Thread: Does Consciousnesses affect anything?

All that is may be considered a created concept, I agree that it changes nothing physics wise yet it's our consciousness and awareness of it that give us our perception of time and everything around us as well as the ability to create more concepts. Our perception of the world around us and how we interact with it changes us and those we come in contact with both emotionally and physically on a daily basis so in that way it doe's affect things. To be conscious or unconscious affects nothing on it's own.

Consciousness is the "ID" (the person you know as you) Your awareness of being. The thinking part sets you apart and the learning part adds substance to that. We use time and space as the medium to experience "NOW". We digest it, decide upon it and move it to the pass all while being unconscious as to how it all works. We spin thru space at difference speeds and directions with all our clocks timing away.We say it takes time to do all that.Our hair grows and our heart pumps, we feel,taste,see and hear.We seem to experience the flow of time and the pull of gravity. With all that and more it all happens "NOW" and now is no time or space. Its your own consciousness along with the consciousness of all others. That's my two nickles worth (due to inflation)

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

It makes as much sense to ask if iambic pentameter affects anything. Consciousness is a created concept to explain the difference between waking and sleeping, or, if you will, conscious and unconscious.

Consciousness also refers to the self-awareness of thought. In answer to the OP's question, yes, consciousness affects everything I do.

Originally Posted by Mr C

Consciousness is the "ID" (the person you know as you) Your awareness of being.

Is that Freud's "id"? Wouldn't that be the "ego"?

Originally Posted by grapes

Is that Freud's "id"? Wouldn't that be the "ego"?

I think the "Ego" is what a person develops as he/she ages and presents to the world, whereas the "Id" is the person that he/she recognizes as self. They would go hand in hand. It's what you see yourself as(id) as apposed to what someone else sees you as(ego).

Isn't the id unconscious? Maybe "superego"?

Originally Posted by grapes

Isn't the id unconscious? Maybe "superego"?

It would be if your asleep. The id is you, conscious or unconscious. The ego is what you think of yourself and I think the "superego" is what you believe the public sees you as. Something like a movie star. He(id) knows he's an actor(ego) playing a part and if he does it right the public temporarily believes he's that person.Deep down he has to convince himself of that too (superego).

I dunno, here's the wiki article on that:
Id, ego and super-ego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the ego is the organized, realistic part; and the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role.

I can't see a way to fit those definitions into your scheme of things.

It may be irksome to some but I am a practitioner of Wu Li thinking.
Is the original post question the inverse of the old philosophical favourite, "If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?"

I think that a lamentably large proportion of people on this planet still perceive reality from a pre-Newtonian, religio/superstitious mindset
and that the proportion that perceive reality from a Newtonian mindset is almost as large.
I think that those who percieve reality from a post-Newtonian, Quantum-Relative mindset would find it difficult to assert that consciousness does not affect anything (and I mean directly, without the action/reaction chain of events).

Originally Posted by TaoZero5

It may be irksome to some but I am a practitioner of Wu Li thinking.
Is the original post question the inverse of the old philosophical favourite, "If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?"

Hmmm

I think that those who percieve reality from a post-Newtonian, Quantum-Relative mindset would find it difficult to assert that consciousness does not affect anything (and I mean directly, without the action/reaction chain of events).

I'm wondering if they can really be said to perceive reality. Seriously. You know, some people don't.