|
~Consciousness~
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PeacefulWarrior |
"Some years ago I myself made some observations on...nitrous oxide intoxication, and reported them in print. One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How to regard them is the question,--for they are so discontinuous with ordinary consciousness. Yet they may determine attitudes though they fail to give a map. At any rate, they forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality. Looking back on my own experiences, they all converge towards a kind of insight to which I cannot help ascribing some metaphysical significance."
--William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902, New American Library edition 1958) p 298.
thoughts...? |
|
|
| rupert |
A few years ago a friend of mine got into the Nitrous in a hardcore way. He moved on from those small bulbs you can get at the 7/11 and he went out and bought a Nitrous Oxide canister that Mechanics use.
He had the canister connected to a hose and all he needed to do was turn the nozzle and he would get a continuous flow of gas.
Once when I was over his house he was sitting in his couch with the cannister next to him and he had one really big hit and he was about to pass out and he didnt turn off the nozzle and it kept coming out and the whole side of his neck got burned (the Nitrous in the cannister is very, very cold) until I turned the nozzle off.
I dont think my friend got any elevation to a higher state of concsiousness from the Nitrous Oxide. |
|
|
| PeacefulWarrior |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
I dont think my friend got any elevation to a higher state of concsiousness from the Nitrous Oxide. |
I'm sorry that happened to your friend rupert--I hope he didn't get seriously injured.
As for the passage, what do you think about any other alternative substances (not only nitrous) with respect to "normal consiousness" and the effects that they may cause? |
|
|
| fuct4less |
something ive noticed: when im high my brain works better - i think more clearly, have quicker reaction time, and i dont exactly feel like im in my body...
i guess this could possibly be considered another form of conscience. |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | hope he didn't get seriously injured. |
No the side of his neck was really red for a few weeks, its the sort of stupid thing you see on Jackass or Dirty Sanchez.
| quote: | | As for the passage, what do you think about any other alternative substances (not only nitrous) with respect to "normal consiousness" and the effects that they may cause? |
I dont know, personally I have never had some kind of altered consciousness from drugs unless seeing wierd stuff when tripping really hard counts.
I read a book a few years ago on the role of intoxicants in society, which might be of interest if you can still find it called "Alchemy of Culture" In it I remember the author talks about Nitrous Oxide parties they would have back in the 18th or 19th century, where they would get high on Nitrous then draw pictures of what they saw.
The book isnt in print anymore but I am sure there are others like it
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I haven't had much experience in mind altering drugs, as my family history seems to indicate I'm genetically predisposed to mental damage. However, I have tried both alcohol and poppers (alkyl nitrites), and you might say that natural highs such as those caused by love, physical exhaustion, music etc. can be added as different states of consciousness I've experienced.
Bearing that in mind: I read James' piece (which was very hard to read, I think) as a hypothesis, stating that several discrete, independent consciousnesses existed for each person. Furthermore, since discovering these is difficult they might imply the existence of some metaphysical existence. If that is the correct interpretation of the essay I disagree. To me the notion of consciousness implies a set of memories and emotions. If several of these existed independently of each other, and with no common ground (as in discontinuous) how would we know the others existed?
For instance, I decide to kill of some of the slower braincells and go for a drinking spree. Upon waking the next day, I find that I cannot account for a part of the night and my friends tell me that I was "acting like a total stranger". It could be that I was experiencing a different consciousness (in which case, would I really experience it?) or simply that I am usually holding back some emotions,which got loose at that part of the night, and then supressed the events afterwards.
If consciousnesses, as I define them, do exists we would thus have no evidence of their existence, and to me they would therefore be placed in the same lines as parallel universes, ghosts, and god - meaning that I cannot refuse their existence and, hence, I will not deduce the existence of something metaphysical from them. |
|
|
| Alccode |
PeacefulWarrior, great topic!!!
I disagree with William James. Consciousness is just one thing, total and complete -- it is the experience of Experiencing. How can you experience things in different ways? The taste of an apple may be subtly different to various people, of course, but this is a product of their specific brain chemistry. The *experiencing* bit of it, I mean the part of them that actually tastes the apple, is always the same.
Similarly, "different states of consciousness" is an incorrect term -- it should rather be, "different states of mind." When high on some drug, our brain is functioning differently, whether we have different emotions, different perspectives, hallucinations, etc. But, again, that is just a product of our brain chemistries. Our experiencing self, that spark of consciousness, is always unaltered. It may experience things differently according to how messed up we are, but it itself does not change. For example, when drunk, you are experiencing drunkenness. You may be yelling really loud, or saying things you normally wouldn't, and in that regard you are a different person. But inside, your act of experiencing this drunkenness is the same.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
To me the notion of consciousness implies a set of memories and emotions. If several of these existed independently of each other, and with no common ground (as in discontinuous) how would we know the others existed?
|
Good question. However, your definition of consciousness is different than mine, and thus our conclusions are different. From what I have written above, I hope that you will consider revising your definition of consciousness.
"A set of memories and emotions," to me, is a mindset or state of mind. These are not restricted to drug-induced mindsets. Being angry is a mindset. Being sad is a mindset. Being ecstatic is one too. Drug-induced states, as well as different emotional states, are all just different parts of our brain spectrum. We are only experiencing one at a time, but the rest lie there as well.
| quote: |
If consciousnesses, as I define them, do exists we would thus have no evidence of their existence, and to me they would therefore be placed in the same lines as parallel universes, ghosts, and god - meaning that I cannot refuse their existence and, hence, I will not deduce the existence of something metaphysical from them. |
Hmm, according to your definition of consciousness I would disagree with this. When you are drunk, can you not tell that you are drunk? Have you not realized, "Man, I'm drunk!" I'm sure we all have yelled that out many times while intoxicated. How can you say, then, that being drunk belongs to the set of "bogus" phenomena such as parallel universes and ghosts?
Not remembering that you were drunk, IMO, does not prove that you were NOT drunk, or that "drunkenness" as a phenomenon does not exist. Concrete example: say you are really really drunk, and during your bout of drunkenness you sprawl yourself over a table and knock several glasses over, which promptly shatter on the floor. The next day, when sober, if you return to wherever you were while drunk, you will see broken glasses on the floor. Now let's say you don't remember that you broke them -- this would not "unbreak" the glasses or cause your previous drunkenness to cease from existence. You were still drunk at one point, which caused you to break stuff. Your drunkenness was as real to you then as your "normal" state of mind is as real to you now. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alccode
Consciousness is just one thing, total and complete -- it is the experience of Experiencing. How can you experience things in different ways? The taste of an apple may be subtly different to various people, of course, but this is a product of their specific brain chemistry. The *experiencing* bit of it, I mean the part of them that actually tastes the apple, is always the same.
Similarly, "different states of consciousness" is an incorrect term -- it should rather be, "different states of mind." When high on some drug, our brain is functioning differently, whether we have different emotions, different perspectives, hallucinations, etc. But, again, that is just a product of our brain chemistries. Our experiencing self, that spark of consciousness, is always unaltered. It may experience things differently according to how messed up we are, but it itself does not change. For example, when drunk, you are experiencing drunkenness. You may be yelling really loud, or saying things you normally wouldn't, and in that regard you are a different person. But inside, your act of experiencing this drunkenness is the same.
...
Good question. However, your definition of consciousness is different than mine, and thus our conclusions are different. From what I have written above, I hope that you will consider revising your definition of consciousness.
|
Not right away :). How do your definition apply to the following scenarios:
- A child who loves chocolate, yet one day his insane mother forces him to eat chocolate until he pukes, and for the rest of his life the taste or smell of chocolate makes him sick. The experience of tasting chocolate, therefore, must have changed for the boy, which appears to conflict with your definition. Unless, that is, if you state that the change is a change in the boys *interpretation* of the taste and the associations he draws to it. If that is the case then conscousness becomes a physical attribute and I do not agree with that definition.
- A man is assaulted and ends up fully paralyzed. His experiences of experiencing are consequently drastically reduced, and I ask whether this man's consciousness is the same, and if not whether you would say that he is unconscious?
| quote: | Originally posted by Alccode
Hmm, according to your definition of consciousness I would disagree with this. When you are drunk, can you not tell that you are drunk? Have you not realized, "Man, I'm drunk!" I'm sure we all have yelled that out many times while intoxicated. How can you say, then, that being drunk belongs to the set of "bogus" phenomena such as parallel universes and ghosts?
Not remembering that you were drunk, IMO, does not prove that you were NOT drunk, or that "drunkenness" as a phenomenon does not exist. |
Apparently I have been guilty of employing bad communication techniques, as I did in no way mean that extreme drunkenness is another consciousness or a bogus phenomenon. In fact it was somewhat the opposite I wanted to convey: My point is that when you have been drunk (and a "memory-gap" is present) then we have no way of knowing whether our "normal" consciousness was replaced by another (as James seems to suggest) or if the gap is caused by something else. I used this example to illustrate that, even if they exist, we cannot be aware of other consciousnesses. Therefore, I classify them as I do ghosts or god, which I neither can refute nor prove to exist.
Hope this is a better formulation :) |
|
|
|
|
