Pure Consciousness?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



GREAT thread.



Thank you for pursuing this.


LOVED the truck metaphor.





.

[Gee]

Bill;

Thank you for saying so. Studying consciousness is a mind numbing, brain frying activity, but some of us are just crazy enough to do it anyway.

It is always nice to have one's work appreciated. Thank you.

Gee

[Gee]

Ginkgo;

While reviewing this thread, it occurred to me that people could come away with the idea that I have no respect for Daniel Dennett--which would be untrue. So I thought that I should clarify.

I think that Dennett and Chalmers are both brilliant philosophers, who study consciousness. But neither of them are fools. They both know that even if they could explain all of the aspects of consciousness, they could not prove it. They have also both stated that consciousness is "natural" and that it will not be understood for many years. Why do you think that is? Well, part of the reason is that we don't know enough yet, but most of the reason is because we are not prepared to accept the explanation.

The real hard problem of consciousness is that we do not want to know. Oh, I know that everyone will disagree with my assessment, as typing the word, "consciousness" in a title will guarantee viewing and responses to posts. But just as a horrible car accident will elicit much interest and gawking, no one really wants to know about the tears and blood and damaged bodies--and under no circumstances do we want it to be personal. Consciousness is very personal, and although we want to understand it, we don't want to know about it--not really.

Philosophy is about truth, but it is also about wisdom. It is my thought that Dennett and Chalmers study both, truth and wisdom, so following is my interpretation of them with regard to consciousness and wisdom.

I think that Dennett has decided to play the wise sage and is encouraging study of the brain, thought, mind, and memory. Things that we can deal with, and things that we need to learn. He is letting us cut our teeth on something that we can handle.

Chalmers is playing the role of seducer. He dances the knife's edge of truth, always dropping hints, asking questions, probing a little deeper, and making us question what we think. But as all good seducers know, one can not drop their pants before the virgin's mind is ready to accept reality; or the little virgin will go screaming home to Daddy and get two huge brothers to come and kick ass. In this case the brothers are named, Religion and Science. So he has to be careful.

This is not a problem for me, as I am nobody. No one is going to stop buying books that I have never written; there is no position in a University that I can lose; so I can say whatever I think. If my investigations run smack into religion, the paranormal, and psychic phenomenon, it doesn't really matter. I study consciousness much like a mechanic that is inspecting a futuristic engine. Although I don't know any more about it than anyone else, I am beginning to learn how the different parts work.

I am still working on "instincts" and will probably start a new thread when I am ready to post. This thread is long enough.

Gee

[Bernard]

. The ability to feel is what makes us aware and conscious, which is why I have problems with the "universe is alive" type theories. If all matter were alive, then my table should be growing as it is old enough, and my house should cringe when it is set for demolition as all of life wants to continue.

I'm sure it's occurred to you that you view everything in human terms and from that centre the further things are from you in size or constitution the less conscious they must be. This is applicable to everything you've said as far as I can see. It's so.... Medieval.

The flaw is so huge and obvious it makes incredulous as to why its not really recognised. Of course the flaw is very common and most of all ACCEPTABLE so one... Understands you.

The problem of how consciousness emerges is entangled in the same flaw and unravels as the flaw dissipates. Consciousness has very little to do with rationality. It doesn't need to emerge its already here, and there is nothing outside of right here and now. Consciousness is so demanding, so imperitave that it cannot allow scrutiny without it being missed entirely.

[Gee]

The ability to feel is what makes us aware and conscious, which is why I have problems with the "universe is alive" type theories. If all matter were alive, then my table should be growing as it is old enough, and my house should cringe when it is set for demolition as all of life wants to continue.

I'm sure it's occurred to you that you view everything in human terms

Of course. How is anything else possible? I can try to stretch myself and speculate on other perspectives, but the bottom line is that I am human, so I can only know that my perspective is real. If I pretend to another perspective, I may well be feeding my own imagination and end up with no more than an illusion.

and from that centre the further things are from you in size or constitution the less conscious they must be.

I don't agree. The measure of consciousness must be taken in relation to aspects of consciousness, not from personal perspective. Didn't you read the post regarding Awareness in Species? I clearly stated that mice and whales share the same awareness.

It's so.... Medieval.

It's funny that you mentioned Medieval. I have lately been wondering if we are really past the Dark Ages, or if we are still there and just eluding ourselves with pretenses of knowledge and science.

The flaw is so huge and obvious it makes incredulous as to why its not really recognised. Of course the flaw is very common and most of all ACCEPTABLE so one... Understands you.

Well, I don't know what flaw you are talking about, but would like to state that if no one understands me, then what would be the point of typing? Acceptable changes, but it is a slow change.

The problem of how consciousness emerges is entangled in the same flaw and unravels as the flaw dissipates.

What? Please elaborate.

Consciousness has very little to do with rationality.

Finally, a place where we agree.

It doesn't need to emerge its already here, and there is nothing outside of right here and now. Consciousness is so demanding, so imperitave that it cannot allow scrutiny without it being missed entirely.

This is a nice assertion. Do you have any facts, any evidence, any reason or logic to back up what you are saying here? Please also consider that life, awareness, and consciousness all have different meanings to many people, so please clarify your terms.

Also note that in the above quote, I was not talking about consciousness. What I said was, "I have problems with the "universe is alive" type theories". We have well established criteria to determine if something is alive or not alive--this statement was not as much about consciousness as it was about life--and referred to the Gaia hypothesis.

Gee

[Bernard]

The ability to feel is what makes us aware and conscious, which is why I have problems with the "universe is alive" type theories. If all matter were alive, then my table should be growing as it is old enough, and my house should cringe when it is set for demolition as all of life wants to continue.

I'm sure it's occurred to you that you view everything in human terms

Of course. How is anything else possible? I can try to stretch myself and speculate on other perspectives, but the bottom line is that I am human, so I can only know that my perspective is real. If I pretend to another perspective, I may well be feeding my own imagination and end up with no more than an illusion.

No, the bottom line is that you're conscious, not that you're human. Species differentiation has next to no meaning beyond a certain level of awareness. Your possibilities are endless, you don't need to pretend anything... you can hook into anything... whether through imagination, or whatever means you choose. If you can't trust your own experiences though, that's another story.

and from that centre the further things are from you in size or constitution the less conscious they must be.

I don't agree. The measure of consciousness must be taken in relation to aspects of consciousness, not from personal perspective. Didn't you read the post regarding Awareness in Species? I clearly stated that mice and whales share the same awareness.

I haven't been able to read everything. I'll see if I can find that post and get back to you on this.

It's so.... Medieval.

It's funny that you mentioned Medieval. I have lately been wondering if we are really past the Dark Ages, or if we are still there and just eluding ourselves with pretenses of knowledge and science.

The flaw is so huge and obvious it makes incredulous as to why its not really recognised. Of course the flaw is very common and most of all ACCEPTABLE so one... Understands you.

Well, I don't know what flaw you are talking about, but would like to state that if no one understands me, then what would be the point of typing? Acceptable changes, but it is a slow change.

Pink Floyd: 'Animals' album
.
The problem of how consciousness emerges is entangled in the same flaw and unravels as the flaw dissipates.

What? Please elaborate.

Consciousness has very little to do with rationality.

Finally, a place where we agree.

It doesn't need to emerge its already here, and there is nothing outside of right here and now. Consciousness is so demanding, so imperitave that it cannot allow scrutiny without it being missed entirely.

This is a nice assertion. Do you have any facts, any evidence, any reason or logic to back up what you are saying here? Please also consider that life, awareness, and consciousness all have different meanings to many people, so please clarify your terms.

Also note that in the above quote, I was not talking about consciousness. What I said was, "I have problems with the "universe is alive" type theories". We have well established criteria to determine if something is alive or not alive--this statement was not as much about consciousness as it was about life--and referred to the Gaia hypothesis.

Gee

There is no way to prove logically anything about consciousness, nor for that matter anything about life. Logical proof is for logical phenomena, and life and consciousness just simply aren't logical. I don't see why you separate life and consciousness in regards the universe or anything else. I guess you are saying something primitive like that the universe has some sort of non-self-aware consciousness in the same way that rocks do.

[Gee]

There is no way to prove logically anything about consciousness, nor for that matter anything about life. Logical proof is for logical phenomena, and life and consciousness just simply aren't logical. I don't see why you separate life and consciousness in regards the universe or anything else. I guess you are saying something primitive like that the universe has some sort of non-self-aware consciousness in the same way that rocks do.

Well Bernard;

I like logic and reason. Between religions and philosophies, there have to be a hundred different interpretations of consciousness that have been studied for tens of thousands of years. Obviously, they can not all be right; but I have found that each of them has "some" truth in them. So I study them and observe life and incorporate anything that science can provide, then I sift my findings through logic and reason. This is my methodology.

So if you want to discuss consciousness with me, in this thread, you will have to use logic and reason.

Gee

[Bernard]

Indeed I will have to use logic but with the full awareness that it is truth that informs me about consciousness. A logical entity creates a flat image of truth, an image that has no function but to reflect some truth or other, and then that truth in turn is a mere reflection of consciousness.

I don't mean to inject hubris here but to put so much emphasis on the study of consciousness with such a limited tool is annoying to me. I'm putting out the question of whether this thread is an epistimological survey of logic, quasi logic or primordial logic of logic. Answers are ultimately personal and silent in regards to consciousness. Using logic so heavily will only bring us discourse of logic in the end, as happens so often in philosophical endeavours. If you want to study water swim in it, drink it, lap it up - don't think about thinking about it. If you are a philosophe,r immerse yourself in the wisdom you gain through actual immersion in the interesting things of life as THEY are, not as logical premises - or any other cognitive device of your choice - determines them to be. If you believe that consciousness is mostly in the head though, then there is nothing i can do for you.

[jackles]

Consiousness is never happen.with a happening event some times in it.which makes timespace seem real.so before an event there is consciousness and after the event there is consciousness.so consciousness is the begining and end of all events.at the end of time there is consciousness cos it never happen but always was.

[HexHammer]

Dear OP instead of preseting some medival supersticious random thinking, you should study some neuroscience, intelligences and psychology.

[Gee]

HexHammer;

What makes you think so?

G

[HexHammer]

What makes you think so?

Neither of what you say are based on anything. Modern western philosophy are based on logic and reason which are based on factual knowledge. So what you are saying in OP isn't philosophy but mere elaborate supersticion.

[jackles]

Well gee. I reckon that panphychism has it about right.we as in our brains are conected in absolute awareness terms.

[Gee]

What makes you think so?

Neither of what you say are based on anything. Modern western philosophy are based on logic and reason which are based on factual knowledge. So what you are saying in OP isn't philosophy but mere elaborate supersticion.

Nonsense. ALL philosophy is based on logic and reason, not just "western philosophy" and not just "modern" philosophy.

The original post queried whether or not consciousness can be one pure singular thing. There is nothing superstitious about that. The superstition lies in the belief that consciousness IS one singular pure thing as the evidence implies otherwise.

What is consciousness? Everyone asks this question and everyone has an answer. It is our minds, our souls, our feelings, emotions, and awareness, but it is also out thoughts, our memories, and our knowledge, but it is also our dreams, imagination, beliefs, creativity, and it is also our selves. It is all of these things and more. Now if all of these things worked exactly the same way in our brains, then consciousness could possibly be one pure singular thing -- but they don't.

Where did we ever get the idea that consciousness is a singular thing? It seems to be a rather naive and childish view of the subject, much like our view of space, stars, and planets was a long time ago. But then we learned that there are differences in stars, differences in planets, and an amazing assortment of oddities in space. Consciousness is only known internally, so it can not be measured, and can not be seen, heard, or touched. So the assumption that it is singular, is just that, an assumption.

I think that we can thank Occam for this mess, as he used his "never multiply things beyond necessity" rule to prove that "God" exists. Then Aquinas argued it again many years later. They argued that the "all powerful God" was the simple answer, but if one extracts the "all powerful God" from the equation, then we end up with something that is extremely complex. That something is consciousness. It is not singular. It is not pure. It is not even simple. It is extremely complex, so it has to have components and has to work with other matter.

G

[Gee]

Well gee. I reckon that panphychism has it about right.we as in our brains are conected in absolute awareness terms.

Panpsychism does not explain all of what we call consciousness. It is at most a partial explanation.

G