Degrees of consciousness


by Loren Booda
Tags: consciousness, degrees
Loren Booda
Loren Booda is offline
#1
Oct12-04, 09:27 PM
Loren Booda's Avatar
P: 3,408
How well does the following represent an ordering for degrees of consciousness?

1. Being

2. Sensation

3. Action

4. Observation

5. Interpretation

6. Intercommunication

7. Participation
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
Rader
Rader is offline
#2
Oct13-04, 09:31 AM
P: 739
Quote Quote by Loren Booda
How well does the following represent an ordering for degrees of consciousness?

1. Being

2. Sensation

3. Action

4. Observation

5. Interpretation

6. Intercommunication

7. Participation
That describes electro-magnetic covelant bonding also. So could an atom feel?
pocebokli
pocebokli is offline
#3
Oct13-04, 11:45 AM
P: 138
how could a thing change, if it does not feel the pressure?

Loren Booda
Loren Booda is offline
#4
Oct13-04, 01:03 PM
Loren Booda's Avatar
P: 3,408

Degrees of consciousness


Rader,

Consciousness in this model can rely on observer and object together. We might understand the nature of covalent bonding by, say, interpreting those first five degrees of consciousness.

pocebokli,

Do you mean whether sensation without action is possible? That is why I rank sensation as more fundamental than action.
wuliheron
wuliheron is offline
#5
Oct13-04, 02:47 PM
P: 1,967
Quote Quote by Loren Booda
How well does the following represent an ordering for degrees of consciousness?

1. Being

2. Sensation

3. Action

4. Observation

5. Interpretation

6. Intercommunication

7. Participation
Spiritually or ontologically it might be meaningful, but for demonstrable purposes it is a bit bizarre. The idea of consciousness as "being" has no demonstrable meaning. In fact, it contradicts the observation that the passage of time is implicit in consciousness.

Also, some of the terms I believe are a bit redundant. All observations, for example, can be considered as sensations.

I would therefore turn the list on it's head and simplify it quite a bit and put it in more behavioral terms such as stimulous and response, with everything else subcatagorized within these two catagories.
RingoKid
RingoKid is offline
#6
Oct15-04, 03:44 AM
P: 193
first i think

then I feel

then i believe

then I know

that I AM

right ???
wuliheron
wuliheron is offline
#7
Oct15-04, 07:49 AM
P: 1,967
First I feel...

Then I know...

Then I believe...

Then I think...
RingoKid
RingoKid is offline
#8
Oct15-04, 05:15 PM
P: 193
given a problem to solve Wu Li

would you feel it first or think it ???

would you then believe you have the answer to substantiate with proof so you know it and can prove it to others ???

as an example let's take the forbidden G word...

I think there is a G-d

I feel there is a G-d like presence but cannot elucidate on, for to speak of the way is not the true way.

such is the faith in my thoughts, feelings and beliefs that I know this to be true therefore I AM right

prove me wrong or prove yourself right the onus is on you.
wuliheron
wuliheron is offline
#9
Oct16-04, 10:46 AM
P: 1,967
1) First I feel that the problem actually is a problem and is worth solving. There is nothing in logic or reason that assigns such personal values. A gorrilla in a cage, for example, can figure out how to stack boxes in order to reach a banana hanging from the ceiling, but will only do so if he wants the banana. And, he does so without the power of abstract language and logic to guide him.

2) To substantiate and communicate my position, again I must first feel it then think it. In the example you gave of God, evidently you feel it cannot be communicated or proven to another. That is what faith is all about, belief in that which cannot be substantiated and often cannot be communicated.

I can no more disprove the existence of God than I can disprove an invisible little pixie resides on my shoulder. You cannot prove a negative according to the meaning of the word "proof". Nor can I prove the existence of an omnipotent being or force, again, by definition this simply cannot be done without the cooperation of God.
magus niche
magus niche is offline
#10
Oct24-04, 02:21 AM
P: 81
heirarchies are problematic. they are subjective, as the user of a heirarchical system must place him/her/it self within the limits he/she/it constructs. but another within that system could and (by observing the responses in this thread) would have a differing opinion.

but lets find similarities not differences

i reckon all states of consciousness have equal value, until one within the limit of consciousness judges itself against another.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
university that I could major in two subjects and minor in one? Academic Guidance 7
Degrees outside of the US Academic Guidance 0
360 degrees General Math 16
sin 75 degrees Introductory Physics Homework 2
p-consciousness, a-consciousness, and reflexes General Discussion 2