http___fractalenlightenment.com_sl_29367_life_splinter-in-the-mind-part-1-the-nature-of-consciousness.xml
http___fractalenlightenment.com_bs_29367_life_splinter-in-the-mind-part-1-the-nature-of-consciousness_1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 13.2 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 21.1 21.2 21.3 22.1 22.2 23.1 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 26.1
Splinter in the Mind, Del 1: The Nature of Consciousness “Understand how great is the darkness in which we grope, and never forget the natural-science assumptions with which we started are provisional and revisable things” –William James What is consciousness? What is the true nature of consciousness? How does a being of consciousness approach an interrogation of his/her own consciousness? These are just a few of the many mesmerizing questions that arise when we contemplate the nature of consciousness. Ask any two random people about what they think the nature of consciousness is and they will almost certainly have dissimilar opinions on the matter. It turns out that our perceptions of reality are as unique as our fingerprints. We all have fingerprints, just as we all have conscious awareness, but our fingerprints are just as individually unique as our conscious awareness (or lack of awareness) is. So can we ever achieve a working definition of consciousness? “It is not possible to specify precise objective criteria for identifying consciousness,” wrote G. V. Farthing in The Psychology of Consciousness. “Nor can consciousness be given a clear functional definition, since its specific function within the mind system is still a matter of controversy.” It is astounding how complex it is to give a working definition for consciousness, and yet it is so simple for us to feel what it is like to be conscious. Defining consciousness is like breaking down reality: it’s an infinite progression. Being conscious and living in reality is simple because that is what we are designed to do. Indeed, that is what we are doing. But once we attempt to define either, a rift between two different realities seems to appear and all reasoning becomes bias and myopic. Nevertheless, attempting a definition is important. In Psychology: the Science of Mental Life George Miller said, “Consciousness is a word worn smooth by a million tongues.” Indeed, words create an interesting dynamic in the mind. Not only are they symbols of the reality that we usually take for granted; they are also a psycho-physical stimulus that induces a physiological reaction by their mere conception. The problem with such a word as ‘consciousness’ is that it represents our most cherished possession: ourselves. Our notion of consciousness is our sanity, literally. Without a stable definition we are lost. It is almost an evolutionary must that we define consciousness in a certain way so as to maintain our delicate grip on reality. But this is where things go awry. And this is where our notion of consciousness might become a snake that eats its own tail (i.e. religion and dogmatic ideologies). At any moment we are consciously aware of only a limited part of all the stimuli – external and internal, micro and macro – of what we might potentially be aware. A selection process is necessary because of the limited capacity of consciousness and working memory (finite perception). So what could be happening outside of our perceptual capacities? And does it even matter? Consciousness seems as simple as a brain and its physiological connections reacting fluidly with and within an environment. But how much of this process is mere perceptual assumption? And what is the overall understanding of this process? Steven Pinker’s Surface Perception Module accounts for how the brain makes up for any missing information on the perception of objects by explaining how the brain ‘assumes’ the ‘world’ it is living in. If the brain did not assume certain rules for its environment then it would have to filter through an infinite amount of data which would make survival impossible. Instead, it does assume finite aspects of its reality, oscillating objects into perceptual existence, thereby making it possible to traverse reality and bring meaning to it through precise perceptual injections of finitude. The problem with the scientific study of consciousness, however, is that it is typically broken down into only three categories: physiological, cognitive, and experiential. There’s no doubt that these are all aspects of consciousness, but they are by no means separate; nor are they the only ones. Consciousness study cannot (except in a generic sense) be systematized lest important data is lost. There is something lost between the physiological and the cognitive when we bring our labels to bare and neatly pigeonhole our ‘discoveries’ underneath them. Conscious events are more than what our science can currently explain in a rational way. Like particle physics cannot explain what is light. They may postulate light’s particle-like nature, they may postulate its wave-like nature, but in the end the phenomena of light is just as systematically indescribable as the nature of consciousness. Similarly, psychologists researching the physiological aspects of consciousness may postulate its neurological patterns, its cognitive aspect, and its functions of memory and perception, but in the end consciousness is just as systematically indescribable as light is. Only in the most generic sense can consciousness or light be explained systematically. “Conscious awareness” writes philosopher-psychologist Owen Flanagan “is as ubiquitous as light, sound, heat, and color. Indeed, one might argue that it is even more ubiquitous than any of these, since there is light and sound and heat and color only insofar as these phenomena are revealed in experience.” Insofar as consciousness cannot be explained systematically it can be explained perceptually. Consciousness is what we are aware of in regards to our relationship with reality, both inner and outer. Being aware of that which is ‘out there’ is a process of objectivity, whereas being aware of an ‘inner-state’ is a process of subjectivity. Perception seems to be that which ties it all together, as people who perceive (subjectively) devise a perception (objectively) of the environment around them. So what about the experience of that which is ‘out there’? Is conscious perception, together with all its prejudices and biases, enough to discern what is ‘actually’ happening in the cosmos? The rift between perception and actual reality starts with the assumptions that we have regarding our environment. There’s the way we perceive our environment, and then there’s the way our environment ‘actually’ is. In order to get closer to the latter, we must focus upon a science that dissects reality itself. That science is found in modern physics, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics. Image Source,,en,socialna bitja,,en,socialna bitja,,en,socialna bitja,,en,socialna bitja,,en: Can Science Explain Consciousness? Comments Thank you for being a beacon Mr. Gary Z. I sometimes find myself in a foggy world of consciousness. All of your articles that I read here on this website tend to help me. They seem to arrive when I’m ready to ingest them. Thanks to your work I do not feel so alone in my quest on this soulful journey. It is affirming to read your words; to see the videos about the Ancients; to know that I’m on the right track with ‘Love is the answer’. And my focus on sound (vibrations, heartbeat), and the human notes we make, I know are a part of this great expansion. The whole brain activities I engage myself and others in through the Expressive Arts is cooler than cool at helping us expand our consciousness. The best most wholy-holy f–k moment for me in your work today came when the video you shared stated that suppressing the right side of the brain was the suppressing of the feminine! I knew that fact and yet seeing it and hearing it from another source just stepped it up into my cellular Being, cool beans! As we move into the Feminine era, the time of peace, love, light and altruistic loving kindness – it is good to have your words Mr. Gary Z., for they help to lift the fog and make the path visible again….. May the Force be with you! Peace, Light and most of all LOVE, Dee Thank you so much for your encouraging words, Dee. The only thing that makes me happier than being a beacon of light in the dark is being a beacon of dark in the light… You mentioned the suppression of the feminine; I’d like to suggest to you a fascinating book titled The Chalice and the Blade that deals directly with the concept. Also, if you haven’t read Women Who Run With the Wolves I highly suggest it. Thanks for reading and Namaste. Hmmm…..beacon of dark in the light……yup, been down that path, can’t have the light without the beauty of the dark…………yummmm…… Yes I’ve read and reread Clarissa Pinkola Estes book. Her “Handless Maiden” tale hit home for me when my dominate arm was paralyzed and the other was immobilized with bilateral compound fractures….some of us need hard knocks to get back into the game……….her work on the CD about the “Red Shoes” made an impact on my journey too. I’ll check out ‘The Chalice & The Blade’…….. Thanks Mr. Gary Z. Peace, light and love, Dee
1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 13.2 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 22.1 22.2 23.1 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 26.1
Splinter u Mind, Dio 1: The Nature of Consciousness "Shvatite koliko je velik tamu u kojoj smo pipati, i nikad ne zaboraviti prirodnih znanosti pretpostavki s kojima smo počeli su privremeni i revisable stvari "-William James Što je svijest? Koja je prava priroda svesti? Kako biće svesti prići ispitivanja njegove / njene svesti? Ovo su samo neke od mnogih očaravajući pitanja koja se javljaju kada razmišljamo o prirodi svijesti. Pitajte bilo koje dvije slučajne ljude o tome što misle o prirodi svesti je i da će gotovo sigurno imati različite stavove o tom pitanju. Ispostavilo se da je naša percepcija stvarnosti su jedinstveni kao naš otisaka prstiju. Svi mi imamo otiske prstiju, kao što svi imamo svesni svijesti, ali naši otisci prstiju su samo kao pojedinačno jedinstveni kao naš svesni svijesti (ili nedostatak svijesti) je. Dakle, možemo ikada postigne radnu definiciju svijesti? "To nije moguće odrediti preciznu objektivnih kriterija za utvrđivanje svesti,"Napisao je G. Farthing u Psychology of Consciousness. "Niti se svesti dati jasnu funkcionalnu definiciju, od svoje specifične funkcije u umu sistem je još uvijek stvar kontroverze. "Zapanjujuće je koliko je složen je dati radnu definiciju svijesti, a ipak je tako jednostavno za nas da osjećaju kako je to biti svestan. Definiranje svijest je kao što se razbije stvarnosti: to je beskonačno progresije. Biti svestan i žive u stvarnosti je jednostavan, jer to je ono što su dizajnirani da radimo. Zaista, to je ono što mi radimo. Ali, kada smo pokušali da definišu bilo, procijepu između dva različita stvarnosti izgleda da se pojavljuju i svi obrazloženje postaje predrasuda i kratkovide. Ipak, pokušaja definicija je važna. U Psihologija: The Science of Mental Life George Miller, rekao je, "Svest je riječ nosi glatku od milion jezicima." Zaista, riječi stvaraju zanimljiv dinamičke u vidu. Ne samo da su simboli stvarnosti koje smo obično uzimamo zdravo za gotovo; oni su također psiho-fizički stimulans koji izaziva fiziološku reakciju po svojoj puke začeća. Problem s takvim riječi kao "svijest" je u tome što predstavlja naše najdraža posjedu: sami. Naš pojam svijesti je naš razum, bukvalno. Bez stabilnog definiciju smo izgubili. To je gotovo evolucijski imperativ da definišemo svesti na određeni način kako da se održi naše delikatne dodir sa stvarnošću. Ali ovo je mjesto gdje stvari idu naopako. A ovo je mjesto gdje naš pojam svesti može postati zmija koja jede sopstveni rep (i.e. religije i dogmatska ideologija). U svakom trenutku smo svestan samo ograničen dio svih stimulansa – vanjske i unutrašnje, mikro i makro – onoga što bismo mogli potencijalno biti svjesni. Proces selekcije je potrebno zbog ograničenog kapaciteta svijesti i radne memorije (konačnih percepcija). Dakle, ono što bi se moglo događa izvan naših perceptivnih kapaciteta? I to čak i bitno? Svest izgleda kao jednostavan kao mozak i njegove fiziološke veze reagira fluidno sa i unutar okruženja. Ali, koliko je ovog procesa je samo perceptivnih pretpostavka? A ono što je ukupni razumijevanje ovog procesa? Površina Percepcija Modul račune Steven Pinker za kako mozak čini za bilo nedostaju informacije o percepciji objekata objašnjava kako mozak 'preuzima' u 'svijetu' se živi u. Ako mozak ne preuzima određena pravila za svoje okruženje onda će morati filtrirati kroz beskonačne količine podataka koje bi opstanak nemoguće. Umjesto toga, ona preuzima konačnih aspekte svoje stvarnosti, oscilirajući predmete u perceptivnih postojanja, čime je moguće za prolazak stvarnosti i donijeti značenje kroz precizne perceptivne injekcije konačnost. Problem sa naučna studija svesti, međutim, je u tome što se obično oborio u samo tri kategorije: fiziološki, spoznajni, i iskustvene. Nema sumnje da su ovo sve aspekte svesti, ali oni su nipošto razdvojiti; niti su oni jedini. Svest studija ne mogu (osim u generičkom smislu) biti sistematizirani da ne važnih podataka je izgubljena. Postoji nešto izgubili između fizioloških i kognitivnih kada donosimo naše etikete da rodi i uredno klasifikovati naših 'otkrića' ispod njih. Svjesni događaji su više od onoga što naša nauka trenutno može objasniti na racionalan način. Kao fizici čestica ne mogu objasniti ono što je light. Oni mogu pretpostaviti čestice poput prirode svjetlosti je, oni mogu pretpostaviti svoje talasa poput prirode, ali na kraju se pojave svjetlosti je jednako sistematski neopisiv kao prirodu svesti. Slično, psiholozi istraživanje fiziološke aspekte svesti može pretpostaviti svoje neurološke obrasce, svoje kognitivne aspekt, i njegove funkcije memorije i percepcije, ali na kraju svesti samo kao sistematski neopisivo kao svjetlo. Samo u većini generičkom smislu mogu svesti ili svjetla mogu objasniti sistematski. "Svjesni svijesti", piše filozof-psiholog Owen Flanagan "je kao sveprisutna kao svetlost, zvuk, toplota, i boje. Zaista, Moglo bi se tvrditi da je još sveprisutna nego bilo koji od ovih, s obzirom da je svjetla i zvuka i topline i boje samo utoliko što su te pojave su otkrivena u iskustvu. "U mjeri u kojoj svest ne može objasniti sistematski se može objasniti perceptivno. Svest je ono što smo svjesni u odnosu na naš odnos sa stvarnošću, i unutarnje i vanjske. Svjesni ono što je 'tamo' je proces objektivnosti, dok svjesna je "unutrašnje-država" je proces subjektivnosti. Percepcija Čini se da je ono što je sve veze zajedno, kao ljudi koji doživljavaju (subjektivno) osmisliti percepcija (objektivno) okoliša oko njih. Dakle, ono što o iskustvu ono što je 'tamo'? Je li svesna percepcije, zajedno sa svim svojim predrasudama i predrasude, dovoljno razlučiti ono što je 'zapravo' događa u kosmosu? Razdor između percepcije i stvarnosti počinje s pretpostavkama da smo u vezi našeg okruženja. Postoji način na koji opažamo naše životne sredine, a tu je i način na našem okruženju 'zapravo' je. Da bi se bliže drugom, moramo se fokusirati na nauka koja secira sama stvarnost. Da je nauka naći u moderne fizike, posebno u oblasti kvantne mehanike. Image Source: Može Science Objasnite Consciousness? Komentari Hvala ti što si svetionik g. Gary Z. Ja ponekad pronaći sebe u maglovitom svijetu svesti. Sve vaše članke koje sam pročitao ovdje na ovom sajtu imaju tendenciju da mi pomogne. Izgleda da stigne kad sam spreman da ih uzimaju. Zahvaljujući svom radu Ne osjećam se tako usamljeno u svom pohodu na ovom soulful putovanje. To je potvrđujući da pročita tvoje reči; vidjeti video o Drevni; da znam da sam na pravom putu s "Ljubav je odgovor '. I moj fokus na zvuk (vibracije, otkucaj srca), i ljudskih napomene pravimo, Znam da su dio ove velike ekspanzije. Cijeli mozak aktivnosti sam sebi i drugima uključe kroz izražajne umjetnosti je hladniji od cool u nam pomaže proširiti našu svijest. Najbolji najviše wholy-sveti f–k trenutak za mene u svom radu danas je došao kada je izjavio video vam zajedničko da suzbijanju desnoj strani mozga bio je suzbijanje ženskog! Znao sam da je činjenica, a ipak vidi i to čuo iz nekog drugog izvora jednostavno stao ga u moju mobilne Being, cool pasulj! Kao što smo preseliti u ženski doba, vrijeme mira, ljubav, svjetla i altruistički dobrota – je dobro imati svoj riječi g. Gary Z., jer oni pomažu da se podigne magla i da opet put vidljiv….. Neka sila bude s tobom! Mir, Light i najviše od svega LOVE, Dee Hvala vam puno na ohrabrujuće riječi, Dee. Jedina stvar koja me čini sretnijim nego biti svjetionik u mraku je kao svjetionik tamne u svjetlu… Spomenuli ste suzbijanje ženskog; Voleo bih da tvrdim da fascinantan knjigu pod naslovom The kalež i Blade koja se bavi direktno sa konceptom. Takođe, ako niste pročitali Žene Who Run Uz Wolves sam visoko predlažemo da. Hvala za čitanje i Namaste. Hmmm…..svjetionik tamne u svjetlu……yup, bio dolje tom putu, ne može imati svjetlo bez ljepote mraka…………yummmm……Da sam pročitao i pročitala Clarissa Pinkola Estes knjigu. Nju “Handless Maiden” tale sinulo kada je paralizirana moj dominiraju ruku, a drugi je onesposobljeno sa bilateralnim frakturama spoj….neki od nas treba teško udaraca da se vratim u igru……….njen rad na CD-u o “Red Shoes” napravio utjecaj na moje putovanje previše. Ja ću check out 'pehar & The Blade "……..Zahvaljujući g. Gary Z. Mir, svjetla i ljubavi, Dee