Consciousness The Content Or The Container

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Consciousness The Content Or The Container

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 10:51 am
Does consciousness survive death? As the content of consciousness is the physical world, and at death the physical world survives us, is our consciousness then content or the container? Is our consciousness the organ, the organ function or is it content, if it is content, then there is at least relative immortality, as long as there is a physcial world there is consciousness.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:11 am
@boagie,
Quote:

and at death the physical world survives us


That's quite the pressumption.

------

You seem to be using the word consciousness in more than one way. One is in the sense of my consciousness and the other is in the sense of consciousness in general.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:39 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
That's quite the pressumption.

------

You seem to be using the word consciousness in more than one way. One is in the sense of my consciousness and the other is in the sense of consciousness in general.



de silentio,Smile

Consciousness is you might say generic, meaning it applies to all life forms. Consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

"That's quite the pressumption." Please enlighten!!
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:45 am
@boagie,
In order for the physical world to exist, does it require consciousness?

Quote:
As the content of consciousness is the physical world


So, the content of consciousness is the physical world, but, is the physical world only the content of consciousness? or does it exist apart from conciousness also?
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 12:10 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
In order for the physical world to exist, does it require consciousness?



So, the content of consciousness is the physical world, but, is the physical world only the content of consciousness? or does it exist apart from conciousness also?


de Silentio,

If the physical world, as the content of consciousness, is indeed consciousness, then yes, the physical world survives the death of the individual, just as life survives the death of other individuals. Life is consciousness, as consciousness is life. The container survives as does the content of consciousness. It is true that with the death of an individual it is said that a world ceases to be, but, that is the subjective world not the objective reality which temporarily was contained in the subject as content.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 04:22 pm
@boagie,
Say Boagie, I would like to seperate the transcendental from the metaphysical. That which is a priori "survives" and that which is reason does not. So consciousness survives because nothing was taken away from it. Self-consciouness on the other hand dies with the body.

Hope this helps.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 04:47 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Does consciousness survive death? As the content of consciousness is the physical world, and at death the physical world survives us, is our consciousness then content or the container? Is our consciousness the organ, the organ function or is it content, if it is content, then there is at least relative immortality, as long as there is a physcial world there is consciousness.


Consciousness is contained within the organ. I believe consciousness to be a product within the many neurological interactions of so many countless connections and biochemical reactions. To us, it is a wondrous thing; but a thing of nature, nonetheless.

Yes I also believe that the physical world survives us. So I'd suppose that my answer would be it is the organ. Stop that organ from the functions that produce consciousness, and consciousness ceases.

I must admit to not understanding your, "as long as there is a physical world there is consciousness". On the surface, I'd wholeheartedly disagree. Perhaps I've missed something <?>
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 08:23 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
Say Boagie, I would like to seperate the transcendental from the metaphysical. That which is a priori "survives" and that which is reason does not. So consciousness survives because nothing was taken away from it. Self-consciouness on the other hand dies with the body.Hope this helps.


Arjen,Smile

:)Is not what is a priori to experience pure potential, a hunger in the absence of an unknown need, its unknown need the physcial world, for the purpose of this discussion the two considered a duality, when in fact, they cannot be separated, the experience of reality by analogy is sitting down and enjoying the meal. Selfconsciousness is a sense of location as the experience of object, it is this sense of location that is then termed the I of personal identity, this disappears at death, but, it dies into it own content, it own location, that of the physcial world, it is nolonger aware of itself as separate, it is now the world itself. Selfconsciousness you might say is the gravity of experience condensing at the centre of itself, familularity with that centre, is what is called identity, death is to be the centre.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 08:39 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
Consciousness is contained within the organ. I believe consciousness to be a product within the many neurological interactions of so many countless connections and biochemical reactions. To us, it is a wondrous thing; but a thing of nature, nonetheless.

Yes I also believe that the physical world survives us. So I'd suppose that my answer would be it is the organ. Stop that organ from the functions that produce consciousness, and consciousness ceases.

I must admit to not understanding your, "as long as there is a physical world there is consciousness". On the surface, I'd wholeheartedly disagree. Perhaps I've missed something <?>


Hi,Khethil!!Smile

:)So, it seems to me you are saying that consciousness is a product of a factory like process of the organ, that is availing itself of perception and the understanding--yes? The statement you say you do not understand, "As long as there is a physical world there is consciousness", well if consciousness is considered the content and the content is that of the physical world, and the world survives the individual death, then as the indivdual dies into its own content it becomes the physcial world, and as the physcial world it is consciousness selfcontained.--maybe!!
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 09:09 pm
@boagie,
Quote:
Does consciousness survive death? As the content of consciousness is the physical world, and at death the physical world survives us, is our consciousness then content or the container? Is our consciousness the organ, the organ function or is it content, if it is content, then there is at least relative immortality, as long as there is a physcial world there is consciousness.


1) This question assumes that there is a consciousness is contained within something. Namely the body, which alienates all conversation that doesn't involve individual dualism.

2) This question assumes that the consciousness and container can be separated.

3) This question assumes that the consciousness can be the consciousness separate from the container, and the container can be the container apart from the consciousness.

4) The question sets up a straw man leading to the same empirical/non-empirical debate between the QUOTE atheists UNQUOTE and the QUOTE Religious UNQUOTE, by creating an interrogative environment that mirrors the posts used in those debates but avoids terms like body and spirit/soul/mind.
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 09:40 pm
@GoshisDead,
Goshisdead,Smile

:)If it is so utterly flawed, it would seem to be of little interest, but you are interest, why not take things one step at a time. The avoidence of the use of the terms spirit and soul is simple to understand, they are intangibles, they are undefined, pretentious.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 02:03 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Arjen,Smile

:)Is not what is a priori to experience pure potential, a hunger in the absence of an unknown need, its unknown need the physcial world, for the purpose of this discussion the two considered a duality, when in fact, they cannot be separated, the experience of reality by analogy is sitting down and enjoying the meal. Selfconsciousness is a sense of location as the experience of object, it is this sense of location that is then termed the I of personal identity, this disappears at death, but, it dies into it own content, it own location, that of the physcial world, it is nolonger aware of itself as separate, it is now the world itself. Selfconsciousness you might say is the gravity of experience condensing at the centre of itself, familularity with that centre, is what is called identity, death is to be the centre.

That is pretty much what I ment, yes. I did mean that death is not the centre; but consciousness. I think you mean the same thing though. Are you familiar with mayan theories by the way?
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 07:45 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
That is pretty much what I ment, yes. I did mean that death is not the centre; but consciousness. I think you mean the same thing though. Are you familiar with mayan theories by the way?


Arjen,Smile

Smile"Death is not the centre, but consciousness." Yes, but this consciousness that rejoins consciousness is thought of as death, slice it either way consciousness or death are the centre. No I am not familar with Mayan theories. but if you are recomending them I shall do some googling on it.:cool:
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:19 am
@boagie,
Boagie, Smile

I think that consciousness was never sliced off. It only appears that way because of self-consciousness. When self consciousness stops (something happened to the body) only consiousness remains; therefore no more selfconsciousness exists and thus only consciousness can be experienced. I think we might like to start a topic on the transcendental. Smile

I like the mayan philosophies very much. Some things became clear to me thanks to that. They use a calendar based on the movement of heavenly bodies. That beats ours any day and tunes one in to what is taking place I think. Anyway, chec out:
Galactic Research Institute of the Foundation for the Law of Time - Welcome
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:49 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
Boagie, Smile

I think that consciousness was never sliced off. It only appears that way because of self-consciousness. When self consciousness stops (something happened to the body) only consiousness remains; therefore no more selfconsciousness exists and thus only consciousness can be experienced. I think we might like to start a topic on the transcendental. Smile

I like the mayan philosophies very much. Some things became clear to me thanks to that. They use a calendar based on the movement of heavenly bodies. That beats ours any day and tunes one in to what is taking place I think. Anyway, chec out:
Galactic Research Institute of the Foundation for the Law of Time - Welcome


Arjen,Smile

I would say at death, consciousness which is of the physical world, is nolonger aware of itself, but only perhaps through another living subject. When any individual dies, he ceases to be the knower and becomes that which is to be known. Thanks for the link, I shall check it out! Wink
 
Arjen
 
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 05:16 pm
@boagie,
What about consciousness is physical?
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:51 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
What about consciousness is physical?


Arjen,Smile

:)That really is what we started with, is consciousness the content, or is it the container, perhaps, like subject and object, they cannot be separated and still be considered existent. The function of life seems to be to propagate itself, and perhaps be the awareness of the planet, the means by which the earth can know itself. Life in general is this consciousness, as that which processes the physcial world in order that it might move within it. It is not as I have stated earlier, in order to act, but to react within that context from which it arose. Life evolved from the physcial world, the evolution of matter you might say, its nature in correlation to life, is to be less temporal. That which is less temporal, is the greater stillness, the axis mundi, the centre from which all things arise , and at the death of the individual, that temporal manifestation, the induring has to be considered a consciousness that would know itself through the production of life. maybe!
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 04:39 am
@boagie,
Boagie, Smile

Allright, I think that I should, out of all three discussion, make my case here at first.

I am going to quote myself to get things started:
Quote:

What I mean is that the body "bends" the consciousness to a somewhat alternate state forming self-consciousness. Like planets "bend" the quantumfield (thus also bending space-time). An energy field is formed which has the bending effect. So the selfconsciousness is a product of potentiality and actuality. Just like metaphysical judgements are a product of transcendental categoria and empirical perceptions (according to Kant).

I hope I am making myself somewhat clear.

So for consciousness that means it is transcendental; whereas self-consciousness is metaphysical. Self-consciousness needs a "self" to be conscious of. That is why it needs a "thing" (<--body) as well as consciousness itself. The combination of the two makes for self-consciousness. This indeed is what disperses with the body. Consciousness however has no boundries; but because it is no loger linked to a "self" it is no longer conscious of something like that.

I hope this will get us on the right track.

I would like to point out that an actuality without a potentiality is flawed because it does not account for creation (science dubbed it "big bang"), nor change, nor free will, nor time travel, nor parallel universae, etc.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 07:19 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
Boagie, Smile

Allright, I think that I should, out of all three discussion, make my case here at first.

I am going to quote myself to get things started:

So for consciousness that means it is transcendental; whereas self-consciousness is metaphysical. Self-consciousness needs a "self" to be conscious of. That is why it needs a "thing" (<--body) as well as consciousness itself. The combination of the two makes for self-consciousness. This indeed is what disperses with the body. Consciousness however has no boundries; but because it is no loger linked to a "self" it is no longer conscious of something like that.

I hope this will get us on the right track.

I would like to point out that an actuality without a potentiality is flawed because it does not account for creation (science dubbed it "big bang"), nor change, nor free will, nor time travel, nor parallel universae, etc.


Arjen,Smile

:)Yes I think we are closing the gap, certainly selfconsciousness depends upon object, as does consciousness, it is the old subject and object stand or fall together. It seems difficult not speak of duality, yet that is where error lies I believe. Understanding the whole, depends on understanding whole function, reductionism will not take us where we want to go. Does it sound like we are in the same local, or am I sailing off into the storm?

PS: If you and de budding are closer to being on the same wave length perhaps I should then listen into the dialogue between the two of you--just a thought.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 08:25 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Arjen,Smile

:)Yes I think we are closing the gap, certainly selfconsciousness depends upon object, as does consciousness, it is the old subject and object stand or fall together. It seems difficult not speak of duality, yet that is where error lies I believe. Understanding the whole, depends on understanding whole function, reductionism will not take us where we want to go. Does it sound like we are in the same local, or am I sailing off into the storm?

Hi Boagie, Smile

I think consciousness is a condition for matter, as is it a condition for reason and thereby self-consciousness. The thing-in-itself has these two attributes. It is that which exists. Inside this thing-in-itself several things-in-themselves exist. By seperating and understanding the distictions and after that combining and seeing the whole can one understand what exactly takes place.

Quote:

PS: If you and de budding are closer to being on the same wave length perhaps I should then listen into the dialogue between the two of you--just a thought.

You could do that, but perhaps that is not needed. you should check out Immanuel Kant to be truthfull. He is the one pointing all this out in an unparalelled manner. Apart from that I am writing an article on the reseach institutions that humanity uses. It will be done probably next week. I am thinking of posting it on the forums or in a blog. That would most likely make the foundations insightfull. I have also posted a brief introduction on Kant on the forums. Perhaps that will help as well.

Arjen
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Consciousness The Content Or The Container
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:01:27