Burt’s consciousness appears to be akin to Carl Jung’s. There is some evidence from dream studies and reoccuring myths that an evolving universal consciousness may exist.

Self consciousness seems to be a bit of an oxymoron. You must define a self before you can have a conscious self. When I try to define myself I truly can’t   put a boundary around what makes me ME. Any lines drawn between me and the rest of the world are purely arbitrary. I appear to be a function of the universe. As such, any consciousness that I experience can only be described as a manifestation of some universal process.

Cole! - 11 January 2012 10:15 PM

Burt’s consciousness appears to be akin to Carl Jung’s. There is some evidence from dream studies and reoccuring myths that an evolving universal consciousness may exist.

Is there really anything from dream studies or myth that we could call evidence for universal consciousness, Cole? I’d appreciate it if you would expand on that or point us to the studies you mention.

Self consciousness seems to be a bit of an oxymoron. You must define a self before you can have a conscious self. When I try to define myself I truly can’t put a boundary around what makes me ME. Any lines drawn between me and the rest of the world are purely arbitrary.

Not sure how it could be said that the term ‘self-consciousness is oxymoronic - there’s nothing contradictory in the two terms juxtaposed. And I don’t see any problem in defining ‘self’. My ‘self’ or ‘I’ is just an outcome of a complex arrangement of atoms we call a normal human being.

I appear to be a function of the universe. As such, any consciousness that I experience can only be described as a manifestation of some universal process.

It may be true that you are a function of the universe (depending on what you mean by that term) but it does not follow that consciousness is a ‘universal’ process if by ‘universal’ you mean a necessary or inevitable or all pervasive part of the universe.

There are many parts of and many things in the universe that are not conscious. And consciousness did not have to arise. It may be that we (and perhaps a few other animals on earth) are the only conscious beings in the universe. And, as I said, that did not have to be the case. The fact that we are here and conscious makes neither of those attributes inevitable.

I sometimes wonder whether notions of universal consciousness are just place holders for the gods that even some post-religious people still yearn for. Not a cosmic father christmas, to be sure, but a less concrete but still inexplicable mystical power who/which underlies everything and holds it together. Smacks of woo to me. And there’s not the slightest bit of imperical evidence for it. Might be one day. But not yet and I doubt there ever will be. Of course that won’t stop people going all numinous and mystical. Ah, we’re a funny lot!

So we need empirical evidence to prove that we exist? Is that what you’re saying?

An ancient skeptical argument against the possibility of complete self knowledge. 

1. What is know is object, separated from the self that knows. 
2. Thus, when a person comes to know part of them self, that part has become an object for a self that remains unknown. 
3. This produces an infinite regress, the self that knows is always unknown to itself. 

Achilles is still chasing that tortoise.

The way I’m defining consciousness (not self consciousness) is very different from Jung’s ideas.  Jung had a world of archetypes and so on.  I’m defining consciousness following Parmenides definition of “what is.”  It has no internal distinctions.

The way I’m defining consciousness (not self consciousness) is very different from Jung’s ideas.  Jung had a world of archetypes and so on.  I’m defining consciousness following Parmenides definition of “what is.”  It has no internal distinctions.

Just wondering, how can “conscious” be defined absent “Self-consciousness?” A person needs to acknowledge, realize, etc ., that some object is distinct from self, subject, and in that recognition “Self” is in part defined by perceived differences in object compared to subject.  Child comes to focus on mother, and then in time mother as different from self, especially when hungry.  Over time, “Self” evolves, but remains predicated on consciousness. I just am having a hard time conceptualizing consciousness w/o self implied.

Dennis Campbell - 12 January 2012 03:26 PM

The way I’m defining consciousness (not self consciousness) is very different from Jung’s ideas.  Jung had a world of archetypes and so on.  I’m defining consciousness following Parmenides definition of “what is.”  It has no internal distinctions.

Just wondering, how can “conscious” be defined absent “Self-consciousness?” A person needs to acknowledge, realize, etc ., that some object is distinct from self, subject, and in that recognition “Self” is in part defined by perceived differences in object compared to subject.  Child comes to focus on mother, and then in time mother as different from self, especially when hungry.  Over time, “Self” evolves, but remains predicated on consciousness. I just am having a hard time conceptualizing consciousness w/o self implied.

Conscious means aware, etc., but consciousness is (I think) prior to being conscious, which is what’s left if you eliminate everything else.

Is there really anything from dream studies or myth that we could call evidence for universal consciousness, Cole? I’d appreciate it if you would expand on that or point us to the studies you mention.

I was thinking of Jungian archtypes that are claimed to have similar symbolic meanings in various cultures. I was also thinking of Joseph Campbells studies. He spoke of myths, such as a virgin mother, that seemed to evolve in various unrelated cultures.

Not sure how it could be said that the term ‘self-consciousness is oxymoronic - there’s nothing contradictory in the two terms juxtaposed. And I don’t see any problem in defining ‘self’. My ‘self’ or ‘I’ is just an outcome of a complex arrangement of atoms we call a normal human being.

When I imagine someone walking up and pointing a gun at me, I realize that I have no control over the physical reaction that my body produces in response to this stimulus. My heart rate increases the old fight or flight system kicks in and a whole slew of physiological processes are initiated. My brain actually reacts to these autonomic responses and interprets them as emotion—fear, anger, etc. The essence of me is an automated machine that is inextricably tied to its environment. Yes, I am an outcome of a complex arrangment of atoms. But, those atoms are in constant flux. The atoms in my eyes reacted to the arrangment of photons that corresponds to the shape of a human holding a gun. This set in motion an automatic response. There is no need for “self” or “consciousness” in the equation. We appear to be gathering an arbitrary set of attributes and calling it a “self.” Try to draw a line on a subatomic level between yourself and the chair you are sitting on. It’s like staring at a bunch of marbles on a table and unfocusing your eyes everything just blurs together.

Someday I’ll figure out how to run this reply thing!!!