Consciousness analogous to light. Could you see anything without both?

[sakoz]

Consciousness and thought; are they separate or "homogenized" and intertwined?  With language, we can seemingly separate what is not separate in reality.
Can you exist "outside" a environment? If you postulate such a place, the mere fact that you refer to it as a 'place', indicates it's a environment, as long as it's in the universe. You can't get 'out. no exit.   How does consciousness 'permeate' thought so as to appear/feel homogeneous?   They 'can' be 'teased' apart. It's empowering when 'thoughts' are witnessed as artifacts.
Are you a noun? A 'article' of language? Can you solidify/substanialize a thought-image? Sometimes you react to images as if they were real; when you 'believe' they are.
"Believing" is a nice trick, but you most often don't do it on purpose; that's when you suffer emotionally and behave dysfunctionally; when the 'believed' images don't match facts.

[voodoo scientist]

The title is broken. It's completely possible to see without consciousness, such as in instances of blindsight.

For a minute, I thought I saw a pattern or some hint of sentience, but when I tried to actually write a reply it came out as complete nonsense, so I had another thought. Are you a bot that strings random nonsense together? If not, include "JHGxj#&/fy" in your next reply.

[S. Earl Martin]

To actually exist means you have to be. This would mean you would have to be somewhere. The very concept of existance requires something to measure, a frame of reference. Even if I were in another dimension. Or on another planet. It requires standards of measurement. The debate over how many dimensions there are is going on. I can find 4 or 5. The 3 conventional ones. height, widght, depth. Or Up/down, right/left, backward/forward. The others are either In/out and another dimension that is immeasurable so it is indiscribeable.

Another example would be " say someone was isolated in a place with no light. Or trapped in a cave. Whatever." No matter where they are some of their senses will still be able to form a picture of their enviornment. Even if they were somehow transported to a place where they were suspended in space. Still even the smallest detail would become important so they could still have a sense of where they were.

Consciousness can not be seperated from thought. "I think there fore I am." Consciousness is thought. Believeing is subjective. We can believe whatever we choose to. Real or not. True or not. 

[SWM]

ooh, i smell a torrent of sakoz' ecstasy juice about to flood this topic.

[sakoz]

Voodoo; you wrote'"It's completely possible to see without consciousness such as in instances of blindsight."  You used the word 'consciousness' as if analogous to light.
Replace the word 'consciousness' in your statement with, eyes, or sight or vision, then it makes 'sense. How is blindsight recognized? Does it require consciouness to be seen ? even if only internally.
Of course it requires consciousness to be aware of blindsight; your confusing "content" with "container".     

[S. Earl Martin]

The lack of dimension, is a dimension. 

[sakoz]

Martin; " The lack of dimension, is a dimension."  In my world view, the lack of dimension is a CONCEPT, and concepts do exit as concepts.
"Consciousness cannot be separate from thought." . Really? We are born conscious; when do we start thinking? At least a minimum of one year after being born.
When does consciousness and thought "homogenize".?  "The concept of measurment requires someTHING to be measured".
". Really? , How do 'you' measure consciousness/awareness; no-thing. Take a look at your concept of 'existence'.   "I think therefore I am"; that's ass backwards; "I am therefore  think."
You 'were' before you could think. You did not think your birth to happen.

Martin and Voodoo; please reply to what I write, not to what YOU THINK I write.

[S. Earl Martin]

1.The instant we are born we react to stimuli. This clearly demonstrates conscious.
2.The lack of dimension is a dimension is not a concept. It is a fact. It can be proven mathematically.
3.Consciousness and thought exist as one. You cannot have one without the other. If you have no awareness then you don't exist.
4. we measure consciousness and existance as I have discribed with our senses and our intellect.

Example: I am sitting in my house at my computer. I am aware of my surroundings here. Just outside the door I am aware of the other room or my yard. Or am I? In reality those other areas don't exist. If I can't access them. It doesn't matter if they are 10 yards away or 10 miles away they are not in my field of exerted force so they in essence don't exist. I can't be sure they are still there unless I actually am experiencing them. In order for them to exist in reality I have to be able to experience them. In order for me to exist I have to be able to experience me. I can still believe that the places I can't access exist. But that is belief. As I have stated we can chose to believe whatever we chose to. Unless we can interact with something so our senses can form a frame of reference. It might as well not exist.
Say I was away and had been helping some lost tribe in a distant land. They have no outside communication. The disaster in Japan happens. Because I don't know about it in my mind it doesn't exist. Japan is as it was. I would still believe it was the same. Not because I chose to believe something on purpose, but because I am not experienceing the situation. So I come back to were I live. I see pictures of the disaster. If I am not in Japan experiencing it how can I be sure what I am watching is real? Not just a movie?
It come back to levels of consciousness and control. If I go outside and look at the stars? When I go inside how can I prove the stars are still there? I have to go out and see them. Peace.   

[S. Earl Martin]

Note: I always try to reply to what people write in the context it was written. However your writting style and grammer makes it very difficult to understand what you are saying sometimes. Try putting your information in a more orderly form.

[sakoz]

Let me "cut to the chase". Your  aware of your surroundings, anything outside your room whether 10 yards or 10 miles is not in your field of vision. But you can infer somethings exit outside of your awareness of the moment. My whole theme , of all my posts, is that we often UNWITTINGLY  believe some of our images are real rather than merely models/concepts. Some concepts do not have referents other than themselves (self-reference, even if that only applies to people, it's serves as an analogy) Examples, mermaids,unicorns, centaurs, etc.
When we don't recognize 'mistakenly' believing some of our images are real, our involuntary nervous system react nonetheless; often to our chagrin, when the images do not match facts.
Why you and the others readers do 'not get' my point? Consider this; the placebo effect exists. So hypothetically, let's say were together, and you have a headache; I say "here's a fake pill, believe it's real asprin and your pain will be relieved". You will not and can't believe it even if you tried. So I'm guessing that's why people don't believe me when I write they "unbeknowstly" believe some of their images are real. You can't believe fake pills are real on purpose, you have to be duped, even if only by yourself (subliminally). We are all "experts" at self-deception. That's my point, you can't,see it while doing it , and you can't do it on purpose.

As to my style and grammer, I apologize.  "What you see is what you get". The only remedy I can think of at the moment is ask me questions and I will try different statements.

I'm writing about a subject you (and all) are not usually aware of doing; just like with growing hair or nails on fingers and toes; but the effects 'are' clearly in awareness, such as emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, stress, mistakes, psychosomatic symptoms, etc.
You tell me what causes emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, stress, mistakes, psychosomatic symptoms and we'll 'see' if we are in agreement or not. The same for voodoo.

[sakoz]

Earl "1. The instant we are born we react to stimuli. This clearly demonstrates conscious." ( I said we are born conscious, how could you miss that?)
 " 2. The lack of dimension is a dimension is not a concept."( What is your statement #2. if not a concept? Your statement IS a dimension? OK it's 2 dimensions cause i see it on my screen.)
" 3.Consciousness and thought exist as one." (That's the problem, you believe that thought, as do so many people). " If you have no awareness then  you don't exist." (There's people on life-support systems, referred to as 'vegetables';( brain dead). Your right, they are not aware of their "conceptual self" or of any thing in their environment; doesn't 'being alive' mean existing? Low quality, but nonetheless existing.)

[S. Earl Martin]

Okay I see where you are trying to go with this. Misinformation and misperception can cause errors.
Example: I live in an area with a number of small towns and cities all around. When my wife was still alive we would sometimes take a drive to one of these towns to shop. The reason we would go there even though it was farther than the others was because of a resturant that we liked to eat at. We would eat then go shopping. One day we went to the resturant and ate and then drove to the store to shop. The store was burned to the ground. It was interesting because in my mind I had been making plans as to what to buy and pictureing myself buying them. In my mind and sense of reality the store was still there. So when we turned the corner and it was just a pile of rubble it shook my reality.

I believed my model was real. That the store was there and acted on that model. You are correct that had I known that the store was not there, I could not have convinced myself it was. Unless I thought someone was lying. Then I wouldn't have actually thought it wasn't.

Yes the placebo effect is real. Also people can be in denial especially when they are stressed. Many times when a disaster is coming even though people have warning they do nothing. They refuse to accept it is happening.

"I'm writing about a subject you (and all) are not usually aware of doing; just like with growing hair or nails on fingers and toes; but the effects 'are' clearly in awareness, such as emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, stress, mistakes, psychosomatic symptoms, etc.
You tell me what causes emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, stress, mistakes, psychosomatic symptoms and we'll 'see' if we are in agreement or not."

I would say the main cause is lack of knowledge and understanding.

[S. Earl Martin]

As far as your statement we are born conscious. I thought you were being coy or sarcastic because you made the at least one year statement.

If you can't think at least on a basic level there is no you. Even basic life forms require some thought process even if it is only reflexs.

The philospohicial statement " I think there fore I am is very old"

Cogito ergo sum (French: "Je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I exist") is a philosophical Latin statement proposed by René Descartes. The simple meaning of the phrase is that someone wondering whether or not he exists is, in and of itself, proof that he does exist  – at the very least, there must be an "I" who does the thinking.[1]

The phrase became a fundamental element of Western philosophy. It forms a sort of bedrock for all knowledge, because, while all things can be questioned as to whether they are from the realm of reality or from some figment of imagination (a dream, influence of a demon, etc.), the very act of doubting one's own existence serves as proof of the reality of one's own existence.

The statement is sometimes given as Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (English: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"),[2] although this extension was never used by Descartes himself and it is potentially misleading, as it suggests that Descartes' argument is based on doubt, whereas it is inherent in any mental activity whatsoever.

The people on life support if they have 0 brain activity are in effect dead. They are only appearing to be alive in the same way an automatone does because of machinery.

[sakoz]

Earl; I'm sorry for your loss. (no matter how long ago).
Your example of 'burnt resturant' is 'perfect'.Like "I thought the gun was empty." The images in both examples were believed valid, even though they were false. The consequences differ.
People suffer needlessly, when not recognizing that. Epictetus said;"It's not the facts that disturb us but our thoughts about them" He didn't elaborate on 'how we do so'.
My messsage is quite simple but getting people to see that is not. I'm pleased with your example of the 'burnt restauant'.

I don't mean to 'spit hairs' or 'nit pick'; but I don't put much value on the statement; "I think therefore I exit.' Did he try to deny he existed? Try it. Existence is self evident, he needed proof?
The belief that the earth was flat, was accepted by even the best minds of the time.

[sakoz]

Earl; You believe awareness and thought are one; I don't, I believe that's the biggest hoax perpetrated by humans on themselves. You won't believe me, but consider this as a analogy.
During a night-mare your IN the dream as a full participant, experiencing fear etc. Then there are 'Lucid Dreams', where the dream is witnessed impartially (by whom?).
The "witness" is present even when your not aware of being witnessed, as during the first night mare we started with. The fear in the dream is real as is the emotional suffering experienced while awake. When you can 'witness' your thoughts, they lose there impact or potency. In fact you can "deprogram' your involuntary from reacting to images as if real. We're not told if Pavlov tried to undue/deprogam the dogs he conditioned to involuntarily react to the sound of a bell as if it were food.
A way to see something you don't recognize as present is to look at a autostereogram, where you look at 2D image and there's a 'shift' and you see a 3D image, it's impressive to experience that 'shift'.

[S. Earl Martin]

Yes, I can not see how awareness and thought could be seperated. Also the mere process of existing shows me I exist. There is another thread about if we really exist in the Matrix. I will consider your thoughts and reflect on them.

[SWM]

Pavlov did "deprogram" his dogs. There are two methods of "deprogramming" habituation and desensitisation.

[voodoo scientist]

You would appear to be less of a gibbering madman if you tried to describe your ideas on their own merits instead of in opposition to what you imagine other people believe, but I wager you are months or perhaps years from that point.

For what it's worth, I think over the months you're slowly becoming more clear in your formulations, which probably means your understanding is growing. Have you considered looking at your idea from another perspective than common-sense psychology (such as information processing or neurobiology) to provide a context for discussion other than your perception of 'the norm'? I'm still just plain not sure what exactly you're trying to say or in what context.

I think the reason you're having a hard time convincing people of your ideas is that you seem to lack a firm understanding of them yourself - it's not simply your grammar and spelling. Most of your attempts rely heavily on describing the same idea relative to your image of 'the norm' or what you believe your audience's image is, which typically signals trying to find the boundary of a new idea through confrontation.

For an idea to have intellectual impact and meaning, it must spring fully formed from the mind of one man, even if many people participated in the process of forming that idea. Until such a time when your idea is fully formed, it would behoove you to adopt a frame of mind where you don't yet have ownership of the idea, or where you implicitly acknowledge the limitations and need for further development of the idea you do own.

[sakoz]

vodoo scientist; your reply #1 "boomeranged".  Consciousness is the 'context' of blindsight; just as any other 'mind content'.
"Consciousness is to mind content what space is to objective matter." Open your eyes, and any object you see is in space. See any image in mind and it's the content of consciousness, or in your case "space", that is "air head". What you don't understand, you criticize? Try contibuting something meaningful

[S. Earl Martin]

Question to Sakoz: Is english your first laungage? I have a very difficult time understanding your meaning. Your writing jumps all over the place. Do me a favor. Stop trying to make this a confrontation. That is counter productive and does not lead to your desired goals. Especilly when the people you are confronting are trying to help you of their own volition. Take your ideas and put them in a numbered form of seperate statements. 1. 2. 3. ... This will help all involved understand what it is you are talking about. As they are at present they look like nonsense. Even if you have the greatest idea in the world unless you can systematically convey it no one else can understand you.

[sakoz]

In a "weak moment" I "stooped to" voodoo scientist level to talk to him in his own terms. I apologize to all readers including voodoo.
There is some truth in what he wrote, that part is, that I have repeated my point, apparently without success of being understood,S.Earl Martin joins his 'bandwagon".
I will write it here one more time; ": Polygraph devices demonstrate physiological/visceral  reactions to thought." (Who among you can dispute that sentence?)
If you don't have access to a polygraph or bio-feed-back device; "Think of a image that disturbs you."  When we expect/anticipate, is the same 'process'; our involuntary is 'hard-wired' to react to perceptions. All creatures are 'wired' to react to perception. Humans have the ability 'fabricate/counterfeit' perceptions, merely by believing their images, accessed via language.
I went to great length to point out that UNWITTINGLY BELIEVING SOME OF OUR IMAGES ARE REAL  arouses/provokes our involuntary to react to those images. We may not be able to regulate involuntary reactions TO our 'believed images', but we can learn to CHOOSE  "which" thoughts to believe and which ones to discard. Stop indiscriminately believing 'random' thoughts.
You want proof we 'can' choose the thoughts to believe? Why is polygraph tests not permitted in our courts? Because the device can be "fooled". In order to do so, one must be a 'master' at CHOOSING  thoughts to believe.  You may not want to 'beat a polygraph', but you may want to be able to 'regulate' your emotional reactions. Even John Beahner has not learned to do so, he cries in public simply by his words evoke images to which his involuntary reacts to on the spot. Just as he would automatically react if a tiger bounded his way.
If no one sees any value in what I write then it's time for me to stop posting. If anyone does see any value let me know here.

[sakoz]

No one has posted a autostereogram for me, I don't know how to do it. No one says they looked at one since I asked you to. That could be part of your lack of understanding me.
Suppose we're in a gallery side by side looking at a autosterogram hanging on the wall. We both immediately see it in two dimensions. Suppose after a moment I see it in three dimensions and you don't; would you believe me if I told what I saw ? That's a analogy for different 'order frame of refernce'. We all share a consensus 'frame of reference', there's more than that one. When your talking to someone who's talking from a 'second order of reference'.  You may not understand them just like you can't see the autosterogram in 3D, even though your both looking at the "same' photo.    How did Shakespeare say it ? "There's more in heaven and hell then we can dream"? or something to that effect.

[S. Earl Martin]

Okay, part of the problem is I am only dealing with this thread. You have been refering to other threads that you have been discussing this and I couldn't understand that because you weren't making that clear.

As far as looking at a steroscopic image I have seen them and am familar with the process. I also understand the dimensions of space time. The 3 classic ones and the 4th and 5th ones. I am giving it my best effort to try and understand you. You are very passionate about this so that in of it self interests me. I still don't understand how your steroscopic image idea work's. So I am going to try to do a point by point examination. Don't think I am trying to be mean or to disprove your beliefs. I am still at a point where I am still trying to understand what you are saying.

I measure my reality with a 4 statement system.

What I know

What I think I know

What I don't know

And What I can't know.

We have both voluntary and involuntary actions.
We can learn to regulate some of them.
We can choose to think certain things or to believe certain things. Weather they are true or not.
Polygraphs are not used in court because they can be inaccurate. Not only because people can consciously beat them, but because some people's mode of thinking can generate false positives.
We can learn to regulate our thoughts and beliefs. As well as our reactions to them.

Now let's examine your title here. " Consciousness analogous to light. Could we see anything without both?
Your question is stated in a way as to indicate weather we need both light and consciousness to "see"? It would depend on your definition of see. In my opinion we can see without light by other senses. However we could not see or even exist without consciousness. As I have expressed the very act of consciousness is existance.

Yes VooDoo can be something. They have the ability to state things so intellegently and concisely. But also to be so critical and adversarial. I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe if you take sometime and work on your ideas you can further them. The internet is a great tool. Good Luck and I hope I could help.

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin;  Thank you.

[S. Earl Martin]

Okay I said I would consider your ideas. I have figured out a way they in theory could work. If you use the string theory. In a multi universe scenario it could work. The theory states that there are universes containing every possibe scenario. So this would allow for your ideas. Check out string theory and see if you can adapt it to your ideas. I have done all I can. They are your ides so you have to be the one to develop them. Good luck Earl

[sakoz]

 I found a "flaw" in my theory. (my critics will be,pleased and probably chortle). In essence I believe we are 'conditioned' to and by language the way Pavlov conditioned dogs.
We use "believed images" (evoked by words) in lieu of the sound of a bell to  arouse/provoke our involuntary to react. I demonstrate that 2 ways.
1. "Think of a image that disturbs you." and 2. John Beahner would be talking and his words  would evoke/access a image and his involuntary would react to the image with emotion and tears. Number 2 is similar to 1, images 'arouse' involuntary reactions.  Yesterday, at dinner with three people, I was recounting a past experience and some of my words 'evoked' a image and my involuntary reacted to the image with emotion and tears in my eyes ( none of the tears spilled out of my eyes). So far , so good , my theory 'holds up'. I thought about what occurred; just like to John Beahner. I thought I had "deprogrammed" from "believing some of my images were real", apparently it had not "generalized" across the board to all images, en masse. Then in the morning, it occurred to me; I'm thinking those same images but NO emotion or tears! That is NOT genuine conditioning because conditioning is consistent, not sporadic/intermittent. That's my "flaw".
So I tentatively explain that by the night before the images in turn evoked 'subliminal' images and it was those secondary (unrecognized images) that evoked the emotions and tears, because next day , the primary images did not evoke any emotion or tears.  This is a case of "images about images", as in "thinking about thinking".
We're all familar with "we cannot not think." Similar to breathing. Just as breathing is taken for granted; how often do you take thinking for granted? In order to think2 about thinking1, you have to be aware of/recognize thinking1. When you don't recognize (take for granted; running on automatic) there's NO checking,testing. validating of thinking1. That's the antithesis of scientific method.
Scientific Method is producing remakable results, When you take YOUR thoughts for granted, what kind/quality results do you get? What I called "flaw" was an unrecognized temporary 'oversight'.(Now corrected).

[voodoo scientist]

This is a clear formulation. This is something one can meaningfully respond to.

In essence I believe we are 'conditioned' to and by language the way Pavlov conditioned dogs.

The issue of whether thought follows language or language follows thought (or some kind of interdependence) is an established problem in psychology. Lots of research has been done on it, though the exact dynamics of the thought-language relationship have yet to be uncovered, to my knowledge.

But I believe this isn't your central point, which continues to elude me. It's disappointing that you continue to be so unclear. After several reads, I feel like I can almost grasp enough of a point to meaningfully respond at times, but then I lose it because of the jumbled structure and non-standard terminology. There's a point about the nature of consciousness hiding in there that I suspect might not be too bad, but I can't get at it. In your terms, your words are evoking very hazy images in me, and I think it's because the words you use evoke very specific images in you, but not in others.

One technique I employ is to constrain myself to one 4 to 6-line paragraph per "idea unit" I'm trying to convey. This forces me to rigorously consider my descriptions of my thoughts and get rid of all superfluous words. Another is to convey each idea in a self-contained package that requires minimal external referencing for the target audience. This forces me to gather my thoughts about the idea and structure them such that I can hold the idea in working memory in its entirety, which is absolutely critical to conveying ideas - after all, if you can't hold the whole idea in your working memory, how are other people supposed to?

[sakoz]

voodoo scientist; thanks for your input. Would you read my post #5 , in the thread;" Can you 'Purposely Shift Perspective"? I point out how Mental Health Professionals routinely do what we do as if it were the norm. That explains what I've been trying to convey and the fact that we might do well to research and see if we could stop or correct that "habit".
The article "On Being Sane In Insane Places" Will explain better than I have my "central point, which continues to elude" you. Hopfully after you read that , we may get to something that will help all readers to avoid or correct the 'cause' of much emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, etc.