Why is Consciousness ...

[Gem]

Originally Posted by waechter418

....getting more and more discredited in Western civilization whose philosophers, artists, priests & poets held it, since the early Greeks, in high esteem.

I don't think that's the case as consciousness philosophy is a pretty big topic these days, and there is eve emerging quite a lot of talk about a 'science of consciousness'. David Chalmers is my favorite philosopher on this subject.

Is it because modern western sciences pay little attention to consciousness, and if so, only to try to bind it into matter?

One has to understand the historical context in which, due to the Church's persecution of who was then called 'natural philosophers', particularly Copernicus, Galileo and Descartes, 'natural philosophy' was basically forced to abandon 'matters of the soul', and even knowledge about the planets and solar system. By the time Newton came of age, natural philosophy really was relegated to only material things. The split between philosophy and science came later on, I think as late as the 19th century (not so sure about the time). After that, what once combined spiritual religion/mysticism, philosophical and scientific inquiry became 3 different and quite distinct schools of thought. However, by the 20th century QM did away with Cartesian and/or Newtonian 'clockwork physics', much to the dismay of Einstein, and a more abstract universe that encompasses both subjective and objective qualities is conceived of in both philosophy and science. The more philosophical essays of Niels Bohr speak about this in depth.

Or is it that people are increasingly captured by the material aspects of existence and thus become callous to consciousness?

What is the benefit of eliminating a concept that is accredited to have enriched Western cultures – and of course the grand civilizations of the East, who, by the way, keep its esprit since millennia well and alive.

The Eastern traditions, unlike Christiandom in the West, had no issue with the scientific/philosophical paradigm, so we find the Eastern spiritual teachings include an epistemology of the universe which is somewhat translatable or coherent with Quantum mechanics. The First Quantum physicists, such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger, turned to the Vedas as part of their conceptions of the physics they were working on, and I think Bohr captured this sort of knowledge base best by saying:

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr).

[Gem]

Philosopher, Chalmers 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

Mathematician/theoretical physics, Penrose 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

[r6r6]

Occupied space (**) exists within the existence of macro-infinite non-occupied space

non-occupied space (**) non-occupied space

And some aspects of occupied space ex humans (**) have access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept existence ergo /spirit-of-intent/.

(*/*) complex human with spirit-of-intent

Start with the greatest whole--- "U"niverse / "G"od ---concept and no parts can be excluded.



1} "U"niverse / "G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy

......1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts,

--------------line of demarcation----------

.......1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space,

.......1c} our finite occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse

123, ABC, thats how easy "U"niverse can be......sung to Michael Jackson and Jackson 5 tune.

None have offered any rational, logical common sense that would invalidate or add to my given cosmic hierarchy above, as stated.

None ever will. imho

r6

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Twoness * * ergo threeness becuase of existence of line/vector -of-relationship between the two *---*
Minimally gravity is the relationship between any two particels of Universe.
Then there is a fourth aspect and that is differrentiation between the parts i.e. so observe individual parts.
In the simples sense we say we have the those three parts and each of them are differrentiated by the bacground. The background we can consider as the macro-infinite, non-occupied space.
So within the macro-infinite, non-occupied space, we have
For practical purposes we can say there is just a background of pixels that are of a differrent color from our given three parts.
So we can conceptualize this scenario above as a finite, occupied space Uni{1}Verse composed of three integral{ unified } parts.
The one-verse exists eternally so the question of why it it exists is moot.
Finite physical/energy occupied space Universe cannot be created nor destroyed.
Why does occupied space exist. Because it is thay way eternally. There exists no before or after eternity.
Human existence is finite, and humans only observe finites, for most part ergo they tend to think mostly in beginning and ending terms. Our occupied space Universe is beyond those kinds of concepts.

[Clover]

Originally Posted by waechter418

....getting more and more discredited in Western civilization whose philosophers, artists, priests & poets held it, since the early Greeks, in high esteem.

Is it because modern western sciences pay little attention to consciousness, and if so, only to try to bind it into matter?

Or is it that people are increasingly captured by the material aspects of existence and thus become callous to consciousness?

What is the benefit of eliminating a concept that is accredited to have enriched Western cultures – and of course the grand civilizations of the East, who, by the way, keep its esprit since millennia well and alive.

I feel there is world wide appeal in wanting to learn more on consciousness, more than ever now with the rise of new ageism and our easy access with technology and sharing information with another globally. However, I feel when It comes to education, I think a big reason institutions shy away from expanding on the topic is because Freudian theories & traditional medicine still dominate lectures and field studies.

I also think there are cultural variations on how some societies welcome new information. Ignorance or lack of awareness and sometimes circusmtances that force us to accept new or different thinking models. I am reminded of how some European cultures may have viewed molded bread as sicking, while another culture ( Latin America) used it as penicillin/anti biotics, in short, it's a lack of awareness, ignorance and course of events that almost force us to perceive information in a new light and become accepting of new ideas/ways of learning

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Clover

I feel there is world wide appeal in wanting to learn more on consciousness, more than ever now with the rise of new ageism and our easy access with technology and sharing information with another globally.

the problem is all that is more of the same: concepts to get lost in ABOUT consciousness instead of actually BEING conscious. So nothing has really changed except now they are trying to paint a different kind of painting to hang on the wall.

[Shivani Devi]

It's because nobody can agree as to what consciousness actually is.

To science, everyday awareness is 'conscious awareness' so consciousness becomes just 'doing what you do when you are awake'.

However, there's two types of 'awake'...physically and spiritually, so the whole aspect of consciousness revolves around the former.

There are many terms for that which we cannot describe, but try to in order to explain it and 'consciousness' is one of them, but to science and the majority of people, it's just another function of mind and doesn't go beyond it.

[Clover]

@FallingLeaves, I personally feel it's good to look into theories and concepts to understand consciousness on a greater scale not only for ourselves but understanding the Universe at large.

Originally Posted by Gem

Philosopher, Chalmers 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

The comments from his video, lol. Seems typical with the topic. He mentions Panpsychism, seems to be popular or a favored theory these days. Although, the idea of everything having subjective feeling seems a bit far fetched. Thoughts? Personally, I better like the idea of linking consciousness to information.

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

It's because nobody can agree as to what consciousness actually is.

Good point, it's a never ending conundrum. Really, it comes down to what we believe or do not believe.

[WuWei]

I know a beings conscious reflects it's form and function. like, a daffodil has no use for pain, because it can't run away or defend itself. I know it probably experiences existence as being 'higher in energy' when it's got the sun beaming on it, and the right water in it's root - and that it becomes less conscious as it misses out on them.

It has no need for sentience beyond the point of reacting as a complex chemical process, but that's humans too. Suffering is something that could loosely be defined as when something's natural state that's kind of guided toward by it's structure is inhibited. But that kind of degrades genuine suffering that sentient creatures and people feel.

if something has no function for making a decision, it doesn't experience a 'wish for decision making'. everything exists in a state that is it's own physical nature. consciousness as we understand it is the activity of our danger awareness systems input being compared with their input half a second ago, and so on.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Clover

@FallingLeaves, I personally feel it's good to look into theories and concepts to understand consciousness on a greater scale not only for ourselves but understanding the Universe at large.

(grudgingly) now that you say something, I kinda remember that I wouldn't have gotten anywhere, except for being able to look at existing theories and concepts and see where it all fits together. So it does help,,,

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by WuWei

I know a beings conscious reflects it's form and function. like, a daffodil has no use for pain, because it can't run away or defend itself. I know it probably experiences existence as being 'higher in energy' when it's got the sun beaming on it, and the right water in it's root - and that it becomes less conscious as it misses out on them.

It has no need for sentience beyond the point of reacting as a complex chemical process, but that's humans too. Suffering is something that could loosely be defined as when something's natural state that's kind of guided toward by it's structure is inhibited. But that kind of degrades genuine suffering that sentient creatures and people feel.

if something has no function for making a decision, it doesn't experience a 'wish for decision making'. everything exists in a state that is it's own physical nature. consciousness as we understand it is the activity of our danger awareness systems input being compared with their input half a second ago, and so on.

i dunno it is hard to say what has sentience and what doesn't. I know that dogs eyes are 'clearer' than humans eyes when I look into them, they seem overall more 'aware'. But that may just be me.