Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GGWP" data-source="post: 44311" data-attributes="member: 93">Source? Consciousness is defined in human teleological terms, it&#039;s not axiomatic. Even world-renowned scientists struggle to define consciousness. In my opinion there are only goal-oriented agents with different subclasses of fidelity. Humans are very adept at recursive introspection relative to other species because of a unique evolutionary history. Certain theories try to explain consciousness as fundamentally unique, such as Orch-OR, but I think intellectuals come with their own ego that necessitates deification of their own mental processes, so I would take their caterwauling about the transcendent mind with a grain of salt. Such a definition is vague. Would you say plants are conscious as they emit ethylene when bruised? This is pain signalling, but a different kind to the one we are accustomed to, yet they register phenomena and respond accordingly. The problem with exalting consciousness is that humans have a tendency to put themselves at the apex in all regards; so deify all human cognitive traits as a form of assurance - if something is viewed as more valuable, it is more protected - humans innately understand this and extol their minds to separate themselves from the animals they slaughter. This is why I personally dislike Buddhism: believing that human cognition can somehow uniquely eclipse itself into saintly transcendence is peak human egoism.You are suffering. Even if it is not consciously integrated into your vessel, your brain is still processing an outcome weighted by the suffering experience.I think you are implying that there&#039;s something flawed about humans constructing a story involuntarily (which reduces the importance of such a story), but involuntary conclusions don&#039;t come from nowhere, they come from your unique mind which is purpose-driven. The involuntary processes are still &#039;you&#039;, in my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GGWP, post: 44311, member: 93"] Source? Consciousness is defined in human teleological terms, it's not axiomatic. Even world-renowned scientists struggle to define consciousness. In my opinion there are only goal-oriented agents with different subclasses of fidelity. Humans are very adept at recursive introspection relative to other species because of a unique evolutionary history. Certain theories try to explain consciousness as fundamentally unique, such as Orch-OR, but I think intellectuals come with their own ego that necessitates deification of their own mental processes, so I would take their caterwauling about the transcendent mind with a grain of salt. Such a definition is vague. Would you say plants are conscious as they emit ethylene when bruised? This is pain signalling, but a different kind to the one we are accustomed to, yet they register phenomena and respond accordingly. The problem with exalting consciousness is that humans have a tendency to put themselves at the apex in all regards; so deify all human cognitive traits as a form of assurance - if something is viewed as more valuable, it is more protected - humans innately understand this and extol their minds to separate themselves from the animals they slaughter. This is why I personally dislike Buddhism: believing that human cognition can somehow uniquely eclipse itself into saintly transcendence is peak human egoism. You are suffering. Even if it is not consciously integrated into your vessel, your brain is still processing an outcome weighted by the suffering experience. I think you are implying that there's something flawed about humans constructing a story involuntarily (which reduces the importance of such a story), but involuntary conclusions don't come from nowhere, they come from your unique mind which is purpose-driven. The involuntary processes are still 'you', in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread