The Con of Consciousness – When Will We Get it?

Consciousness. It’s a system, a program, a machine basically.

We know this, our science knows this, and  yet, we seem to somehow have entirely missed that point…

In an blog from Discover titled “Why Did Consciousness Evolve, and How Can We Modify It?” is a quote from a psychologist Bruce Bridgeman who wrote in 1992 that “Consciousness is the operation of the plan-executing mechanism, enabling behavior to be driven by plans rather than immediate environmental contingencies.”

Bam. There you have it. Consciousness is a system which is predesigned, which when one is a slave to their consciousness system, one will act according to a ‘plan’, wherein your behavior has been predesigned and is acted out according to a preset plan, regardless and irrelevant to what is actually going on in your environment, in reality.

And yet, we still ‘cling’ to an idea that we are ‘consciousness’, that ‘consciousness’ is ‘who we are’, and that we are somehow ‘better’ or ‘intelligent’ because we have this ‘consciousness’ thing. Which couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Consciousness has you acting from a preprogrammed script, wherein you’re simply following a predesigned behavior pattern, and thus you’re not really ‘here’ in the real world, as yourself, ‘acting’ as yourself, expressing yourself in the moment, but you’re just a robot, a lifeless robot following the commands of the preprogrammed consciousness system.

Now, it is so fascinating and out-rightly bizarre that we seem to believe, on an extensive level, that without consciousness, we would somehow be ‘lifeless robots’. WTF? We actually have fooled ourself into believing that consciousness makes us ‘unique’ and ‘creative’, etc. When, in fact, it is the total opposite, and the mind is actually a machine of limitation.

The author describes the premise for the article as follows: “My point was that if we understand the evolutionary basis of consciousness, maybe this will help us envision new ways our consciousness might evolve further in the future. That could be fun in terms of dreaming up new stories.”

However, now that you realize just what the consciousness system is, why would we be interested in it evolving? Why would you want it to actually develop further, once you realize it’s purpose, function, and design, is literally to trap you into preprogrammed behaviors, thus rendering you into nothing more than a broken record, simply repeating the same limited behaviors, over and over again, until you’re dead, and that’s it, that’s how you spent your life, as nothing but a machine. The last line kind of sums it up- do you want to spend your life ‘dreaming up stories’, or do you want to Live, actually Live?

The author continues, hypothesizing a ‘reason’ for why humans don’t take any action to solve any of the problems in the world: “I also believe that part of what inhibits us from taking effective action against long-term problems—like the global environmental crisis — may be found in the evolutionary origins of our ability to be aware”

Now, firstly to clarify, here what the author is referring to when he says “our ability to be aware”, is the specific capabilities, or lack thereof, of our physical senses and the ‘range’ of data we are able to interpret. Basically, giving a very literally interpretation of “out of sight, out of mind”, the author suggests that we are actually impaired from concerning ourselves with what’s going on in the world when we don’t see it right in front of us. However, if we know there are problems in the world, then we are actually ‘aware’ of them, which proves that we do not need to ‘see it’ right in front of us to be aware of what is going on in this world. What actually ‘inhibits’ us from taking action, is ourselves. Is our own deliberate ignorance and avoidance of the problems, within the delusional belief that we are somehow not complicit in them.

Fascinatingly, the author notes, “Consciousness does seem to be for one being at a time.”

And he has basically hit the nail on the head of the CON of consciousness, where consciousness only considers itself, where it’s limited to only itself, and has separated itself from everything else, from all the rest of life here, into a tiny, diminished, limited little existence.

The author ends by posing a question: “What if we reengineer things so that we see what others in our group see, or so that when you do something good, the entire group feels good, rather than just you? This kind of consciousness has been explored in science fiction (The Borg on TV),  and in art (Mathieu Brand’s Ubiq). We even know mechanisms of how something like the hive mind of bees work, such as regulation of the division of labor through various genes and hormones. Could something like this be the antidote to the endemic selfishness of Homo sapiens?”

Here we see the mistake that is so commonly being made, which is to make the physical responsible for the behavior of the human, which only serves the purpose of enslaving the human, because if the human believes it can’t be changed, then the human can’t change it. It’s one of the cleverly-stupid tricks we’ve played on ourself to avoid ever having to actually change who we are and what we are living as, and in so doing, we ultimately doom ourself to being nothing more than an organic robot.

Funny how we always seem to link ‘consideration for the whole’ to images we define as ‘robot-like’ and ‘alien’, such  as ‘The Borg’, as the author notes.We couldn’t have it more Backwards..


, , , , , , , ,

  1. Kelly Posey: The Con of Consciousness – When Will We Get it? « Blog to Clear the Fog « Press: Equality Expressions Compilation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: