Consciousness Doesn't Exist.

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I feel that you're just merely playing with words in this thread. You are currently conscious and thus we create a state of existence, via a word, to describe the physicality of the matter. So we are conscious, but the essence of being conscious cannot become something tangible? We are humans, so we create words to describe instances of our experiences.

I'm pretty sure ain't is a word now, and one could argue that it doesn't exist, but we use past knowledge to formulate this word to describe what we are trying to say. Consciousness, or the state of being conscious, is our understanding that beings are conscious... so I'm pretty sure that exists to us.

You can try to play all the word games you want....

Your feelings are right. This is the nature of metaphysics and philosophy. We play with words and try to find if there is any meaning there.

I thank you for allowing me to continue doing so....

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Did Gödel say it was consciousness?

Not exactly he was a theist. His theory can be applied to anything.

Or was some new age fellow trying to shoe-horn the theory to align with his metaphysics?

No.

Why does consciousness have to be the answer, when consciousness is only available in areas where there is life, which is so far found only on earth. How can we jump to that conclusion knowing this?

The logic of his theory requires it. As others have suggested consciousness precedes matter, Consciousness being only available in life or rather arising from the complexity of life is an assumption. Godels theory suggests consciousness to be outside the system of material effects.

Beyond matter is what science calls the quantum foam, pure infinite possibility in abstract form. Just as Godels theory requires. Until the wave collapse occurs nothing is absolute. At the foundation of matter is potential and possibility this is non material or virtual.

Science has already shown materialism is defunct. Matter itself cannot be explained by matter.

It's a difficult thing to comprehend, as I said his mind did not cope with it.

edit. apologees, it was Cantor that was driven to madness.

edit on 17-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the information. I will look into this theory. Although, if he didn't call his infinite potential "consciousness", it doesn't necessarily apply here.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

You're going to have a hard time getting that perspective past even standard views of materialism and scientific method / understanding these days.

The simulation and holographic view is the current status quo and is already on the way out for a "Biocentrism" or similar view.

This thread is the equivalent of trying to establish the fundamental truth of Newton's Laws in 1910.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Where will this discussion lead us? Consciousness is only a word. If i replace this word with another one like purusha (detached witness), that, awareness, témoin, kwazbelaton, bynstica, etc., suprise, surprise: that will Never Ever change the nature of reality, of what IS. Isn't that interesting?

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Thanks for the information. I will look into this theory. Although, if he didn't call his infinite potential "consciousness", it doesn't necessarily apply here.

True he did not relate it directly to consciousness exactly although he did have someting to say about the human mind. The theory can apply to anything. The example I gave with consciousness relates to symbolic information. That consciousness is the source of symbolic code. (merging in the language angle) Outside the circle of material markings such as letters and numbers, lies consciousness. This is true, although it says nothing about the nature of consciousness.

The main point with Godel is that he proved that some things can never be proven, logic breaks down at some point, but the human of mind is not limited this way. He believed that simply things can be known intuitively but he could not prove that intuition existed. He encountered the limits dictated by his own theory.

The same is true here, we cannot prove that consciousness exists, even the fundamental truths of geometry can not be proven but we know they are true.

To understand Godel, you may want to also look at Cantor's continuum hypothesis. It destroyed Cantors mind and when Godel pick it up it basically did the same to him. These are very complicated subjects but fascintating.

Cheers.

When you close your eyes and "imagine" something. Whether it is visual, audio, etc... there is no input from the outside to provide you with these signals.

What is "instigating" the "choice" to view an "apple" and providing the intent for it to be an apple instead of a pear.

There is nothing touching you, yet you can see it. It's abstract, however you can see it. The apple doesn't exist but you can even "interact" with it in your daydreams, much less sleeping dreams.

When a person takes separate things that have NEVER BEEN COMBINED before... and combines them into a cohesive whole that requires modification to reach an abstract concept which is more than the sum of the parts... where did the original abstract concept originate from that was then translated down into mechanical action which would allow the abstract concept to now be "real-ized".

You earlier stated you didn't assert there must be a first cause, but that is the consequence of your platform, especially when you reject that which causes and effects itself. If it's a machine, it will only do what it is told to do, but you STILL have to answer the question of what caused the machine's initial behavior to be setup the way it is. Your platform requires an initial cause for which there could be no previous "cause", or must explore something which causes itself.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Your feelings are right. This is the nature of metaphysics and philosophy. We play with words and try to find if there is any meaning there.

I thank you for allowing me to continue doing so....

You are horrifically mistaken if you think that's the nature of metaphysics and philosophy. The words are just the vehicle to try to communicate the experience.

No philosopher or metaphysician who has taken us a step forward played with the words. They wrenched the existing words to describe experience and "vision" which comes before the capacity to explain it. They took words that meant one thing and had to apply them in new context.

We are coming along after generations have "officialized" these words, but that is missing the entire method through which philosophy developed.

Buddhism and Taoism did not develop out of playing with words to find the meaning. They were exploring the experience, and bastardizing language to try to see if others could "see" the same thing they did.

If you've ever seen what Nietzsche saw, you know that the language was the LAST part of his method of understanding.

Words change generation to generation, looking for meaning in them is like trying to find a part of the beach that doesn't change with each wave that rolls in. You have to throw away the words, look at the experience, and then go back to the limited world of words and see if anything can be communicated. However... there are communications that happen between people without words... because true meaning is non-verbal and true communication does not need words. Only mutual understanding.

What is the "meaning" in a middle finger raised? Depends on when/where you are. There is no meaning but that which consciousness ascribes to the symbol.

This is the entire point for the phrase "confusing the map (language) for the terrain (existence)".

You might enjoy some Baudrillard: en.wikipedia.org...

The book itself is short but a slough to get through. I think it is worth it.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
When you close your eyes and "imagine" something. Whether it is visual, audio, etc... there is no input from the outside to provide you with these signals.

What is "instigating" the "choice" to view an "apple" and providing the intent for it to be an apple instead of a pear.

There is nothing touching you, yet you can see it. It's abstract, however you can see it. The apple doesn't exist but you can even "interact" with it in your daydreams, much less sleeping dreams.

When a person takes separate things that have NEVER BEEN COMBINED before... and combines them into a cohesive whole that requires modification to reach an abstract concept which is more than the sum of the parts... where did the original abstract concept originate from that was then translated down into mechanical action which would allow the abstract concept to now be "real-ized".

You earlier stated you didn't assert there must be a first cause, but that is the consequence of your platform, especially when you reject that which causes and effects itself. If it's a machine, it will only do what it is told to do, but you STILL have to answer the question of what caused the machine's initial behavior to be setup the way it is. Your platform requires an initial cause for which there could be no previous "cause", or must explore something which causes itself.

I understand and grasp what you're saying.

But isn't that something you imagined based on something you've interacted with? If you imagine a sound, mustn't you at least had to have interacted with sound at one point to comprehend it? Can you conceive of an apple without having interacted with an apple first?

Thinking of something that has NEVER BEEN THOUGHT BEFORE also requires percepts. I would wager the first person who imagined a unicorn must have at some point perceived a horse and a horn. The idea couldn't be conceived without them. I agree with you on this. I think the ability to take parts of things and form a creative result, much like we do in the physical realm, does show that there is some sort of will to create things out of both objects and ideas. But I think it would be too difficult to assert that it is something called 'consciousness' acting in this manner.

A conscious being is capable of creativity. A being who exists can be creative. Is there a force or substance called consciousness causing this? It is doubtful. But I think you are on to something, there seems to be something there as a cause to this effect. So far, it is safer to assume, that since this creativity acts and is conceived through the conscious being, that it is the conscious being itself that is the source.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
This is the entire point for the phrase "confusing the map (language) for the terrain (existence)".

You might enjoy some Baudrillard: en.wikipedia.org...

The book itself is short but a slough to get through. I think it is worth it.

edit on 2012/7/17 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

I am not confusing the two. It is my interpretation that as soon as one has an idea, he must at some point bring it into fruition through language in order to convey it. Afterwords, we scrutinize the language, as it is the only tool we have to survey his idea from our subjective vantage point. His idea isn't self evident. But we can at least agree that language is insufficient to fully encompass what we think we're talking about.

No one would ever know the greatest of all philosophers existed, as he never put his ideas and experiences into language.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
No one would ever know the greatest of all philosophers existed, as he never put his ideas and experiences into language.

Oh?

/walks outside and looks around...
/walks back inside and looks around...

Can't say I agree with you there. Just because the greatest of all philosophers speaks a different language than you, doesn't mean their ideas and experiences haven't been communicated.

When someone is struggling to do something and your attempts to use language fail, what is a common response?

"Here... let me SHOW you."

Tao/Infinity/God/Source Field/Unified Consciousness/The Universe communicates its philosophy through action and showing, not through structured limited language developed by subsets of all the possibilities it is trying to communicate.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Can you conceive of an apple without having interacted with an apple first?

Absolutely... by interacting with parts, shadows, elements and then... like a connect the dots book... connecting the dots into a picture despite all the missing gaps. You can connect the dots in any order, add new dots or skip other dots, but usually only a handful will condense into anything "functional".

I can conceive of things I've never seen before by contemplating the *effect* I would like to see. That's important... a consciousness desires an effect, and then figures out how to manifest the "thing" to "experience" the "effect".

Nobody had seen or heard of a time machine. What they DID detect was a "passing of time" and a "desire to change that passing order". From there, the bitwise construction of Intent + Choice results in the pursuit of exploring ways to combine the things you are aware of into possible ways it can be achieved.

Nobody had experienced a light bulb. What had been experienced was "things giving light". It was desired to control this better, but how? If it was as simple as conceiving of something you've already interacted with, there would be no need for trial and error to find the missing parts of the "new thing" you weren't aware of before you conceived of the end product you wanted to real-ize.

Namaste!

Will be out for a while, but wanted to thank you for the challenging discussion of getting into some of these nitty gritty cracks of these concepts.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
When someone is struggling to do something and your attempts to use language fail, what is a common response?

"Here... let me SHOW you."

Tao/Infinity/God/Source Field/Unified Consciousness/The Universe communicates its philosophy through action and showing, not through structured limited language developed by subsets of all the possibilities it is trying to communicate.

By all means, show me consciousness, because I am struggling with our attempts to use language.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Nobody had experienced a light bulb. What had been experienced was "things giving light". It was desired to control this better, but how? If it was as simple as conceiving of something you've already interacted with, there would be no need for trial and error to find the missing parts of the "new thing" you weren't aware of before you conceived of the end product you wanted to real-ize.

Namaste!

edit on 2012/7/17 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

Exactly. So you agree that there needs to be things giving light before the body, or consciousness, can conceive of something being able to give light. Then parts of other existent things and percepts are needed to complete the conception i.e. the glass, the shape, electricity, the coil, the socket etc. These ideas don't magically appear out of nowhere. The precept, his body, his senses—his existence as a conscious being—are necessary to form an idea, and for thought to exist. Thoughts, although just as important in perception and being conscious, are secondary to the existence of the physical world. Without it, a consciousness would be perpetually trapped in a void of nothing.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
Nobody had experienced a light bulb. What had been experienced was "things giving light". It was desired to control this better, but how? If it was as simple as conceiving of something you've already interacted with, there would be no need for trial and error to find the missing parts of the "new thing" you weren't aware of before you conceived of the end product you wanted to real-ize.

Exactly. So you agree that there needs to be things giving light before the body, or consciousness, can conceive of something being able to give light. Then parts of other existent things and percepts are needed to complete the conception i.e. the glass, the shape, electricity, the coil, the socket etc. These ideas don't magically appear out of nowhere. The precept, his body, his senses—his existence as a conscious being—are necessary to form an idea, and for thought to exist. Thoughts, although just as important in perception and being conscious, are secondary to the existence of the physical world. Without it, a consciousness would be perpetually trapped in a void of nothing.

Aha... now you're so close to finally looking "up".

What "existed" was "existence". Once it was understood by the existence that it was conscious too, it could then begin exploring what *ELSE* might be able to "exist". This is a misnomer of course, because it was always "understood", but as you expressed... the language is going to get in the way of perfect descriptions.

Those other existences will be just as ephemeral from your method of observation as consciousness, but it was the observation of its own existence that begins the treck down to the more complex and variable other "possibilities of existence". It was a metaphorical "light bulb" that observed itself, and began to "conceive" (consider the double usage of that word) other "existences".

"If I Am... then What Else Could Be"

Imagine you are the only being. You have no eyes or ears or nose. You have only an awareness of your own existence. How would you show yourself to yourself? You can't... you can only look "within" and observe your "nature" and piece together your observations to form a more and more complete picture of what "you" look like.

The material universe is the MIRROR of the Consciousness trying to see and understand itself. Each universe is just a fraction of the full possibilities of "I Am" exploration.

You are trapped in a self created prison of expecting there to be an answer to ever question in the form you expect... rather than looking for the answer in the areas you haven't been looking/giving a chance thus far. You keep failing to "see" consciousness because you're looking in the wrong direction.

You are asking a single mirror to look at itself. A head to bite itself off. A person to pick themselves up by grabbing their own feet.

You have to step outside, and since YOU (yes you TheSubversiveOne) are literally everything (the sun, the moon, the stars, the space between, time, etc), there is no "outside" you. So all you have is the observation of an almost infinite pieces of data to construct a picture from.

This is why people have been trying to beat it into our heads to stop looking "out there" for the truth, but look "within". They aren't stupid, they know what they are talking about, but until you do it personally... you're stuck looking at everyone else wondering what they are talking about.

Namaste.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


LOL! Prove that anything in the "out there" world exists without your consciousness first knowing about it. An observation or conscious state, without a consciousness to have it is a contradiction in terms. This actually reminds me of positivist nonsense that rejects the existence of anything non-empirical -it's a self-refuting position:

Now, prove to me that there even is such a thing as an objective material brain. I'm not saying a brain doesn't exist, just a material one.

You can't. Do you know why? physicsworld.com... /quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


What do you mean "show you?" Assuming you are not a p-zombie you are already shown.

And no you can't be shown empirically, because you can not by definition empirically observe something that is not empirical. Further you can't be shown ANYTHING empirical without a non-empirical subjective "I" to measure and observe it.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by DarkKnight21

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
Of course consciousness exists. The mere fact that we can argue over trivial semantics such as this is an act of a conscious mind.

"I think, therefore I am."

*looks under the table* Where? It is an abstract word. Your consciousness or soul or life-force or whatever you want to call it is your body. You cannot prove it isn't the body.

edit on 15-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: added abstract

Just because it is abstract and intangible does not mean it is not real. You cannot see, smell, feel, taste, or hear "consciousness" itself, but you would not be able to read these five senses in the first place if your own consciousness didn't exist.

But my body and not my consciousness read and smell and taste. Consciousness is abstract because it represents an idea only.

So? That would just prove Platonism then -that abstracts exist.