Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Consciousness and senses


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 paigetheoracle

paigetheoracle

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1432 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 08:53 AM

The other day I noticed that when I started talking to someone, my consciousness moved from my eyes, looking directly out at that point, to way back in my head - in fact when talking I noticed that I wasn't really conscious of the physical world around me at all, unlike when I was just silently staring at things. Has anyone else noticed this? :(

Also, when I'm tired, the same thing happens and my attention drifts back from the position of my eyes, to deeper inside my head, then away to nothing.:)

#2 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 10:28 AM

(pasted from part of a summary I wrote up on a book idea I was working on)

Think about this. The human body does NOT have hologram projectors attached to it, or any other form of visual projection systems to produce a reality that is LITERALLY outside of ourselves. The organic computer builds a universe of meaning and reason -out of the putty of information(so to speak)- internally, this internal 'space' can sort of be thought of as the absolutely 100% unequivocally unknown, just like the space in the universe we see in the night sky (its like nothing). But nothing is a bad term to use. It says that we know what it is, but we don't. It is unknown.

This orgarnic computer produces this internal world so effectively, that the internal projection that it creates of an object (or anything for that matter), convinces itself that it is external. When it does this, it convinces itself into believing it has created an identity for the ontological reality (absolutely 100% unequivocally unknown). It believes that the projection within its conscious universe is truly external, but it is philisophically speaking, it is not. In other words this is us saying "There is a tree over there on that hill under those clouds". There is no tree over there in the ontological sense, it is only the world internally that produces this meaning, and validates it when it goes over there to prove it.



Based on this analysis, we find ourselves inside this vast world that is in this vast galaxy, that is in this vast universe, where we naturally assume what we see is what is, and is what is real, and is what is truly reality. However, none of it, absolutely no single describing detail is possible to physically exist beyond this internal universe created by this organic computer. The internal projection works so well we live it as real as anything could possibly be.

What this tells us is that we are, is something that time has allowed us to become, and that is astounding artists. However, it originated from a long branching tree of evolution, and we can guess at least on earth, that every single living entity that does exist on earth and has existed is and was a part of that same tree.

For example, we as human beings embody pretty much this entire tree. That is, this tree in much of its whole scale is a human being. This tree contains things like cells, small multi-cell organisms, bacteria, viruses, microscopic creatures, and slightly larger creatures like parasites, and what not, touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight, degrees of freedom and spacial awareness; as well as other creatures likes birds and fish and worms and insects; also, plant life, algie, fungus, and heck! Dinosuars.

The fact is that this tree is long, and it has many many branches representing the paths of evolution, some paths branch out from the trunk and stop (parts of evolution that ended), and the ones that are at the very top are the ones that continue even to this day. Our human body is literally formed out of this tree even today, our phsyical body form is a function of many parts (cells, small multi-cell organisms, bacteria, viruses, microscopic creatures, and slightly larger creatures like parasites, and what not, touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight, degrees of freedom and spacial awareness) these parts can also be thought of as branches.

Of course we can't expect that all of these branches (epistemological pathways) made it to this age. Nor can we assume or expect that each one is a part of us, but many of them are. Interestingly, this suggest to us that we are all -and everything alive is- a part of the tree of life. We are many parts and things sprouting from the same core. Some forms of life only embody one branch, while others like ourselves embody many branches.

Everything that is living is experiencing an epistemological way of life. For us, as humans, we embody most of this tree, but other things like plants for example may only embody one branch, and it may be suggestible that something like a plant is no more aware of our human reality than the cells in our hair or skin are, whatever the case in that respect, what we can know is that those evolutionary branches still reach to the very top of the tree where we are today.

The tree -this tree of life that I have presented- and its many branches have many different forms of epistemological awareness. And because we are formed out of many branches of that tree we too contain many levels of awareness as well. We have parts of our body doing all kinds of jobs that is seemingly beyond our control, not to mention our conscious awareness. Our conscious awareness has become enveloped with the visual aspects of reality. It has become probably our most important form of conscious awareness. We nearly depend on vision alone for the majority of our survival. This area of our awareness has become our place where truth is validated and disposed. Because it serves and has served for a very long time to be so effective and has proved time and time again to succeed, we are naturally convicted to our very core that it is the hardcore and absolute definition on what reality is, as well as the all powerful guide in our 'epi' (epistemological world).

#3 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 10:34 AM

Essentially what I am saying here is that we contain many levels of awareness and consciousness. We embody many levels all at once. Sometimes we drift in and out of these levels to more primitive states where conscious awareness fades, and shifts to other focus.

This can also develop in the advanced direction where conscious awareness grows and becomes more intense as opposed to faded.

#4 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 10:40 AM

Maybe you would be intersted in this post also relating to vision and consciousness.

http://hypography.co...html#post266395

#5 paigetheoracle

paigetheoracle

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1432 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:41 AM

(pasted from part of a summary I wrote up on a book idea I was working on)

Based on this analysis, we find ourselves inside this vast world that is in this vast galaxy, that is in this vast universe, where we naturally assume what we see is what is, and is what is real, and is what is truly reality. However, none of it, absolutely no single describing detail is possible to physically exist beyond this internal universe created by this organic computer. The internal projection works so well we live it as real as anything could possibly be.


You should look up the word 'Scotoma' in the Wikipedia as used in the film 'The Da Vinci Code'. Which says much the same thing that we see what we expect to see. Also Temple Grandin quotes Dr Allan Snyder in her book 'Animals in Translation' when talking about the autistic as saying the same thing again, on page 300 and 303 'If Dr Snyder is right it's normal people who are living inside their heads. That's because a normal person's nervous system gets rid of a lot of detail and then fills the blanks with whatever he expects to see'

Another thing about consciousness that I've noticed is that when I start to wake up it's like I'm in a Hertz car advert and are coming forward to slide into the drivers seat. Also when I'm really tired but on my feet, it's like my consciousness is centred in my chest.

#6 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 09:13 AM

The sensory systems are the precursors of consciousness, with the sensory systems affecting various parts of the brain. Once the sensory memories are set up, consciousness can then make use of the same neural pathways, without the sensory systems, via thinking and imagination to get similar effects. We don't have to see something to believe it exists, but can visualize it in the mind, based on previous sensory input, and extrapolation using various mental constructs.

For example, someone can describe a new food item in terms of color, texture and ingredients. I don't have to see it or taste it directly, to extrapolate what it may taste like. In this case, the only sensory systems being used is hearing, which usually doesn't work with food, since food can't talk.

Or the person could write down the description of the food, on a piece of paper. I will then use my visual sensors to know what the food tastes like. Science is good at collecting the cause and effect of the brain hardware, but the mind does not have to add up to this cause and effect because it can use routing via constructs. Reading the paper with the ingredients can lead to the unexpected use of the taste parts of the brain. Internal data collection can see the constructs in action and know this is suppose to happen since it is the conscious goal.

The sensory translation constructs themselves can have their own secondary software routing. For example, one can describe a recipe for a given food, so the person can generate their internal sensory taste using audio input via language construct. The taste extrapolation can then be routed by biased constructs to give a good or bad sensory reaction to the constructed flavor. One may need to actually taste it to make sure the primary software is calibrated and/or the secondary constructs aren't biasing the image of the sensory construct.

#7 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 02 June 2009 - 03:50 AM

The other day I noticed that when I started talking to someone, my consciousness moved from my eyes, looking directly out at that point, to way back in my head - in fact when talking I noticed that I wasn't really conscious of the physical world around me at all, unlike when I was just silently staring at things. Has anyone else noticed this? :QuestionM

Also, when I'm tired, the same thing happens and my attention drifts back from the position of my eyes, to deeper inside my head, then away to nothing.:lol:


I'm the same way. I always thought it was probably a need to concentrate my thoughts, in the first case to get what I'm going to say right in spite of the person in front of me, and in the second case to gather whatever energy I still have in one place.

I don't know if I got that right, but it feels right.

--lemit

#8 paigetheoracle

paigetheoracle

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1432 posts

Posted 02 June 2009 - 04:01 AM

I'm the same way. I always thought it was probably a need to concentrate my thoughts, in the first case to get what I'm going to say right in spite of the person in front of me, and in the second case to gather whatever energy I still have in one place.

I don't know if I got that right, but it feels right.

--lemit


Sounds about right to me as well, as I'm rarely happy with being spontaneous because it mostly comes out as gobbledy-gook. I rehearse things in my head but when it boils down to it, what I want to say is rarely what I do.

As for your second point, that logically follows too.

#9 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 03:25 AM

Sounds about right to me as well, as I'm rarely happy with being spontaneous because it mostly comes out as gobbledy-gook. I rehearse things in my head but when it boils down to it, what I want to say is rarely what I do.


When I was a kid, I was always talking and rarely making sense. As an adult, I had trouble stopping. I knew enough to make a little sense, but I didn't really stop and think.

Then, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I became a supervisor and trainer of students, as well as an advisor to a uniiversity's administration and an editor of a newsletter. Suddenly, people were listening to me, quoting me, and acting on what I said. That caught me up short and I started to severely sublimate the thought process that informed speech. I also went from inarticulately blurting out sentence fragments to speaking in paragraphs.

Then, after a few years, things changed and I went back to being inarticulate until I started posting here.

I guess the message is that the process that seems so deeply rooted can be dislodged and replaced pretty easily if you have the right incentive. Does that make sense?

--lemit

#10 Jethro Tull

Jethro Tull

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:08 PM

I do spiritual exercise daily where I just completely open up all my senses one by one, starting with the weakest/most neglected (smell) and moving up to the strongest (sight). I try to feel my whole body and let the senses melt together to let in life from all angles instead of letting my mind focus on what it thinks is important.

Sometimes when I walk, I really feel the ground beneath my feet, every step of the way. My consciousness seems to move down to the middle of my chest, because I experience all my senses simultaneously. It seems like sensory overload if you think about it, but it is the clearest experience possible.

Our senses are a window to the physical universe through which we (consciousness) receive life. Life is coming from all directions directly to us in the present.