AMEN!!

Me too!

I learned our best friends are sometimes brighter than I thought and in some ways not so bright. But, I ove them anyhow.

I love discussing this, I'm still putting this together in a way that will be articulated in my next book...in progress.
Thanks.
Your correct, it's not settled but there are some that think I've moved the bar a little, to better understanding.
The course was correct to point out that it's not physical and as I now know...it's not even in your head.
To try and convey this idea is a little saying that we learned in English class: Me, Myself and I;
Me is the brain in the body of myself made whole and conscious by the I.
This "I", this sense of "Iness" is a conscious identity. some would say it's immortal in a quantum energy sense. But its a different sense of self than say Fraud's "Ego" which is a false but needed identity.

A quantum sense of identity, versus an Ego of the brain is still the major division in our world and it's not just prevalent in the animal kingdom, it exists in human life also. To have a quantum conscious gives one conscience but if your only a body with a brain...there is no conscience.

If you observe closely...it is self evident.
Yes, sometimes the workings of it can be hindered by disease, genetics or psychosis but in the end, it comes down to whether one has the potential or desire to be.

PS...what did you learn about the psy. of our best friends?

A few years ago I took a 12 lecture course from the Great Courses on the subject of consciousness. Here is the course summary. (And, for even more fun, I took an online course from Duke University in “dog psychology.”)

Course Summary
The subject of consciousness is among the most vexing in both philosophy and science, and no less tractable in psychology, where the conceptual problems are often neglected. As a “state,” consciousness seems resistant to translation into physical terms and measurements, though its dependence on a healthy nervous system appears to be as close to a “cause-effect” relationship as any in the natural sciences.

The aim and scope of these 12 lectures must be modest, for the subject is as vast as that of human and animal awareness. What I hope to convey may be distilled into four main points: First, that consciousness and mental life are sui generis; they are not “like” anything else. They are not like anything that is material or physical and seem to require for their fuller understanding a science not yet available, if ever available.

Second, what distinguishes consciousness (and the term presupposes consciousness of something) from all else is its phenomenology—there is something it is like to be “conscious” that is different from all other facts of nature.

Third, conscious awareness is a power possessed by the normal percipient, including non-human percipients. This power is such that much that impinges on the sense organs is filtered out and sometimes only the weakest but the most “meaningful” of occurrences gains entrance.

Fourth, such powers vary over the course of a lifetime, are subject to disease and defect, and thus, lead to questions of profound ethical consequence.

Here, then, is a topic in which science, philosophy, medicine, and ethics are merged, the result being issues at once intriguing and unsettling.

All of which means, I doubt we can settle the issue here.

All life is aware of it's environment and mammals aware of others with in it...that does not infer consciousness. It's always been describes as being aware of your own awareness as you said; However, if you follow the trail, so to speak., from the right hemisphere which produces the vision and the voice is the room that eventually leads to the subconscious which is like a hallway to the mind, which is a consequence of the vibratory energy our brains transceive. The mind resides around our heads like an electromagnetic field and that field is a part of the ether.
If we go back to the eye at the tip of the pyramid, we begin to understand that with a mind we can view ourselves being aware of that awareness.

You might find it amusing that I consider the ether: The ethernet for the mind. where true knowledge and wisdom comes from. Our brains, however amazing, is relegated to compartmentalized survival information.

We might find the "brain only" creatures in our culture and government a pain in the Butt, but on some level we might marvel at their ability to monkey see, monkey do a sometimes convincing imitation of consciousness.
However...I don't think we should be flattered.

You are most likely correct. It is has only been in the last few years (10-15) that neuroscience learned the frontal cortex does not mature until a human is in the early to mid 20s. That, combined with evolutionary psychological advancements, impressively shows us how we got to where we are today. I must say I do not agree with Jaynes' definition of consciousness because I am sure my dogs are conscious but not able to be aware they are aware.

After reading a bit of Aristotle I realize he was aware of the early changes taking place with the awareness of men...not to mention realizing that the traditional rulers were not quite like the rest of us...something Plato didn't get till much later in life. [ it was the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker that were the true hero's of society.] - my integration
I think that the evolution of consciousness has evolved much slower than Julian Jaynes might of imagined.

Probably half of the 5,000 years. I'd put Thales as the first to think about thinking (meta cognition), followed by Aristotle. Not even a blink of an eye in the 4.58 billion years of the world.

In Truth and reason: it's not mystical. it's quantum physical...the reminisce of the bicameral brain in many still takes priority over the mind. We've only had 5000 years to consistently think in the mind and leave the brain to it's own tasks. (sarcasm)

Evolution of thoughts and concepts takes too much time and inhibits our mind.

I have had some Christians tell me I am not "really" an atheist. Somehow, even though they are atheists as to all gods except their own, they cannot grasp taking it one god further to not believe in.

Very well put...thumbs to you also...Carl

Very well put...thumbs to you also...Carl

Thanks...

Esceptico, some I think do not believe "atheism" exists. It's a theoretical oxymoron. It could be compared by some to the self-delusion of darkness being a thing, i.e. illogical. Just a thought. :)

Blarman, I would wager more evil has been done in human history by government and in particular by the political religion of socialism in the guise of government than by all of man's theistic notions combined. Socialism is a theology which seeks to govern the human spirit every bit as much as his property.

by Olduglycarl <<< You had me at the first paragraph. :thumbs:

Of course I didn't miss the last four presidential elections! I'm perfectly aware of what's been going on. BTW, hugs to you, too.

but Cruz isn't "electable" and we Must Beat Clinton!!! -- j
.

also, "Who Not To Buy From!" -- j
.

Laughing...hope it wouldn't encourage, Susanne...but maybe, just maybe...the drugs got them that way in the first place!

Either way, they should get a taste of their own doing...

hiltery?...Do not pass GO
..............GO straight to Gitmo