Register to reply

Degrees of consciousness

by Loren Booda
Tags: consciousness, degrees
Share this thread:
Loren Booda
#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
Sapphire talk enlivens guesswork over iPhone 6
Geneticists offer clues to better rice, tomato crops
UConn makes 3-D copies of antique instrument parts
Rader
#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
#3
Oct13-04, 11:45 AM
P: 138
how could a thing change, if it does not feel the pressure?

Loren Booda
#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
#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
#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
#7
Oct15-04, 07:49 AM
P: 1,967
First I feel...

Then I know...

Then I believe...

Then I think...
RingoKid
#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
#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
#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