Jiddu Krishnamurti On Consciousness

[tmonster]

Consciousness by tmonster

Consciousness is the current superseding motivating/occupying interest in your mind
​

-Some interests are derived from our fundamental anti-entropic (FAE) nature and tend to be recurring and clock-like
Let's call this class: FAE
an exploration of this class is worthwhile because they are analogous and potentially related to classes to be discussed later (future sense for example)

FAE:
1. hunger/thirst/need to defecate
2. sex drive
3.fear or acute absence of security

To be continued​

 

[Type Username Here]

Consciousness by tmonster

Consciousness is the current superseding motivating/occupying interest in your mind
​

-Some interests are derived from our fundamental anti-entropic (FAE) nature and tend to be recurring and clock-like
Let's call this class: FAE
an exploration of this class is worthwhile because they are analogous and potentially related to classes to be discussed later (future sense for example)

FAE:
1. hunger/thirst/need to defecate
2. sex drive
3.fear or acute absence of security

To be continued​

Consciousness is just a distraction so we don't realize that (for now) we serve the same purpose that a bacteria, plant or a rock does in the grand scheme of things.

I went to a zoo one day and I was watching the animals thinking about how boring it must be to be a lower-level of intelligence. Then I realized I was sitting down watching other animals do nothing.

 

[tmonster]

Consciousness is just a distraction so we don't realize that (for now) we serve the same purpose that a bacteria, plant or a rock does in the grand scheme of things.

interesting take, would you entertain a few questions
in your posit there has to be a distractor and a distractee, correct?
if so, what do you think is distracting what?
what is this common purpose that is being obfuscated in your view?

I went to a zoo one day and I was watching the animals thinking about how boring it must be to be a lower-level of intelligence. Then I realized I was sitting down watching other animals do nothing.

What is your view or definition of intelligence? and as a corollary what determines hierarchy of intelligence
This is also an interesting musing/observation but it's hard to mine it fully without having an answer to the questions above.

good convo breh
rep[DOUBLEPOST=1397664985][/DOUBLEPOST]sorry you post too much interesting stuff so....
You must spread reputation to at least 40 other user(s) before you can give reputation to Type Username Here again.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Consciousness is just a distraction so we don't realize that (for now) we serve the same purpose that a bacteria, plant or a rock does in the grand scheme of things.

I went to a zoo one day and I was watching the animals thinking about how boring it must be to be a lower-level of intelligence. Then I realized I was sitting down watching other animals do nothing.

 

[Type Username Here]

Of course, we do have the ability to inquire and learn. I was merely proposing that in the grand scheme of it all, it might not matter.

For all we know, plant life might be the most optimal form of life and our intelligence fools us into thinking otherwise.

Nothing concrete that I believe in, it's just something I was throwing out there.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Of course, we do have the ability to inquire and learn. I was merely proposing that in the grand scheme of it all, it might not matter.

For all we know, plant life might be the most optimal form of life and our intelligence fools us into thinking otherwise.

Nothing concrete that I believe in, it's just something I was throwing out there.

no doubt I just thought that vid was relevant to what you said.

as for plant life, I would disagree with that though. I think having intelligence and the ability to reason is the separating factor between superior and inferior entities.

 

[Type Username Here]

in your posit there has to be a distractor and a distractee, correct?

What makes you think that?

if so, what do you think is distracting what?

I'm not sure. I was throwing out a possibility. For all we know, what matters in this universe (if anything matters at all) are at the subatomic or smaller level and everything else is just here for the ride.

what is this common purpose that is being obfuscated in your view?

Common purpose of existing? Serving as a vessel for electromagnetism? I'm not sure.

What is your view or definition of intelligence? and as a corollary what determines hierarchy of intelligence

Intelligence may have not been the most optimal word. Basically a degree in which you can question or attempt to understand/learn what existence is.[DOUBLEPOST=1397667627][/DOUBLEPOST]

no doubt I just thought that vid was relevant to what you said.

as for plant life, I would disagree with that though. I think having intelligence and the ability to reason is the separating factor between superior and inferior entities.

I tend to agree with your position but I don't feel confident enough to say it's concrete or objective in the grand scheme of things. If we use our intelligence to build something that eradicates all animal life, including our own, we can at least make the case that the plant life might be better suited at life than we are, especially if we take Biology's present day qualifications for what life is:

• with an organized structure performing a specific function
• with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
• with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
• capable of adapting
• with an ability to germinate or reproduce

as having some credibility. Maybe it doesn't since we don't know forms of life outside our planet yet.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

What makes you think that?



I'm not sure. I was throwing out a possibility. For all we know, what matters in this universe (if anything matters at all) are at the subatomic or smaller level and everything else is just here for the ride.



Common purpose of existing? Serving as a vessel for electromagnetism? I'm not sure.




Intelligence may have not been the most optimal word. Basically a degree in which you can question or attempt to understand/learn what existence is.[DOUBLEPOST=1397667627][/DOUBLEPOST]

I tend to agree with your position but I don't feel confident enough to say it's concrete or objective in the grand scheme of things. If we use our intelligence to build something that eradicates all animal life, including our own, we can at least make the case that the plant life might be better suited at life than we are, especially if we take Biology's present day qualifications for what life is:



as having some credibility. Maybe it doesn't since we don't know forms of life outside our planet yet.

If anything I see plants as engaged in something like a neutral existence, neither positive or negative. Humans have the ability to be either lower than or greater than all forms of life.

 

[tmonster]

What makes you think that?

because of this statement you made:

Consciousness is just a distraction

I tend to assume that this conversation is about the classical world of experience which depends on locality and causality and thus actions like "being distracted" must involve agents of distraction and agents being distracted. And since it is implied that both said agents (consciousness and you) appear to share locality and behave antithetically (look and don't look at purpose), it seems seminal to ask for further particularizing descriptions, if not simply an acknowledgment of these agents.

I'm not sure.

Fair enough, although your core premise-consciousness is a distraction- seems to rely on the knowledge of this information for proper scrutiny.

Common purpose of existing? I'm not sure.

Fair enough, although your core premise-consciousness is a distraction keeping us from realizing the common purpose we share with bacteria etc...- seems to rely on the knowledge of this information for proper scrutiny.

Intelligence may have not been the most optimal word. Basically a degree in which you can question or attempt to understand/learn what existence is.

You may have outsmarted yourself there; intelligence seems to have been the exact optimal word given your general and well pedigreed description. It makes me wonder however, if we need to tighten our nomenclature a bit, for fear of getting lost in the ontological bushes. In my opinion, there clearly is a definitive, and maybe even intuitive, semantic relationship between consciousness and intelligence, what do you think that is, if indeed you agree that there are any?

 

[Type Username Here]

I tend to assume that this conversation is about the classical world of experience which depends on locality and causality and thus actions like "being distracted" must involve agents of distraction and agents being distracted. And since it is implied that both said agents (consciousness and you) appear to share locality and behave antithetically (look and don't look at purpose), it seems seminal to ask for further particularizing descriptions, if not simply an acknowledgment of these agents.

I was merely stating that since existence may have no ultimate purpose, anything that serves as a means to ignore that fact is a merely a coping mechanism until you no longer exist. I was just throwing it out there. I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, but I don't rule it out. I like to entertain myself by thinking about how thinking is merely a way to keep me chugging along.

You may have outsmarted yourself there; intelligence seems to have been the exact optimal word given your general and well pedigreed description. It makes me wonder however, if we need to tighten our nomenclature a bit, for fear of getting lost in the ontological bushes. In my opinion, there clearly is a definitive, and maybe even intuitive, semantic relationship between consciousness and intelligence, what do you think that is, if indeed you agree that there are any?

There seems to be a correlation between the two, but I don't really have anything to compare it to. Even among other humans, I can't truly know if you have thoughts or ideas of your own. I can assume you do because you might behave in the same manner I do and have the same anatomy, but can I be sure that you are a cognitive being? Do I know that the emotions love or hate are felt the same way by you that it is by me, or that you can really feel them despite what you communicate? I can't really know as of yet.

Therefore, if I fail to have a concrete objective understanding of another human's consciousness, I would be hesitant to say anything about the correlation with other possible cognitive beings with any certainty.[/QUOTE]

 

[tmonster]

I was merely stating that since existence may have no ultimate purpose, anything that serves as a means to ignore that fact is a merely a coping mechanism until you no longer exist. I was just throwing it out there. I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, but I don't rule it out. I like to entertain myself by thinking about how thinking is merely a way to keep me chugging along.

For accuracy's sake I need to point out that one can't conflate a plausibility/hypothetical (may) into a certainty (fact).

Full disclosure: I don't know if existence, the phenomenon of being, has a purpose, I hope nothing I wrote implied that, if I did please point it out for my own edification. For what it's worth, I do think that consciousness, the phenomenon of self-awareness, appears to claim a purpose or at least a unique, sine qua non, function and it is intimated by your definition of intelligence.

There seems to be a correlation between the two, but I don't really have anything to compare it to.

Again to avoid the bushes, I suppose you could describe your definition of each notion and then we could compare them.

 

[Fervid]

subs

 

[DEAD7]

Consciousness is just a distraction so we don't realize that (for now) we serve the same purpose that a bacteria, plant or a rock does in the grand scheme of things.

I went to a zoo one day and I was watching the animals thinking about how boring it must be to be a lower-level of intelligence. Then I realized I was sitting down watching other animals do nothing.

 

[Chris.B]

 

[Type Username Here]

For accuracy's sake I need to point out that one can't conflate a plausibility/hypothetical (may) into a certainty (fact).

I was referencing the argument being a fact based on the pre-cursor that the plausibility was understood to be just that friend. The fact I presented is a fact encompassed within the argument being presented as a possible occurrence. It would be redundant otherwise to label all subsequent instances as a possibility when the premise is logically presented as that from it's inception.

Full disclosure: I don't know if existence, the phenomenon of being, has a purpose, I hope nothing I wrote implied that, if I did please point it out for my own edification. For what it's worth, I do think that consciousness, the phenomenon of self-awareness, appears to claim a purpose or at least a unique, sine qua non, function and it is intimated by your definition of intelligence.

What purpose is that? Is that purpose objective?

Again to avoid the bushes, I suppose you could describe your definition of each notion and then we could compare them.

Avoid the bushes? Why are you threatening a beautiful conversation?

My understanding of consciousness only objectively exists within my own frame of reference to what being cognitive is. That is, my own thoughts and the thoughts and behavior I suspect other human beings have. This is a very limited scope. For all I know, our entire lives can be strictly enslaved by the actions and reactions encompassed within the confines that is described by the philosophical view points of hard determinism. Ergo, we may simply lack consciousness and intelligence all together, and instead be nothing more than a part of some grandiose algorithm or script that defines every single choice, thought, emotion, movement and behavior we have ever and will ever take part in. My self-awareness might be simply a logical state that is anything but true self-awareness.