Yes, it is true, there is no such thing as an independent existence. Our apparent reality is dependent as much on the object as it is on the subject, subject and object stand or fall together. The object altering one's biology gives us experience, and experience and judgment of experience is meaning; this meaning never belongs to the object, until the subject projects its experiences onto a meaningless world. A rock is hard relative to the density of one's biology, which makes our apparent reality a biological readout; apparent reality is biological experience. That is not to say there is nothing out there, but we experience what we are capable of experiencing and no more. Apparent reality is biological experience. I think, really, we are on the same page here in the realization that there is no such thing as an independent existence. Although subject and object are vital to our everyday reality, it is the subject that defines meaning and thus reality.
If there is no independent existence than anything within the vast spectrum of existence can be relative focal point through which experience occurs and subjectivity loses its meaning.
As far as present-day science can tell us, the only source of knowing is life. All being is cause to the beings of others, who then react to this cause, and in this reaction, the reaction becomes cause to the whole at large. Reaction is how adaptation to the changing world occurs, it is how you are the world, it is the subject and object together which constitutes our everyday reality, read apparent reality. Inanimate objects do not experience and do not create meaning for experience as life does. Life is consciousness, consciousness is life in a subjective realm.
Knowledge is an epistemological subject that science does not address except through an assumed process. Science is not the be all and end all source of knowledge without being subject to its own paradigm (ie apply the scientific method to the scientific method).
You are making unfounded assertion over what is conscious and what is not given your premise of the subjectivity of awareness necessitating you cannot prove or disprove a rock is conscious without stepping out of your subjective state.
Whether a rock is conscious or unconscious is unknowable if consciousness is purely subjective as you are inhibited by the limits of your subjectivity.
If there is no independent existence than anything within the vast spectrum of existence can be relative focal point through which experience occurs and subjectivity loses its meaning.
As far as present-day science can tell us, the only source of knowing is life. All being is cause to the beings of others, who then react to this cause, and in this reaction, the reaction becomes cause to the whole at large. Reaction is how adaptation to the changing world occurs, it is how you are the world, it is the subject and object together which constitutes our everyday reality, read apparent reality. Inanimate objects do not experience and do not create meaning for experience as life does. Life is consciousness, consciousness is life in a subjective realm.
Knowledge is an epistemological subject that science does not address except through an assumed process. Science is not the be all and end all source of knowledge without being subject to its own paradigm (ie apply the scientific method to the scientific method).
You are making unfounded assertion over what is conscious and what is not given your premise of the subjectivity of awareness necessitating you cannot prove or disprove a rock is conscious without stepping out of your subjective state.
Whether a rock is conscious or unconscious is unknowable if consciousness is purely subjective as you are inhibited by the limits of your subjectivity.
What you say is true. We cannot escape our subjective consciousness; it is for us the measure and the meaning of all things. Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy explores this matter of pan-consciousness, which seems to me not absurd, for biological consciousness arose from innate matter. Perhaps in the future, our limited consciousness in the present will allow us, through imagination and investigation, to see it all as one continuum. Perhaps, consciousness is elemental to a reality we are not at present able to grasp. Apparent reality is our creation as a carbon-based life form; we do not sense what is, we sense how what is alters our biology, so we must understand that apparent reality is our biological readout, a melody played upon us by the energetic forces around us, our subjective world itself is unprovable. One thing seems most evident: that in the absence of biological consciousness, the world is meaningless, like the old saying, subject and object stand or fall together; take one away and the other ceases to be. The fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence assures our ongoing wonder.
As far as present-day science can tell us, the only source of knowing is life. All being is cause to the beings of others, who then react to this cause, and in this reaction, the reaction becomes cause to the whole at large. Reaction is how adaptation to the changing world occurs, it is how you are the world, it is the subject and object together which constitutes our everyday reality, read apparent reality. Inanimate objects do not experience and do not create meaning for experience as life does. Life is consciousness, consciousness is life in a subjective realm.
Knowledge is an epistemological subject that science does not address except through an assumed process. Science is not the be all and end all source of knowledge without being subject to its own paradigm (ie apply the scientific method to the scientific method).
You are making unfounded assertion over what is conscious and what is not given your premise of the subjectivity of awareness necessitating you cannot prove or disprove a rock is conscious without stepping out of your subjective state.
Whether a rock is conscious or unconscious is unknowable if consciousness is purely subjective as you are inhibited by the limits of your subjectivity.
What you say is true. We cannot escape our subjective consciousness; it is for us the measure and the meaning of all things. Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy explores this matter of pan-consciousness, which seems to me not absurd, for biological consciousness arose from innate matter. Perhaps in the future, our limited consciousness in the present will allow us, through imagination and investigation, to see it all as one continuum. Perhaps, consciousness is elemental to a reality we are not at present able to grasp. Apparent reality is our creation as a carbon-based life form; we do not sense what is, we sense how what is alters our biology, so we must understand that apparent reality is our biological readout, a melody played upon us by the energetic forces around us, our subjective world itself is unprovable. One thing seems most evident: that in the absence of biological consciousness, the world is meaningless, like the old saying, subject and object stand or fall together; take one away and the other ceases to be. The fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence assures our ongoing wonder.
I half agree. The half part being the sense your argument makes. I won't argue against something I agree with, even if the agreement is partial. The half where I do not agree is that separation allows for transformation, as boundaries occur, and from boundaries order, from order being. Biology separated itself from the non-biological and in doing so creates a distinction where the non-biological give the biological meaning by transforming it.
It is not so much that I am arguing you are wrong, rather I am arguing that it appears to be only half the picture.
Knowledge is an epistemological subject that science does not address except through an assumed process. Science is not the be all and end all source of knowledge without being subject to its own paradigm (ie apply the scientific method to the scientific method).
You are making unfounded assertion over what is conscious and what is not given your premise of the subjectivity of awareness necessitating you cannot prove or disprove a rock is conscious without stepping out of your subjective state.
Whether a rock is conscious or unconscious is unknowable if consciousness is purely subjective as you are inhibited by the limits of your subjectivity.
What you say is true. We cannot escape our subjective consciousness; it is for us the measure and the meaning of all things. Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy explores this matter of pan-consciousness, which seems to me not absurd, for biological consciousness arose from innate matter. Perhaps in the future, our limited consciousness in the present will allow us, through imagination and investigation, to see it all as one continuum. Perhaps, consciousness is elemental to a reality we are not at present able to grasp. Apparent reality is our creation as a carbon-based life form; we do not sense what is, we sense how what is alters our biology, so we must understand that apparent reality is our biological readout, a melody played upon us by the energetic forces around us, our subjective world itself is unprovable. One thing seems most evident: that in the absence of biological consciousness, the world is meaningless, like the old saying, subject and object stand or fall together; take one away and the other ceases to be. The fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence assures our ongoing wonder.
I half agree. The half part being the sense your argument makes. I won't argue against something I agree with, even if the agreement is partial. The half where I do not agree is that separation allows for transformation, as boundaries occur, and from boundaries order, from order being. Biology separated itself from the non-biological and in doing so creates a distinction where the non-biological give the biological meaning by transforming it. It is not so much that I am arguing you are wrong, but rather I am arguing that it appears to be only half the picture.
I think we might be on the same page here, but there is confusion about terms. There is no real separation of the subject and its object. It is sometimes talked about because there is something to understand the workings of their mutual interdependence. The process of coming to know the world is the body's experiences of being changed by the objects of the physical world; these changes are experiences which the mind judges and then attributes to the outside world of objects. So, we do not so much experience the reality of the object but how the reality of the object affects or alters our biology; we experience our biological state rather than the essence of what is out there. There is no sound or color in the real world. In the absence of biology to interpret the frequencies and vibrations of the energies that constitute these experiences of color and sound. Our apparent reality, our everyday reality, is a biological readout of personal bodily experiences.
What you say is true. We cannot escape our subjective consciousness; it is for us the measure and the meaning of all things. Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy explores this matter of pan-consciousness, which seems to me not absurd, for biological consciousness arose from innate matter. Perhaps in the future, our limited consciousness in the present will allow us, through imagination and investigation, to see it all as one continuum. Perhaps, consciousness is elemental to a reality we are not at present able to grasp. Apparent reality is our creation as a carbon-based life form; we do not sense what is, we sense how what is alters our biology, so we must understand that apparent reality is our biological readout, a melody played upon us by the energetic forces around us, our subjective world itself is unprovable. One thing seems most evident: that in the absence of biological consciousness, the world is meaningless, like the old saying, subject and object stand or fall together; take one away and the other ceases to be. The fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence assures our ongoing wonder.
I half agree. The half part being the sense your argument makes. I won't argue against something I agree with, even if the agreement is partial. The half where I do not agree is that separation allows for transformation, as boundaries occur, and from boundaries order, from order being. Biology separated itself from the non-biological and in doing so creates a distinction where the non-biological give the biological meaning by transforming it. It is not so much that I am arguing you are wrong, but rather I am arguing that it appears to be only half the picture.
I think we might be on the same page here, but there is confusion about terms. There is no real separation of the subject and its object. It is sometimes talked about because there is something to understand the workings of their mutual interdependence. The process of coming to know the world is the body's experiences of being changed by the objects of the physical world; these changes are experiences which the mind judges and then attributes to the outside world of objects. So, we do not so much experience the reality of the object but how the reality of the object affects or alters our biology; we experience our biological state rather than the essence of what is out there. There is no sound or color in the real world. In the absence of biology to interpret the frequencies and vibrations of the energies that constitute these experiences of color and sound. Our apparent reality, our everyday reality, is a biological readout of personal bodily experiences.
I think our conversations, specifically this one, are examples of one of Wittgenstein's language games...not to veer off topic, but are you familiar with the concept?
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:12 pm
No, I am not familiar with the philosopher or the concept.
Wittgenstein was a philosopher from the early to mid 20th century. He studied language. He has two books on the subject: Tracticus Logicus and Philosophical Investigations.
He contributed the concept of language games. Language games is a concept that reflects how it sounds: language is a game of applying and receiving meaning to and through symbols.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:12 pm
No, I am not familiar with the philosopher or the concept.
Wittgenstein was a philosopher from the early to mid 20th century. He studied language. He has two books on the subject: Tracticus Logicus and Philosophical Investigations.
He contributed the concept of language games. Language games is a concept that reflects how it sounds: language is a game of applying and receiving meaning to and through symbols.
If he states that the process of knowing the world depends upon language, I would say the process predates the rise of language, the brain evolved from the inside out, and as such, feelings predate that of thought and language. I do not doubt that it plays a significant role in the present in shaping our apparent reality, but the foundation of meaning/knowing arose from the need for the body to produce the brain; the brain did not produce the body. It brings us to the present and the reality that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. In the present through feeling, thought, and language. Symbolic language as a topic, I am illiterate. True value is experience relative to biology and object, even where experience does not agree with the physical world. Biological experience is always true to the state of the biology doing the experiencing.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:12 pm
No, I am not familiar with the philosopher or the concept.
Wittgenstein was a philosopher from the early to mid 20th century. He studied language. He has two books on the subject: Tracticus Logicus and Philosophical Investigations.
He contributed the concept of language games. Language games is a concept that reflects how it sounds: language is a game of applying and receiving meaning to and through symbols.
If he states that the process of knowing the world depends upon language, I would say the process predates the rise of language, the brain evolved from the inside out, and as such, feelings predate that of thought and language. I do not doubt that it plays a significant role in the present in shaping our apparent reality, but the foundation of meaning/knowing arose from the need for the body to produce the brain; the brain did not produce the body. It brings us to the present and the reality that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. In the present through feeling, thought, and language. Symbolic language as a topic, I am illiterate. True value is experience relative to biology and object, even where experience does not agree with the physical world. Biological experience is always true to the state of the biology doing the experiencing.
You use language to justify your conceptualization. Justify your point without language.
Wittgenstein was a philosopher from the early to mid 20th century. He studied language. He has two books on the subject: Tracticus Logicus and Philosophical Investigations.
He contributed the concept of language games. Language games is a concept that reflects how it sounds: language is a game of applying and receiving meaning to and through symbols.
If he states that the process of knowing the world depends on language, I would say the process predates the rise of language; the brain evolved from the inside out, and as such, feelings predate thought and language. I do not doubt that it plays a significant role in the present in shaping our apparent reality, but the foundation of meaning/knowing arose from the need for the body to produce the brain; the brain did not produce the body. It brings us to the present and the reality that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. In the present through feeling, thought, and language. As a topic, I am illiterate in symbolic language. True value is experience relative to biology and object, even where experience does not agree with the physical world. Biological experience is always true to the state of the biology doing the experiencing.
You use language to justify your conceptualization. Justify your point without language.
As I have stated above, the process I address took place early in our evolution, far earlier than the development of language. I am not saying language is not relevant today. Consciousness had its origins beginning with the first reproductive molecule. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; meaning is bodily experience and the understanding of that experience. All meaning is bestowed upon the world by conscious life forms; there is no other source. I must admit that the terms are truth values; mere occurrences is a most unusual way to speak of experience and understanding, if that indeed is what has been intended. The point is biological immediacy and need not be communicated by an individual organism for its awareness of the outside world. Are we even on the same wavelength in discussing this?
If he states that the process of knowing the world depends on language, I would say the process predates the rise of language; the brain evolved from the inside out, and as such, feelings predate thought and language. I do not doubt that it plays a significant role in the present in shaping our apparent reality, but the foundation of meaning/knowing arose from the need for the body to produce the brain; the brain did not produce the body. It brings us to the present and the reality that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. In the present through feeling, thought, and language. As a topic, I am illiterate in symbolic language. True value is experience relative to biology and object, even where experience does not agree with the physical world. Biological experience is always true to the state of the biology doing the experiencing.
You use language to justify your conceptualization. Justify your point without language.
As I have stated above, the process I address took place early in our evolution, far earlier than the development of language. I am not saying language is not relevant today. Consciousness had its origins beginning with the first reproductive molecule. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; meaning is bodily experience and the understanding of that experience. All meaning is bestowed upon the world by conscious life forms; there is no other source. I must admit that the terms are truth values; mere occurrences is a most unusual way to speak of experience and understanding, if that indeed is what has been intended. The point is biological immediacy and need not be communicated by an individual organism for its awareness of the outside world. Are we even on the same wavelength in discussing this?
Point to where this evolution occurred without resorting to conceptualization.
You use language to justify your conceptualization. Justify your point without language.
As I have stated above, the process I address took place early in our evolution, far earlier than the development of language. I am not saying language is not relevant today. Consciousness had its origins beginning with the first reproductive molecule. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; meaning is bodily experience and the understanding of that experience. All meaning is bestowed upon the world by conscious life forms; there is no other source. I must admit that the terms are truth values; mere occurrences is a most unusual way to speak of experience and understanding, if that indeed is what has been intended. The point is biological immediacy and need not be communicated by an individual organism for its awareness of the outside world. Are we even on the same wavelength in discussing this?
Point to where this evolution occurred without resorting to conceptualization.
Feeling preceded thought. As the brain developed, the centre of emotions and aggression was primary and called the R-complex or the reptilian brain, a rather troubling aspect for today's humanity. Even at this stage, the need to know the world subjectively was part of this R-complex as a survival mechanism, but that need was even present in the brainstem before the introduction of more advanced parts of the central nervous system. If it were not, life would not have survived.
As I have stated above, the process I address took place early in our evolution, far earlier than the development of language. I am not saying language is not relevant today. Consciousness had its origins beginning with the first reproductive molecule. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; meaning is bodily experience and the understanding of that experience. All meaning is bestowed upon the world by conscious life forms; there is no other source. I must admit that the terms are truth values; mere occurrences is a most unusual way to speak of experience and understanding, if that indeed is what has been intended. The point is biological immediacy and need not be communicated by an individual organism for its awareness of the outside world. Are we even on the same wavelength in discussing this?
Point to where this evolution occurred without resorting to conceptualization.
Feeling preceded thought. As the brain developed, the centre of emotions and aggression was primary and called the R-complex or the reptilian brain, a rather troubling aspect for today's humanity. Even at this stage, the need to know the world subjectively was part of this R-complex as a survival mechanism, but that need was even present in the brainstem before the introduction of more advanced parts of the central nervous system. If it were not, life would not have survived.
Feeling is the act of distinction, regardless of whether thought or feeling preceded the other, distinction is the foundation of consciousness for consciousness is a distinction.
Point to where this evolution occurred without resorting to conceptualization.
Feeling preceded thought. As the brain developed, the centre of emotions and aggression was primary and called the R-complex or the reptilian brain, a rather troubling aspect for today's humanity. Even at this stage, the need to know the world subjectively was part of this R-complex as a survival mechanism, but that need was even present in the brainstem before the introduction of more advanced parts of the central nervous system. If it were not, life would not have survived.
Feeling is the act of distinction, regardless of whether thought or feeling preceded the other; distinction is the foundation of consciousness, for consciousness is a distinction.
Feelings are sensations of the body that result from the effects on the body of the outer world as an object. No, consciousness is not a distinction; consciousness is sensation, understanding, and the product of which meaning.
Feeling preceded thought. As the brain developed, the centre of emotions and aggression was primary and called the R-complex or the reptilian brain, a rather troubling aspect for today's humanity. Even at this stage, the need to know the world subjectively was part of this R-complex as a survival mechanism, but that need was even present in the brainstem before the introduction of more advanced parts of the central nervous system. If it were not, life would not have survived.
Feeling is the act of distinction, regardless of whether thought or feeling preceded the other; distinction is the foundation of consciousness, for consciousness is a distinction.
Feelings are sensations of the body that result from the effects on the body of the outer world as an object. No, consciousness is not a distinction; consciousness is sensation, understanding, and the product of which meaning.
If consciousness is not a distinction, then you are using an empty word that has no meaning for that which is not distinct is not definite.