Can you define what you mean by "ego" here. Are you meaning the Self? That you refer to this existing beneath instinct is what is throwing me off here.
My understanding is that farfromglorified recognizes an "entity" exists without an ego, just not a conscious awareness of one's "entity-hood"--also known as the sense of "I". Or the sense of awareness that gives rise to reflecting on one's actions, past, future or sense of mortality, etc.
right. some entities certainly exist without ego, and they live by instinct (this is what i was taking from ffg's comments). i was trying to touch on the fact that even with a sense of ego there are instincts which function above and beyond consciousness,.. say, how wide one smiles at a stranger in line for groceries, or perhaps grins wryly,....
i dont believe in total-consciousness, so "instinctuality" is a very important element of life in my view of Nature.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
right. some entities certainly exist without ego, and they live by instinct (this is what i was taking from ffg's comments). i was trying to touch on the fact that even with a sense of ego there are instincts which function above and beyond consciousness,.. say, how wide one smiles at a stranger in line for groceries, or perhaps grins wryly,....
i dont believe in total-consciousness, so "instinctuality" is a very important element of life in my view of Nature.
I'm not sure what you mean by total-consciousness. I do very much believe instinctive aspects of ourselves to be a very important element.
I believe in integration, so I'm not one to value the consciousness over subconsciousness or superconsciousness. The way I see it the subconscious and superconscious perceive without an individual sense of "I"--or separateness. As a matter of fact, that's why we would do well not to downgrade others--because our own subconsious takes everything as though it were true for us. It doesn't judge. It cannot perceive that we are talking to the other guy.
I like the way you say the instinctiveness operates above and beyond consciousness. In western culture, we often prioritize the self-awareness part, and yet I agree with you. The instinctual aspects beyond our waking "I" awareness is much more fundamental in our brain development. Apparently, the ego that most people think of as the "self" is the tip of the iceberg of what the Self is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Allow me to add here. I agree with you. We are wired to find purpose or causality.
This is exactly why we find that we live in a causal environment--because the perceptions we are wired with tell us to find causality. What onelongsong and myself are pointing out is beyond that stuff, beyond the causality, we have the big picture. We have reality. We have what exists beyond the illusions. There we find the Self and our life blueprint. When we tap into and become one with our blueprint, then everything makes sense. As I mentioned yesterday, apparently few people are freed up enough to find what's consider our authentic nature--the Self with a capital 'S'.
I wonder if you recognize the irony of saying we are wired to find causality. And then proceeding to say this is a causal universe we live in.
edit: please pardon me for bringing into this discussion the onelongsong stuff from the other thread.
That's megalomaniacal.
You do not know with absolute certainty that the natural behavior of the human species is flawed and that your personal experiences and feelings are not illusory.
Your whole line of thought on this topic is absurd.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not sure what you mean by total-consciousness. I do very much believe instinctive aspects of ourselves to be a very important element.
I believe in integration, so I'm not one to value the consciousness over subconsciousness or superconsciousness. The way I see it the subconscious and superconscious perceive without an individual sense of "I"--or separateness. As a matter of fact, that's why we would do well not to downgrade others--because our own subconsious takes everything as though it were true for us. It doesn't judge. It cannot perceive that we are talking to the other guy.
I like the way you say the instinctiveness operates above and beyond consciousness. In western culture, we often prioritize the self-awareness part, and yet I agree with you. The instinctual aspects beyond our waking "I" awareness is much more fundamental in our brain development. Apparently, the ego that most people think of as the "self" is the tip of the iceberg of what the Self is.
wonderful. this last part of what you've said here is what i was getting at with "total-consciousness",.. in that we can never know everything, even about ourselves--our "selfs", or 'egos'.
i find myself to be much more effective as an individual when supranatural processes are entered into participation with my consciousness--i mean, i can try to think before i act and make the right choice, and in fact i always do (unfortunately, as i am alluding here,..),... but i'm just wrong so often that there has to be a better way, or multiple better ways,....
"thou who follows the stomach may become lost often, but will certainly eat well."
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You do not know with absolute certainty that the natural behavior of the human species is flawed and that your personal experiences and feelings are not illusory.
Your whole line of thought on this topic is absurd.
You were the one who said we are wired to find purpose or causality. I by no means believe that it is a flaw that we are wired to find causality. I believe that our being wired that way is for a natural purpose. What I am saying is that for us to confuse our idea of what the purpose is, with the actual universal purpose would be truly megalomaniacal. Especially given that our view of what is, and our understandings of what happen come from our brain wiring itself, and not necessarily from tapping into the true nature of what exists.
It seems you are confusing what I said about 'illusions' as meaning flawed. I believe the illusions are a perfect part of nature, too, pertaining to our each perfect evolutionary place. Just as you or I trying to awaken people from their illusions is also perfect in the grand scheme of things.
I know you agree with me, and that you also agree with farfromglorified. What's happening that seems like disagreement is miscommunication again.
For the computer to assume it understands the programmer can be illusory.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You were the one who said we are wired to find purpose or causality. I by no means believe that it is a flaw that we are wired to find causality. I believe that our being wired that way is for a natural purpose. What I am saying is that for us to confuse our idea of what the purpose is, with the actual universal purpose would be truly megalomaniacal. Especially given that our view of what is, and our understandings of what happen come from our brain wiring itself, and not necessarily from tapping into the true nature of what exists.
It seems you are confusing what I said about 'illusions' as meaning flawed. I believe the illusions are a perfect part of nature, too, pertaining to our each perfect evolutionary place. Just as you or I trying to awaken people from their illusions is also perfect in the grand scheme of things.
I know you agree with me, and that you also agree with farfromglorified. What's happening that seems like disagreement is miscommunication again.
For the computer to assume it understands the programmer can be illusory.
On this, I don't think we agree.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
wonderful. this last part of what you've said here is what i was getting at with "total-consciousness",.. in that we can never know everything, even about ourselves--our "selfs", or 'egos'.
i find myself to be much more effective as an individual when supranatural processes are entered into participation with my consciousness--i mean, i can try to think before i act and make the right choice, and in fact i always do (unfortunately, as i am alluding here,..),... but i'm just wrong so often that there has to be a better way, or multiple better ways,....
"thou who follows the stomach may become lost often, but will certainly eat well."
Rats of Multa, as always, you are very cool. I love your quote. And I completely agree about increased effectiveness when supranatural processes are entered into participation with one's consciousness. I spend a large portion of my life attempting to stay conscious and in participation/harmony with as many natural processes as I can.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I know we do, so I'm going to try to figure out where the miscommunication is. Okay, you believe there is a natural order...ie: determination for everything, right?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I know we do, so I'm going to try to figure out where the miscommunication is. Okay, you believe there is a natural order...ie: determination for everything, right?
Yes, but I do not believe there is a purpose to it. I do not beleive that some greater being that defies all that we know planned anything.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
as it pertains to the question I asked earlier about origin of moral consciousness. I'm not sure I 'buy' it, but it is interesting, to say the least. Definitely thought-provoking.
Thanks, I'll look into that tomorrow, right now I'm off to bed.
You do believe that everthing has a reason, though, that can be uncovered with reasoning, right?
No.
You can continue to cut a line in half for eternity and never cut it into non-existence. That's the nature of a fractal universe. I think the big questions we ask cannot be answered, not by reason and certainly not by feeling.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Rats of Multa, as always, you are very cool. I love your quote. And I completely agree about increased effectiveness when supranatural processes are entered into participation with one's consciousness. I spend a large portion of my life attempting to stay conscious and in participation/harmony with as many natural processes as I can.
thank you A,.. truly means something as said from you. and i'm glad you enjoyed that little quote, i made it up just a few moments back.
one of the aspects of life i find most interesting is how, being human(s), the ability exists that i/we can attempt to become something separate from the world,... although this separation is inherently false/impossible, there are still degrees of where, when, how, why, etc. in which passive-awareness can occur over active-participation,.. and often passive-awareness of situations, events, or moments proves to be the most effective and efficient means of active-participation [even though the action is merely mental rather than physical],...
this goes along the line of 'not doing too much', but only abstractly... really the issue is about 'not causing things to happen',.. and instead simply waiting for the world to come around, to have the best possible situations arise for whatever physical activity one is interested in or desiring of.... saves energy and reduces the risk(s) of failure.
anyway, thanks again angelica, really...
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You can continue to cut a line in half for eternity and never cut it into non-existence. That's the nature of a fractal universe. I think the big questions we ask cannot be answered, not by reason and certainly not by feeling.
You don't believe that their is reasons for everything that occurs? Why do you read and learn then? To satisfy your human perceptions? Or to understand the reasons for what happens in reality?
I realize that there are things beyond our human comprehension. Do you believe the reasoning and logical sense is still there in the natural laws and principles independent of us?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You don't believe that their is reasons for everything that occurs? Why do you read and learn then? To satisfy your human perceptions? Or to understand the reasons for what happens in reality?
I realize that there are things beyond our human comprehension. Do you believe the reasoning and logical sense is still there in the natural laws and principles independent of us?
I have no beliefs of that which happens beyond my human ability to perceive them. It's frivilous and absurd.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
thank you A,.. truly means something as said from you. and i'm glad you enjoyed that little quote, i made it up just a few moments back.
one of the aspects of life i find most interesting is how, being human(s), the ability exists that i/we can attempt to become something separate from the world,... although this separation is inherently false/impossible, there are still degrees of where, when, how, why, etc. in which passive-awareness can occur over active-participation,.. and often passive-awareness of situations, events, or moments proves to be the most effective and efficient means of active-participation [even though the action is merely mental rather than physical],...
this goes along the line of 'not doing too much', but only abstractly... really the issue is about 'not causing things to happen',.. and instead simply waiting for the world to come around, to have the best possible situations arise for whatever physical activity one is interested in or desiring of.... saves energy and reduces the risk(s) of failure.
anyway, thanks again angelica, really...
You are welcome, and thank YOU. There is definitely something decidedly otherworldly about you, my friend. Aren't you pursuing some kind of arts endeavor? The quote, now that I know was written by you, shows me all the more how perceptive of reality you are. I can see by what you've written here how you think differently than I do, albeit still heading in the same direction. I am better for hearing your perspective on the subject as it definitely complements my more "take the bull by the horns" manner. Peace.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have no beliefs of that which happens beyond my human ability to perceive them. It's frivilous and absurd.
Lets talk about what is within your or my own ability to perceive. Do you believe that math and the concepts and purposes of math exist in reality beyond our perceptions or you believe that we invent math and ascribe it to the real world?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Lets talk about what is within your or my own ability to perceive. Do you believe that math and the concepts and purposes of math exist in reality beyond our perceptions or you believe that we invent math and ascribe it to the real world?
The real observable world follows very logical systems. So math exists as a symbolic representation of real world phenomena. So yes, math is real.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The real observable world follows very logical systems. So math exists as a symbolic representation of real world phenomena. So yes, math is real.
For the sake of building a bridge of communication, I am specifically referring to the physical world and what scientists generally agree is physical, in this conversation. In the observable physical world, you believe everything follows reasons?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You are welcome, and thank YOU. There is definitely something decidedly otherworldly about you, my friend. Aren't you pursuing some kind of arts endeavor? The quote, now that I know was written by you, shows me all the more how perceptive of reality you are. I can see by what you've written here how you think differently than I do, albeit still heading in the same direction. I am better for hearing your perspective on the subject as it definitely complements my more "take the bull by the horns" manner. Peace.
well you are welcome dear, very much so .
if only i had some horns....
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
For the sake of building a bridge of communication, I am specifically referring to the physical world and what scientists generally agree is physical, in this conversation. In the observable physical world, you believe everything follows reasons?
Sort of.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
ok, i havent much anything else to add here,.. and i'm out of work in 11min.,.. so i want to wish everyone some luck in trying to resolve these issues.....!!!
i am curious though,.. i havent heard much of anything said relative to "experience" and how consciousness might be a buffer,... so maybe tomorrow.
g'night all.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You seem ambivalent. Would you care to explain that lack of assuredness?
Maybe if I explain what I'm going for here. farfromglorified is basically an athiest. He and I see the logical reasoning behind the observable physical universe. I believe you agree.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Because the brain gives emergence to consciousness and decisions are made 300ms prior to awareness, it seems that the purpose of consciousness eludes us.
Perhaps what actually occurs is everything that constitutes experience is placed into a buffer(s) and stored as an experience event. The stored events are later referenced like maps of what occurred with a previous experience.
Alternatively the experiences occur instantaneously and autonomously and immediately stored into reciprocal engrams.
300ms sounds like a long time. I am sure a sportsman makes a conscious decision in response to a stimulus, eg an incoming ball, and acts on it in a lot less time than that. Can't see a race driver making it around a lap if everything they do is a third of a second out of synch.
300ms sounds like a long time. I am sure a sportsman makes a conscious decision in response to a stimulus, eg an incoming ball, and acts on it in a lot less time than that. Can't see a race driver making it around a lap if everything they do is a third of a second out of synch.
I understand the difficulty in visioning this.
You see a ball, and react to it. Both the sight of the ball and reaction to it are experienced consciously 300 - 500 ms after the fact.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You seem ambivalent. Would you care to explain that lack of assuredness?
Maybe if I explain what I'm going for here. farfromglorified is basically an athiest. He and I see the logical reasoning behind the observable physical universe. I believe you agree.
Yea, I agree. I just don't put faith in a planned outcome. There is no evidence of a plan, just a deterministic system. A bingo ball machine is deterministic in every sense of the word, but you cannot plan for a certain ball to come out of it. I see reality like a bingo ball machine.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You see a ball, and react to it. Both the sight of the ball and reaction to it are experienced consciously 300 - 500 ms after the fact.
Oh, I meant as well. The delay of 300 ms only matters to reaction time if consciousness actually played a role in decision making. Since it does not, it could take 3 weeks and wouldn't make a difference.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
ok, i havent much anything else to add here,.. and i'm out of work in 11min.,.. so i want to wish everyone some luck in trying to resolve these issues.....!!!
i am curious though,.. i havent heard much of anything said relative to "experience" and how consciousness might be a buffer,... so maybe tomorrow.
g'night all.
I haven't read all posts, but in response to the last sentence, I offer this.
Horses, for example, are entirely associative learners. They do not problem solve, or compare two pieces of information or "think" about situations, so in the context of this question, they do not filter experience through a consciousness. Rather they "react" according to conditioned or instinctive responses. The response to any given stimuli can be modifed or re-inforced.
Hard wired or instrinctive responses are very easily re-inforced, to the point where they cannot be removed. Novel behaviours are less easily installed, and decay more quickly. This is different to thinking, but can mimic it, so is often mistaken for that.
Humans do process information and compare it to previous experience.
Is this what is meant by "consciouness as a buffer" ??
Comments
right. some entities certainly exist without ego, and they live by instinct (this is what i was taking from ffg's comments). i was trying to touch on the fact that even with a sense of ego there are instincts which function above and beyond consciousness,.. say, how wide one smiles at a stranger in line for groceries, or perhaps grins wryly,....
i dont believe in total-consciousness, so "instinctuality" is a very important element of life in my view of Nature.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I believe in integration, so I'm not one to value the consciousness over subconsciousness or superconsciousness. The way I see it the subconscious and superconscious perceive without an individual sense of "I"--or separateness. As a matter of fact, that's why we would do well not to downgrade others--because our own subconsious takes everything as though it were true for us. It doesn't judge. It cannot perceive that we are talking to the other guy.
I like the way you say the instinctiveness operates above and beyond consciousness. In western culture, we often prioritize the self-awareness part, and yet I agree with you. The instinctual aspects beyond our waking "I" awareness is much more fundamental in our brain development. Apparently, the ego that most people think of as the "self" is the tip of the iceberg of what the Self is.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's megalomaniacal.
You do not know with absolute certainty that the natural behavior of the human species is flawed and that your personal experiences and feelings are not illusory.
Your whole line of thought on this topic is absurd.
wonderful. this last part of what you've said here is what i was getting at with "total-consciousness",.. in that we can never know everything, even about ourselves--our "selfs", or 'egos'.
i find myself to be much more effective as an individual when supranatural processes are entered into participation with my consciousness--i mean, i can try to think before i act and make the right choice, and in fact i always do (unfortunately, as i am alluding here,..),... but i'm just wrong so often that there has to be a better way, or multiple better ways,....
"thou who follows the stomach may become lost often, but will certainly eat well."
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
It seems you are confusing what I said about 'illusions' as meaning flawed. I believe the illusions are a perfect part of nature, too, pertaining to our each perfect evolutionary place. Just as you or I trying to awaken people from their illusions is also perfect in the grand scheme of things.
I know you agree with me, and that you also agree with farfromglorified. What's happening that seems like disagreement is miscommunication again.
For the computer to assume it understands the programmer can be illusory.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
On this, I don't think we agree.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, but I do not believe there is a purpose to it. I do not beleive that some greater being that defies all that we know planned anything.
Thanks, I'll look into that tomorrow, right now I'm off to bed.
Glad you liked it, I knew you would.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No.
You can continue to cut a line in half for eternity and never cut it into non-existence. That's the nature of a fractal universe. I think the big questions we ask cannot be answered, not by reason and certainly not by feeling.
thank you A,.. truly means something as said from you. and i'm glad you enjoyed that little quote, i made it up just a few moments back.
one of the aspects of life i find most interesting is how, being human(s), the ability exists that i/we can attempt to become something separate from the world,... although this separation is inherently false/impossible, there are still degrees of where, when, how, why, etc. in which passive-awareness can occur over active-participation,.. and often passive-awareness of situations, events, or moments proves to be the most effective and efficient means of active-participation [even though the action is merely mental rather than physical],...
this goes along the line of 'not doing too much', but only abstractly... really the issue is about 'not causing things to happen',.. and instead simply waiting for the world to come around, to have the best possible situations arise for whatever physical activity one is interested in or desiring of.... saves energy and reduces the risk(s) of failure.
anyway, thanks again angelica, really...
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I realize that there are things beyond our human comprehension. Do you believe the reasoning and logical sense is still there in the natural laws and principles independent of us?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I have no beliefs of that which happens beyond my human ability to perceive them. It's frivilous and absurd.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The real observable world follows very logical systems. So math exists as a symbolic representation of real world phenomena. So yes, math is real.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well you are welcome dear, very much so .
if only i had some horns....
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sort of.
ok, i havent much anything else to add here,.. and i'm out of work in 11min.,.. so i want to wish everyone some luck in trying to resolve these issues.....!!!
i am curious though,.. i havent heard much of anything said relative to "experience" and how consciousness might be a buffer,... so maybe tomorrow.
g'night all.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Maybe if I explain what I'm going for here. farfromglorified is basically an athiest. He and I see the logical reasoning behind the observable physical universe. I believe you agree.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
300ms sounds like a long time. I am sure a sportsman makes a conscious decision in response to a stimulus, eg an incoming ball, and acts on it in a lot less time than that. Can't see a race driver making it around a lap if everything they do is a third of a second out of synch.
I understand the difficulty in visioning this.
You see a ball, and react to it. Both the sight of the ball and reaction to it are experienced consciously 300 - 500 ms after the fact.
Yea, I agree. I just don't put faith in a planned outcome. There is no evidence of a plan, just a deterministic system. A bingo ball machine is deterministic in every sense of the word, but you cannot plan for a certain ball to come out of it. I see reality like a bingo ball machine.
Oh, I meant as well. The delay of 300 ms only matters to reaction time if consciousness actually played a role in decision making. Since it does not, it could take 3 weeks and wouldn't make a difference.
I haven't read all posts, but in response to the last sentence, I offer this.
Horses, for example, are entirely associative learners. They do not problem solve, or compare two pieces of information or "think" about situations, so in the context of this question, they do not filter experience through a consciousness. Rather they "react" according to conditioned or instinctive responses. The response to any given stimuli can be modifed or re-inforced.
Hard wired or instrinctive responses are very easily re-inforced, to the point where they cannot be removed. Novel behaviours are less easily installed, and decay more quickly. This is different to thinking, but can mimic it, so is often mistaken for that.
Humans do process information and compare it to previous experience.
Is this what is meant by "consciouness as a buffer" ??
To this is suggesting that we are constantly lagging behind reality by 1/3 to 1/2 a second. Is this correct ??