Consciousness; Quiddity (-Ness)

[Varde]

Consciousness, seems to inaccurately represent what is, for no use of a better term(I jest, 'spirit'), something more. Consciousness is the quiddity(~whatness) of the subject. However, I argue that consciousness is a process of, this something, and it has been factorised falsely - where no concise term had been applied.

To be conscious is to be alert of universe physics, though it is often considered to be awareness.

If we regain consciousness after an unconscious spell we do not instantly become aware of the environment(it's often blurry and clouded in mind.)

To be aware of universe physics is is a jump forward, a set function is necessary; for example; to focus, to look, to sniff, etc.

I cannot be aware passively but can be subliminally aware(a fraction of total awareness) of local physics, such as seeing out of the corner of my eye.

Alertness is a reception; it occurs passively, and it ties in pretty well with consciousness.

Therefore, consciousness is not what is inner drive(-driver), but that's something more. The phenomenon of consciousness is something related to this something but in theory it is a element of the accurate association. I conclude by asking for constructive debate or discussions on this matter(possibly including the word 'spirit' in a non-theological sense).

 

[EnglishEdward]

Fascinating.

One can learn something every day.

And I always thought that quiddity was a rough and ready assessment
as to whether one had a pound in one's pocket to pay for one's order.

 

[Birdjaguar]

To be conscious is to be alert of universe physics, though it is often considered to be awareness.

Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale.

 

[Varde]

Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale.

Yes actually, I agree with that, a scale.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes actually, I agree with that, a scale.

So where would it begin? With particular living things? With all living things? With things that might be living (virus)? With non living things that participate in chemical change?

 

[Varde]

A shape can become alert to it's local physics, a tesseract is always in and out of alertness(it ammasses all dimensions possible in its former cube).

I assume consciousness began in non living things that participate in chemical change.

A tesseract amassing all cubic dimensions is a fine example of a harmony incarnate.

Perhaps a non living shape manifold such as whirling power is boxed in progressing shape evolution(early forms becoming life forms), in which it always swirls, in its vessel, resulting in that capacity required to be alerted/aware.

 

[Angst]

What books are you reading?

EDIT:
It may sound snarky, but I'm curious.

Anyways. About alertness and awareness and such, I think it's counterproductive as BJ did to attribute any sort of consciousness to an atom and, at the same time, talk about tesseracts and such. Not because it's unreasonable to simplify consciousness into merely being physical responses to things, but because it's unreasonable to expand beyond physical responses into the 4th dimension, whether that be metaphorical or literal. Ie talks of "spirit" and such, even if you jest. Mostly because the terminology of yours is way too fluid and inscrutable.

If you want it to make sense, you have to bend meanings a lot to fit what they don't are. Language is fundamentally inaccurate, but that doesn't mean we gain more insight by abandoning meaning. Like, to put it very bluntly, an atom isn't conscious. And just because consciousness may be simply based on the same principles as physics doesn't mean all physics are conscious. It's like saying forks are Stalinists because the USSR used forks.

As is, consciousness can be reduced to a chemical soup in your brain, and we definitely don't have any reason to attribute outside elements to this. My consciousness is not the chair I'm sitting on. It's an inner life. Now, I like Deleuzian-Guattarian readings of the world as becoming-things and such, but it's only really a method that's appropriate within the humanities, even if an excellent one. It's not a proof of a soul under God.

 

[Varde]

I rarely read books, I'm more practical. I consider myself a master of shape - always on time.

I've got a lot of doctrine under my belt with this method, enough to equal the rarest intellects, but my grasping of shape is definitely my strong point.

A cube is within our sensory capability, a tesseract is above our sensory capability.

What's meant here is that we can only capture a tesseract from an angle, whereas a cube can be compiled, rotated, etc.

I drew a connotation between tesseracts incarnate harmony and consciousness before, and here's another: Another person's spirit, for no use of a better term - is naught - it can only be known by that person. This shows that a spirit, is above our sensory capability, but, is rather the modus operandi. We exist as tesseract, not in, or out of, or with, just as.

I think there are five cube evolutions that would follow in this pattern.

The reason I brought up tesseract is listed above, plus I was confronted with a difficult question that nobody has answered to date.

 

[Angst]

I rarely read books, I'm more practical. I consider myself a master of shape - always on time.

I've got a lot of doctrine under my belt with this method, enough to equal the rarest intellects, but my grasping of shape is definitely my strong point.

A cube is within our sensory capability, a tesseract is above our sensory capability.

What's meant here is that we can only capture a tesseract from an angle, whereas a cube can be compiled, rotated, etc.

I drew a connotation between tesseracts incarnate harmony and consciousness before, and here's another: Another person's spirit, for no use of a better term - is naught - it can only be known by that person. This shows that a spirit, is above our sensory capability, but, is rather the modus operandi. We exist as tesseract, not in, or out of, or with, just as.

I think there are five cube evolutions that would follow in this pattern.

The reason I brought up tesseract is listed above, plus I was confronted with a difficult question that nobody has answered to date.

uh wat

I've got a lot of doctrine under my belt with this method, enough to equal the rarest intellects, but my grasping of shape is definitely my strong point.

how old are you

I drew a connotation between tesseracts incarnate harmony and consciousness before, and here's another: Another person's spirit, for no use of a better term - is naught - it can only be known by that person. This shows that a spirit, is above our sensory capability, but, is rather the modus operandi. We exist as tesseract, not in, or out of, or with, just as.

this is why you're not making sense

only a consciousness can recognize itself -> this requires a spirit above the physical

???

it's really hard to tell whether you're trolling but honestly at least it's fun?

 

[Varde]

Ok.

I'll settle it here... I don't honestly have the answer to BJ's question.

I was philosophising.

 

[Birdjaguar]

To discuss consciousness one has to have some kind of working definition or concept that can then be applied towards what we see in the world. Many people limit it to humans and a small (but growing) number of acceptable critters. Most people define it such that it is a special trait of humanity. People do line their lines: this is consciousness and this is not. I prefer a very long continuum that is inclusive.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

hard to tell whether you're trolling but honestly at least it's fun?

I welcome this addition to the forum. It's novel to say the least.

 

[Varde]

I welcome this addition to the forum. It's novel to say the least.

You should read my novels...

 

[Varde]

The universe is a Tesseract Life-Form, the shape is the modus operandi.

We exist as tesseract-life(one’s and many) in a cube(program), and the cube is tesseracting(becoming civilization; advancing).

A picture of a tesseract is always from an angle that cannot be rotated. A tesseract cannot be compiled in a comprehensive way but can be anointed(I e. selected/named).

I noticed similar logic studying type of ordinary sense frames of reality; when walking the streets, perceiving frames of an ordinary nature(such as houses near roads, etc.) I registered a correlation between these frames and tesseract nature.

Ordinary frames are experienced from an angle that cannot be rotated but I can manoeuvre around them, to perceive from different angles.

Houses, roads and other tech-the-like, are non-living, thus, do not justify my theorum; in the next paragraph, we assess the animal kingdom.

Animal experience is always of one(a conscious vessel) with many others(sub consciously, conscious vessels), but a barrier exists between. Animal eyes do not sense consciousness of another animal.

In the tesseracting program-cube, which is reality to an animal, is witnessed many other animals, of whom act as tesseract-life.

The opposite tesseract, female gender – the many – and the male key, consciousness. Many consciousnesses, that I’m subconsciously alert to and aware of, are united with myself. I posit that this occurs inside a cube-field; a cube-field that’s programmable.

A cube can be rotated – perceived from all angles – we can be concise. The nature of a cube is perfect for tesseract-life. It also allows a tesseract reality to tesseract; tesseracting.

The nature of a tesseract as described before, is like this continuum. A conscious mind, or rather what we know about it, can only be understood at one angle, and never rotated. This frame – this modus operandi – is repeating and consistent.

I walk down the street sensing ordinary data, per se, men working on houses. There is more to this data than meets the eye; though I cannot confirm, I presume that they experience conscious mind. Therefore, I posit that consciousness – the spirit – is a tesseract(external perception, is angular, and forfeit; internal perception, ineffable and numb).

Given that, and adding civilization into the mix, I can see that the cube-program is tesseracting. Consciousnesses project things in their likeness, and construct what’s useful to them – resulting in an unconscious abstraction of the conscious.

For example, a house is a reflection of man’s needs, and it is also like man(conscious vessel). It stands, and accepts the light of others; it contains power, and can reject data depending on how apt it is.

In the manifold of it all, the tesseract-life-form with the tesseract-life-form, there is a continuum, and progression. Civilization advances, reality perpetuates and life is organic.

To conclude, I believe I’ve provided enough necessary data involved in my observations to warrant good discussion. I ask that debates against me are forethought, regarding specific and all data I’ve produced. The main argument is that tesseracts can only be sensed at one angle at a time, and this relates to reality – as experienced from a conscious vessel.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Aha, the story of Flatland raised to the next dimension.

Consciousness as an "edge" of the unseen dimensions. Interesting. Theoretical in the sense that we cannot escape our three dimensional world to see the larger reality merely glimpse its shadow. You might enjoy a different view of the universe found here Biocentrism and here.

 

[Angst]

For the record, I'm actually a proponent of ideas similar to Gaia Theory, but I think it's inaccurate to assign this the concept of consciousness, soul or spirit. If not outright arrogant.

To conclude, I believe I’ve provided enough necessary data involved in my observations to warrant good discussion. I ask that debates against me are forethought, regarding specific and all data I’ve produced. The main argument is that tesseracts can only be sensed at one angle at a time, and this relates to reality – as experienced from a conscious vessel.

What you're providing isn't data, and that's why it's so hard taking your ideas seriously. I like plenty of philosophy that claim similar things to your ideas, but they never claim authority of data, while still being able to explain a lot of human experience. The humanities can do plenty without it infact, and if you want to think this way, you should abandon claims to the scientific method. It both hollows out what science actually is, and hollows out what the humanities can claim on their own.

Since you don't read, it's probably a bad suggestion, but I suggest reading Deleuze/Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, ideally with a study guide since the book itself is as inscrutable as your own terminology. But if you can get into it, I think there's a lot of thoughts there you can relate to.

Maybe just read a study guide, tbh. The book is a fun read, but its ideas are better understood explained than read.

 

[warpus]

Is this about the time cube?

 

[Angst]

Is this about the time cube?

I was almost mentioning it, but didn't want to be mean...

 

[warpus]

It reads eerily similar

 

[Angst]

It reads eerily similar

Yes...