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.

As the content of consciousness is the physical world

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?

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.

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.

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 <?>

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.

Arjen,

:)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,

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.

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

What about consciousness is physical?

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.

Boagie,

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,

:)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.