| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2007 01:49:20 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
.
|
|
| User: "thinker" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 08:33:18 PM |
|
|
<pjmutnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4449bde6-fb06-431b-951e-5cf15a9d3cbc@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious
states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the
scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Except for asserting that there is such a thing as "Cosmic Consciousness",
what evidence do you have that there is such a thing? I can point to the
animal world where there really are conscious beings and I can give good
reasons why they are conscious (they have brains that cause consciousness)
and why consciousness is a biological process. Consciousness is central to
the explanation of the behavior of the animals, including humans. No
discussion of how we live and act in the world makes sense without
discussing consciousness and discussing it as a biological process. Are you
sure you aren't talking about something other than what is called
consciousness in science and philosophy?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Julian" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
20 Dec 2007 02:25:27 PM |
|
|
"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:dc93a6cb-4c76-4f7c-acff-be125562b0e0@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms
are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious
states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the
scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Have you considered nobody in alt.atheism is interested in this crap?
I don't think anyone's bothered about alt.atheism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 02:07:19 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:4449bde6-fb06-431b-951e-5cf15a9d3cbc@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
to alt.atheism:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms
are conscious. I think the best argument against this is that
conscious states are experienced as unified states and its hard to
see how bits of consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn
out that the scientific experts on consciousness will be able to
determine when something is conscious and when it is not, but we are
nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Have you ever considered the idea that all consciousness is false unless
informed by external reality, and where that leaves you vis-a-vis your
mental health?
--
David Silverman C.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Awphucket
And now, today's sponsor message:
For the beluga caviar of stupidity, it's got to be...
Brian Carey.
Available in a newsgroup near you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 09:18:46 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
In philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 09:41:28 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 11:03:33 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 11:07:47 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested
in arguments, but not baseless opinions. Face that faceless moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 11:20:44 PM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 12:07 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested
in arguments, but not baseless opinions. Face that faceless moron.
For *****'s sake, mate, "Cosmic Consciousness"? That's proto-
philosophical babble of the highest order.
Olrik
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 11:24:10 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 9:20 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:07 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested
in arguments, but not baseless opinions. Face that faceless moron.
For *****'s sake, mate, "Cosmic Consciousness"? That's proto-
philosophical babble of the highest order.
Olrik- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it isn't. I've experienced it, Olrik. Don't invalidate the
experience of others that you don't understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
18 Dec 2007 03:17:05 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:a59d46b5-d7bc-4223-b753-5612494dac0c@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com
to alt.atheism:
On Dec 17, 9:20 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:07 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art,
that atoms are conscious. I think the best argument
against this is that conscious states are experienced as
unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out
that the scientific experts on consciousness will be
able to determine when something is conscious and when
it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be
offended by people who don't agree with my views. Before
the age of 40 or so, I wouldn't have had any time for the
metaphysical beliefs I now hold. Basically, what happened
is that I came across a description of the "hidden" or
underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less
kicking and screaming against it. We all have hidden
beliefs and prejudices, and I found myself in the midst
of a psychological overhaul and a spiritual awakening.
Somehow or another it made sense to me and it pulled
everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys
done on scientists in various fields concerning their
sympathies with the parasciences, and physicists rank the
highest, I think. Biologists seem to be unsympathetic
hardheads :) We're all victims of the materialistic
reductionism so rampant in the academic and scientific
communities ... and it can be quite difficult to break
free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea
that Cosmic Consciousness underlies each individuated
Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a
piece of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and
face reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am
interested in arguments,
Liar, you ran away from me.
but not baseless opinions. Face that
faceless moron.
For *****'s sake, mate, "Cosmic Consciousness"? That's proto-
philosophical babble of the highest order.
Olrik- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it isn't. I've experienced it, Olrik. Don't invalidate the
experience of others that you don't understand.
Once again:
Have you ever considered the idea that all consciousness is false unless
informed by external reality, and where that leaves you vis-a-vis your
mental health?
--
David Silverman C.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Awphucket
And now, today's sponsor message:
For the beluga caviar of stupidity, it's got to be...
Brian Carey.
Available in a newsgroup near you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
17 Dec 2007 11:31:52 PM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 12:24 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:20 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:07 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested
in arguments, but not baseless opinions. Face that faceless moron.
For *****'s sake, mate, "Cosmic Consciousness"? That's proto-
philosophical babble of the highest order.
Olrik- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it isn't. I've experienced it, Olrik.
What's in your head stays in your head.
Don't invalidate the experience of others that you don't understand.
Then keep it to yourself. I don't want every drug addict to tell me
what they experienced either.
Olrik
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
18 Dec 2007 05:37:50 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 9:31 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:24 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:20 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:07 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested
in arguments, but not baseless opinions. Face that faceless moron.
For *****'s sake, mate, "Cosmic Consciousness"? That's proto-
philosophical babble of the highest order.
Olrik- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it isn't. I've experienced it, Olrik.
What's in your head stays in your head.
No it doesn't.
Don't invalidate the experience of others that you don't understand.
Then keep it to yourself. I don't want every drug addict to tell me
what they experienced either.
Olrik
Non-sequitur. I am posting on a public forum, Olrik, it is not your
private little world, you stinking megalomaniac.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
18 Dec 2007 05:47:30 PM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 6:37 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:31 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:24 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:20 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:07 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested
in arguments, but not baseless opinions. Face that faceless moron.
For *****'s sake, mate, "Cosmic Consciousness"? That's proto-
philosophical babble of the highest order.
Olrik- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it isn't. I've experienced it, Olrik.
What's in your head stays in your head.
No it doesn't.
Don't invalidate the experience of others that you don't understand.
Then keep it to yourself. I don't want every drug addict to tell me
what they experienced either.
Olrik
Non-sequitur. I am posting on a public forum, Olrik, it is not your
private little world, you stinking megalomaniac.
I'm not telling you to stop posting, I'm telling you that I am not
interested (and probably others here in alt.atheism) in your brain's
short-circuits. Consider me a "Cosmic Consciousness Objector", if you
will.
Olrik
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
18 Dec 2007 06:01:41 PM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 3:47 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 6:37 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:31 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:24 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:20 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:07 am, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness?
New Age-y gibberish.
Olrik
STFU, no one needs your stupid comments. Just write them on a piece
of toilet paper and flush them down your toilet.
Whatever. Your post is still New Age-y gibberish. Grow up and face
reality.
Olrik
Says you moron. I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested
in arguments, but not baseless opinions. Face that faceless moron.
For *****'s sake, mate, "Cosmic Consciousness"? That's proto-
philosophical babble of the highest order.
Olrik- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it isn't. I've experienced it, Olrik.
What's in your head stays in your head.
No it doesn't.
Don't invalidate the experience of others that you don't understand.
Then keep it to yourself. I don't want every drug addict to tell me
what they experienced either.
Olrik
Non-sequitur. I am posting on a public forum, Olrik, it is not your
private little world, you stinking megalomaniac.
I'm not telling you to stop posting, I'm telling you that I am not
interested (and probably others here in alt.atheism) in your brain's
short-circuits. Consider me a "Cosmic Consciousness Objector", if you
will.
Olrik
Fair enough, but I am not a Cosmic Consciousness Promoter. I am just
sharing my ideas with all of you and learning from you, as well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RaaN" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
19 Dec 2007 03:15:11 AM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Sartre addressed The Transcendence of The Ego in his book of the same
name
and came to conclusions very similar to Buddhism. It is well worth
reading.
In any case Husserl's phenomenology is corrected by Existential
phenomenology.
--
RaaN
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
19 Dec 2007 04:13:10 AM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 1:15 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Sartre addressed The Transcendence of The Ego in his book of the same
name
and came to conclusions very similar to Buddhism. It is well worth
reading.
In any case Husserl's phenomenology is corrected by Existential
phenomenology.
--
RaaN
100% absolutely wrong are you. diametrically wrong. topsy-turvy
views. your mind works in reverse: true is false and false is true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RaaN" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
19 Dec 2007 06:22:21 AM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 5:13 am, wrote:
On Dec 19, 1:15 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Sartre addressed The Transcendence of The Ego in his book of the same
name
and came to conclusions very similar to Buddhism. It is well worth
reading.
In any case Husserl's phenomenology is corrected by Existential
phenomenology.
--
RaaN
100% absolutely wrong are you. diametrically wrong. topsy-turvy
views. your mind works in reverse: true is false and false is true.
Not a convincing argument.
Try reading the book first.
--
RaaN
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
19 Dec 2007 07:13:07 AM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 4:22 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:13 am, wrote:
On Dec 19, 1:15 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Sartre addressed The Transcendence of The Ego in his book of the same
name
and came to conclusions very similar to Buddhism. It is well worth
reading.
In any case Husserl's phenomenology is corrected by Existential
phenomenology.
--
RaaN
100% absolutely wrong are you. diametrically wrong. topsy-turvy
views. your mind works in reverse: true is false and false is true.
Not a convincing argument.
Try reading the book first.
--
RaaN
Oh I read the book, you sick *****. Say ***** you to Laurent for me,
will you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Epstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
19 Dec 2007 07:53:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:22 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:13 am, wrote:
On Dec 19, 1:15 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Sartre addressed The Transcendence of The Ego in his book of the same
name
and came to conclusions very similar to Buddhism. It is well worth
reading.
In any case Husserl's phenomenology is corrected by Existential
phenomenology.
--
RaaN
100% absolutely wrong are you. diametrically wrong. topsy-turvy
views. your mind works in reverse: true is false and false is true.
Not a convincing argument.
Try reading the book first.
--
RaaN
Oh I read the book, you sick *****. Say ***** you to Laurent for me,
will you?
You don't know who you're messing with mutnick. Raan can bite.
Robert
- - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
19 Dec 2007 08:27:42 PM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 5:53 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@verizon.net> wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:22 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:13 am, wrote:
On Dec 19, 1:15 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me.
I struggled for a long time with this, more or less kicking and
screaming against it. We all have hidden beliefs and prejudices,
and I found myself in the midst of a psychological overhaul and
a spiritual awakening. Somehow or another it made sense to
me and it pulled everything together into a sort of mystical
theory of everything.
I sometimes think my training as a electronic engineer is
an advantage, since I'm used to working with all kinds of
unseen energies, fields, and other abstract entities.
Physicists are in the same position. I've read surveys done on
scientists in various fields concerning their sympathies with
the parasciences, and physicists rank the highest, I think.
Biologists seem to be unsympathetic hardheads :) We're
all victims of the materialistic reductionism so rampant in
the academic and scientific communities ... and it can be
quite difficult to break free of that mold.
That's why I was so delighted to find that there are
modern and current philosophers such as Seager, for
example, who champion the cause of pansychism. I was
delighted when I learned that serious thinkers such as
Chalmers recognize the hard problem of consciousness
(qualia). It's heartening to find at least a few here and
there who are capable of thinking "outside the box".
Arthttp://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Hi, Art. Nice website. Have you ever considered the idea that Cosmic
Consciousness underlies each individuated Stream of Consciousness? In
philosophy, this takes the form of the assertion of the existence of a
transcendental ego (Husserl) in addition to the empirical,
psychological, or Freudian ego. The empirical ego has the capacity
for self-transcendence, which accomplishes the epoche, or
phenomological reduction, and yields the experience of Cosmic
Consciousness.
Sartre addressed The Transcendence of The Ego in his book of the same
name
and came to conclusions very similar to Buddhism. It is well worth
reading.
In any case Husserl's phenomenology is corrected by Existential
phenomenology.
--
RaaN
100% absolutely wrong are you. diametrically wrong. topsy-turvy
views. your mind works in reverse: true is false and false is true.
Not a convincing argument.
Try reading the book first.
--
RaaN
Oh I read the book, you sick *****. Say ***** you to Laurent for me,
will you?
You don't know who you're messing with mutnick. Raan can bite.
Robert
I know exactly what I'm dealing with. He has fully revealed his
ignorance to me. I am referring to his opinions about Sartre vis-a-
vis Husserl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Epstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciousness and Anesthesia |
21 Dec 2007 12:20:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:53 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@verizon.net> wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:22 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:13 am, wrote:
On Dec 19, 1:15 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
<notrealaddr...@unreal.edu> wrote:
Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.
Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a c | | | | | | | |
