Duskrunner

Actually, I thought Stormcloud gave you a very reasonable answer to this, above.

We are not consciousness we perceive it. What you are saying doesn't make sense, it is like saying joy is happy, as if 'joy' is a conscious entity.

Consciousness is intertwined with the perceiver, but it is not the perceiver.

A lot of what you have theorized about consciousness made some good sense, up until now.

Stormcloud was attemting to describe the 'structure' of consciousness and how it forms, he did not answer the question my question.

P.S. You know what, I think I understand where the confusion is coming from, but I really don't think there should be any.

I asked: What is the concsious perceiver? I did not ask: What is consciousness?

There is a good variety of answers here though, it shows critical thinking.

[This message has been edited by Filip Sandor (edited April 17, 2001).]

Ok, your final statement has some truth to it. The question is, "Is there a meaningful seperation of consciousness and the perceiver?". You have two things:
The consciousness is a product of the perceiver, that is the perceiver is the structure upon which the consciousness exists. However, the for self awareness, the perciever has to be aware that he is perceiving, that is, there is a perception of being conscious:
Meaning that in order to for the perceiver to recognize his consciousness, he has to perceive that he is conscious, which means that part of his consciousness is founded upon the fact that it's a perceiver. The consciousness can only exist because the perceiver can perceive itself, and by perceiving itself, changing the rules by which it operates. So to seperate the perceiver from the consciousness means that the perceiver is no longer conscious. It's an interconnected system, there is no seperation. It's like asking a person to write on both sides of a mobius strip, the twist and feeding back into itself causes properties that wouldn't exist by itself.

[/b]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would change "perception" to "Interrelation" since perception is not an actual entity such as consciousness or the perceiver are entities, its an action.

As consciousness interrelates with the matter composition of the brain and the perceiver, it would be founded on both, the perceiver and the brain.

Consciousness is the Spirit that connects the Soul with matter.

Self-awareness is not consciousness though, it's the perceiver being conscious of themselves as an individual being.

That sounds like a very good arguement. I would be tempted to use the, "if a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" arguement to disprove it, but I don't think I can do so in this case.

I see the Soul as a 'piece' of God; essentially, I believe all Souls are God. (Jesus once said to the Israelites, "Ye are all gods!")

Now this can get pretty confusing, pretty fast, but this is why I believe the statement you posed to be true, because if God (the perceiver) did not exist, then neither would consciousness; or anything for that matter, which mind you, is not possible because God and all that is governed by God (everything) is bound in Eternity.

I know that sounds 'off the wall', it probably is for this discussion anyway.

Yes. Modern physics has just begun to confirm ancient mystical views of reality, which have been known for thousands of years; one of which, dictates that the entire Universe is ONE body of energy and like it is with the mind, body and Soul, nothing is truly seperate from anything else.

(As the saying goes... "We are One with the Universe and eachother...")

Wanna read a good article that sheds light in this sort of direction? Check it out...

Finding Harmony

[This message has been edited by Filip Sandor (edited April 17, 2001).]

Consciousness is nothing

Consciousness is nothing

It sure is isn't it!

Well, I don't know what it "is." For that matter, what "is" water? I mean, we can talk about it being made up of hydrogen and oxygen, but what "is" the "waterness" in water? As far as I know, many of the properties of what makes water water are unknown, despite our ideas of what it is supposed to be made of. People often call these "emergent properties" of the constituent parts.

This is what Plato and Aristotle beat their heads against the wall incessantly about. It led them to all kinds of conclusions...you know, about "essences" and all that. It also leads to endless hairsplitting and the invention of a question-begging series of objects used to provide the "essence" of others. As far as consciousness goes, some philosophers have invented "little men inside the man" and special "glands" that only move the problem of essentialist definition backwards a step.

I do not think it is a necessary function of language or a fruitful approach to ask what "is" consciousness. I take a more nominalist view of language. Language is used as a used to collect our ideas and observations in a convenient form.

So, I think the word "consciousness" acts as a shorthand label which refers to what we currently have to say about the subject, more or less. For instance, it is apparently bound up with the brain tissue, is effected by experience and stimulus, is very, very complex, contains emotions, thoughts and opinions, is divided up into component parts (consciousness and subconsciousness), and a long, long list of other things. All of these things are a collection we call "consciousness." And perhaps our language is being outgrown by our knowledge, but this is all there is to it.

To me, this is no more mysterious than calling water "water," or calling a collection of cows a "herd." Where is the "herdness" in a herd? Nowhere. It is just language.

[This message has been edited by Zar (edited April 17, 2001).]

I realize many questions and problems arise when we ask a question such as, "what is consciousness." That's why I am trying to stay away from that huge galaxy of different ideas, thoeries, etc.

I am posing a simpler question which we can discuss with at least some ease, through philosophical interpretation:

Consiousness IS... but what is conscious?

In other words, what is it, that perceives and experiences consciousness?

I believe that we, the conscious perceivers/experiencers, are metaphysical beings because the matter that composes the brain, is not conscious.

Some people here have concluded that we are the comlex processes that are taking place in our brains. I don't find this a sufficient explanation though since it is the same as saying, we are a description of the matter that composes the brain and what that matter is doing.

A process does not define an entity, it defines only what happens to an entity; (or many, seperate entities).

So there is my brief intro, I believe this is your first post in this thread...?

I would like to hear your take on what you believe the conscious perceiver is, whether you believe it is physical, metaphysical, etc.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong by proving that we are indeed only physical beings.

So far, it seems that my theory stands on the grounds of Logic.

[This message has been edited by Filip Sandor (edited April 17, 2001).]