consciousness, biochemical? Options

[Joesus]

And I am sure you have worked hard and invested a considerable amount of time to achieve such experience but...what can be said to a man (or a woman) who has already decided his own priorities and roughly where is he going to invest his time in?

Nothing and everything. It would depend on whether the person was asking, or speaking in reference to the subject.

The thing is life is short and big plans require time. Many things need to be done regardless god´s existence.

Priorities are always part and parcel to the relative awareness of reality and the personal relationship to it.

Consciousness is a desirable state all the same with god or without it, but I can admit that a strong belief in god can act as a catalytic and give advantage to those with faith. That is how I fit you in my system of beliefs Joesus.

Consciousness within the relative appears to have both a subjective and objective experience. For the most part people are familiar with 3 states of consciousness..Sleeping, Dreaming and Waking. There are other states of consciousness which also have their own subjective and objective experience. Then there are alterations to the normal experiences of the first three which tend to give thought to what can be achieved in stabilized states of consciousness outside of the known familiar 3 states.

Let´s say I have experienced glimpses of conciousness-ish (maybe) how can you turn something you have briefly experienced in a continuous state of being? And, is it normal to feel like an alien? Detached from normal human feelings, from their uses and cultural habits?

Focus and commitment to any endeavor is what achieves results. But then having clear direction to those things that produce consistent results within a wide range of individual belief systems would be more advantageous. Scientifically speaking.. those methods which occasionally produce glimpses within the belief system, and which lay outside of the consistent awareness and experience of methods which have traditionally proven themselves, are subjective and less preferred.

[Jakare]

Scientifically speaking.. those methods which occasionally produce glimpses within the belief system, and which lay outside of the consistent awareness and experience of methods which have traditionally proven themselves, are subjective and less preferred.

And those preferred methods are?...

But the problem is that even with a method giving us great consciousness that still doesn´t tell us how does consciousness work and what is going on in the brain.
We don´t even understand 'simple' conscience, shouldn´t we try to start with that? Once the working of conscience is understood it can (most probably) be potentiated and given as a treatment to people whom otherwise would never be able to surpass the most basic levels of awareness.
It is nearly like if in the future we can find Consciousness on sales at the shop center. Strange thought, isn´t it? but lets keep practical, that would be a better world than this is.
And don´t get me wrong but people is in average lazy and get easely distracted with their lives. Don´t expect them to go to a consciousness classes after work if there is a football match or if they receive that long waited call from that sexy neighbor.

[Joesus]

And those preferred methods are?...

Ones that work consistently.

But the problem is that even with a method giving us great consciousness that still doesn´t tell us how does consciousness work and what is going on in the brain.

Great consciousness? Now we are approaching that line where we are looking at it (consciousness), as being relative to mechanics or responsible for the relative and its mechanics.

IF you believe your consciousness is born with you and dies with you then your consciousness is relative to what you believe. However there is another school of thought that believes their experience of consciousness precedes birth and extends itself beyond the birth and death of many bodies, and dimensional realities.

In that light, there is no getting of consciousness or getting great consciousness, but rather establishing a relationship in the awareness of what is already inherently beyond all qualities of measure.

[Jakare]

IF you believe your consciousness is born with you and dies with you then your consciousness is relative to what you believe. However there is another school of thought that believes their experience of consciousness precedes birth and extends itself beyond the birth and death of many bodies, and dimensional realities.

Is not like I have another option but to believe my consciousness was born with me. I have no reason to think otherwise besides your words. Maybe is my consciousness who has to be aware of me and not the other way around. That rise a different but interesting question, how can I make myself more prone to be discovered by my consciousness? When such thing happens I will let you know if my consciousness was born with me or not.

In that light, there is no getting of consciousness or getting great consciousness, but rather establishing a relationship in the awareness of what is already inherently beyond all qualities of measure.

Yes, that´s correct, 'in that light', yet in another light wouldn´t be so.
By 'what is already inherently' do you mean its meaning? The core meaning of things and situations?
If you are aware of it then you become a Namer, the person who knows the real name (meaning) of things. Because our Real Name and our meaning is the very same thing. That is supose to be the power of Gods.

Sorry, I have been writting as thoughts came to my mind so phrases look a bit disconnected.

[Joesus]

Is not like I have another option but to believe my consciousness was born with me.

No other options in belief?

I have no reason to think otherwise besides your words.

That would simply be a choice that you make to follow a particular thought in reason.

[Jakare]

Is not like I have another option but to believe my consciousness was born with me.

No other options in belief?

Ok, just stop for a moment. Are you talking about some kind of 'Systems of belief engineering'? About manipulating your own belief system in order to get the expected result? In this case Consciousness?
Even if it is not what you are talking about, would such thing work?

I have no reason to think otherwise besides your words.

That would simply be a choice that you make to follow a particular thought in reason.

True, althought choices use to be better chosen if they are biased in real objetive reasons. I know I can just follow a diferent choice but, why would that be advisable?
I have been thinking lately how would it be to believe in God again for a couple of days. I think I can do it as an experiment without compromising my sanity too much, and at the end many people give second chances to their exes just to split again after realising, for the second time, they are not done for each other.
It may be interesting to see if that has any effect on my awareness level.

[Joesus]

Ok, just stop for a moment. Are you talking about some kind of 'Systems of belief engineering'? About manipulating your own belief system in order to get the expected result? In this case Consciousness?
Even if it is not what you are talking about, would such thing work?

No just pointing towards changing belief systems within every individual and how beliefs are not always testimony to the greater reality of things. There are those things that are set outside of recognized patters of thought and belief that can be experienced and then psychologically accepted as part of the belief system.

Any real God, would stretch the imagination and belief system. We in our desire to contain ourselves and God, within the parameters of physical descriptions, build beliefs that are relative to the boundaries of our own identification with reality. There are multidimensional aspects of ourselves that cannot be contained within the human identification of physical reality. These aspects of consciousness are part and parcel to what enlightened individuals point toward as the reflection of God.

True, althought choices use to be better chosen if they are biased in real objetive reasons. I know I can just follow a diferent choice but, why would that be advisable?

Not advising you to make a different choice, just saying that your reasoning is based on your choices in belief. There are 7 billion people who will be making choices and their reasoning won't necessarily follow the same ideals or beliefs as your reasoning does.

I have been thinking lately how would it be to believe in God again for a couple of days. I think I can do it as an experiment without compromising my sanity too much, and at the end many people give second chances to their exes just to split again after realising, for the second time, they are not done for each other.
It may be interesting to see if that has any effect on my awareness level.

Trying to believe in something that is not your experience or within your current beliefs can lead to shifting ideas and the straining of personal realities when the underlying unconscious programs are pulling you into the familiar patterns of thought.

On the other hand, having an open mind to something that is not your experience but within the possibilities of your current belief systems would be more simple.

[Tone]

The people who dont believe in consciousness are saying so because they dont actually have a consciousness, and are real-life philosophical zombies. If they dont have a consciousness of course they are going to say nonsensical things like brain uploading to survive death, and that they dont believe in consciousness and ETC - because they dont have one.

[Tone]

Heres a link dont know how good it is http://viewzone2.com/plasticbrain22.html

[Jakare]

The link itself is quite catching but as time pass I realized is 'scientificaly flawed' in several ways.
It mixs some true facts with hypothetical posibilities to make the last ones seem more solid.

For example, the Intel core I7 processor has 731 Millions of transistors so in terms of raw computing horsepower is more than a single synaptys. Not to mention Cpus have aswell their different cache levels to storage information so In terms of raw computing horsepower I still think a Neuron is more acurate similarity.
But actual computers just cant compete in connectivity with a single neuron, there is no comparison in that. I agree a synapse is no ordinary switch.

About the electrical field information system I find it deeply interesting and with enough scientific base at the brain level but, again, is mixing something true with something hipothetical when it talks about fields being a source of social knowledge. And the experiments it comments with monkeys and the figures obiously need confirmation by replication as I am not happy at all when it says that it didn´t work in America but "PROBABLY" because of the time zone and people not being in phase seems like a weak excuse for a non too well controled experiment.
The monkeys experiment is lacking a pre-experiment control group. Without it is imposible to know if any group of monkeys would actually learn that naturally given a potatoe, water and enough time, maybe they would have learn the washing trick all the same. Are all groups equal in intelligence? Another variable to control. Asuming that just because they are the same type of monkey is wrong.

The brain plasticity part is quite interesting and promising.

Well, what I wanted to say is that the article, althought quite interesting, has a catch. The catch is trying to pass non well controlled experiments as good ones by mixing them with exiting and top research, enjoyable as long as you read it with that perspective.

I am now in a low internet connection so I couldn´t wacht the videos though.

[kemzie]

If consciousness is quantum mechanical, then quantum computers might be conscious.

LOL, that made me laugh

[Tone]

http://viewzone2.com/plasticbrain22.html

[Flex]

End up in the psyche ward for a month and you will get your answer... Chemicals can do some crazy shit, both endogenously and intravenously applied (not sure what you call it when you get a thorazine injection in the ass).

[Jakare]

Nice to see you back pal. Very nice indeed...

[Flex]

Oh just thought of the term! 4 intramuscular injections--damn that is a lot. Drugs are bad Missed you Jakare, you have always been a good friend. About time for your classes to start as well, no?

[Jakare]

My classes start in september but in the time being I found a job and started studying biochemistry and probably behavior physiology. Just to keep me busy

I hope you had time to successfully finish your second term before your internation...did you?

Anyway any sexy nurses around you??? Because I suppose those injections don´t get stick in your ass by themselves alone...
Or were you more interested on walking around at nights to play with the equipment? Did they found one morning a fMRI of a pennis but weren´t able to find the owner?

[pooFox]

Hey, only read the OP but wanted to say, I think the greatest flaw of the typical, modern disciple of science is to confuse description with explanation.

Sure there's a somewhat predictable biological aspect adhering to known physical laws. But why stop there? We've still much to discover!