So, here's some thoughts about consciousness that I have, and I would like to know what other people think about this.

So the way I see it is...

There is pure awareness. Will Power. It is God, The Absolute, The All. We each have a bit of that in us. I consider it to be a drop in the ocean, a spark in the fire.

I believe that we are a cumulation of many many minds, but for descriptive purposes, i'm going to classify them in a few categories.

The instinctive mind. Subconscious, controls all automatic body functions. The cell minds. Is influenced by higher minds. Can be programmed to a certain extent.

The emotional mind. Part of the instinctive mind. Responses are generally automatic. Anger, greed, sadness being the denser/slower vibrations. Compassion, Joy being the lighter/faster vibrating end.

Intellectual Mind. Cold, calculating logic.

Intuitive mind. The guiding mind(s)..Minds because most of us only have access to the first section of it. The intuitive mind can process information at faster than light speed. It has a greater connection to the source of all. It is conscience. It guides the person closer to the source (God)

So I believe that the pure awareness should be in control. That it should be the decision maker. It takes the input from the collective minds and enforces the action to be taking. I consider pure awareness to be a type of mind, but one so far advanced that it shouldn't be classified as such. Unfortunately I don’t have proper command of the English language, but even if I did, it would still be impossible to convey what I feel.

So it appears to me that as our souls move closer to the Source, we gradually leave behind sections of mind that no longer is beneficial to our growth.

So my question is this. What does Consciousness consist of? It consists of pure awareness and a collection of different minds?

But what is a mind? Is it just pieces of code that are able to interpret reality in a unique way? Like a computer program, each has a specific function, limiting parameters?

How do energetic Parasites fit in? Some say that they are just parts of ourselves. Some say they are separate... My latest theory is this. That they can be BOTH. That our we (our souls) are made up many different ''minds''. That our SELF is actually a collection of many ''good'' and ''bad'' (all relative of course) things/entities/parasites/angels/demons. That each individual ''demon'' or ''angel'' can be a building block of our Soul. Maybe when we encounter a demon or inter dimensional parasite in hyperspace, it CAN be external to us....Can it be real AND a symbolic representation of something in our real life? That the demon represents a potential part of our evolution.

Is a parasite or Angel something like a Cofactor?...From wiki ''A cofactor is a non-protein chemical compound that is required for the protein's biological activity. These proteins are commonly enzymes, and cofactors can be considered "helper molecules" that assist in biochemical transformations.'' That parasites/angels assist in Spiritual Transformations/Transmutations. That they are not part of us, but they are, or CAN be. That they make us who/what we are. Like the billions of cells and micro organisms that live symbiotically with us, create who we are.

To me, the universe teaches symbolically. Often times what I learn about one system can be applied to a seemingly different system. Every second is an opportunity to evolve. To Change, re-arrange, upgrade, to learn a lesson, to move closer to God (home)

What I am trying to convey, I believe to be true, at least half true. Because to me, all truths are but half truths.

I really hope someone can help me articulate this more clearly. I know your out there I am lacking in the ability to express myself, so I am throwing out many ideas, and I realize that I am kind of repeating myself.....Hopefully this can turn into a lively discussion

How could pure awareness make a decision if it is just pure awareness? Would it be better to say that it's the background upon which the other categories that you have there play out? And as far as pure awareness, I interpret that as awareness without anything in it, awareness that is not aware. Kind of cancels it's self out. Haha when you say that pure awareness should be in control, based on what I've just said I read it as, nothing should be in control. I like that.

"I believe that we are a cumulation of many many minds"

I could agree with this but would put it more like; any conscious state is a holistic representation of a vast amount of processes. I don't feel like I have more that one mind.

"But what is a mind? Is it just pieces of code that are able to interpret reality in a unique way? Like a computer program, each has a specific function, limiting parameters?"

I don't think that mental functions are like computer programs, computer programs have no ontological element to them. Ontology in Philosophy is the subject of experience or; what it feels like to be you. I don't think that a computer has a subjective experience.

Sorry to be picky but there are a bunch of things that you have written that I don't feel able to comment on in any constructive way. I recommend, if you're interested, some videos on the philosophy of mind. They may not satisfy all of your curiosities but may be helpful in some ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi7Va_4ekko

There are a lot of videos in the series and it gets pretty deep but the first few will give you a basic look at some of the ideas that are out there.

I like the phrase pure awareness as a background. But how could anything be aware, that isn't aware? Are you saying we aren't aware that it is aware?...lol...

I see the ''pure awareness'' as God, a type of Super Absolute Ultra Mind. It is the creator inside of us, The doer, the part that wills something to be, that uses all the other parts as input.



I like the way you put it! But how can it be that beings as complex as us have only one mind? And even if you did classify it as one mind, surely there are parts that are distinctly different from one another.



Agreed that computers don't have a subjective experience. At least we dont think so. There is the unanswered question about about what is consciousness and what is AI, and can it ''wake up'' once it has enough connections, like we have enough neural connections to be able to process things subjectively.

Subjectivity aside, certain mental functions do act like programs.

I appreciate you being picky. Dont worry about not being able to constructively comment on some of the more ''out there'' parts. I'm looking for someone to help articulate what I'm trying to say, not necessarily constructively critique it.

Thanks for the link, will look into it when i've got some time.

"But how could anything be aware, that isn't aware?"

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You could postulate a background of Pure awareness but It wouldn't mean anything. It would be without definition.

"I like the way you put it! But how can it be that beings as complex as us have only one mind? And even if you did classify it as one mind, surely there are parts that are distinctly different from one another."

Yeah you can discriminate between different mental aspects, but my conscious experience comes to me not as each part but as a whole. That is why I say that I have only one mind.

"Subjectivity aside, certain mental functions do act like programs."

Certain mental functions can be interpreted as computational, but computation is an observer relative phenomenon. If a calculator uses a function to compute an equation it still needs you to interpret the meaning, it doesn't know what it's done. whereas if you are computing something in your head you do know what you've done. Its the difference between syntax and semantics. The calculator has no semantic content. Same for A.I., as far as I know no matter how many variables it can handle it still has no semantic content.

The videos I linked to get around to stuff like that eventually. I'm still going through them.

Are you familiar with Jung's theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious? This is very reminiscent of that idea; he essentially argues that deities, entities, etc...that many encounter in dreams or spiritual experiences are essentially cultural manifestations (that we've sort of learned over time, archetypes and symbol have been kind of encoded into our memory) which present themselves to bring about psychological change; the motifs often relate to aspects of one's personal life. In one of his essays he even makes the analogy that archetypes act as sort of psychological organisms which work in some unmeasured plane (our subconscious) to basically create balance.

Very interesting thread though; lots of great thoughts that I really vibe with.

Consciousness is infinite. The universe is something we made up.

I agree consciousness is infinite. I guess you could say that since we are (or have) consciousness we made the universe, but that doesn't really fit in my mind(s) as we are just an atom in body of the universe, so taking credit for something like that isn't correct. I guess one could argue that each person makes their own universe, but the ancients didn't see it that way, and science is slowly moving toward the collective consciousness models. It's all connected so there is no possibility of living in a bubble and not affecting the whole.

There are obviously different levels, frequencies, dimensions that allow for a distinction and a separation between it all, or we would not be manifest here. I am not of the reductionist mentality. I want to learn the rules and the laws that help keep everything in rhythm. I will spend the rest of eternity doing so. Ride the spiral!

Yep, I am somewhat familiar with Jung and his archetypes. I was influenced by some of his work early on. His writings helped me to understand myself better. It's been years though since I read any Jung, but it would appear that he has affected me even more than I am aware

The universe is a subset of consciousness. The universe and everything in it, including science is just a belief.

Consciousness is everything, all, truth.

But who or what must believe it, for it to be true, for it to exist? What is supporting this belief structure? I propose that it is ''God''.

...and the name of God is truth.

Who or what must believe it? It isn't belief structure. No belief is true - it's something self-verifiable, something you must see for yourself.

Absolutely! This sums things up nicely, in all but a few clean words. If by what we humans believe conscious-awareness truly is, when we arrive at the moment of awakening, is seeing what actually is and not what we think this universe may be... and it's a mind-shattering and wholly enlightening experience. One which defies pragmatic quantification and any modicum of successful encapsulation by reason. But when one touches the eternal and is forevermore changed by the profound epiphany, all things are new and limitless.

I agree, we are the map makers and we create the paradigms within our dreamscapes. We weave the tapestry of our perception and are the creators of our own mirages and beliefs. We are the masters of the time-space-continuum of our own spell, a continuum of sequencing what we project as knowable and real.

At our very core and innermost being, we are the universe at play, aspects of the totality, dancing through our lives, blowing up our existent bubble, just because we can and we spontaneously do so. Intent shapes our attention and hence, such blossoming of energy births oneself.

This is what Brahman/Ahura Mazda/Amun/God/Tao/Buddha Nature/Allah truly is, stripped of religious dogma... infinite consciousness itself, unbound beingness in full bloom of it's expression. And we are also, that and naught else but that quintessential Is-ness. I must say, though, it's really quite lovely to share reality with you folks. As the Oglala Sioux Medicine Man and mystic, Black Elk, said with considerable heart,
"Dream a good dream".

I agree! If God had a name it would be Truth. But once we name something, we have defined it, and once we have defined it, we have limited it. And I would say that God is limitless.

Cel·si·us/ˈsɛlsiəs, -ʃi-/ [sel-see-uhs]
noun
1. An·ders /ˈɑndərs/ [ahn-ders], 1701–44, Swedish astronomer who devised the Celsius temperature scale.
adjective
2. Also, Centigrade. pertaining to or noting a temperature scale (Celsius scale) in which 0° represents the ice point and 100° the steam point. Symbol: C See illus. under thermometer.
3. Thermodynamics . of or pertaining to a temperature scale having the same units as the Celsius scale but in which the zero point has been shifted so that the triple point of water has the exact value 0.01°; Celsius temperatures are computed from Kelvin values by subtracting 273.15 from the latter.

consciousness consists of..well...

consciouness

..i think Synkromystic makes some good points..

from a few schools of thought,
by whatever name, the absolute nature of reality, the pure consciousness (existence itself) - Brahman (in Hindu Vedanta) or the Source (in Gnosticism) - is infinite and without attributes..

any notion of individual being, entities, archetype, gods, level, frequency, or decision making arises from limitation (ignorance) ..the absolute has no limitation..it is consciousness (or awareness) because this is the basis by which existence itself can be verified..
it is incomprehensible by mind, but is experienceable (through itself)...

in this way it is then Truth..

i think that consciousness is a product of evolution to facilitate our enormous brain's processing and translating of electrical signals and stimuli. I think there is one mind, and the subconscious or unconscious mind is just the more subtle workings and calculations of the brain.

If one were to alter their brain, whether chemically or physically, then their conscious will change as well, for instance when one takes a hallucinogenic drug that puts them into an "altered state of consciousness", or if one suffers a brain injury like Phineas Gage.

My god is not consciousness but instead the universe, of which we are all a part of. I believe we are the universe experiencing itself subjectively though. So in some sense i believe in a grand pure consciousness. If all things that have a conscious are part of the one universe, and the universe experiences itself through us, then all conscious' are part of a whole universal conscious, even though divided.

Im losing my train of thought at this point so ill stop for now

I guess the question what does consciousness consist of is quite vague and maybe you could answer with; Consciousness is everything. I think though that this is equivalent to saying everything is everything and of course everything is everything or all is one or all is god. I personally do not find this answer very interesting anymore as it is not something I can relate to on an everyday basis. My consciousness certainly isn't everything, or it is in the sense that what my consciousness shows me rests upon the fact that by its use certain things are hidden, but that's my point you can't talk about all consciousness or pure consciousness because you can't define it. In it's lack of definition I find myself and my human consciousness and that is what interests me. Do you think that I'm trapped in illusion?

^..it's similar to asking 'what does probability consist of?' or possibility..or poential

it relates to your everyday existence in that you know there is existence, don't you?

Yes I know that there is existence, but to talk about it I refer to specific instances. To me saying consciousness is everything is pointless because its is the same as saying existence is existence. Maybe I shouldn't have said that I don't relate to it, more that I ignore it or take it for granted.