The Origins of Human Consciousness

[r6r6]

Yeah I read the book also. Epigenetics and so on. Have it somewhere. That and microtubles is all stuff I research many years backed.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I have read the "Biology of Belief" by Bruce Lipton in book form.

It has pride of place on my bookshelf next to "DMT The Spirit Molecule" by Dr Rick Strassman , which sits next to "Beyond Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza and that sits alongside "The Divine Matrix" by Gregg Braden.

The exploration of microtubules is a fascinating thing...

Here is Stuart Kauffman at the SAND conference:
https://youtu.be/hOTjrNhnjDc

Yeah, I am a total nerd...I know....I know...

[hallow]

Threads like this are fun, I see people all the time trying to break down and put a sincetific twist on there own consciousness. If you really want know the origin, it's not in books or videos. It's much simpler and raw.

Originally Posted by hallow

Threads like this are fun, I see people all the time trying to break down and put a sincetific twist on there own consciousness. If you really want know the origin, it's not in books or videos. It's much simpler and raw.

I basically suppose the origins of (all) consciousness goes back to the origins of organic animate life on the planet (when speaking of human consciousness) that is, excluding the cosmic.

☼

As honest as I can: I had a go at this, approached it not as a skeptic but “does it matter?” “Has ‘knowing’ a pragmatic use?” like what is ‘reality’. The question might have engaged me once but no longer because it’s there. I can change how I assimilate my perceptions but that doesn’t transform the phenomena. Likewise consciousness is there as long as awareness is.

So, I played the first video over breakfast. When I saw the three films together occupy over an hour I winced as time is a premium if I’m to visit this site, read posts and comment.

Anyway, I started. It felt as if he was trying to intellectualise the impossible, the esoteric. He launches off into unconditional love. What he seemed to be doing was presenting symptoms of consciousness as he perceives them as a way of definition which would be a prerequisite of tracing its origins. I felt he didn’t explain what he understood by unconditional love nor the conditions for its existence. “All inclusive” isn’t to me synonymous. You could say the same of unconditional hate. I haven’t a clue how it can be given a meaning in words and he didn’t help.

Most of all he didn’t seem to relate it to consciousness. So anyway, part 1 was setting out his terms.
I too have started to look into the neurophysiology of consciousness which while it can explain some of the neuronal processes admits it can’t answer the “why” of experiencing it or really define its boundaries outside unconsciousness.

I wasn’t so sure why he passed judgement on examples of his antithetical force. That’s part of it like it or not so part 2 might explain how this fits with the origins. I wasn’t too happy with some of the philosophy: “how” we move through psycho-spatial temporality; emptiness inside us (which is a prerequisite of movement if I think about it); endless choices for false fulfilment… I mean, that’s a slanted contradiction in terms! It can only be “absolute exclusivity” if one denies the “social brain” which seems a bit of an iffy conjecture; “the perversion of reality occurs to the qualitative distinctions of identity? WHAT? Well if he must regard us isolated identities unable to recognise that we aren’t then that one’s lost on me. And I wasn’t sure I could bracket consciousness and self-consciousness as precisely the same thing.

When he mentioned the tautology “vibrational frequency” an alarm bell rang and stamped the New Age brand on the thing. I did listen to the end, had another coffee etc. It got very wordy and I wasn’t able to agree with his idea that desire is trapped unconditional love. Again a contradiction in terms. I’m not sure now whether I’ll go on to part two. His discourse is itself trapped by words, he ties himself in verbal knots. What I could glean doesn’t fit my model of “mind”, the social brain and interaction but others have different views and it may open some eyes to “don’t trust the religion of social conditioning”. Further, throughout his discourse on antithetical force he never once mentioned the pre-processing to all consciousness, the approach-withdraw action to external stimuli and the mechanics of how we deal with that.

So I rest my case. Interesting but how might it improve one's drive through daily life? At least it puts to rest some of the nonsense about "get rid of your ego!"

☼

[SerendipityLizard]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I have read the "Biology of Belief" by Bruce Lipton in book form.

It has pride of place on my bookshelf next to "DMT The Spirit Molecule" by Dr Rick Strassman , which sits next to "Beyond Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza and that sits alongside "The Divine Matrix" by Gregg Braden.

The exploration of microtubules is a fascinating thing...

Here is Stuart Kauffman at the SAND conference:
https://youtu.be/hOTjrNhnjDc

Yeah, I am a total nerd...I know....I know...

Haha, no need to worry about being a nerd. I’m one too!

Would you mind sharing me a short summary of at least one of the books you mentioned and your opinion on it? I’m really curious. .

I’ll try to watch the videos when I have the time to and offer my ideas on it. I’m a little busy these days and can get rather tired, but I do hope I can come back to discuss it with you guys.

[Shivani Devi]

It is going to take me a while to respond to Lorelyn, but I agree with a lot of it and especially on the final point made about the withdrawal of external senses (pratyahara) and its relation to the antithetical force....but I shall give more of an indepth reply later.

To answer SerendipityLizard, I shall choose "Beyond Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza.

This book presupposes that Consciousness is external from the mind and not the other way around. Lanza states that Consciousness creates matter and matter does not create Consciousness. Consciousness isn't something which is produced by the mind or necessarily intrinsic to it, creating an individual reality, rather, our brain is like a "receiver" for Consciousness, in much the same way as a television set is the receiver for wireless transmissions. After death, this consciousness does not 'die' but goes back to the ether, or another dimension/universe, carrying with it, our own personal thoughts, memories and awareness to become part of the 'collective'.

I really like Lanza's view as it is rather refreshing and gives a different spin and perspective on the standard model of the survival of consciousness after death in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

I shall review another of those books and respond to Lorelyn tomorrow.

I really appreciate the time people have taken to watch these videos and also the critiques given. From them, I am able to understand how my own personal cognitive biases colour what I understand and what I relate to on an intellectual level.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

I basically suppose the origins of (all) consciousness goes back to the origins of organic animate life on the planet (when speaking of human consciousness) that is, excluding the cosmic.
☼

This is one perspective. Another perspective is that consciousness precedes the origins of organic animate life. In other words, consciousness does not depend on the physical body or the mechanics of the physical brain.

Peace.

Originally Posted by iamthat

This is one perspective. Another perspective is that consciousness precedes the origins of organic animate life. In other words, consciousness does not depend on the physical body or the mechanics of the physical brain.

Peace.

Absolutely although I suspect trying to trace it back beyond anything that
has the requisites for what evolved as "human consciousness" would be
speculation, veering toward infinity or "the beginning" so the origin couldn't be traced.
Perhaps that's the paradox of the first video.

As a term "consciousness" seems to mean some(thing) capable of knowing it owns its
perceptions which in turn needs a sense of self and the mechanics of processing to perceive.
Is consciousness possible without these basics?

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by iamthat

This is one perspective. Another perspective is that consciousness precedes the origins of organic animate life. In other words, consciousness does not depend on the physical body or the mechanics of the physical brain.Peace.

Depends on we define consciousness.

Minimal consciousness = twoness ergo otherness egro awarness.

1} observer ex eye ball as a specific special-case,

2} observed ex finger as a specific special-case,

3} line-of-relationship ex visible light { EMRaditaion } ergo nervous system

4} background against which that is being observed, and that is basically the same background that observer exists within.

But even simpler is any two particles of Universe that inherently have a gravitational line-of-relationship.

A more complex consciousness would be a virus with protein shell, that has only RNA or DNA never both.

Next in complexitiy would be a biological cell with a membrane and both RNA and DNA.

Then plants, fungus, animals and finally the most complex entity of Universe, human, with woman being more complex than man.

I believe there has never existed a time, when Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( did not exist as compliments to each other.


Probably the same goes for Observed TIME that we associate with sine-wave pattern /\/\/ amd frequency ^v^v

[lemex]

Originally Posted by iamthat

This is one perspective. Another perspective is that consciousness precedes the origins of organic animate life. In other words, consciousness does not depend on the physical body or the mechanics of the physical brain.

Peace.

Yes, if we were not here consciousness would still exist. imo of course. The physical form may not be required, ok, is not required. And the thing is by definition that consciousness before life would have the capacity of being self aware. Is there an original consciousness? Humans may simply not be aware of certain aspects of pure consciousness and beyond our capacity of understanding.It would be interesting if organic life started consciousness, ie humans, aliens, dogs, cats, naturally living things and life does not exist beyond us.