Comments by "SkyRiver" (@SkyRiver1) on "Connecting with Universal Consciousness" video.

  1. @ Danford Smith: The words and common conceptions of consciousness and other words like spiritual are frequently used to by people to appear as if they understand things that they don't. They are both quite ambiguoius terms to begin with. Take your implication that consciousness is somehow synonimous with thinking. Many people would disagree with that and tell you that in their opinion consciousness is the matrix in which thinking takes place. Some would even tell you that consciousness and thinking are in opposition in that thinking is sequential and associative while consciousness is not either of these. Some would tell you there is a difference between consciousness and self-consciousness as it is generally referred to, as in, "the boy was so shy and self-conscious that he found it impossible to approach a woman." Some would tell you that consciousness is an emergent function that only developed because it had profound survival advantages. Others would tell you that animals are conscious in that they are perceptive and that consciousness was just an adjunct of perception known as apperception. Carlos Dwa would tell you, "The inherent deception in all conceptions of consciousness is the suffix "ness". This is sometimes referred to as the "ness" lock monster." And because of these two lines, I kinda think that Dwa knows more about this slippery notion of consciousness than all the rest put together. But then that's just me. And then of course there is the always (well really sometimes much more than others) popular Cosmic Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, Higher Consciousness Expanded Consciousness, Enhanced Consciousness, and all manner of the like, and in opposition to them is the quite resourceful and adaptable Consensus Consciousness, Mundane Consciousness, and Walking Around Consciousness -- frequently referred to by those in the know as "sleep" which as it happens is pretty much unconscious pretty much most of the time. I think Dwa got it right, there are things that are conscious but there is nothing real that the noun consciousness represents. There is conscious but no consciousness, the whole idea is just blatant social climbing by cellular aggregates : ) Or could be that the subconscious or unconscious just needed someone to keep it company and to blame for it's bone-headed mistakes. Could be the magical term of the moment that means so much that it is meaningless.
    3
  2. @Danford Smith I am always surprised and delighted when someone responds to something I have posted without hostility or some immature form of criticism. As you point out, these new forms of media present a challenge and there is no shortage of persons with views that entail various degrees of squirrelliness (if that is a word). My main interest is in the apparent ability that some very few people have to experience their existence in a hyperconsious manner. This has been my raison d'etre for well over fifty years. So please indulge me if everything I mention is relative to the central concept (as erroneous as any such conception necessarily is) of awakening or enlightenment. If a person is not enlightened at the very moment, even if they themselves have had experiences wherein they were conscious in a manner that makes their ordinary state appear impoverished, mechanical, and dead by comparison, they know nothing about this higher state, can't say anything accurate or useful about it, and have no memories about it that aren't self-deception. Of course if one is talking, or thinking (or writing) they ain't -- as it's called -- AWAKE. I almost wrote a little discourse on why AI will never be conscious. But alternately and just as accurately I could have written about why the thought-centric-mind (which most people refer to as "I") is not, and can never be conscious. I can hear the objections rising in minds out there even before I have posted this. But just for a minute for the benefit of anyone who may come across this, whose potential for an enriched form of conscious functioning has not totally atrophied, let's just imagine that the view I am presenting is less incorrect than their present view: that they are the source of their thoughts and that the thought arising in them are theirs. Well I am going to stop now. I doubt if this made any sense to anyone or if there is anyone out there who would be interested enough to merit further comment. But allow me to once more quote one of my favorite statements on this apparent subject (I say "apparent" because what I am attempting to refer to, is not and CANNOT be a subject). When referring to what can be considered accurate in this regard Carlos Dwa wrote: . . . "If you can think it, it cannot be correct."
    1