Is Consciousness just a word to describe the 5 senses?

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Nope. From my experience it's the difference between qualia, whatever witnesses qualia and the mind thinking about it. It's very subtle and I suppose that's why it's mostly missed but it's there. Always. In the deepest state of meditation and at the height of activity. Once realized it's unmistakable and unforgettable if not always attainable.

That bit about the deepest state of meditation and the height of activity... These are not mutually exclusive although the one who can lay claim to that continuous state of being is rare indeed. Call him/her a Yogi or Master in the truest sense. In other words Enlightened.

You're not responding to my points.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Qualia are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.


Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:

Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[2]
Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

These various definitions of subjectivity are sometimes joined together in philosophy. The term is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.

Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.[1]

Conclusion: qualia does not precede thinking and is not direct experience. Subjective imagining experiences of the mind are not direct experiences. No subjective experiences of the mind are direct experiences. You used your imagination to turn qualia into its opposite meaning.

You're not understanding qualia. It's raw experience unsullied by thought. It's pure subjective experience, direct experience. It can't arise from thought and an example is Mary the color blind neuroscientist. She can know all about the brain's circuitry, about the retina, rods and cones, the optic nerve, the vision centers, frequencies of light but she can never know what it's like to see red. "What it's like" is qualia and until something is subjectively experienced no amount of thinking can inform one what it's like.

Furthermore science hasn't a clue what gives rise to "what it's like", hence "The Hard Problem" of consciousness.

You're also not understanding objective "truth". It's an agreed upon "truth", a consensus, and it changes over time. At one time the objective "truth" was Earth was at the center of the universe and Sun, Moon, planets and stars were embedded in concentric crystal spheres with Heaven beyond. If you were alive back then that would have been your objective "truth" and you would have been wrong. Objective reality is just the best model we currently have, it's woefully incomplete and it's subject to change. We still have no clue about what constitutes the majority of the universe.

https://www.space.com/11642-dark-mat...rse-panek.html

All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

And this too is just our current understanding. Perhaps in a hundred years we'll have additional observations that will reduce that 4% to less. That's your objective "truth".

That's the macro scale and it's no different at the micro scale. At one point there was no conception of atoms. Things were just solid lumps of elements and that was fundamental and objective "truth". Then came the theory atoms and they were tiny solid lumps and that was objective "truth". Then came the discovery atoms were made up of smaller things, electrons, protons and neutrons and that was objective "truth". Then came quantum mechanics and smaller, more fundamental particles were discovered and they are only probabilities of observation due to collapse of the wave function and that is now the objective "truth". So the 0.00000000000000001% of an atom that is supposedly something is just a probability of observation, whatever that means, and the jury's still out on that.

The only thing that's absolutely certain and without a shadow of doubt us subjective experience.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You're not understanding qualia. It's raw experience unsullied by thought. It's pure subjective experience, direct experience. It can't arise from thought and an example is Mary the color blind neuroscientist. She can know all about the brain's circuitry, about the retina, rods and cones, the optic nerve, the vision centers, frequencies of light but she can never know what it's like to see red. "What it's like" is qualia and until something is subjectively experienced no amount of thinking can inform one what it's like.

Furthermore science hasn't a clue what gives rise to "what it's like", hence "The Hard Problem" of consciousness.

You're also not understanding objective "truth". It's an agreed upon "truth", a consensus, and it changes over time. At one time the objective "truth" was Earth was at the center of the universe and Sun, Moon, planets and stars were embedded in concentric crystal spheres with Heaven beyond. If you were alive back then that would have been your objective "truth" and you would have been wrong. Objective reality is just the best model we currently have, it's woefully incomplete and it's subject to change. We still have no clue about what constitutes the majority of the universe.

https://www.space.com/11642-dark-mat...rse-panek.html

All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

And this too is just our current understanding. Perhaps in a hundred years we'll have additional observations that will reduce that 4% to less. That's your objective "truth".

That's the macro scale and it's no different at the micro scale. At one point there was no conception of atoms. Things were just solid lumps of elements and that was fundamental and objective "truth". Then came the theory atoms and they were tiny solid lumps and that was objective "truth". Then came the discovery atoms were made up of smaller things, electrons, protons and neutrons and that was objective "truth". Then came quantum mechanics and smaller, more fundamental particles were discovered and they are only probabilities of observation due to collapse of the wave function and that is now the objective "truth". So the 0.00000000000000001% of an atom that is supposedly something is just a probability of observation, whatever that means, and the jury's still out on that.

The only thing that's absolutely certain and without a shadow of doubt us subjective experience.

You are misunderstanding what subjective means and thus you are the one whom is misunderstanding qualia, or you simply do not care, in which case, you are not being honest, and then what is the point? Read again what I posted in bold. Subjectivity is based on personal perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires of the conditioned mind, thus is not truth or real, thus is not direct experience while objectivity is not based on personal subjective perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires of the mind, thus is truth and real, and is direct experience. Truth, what is real and direct experience of the right here and right now and all is one and one is all is the one and the same and are all objective, not subjective at all. You dismissing/shutting down objectivity like you do is just plain silly imagination in the view of truth, direct experience of the right here and now/oneness/wholeness.

Using the Mary example you gave above, if someone told Mary the color red was green via an imaginary concept that red is green, this is being subjective. Mary and the person whom subjectively told Mary that the color red is green are both incorrect and are not being honest (intentionally and unintentionally), which is my point. And my point is subjectivity via the imagination can lead one astray/away from truth, oneness/wholeness, while objectivity can not, The person who falsely told Mary the color red is green, lead Mary Astray/away from actually knowing what red looks like, by using Mary's imagination and ignorance against her, since Mary is ignorant of the color red.

Edited for spelling errors

Originally Posted by MikeS80

You are misunderstanding what subjective means and thus you are the one whom is misunderstanding qualia, or you simply do not care, in which case, you are not being honest, and then what is the point? Read again what I posted in bold. Subjectivity is based on personal perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires of the conditioned mind, thus is not truth or real, thus is not direct experience while objectivity is not based on personal subjective perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires of the mind, thus is truth and real, and is direct experience. Truth, what is real and direct experience of the right here and right now and all is one and one is all is the one and the same and are all objective, not subjective at all. You dismissing/shutting down objectivity like you do is just plain silly imagination in the view of truth, direct experience of the right here and now/oneness/wholeness.

Using the Mary example you gave above, if someone told Mary the color red was green via an imaginary concept that red is green, this is being subjective. Mary and the person whom subjectively told Mary that the color red is green are both incorrect and are not being honest (intentionally and unintentionally), which is my point. And my point is subjectivity via the imagination can lead one astray/away from truth, oneness/wholeness, while objectivity can not, The person who falsely told Mary the color red is green, lead Mary Astray/away from actually knowing what red looks like, by using Mary's imagination and ignorance against her, since Mary is ignorant of the color red.

Edited for spelling errors

Why do you always bring up dishonesty when there's difference of opinion? Furthermore don't you realize everything you post is your subjective view and nothing more?

No one tells Mary anything. That's the entire point. It is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is her subjective experience. Look into Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" or listen to some of David Chalmer's lectures.

By the way, objectivity requires consensus and that means multiple parties coming to agreement. Since there is only Brahman and It is the ultimate subject that means subjectivity rules the roost. Ultimately speaking.

[r6r6]

There exists no life force. There exists synergetic resultant of the parts that result in more complex biologics ex woman is most complex bioloigic of Universe.


Synergy = when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.


/\ + /\ = 4 triangles of the tetrahedron ergo 3 angles + 3 angles = 12 angles associated with the synergetic set of four triangles.


Take note, that the number of edges 6, does not change, only that we have gone from 2D area to 3D volume and 4 triangles instead of 2 and 12 angles instead of 6.


Life is not a bosonic force like EMRadiation, or magnitism or gluons etc.


At best we may say that life is a soul resides with a complex of Gravitational ( ) relationships, if not also Dark Energy )( relationships.


Black hole mathematics tell us that our experiences are all just and illusion of 3D. When a 2D subdivided tetrahedron \Y/i.e. halfway between inside-out and outside-out, it is 2D only, but as soon as the central vertex moves to one side or other of the subdivided plane ---osscillation-- it becomes a warped verson of 2D that we associated with 3D.


Now when we have myriad set of these interfering with each other, we may only see 3D volumetric somethings { occupied space }

Originally Posted by r6r6r

False. "You" exist because others observe "you".
The i-ness ego * i * is not neccessary for existence.
All is connected as one-ness via Gravity ( ) if not also via Dark Energy )( i.e. they are two sides of the same tori ( * ) i ( * )
We have the outer surface side, and, inner surface side, as well as,
the inside of the tori ---0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15,18 etc--- is where Observed Time reality/energy as associated with sine-wave /\/\/\/ pattern.
We have 18 kinds of quark and 18 kinds of anti-quark.
We have 3 kinds of electron and 3 kinds of anti-electron.
We have 3 kinds of neutrino and 3 kinds of anti-neutrino.
We have Mother /**\.....
father *Y*.....
progeny * *

[Miss Hepburn]

"There exist no life force."-r6r6r

Tell that to my finger that just healed.
Tell that to my fingernails that keep growing as I sleep.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

"There exist no life force."-r6r6r
Tell that to my finger that just healed.
Tell that to my fingernails that keep growing as I sleep.

I did just tell you in post #96.

There is no life force and when you actually have evidence of it please share.

Life, fingernails that keep growing etc are synergetic resultant of known forces bosonic and known fermionic matter that all have evidential evidence of .

There is not evidential for any life force as there is with EMRadiation etc.

Please share Mis H, when you actually have some evidence to back your claims of this "life force". T just claim some force exists is not science.

Sure you can believe whatever you want, but please share any facts that bear out the existence of life force.

When a electron absorbls a single photon { bosonic force } and instrment goes PING! or whatever, there is not instrument that meauses quanta of life force.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Why do you always bring up dishonesty when there's difference of opinion? Furthermore don't you realize everything you post is your subjective view and nothing more?

No one tells Mary anything. That's the entire point. It is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is her subjective experience. Look into Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" or listen to some of David Chalmer's lectures.

By the way, objectivity requires consensus and that means multiple parties coming to agreement. Since there is only Brahman and It is the ultimate subject that means subjectivity rules the roost. Ultimately speaking.

I keep bringing up dishonesty (whether the dishonesty is intentional or not, you will only know) because it is being dishonest to flip/twist the meaning of subjectivity to mean the opposite of subjectivity, which is objectivity (Using definitions/the most common usage of words is being objective, while you twisting and flipping the objective definitions of words to fit your beliefs, perceptions, feelings, desires etc etc is you being subjective).

It is also dishonest to say subjective experience, which is experience based on personal perspectives, feelings, beliefs, desires etc etc is direct experience (I guess it is direct experience, but only mentally/in the mind, however, it is not true/real. Isn't spirituality about truth and about what is true and real or not?) and it is being dishonest to say subjective experience can't arise from thought, when subjective experience based on personal perspectives, feelings, beliefs, desires etc etc arises out of nothing but through thought/imagination/mind. Yet you keep insisting that subjective experience based on personal perspectives, feelings, beliefs, desires etc etc can not arise out of thought/imagination/mind.

Everything I post about the self, Self, mind, body, brahman, atman, oneness/wholeness and the right here and right now is objective, By objective, I mean not based on my own personal subjective perspectives, feelings, beliefs, desires etc etc.

I know no one told Mary anything in the example you gave, I was giving you a different example using Mary.

You talk about objectivity in a science separate, collective, group, universal kind of way, while I talk about objectivity in a personal individual but not separate kind of way. You talk about objectivity the same way you talk about consciousness, which is in a collective universal kind of way. Justasimpleguy as an individual self/Self is never present/exists in the physical universe/physical realty/physical right here and right now (being physically present in the physical right here and now is a fundamental requirement to directly experiencing)...

Justasimpleguy uses his mind's imagination to only exist and to "directly experience" the collective consciousness as the collective consciousness, not as the individual atman/Self and self of Justasimpleguy, Thus Justasimpleguy just talks about the collective that is in his mind (while he dismisses his mind), with the use of concepts, metaphors, analogies etc etc.

Yes, brahman is the ultimate subject, but the ultimate subject of brahman is objective. The ultimate subject of brahman/truth is not based on/is independent of personal subjective perspectives, feelings, beliefs, desires etc etc.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Please share Miss H, when you actually have some evidence to back your claims of this "life force".
T just claim some force exists is not science.

Oh! This is the Science section!
I just float around to the topics. My bad.
I'm not a scientist. Can't put a life force or God or love in a test tube, yet.
Got me there!

[Apakhana Akshobhya]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I did just tell you in post #96.
There is no life force and when you actually have evidence of it please share.
Life, fingernails that keep growing etc are synergetic resultant of known forces bosonic and known fermionic matter that all have evidential evidence of . There is not evidential for any life force as there is with EMRadiation etc.

I think you're explaining that your definition of "life force" is just different from others who don't know what they are trying to describe.
You're like myself, it's nothing magical or unexplainable, it's actually made of a quantum something-or-another thing which science doesn't always use the right instruments to measure, yet it exists nonetheless. As it's taught in literally every authentic tradition there are 5 levels of soul. Life force is just one of them.

If anyone is looking for experiential evidence I invite you to join or at the very least research authentic spiritual traditions which literally use "life force" or any other equivalent name. My own tradition has used things like shaktipat and energetic transmissions directly form the teacher to the initiate or student. If you are a serious practitioner there are a multitude of ways to experience these energies as well, you will have to in order to burn through the granthis.

<3