There is no losing or winning. Life is Self discovery.

Laz, concepts are just concepts, they differ from person to person, but the holding of a concept is the same for everyone. Moving back from the subjective, individualized vantagepoint of moving independantly in an hostile universe, you might come to see that the holder of concepts is in itself a concept; changing and subject to periferal influences. When this is the case, a natural letting-it-be manifests in respect to the imagined DOER...

I believe what Laz is alluding to is the necessity of a subjective experience associated with a particular brain for this brain to qualify as 'conscious'. If there is no proper subjective experience in concert with a 'brain' device, then there is 'nobody home'

I believe what Laz is alluding to is the necessity of a subjective experience associated with a particular brain for this brain to qualify as 'conscious'.

..through the body there will always be a subjective experience, this sense of individuality that arises in thought however appears in consciousness, not having consciousness...

If there is no proper subjective experience in concert with a 'brain' device, then there is 'nobody home'

..the someone that seems to occupy the body actually believes the subjectivity is real, and that causes fear. In reality, the subjective was never separate from what is percieved as outside, and upon realising that subjective/objective stop being dual, and become one...

I can see that Joesus' dogma is running rampant through your ticker. Allow me to clarify what I am saying. If we have a robot which appears to behave like humans but is merely an ordinary computer reacting to stimuli according to a computer program, we do not have a consciousness. Do you see what I am getting at? There is no singular 'subject' bound by the robot's structure, there is just matter interacting according to ordinary 'physics' logic. The difference between this robot and, say, myself, is that I am a subject in that a singular qualitative experience that I call Me is bound by the structure that I call My Body

we have two states within the amplification of the conscioussness.
the mystic states allows hold the enlightment, and the second of course, not depend nor drugs ain´t nothing, only with exercice of the mind. You should be working in the second item... is easy. Only try to use your REM sleep and keep not contextualizing sensorial inputs... could you imagine? that's the only way how the neuroscientist are trying to break the loop

I'm according with Dan and his riddle one figure in green. Meanwhile the riddle keep walking, we have consciousness.

The A.I and the robotics allows simoultaneously to present several paradigms. the mainly item is, we are prepared to the utopic kibernetics model from von Neuman and Turing? The riddle not seems "automata" like the challengers postulated. So the next question is: We have consciousness to split the brain-mind dualistic theories against the AI.? or a simple second question, why do you prefere choose the sensation... ¿it's sensation equal to conscioussness???

Dan,

I can see that Joesus' dogma is running rampant through your ticker.

..no...

If we have a robot which appears to behave like humans but is merely an ordinary computer reacting to stimuli according to a computer program, we do not have a consciousness.

- ..are you equating the robot with humans? We do not have consciousness Dan, it is having us...

There is no singular 'subject' bound by the robot's structure, there is just matter interacting according to ordinary 'physics' logic.

..can you describe the singular subject that you believe exists as Dan?

The difference between this robot and, say, myself, is that I am a subject in that a singular qualitative experience that I call Me is bound by the structure that I call My Body

..and the body is all there is, appearing in a centerless field of consciousness, not separate from it. 'You' are a temporary apperition resting in eternal silence, and that is as far as nondual concepts go...

you can't have feelings because I said you can't! now write my term paper.....

you're fired!

We are discussing what it is about brains that enable conscious minds, ergo the comparison between 'robots' and humans.

..there is no such thing as a conscious mind Dan, and the brain is a clump of grey matter that does not do anything to enable something...

ephrem, can you stop writing in soundbytes please.

If you have something to explain, do it properly so there can be no confusion as to your meaning.

ephrem, can you stop writing in soundbytes please.

..no, not really...

If you have something to explain, do it properly so there can be no confusion as to your meaning.

..those words weren't ambigious, were they? Do trees have brains? Do bacteria have brains? Virusses? Landscape? Rocks? All things appearing in consciousness without brains but with [arguably] presence/consciousness...

you're just plain wrong, ephrem

ephrem, I'm worried you will alienate yourself if you continue the way you are going.

Are you interested in the truth, in sharing, in understanding and knowledge, or are you just interested in playing the "I know something you don't" game?

Ephrem, you sound a lot like Joesus. Maybe you can clarify your position some more or point me towards one of your more informative posts since the ones I've read so far are vague at best.

Sheesh

Dan: you're just plain wrong, ephrem

- ..really? Whatever the object observed, it is separate from consciousness that observes? How is that possible?

Laz: ephrem, I'm worried you will alienate yourself if you continue the way you are going.

- ..don't worry, be happy. It is of no interest to be apealling to others if all i am is me...

Are you interested in the truth, in sharing, in understanding and knowledge, or are you just interested in playing the "I know something you don't" game?

- ..isn't that what is happening now? Thoughts of playing certain games never crossed this mind, be assured of that...

ganji: Ephrem, you sound a lot like Joesus.

- ..we all sound alike; an unstruck bell...

Maybe you can clarify your position some more or point me towards one of your more informative posts since the ones I've read so far are vague at best.

- ..what is offered as a respons to posts is just that, a respons. If that appears to be vague, you can ask to clarify but if not such interest arises, let it be...

..strange ad hom reply Dan. Preconceptions must run very deep...

ephrem, can you help me out with something?

Your writing style is one that i have seen anumber of times, the use of ".." to start a sentance and "..." to end it, what does it mean?

I've seen posts where it looks like it is an alternate type of grammar, is it a recognised bulletin board grammar maybe?

..no Laz, just started doing that a while ago. It simply feels different beginning and ending like this, instead of using a caption and a period. Life is like that, isn't it? Without a real beginning, and a fixed ending...

I have just read recent posts on mind/body. I haven't read anything even closely related to the subject indicated at this site. The word disappointing comes to mind. Too bad really, and I hope the guy in the photo is a student :0o !!!!

What a strange topic. It's a pity, in my opinion, that the coherent responses to Laz's very interesting question were collectively drowned out and distracted by the intermittent sound bytes of the intellectually-reticent ramblers.

I have also experienced breaks in the consciousness feedback loop. When I began meditating, I had one or two (brief) moments of what I later described as emptiness. But as soon as "I" recognised them as such, of course, and I started to think about them, they were gone and the feedback loop returned instantaneously. I was aware of that too.

Like Dan said of his experiences, I've also had these experiences during moments of intense focus, like if I've been running for my life. Or, occasionally, pleasantly and very unexpectedly startled. But of course to verify these moments seems always to require resumption of the consciousness feedback loop.

However, I think that one can consciously attain unselfconsciousness. There is a conscious state that is beyond discursive thoughts - one of stillness and calm (tranquility) and alertness and awareness (clarity).

Laz, perhaps you have experienced this state on occasion through meditation? That has been my only experience of it, and I've found it a very beautiful state. Slippery, though. I need practice.

But perhaps you're aiming for something more than mere tranquility. Total union, perhaps? The dissolution of the perceived separation between subject and object? Well, I'm afraid I'm entirely unqualified to comment on that. I've heard that it's possible (I've experienced something like it - a poor simulation - on psilocybin mushrooms) and I humbly and poorly aspire to that state, but I couldn't make any useful comment about it. Best of luck tho'.

And any feedback on how I could develop in this practice would be much appreciated if you get this post...

*sigh* Clearly this person is unenlightened.

In one interpretation I have heard (a Buddhist one), enlightenment is the experience of pure consciousness (the level above normal waking), which, being formless, might be considered an experience of oneness (with the universe, etc.). In that case, perhaps guest might indeed be considered non-unenlightened. Yet guest rejects the term "experiential" and substitutes "recognition," which is a symbolic consciousness (normal waking) function. Hence, a possible confusion results.

SRI AUROBINDO
***
LETTERS ON YOGA
***
PART TWO AND THREE
***
Section One. THE OBJECT OF INTEGRAL YOGA
***
THE object of the yoga is to enter into and be possessed by the Divine
Presence and Consciousness, to love the Divine for the Divine's sake
alone, to be tuned in our nature into the nature of the Divine, and in
our will and works and life to be the instrument of the Divine. Its
object is not to be a great yogi or a Superman (although that may
come) or to grab at the Divine for the sake of the ego's power, pride
or pleasure. It is not for Moksha though liberation comes by it and
all else may come, but these must not be our objects. The Divine alone
is our object.
***
To come to this yoga merely with the idea of being a superman would be
an act of vital egoism which would defeat its own object. Those who
put this object in the front of their preoccupations invariably come
to grief, spiritually and otherwise. The aim of this yoga is, first,
to enter into the divine consciousness by merging into it the
separative ego (incidentaly, in doing so one finds one's true
individual self which is not the limited, vain and selfish human ego
but a portion of the Divine) and, secondly, to bring down the
supramental consciousness on earth to transform mind, life and body.
All else can be only a result of these two aims, not the primary
object of the yoga.

Laz, Your questions are great and not answered many times :-). Let me share my understanding about this topic.

Our natural state is "pure" consciousness without any concepts/thoughts. Those are the days before our age of conscience. When we got the mind developed with so many concepts our pure consciousness is split into pieces with many limitations and identifications with mind & body.

Pure consciousness is there between two thoughts. If we can reduce the multiplicity of thoughts we can feel the existence of pure consciousness.

If you "try" to reach pure consciousness it is not possible because our trying will create the concept that "I am trying" to achieve that.

Laz, My humble answers to your questions:

Q1. We can break the conceptualization which splits the pure consciousness by the following ways and experience the pure consciousness:

a). by being in the intense presence
b ). by being & deeply feeling the Silence
c). by virtually feeling your inner body

Inadvertently we may feel the "intense" presence sometimes and hence the taste of pure consciousness. A Sudden startling, Or act of full foucs will reduce the conceptualization and pure consciouseness will be felt.

Q2. This feeling will be real. Indeed it is our natural state which is there after removal of any concepts in the mind.

Q3. In the universe we do not have variety but the same "thing" in different degree. Consciousness exists in everything in varying degree.

Q4. Our consciousness can be refined until we merge in the pure consciousness by few techniques like mediation and Self Enquiry. The Self Enquiry taught by great sage Ramana Maharshi is the straight & direct path to our natural state.

This technique suggests to focus our mind and inwardly (not verbally) ask "who is getting the thoughts?". The answer will be "me". Then ask the next powerful question inwardly "Who am I?". Your mind will not (cannot) give any answer for this question and instead will get focussed on its center. As we continue to "BE" focussed on the center of the mind the conceptualization will get rid of slowly and eventually dissolve in the pure consciousness. Ceaseless Self Enquiry Practice is required depending on the nature & state of mind. You can find more reading at www.ramana-maharshi.org

I saw few discussions about enlightenment. Here few thoughts abt "Enlightenment" by Sage Ramana Maharshi:

Abiding in the pure consciousness permanently is "Enlightened state" which is nothing but "effortless, choiceless being" without the individual concepts. Our natural state is enlightened state.

Infact there is no such thing called Enlightenment. Realizing that we were away from this natural state by mind's illusion into body-mind is Self Realization or Enlightenment. After enlightenment Buddha realized that no such thing called Enlightenment or Bondage.

"I am enlightened" or "I am not enlightened" are ridiculous thoughts.

We do not have 2 selves one enlightened or realized and another unrealized and try to become so. The "Unrealized" self has to realized as illusion.

We can not achieve Enlightenment because it is there already as our natural state. It can only happen to us when we get rid of our concepts and realize we are one in cosciousness.