the intimate experience of emotions such as love and attraction are not ultimately what one would define as free willed nor originating from what the true conscious self can be considered to be, or as many would put it; what the spiritual soul would require in necessity, in terms of its fundamental essence.

for they would argue that these emotions are rather primitive and existed through eons of time, to periods where these emotions lied the in the conscious experience of the more complex forms of biological organisms of the past, for they also exist in other animals and presumed existing during a biological epochs before the homo sapiens.

Why do i make this claim? because we see it in the evidence all around us. other animals, mammals especially, display similar behaviors in conjunction with emotions, such as fear, affection, anger etc. biologically, and materialistically emotional stems from neurological manifestations, such as the functions of the lizard brain, which is the most primitively developed in terms of evolutionary timeline, and this region of the CNS is responsible for raw emotional behaviors such as anger, territorial control, fear...etc. they also correspond to presets of neurological organizations beget by the encoded within the creature's DNA, otherwise known as instincts.

hence emotions such as love, hate originate from genetic origins where as true consciousness can not yet be confirmed as of the same origin. Hence there is a immediate disparity between the ontological nature of consciousness and emotions; albeit one does effect the other, just as the physical matter seem to effect consciousness in similar fashion, yet these two display the similar discrepancies of ontological separations. In brevity, the raw emotional and attached behavioral responses are not part of the purest form of what consciousness is.

Unfortunately what you are saying is not perfectly clear. Nor is it clear what you are basing this statement upon. It would not appear to be based upon what our considerations are here on this bulletin board. Do you have a question? Are you familiar with the basis and purpose for the existence of this bulletin board? How can we help you? Or are you here to explain everything to us? Please see the note at the top of every forum. Whatever you are here for, welcome.

Ted

I'm basing this upon logic, rational and scientific observations. Please do do point out any nebulous sentences or logical inconsistencies so that I may address them.

Bbos,
You seem to be looking at this from a viewpoint of "consciousness evolved from the physical" and this is not at all uncommon. And while coming from a perspective of "consciousness evolving and arising from the physical" (all, or some, of) this may seem to be true. However, if you were to consider, for a moment, the possibility that "the physical evolved from consciousness", the perspective is much different. The physical matter, as you say, does seem to have an effect on consciousness, but consciousness has a much more profound impact upon physical matter. Try to imagine a world where consciousness, NOT physical matter, is the fundamental "thing" from which all things originate, and then evolution occurs and acts upon consciousness. As consciousness changes and evolves, so too does the physical. This simple shift in perspective changes everything.

And yes, there seems to be some emotion in the life of animals. (they certainly seem to "love" their offspring) They are still dealing with their individual struggle with love and fear (fight or flight?) with a much more limited decision space. Where as we have a much greater range of choices as to how to deal with different situations. In my opinion it is not the impact of physical matter effecting consciousness as much as how the individual consciousness REACTS to the "physical" situation presented.

I have always suspected that in order to understand the true nature of this "physical" reality, we must first understand the smallest parts of it. The quantum theorists are discovering some very interesting paradoxes in the nature of reality where nothing really exists until we look very closely and measure it. And things are not truly as they seem to be, until we really expect them to "be". And our "physical" reality tends to look more like a "virtual" reality. Where we can have a profound impact upon the physical world with our thoughts, actions and most importantly, our INTENTIONS.

So "physical" reality doesn't affect our consciousness as much as our consciousness affects our "physical" reality. And the world is colored by your emotions, much more than your emotions are colored by the world.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

So as I suspected, this is based upon present considerations of earth based science only rather than the 'bigger picture' considerations upon which the discussions here are based. If you wish to learn about the concepts espoused here, I suggest that you start by reading Tom Campbell's books. It would not be fruitful to engage you in detail, item by item, with a discussion otherwise. If you just wish to enlighten us from your position based upon earth based science and logic, please declare victory and move on. We have no real common ground. You are not unwelcome, depending upon your attitude, if open minded. It is just that you will not change our opinions based upon mere scientific considerations and logic versus an understanding that this is a Virtual Reality and created from Consciousness Space. For your information, those very considerations are being published in the scientific and mathematical juried litterateur and are concepts on the cutting edge of present day science and mathematics. References can be provided.

Ted

-Wikipedia

notice that all these behaviors correspond to an intimate experience of emotion, such as intense pleasure and various emotions, for example


-Wikipedia.

and finally in terms of my state in regards to emotions existing in other forms of life and in previous generations.

@pgtrue

i appreciate the sincere response. the thought of physical existence arising from consciousness eventually lead to idealism. consequentially in the most extreme sense suggests solipsism, while variations of this doctrine all suggests an external objectivity. for conscious predication thought to work, one eventually must reach solipsisms.

And this is supposed to mean something, to make sense? What is your point? This is now appearing to be ambiguous, rambling quotations. Is there a point to this? Can you not state it clearly? While I believe that you do have a point, you are presenting it badly and unclearly. Nor do I agree with what your point appears to be. You have proven nothing and not even stated it clearly. If your purpose is to state that consciousness does not form the origin and basis of this VR, then declare victory and move on please. This is not a useful exercise.

Ted

Bbos,



Solipsism is not the only conclusion one can reach from the "consciousness first - physical second" or consciousness is fundamental premise. It is ONE of the many possible conclusions you can reach, but your logic may be slightly flawed if the BEST of all possible conclusions, for you, is the inevitability of solipsism. Solipsism tends to be a very Egocentric position, causing "ME" to be the center of the universe, and all "others" are simply automatons and illusions created for "my" benefit. But if you accept that "others" also possess (and are) consciousness, but the "scenery" is rendered (and "virtual") you might move one step closer to MBT



Once again you are slightly off the mark because the "objective external" is extremely SUBJECTIVE, and ultimately based upon your PERCEPTIONS. Even the words and symbols we use to communicate are subjectively interpreted based on our knowledge, experience and beliefs

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

my apologies for being esoteric, the quotes above are from Wikipedia and are intended as sources to reinforce my previous statements, which in brevity are: emotions are physical in origin and corresponds to regions of the physical structure that is the brain and that similar structures and regions also exist in other life forms present and in the past.




not at all, for one to accept consciousness as a prior, would require acknowledgement of consciousness, and the only absolute form and that which is infallibly is one's own. For the acknowledgement of other consciousness is simply accepting an assumption that can not be absolutely verified, consequentially, by accepting an assumption such as the existence of other consciousness, one would then must also yield to the absolute veracity of perceptions, which again falls into the logical fallacy of the Munchhausen trilemma.




Yes i agree that what we deem as, along with the specifications of objectivity is subjective, however does that mean that the objective does not exist?

bbos,



Yes.

Ted