First I like to thank the author for his thoroughness and for introducing us to the radical honesty of Holloway.

Admirably honest and genuine as he was, Holloway's conclusion was limited by Western thought, particularly by the concept as if life is superior to death, existence to non-existence - otherwise, there would be nothing "unjust" about the "nothingness that awaits us".

Same for the quest for meaning, where it is assumed that X cannot be worthy unless it means Y. The active Western mind finds it difficult to grasp purposelessness. Further, even if there was a purpose, but one which could not be intellectually understood, for the Western mind that would be equivalent to purposelessness.

What we are (question 2) needs no justification and where we come from and go to (questions 1 and 3) is not unknown either: we go there and come back practically every night, when in deep sleep. As we have no memory, no proof, the Western mind finds it unbearably meaningless, thus unworthy - so it desperately looks for some other explanation.

Contrary to the active Western thought that feels compelled to create (thus it is was in the West where worship of the Creator has developed), defiantly if necessary, the key for making peace with ourselves, is not to discover something new about ourselves - but to weed out whatever false conceptions and prejudices we may have, regarding what we supposedly are and what we supposedly ought to achieve (including having a good time, as in the case of nihilism).

Once those misconceptions and prejudices are removed, our true identity is automatically exposed and shines, then we awaken to the reality that we are none other than God, lacking nothing, totally self-sufficient, without a need to achieve anything, come from anywhere or go anywhere. We are not the watchers of the world, we are not struggling to gather some fragments of its reflected light - it is our own infinite light which shines and illuminates everything.

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

AJP...

I'm not attempting to convince you of any particular way of thought at all. I don't care what you personally believe, but I am interested in how you conclude your beliefs outside of evidence based conclusions. Thus the interest in consciousness where little evidence outside of pure speculation, can nail it down.

I think this is one very big reason for the success of religions all. The whole gambit of consciousness is a free for all.

I'm reading your points mentioned with interest. I'm struggling with time to do them justice; thus I'm hammering on with my own thoughts on the subject.
I don't think it remarkable for one body to possess two egos. What of Siamese twins? IE one body two souls, it proves nothing more than the conundrum that defining of consciousness is.

Where is your proof that consciousness is finite? There is a big school of thought says it isn't.
If it isn't, then it must dwell outside of our universe, which is finite.

Keep engaged here, I'm bound to get some free time sooner than later

AJPhillips.

My view of consciousness is that it is a universal force yet to be identified. Science has a long way to go in defining it and isolating it.
The future of space travel depends on it. Physically transporting ourselves through space in rocket ships will always remain in a nineteen fifties science fiction novel: It's laughable.

But we can theoretically travel to any point in the universe, since consciousness like gravity, is everywhere in the universe.

The reason science cannot identify human consciousness, is simply because it is not peculiar to the human race.
Like air, every living thing in the universe shares the same consciousness to a greater or lesser degree, we breath it in, so to speak.

Don't laugh, there once was a time before gravity was identified as a force.

Religions could give us a clue. There is a master of consciousness called God. This indicates a centre of the force, like the sun is the centre of the solar system.
To speculate further, the same consciousness could be common across other universes outside of our own. Anything is possible, and it may be transportable across other realms non physical, (religions Heaven and Hell).

The design feature of consciousness is for natures ends, (whatever they are; that needs to be defined also).like the force of the wind, we need to stick a windmill in front of it and harness its energy.

Maybe consciousness is the missing link in the puzzle that balances the physical universes(s).
OK, name one animal that is not welded down the middle to form two identical sides.

Go with that futuristic supposition AJP...

diver dan,

I’m not under the impression that you’re trying to convince me of anything. Although, I would have no problem if you were.

<<… I am interested in how you conclude your beliefs outside of evidence based conclusions.>>

I hope I never believe anything without evidence. Please tell me if you spot me doing it.

<<Thus the interest in consciousness where little evidence outside of pure speculation, can nail it down.>>

There is still evidence, though. I’ve spent the last few posts discussing it.

<<The whole gambit of consciousness is a free for all.>>

Not at all. If there is no evidence either way, it does not then become reasonable to simply select whatever belief takes your fancy.

Take, for example, a jar of Skittles. The number of Skittles in that jar is either odd or even, but we would have no sure way of knowing either way. Just because we have no way of knowing, however, that does not then make it reasonable to assert one way or the other. The only reasonable position to take is the default position of rejecting both claims until a burden of proof has been met.

<<I don't think it remarkable for one body to possess two egos. What of Siamese twins?>>

Siamese twins are two people with two brains. They are in no way analogous to the dilemmas I’ve raised.

<<IE one body two souls …>>

What about one body and one brain, which is what I’ve been talking about?

<<Where is your proof that consciousness is finite?>>

I don’t have any proof as such, but I did provide evidence to suggest that it is. Please see my points regarding brain injury and split-brain patients.

<<There is a big school of thought says [consciousness] isn't [finite].>>

Yes, it’s call religion, and it is yet to meet its burden of proof on any of its supernatural claims.

Pushing claims outside the realm of investigation doesn’t eliminate the need for evidence. It merely renders any position on the matter impossible. Yet, as your second post makes clear, you've taken one anyway.

He is off the planet. You are wasting your time even entering into a reasoned discussion with him, because he is an unreasonable entity.

David

AJPhillips

**..If there is no evidence either way, it does not then become reasonable to simply select whatever belief takes your fancy.**

I think you've been overruled on that theory AJP, It was Einstein who indicated science will be hobbled without imagination. Science exists to prove the unproven, but imagination is critical to scientific progress.

NDE's are not proof in themselves of the continuum of consciousness after death, but what they prove by experience, is consciousness exists without ego, these are the tales of the subjects who returned to life after a proved physical death.

VK3AW...well lets put AJP to the test, does he suffer from the same negative neurosis as yourself?

AJP. you keep returning to your brain damaged subject. Without trawling back through posts above, I believe I dismissed your theory as proof of anything more than an alteration to the degree of conscious awareness.
We are discussing here the infinity nature of consciousness; are we or are we not?