Consciousness is the altered state of our sub-consciousness. Our sub-consciousness is who we really are, and our conscious state is what we present ourselves to be. Our conscious state does not always mirror our sub-conscious, but our reality will always mirror our subconscious mind. Our sub-conscious will project out through our conscious state and we see and experience is the result of that projection. This is how seemingly pleasant and "good" people attract negativity. Our sub-conscious is predominantly primitive, fearful and hostile. For every man, there are two of you.
What is conciousness?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
yea, actually I needed to edit my above post but ran out of edit time and replace the word subconscious in stead of unconscious.
I agree "Our sub-conscious is who we really are". Many times our conscious is like an act or role upon which our subconscious preforms. But even through the acting the subconscious beams itself outward.
I agree "Our sub-conscious is who we really are". Many times our conscious is like an act or role upon which our subconscious preforms. But even through the acting the subconscious beams itself outward.
I can't define consciousness but I know it when I see it
conciousness[sic] is aware on one's own existence. that's the test, necessary and likely sufficient.
"Let’s say Martians land on the Earth and wish to understand more about humans. Someone hands them a copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare and says: “When you understand what’s in there, you will understand everything important about us.”
The Martians set to work – they allocate vast resources to recording every detail of this great tome until eventually they know where every “e”, every “a”, every “t” is on every page. They remain puzzled, and return to Earth. “We have completely characterised this book,” they say, “but we still aren’t sure we really understand you people at all.”..."
http://theconversation.com/chattering-brain-cells-hold-the-key-to-the-language-of-the-mind-24085
The Martians set to work – they allocate vast resources to recording every detail of this great tome until eventually they know where every “e”, every “a”, every “t” is on every page. They remain puzzled, and return to Earth. “We have completely characterised this book,” they say, “but we still aren’t sure we really understand you people at all.”..."
http://theconversation.com/chattering-brain-cells-hold-the-key-to-the-language-of-the-mind-24085
i assume these martians speak a language (or two), and smart ehuf to make their way thru vast distances of universe to Earth understand that written language is poor analog to "thought". ps this isn't ALL rocket science
The point the author is trying to make is that understanding the position and the frequency of activation of a neuron is akin to try to understand how conciousness arises from position and voltage levels or neurons in a brain. This classification doesn't get you very far either in understanding Shakespeare or how conciousness arises from a brain.i assume these martians speak a language (or two), and smart ehuf to make their way thru vast distances of universe to Earth understand that written language is poor analog to "thought". ps this isn't ALL rocket science
What you are saying is that once one understands language, you can decipher another language. Or, that once you understand how one brain works we understand how another works. That is mostly axiomatic. We are not at the point where we understand how any brain achieves conciousness or even how a cockroach is ten thousand times smarter than our most massive cluster of supercomputers, hence we are at still at the "syntax level" of brain=>conciousness and can't make progress.
Last edited:
How would you define consciousness at this point in time? (not a trick question, just a passing interest)
is awareness of self at least necessary iyo?
Defining conciousness is also very tricky. That is the whole point of the Turing Test, which I don't agree with.
But I know it when I see it.
Yes, but defining God is tricky too. Or "large vs "small".
we have to start defining term somewhere?
Can we at least agree, some degree of complexity of connection is necessary? For instance, one neuronal connection is insufficient??? correct?