[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

I see. You define well being differently than I do. I see joy, love, [insert positive emotion here], yada yada, as all the same thing. From my perspective, there are actually only two emotions. One feels good, the other feels bad, with a continuum of varying intensity between the two. We give them different names based on the circumstances of their arising (and based on their intensity level), but there is a positive experience and a negative experience, and I believe they are universal to all consciousness.

Ok then, as long as you hold the notion that everything has consciousness (again though, when I say everything, I really mean everything).

I think I'm not explaining myself clearly enough. I see no contradiction.

All that exists is experience (which is consciousness). Everything already exists in pure potentiality from my perspective. This would be the highest expansion of consciousness. The level our focus exists at is but a portion of the whole, thus, variations appear at our level. The absolute sees "wholes", but relative beings (such as ourselves) see portions. Again these "wholes" and "portions" are merely experience. The absolute connects all the relative realities. The intangible is the container for the tangible -- the unquantifiable contains the quantifiable.

Creation only exists at the relative level of reality, because to create, there must be change. If everything already exists, there can be no creation. It needs some sort of backdrop, you see. There has to be some sort of contrast to differentiate anything from anything. So relativity also involves duality, necessarily, just as result of not taking in the whole picture at once.

Because we are portions of the whole, we can choose what we allow into those portions (or conscious experience). This would be equivalent to reality creation. Conscious attention causes cognitive objects to be attracted into our relative experience or existence, from the continuum of infinite potentiality. This is "particle collapse", kind of.

So, pretty much a separation between 'you' and the rest of the universe, even though above you said that everything was/has consciousness. So there's really two consciousnesses you're talking about here then, one that is the quality of all of existence, and one is the one that you experience.

How is it reduced? My point was simply to illustrate the idea that consciousness is not simply an artifact of neurology. It's either everywhere, or it's nowhere, in other words.

From my perspective, consciousness can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without consciousness, because it is an expression of consciousness.

what happened to being a 'portion of the whole'? Also, what happened to consciousness being a property of everything? You see, the main reason why I adopted my current views is because they were the only ones I had come up with that were relatively internally consistent and reasonable/probable at the same time, no questions of why something seemed a bit off given what was already said.

Can you tell me what that evolutionary benefit is? Why have any subjectivity at all? The thought experiment is actually a variation of the famous thought experiment by David Chalmers where he claimed that since it is logically conceivable to have an identical physical system, but without qualia, that qualia and sentience cannot be explained by physical properties alone.

But aside from hypothetical thought experiments, I find people who have spontaneous psychic experiences where they were given information that was clearly beyond the reach of their physical apparatus far more compelling evidence of the non-locality of consciousness. I've seen WAY too many examples of that phenomenon to doubt it's reality, even if many scientists stubbornly continue to do so.

cuts down on needs for processing perhaps. give a 'reason' for following instinct whereas other mechanisms such as pure logical processing while would work, might be susceptible to failure, i.e. a more redundant system for better survivability. Also, there's no guarantee that this subjectivity or qualia is 'real', if i recall correctly, I remember saying something along the lines that subjectivity is an 'illusion' of sorts. Sounds almost like we're on the verge of a zombie apocalypse, huh?

Also, I never argued that consciousness was restricted to the brain or was local for that matter. If you read my response to Rockchick26 in my first 'lengthy' post on this thread, you'll see what I mean. Speaking of which, after looking back at it, it seems as though I'm simply repeating myself in this current discussion... sigh... >.>

Seriously, all this is doing is making me more and more solid in my current beliefs, the fundamentals of it anyway... the details will work themselves out sooner or later (btw, thanks joelr for some of this already ) Here's hoping that you will try to see the world my way, or at least attempt to explore the possibility of it, and then tell me why you think it is wrong so that I can evolve, perhaps to something similar to your views, or perhaps to something altogether different.

Fair enough. And nice comic btw.

lol, xkcd is pretty awesome (well for the most part).