Consciousness

[Phantasman]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

Well, one has to also consider the Mind-Body Problem. Does the mind exist in Dualism or Monism? Are thoughts matter or not?

"Each of these categories contain numerous variants. The two main forms of dualism are substance dualism, which holds that the mind is formed of a distinct type of substance not governed by the laws of physics, and property dualism, which holds that mental properties involving conscious experience are fundamental properties, alongside the fundamental properties identified by a completed physics. The three main forms of monism are physicalism, which holds that the mind consists of matter organized in a particular way; idealism, which holds that only thought truly exists and matter is merely an illusion; and neutral monism, which holds that both mind and matter are aspects of a distinct essence that is itself identical to neither of them."

Mind–body problem - Wikipedia

 

[Willamena]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

It depends on what you regard as a "thing."
What is a thing?

 

[Terese]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

Yes to all. I believe matter to come from consciousness, not the other way round.

 

[robocop (actually)]

My two cents; we should definitely have a double bottom line of consciousness and matter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.

“The only reality is mind and observations”
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe. Nature, 436(7047), 29-29.

 

[sealchan]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

I think this is the position of David Chalmers. But I think that a better understanding will be based on "what it is like to be a center of narrative gravity" (Daniel Dennett). Given that the medium for our understanding of consciousness is language and that who we are is also a word (name) in that language, we are positing who we are in terms of the same medium for understanding who we are and not from any privileged objective distance. This strange loop (Douglas Hofstadter) plays tricks on our attempts to use the medium in which we are trying to understand the medium. This stickiness seems like it could be "a thing" but it is not. It is just a trick we are enmeshed in and that we are identified with. But not just a trick, for it is our very selves!

 

[Sunstone]

Planck's comment is interesting, but what are his reasons for his belief?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Planck's comment is interesting, but what are his reasons for his belief?

Similar to that of Schrödinger:
"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."
Everything that any physicist (or anyone at all, for that matter) would seek to discover about the external world is mediated by subjective sensory experiences and even more so by the conscious assimilation of these into internal, mental pictures.
No experiment or empirical inquiry, however, can succeed by starting from fact about the external world or objective reality and attempting to explain the nature of consciousness, for such inquiry presupposes conscious awareness of this external world/objective reality.

 

[godnotgod]

In this, I regard Planck as insufficiently deep -- for reasons or (possible) intellectual prejudices about which I can know nothing. Matter (really, matter/energy, or the stuff of existence) has form and substance. These necessitate that there will be natural rules that describe what happens when this "stuff" interacts. Where Planck (and others) falls short, is in understanding that sometimes there is a reaction to a reaction -- in other words, something happened that triggers an "acknowledging" additional reaction." That, in my view, is where consciousness exists.

If that is the case, then consciousness is a result of cause and effect. But cause and effect must occur against the background of whatever the fundamental reality is, and that fundamental reality cannot, then, be the result of causation. It, by necessity, would be uncaused and unconditioned. And if consciousness comes into existence at some point, then the fundamental reality out of which it comes must not be conscious. How can that be? As for material brains, how is it that such materiality can generate that which is non-material?

 

[wizanda]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

Everything is made from consciousness; even matter is just dense conscious energy.

In my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Very interesting that the father of quantum science and Vedantic philosophers came to the very same conclusion from different directions.

....or perhaps from the same, universal source that is consciousness itself. As the Hindus, say: 'The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere'

 

[YmirGF]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

My only quibble with this is if it is so obvious then why isn't the idea mainstream?

For the record, I do believe that "consciousness" precipitates matter but wouldn't try to argue the point due to Planck's own words, "We cannot get behind consciousness." So, any further explanation is somewhat moot.

 

[godnotgod]

One of the fundamental concepts of the ancient hermetic texts is that All is mind.
I can attest to the fact that once understood this concept opens up many doors of understanding in other areas.
It is the very thing that these physicists are trying to say.
That there is evidence to believe that All is Mind.

A humorous story is that of an American Zen student who wrote a biography of his Japanese Zen master. He writes that one day he was rocking in his chair when it suddenly struck him that 'Everything is Mind'. At this, he jumps out of his chair and drives halfway across town to his master's house to let him know of his discovery. 'Everything is Mind!', he shouts, and his master says: 'Yes! That's right! You've got it!'. Several years later, the student is struck by the realization that 'Everything is No-Mind', and again, he drives across town to let his master know the good news. 'Everything is No-Mind!' he shouts, at which the master replies: 'Yes! That't it! You've got it!'

 

[godnotgod]

My only quibble with this is if it is so obvious then why isn't the idea mainstream?

It is. It's just that most people haven't yet realized it. Most of us have been conditioned to think that it is NOT the fundamental reality; that it emerges (ie; 'Emergent Theory') from the so-called 'material' world; ie; 'the brain'. The old materialist paradigm says that this is a 'material' world; the new paradigm, ala Quantum Physics, says that this world is a 'superposition of possibilities'.

It's roughly akin to a fish born into the sea: he doesn't KNOW he is in the sea.

 

[godnotgod]

For the record, I do believe that "consciousness" precipitates matter but wouldn't try to argue the point due to Planck's own words, "We cannot get behind consciousness." So, any further explanation is somewhat moot.

He means that consciousness cannot be an object of itself. But consciousness is that by which we SEE that it is the fundamental reality. The thinking mind is the obstacle which prevents this insight, because it is the mind which sets up the arbitrary construct of the subject/object split. For these reasons, it is imperative that the mind and all of it's activities first be stilled. It is at this point that the subject/object split is healed, and yoga is achieved.

"You see the hedge against the hills;
you see the hills against the sky;
but you see the sky against consciousness."

(a Hindu trying to explain how he sees the world to an Englishman)

 

[godnotgod]

It depends on what you regard as a "thing."
What is a thing?

There are none. We confuse forms for 'things'. 'Things' are just the rational mind's way of trying to make sense of a world it does not quite understand. Once it is seen that 'things' do not actually exist, the mind also ceases to exist. In fact, it never existed to begin with. All we are left with is pure consciousness, without an agent of consciousness; that is to say, without an 'I' that thinks it sees 'things'.

 

[blü 2]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

I very much doubt it. Brain research indicates that virtually all brain function is carried out without involving consciousness.

For example, a famous brain experiment back in 2008, based on a detectable brain change representing a particular kind of decision, demonstrated that observers knew the subject's decision up to seven seconds before the subject did.

Or take a more local example. Where are these words I'm typing in the quarter-second before I type them? Certainly not in my conscious mind. And where are the words you speak in the quarter-second before you speak them? Again, certainly not in your conscious mind. (That's the basis of Auden's notable remark, "How do I know what I think till I hear what I say".)

Or how does your brain make choices? Sometimes with exact reasoning and all your books or brochures open around you, but far far more often by a process you never notice although you feel you own the decision made. The basic decision-making processes are well-studied and described, and aren't done consciously ─ you never know beforehand just why you feel like strawberry today when chocolate's always been your favorite.

The more we learn, the more we think consciousness is an incident of thought, not central to it.

 

[allfoak]

That's Purely a singular reductive perspective highly promoted by a singular world view in ancient Greece. it certainly is promoted by pythagoras. Heraclitus certainly challenged it along with jesus, buddha, Lao tsu socrates, etc. Is that mind thing just aspergers fantasy? I have zero understanding of that fantasy. It seems to be very disembodied.

Perhaps it is that you do not understand it well enough yet.
Perhaps it is necessary to stop living in a world of fantasy?

 

[allfoak]

Well, one has to also consider the Mind-Body Problem. Does the mind exist in Dualism or Monism? Are thoughts matter or not?

"Each of these categories contain numerous variants. The two main forms of dualism are substance dualism, which holds that the mind is formed of a distinct type of substance not governed by the laws of physics, and property dualism, which holds that mental properties involving conscious experience are fundamental properties, alongside the fundamental properties identified by a completed physics. The three main forms of monism are physicalism, which holds that the mind consists of matter organized in a particular way; idealism, which holds that only thought truly exists and matter is merely an illusion; and neutral monism, which holds that both mind and matter are aspects of a distinct essence that is itself identical to neither of them."

Mind–body problem - Wikipedia

It could be that all of those concepts hold some truth.

 

[allfoak]

It depends on what you regard as a "thing."
What is a thing?

Things of course would be that which is created.
Whether they are created in the mind or otherwise.
That would make a thought a thing.