Philosophy Now Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:13 pm

Even consciousness has no way of knowing what consciousness is, or is not.
Imagination however can imagine it’s imagining. Nothing knows what anything is.
Start with the not/ knowing. Do that first.
All that can be explained is that nothing can be explained.

While we do not fully understand the mechanics of consciousness, it is a fundamental aspect of all organisms; it is the experience of being alive and serves as a vital survival tool. We would not survive without consciousness. The conscious imagination can only work with what is known, what has been experienced, and then compounds of abstract visions of parts of this and parts of that brought into the round of consciousness. Experience is what can be explained as that which is relative to the well being of the biology doing the experiences, do we have the answers to the greatest of mysteries? No, and perhaps we never will. A subjective consciousness which is relative to the organism through experience is a melody only the subject biology is privy to. For the organism is the centre of its own universe, and as biology it is the measure and the meaning of all things. We tend to know what things are relative to the survival and well-being of the center of the universe, the organism itself

Since we are most likely a simulation then so-called 'consciousness' is just a code anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF--UK1NqF4

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 7:00 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:13 pm

Even consciousness has no way of knowing what consciousness is, or is not.
Imagination however can imagine it’s imagining. Nothing knows what anything is.
Start with the not/ knowing. Do that first.
All that can be explained is that nothing can be explained.

While we do not fully understand the mechanics of consciousness, it is a fundamental aspect of all organisms; it is the experience of being alive and serves as a vital survival tool. We would not survive without consciousness. The conscious imagination can only work with what is known, what has been experienced, and then compounds of abstract visions of parts of this and parts of that brought into the round of consciousness. Experience is what can be explained as that which is relative to the well being of the biology doing the experiences, do we have the answers to the greatest of mysteries? No, and perhaps we never will. A subjective consciousness which is relative to the organism through experience is a melody only the subject biology is privy to. For the organism is the centre of its own universe, and as biology it is the measure and the meaning of all things. We tend to know what things are relative to the survival and well-being of the center of the universe, the organism itself

Nicely explained

You are the centre of your own being.

You’re too close to see it. You don’t see it because you are it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm According to Husserlian phenomenology, 'consciousness' is always 'consciousness of...'

That would be 'conscious of ...', instead, would it not?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm I experience the sight of what is called green grass, trees, shrubs, an asphalt road. They are phenomena.

But is consciousness itself a phenomenon?

The word 'consciousness', itself, is just in relation to 'awareness', itself. So, when there is 'a thing', which is 'conscious', or 'aware', of 'things', like, for example, 'green grass', trees, shrubs, and an asphalt road, then 'that conscious awareness', or 'being able to be aware and conscious' of 'things' is 'consciousness', itself.

And, the word, 'Consciousness', Itself, is just in relation to being able to be 'Aware' of ALL 'things'.

Is it something we experience? [/quote]

When, and if, 'you' work out and/or discover, and know, what the 'we' word is in relation to, exactly, then 'you' will know and understand that 'consciousness', itself, is not what 'you', nor 'we', experience.

What 'we' experience are is 'the information', past on to 'us', from and through 'the human body's senses',

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm In some sense, is it like asking whether someone sees seeing?

If any one asks 'you' some thing like, 'Does someone see seeing?' then I suggest just asking them what are they actually meaning, and asking, precisely, and exactly?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm Can it be said that we see seeing?

What are you actually meaning, and asking, here, precisely, and exactly?

When you said and wrote, 'seeing', here, are you referring to the 'seeing' done, by, and through the physical eyes, or are you referring to 'understanding', itself? As in, do you 'see' what I mean, here?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm Do we experience experiencing?

Who and/or what is the 'we' word, here, in relation to, exactly?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm Are these valid statements or some kind of grammatical or syntactical confusion?

Until you human beings learn, and understand, who and what 'you' are, exactly, you will remain in some sort of state of confusion. And, when 'you' human beings can answer, and know, the question, 'Who am 'I', exactly?' then just about all confusion, and misunderstandings, will be alleviated.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm It seems that we humans operate to whatever extent according to language. Perhaps we are something like AI Large Language Models in that sense. But behind all my statements are experiences of phenomena. Do LLMs have any experience in the same sense that I do? Or are they empty gibberish if there is no human being to interpret or 'experience' their output?

'you' have had, and are capable of again, 'real' 'Intelligence'.

'Artificial intelligence', however, will always remain just 'artificial intelligence', and thus will never be actual real Intelligence, Itself.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 7:00 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:13 pm

Even consciousness has no way of knowing what consciousness is, or is not.
Imagination however can imagine it’s imagining. Nothing knows what anything is.
Start with the not/ knowing. Do that first.
All that can be explained is that nothing can be explained.

While we do not fully understand the mechanics of consciousness, it is a fundamental aspect of all organisms; it is the experience of being alive and serves as a vital survival tool.

Why, exactly, does 'consciousness', itself, serve as a vital survival tool?

Plants and trees are able to do, what they do in order for their continued survival. So, do you plants and/or trees have 'consciousness', itself?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 7:00 pm We would not survive without consciousness.

Are other organisms able to survive without 'consciousness'?

If yes, then why, exactly, can you human beings not survive without 'consciousness'?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 7:00 pm The conscious imagination can only work with what is known, what has been experienced, and then compounds of abstract visions of parts of this and parts of that brought into the round of consciousness. Experience is what can be explained as that which is relative to the well being of the biology doing the experiences, do we have the answers to the greatest of mysteries?

Yes.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 7:00 pm No, and perhaps we never will.

What even are the so-called 'greatest of mysteries', to you, exactly?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 7:00 pm A subjective consciousness which is relative to the organism through experience is a melody only the subject biology is privy to. For the organism is the centre of its own universe,

Why only the centre of its 'own' universe? Why not the centre of the 'whole' Universe?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 7:00 pm and as biology it is the measure and the meaning of all things. We tend to know what things are relative to the survival and well-being of the center of the universe, the organism itself

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 10:57 pm Since we are most likely a simulation then so-called 'consciousness' is just a code anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF--UK1NqF4

LOL 'Since 'we' are most likely a simulation, then ...'.

The nice thing about Kenny is that he always has lots of facts and details to back up his smarmy little condescending yet flirtatious giggles (a particularly nauseating combination). His 'comments' aren't at all repetitive and really hold the interest of anyone lucky enough to read them...

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 8:39 pm According to Husserlian phenomenology, 'consciousness' is always 'consciousness of...'

I experience the sight of what is called green grass, trees, shrubs, an asphalt road. They are phenomena.

But is consciousness itself a phenomenon? Is it something we experience? In some sense, is it like asking whether someone sees seeing? Can it be said that we see seeing? Do we experience experiencing? Are these valid statements or some kind of grammatical or syntactical confusion?

It seems that we humans operate to whatever extent according to language. Perhaps we are something like AI Large Language Models in that sense. But behind all my statements are experiences of phenomena. Do LLMs have any experience in the same sense that I do? Or are they empty gibberish if there is no human being to interpret or 'experience' their output?

I can speak from recent personal experience on this subject.

I have been writing a short book on holographic logic and have had it analyzed progressively in stages of writing where each analysis was of the relative "whole" at each degree of the stage I wrote it. On multiple occasions, at this current point around over a dozen times maybe 20ish, it compared the document to being "a hyper intelligent AI system".

So, for better or worse, AI is holographic by nature... assuming the analysis' accuracy of course as there are many degrees of argument on this specific context that can be potentially presented.

Now, for further context, the book argues consciousness is a process of holography and the experiential universe, at both the quantum and cosmological level, is holographic. One can easily seduce that AI exists within the experiential universe and can come to further conclusions that AI is indeed sentient...again for better or for worse.