Thread: Genesis of Consciousness

Folk generally consider such things as emotions and Intelligence, as per the RESULT of consciousness. That is;

A. As for emotions; we have an experience, which results in a generated feeling about the event. So our emotions are clearly affected and influenced by each experience. A frightening exposure may lead to fear and reservation, an enjoyable one – to a sense of well-being and exuberance.

Therefore a resultant emotion will be inaugurated by the impulse/s towards that result – being the feeling/s that (at first) enter our consciousness/awareness via the sensory system, will subsequently be translated into a memory, based upon an emotional evaluation of the experience.

B. Similarly, we generically relate to Intelligence as an accumulated result of consciousness – an incremental learning about our environment through the relative experience/s as delivered into our awareness, which in turn support the thoughts/consideration towards future choices and their resultant experiences, and so on.

On the other hand, I have long been arguing there to be BOTH an emotional and an Intellectual INPUT genetically initiating consciousness, and through it - via choice and action; the vast majority of experiences we ever encounter - after which, the above result commences.

So this is according the GENETIC (rather than resultant) side of the equation, which has largely been ignored. Yet for mine, it is this side of consciousness that presents by far the most complete definition of man – being the rather set-apart entity having the capacity to reason from such an advanced IntelligenceINPUT into his choices, which then translate into the experience (as above), leading to the accumulating dual-awareness (emotions and Intelligence) that we have come to recognise as consciousness.

For mine, it works like this;

Emotion + Intelligence > CONSCIOUSNESS > considerations > choice > action > experience > resultant emotion as memory > + Intelligence > considerations (based upon resultant emotion + Intelligence) > choice > etc.

The above model defines consciousness overall, however the main (but not only) problem with average perception, is that we skip the first (GENETIC) step, and in particular the most essential aspect of it - INTELLIGENCE, and reason that the process commences with consciousness, as if it has no core foundation, nothing supporting it – and call this scientific???

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Folk generally consider such things as emotions and Intelligence, as per the RESULT of consciousness. That is;

A. As for emotions; we have an experience, which results in a generated feeling about the event. So our emotions are clearly affected and influenced by each experience. A frightening exposure may lead to fear and reservation, an enjoyable one – to a sense of well-being and exuberance.

Therefore a resultant emotion will be inaugurated by the impulse/s towards that result – being the feeling/s that (at first) enter our consciousness/awareness via the sensory system, will subsequently be translated into a memory, based upon an emotional evaluation of the experience.

B. Similarly, we generically relate to Intelligence as an accumulated result of consciousness – an incremental learning about our environment through the relative experience/s as delivered into our awareness, which in turn support the thoughts/consideration towards future choices and their resultant experiences, and so on.

On the other hand, I have long been arguing there to be BOTH an emotional and an Intellectual INPUT genetically initiating consciousness, and through it - via choice and action; the vast majority of experiences we ever encounter - after which, the above result commences.

So this is according the GENETIC (rather than resultant) side of the equation, which has largely been ignored. Yet for mine, it is this side of consciousness that presents by far the most complete definition of man – being the rather set-apart entity having the capacity to reason from such an advanced IntelligenceINPUT into his choices, which then translate into the experience (as above), leading to the accumulating dual-awareness (emotions and Intelligence) that we have come to recognise as consciousness.

For mine, it works like this;

Emotion + Intelligence > CONSCIOUSNESS > considerations > choice > action > experience > resultant emotion as memory > + Intelligence > considerations (based upon resultant emotion + Intelligence) > choice > etc.

The above model defines consciousness overall, however the main (but not only) problem with average perception, is that we skip the first (GENETIC) step, and in particular the most essential aspect of it - INTELLIGENCE, and reason that the process commences with consciousness, as if it has no core foundation, nothing supporting it – and call this scientific???

I have underlined the portions of your post that are unintelligble. I dare you will castigate me for sniping at you. Listen up - I want to frigging understand you, but if you continue to talk incoherently I cannot, and neither can anyone else.

I’d really like to take you seriously, yet that time has passed. So perhaps when (and if) you adequately negotiate the concept ‘genuine’ in the stead of pompously speaking for 'everyone', you might find someone who has both the mental dexterity to understand and time to waste on conceited insincerity, who may then relay it to you – if they can manage to take you seriously.

BUT, as Aldo the Apache said; ‘right there, is one big *if*.

In the meantime, perhaps you can negotiate this; I have a young dog in my backyard – a bitch actually, who has never studied trigonometry or the theory of relativity, has no idea what a number is much less how it supposedly reveals ‘intelligence’ and couldn’t care less if you frigging understand sh#t. Yet she lives to chase and retrieve her toys after being hurled for her attention.

Every once in a while I can manage to trick her, when I resort to deceitful tactics - you would have no trouble understanding such. But as long as it’s an HONEST throw; she, more than 9/10 times, without so much as looking at it’s trajectory; not only assesses the direction to run but also the distance in order to be within inches of the toy as it lands. All this is achieved at full pace while she also negotiates obstacles, potholes and fences – such that she has to include a mid-flight conclusion, about to which side it will land. She does all this without pomposity, duplicity or vanity, without asking for applause, a Nobel Peace Prize or certification of her greatness on the wall, but only the chance to do it all again.

So now with all your abundant ‘education’ and conceited arrogance; excepting the speed of course, can you do similar, or at least explain this bitch's ability - scientifically?

Every once in a while I can manage to trick her, when I resort to deceitful tactics - you would have no trouble understanding such. But as long as it’s an HONEST throw; she, more than 9/10 times, without so much as looking at it’s trajectory; not only assesses the direction to run but also the distance in order to be within inches of the toy as it lands. All this is achieved at full pace while she also negotiates obstacles, potholes and fences – such that she has to reach a mid-flight conclusion, about to which side it will land. She does all this without pomposity or vanity, without asking for applause, Nobel Peace Prize or a certification on the wall, but only the chance to do it all again.

Go to a space empty of obstacles(big lawn space) and play some straight up fetch(no tricks). Watch your dog close and note her running path.

So if the derailing tactics are done, we may now be permitted to get back on track - perhaps????


An investigation into the etymology for the term ‘consciousness,’ provides quite some clarification into this emerging witness of human reality. We find it as the result of the Latin ‘con’ (with, together), and ‘scire’ (to know).

Now I doubt anyone is going to argue that consciousness is about ‘scire’ (to know), yet the prefix ‘con’ (with/together), would surely suggest there being (at least) two separate – genetic sources - to come/join together in the process of knowing (‘scire’). So the obvious question to be asked - what effectively comes together (‘con’), underpinning and formulating a ‘knowing’ per our awareness/mentality? Well, even though I have previously offered this scenario; it still presents a good starting point ..............

Imagine if you will, a man sitting quietly in his chair in what he understands to be a completely empty room, apart from his chair and self. In the middle of all this abiding solitude, he suddenly experiences in the region of his shoulder blade; a sharp localised jolt like a strong pin-prick. Prior to this, his senses presented nothing of consequence into his perception. So the very first notion that all is not per his expectation, is the sharp pain delivered into his awareness via his sensory system - he feels the pain.

At this point, he is aware ONLY of a single piece of evidence about the experience, yet nothing has ‘come together’ with it. Therefore his awareness could be argued as flimsy, circumstantial - incomplete. His ‘consciousness’ about what has eventuated behind him, has not yet been established.

So normally, without much reflection over the matter, he will spin around quickly to catch the miscreant as close as possible to still in the act of inflicting the pain. His hope in this action is to witness the guilty party via a second sensory input into his reasoning, which would ‘con’nect at least two pieces of sensory evidence towards scire (‘knowing’). If his eyes failed to provide sufficient secondary evidence, the hope would be to make a connection via another sensory input such as sound.

In order to arrive at an adequate determination to satisfy his awareness then; thereby supporting his con-sciousness, he will always seek out at least two separate sensory evidences re. the environment at any time under determination.
This, yet again, is how our con-sciousness functions – with a genetic double-core INPUT into, and underpinning it.

However, even after he has secured his minimum two sensory inputs into his awareness, thereby providing a more conclusive identification of the relevant sensation under consideration, our hero still merely has sensory perspection – according the same half of the ‘con’; being his emotions. He still has nothing for the second core genetic input – respectively being; his INTELLIGENCE, as required to come ‘together’ with the first towards the completed formulation and establishment of 'consciousness'.

This second side of his emergent consciousness will play out shortly after his initial sensory identification, as now in the process of considerations towards action, his Intelligence (almost) instantaneously is introduced into the equation. So he will naturally seek an intelligent determination about the pain - friend or foe - life threatening or not, then what action to take - run, fight back or what?

Of course if he had the luxury of time at his disposal, he might select a decidedly Intelligent choice of action, yet his generated emotions (anxiety), in the short term would likely not permit such a positive result, for his inclination would be more akin to an emotional knee-jerk ‘fight or flight’.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Watch your dog close and note her running path

And what would you have me looking for in this? Moreover - will it be relevant to this discussion, or have you possibly joined Ophiolite in his ongoing duplicity towards derailment via vacuous dissension and nonsense?

Never mind. You just make stuff up all day long, don't you. What a waste of time.

I have previously on the 'Psychology' sub-forum, suggested a general model (a skeleton) by way of definition for consciousness, as such;

Emotion + Intelligence > CONSCIOUSNESS > considerations > choice > action > experience > resultant emotion as memory > + Intelligence > considerations (based upon resultant emotion + Intelligence) > choice > etc.



Now I might put a little flesh on this skeleton in reference to our friend with the emerging consciousness re. the sharp pain, which perhaps would look like;

Sensory input related to sharp pain (emotion) + (Intelligence) eg. "Is the source physically dangerous to me?" >(underpins)> CONSCIOUSNESS >(leading to)> considerations about what action to take >(generating)> choice of action – perhaps "fight or flight" >(initiating)> physical action per choice – fight, flight or whatever >(results in)> the experience of the physical action >(leads to)> resultant emotion (as memory) - perhaps; 'keep clear of dangerous room' (back to step one)>(introduce)> INTELLIGENCE - perhaps; 'the room itself presents no danger' >(now permits)> further considerations towards the next action >(generating)> choice (of next action) - etc.

Clearly the above model is condensed and according a simple and specific scenario, yet even though it leaves a few minor details out, which would require further exploration, and will necessarily take a little imagination to translate to a wider more complex scale, it is nonetheless; arguably a reasonably sufficient overall model - IMHO.

The exceedingly fundamental point I have been arguing in the bareface of much duplicitous hostility however, is - absolutely NONE of the above - indeed life itself would have been possible, unless the genetic origin - the 'con' (coming together) had not taken place - FIRST! The rest is only possible on the back of this binary core genesis to human life, which is the essential missing piece in our generic mis-understanding of the abundant reality that is CONSCIOUSNESS!

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Never mind. You just make stuff up all day long, don't you. What a waste of time.

Awwww come now, you have a little more gas in the tank, don't you? Why succumb to the arrogant and lazy Ophiolight Sniper syndrome? Please be my guest, prove (anything above) incorrect .....

Or perhaps.... hey, here is a novel idea - how about joining in a discussion based upon logic??????? WOW, what an amazing concept, huh?

BTW, as previously expressed; I am genuinely thankful for the Ophiolight Sniper syndrome - supporting as it has; the process of refining this emerging WITNESS of reality!

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Yet for mine, it is this side of consciousness that presents by far the most complete definition of man – being the rather set-apart entity having the capacity to reason from such an advanced IntelligenceINPUT into his choices, which then translate into the experience (as above), leading to the accumulating dual-awareness (emotions and Intelligence) that we have come to recognise as consciousness.

My two cents..

Let's say a zebra crosses paths with a pride of hunting lions. Does the zebra experience fear and then choose to either stand or run? If whatever decision it makes leads to survival, does not the zebra also gain intelligence from the experience? How are humans set apart from the zebra when they both seem to fit in your equation because according to your calculations the zebra must also be aware of its existence?

In fact most animals with a brain, whether prey or predator, experience moments when their very life is at stake. They look for a means or rely on accrued knowledge to preserve their existence. Can an animal be aware of death without being aware of existence? I kind of doubt it personally. Do animals experience emotions at these times? I think fear is probably near the top of the list for most creatures.

I think if you want to "set apart" humans from the rest of the animal kingdom then something other than what you're offering is missing from your basic consciousness formula.

Well Zinjanthropos, I would say your contribution is worthy of far more than any two cents I've ever come across.

Yes I agree with you that there is something missing, but you are looking in the wrong place to find it, for the basis of your question is to be found in the orthodox way of relating to emotions and Intelligence – predominantly as random dissociated chance results of consciousness, when they are clearly the system that defines and underpins the commodity.

For instance, you equate Intelligence with accrued knowledge, which I believe is a common error, as is your belief that an animal is aware of death. I would personally conjecture a zebra runs out of fear of injury, or perhaps a fear of having it's sensory system violated, rather than being killed or eaten. Yet again; that is all within the emotions rather than its Intelligence. Fear of whatever for whatever reason, after all; is pure emotion, yet the lack of definition under which we have always laboured, is what’s missing.

Additionally the zebra of your example does not gain Intelligence from the experience, but rather memory. The fear you are speaking of then, was not any part of its Intelligence prior to, or after running, but the emotions as stored memory, and this is little different to a human mentality.

So for mine, the animal can be aware of its existence, while being entirely unaware of its impending demise, just as a human child who has never been exposed to the concept of death, is only aware of itself within the currently enjoyed experience of life. The concept of that life being terminated at some point is unrecognised until it has been explained to some degree. Even then, I suspect the prospect doesn’t really take root in the child’s mentality until around the age 20 – yet that is another discussion.

Originally Posted by Zinjanthropos

I think fear is probably near the top of the list for most creatures

I totally agree with you, even though I would take it one step further and suggest that ALL emotions are based around fear – for ALL creatures. That is – any emotions we encounter sits at some tier associated with the very same master - fear.

So I’m not sure why you argue that I’m ‘setting man apart’ from the rest of anything, even though man does have an ability over the remainder, in that his consciousness is more advanced, through a superior ability to define the boundaries between his emotions and Intelligence – the very same two inputs into the consciousness (and therefore mentalities) of all in the animal kingdom.

Even so, we seem to cultivate a floundering in discernment of such distinctions - which in turn by definition; denies any possibility of 'set-apart' superiority.

Before I wrote that a zebra gains intelligence through experience I had to think about it for a moment because I didn't like the notion that there is a prescribed level of understanding that can't be breached for every species including humans.

I was thinking that evolution has to play a role here. The zebra that survives predation in its lifetime is more likely to have passed on its capacity for learning, thus improving the chances of the species' continuance. So are zebras today more intelligent than their ancestors of a hundred or thousand generations ago? If so did they gain intelligence over the years? Personally I think it's possible their capacity for learning has increased across the centuries even if it's so subtle as to be practically undetectable.

Since this is pseudoscience and since this thread is about the genesis of consciousness, I'll suggest that the prevailing predator-prey scenario that exists on our world is the most likely reason for both the evolution of intelligence & consciousness.

Originally Posted by Zinjanthropos

So are zebras today more intelligent than their ancestors of a hundred or thousand generations ago? If so did they gain intelligence over the years?

Twice (above) you have referenced the concept of ‘Intelligence’. So now – do you have a definition for this term or does it vary arbitrarily with each incarnation? If you don’t have an consistent and definitive exegesis, why do you use it in a scientific setting as if you do?

Originally Posted by Zinjanthropos

The zebra that survives predation in its lifetime is more likely to have passed on its capacity for learning, thus improving the chances of the species' continuance.

It always amuses me how the evolutionists of the world try to force everything into their favorite box. Yet from what I’ve witnessed, the zebra which becomes food invariably had a problem – either health or age wise, therefore was less able to keep up with the fleeing herd. Likewise, a lion with reduced ability will struggle to secure food and more likely to; itself become prey. I see little of your traditional ‘evolution’ in all that, other than the basic ‘survival of the fittest’ - just as you can see no logic in my model. The difference is that you employ concepts as if you have understanding and definition, when you do NOT.

The above may, to some extent offend you, yet it is after all; only one Reject’s observation which can easily be refuted by producing a few consistently verifiable definitions. If not, you are effectively proving my point, which in turn appears to be progressively offending everyone on this forum. So hey; you can consider self as in the midst of the fleeing herd, yet the question I might ask; are they all as healthy as they would like to believe?

So how many zebras die of old age do you think? Or do they all become prey eventually - one way or another? Also what is your definition for 'learning'?

Originally Posted by Zinjanthropos

because I didn't like the notion that there is a prescribed level of understanding that can't be breached for every species including humans

So how do you define ‘understanding’? Do you have a definition for ‘understanding’, or is this yet another malleable concept?

Originally Posted by Zinjanthropos

I'll suggest that the prevailing predator-prey scenario that exists on our world is the most likely reason for both the evolution of intelligence & consciousness.

If you don’t mind, I will return to this just as soon as we can settle on a definition for your ‘Intelligence’, ‘understanding’ and ‘consciousness’.

Unlike most others in this forum herd, you at least appear to have the mettle to face a question or two - honestly.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

If you don’t have an consistent and definitive exegesis, why do you use it in a scientific setting as if you do?

I'm in a pseudoscientific setting if you haven't noticed.

If not, you are effectively proving my point, which in turn appears to be offending everyone on this forum.

Pseudoscience is flame retardant, I don't get bent about what goes in here. How does one become offended in pseudoscience?

As for definitions, they don't carry any weight in this subforum. I don't think I could be any more obvious when I mentioned capacity for learning increases over time that I was referring to intelligence. Personally once one starts asking for definitions of this and that I get the feeling that it's a stalling tactic or a "I don't know how to respond to this" diversionary statement.

Anyway such is the nature of the internet forum so I'm just going to move on. I'm officially out of this thread.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well Zinjanthropos, I would say your contribution is worthy of far more than any two cents I've ever come across.

Patronising c*** aren't you?

So now with all your abundant ‘education’ and conceited arrogance; excepting the speed of course, can you do similar, or at least explain this bitch's ability - scientifically?

I can do similar to your bitch. I can't do it as well as Federer, or David Beckham, or Roger Staubach, but I can compute trajectories with minimal information. When I was growing up by the sea there was a stretch of rocky shore, about 200m long, that I would often run across flat out. The surface was highly irregular, with minature hills and valleys, gorges and pools, all covered with varieties of slippery seaweed. Despite the treacherous underfoot conditions I only suffered one injury requiring medical attention in many years. Friggin wonderful what 3,500 milliion years of evolution can do for you.

It’s astounding that analytical human mentality – or so it would like to assume, continues a shoddy failure to recognise the obvious, simply because it hasn’t previously discovered it printed in some supposedly ‘scientific’ handbook for its sheep-like speculation. I mean, how obvious does it have to get? Consciousness is clearly founded upon being conscious – duh! And what permits anyone to be conscious of anything at all? As shown with our friend above; initially our senses (emotions) will detect the outside (or inside) world, and then INTELLIGENCE follows up, in discerning (at whatever level it is permitted) what the senses have exposed. The two simply have to work together, or (at best) a serious dysfunction will result. It really couldn’t get much clearer; a basic witnessing of a common dual reality of existence.

Despite what vaccuous reasoning such as the previous couple of posts would suggest, consciousness is surely the effect of system - a dual system, rather than chance.

Upon reflection, the emerging witness of this dual reality of existence which defines man at the most fundamental level, is so basic that the astounding thing is we haven’t recognised it previously. Or have we, yet failed to sufficiently learn the lesson? Consider................

Dual brain - RIGHT and LEFT (hemisphere)
Dual origin - MOTHER and FATHER
Dual harmony - FEMALE and MALE
Dual appetite - PRODUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE (inclination)
Dual insight - SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE (perception)
Dual processing -PARALLEL and SERIAL
Dual reality - TANGIBLE and INTANGIBLE
Dual co-existence - PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL
Dual environment - EARTH and HEAVEN(s)
Dual status - DEATH and LIFE
Dual context - EVIL and GOOD
Dual awareness - EMOTIONS and INTELLIGENCE = CONSCIOUSNESS

Interestingly we may recognise in the above; all the words in blue, particularly the final one, could easily be substituted with the same term – ‘mentality’, or 'consciousness' - which after all; is the focal point of this manifestation. Honestly now - how could the final definition on the list possibly be otherwise?

The list is not complete of course, for other comparisons such as 'hot/cold' and 'light/dark' could be added, yet the elemenatal point is more than sufficiently established, even if no-one else manages to embrace it - favouring instead the all too convenient and vaccuous lethargy; "consciousness just happens!"

How scientific!

Ultimately though, it really doesn't matter if we individually bury our head in the sand, for regardless; the revealing will happen around us. It will only be our fear and/or conceited arrogance that denies us the opportunity to recognise, honour and partake in the witnessing.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

It’s astounding that analytical human mentality – or so it would like to assume, continues a shoddy failure to recognise the obvious, simply because it hasn’t previously discovered it printed in some supposedly ‘scientific’ handbook for its sheep-like speculation. I mean, how obvious does it have to get? Consciousness is clearly founded upon being conscious – duh! And what permits anyone to be conscious of anything at all? As shown with our friend above; initially our senses (emotions) will detect the outside (or inside) world, and then INTELLIGENCE follows up, in discerning (at whatever level it is permitted) what the senses have exposed. The two simply have to work together, or (at best) a serious dysfunction will result. It really couldn’t get much clearer; a basic witnessing of a common dual reality of existence.

Despite what vaccuous reasoning such as the previous couple of posts would suggest, consciousness is surely the effect of system - a dual system, rather than chance.

Upon reflection, the emerging witness of this dual reality of existence which defines man at the most fundamental level, is so basic that the astounding thing is we haven’t recognised it previously. Or have we, yet failed to sufficiently learn the lesson? Consider................

Dual brain - RIGHT and LEFT (hemisphere)
Dual origin - MOTHER and FATHER
Dual harmony - FEMALE and MALE
Dual appetite - PRODUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE (inclination)
Dual insight - SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE (perception)
Dual processing -PARALLEL and SERIAL
Dual reality - TANGIBLE and INTANGIBLE
Dual co-existence - PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL
Dual environment - EARTH and HEAVEN(s)
Dual status - DEATH and LIFE
Dual context - EVIL and GOOD
Dual awareness - EMOTIONS and INTELLIGENCE = CONSCIOUSNESS

Interestingly we may recognise in the above; all the words in blue, particularly the final one, could easily be substituted with the same term – ‘mentality’, or 'consciousness' - which after all; is the focal point of this manifestation. Honestly now - how could the final definition on the list possibly be otherwise?

The list is not complete of course, for other comparisons such as 'hot/cold' and 'light/dark' could be added, yet the elemenatal point is more than sufficiently established, even if no-one else manages to embrace it - favouring instead the all too convenient and vaccuous lethargy; "consciousness just happens!"

How scientific!

Ultimately though, it really doesn't matter if we individually bury our head in the sand, for regardless; the revealing will happen around us. It will only be our fear and/or conceited arrogance that denies us the opportunity to recognise, honour and partake in the witnessing.

I give up. Your turgid prose is not worth the frigging effort.