Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A discussion on reason, consciousness, and free will through the lense of evolution.

I am putting this in the atheism section as the discussion is hosted by non believers (though miller of course is catholic).

Edited by iCenozoic
Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2020 at 4:17 PM, iCenozoic said:

A discussion on reason, consciousness, and free will through the lense of evolution.

I am putting this in the atheism section as the discussion is hosted by non believers (though miller of course is catholic).

How can awareness go through any kind of process (like evolution) if consciousness is “immediate” and “instant”.  Just examine the way you are conscious, it doesn’t “take time”, it just is.  It is just there.  It already is.  The moment one treats consciousness as a thing he makes the fallacy of objectifying it (treating it as an object).  It doesn’t even belong to “people”.  It is not even something that people “have”.  Consciousness is conscious of people, and as such, consciousness is prior to people.  In fact, nothing can possibly exist without consciousness being conscious of it.  What I am saying doesn’t necessarily disprove evolution, but it certainly does disprove the possibility of consciousness evolving!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2020 at 12:09 AM, eThErEaL said:

How can awareness go through any kind of process (like evolution) if consciousness is “immediate” and “instant”.  Just examine the way you are conscious, it doesn’t “take time”, it just is.  It is just there.  It already is.  The moment one treats consciousness as a thing he makes the fallacy of objectifying it (treating it as an object).  It doesn’t even belong to “people”.  It is not even something that people “have”.  Consciousness is conscious of people, and as such, consciousness is prior to people.  In fact, nothing can possibly exist without consciousness being conscious of it.  What I am saying doesn’t necessarily disprove evolution, but it certainly does disprove the possibility of consciousness evolving!  :)

I view consciousness much like I view vision. As we evolve certain physical attributes, our ability to see, and to think and experience are enhanced over time. First we might only experience light from dark, but with time, we have come to experience colors. With consciousness, much like a child, we first begin to experience an immediate external world and eventually we can understand the world beyond what we see, and we can eventually experience internal thought and ideas, and can self reflect. This advanced reflection of the self is not something that exists in rocks or fish. It is something that has emerged from our evolution.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

I view consciousness much like I view vision. As we evolve certain physical attributes, our ability to see, and to think and experience are enhanced over time. First we might only experience light from dark, but with time, we have come to experience colors. With consciousness, much like a child, we first begin to experience an immediate external world and eventually we can understand the world beyond what we see, and we can eventually experience internal thought and ideas, and can self reflect. This advanced reflection of the self is not something that exists in rocks or fish. It is something that has emerged from our evolution.

Many people mistake consciousness for what they are conscious of.  Take for example, your consciousness of a rock.  The rock is not itself conscious.  Your consciousness is not the rock.  Although in this example the discernment between consciousness and the rock is obvious, we make this mistake a lot when it comes to things we are personally invested in.  For example, you mentioned the example of thoughts.  Notice however that thoughts are themselves objects of your consciousness (just like the rock), they are not themselves conscious.  We might have a thought about something that we label as our self (we end up calling this, self-reflection), but this is just a thought, and the thought is only there insofar there is consciousness of it.  Even perception, is not consciousness because there is consciousness of perception.  
Secondly, every single thing that arises in consciousness is essentially different.  Object X of consciousness is not object Y of consciousness. And yet, object X and object Y are objects of one consciousness.  It is the same consciousness that is conscious of X and conscious of Y.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCenozoic Do you agree with the argument that @eThErEaL has laid out which appears to be highly convincing; I am eager to read your response to such statements which you seem to have ignored due to your inability to raise a stronger argument for the evolution of consciousness, or instead have agreed to the premise he has laid out.

I believe this thread has great potential and would love to see it be continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

@iCenozoic Do you agree with the argument that @eThErEaL has laid out which appears to be highly convincing; I am eager to read your response to such statements which you seem to have ignored due to your inability to raise a stronger argument for the evolution of consciousness, or instead have agreed to the premise he has laid out.

I believe this thread has great potential and would love to see it be continued.

To be honest, I don't understand what he is saying, and so I have simply not replied. All are welcome to clarify though.

I agree that a rock is not alive nor conscious. 

I agree that thoughts are not conscious either.

I don't understand the relevance of either conclusion though.

Ethereal stated :"And yet, object X and object Y are objects of one consciousness.  It is the same consciousness that is conscious of X and conscious of Y.  "

I just don't understand what the purpose of these statements are or their relevance. Though I otherwise agree that I can be conscious of multiple thoughts or objects.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

@iCenozoic Do you agree with the argument that @eThErEaL has laid out which appears to be highly convincing; I am eager to read your response to such statements which you seem to have ignored due to your inability to raise a stronger argument for the evolution of consciousness, or instead have agreed to the premise he has laid out.

I believe this thread has great potential and would love to see it be continued.

After reading his post again, I'm not sure that he is disagreeing with what I've said. I think he is just sharing thoughts. But all are welcome to clarify.

I think that he's just saying that consciousness isn't a physical entity and thus can't evolve. And I would agree. Consciousness itself doesn't mutate and change. Consciousness itself of course isn't a biological organism. Then I'd just defer back to my previous post again, suggesting that consciousness, much like colored vision, has been gained or acquired through evolution (by us).

And awareness and self conscious ideas, much like vision, is something we humans experience in a more advanced way than even a human child and a human child more than a baby. Though animals are conscious as well, many in more advanced ways that human babies or toddlers. Vision and consciousness being emergent properties via evolution.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

I don't understand the relevance of either conclusion though.

Ethereal stated :"And yet, object X and object Y are objects of one consciousness.  It is the same consciousness that is conscious of X and conscious of Y.  "

The purpose of those statements were to establish that there is a distinction between the perceived objects themselves (whether they be sensory like visual, aural, tactile, or whether they be subtle like thoughts, or emotions like feelings) and consciousness of the perceived objects.  Objects of your consciousness have nothing to do with each other.   There is consciousness of A and consciousness of -A.    There is Consciousness of the dog running towards the ball, and then there is consciousness of the work table in the office.  In both cases, it is the same consciousness that is conscious of the dog and the very same consciousness that is conscious of the work table.  The objects have nothing to do with each other and yet there is absolute certitude that it is the same consciousness that is conscious of the dog and the work table.  This proves that consciousness is not the perceived objects.  

I would like to add:

***Nothing exists without consciousness.  
There is no stuff called matter (for example) that exists independent of consciousness.  It is purely a dogmatic belief (I.e a belief that is not and cannot be substantiated by evidence) that matter precedes consciousness, whether “in time” or “by independency”.  Space and time are themselves dependent on consciousness being conscious of them.  
 

Quote

I just don't understand what the purpose of these statements are or their relevance. Though I otherwise agree that I can be conscious of multiple thoughts or objects.

There is never consciousness of more than one object at any given moment.  Closely examine this.   I can explain this in more detail if you are having trouble coming to terms with this.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I can explain this in more detail if you are having trouble coming to terms with this.

Please do go into detail as it can serve of great benefit JazakAllah 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

I think that he's just saying that consciousness isn't a physical entity and thus can't evolve.

And that “physical entities” cannot exist independent of consciousness.  
 

Quote

And I would agree. Consciousness itself doesn't mutate and change. Consciousness itself of course isn't a biological organism. Then I'd just defer back to my previous post again, suggesting that consciousness, much like colored vision, has been gained or acquired through evolution (by us).

Since there is nothing at all that is independent of consciousness, evolution as a process (if we assume it is true) cannot happen without there being consciousness of it.

Quote

And awareness and self conscious ideas, much like vision, is something we humans experience in a more advanced way than even a human child and a human child more than a baby. Though animals are conscious as well, many in more advanced ways that human babies or toddlers. Vision and consciousness being emergent properties via evolution.


 

1.  There is absolute certitude of the reality of consciousness.  
2. Consciousness itself is not an object and is therefore not limited.  We know this because consciousness exists independent of objects but objects are dependent on consciousness.  We also know this because objects undergo change, whereas consciousness does not undergo change.  There is consciousness of change but there cannot be change in consciousness.  There are many other reasons but this should suffice for now.

3. Consciousness, being object-less, does not “belong” to anyone.  Being “object-less” it is not “more advanced“ or “less advanced”.  
 

I will reiterate what I wrote before:

How can awareness go through any kind of process (like evolution) if consciousness is “immediate” and “instant”.  Just examine the way you are conscious, it doesn’t “take time”, it just is.  It is just there.  It already is.  The moment one treats consciousness as a thing he makes the fallacy of objectifying it (treating it as an object).  It doesn’t even belong to “people”.  It is not even something that people “have”.  Consciousness is conscious of people, and as such, consciousness is prior to people.  In fact, nothing can possibly exist without consciousness being conscious of it.

 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Please do go into detail as it can serve of great benefit JazakAllah 

To start off:  

Whatever you take as many is in fact only one.  For example, “Two tables” together is in fact consciousness of one object.  Your attention is always on one thing at any given moment.  We may rapidly move from one object to another thereby giving us the illusion that we are multitasking or giving our attention to several things “at once”, but it never truly “at once” that we are aware of several objects.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

The purpose of those statements were to establish that there is a distinction between the perceived objects themselves (whether they be sensory like visual, aural, tactile, or whether they be subtle like thoughts, or emotions like feelings) and consciousness of the perceived objects.  Objects of your consciousness have nothing to do with each other.   There is consciousness of A and consciousness of -A.    There is Consciousness of the dog running towards the ball, and then there is consciousness of the work table in the office.  In both cases, it is the same consciousness that is conscious of the dog and the very same consciousness that is conscious of the work table.  The objects have nothing to do with each other and yet there is absolute certitude that it is the same consciousness that is conscious of the dog and the work table.  This proves that consciousness is not the perceived objects.  

I would like to add:

***Nothing exists without consciousness.  
There is no stuff called matter (for example) that exists independent of consciousness.  It is purely a dogmatic belief (I.e a belief that is not and cannot be substantiated by evidence) that matter precedes consciousness, whether “in time” or “by independency”.  Space and time are themselves dependent on consciousness being conscious of them.  
 

There is never consciousness of more than one object at any given moment.  Closely examine this.   I can explain this in more detail if you are having trouble coming to terms with this.

I agree with most of this. 

I do not agree with the idea that nothing exists without consciousness. It seems to make more sense to me that rocks existed before any living being was alive to be conscious of them. And I don't think consciousness exists beyond living beings.

And once living beings such as mankind pass away, rocks will continue to exist.

But maybe we have different ideas of what consciousness is.

Much the same, vision would not exist without a living being alive to experience it. When mankind passes away, the objects of vision, such as a rock, will continue to exist. And given that rocks, as far as we can tell, predating living beings, then rocks could exist before consciousness and vision of them existed.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

I do not agree with the idea that nothing exists without consciousness.

How is anything known at all?  In other words, how is the reality of anything known at all?  By consciousness. 

Your assertion is that reality is not necessarily consciousness (or what it means to be conscious).  

But how would you come to know this?  

In other words, how could (or would) you possibly come to know of a reality without consciousness if the only way to know anything at all is through consciousness?  

Quote

It seems to make more sense to me that rocks existed before any living being was alive to be conscious of them. And I don't think consciousness exists beyond living beings.

If one keeps making the mistake of objectifying consciousness (if one keeps making the mistake of treating consciousness as an object), then one will be lead to wrongly think that beings we call "living" or "sentient" have consciousness.  But again, consciousness, being object-less, does not belong to anyone or anything; consciousness, being object-less, is not owned by anyone or anything.  It is not something someone or something has.  So, contrary to the false belief that living beings are more conscious than rocks (or that livings beings have consciousness and rocks do not), the fact of the matter is that there isn't more or less of consciousness.  Nor can we say "there is consciousness here and not there".  Nor can we say something like:  "these beings have consciousness while other beings don't have consciousness".  These are all mistakes because they treat consciousness as a kind of object and which can be categorized, localized or quantified.  There is nothing "outside" consciousness nor is there anything "inside" consciousness.  Consciousness simply is.  

Quote

And once living beings such as mankind pass away, rocks will continue to exist.

This is treating consciousness like an object (as is explained above).

Quote

But maybe we have different ideas of what consciousness is.

We know for certain that consciousness is and that it is object-less.  We may have a bad habit of treating consciousness as an object. But we can rectify this through the treatment of recognizing what we already know about consciousness.  In other words, we should not simply entertain ideas about consciousness.  We should recognize the nature of consciousness and know what it is not. We should not have "beliefs" about consciousness.  

Quote

Much the same, vision would not exist without a living being alive to experience it. When mankind passes away, the objects of vision, such as a rock, will continue to exist. And given that rocks, as far as we can tell, predating living beings, then rocks could exist before consciousness and vision of them existed.

If anything, the absence of mankind (or of living beings) does not entail the absence of consciousnesses, but rather it entails consciousness of the absence of mankind (and or of living beings).

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In other words, how could (or would) you possibly come to know of a reality without consciousness if the only way to know anything at all is through consciousness?  "

This is like asking, how could I come to know of reality without vision. And how would I know if anything existed without vision.

Existence doesn't depend upon me knowing that it exists. It existed before I was conscious of it, it existed before I could see it. And it will exist when I no longer am conscious of it and no longer see it. 

Just because I am conscious of it, doesn't mean the world would just disappear when I stop being conscious of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"These are all mistakes because they treat consciousness as a kind of object and which can be categorized, localized or quantified.  There is nothing "outside" consciousness nor is there anything "inside" consciousness.  Consciousness simply is.  "-ethereal

I disagree with this statement. Consciousness, much like vision, isn't an object we can own. I agree with that. It's not like a ball that we can give to someone else. 

It is an experience. And things exist beyond our experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If anything, the absence of mankind (or of living beings) does not entail the absence of consciousnesses, but rather it entails consciousness of the absence of mankind (and or of living beings)."

I don't think this makes any sense. As nothing would be conscious of absence if there were no conscious beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

nothing would be conscious of absence if there were no conscious beings.

What is the experiential evidence that there are “conscious beings” (I.e. beings that “have their own” consciousness) to begin with?  What is the experiential evidence that consciousness is not universal?  What is the justification, through experiential evidence, for treating consciousness as something that is particular (or for treating it as particular entities or things)?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

"If anything, the absence of mankind (or of living beings) does not entail the absence of consciousnesses, but rather it entails consciousness of the absence of mankind (and or of living beings)."

I don't think this makes any sense. As nothing would be conscious of absence if there were no conscious beings.

As an premise to such styled questions, events occur independent of observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

As an premise to such styled questions, events occur independent of observation.

I agree that events occur independent of observation. Just as an event can occur on the opposite side of a wall where it is unobserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

What is the experiential evidence that there are “conscious beings” (I.e. beings that “have their own” consciousness) to begin with?  What is the experiential evidence that consciousness is not universal?  What is the justification, through experiential evidence, for treating consciousness as something that is particular (or for treating it as particular entities or things)?  

What is the experiential evidence that consciousness is universal and that consciousness is beyond conscious beings?

As I've said before, I consider consciousness much as I consider sight or taste or hearing. When someone is not present to experience an event, then that doesn't remove that event from existence. A tree will still fall in the woods, even if someone is not conscious of it. Because the tree exists independently from that beings consciousness.

It is responsiveness and awareness to events and an experience held by conscious beings. 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

What is the experiential evidence that consciousness is universal and that consciousness is beyond conscious beings?

By universal I mean that which is not bound by space and time.  Experiential evidence shows us that there is consciousness of time and that there is consciousness of space.  Consciousness is not bound to whatever it is conscious of.  Since there is consciousness of time and space, consciousness is not bound by both, time and space.  Therefore consciousness is universal.  Although it may sound like it, this is not meant to be a mere abstract logical argument.  You should be able to verify this through direct Your experience.  If you do this, you will get a “aha” or “whoaaa” moment.  :)

3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

By universal I mean that which is not bound by space and time.  Experiential evidence shows us that there is consciousness of time and that there is consciousness of space.  Consciousness is not bound to whatever it is conscious of.  Since there is consciousness of time and space, consciousness is not bound by both, time and space.  Therefore consciousness is universal.  Although it may sound like it, this is not meant to be a mere abstract logical argument.  You should be able to verify this through direct Your experience.  If you do this, you will get a “aha” or “whoaaa” moment.  :)

Consciousness most certainly is bound by space and time. When a conscious being fades from existence, so too does that beings consciousness. Just as vision is bound by space and time. If a tree falls in the woods, it doesn't cease to exist just because I do not see it or am conscious of it. But rather my vision and consciousness are bound to my physical presence, and they do not exist beyond myself.

 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

What is the experiential evidence that consciousness is universal and that consciousness is beyond conscious beings?

As I've said before, I consider consciousness much as I consider sight or taste or hearing. When someone is not present to experience an event, then that doesn't remove that event from existence. A tree will still fall in the woods, even if someone is not conscious of it. Because the tree exists independently from that beings consciousness.

It is responsiveness and awareness to events and an experience held by conscious beings. 

Your definition of 'consciousness' also defines your answer. As you indicated before -and partially again with "sight, taste or hearing"- an observed event carries with it a stimulus-response circuitry. lf an event occurs and you are not aware of it, the event still occured but you are not conscious of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hasanhh said:

As an premise to such styled questions, events occur independent of observation.

@iCenozoic

It is possible for events to occur without any living being having any perception of it.  But perception is not consciousness.  Consciousness is conscious of perception.

Let me make myself clear what I mean by perception:

Perception can include a visual field of a person's mind/brain, the tactile sensation from someone's skin, thoughts, memories, imaginations, emotions.  

This should not be confused for consciousness because there is consciousness of the visual field, there is consciousness of a mind/brain, there is consciousness of tactile sensations from the skin, there is consciousness of thoughts, memories, imaginations and emotions.  All these perceptions mutually exclude each other (in the sense that none of them have anything to do with each other), and yet, there is one and the same consciousness that is conscious of all these different perceptions.  This shows us that consciousness should not be conflated or confused with our perceptions. 

But just for the sake of helping us understand better:  A computer that can detect objects that are far or close (like the Tesla Car or a camera), does not mean that the detection of the Tesla Car or the visual input and data of the camera is consciousness.        

    

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

@iCenozoic

It is possible for events to occur without any living being having any perception of it.  But perception is not consciousness.  Consciousness is conscious of perception.

Let me make myself clear what I mean by perception:

Perception can include a visual field of a person's mind/brain, the tactile sensation from someone's skin, thoughts, memories, imaginations, emotions.  

This should not be confused for consciousness because there is consciousness of the visual field, there is consciousness of a mind/brain, there is consciousness of tactile sensations from the skin, there is consciousness of thoughts, memories, imaginations and emotions.  All these perceptions are mutually exclude each other (in the sense that none of them have anything to do with each other), and yet, there is one and the same consciousness that is conscious of all these different perceptions.  This shows us that consciousness should not be conflated or confused with our perceptions.   

    

I agree that consciousness is not sight or taste. But again, consciousness is a form of awareness which originates from a conscious being. If a tree falls in the woods, I can see it or not see it, hear it or not hear it, and be conscious or aware of it, or not be conscious or aware of it. The tree does not cease to exist if I do not see or hear it fall, nor does the tree cease to exist if I am not conscious of it falling. Consciousness is not a universal entity which exists beyond conscious beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

I agree that consciousness is not sight or taste.

This is important.  A lot of people may not be able to see this.  So it is good we agree on this.  

Quote

But again, consciousness is a form of awareness...

Yes, awareness or consciousness to me are two words that mean the same thing.

Quote

consciousness/ awareness originates from a conscious being.

How is this not a mere belief?  To the contrary, how does consciousness originate at all when origination and corruption are attributes of certain things we are conscious of.  Furthermore, and as mentioned before, consciousness is the only way to truly know of anything.  How would or could you know that consciousness originates unless there is consciousness of its origination (in which case, it doesn't originate).  You are also still insisting that there are literally conscious beings or beings that literally have consciousness.  This is to treat consciousness as a subtle kind of object.  An object can never be consciousness.   

 

Quote

If a tree falls in the woods, I can see it or not see it, hear it or not hear it, and be conscious or aware of it, or not be conscious or aware of it. The tree does not cease to exist if I do not see or hear it fall, nor does the tree cease to exist if I am not conscious of it falling. Consciousness is not a universal entity which exists beyond conscious beings.

There may or may not be a tree falling in the woods, but if there is, it is only because there is consciousness (this is because nothing is independent of consciousness, and everything is dependent on it).  If you are thinking that what I am saying implies that there always must be at least one person that is conscious of the tree falling in the woods if a tree is in fact falling in the woods, then this is not true.  This is because consciousness is not dependent on persons but persons are dependent on consciousness.        

 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Consciousness most certainly is bound by space and time.

Then how can there be consciousness of time and space?  It is because there is consciousness of the rock that the rock is bound to consciousness and that consciousness is not bound to the rock.  So since there is consciousness of time and space then time and space are bound to consciousness and consciousness is not bound to time and space.  

11 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

When a conscious being fades from existence,

Your assuming there are "conscious beings" (or beings that have consciousness).  There is consciousness of this or that being, but there aren't beings that "have" consciousness.  Consciousness is not an object that can we can say is a property of this or that entity or being.  Consciousness is object-less.  

 

11 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

My vision and consciousness are bound to my physical presence, and they do not exist beyond myself.

Since there is consciousness of your visual field (that is dependent on to you as a so called "physical presence"), your visual field that is bound to your "physical presence" are both bound to and dependent on consciousness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

I agree with that. It's not like a ball that we can give to someone else.  It is an experience. And things exist beyond our experience.

If you want to use the word "consciousness" for "experience", then no problem. 

If experience / consciousness is not a property that each of us have (like a ball that each of us can have) then why do you say that it is "our experience" or "our consciousness"?

It should just be "experience", not mine, yours, hers, his, theirs, or our experience but simply "experience".  

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

If you want to use the word "consciousness" for "experience", then no problem. 

If experience / consciousness is not a property that each of us have (like a ball that each of us can have) then why do you say that it is "our experience" or "our consciousness"?

It should just be "experience", not mine, yours, hers, his, theirs, or our experience but simply "experience".  

 

People have their own awareness of things. People have their own experiences as well. I am aware and am experiencing things right now, that you are not. I am conscious of things that you are not and am seeing and hearing of things that you are not.

I used the word "our", simply to suggest that multiple people have their own consciousness. 

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethereal, you asked the question:

"To the contrary, how does consciousness originate at all when origination and corruption are attributes of certain things we are conscious of. "

Just because something is emergent, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to observe itself after it has emerged. 

Origination is more of an adjective than it is a noun. Maybe you should rephrase your concern.

I'll try rephrasing:

How does consciousness originate when we aware that consciousness has originated (origination is an attribute of consciousness)?

This is like asking, how can I be conscious of a tree falling in the woods, if consciousness originated at a time and in a space before the present?

Well simple, consciousness and awareness originated, then we became conscious of our consciousness and of things like trees falling in woods.

Just because awareness became an ability that we now have, doesn't mean there there is any logical reason for us not to be aware of it.

 We self reflect.

Feel free to rephrase your question. If you could rephrase it as a philosophical argument with certain premises, that might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Since there is consciousness of your visual field (that is dependent on to you as a so called "physical presence"), your visual field that is bound to your "physical presence" are both bound to and dependent on consciousness.  "

I would say that, based on this verbage, consciousness and is bound to my physical presence, just as my visual field is.

The physical body not being dependent on the existence of my consciousness.  If I died, my physical body might exist in a coffin, but I wouldn't be conscious. The consciousness would be lost, just as my visual field would be lost. Because both are bound by my physical presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How would or could you know that consciousness originates unless there is consciousness of its origination (in which case, it doesn't originate)."

Why do you think that having awareness of the "emergence" of awareness, would somehow prevent awareness from emerging?

if awareness emerges, then at some point during or by the end of it's emergence, that awareness will simple be. Then it can reflect on itself.

There is no reason to believe that awareness couldn't emerge, just because we are now aware of awarenesses emergence.

No more is there a reason to believe that the power rangers megazord and all its fancy lazers couldn't emerge just because the power rangers use those fancy lazers to take down the final boss of the episode.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

People have their own awareness of things.

This mistake occurs when one confuses awareness itself for that which there is awareness of (in this case it is people’s perceptions). One should not conflate or confuse awareness with the perceptions which there is awareness of.    

Quote

People have their own experiences as well.

If by experience you specifically mean: perceptions (like sensorial, emotional, imaginative, recollection, and thought) then indeed, each mind/brain has its own experience.  

Quote

I am aware and am experiencing things right now, that you are not. I am conscious of things that you are not and am seeing and hearing of things that you are not.

What do you mean by “I am aware”?

Is awareness a sort of tool that I as a mind-brain-person-living being uses to know things?  

Or

Are you objectless-awareness itself that is aware of a brain-mind-body-person (that  ,out of habit, associate with yourself) and various perceptions it has that other brain-mind-body-persons don’t have? 
 

Direct experience shows the latter is true, not the former.  

Quote

I used the word "our", simply to suggest that multiple people have their own consciousness. 

If consciousness is multiple then how is there consciousness of the multiplicity of consciousness? 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One should not conflate or confuse awareness with the perceptions which there is awareness of.    "

I agree that there is a difference between awareness and things like sight and taste. I can taste a rock, but my consciousness is not the rock itself nor is it my experience of tasting.

"then indeed, each mind/brain has its own experience.  "

Agreed.

" Is awareness a sort of tool that I as a mind-brain-person-living being uses to know things?  

Or

Are you objectless-awareness itself that is aware of a brain-mind-body-person (that  ,out of habit, associate with yourself) and various perceptions it has that other brain-mind-body-persons don’t have? "

I wouldn't call awareness a tool. We don't choose to use it. With a tool, I can pick it up and put it down. I can turn it on and off. With consciousness, it simply is.

We don't really use awareness like we would a tool. It's just something that we have. Can we use our consciousness to discover things? Sure. I can think about concepts and can use tools to discover what I have thought of. But I'm not sure that I would call consciousness itself a tool. Maybe it depends on how you define a tool.

Knowing would imply use of something like, touch and memory, which might be other forms of experience that can be objects of my conscious. I might be conscious of something, but im not sure that consciousness itself would be used to know something. It's just awareness of things.

Awareness is more of an object-less experience. It doesn't depend on the existence of any individual entity, such as a rock that is an object of my awareness. But it does depend on a culmination of features that we as people have. Senses (sight, hearing, touch etc.), a brain, memories, experiences etc. Consciousness depends on a culmination of objective factors which allow it to manifest. If no objects existed, there would be no external awareness. I wouldnt be conscious of any feelings or visions or sounds etc. Internal consciousness as well, depends on things like memory, and past experiences recorded in our neurons and in our mind. Information, saved from external experiences. If I never experienced anything externally, I'd have no internal awareness. I wouldn't exist.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 3/18/2020 at 12:07 PM, iCenozoic said:

Consciousness depends on a culmination of objective factors which allow it to manifest.

If the only way you can know of anything is  by being conscious of it, then how could you possibly come to know of "objective factors" that are independent of consciousness?

What makes you assert this?

On 3/18/2020 at 12:07 PM, iCenozoic said:

If no objects existed, there would be no external awareness.

1. Reality is nothing but what is right now.  If it is not now, it is not real.

2. Reality has no other meaning except that it is known to be (and that also, reality is known to be right now).  What is real is what is real now.

3. What we know, we know by, through, in and with consciousness.  

4. Using the three axioms above, we arrive at the conclusion that reality is nothing but consciousness, or consciousness is nothing but reality.

What this means is that for anything to be real, it is because there is consciousness of it and for anything there is consciousness of, it is because it is real.  There is consciousness of X because the consciousness of X is the very the reality or being of X.       

You are thinking of a hypothetical or possible scenario when you have the thought of "If no objects exist".   What really is possibility or hypothetical scenario?  It is nothing but a thought or conception (and maybe, in some cases, an imagination as well as a conception) of that which there is consciousness of.   

What good does thinking of hypothetical scenarios do for us (in telling us about the nature of what is real) when all they are is consciousness of a thought (or as an imagination) that is now.  Even the past and the future are nothing more than thoughts (of memories or imaginations) of which there is (right now) consciousness.  Is there really a past or a future?  Yes there is, but the past and the future are in fact nothing more than consciousness (that is only ever now) of thoughts (of memories or imaginations).            

    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...