pro·duce
verb
past tense: produced; past participle: produced
prəˈd(y)o͞os/Submit

1.
make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
"the company has just produced a luxury version of the aircraft"
synonyms: manufacture, make, construct, build, fabricate, put together, assemble, turn out, create; More
2.
cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.
"no conventional drugs had produced any significant change"
synonyms: give rise to, bring about, cause, occasion, generate, engender, lead to, result in, effect, induce, set off;

Ffffascinating!

I would have, from the above definition, no problem with thinking that consciousness can, in a large sense, be produced - especially the first one...from components and raw materials..if we stretch our imaginations insofar as what those components and raw materials would include. Like brains? I do not think that consciousness came from absolutely nothing.

Neither do I. I don't think there ever was nothing.

I completely get where you're coming from. I remember being of the same mindset myself when I was younger, so I understand that what you're saying makes sense, has a certain logic to it. We're all taught, in this scientific/materialistic age--we in the West--that the brain is what produces consciousness and all our subjective experiences. I was a victim of this too once. Oh, the scares that it has left me.

So it isn't a question of having a problem with understanding this perspective. But even within this perspective, the question of how consciousness is produced by the brain is still unanswered (isn't it?). It can even lead to paradoxes within philosophy, or at least absurdities.

Anyway, that's not the point. I simply have an understanding that consciousness just is being. If I were to translate this into philosophical terms, it might be: the philosophical branch of ontology and the philosophical branch of consciousness are one and the same. <-- That's my one contribution to philosophy! No more! No less! Finito! I can die!

If I were to translate this into metaphorical terms, I'd say this: if existence were a cloth, consciousness would also be this cloth. You, Arc, are an individuated being, a garment cut out of this cloth--or at least you are the region marked out by a pen on this cloth, a design for a garment, that someone thinks (probably you) they can cut out and separate from the rest.

Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are. This is one of the rare occassions where you're not wrong. I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.

Evolution has its place in existence (obviously), and the role it plays in forming human consciousness is to give us the particular kinds of experience we have. For example, color perception. Other animals do not have this. Other animals aren't even "animals"--some are plants--certainly with no color vision (not that I'm aware of anyway). But consciousness--Consciousness writ large, that is, with the capital 'C'--can be played out this way. It can be played out like a rubix cube or a game of shuffle--various combinations and permutations, and many, many qualities. <-- That's what evolution produces! The next, most 'fit', combination. The next, most 'fit', permutation of qualia that are required for the organism's survival in its current environment.

IOW, consciousness is never "produced" per se, but just needs to be constantly reconfigured and recombined such that the organism is only ever aware of what it needs to be aware of in order to survive. <-- William James wrote a lot about this.

I also get a sense from what you said that you're putting the horse before the carte. You seem to think that even if consciousness wasn't ever produced, there would still be a time 'before' consciousness. And then you ask, what happened at the moment when, all of a sudden *POP!!!*, consciousness magically appeared? But have you considered that, as the foundation of being, time resides within consciousness, not the other way around?

To experience conscious is simply what it is to be. It is the experience of "here I am" or just "I am"

As self-awareness or did you mean something different?

Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.

Right you are! At this point, it's difficult to say. At this point, we really have to distinguish in the phrase "I am" what's of greater import? 'I' or 'am'. It might not surprise you, knowing that I'm partial to Eastern philosophy, that the 'I' is particular to human consciousness, so if we are to transcend human consciousness to universal consciousness, then the 'I' (at least at this point in the conversation) must go--that leaves us with 'am'. <-- Or essentially: "there is existence".

^ This single awareness is existence. It is, in the utmost sense, self-awareness--self-awareness as existence.

The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. Oh, I *implied* it, did I? And you're not even going to provide a link? So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing.
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?

It's hard to say without the link, Arc.

But yeah, in general, consciousness is always about "there is" (the 'I' sometimes pays us the occasional visit). If we're talking about the consciousness of a particular being (not the universe), then we have to add a variable which can differ from particular being to particular being, so we'd say "there is X". Sometimes, X = I.

Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).

Huh? I did?

There is no cause of consciousness. It is the "first principle"--so to speak. Although, there is a cause of human consciousness, but we discussed that already in our talk about evolution.

If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?

Absolutely!!! But that's a big IF--I don't think consciousness did suddenly appear on the horizon. I think the horizon suddenly appeared in consciousness.

[Arcturus Descending]

gib wrote:

-we in the West--that the brain is what produces consciousness and all our subjective experiences. I was a victim of this too once. Oh, the scares that it has left me.

So what are you saying here, gib? That the brain has no part in producing consciousness?
Ask yourself this question?
Who and what would you be without a brain?

So it isn't a question of having a problem with understanding this perspective. But even within this perspective, the question of how consciousness is produced by the brain is still unanswered (isn't it?). It can even lead to paradoxes within philosophy, or at least absurdities.

Yes, it is still unanswered. But humans keep trying.

Anyway, that's not the point. I simply have an understanding that consciousness just is being.

Your statement still seems too simplistic to me.
Are rocks included in this *being* of yours?

If I were to translate this into philosophical terms, it might be: the philosophical branch of ontology and the philosophical branch of consciousness are one and the same. <-- That's my one contribution to philosophy! No more! No less! Finito! I can die!

Very large strokes taken there.
Have a good rest.

If I were to translate this into metaphorical terms, I'd say this: if existence were a cloth, consciousness would also be this cloth.

I will have to think about that one. Something doesn't seem to jive there for me.
You do not seem to be making a distinction between them.

You, Arc, are an individuated being, a garment cut out of this cloth--or at least you are the region marked out by a pen on this cloth, a design for a garment, that someone thinks (probably you) they can cut out and separate from the rest.

Normally there is a set pattern and design. Eventually, I then become a replication which then sets out on its own and separates from the rest. Call it consciousness, the Self, the I.

Arcturus Descending

Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are.

This is one of the rare occassions where you're not wrong.

That is just your own subjective thinking, gib. I am very often right about a great deal of things and very often wrong about a great deal of things. I am human, after all.
Do you speak to or about your children in the same way you casually spoke of me while I was in the room. I certainly hope not. It would not be conducive to building self-esteem in their impressionable minds.

I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.

Evolution has its place in existence (obviously), and the role it plays in forming human consciousness is to give us the particular kinds of experience we have.

True ~~ separating from the rest.

For example, color perception. Other animals do not have this. Other animals aren't even "animals"--some are plants--certainly with no color vision (not that I'm aware of anyway).

Is color perception the same as color vision to you? It is and there are some animals who do have it though not as good as we do.

But consciousness--Consciousness writ large, that is, with the capital 'C'--can be played out this way. It can be played out like a rubix cube or a game of shuffle--various combinations and permutations, and many, many qualities. <-- That's what evolution produces! The next, most 'fit', combination. The next, most 'fit', permutation of qualia that are required for the organism's survival in its current environment.

Yes, isn't it amazing!

IOW, consciousness is never "produced" per se, but just needs to be constantly reconfigured and recombined such that the organism is only ever aware of what it needs to be aware of in order to survive. <-- William James wrote a lot about this.

I do not see this as being true but perhaps I am a bit biased. This quote seems to say that consciousness cannot actually evolve or become better than it was. Perhaps I am misunderstanding James' quote but if I am, I will leave it to you to explain it to me.

I also get a sense from what you said that you're putting the horse before the carte. You seem to think that even if consciousness wasn't ever produced, there would still be a time 'before' consciousness.

I suppose that this depends on how someone looks at something. I might say that consciousness at some point came into *production* as I said existence and evolved.
I do not see your last line as being such an easy thing to explain.
That reminds me of the question: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise? At least to me it reminds me of that.

I would intuitively say that there was a *time* before consciousness. Long before that time, there was the existence of other things. It might be arrogant to say that time did not exist before humans evolved consciousness and ego just as it is arrogant of some to assume that animals have no emotions.

Time is a fascinating subject when one thinks of it. There is a book which I came across while in Barnes & Noble. It is called Of Time and Lamentation by Raymond Tallis. I plan to buy it at some point and read it. I scanned it while I was there and it whet my appetite for more.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ime-future

And then you ask, what happened at the moment when, all of a sudden *POP!!!*, consciousness magically appeared?

I was waxing poetic then. I do not think in terms of consciousness magically appearing on the horizon all of a sudden just as many things which seem to have simply appeared did not just appear. Evolution doesn't work that way.

But have you considered that, as the foundation of being, time resides within consciousness, not the other way around?

Good question. Time as we know it is a human construct so yes, in a sense, I can see how time would be a part of our consciousness, our awareness. Aside from that, honestly, I am not sure how to answer that question.
But perhaps I can just as easily say that consciousness resides within time.
Which came first? Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.

Right you are! At this point, it's difficult to say. At this point, we really have to distinguish in the phrase "I am" what's of greater import? 'I' or 'am'. It might not surprise you, knowing that I'm partial to Eastern philosophy, that the 'I' is particular to human consciousness, so if we are to transcend human consciousness to universal consciousness, then the 'I' (at least at this point in the conversation) must go--that leaves us with 'am'. <-- Or essentially: "there is existence"

The *I Am* is also part of human consciousness, gib. Without the ability to affirm that, where does individual existence go?
Does *universal consciousness* necessarily leave us without our selves?
Who would want to be part of the Borg or part of the herd?
Why do people think that there is such a negative to the *I*?

For what particular reason would we want to transcend human consciousness? I really would like to know?

Arcturus Descending"]The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. Oh, I *implied* it, did I? And you're not even going to provide a link?

No, you actually did not imply it. I do not have to provide a link since you know what I am talking about. I prefer not to shine such a light on it - as you did. As far as I am concerned, it wasn't one of your better moments - at least not to my way of thinking but of course I am being subjective here.

So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing.
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?

It's hard to say without the link, Arc.

Memory already failing you gib?

Arcturus Descending"]Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).

Huh? I did?

Why write a book, gib, if what you write is no different then any other of the million (hyperbole) theories or hypotheses that are roaming the world?

There is no cause of consciousness. It is the "first principle"--so to speak. Although, there is a cause of human consciousness, but we discussed that already in our talk about evolution.

You might want to define what you mean by *cause* here, gib.
Did you mean to say that scientists have not yet determined or come to something concrete about the cause of consciousness?

Arcturus Descending"]If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?

Absolutely!!! But that's a big IF--I don't think consciousness did suddenly appear on the horizon. quote]

As I mentioned somewhere above, for me, it didn't just appear though there would be I suppose or possibly be some signs and sense of it in beings.

I think the horizon suddenly appeared in consciousness.

I cannot imagine what that first conscious moment would have felt like to a being.
I will leave it at that.

[gib]

Arc, I realize in our last exchange that I'm leaving out a vital part of my views: By "universal consciousness," I mean that everything in the universe is conscious--and by that, I mean that everything experiences. So when I talk about "human consciounsess," I'm talking about the experience that are specifically associated with the human brain. But I don't think that experience stops at the boundaries of the brain. I thinks rocks experience. I think tree and rivers experience. I think galaxies experience. I think atoms experience. Universal consciousness is the sum total of all experiences going on in the universe, which include human consciousness, but so much more. <-- That I hope adds some perspective that might help you understand where I'm coming from.

gib wrote:

-we in the West--that the brain is what produces consciousness and all our subjective experiences. I was a victim of this too once. Oh, the scares that it has left me.

So what are you saying here, gib? That the brain has no part in producing consciousness?
Ask yourself this question?
Who and what would you be without a brain?

An incorporeal spirit halucinating brains?

But seriously, I didn't say the brain plays no part in consciousness, just that it's job isn't to produce consciousness. The brain is a representation of our consciousness. Think of it this way: we only know the brain from our sensory experiences of it--we see this grey, mushy, foldy, slimy block of matter--but this means that we only know the brain from the qualities given to us through sensory experience. A different animal, who evolved to have totally different kinds of sensory experiences, might experience the brain to be an entirely different kind of entity. What is the brain really? What is it apart from how we sense it? My answer is: it is just the subjective experience we have from a first person point of view. It is our thoughts, our emotions, our sensory experiences, and everything else we experience from our own minds. These experience get translated from one mind to another (via the universe) in the form of sensory information. So when I look at another person's brain, I'm really seeing their mind except that it has been translated into the form of a sensory experience, which happens to take the form of a grey, mushy, foldy, slimy block of matter. In other words, the brain isn't really there as such, but the mind is there and it spawns a physical representation of itself that takes the form of a brain in someone else's sensory experience. The brain is produced by the mind, not the other way around.

So it isn't a question of having a problem with understanding this perspective. But even within this perspective, the question of how consciousness is produced by the brain is still unanswered (isn't it?). It can even lead to paradoxes within philosophy, or at least absurdities.

Yes, it is still unanswered. But humans keep trying.

Anyway, that's not the point. I simply have an understanding that consciousness just is being.

Your statement still seems too simplistic to me.
Are rocks included in this *being* of yours?

Well, given what I said above--that all things experience--what do you think? Yes, I think rocks experience, though I don't think there's much to their experience--a steady buzz, I predict.

If I were to translate this into philosophical terms, it might be: the philosophical branch of ontology and the philosophical branch of consciousness are one and the same. <-- That's my one contribution to philosophy! No more! No less! Finito! I can die!

Very large strokes taken there.
Have a good rest.

If I were to translate this into metaphorical terms, I'd say this: if existence were a cloth, consciousness would also be this cloth.

I will have to think about that one. Something doesn't seem to jive there for me.
You do not seem to be making a distinction between them.

No I'm not. Material reality is an instance of consciousness, not a separate category.

You, Arc, are an individuated being, a garment cut out of this cloth--or at least you are the region marked out by a pen on this cloth, a design for a garment, that someone thinks (probably you) they can cut out and separate from the rest.

Normally there is a set pattern and design. Eventually, I then become a replication which then sets out on its own and separates from the rest. Call it consciousness, the Self, the I.

Arcturus Descending

You are a tree that has sprouted out from the ground, but you are still rooted in the Earth.

Is consciousness as being *produced* and as being the *foundation of being* necessarily exclusive? I may be wrong but I am not so sure that they are.

This is one of the rare occassions where you're not wrong.

That is just your own subjective thinking, gib. I am very often right about a great deal of things and very often wrong about a great deal of things. I am human, after all.
Do you speak to or about your children in the same way you casually spoke of me while I was in the room. I certainly hope not. It would not be conducive to building self-esteem in their impressionable minds.

Do you need me to help you with your self-esteem? You know I'm teasing, right Arc? No, I would never talk to my children like this (don't know why you made that association).

I think that in a way consciousness/conscious as being produced means the same as human evolution.
Did life on Earth begin with consciousness or is it something which eventually at some point came into existence and has been evolving since then.

The forms of consciousness we know of came into existence from evolution, but given what I said above about universal consciousness, you should be able to surmise my answer to this question.

Is color perception the same as color vision to you? Yes. It is and there are some animals who do have it though not as good as we do.

And some animals which don't have it at all.

But consciousness--Consciousness writ large, that is, with the capital 'C'--can be played out this way. It can be played out like a rubix cube or a game of shuffle--various combinations and permutations, and many, many qualities. <-- That's what evolution produces! The next, most 'fit', combination. The next, most 'fit', permutation of qualia that are required for the organism's survival in its current environment.

Yes, isn't it amazing!

Yes, and very economical.

IOW, consciousness is never "produced" per se, but just needs to be constantly reconfigured and recombined such that the organism is only ever aware of what it needs to be aware of in order to survive. <-- William James wrote a lot about this.

I do not see this as being true but perhaps I am a bit biased. This quote seems to say that consciousness cannot actually evolve or become better than it was. Perhaps I am misunderstanding James' quote but if I am, I will leave it to you to explain it to me.

It's not a direct quote. James is just a good source to learn more about this perspective. It doesn't mean that consciousness cannot grow or evolve, just that our genes place limits on what consciousness can experience. We are genetically predisposed to experience color vision, for example, but we will never learn to perceive colors beyond the roygbiv spectrum. But evolution continues to occur even within a certain "fixed" genetic configuration. We evolve as indivuals, even as societies, and certainly we can expand our consciousness to become more aware of the details of our reality and many of the things in our reality far off in the distance.

I also get a sense from what you said that you're putting the horse before the carte. You seem to think that even if consciousness wasn't ever produced, there would still be a time 'before' consciousness.

I suppose that this depends on how someone looks at something. I might say that consciousness at some point came into *production* as I said existence and evolved.
I do not see your last line as being such an easy thing to explain.
That reminds me of the question: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise? At least to me it reminds me of that.

I would intuitively say that there was a *time* before consciousness. Long before that time, there was the existence of other things. It might be arrogant to say that time did not exist before humans evolved consciousness and ego just as it is arrogant of some to assume that animals have no emotions.

This makes sense for human consciousness, the specific configuration of experience that we have. But if you buy my theory that everything experiences, then consciousness must have been there since the beginning. Before human consciousness, it simply took a different form. In general, material existence itself is based on this ubiquitous eternal consciousness, even the so-called 'beginning' of time.

Time is a fascinating subject when one thinks of it. There is a book which I came across while in Barnes & Noble. It is called Of Time and Lamentation by Raymond Tallis. I plan to buy it at some point and read it. I scanned it while I was there and it whet my appetite for more.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ime-future

And then you ask, what happened at the moment when, all of a sudden *POP!!!*, consciousness magically appeared?

I was waxing poetic then. I do not think in terms of consciousness magically appearing on the horizon all of a sudden just as many things which seem to have simply appeared did not just appear. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Understood, but that doesn't really make a difference--whether consciousness "POPPED!!!" into existence or slowly evolved, there was a point when consciousness didn't exist, and the question remains: how did it come to be? For me, who thinks consciousness is the foundation of existence, this question doesn't really have a place.

But have you considered that, as the foundation of being, time resides within consciousness, not the other way around?

Good question. Time as we know it is a human construct so yes, in a sense, I can see how time would be a part of our consciousness, our awareness. Aside from that, honestly, I am not sure how to answer that question.
But perhaps I can just as easily say that consciousness resides within time.
Which came first? Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

You're on the right track in recognizing time as a human construct. That doesn't mean, however, that it's as simple as saying: time doesn't really exist. Just as matter and physics is a sensory representation of other minds outside our own (not always those of other human beings), time as we experience it is also a representation of something outside our minds. What time as we experience it represents is the order of experience that the universe is having, an order that is necessary for one experience to lead to the next. Take logical thinking for example. When I say: there are two chickens in this coup, and there are three chickens in that coup, then there are five chickens all together, you see that there is an order to these thoughts (thoughts are a brand of experience). I must first recognize that there are two chickens in one coup and that there are three chickens in the other coup before I can conclude that there are five chickens all together. But also, you'll notice that this order is a temporal one. The reocgnize that there are two chickens and three chickens must come first in time before the conclusion, which came after in time, can be reached. Time, as we experience it, is a representation of this order--the order, that is, of which experiences (in this case, thoughts) must come first before other experience can be had. But as you see, these experience are just facts--it happens to be a fact that there are two chickens in one coup and three chickens in another coup, and that there are five chickens all together. These are facts all at the same time--it's not like one becomes fact first, and only afterwards in time the other becomes a fact--facts are facts in a timeless sense. Just the same, there is a certain order to the experiences the universe is having which is not temporal--they do not depend on the passage of time in order to be had--but this order can be represented as a temporal sequence, and is represented as such to human consciousness.

In short, universal consciousness is full to the brim with a diversity of qualitative experiences, most of which are atemporal--it's all being experienced at once--but among these experience is that of time, in within that experience, other experiences can fit in and be separated out.

Wouldn't you say that it goes more than a step further than that? Part of that means to be able to know who the *I* is and to be able to express that - not simply that I exist. Am I wrong there? I am really asking.

Right you are! At this point, it's difficult to say. At this point, we really have to distinguish in the phrase "I am" what's of greater import? 'I' or 'am'. It might not surprise you, knowing that I'm partial to Eastern philosophy, that the 'I' is particular to human consciousness, so if we are to transcend human consciousness to universal consciousness, then the 'I' (at least at this point in the conversation) must go--that leaves us with 'am'. <-- Or essentially: "there is existence"

The *I Am* is also part of human consciousness, gib. Without the ability to affirm that, where does individual existence go?
Does *universal consciousness* necessarily leave us without our selves?
Who would want to be part of the Borg or part of the herd?
Why do people think that there is such a negative to the *I*?

The 'I' doesn't cease to exist with universal consciousness--it's still there among the fray--but I'm saying that in order to understand how consciousness relates to existence--that is, Existence--we really have to talk about universe consciousness (which, as you now know based on my theory, means the sum of all experience being had by the universe, which includes the 'I' of human consciousness but also trascends it). At the level of universal consciousness--i.e. what the universe is experience--there isn't necessarily an 'I' (but what do I know about what the universe experiences) but there is certainly (at least according to my theory) the experience of "there is existence". If you break down this experience into its variegated parts, you will find many, many 'I's--you and me and everyone else--but there are so many other instances of consciousness that don't feature an 'I'--and I'm not sure the universe itself experiences itself as an 'I' per se.

For what particular reason would we want to transcend human consciousness? I really would like to know?

This isn't some kind of imperative. There's no reason we need to or should want to. I just bring the topic onto universal consciousness because it's easier from that vantage point to understanding the link between consciousness and existence.

The other day you casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned. Oh, I *implied* it, did I? And you're not even going to provide a link?

No, you actually did not imply it. I do not have to provide a link since you know what I am talking about. <-- No, I actually don't. I prefer not to shine such a light on it - as you did. As far as I am concerned, it wasn't one of your better moments - at least not to my way of thinking but of course I am being subjective here.

I have many, many moments like that. It's very rare that I have a "better" ones. But seriously, you told me that "the other day I casually implied *consciousness* with reference to something that was mentioned." <-- Gee, that really narrows it down. That describes half the post I make here at ILP.

But no bother. It doesn't surprise me that I might have talked about consciousness in a way that's inconsistent with other things I've said about consciousness. Guilty as charge (even though I'm sure what I'm being charged with). If you can find the quote, you can bask in the satisfaction that you will have truly embarassed me. <-- Is that motivation enough?

So what are you saying here - that your form of consciousness which you implied was simply about *here I am* or just *I am*. If that was the case, then in my book, you were making much to do about almost nothing.
Is that the equivalent of consciousness to you or a conscious being?

It's hard to say without the link, Arc.

Memory already failing you gib?

Yes Arc, I need your help. Seems my memory isn't that of an elephant after all. *pffft!*

Arcturus Descending"]Okay - so then, what is it in your estimation that is the cause of consciousness? You said that it was different than that which was previously thought of (paraphrasing).

Huh? I did?

Why write a book, gib, if what you write is no different then any other of the million (hyperbole) theories or hypotheses that are roaming the world?

Oh, my book! Well, that adds context! <-- Thanks Arc! In this thread, I am speaking in the context of my book. Maybe elsewhere I spoke of consciousness in some other context (I will do that). In my book, I clearly lay out the nature of consciousness in such a way that it is not "caused" per se, though the specific forms of consciousness found in this or that being are caused by the forms of consciousness that come prior to it. This has to do with the order of experiences I describe above (the chicken coup example). Some form of consciousness prior to human consciousness gives way to the experiences we have in human consciousness.

There is no cause of consciousness. It is the "first principle"--so to speak. Although, there is a cause of human consciousness, but we discussed that already in our talk about evolution.

You might want to define what you mean by *cause* here, gib. Entailment.
Did you mean to say that scientists have not yet determined or come to something concrete about the cause of consciousness?

Not exactly. Scientists have have come to the conclusion that the brain causes consciousness. They're wrong. At least according to my oh-so-humble opinion.

Keep in mind, however, that when scientists say that the brain causes consciousness, they're speaking as philosophers, not scientists. There are no scientific experiments on record which conclusively determine that the brain causes consciousness. It's just that we take it for granted that: 1) consciousness is a phenomenon that exists in reality, and that 2) its existence is limited to human beings and other animals. It makes sense, based on this, that something within human beings and other animals is responsible for producing consciousness. <-- This is the assumption that scientists run with, and when they go about trying to identify the source of consciousness, they naturally focus on the brain. But that the brain is in fact producing consciousness is not one of the discoveries of science, but merely how this preconceived assumption gets narrowed down in light of the discoveries scientists have made about the workings of the brain. But strictly speaking, we can only ever know that subjective experience is correlated with brain activity, but we don't know in which direction, if any, the correlation works in a causal sense. If scientists want to say that causally, the correlation works from the brain to consciousness, that's a philosophical leap (and we'd call these scientists "materialists"), but when you step beyond science into philosophy, all bets are off as far as scientific proof goes. It's fair game for other philosophers with different persuasions (like myself) to suggest competing theories.

If it just suddenly appeared on the horizon, that could also be seen as human evolution, yes?

Absolutely!!! But that's a big IF--I don't think consciousness did suddenly appear on the horizon.

As I mentioned somewhere above, for me, it didn't just appear though there would be I suppose or possibly be some signs and sense of it in beings.

Of course!

I think the horizon suddenly appeared in consciousness.

I cannot imagine what that first conscious moment would have felt like to a being.
I will leave it at that.

Neither can I, but I surmise it would have had a sense of timelessness.

[Dan~]

It's a good idea to distrust power and authority.
It's a good idea to view gods and God with distrust.

[Dan~]

In the first steps of human life, we directly copy things and are not very original.
Later there comes a time when we must re-evaluate our life.
This time we become a philosopher of life and try to figure out what we are and what we aught to do.
To forsake this process is dangerous.

[Karpel Tunnel]

In the first steps of human life, we directly copy things and are not very original.

My experience of young children is actually that they all are original, in some ways. The ways they decide to move their bodies when happy or curious or angry. The interesting phrases they come up with, sometimes through error, but sometimes just expressing in their own way. I see them pressed into copies, often. What is not normal is whittled away or punished or rewarded away. As they get older they participate more actively in overriding themselves to make themselves into copies. Of course children mimic adults and copy, but later this becomes more actively against the grain of their own impulses and styles.

Later there comes a time when we must re-evaluate our life.

And sometimes this re-evaluation leads to the idea that it is not only learning one wants to do, but perhaps even more importantly unlearning. Even at basic levels like how one can re-allow spontaneous movement and expression of emotions. To unwhittle the full self from the much smaller carving.

This time we become a philosopher of life and try to figure out what we are and what we aught to do.

And undo.

To forsake this process is dangerous.

And to follow it is dangerous. If only there was single safety to pursue and one choice to lead to it.

[Dan~]

Is it your default desire to contradict what people say?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Is it your default desire to contradict what people say?

Not in in-person interactions in general. In philosophy forums I lean that way, yes. I've learned a lot through exploring differences, right off the bat I have to figure out why I think the way I do, then after why they think they way they do, and then seeing what happens when the ideas and experiences contrast. Not the only way, but I've found it useful.

Ignore it if you dislike it. Perhaps someone else will respond to me.

[Ierrellus]

"Opposition is true friendship."--Wm. Blake

[gib]

Opposition is so much easier on internet forums. You don't have to worry about awkwardness. You don't have to look the other person in the eye. You don't have to worry about dishing up immediate responses. When the guy you're talking to comes back at you with a good zinger, in person you have to whip up a response right there on the spot. On the internet, you have all the time in the world to think of a response. And when you do respond, you can review, proof read, re-write, to your heart's content, before you hit submit. This is why people feel so much more comfortable being oppositional online than in person, and is the reason we see so much more animosity online than in person.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I guess, Dan, I see my post above as not having any zingers in it and certainly the kind of response I would make to those ideas if I was in person with someone, looking them in the eye. I don't think it showed animosity and could have been part of a respectful discussion of ideas relevant to the post I responded to. It also was not ad hom, which your post was, in question form.

But, as said, people can just ignore my post, if it seems offensive to them, and continue to discuss Dan's ideas the way they would like to.