There is evidence enough of reincarnation to convince me that it is a fact. However, I will not spend any time trying to convince you because you have already made up your mind.



There are many sources that lead me to that consideration. Outside the imagination?" I doubt that anything happens outside the imagination.



There are lot of beliefs that exist without 'sufficient enough' evidence to conclude them as facts. Some of which are held by the scientific community.

No it does not refute my definition. You always only see the surface of things. You need to look deeper.

Those people KNOW what the consequences are if they get caught in their lies and they are apparently willing to take that chance (responsibility) by their decision to take those risky actions. Theirs is a conscious decision to be deceitful and dishonest. They know the risks, therefor it is a conscious decision.

A person doing what you state above is trying to exhonerate themselves from responsibility of some prior actions which are unrelated to their current actions of being deceitful and dishonest. They are keenly aware of what they are doing and what the consequences are if they get caught.


JB:

Consideration may be a matter of degree.
Here is an example: In my mind I may not consider it important where I place my car keys because I know I will find them again. Therefore, when I come home I might place them anywhere, unconsciously and then forget where they are because I was not paying close attention. When I placed them,... THAT WAS A DECISION. It was unconscious, because I did it without thinking and remembering.

An 'unconscious' decision is one made without much thought and it may not be retained carefully by memory. It is more of an automatic or careless action taken as a result of a prior decision that where you place your keys is not important so just place them anywhere. That was the decision.


I see your point if you will agree that consciousness, as I have always said, comes in degrees. It has to do with attention and memory. It is difficult to draw a line between what one might call "unconscious" and "conscious" when consciousness comes in degrees.

What I am calling "unconscious" is really a smaller degree of consciousness, while the literal meaning of "unconscious" would be ZERO consciousness, which in my opinion does not exist, just as nothing and zero do not exist.

So for the purpose of a better understanding; I am defining 'unconscious' decisions as decisions that have a very small degree of conscious attention or thought involved, and not a lot of memory about these decision is usually recalled.

The memory is there, but it is sometimes difficult to access. Sometimes you have to sit down and concentrate on your past actions and retrace your steps mentally and/or physically to discover what you did with your keys or a lost item or what really happened at the scene of a crime.. where you were not paying attention.

Have you ever went in the other room to get something you needed and when you got there you could not remember what you were there to get?
BUT when you gave up trying to remember and go back to what you were doing, suddenly you remember what it was that you needed.

We go through our daily lives practically unconscious doing things automatically and when the end of the day arrives, we cannot recall everything we did or every decision we made in the course of our day. These are what I mean by 'unconscious' decisions.

But like I said, "unconsciousness" does not really exist. It is just a term that describes the opposite of a person with a photographic memory who is keenly aware of everything that is going on around him and remembers it all in detail. >>Like "The mentalist" on television.

How aware you are of what you are doing and deciding and of your surroundings and what is actually going on, is how conscious you are. That consciousness comes in degrees.

Because what I call a decision and what you call a decision are apparentely two different things.

At one instant there is not a belief. At the next instant, there is a belief. Now either the belief just "poofed" into existence out of thin air, or something that was a "not belief" changed into a "belief".

And the thing that is the cause of that "poof" or change, I call "decision".

What do you call it?

He probably calls it "programing."

I'm with you Sky... DECISION.

True enough, yet I have still wondered where my construct go if I were to entertain and incorporate your definition of decision. I have not done openly so at this time, but it would make a difference. For instance, it seems to me that the necessary implications would drastically alter what follows making the logical construct unintelligible. As I have previously mentioned, decision(according to any all-inclusive meaningful definition of the term that I have found) is necessarily contingent upon the existence of prior things, namely conscious consideration. Therefore, placing the ability to make a decision ahead of those things which come prior to conscious consideration necessarily places the cart way ahead of the horse, doesn't it?



That conclusion requires careful thought. There are different kinds of belief because there are different kinds of learning at that time.

When considering humans, there are physiological perceptions which exist prior to birth while still in the womb. That is a well-known and well-established fact. There is not enough knowledge to be able to determine exactly what, if anything, the unborn child thinks about those, therefore based upon only this would be to conclude with insufficient evidence and inadequate means. However, that fact(and all that it involves) clearly establishes that the physiological nervous system's perception begins prior to conscious thought.

Now, if a belief system is to be considered as everything one comes to accept as true, then a single belief is *something* accepted as true. Chronologically speaking, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know the exact content of a first belief, that is assuming that a single one can exist. However, basing the thinking upon what is known, we can say that whatever that first correlation may be, it cannot be a complex one. It very well may be, and most probably is in my opinion, built upon received perception in the womb relating to how the child physically 'feels', not pyschologically speaking in terms of a conscious emotional state of mind, but more like a general overall condition of the mind as it is still being formed. Because of these things, I do not believe that anything has been accepted as being true up until this point in time, because the capacity to do such a thing has not been reached yet. However, there is ample enough evidence to conclude that the unborn child recognizes and emotionally/physiologically responds to familiar sounds such as the sound of the mother's voice.

When a child first opens it's eyes during/just after birth, the physiological nervous system is intact and begins working in unfamiliar ways. The child can soon after hear, feel, smell, taste, and see, although those senses are still underdeveloped in ways. There is an untold amount of sense perception being received for the first time and because of the underdeveloped senses, that perception is not immediately consistent. Because of the obvious conclusions that come from all observation in this stage of life, we know that the child does not - cannot - have a complex understanding of that which is being perceived, if for no other reason than all of the perception is new, including the new sound of the mother's voice because of the difference between hearing within and outside of the womb.

So, perception has begun anew after birth. The senses are not fully developed, and therefore are still changing/improving as they develop further until they are completely developed, or at least least enough to be able to make a conscious correlation between themselves and/or different objects of perception.

This is the groundwork which is being built upon. Do you find it unacceptable?

What I wonder about is what is your purpose for this entire discussion? Is there a point?

Ironically enough one answer covers both questions here...





Conscious correlation.

In my book a conscious correlation requires a decision.

Sky,

You have every opportunity to show how that is the case, I have given several examples in which it is not, and therefore if it is not in some, it cannot be held as necessary to all.It has been clearly shown, and could be again if you would like, that one can accept something as true(make a conscious correlation) with or without deciding to do such a thing.

Very young children do not have the capacity to consider the first learnings, if for no other reason than the fact that they do not have any prior beliefs to compare perception against/with. They do however, have the capacity to perceive the world around them and infer. Decision is not necessary. Consider this example...

A very young child has it's first experience with fire. It sees it and wants to touch it, because that is what they do. The child gets burned. The child now knows that touching the fire causes pain... Ouch! The child has just made a conscious correlation with pain and touching fire. S/he may even be able to figure out through that experience that fire only hurts when you touch it.

Then, the child is able to decide through what it has just come to believe about fire, to not touch it again. No decision was required to perceive the fire, no decision was required to feel the burn. Now one could argue that the child decided to touch it, and that would be a logical conclusion, however the decision to touch the fire did not create the belief... getting burned did. Before that the child believed that fire existed - because it saw it. No decision required there either. The decision to touch the fire did not cause the burn... touching the fire did. The correlation which amounts to a new belief - that fire hurts - is the one drawn between the hand and the fire, not the decision to touch it.

I think your confusing 'look deeper' with rationalization. I am looking extremely deep into the idea of belief systems.



They are not accepting full responsibility JB, and that was an integral part of your proposed definition, which is not the case with all known conscious decisions. Why continue to argue? You're denying overwhelming adequate evidence to the contrary.

A conscious decision is not contingent upon the decider taking responsibility for that decision. Just because someone does not take responsibility for a decision does not make that one an unconscious one either.

Sky,

This link might interest you...

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tony_robbins_asks_why_we_do_what_we_do.html

The only way they can refuse to accept responsibility is if they lie to themselves and actually believe that they are not responsible when they are. (Denial)

But if they KNOW they are responsible and deny responsibility for it (to others) with deceit and lies, they are AWARE of their responsibility. They are also aware of the risks they are taking by their deceit.

When a person makes a decision that they know is wrong (to be dishonest for example) or risky, they are making a conscious decision. When they make a decision and they have no idea it is wrong or bad or risky, and are unaware of the consequences, they are making a 'unconscious' or less conscious decision.

I once came upon a terrible accident where three people were killed. My friend who was with me at the time, said "That was a bad decision." I asked him what decision was he talking about. He said, "Whatever decision that he made that caused his involvement in that accident."

That was probably an "unconscious" decision. -- Whatever decision it was. It was "unconscious" because the person making it had no idea what the consequences would be, and never gave it any thought. That decision may have been to go through a green light just because it was green, even though a truck was speeding towards the intersection. Or it could have been to go down that road instead of some other road. The accident was caused by someone's decision(s). Both drivers made decisions that resulted in that accident. They were "unconscious" decisions because the consequences were not known, considered or even thought about.

We cannot know what the full consequences of our day to day decisions are, therefore most decisions we make are not very 'conscious.' We don't have time to sit and worry or ponder about what might happen if we turn left or right at the next corner, but we do know that if we don't pay attention to our driving, we could be involved in an accident. Every time we get behind the wheel we are taking a risk and accepting the responsibility for the consequences of an accident if it happens.

If an accident happens, most people look for the one most at fault. Many times both parties are at fault. Sometimes legally, only one person is at fault. If you are within the law, driving perfectly you can still be involved in an accident if you are hit by a drunk or careless driver. If you are "innocent" you might look for a way that you could have avoided the accident. Being more aware of a swerving car, and staying a safe distance away from it, etc. Even people who drive perfectly and yet are not aware of the traffic conditions can get involved in an accident. But what ever the case may be, and no matter how at fault the other driver is, you took the responsibility for the consequences of driving when you got behind that wheel.

The difference between a conscious decision and an unconscious decision is like the difference between the fool in the Tarot and the Magician.

The Magician knows about consequences, (even if he does not know them all in detail) and he is more conscious.

The fool just blunders through life unaware of consequences.

-----

If something 'comes in degrees' then each degree has a value of some sort. A degree is an increment of measurement. To be conscious is to be conscious *of* something. I think this is what you mean, and if it is I am not disagreeing with that.



'Nothing' and 'Zero' indicate the complete absence of a thing. 'Consciousness', if measured in degrees of awareness *of* a thing, requires that which consciousness emerges from to exist before one can become conscious *of* something, so I do not agree with this assessment. A things without physiological perception cannot be conscious of anything because before consciousness comes the ability to perceive that which is made aware.



Forgotten conscious decisions become a part of the unconscious content of the mind, but at the moment of recollection it is no longer an unconscious element.



'These' is too vague a description. All we do in a day are not the same kind of thing. The common denominator of being forgotten does not equate them in any other way other than that. You need to be more specific here concerning which daily actions are being talked about.



If awareness equals being conscious *of*, then being completely unaware *of* something means having no consciousness *of* it. There are plenty of things which one is completely unaware *of*. If those things involve one's own actions, then they are necessarily performed through unconscious means.

I don't think you know what consciousness arises from. You assume it arises from bodies, but I don't think so. I think bodies arise from consciousness. That is the difference in our philosophy.

On this side of the veil, consciousness appears to arise from bodies or living organisms. This is what scientists observe.

I think that these bodies are more of a doorway or vehicle for consciousness to express itself in this physical reality. I also think that these vehicles or bodies are manifested by consciousness for this purpose. The degree of consciousness that is able to arise from a given body depends on capacity and working design of that body.

People speak of "human consciousness" because that human body and design has a certain capacity of for the expression of certain degrees of consciousness within a range.

Bodies 'channel' awareness and the sense organs are manifested specifically for the purpose of perceiving reality and increasing awareness, the conscious capacity of the body/organism.

The first sentence here is interesting, especially considering the relevent aspects of that particular response which were 'chopped up'. The second is incorrectly oversimplified. JB, I was actually following your lead and drawing the necessary conclusions from your premise that consciousness 'comes in degrees'. Here is what you wrote...



As I said before...

If something 'comes in degrees' then each degree has a value of some sort. A degree is an increment of measurement. To be conscious is to be conscious *of* something.



Tell me, how do you possibly know enough about what is on the other side of the 'veil' in order to be able to identify it? On the same note, what exactly is this 'veil'?



What makes you believe that 'consciousness' is an entity capable of creating a physical body?



What people?



Something seems amiss here - I mean - if the sense organs are created for the specific purpose of perceiving reality and increasing awareness, then why - or how - is it that one comes to believe that there exists an imperceptible reality such as the one which your describing here concerning this creator of the body called 'consciousness'? If this sentient entity your calling 'consciousness' needs to create a body in order to be able to percieve reality, then before a body was created it could not have known that reality even existed because the body was not yet created. If it could not have known that reality existed, it would have no reason to create a body in order to perceive it. If it already knew that reality existed, then it would have no need to create a body in order to perceive it, because it would have already been able to.

Do you have any evidence to draw such a conclusion? I would rather not get into a debate over your particular set of beliefs, moreover I am attempting to keep the discussion in light of the construct begun in the OP and further developed throughout this thread. I am not saying that your belief is wrong, I am just attempting to evaluate it according to the thread construct. In other words, I do not recognize any correlations between what your claims are and what I have come to know and/or believe about reality.

Do you know what supports your beliefs concerning these things?

Because I think/believe that your not arguing just to be arguing, I want to address this...

Being unaware of the consequences of one's decision(s) or actions by decision does not make that action/decision an 'unconcious' one.

Think about this for a minute, and I am confident - based upon my confidence in your ability to recognize the truth-value of this line of thought - that you will agree...

If that claim were true, then nearly every decision made by humans - possibly even every one - would necessarily be an unconscious one. On the other hand, the only way to make a 'conscious' decision would be for one to already know all possible results of any given decision/action prior to making that decision.

That is clearly not the case.



As mentioned already, if this were true then one would have to be omniscient in order to make a conscious decision. No one can predict the future, and that would be absolutely necessary in prder to make anything other than an unconscious decision if this claim of what constitutes an 'unconscious' decision is true.

Clearly? I don't think so.

MOST.. meaning the largest number of all decisions-- are "unconscious" that is, made without much thought or awareness of consequences; -- and most people don't want to be responsible for them.

This is because humans are not fully conscious beings. They are more like children walking around in a daze. They are sleep walkers. And yes, that includes me. (I'm human) You have probably made hundreds of decisions today that you do not even remember.




Pretty much. I agree, one would have to be omniscient to make a fully conscious decision, yes.

When I say that consciousness comes in degrees this is what I mean.

Example:

Think of the ocean as representing consciousness, and a cup as representing the body. You can take a cup and fill it with ocean water but that cup cannot hold the entire ocean.

I did not "identify" it. My statement speaks only about what I have observed on THIS SIDE of the veil.

This 'veal' is another dimension. Do you still believe there are only four?