Is consciousness nothing-in-itself?

[Bunyip]

To clarify that, let's look at what these sources are -



This is a behaviourist investigation of human development, NOT a theory of the nature and genesis of consciousness.



The other work is hypothetical. It is speculations from the world of cognitive science. Interesting, potentially valuable - but once again, not a scientific explanation of the nature of consciousness.This review makes that clear -

Sure, but whatever you think of those articles - it is still not the utter absence of knowledge you attributed to science. Yes there are a number of hypothesis - hypothesis when tested enough become theories, but of course there is nothingabove theory in science and hypothesis are still scientific and evidential.

That there is no theory to explain a leap that does not actually exist, does not mean that there is no scientific knowledge about the emergence of consciousness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think I have already pointed out that complex behaviour does not necessarily involve awareness, so I won't repeat myself on that.

But I do have a comment about your suggestion that consciousness is an illusion.

Properly analysed, this is a circular proposition - it is self-referencing. The term 'illusion' is predicated on consciousness - an 'illusion' is necessarily a form of consciousness.

So when you say that 'consciousness is a kind of illusion', you are saying that 'consciousness is a kind of consciousness'.

Self-referencing loop.

Oh well, I guess it can be seen in different ways. Makes no difference to me.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh well, I guess it can be seen in different ways. Makes no difference to me.

I can see what you mean, and I tend to agree with you. In fact your position begs a rather more important question than does the question of origins.

I think though it is largely unanswerable. To what extent our consciousness is differentiated from the mechanical, or sensory activities of the brain is something that it may not be possible to fully comprehend. What portion of my thoughts are mine, and what are instinctive or proscribed by my nature is a fascinating question.

 

[Straw Dog]

It is complex for sure, but I do believe it can be reducible to chemical/physical processes. Basically everything can be reduced to chemical or physical processes, so why should consciousness be any different? I think imaginations and meanings are just the resurfacing of those chemical imprints, likely triggered by yet another chemical signal.

Sarte seems to acknowledge that consciousness requires material embodiment. His philosophy just seeks to understand the process of consciousness as a conscious being interacting with the environment and others in a more holistic way. We don't really need to get hung up on whether or not consciousness is entirely reducible to brain activity in order to appreciate and discuss the rest of his theory.

 

[Straw Dog]

What do you think about this notion of temporal flight? A being of consciousness constantly flees what it was (the past) and seeks to be what it is not (the future). Our facticity is the situation that we are in. Consciousness creates and transcends the situation into future possibilities.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What do you think about this notion of temporal flight? A being of consciousness constantly flees what it was (the past) and seeks to be what it is not (the future). Our facticity is the situation that we are in. Consciousness creates and transcends the situation into future possibilities.

The human brain is a complex unit and it does all sorts of complex things. My mind creates all sorts of possibilities, not just future possibilities. Humans have evolved in such a way that planning ahead is a very important part of survival. The ability for consciousness to transcend the present situation may be simply a survival tactic, like thinking ahead before crossing a street. Other than that, I don't know if I really gave a good explanation or not. This is just my opinion, but I think philosophers over-think these things. ...and to what avail?

 

[John Doe]

What do you think about this notion of temporal flight? A being of consciousness constantly flees what it was (the past) and seeks to be what it is not (the future). Our facticity is the situation that we are in. Consciousness creates and transcends the situation into future possibilities.

During a long meditation retreat (sitting for eleven hours per day for ten days) I found that the notions of past present and future tend to dissolve on close observation.

What I mean is - you cannot find 'the present moment'.

Moments are gone by the time you realise that they have arisen ! The 'now' is such a sharp knife edge - it is as non-existent as the center of a circle, effectively meaningless.

The context was a vipassana retreat, and the method was 'sweeping' - this is observing the arising and passing away of physical sensations, as suggested by Buddha in the Satipatthana Suta.

What can be said is that the attempt to be 'here and now' and observe the arising and passing of sensations can suddenly and dramatically precipitate the discovery of a transcendent awareness - that is to say, an awareness which is fundamentally different to the usual involvement in 'moments' and reactions to perceptions.

Not much you can sensibly say about that - but it is delightful.

 

[Runewolf1973]

During a long meditation retreat (sitting for eleven hours per day for ten days) I found that the notions of past present and future tend to dissolve on close observation.

What I mean is - you cannot find 'the present moment'.

Moments are gone by the time you realise that they have arisen ! The 'now' is such a sharp knife edge - it is as non-existent as the center of a circle, effectively meaningless.

The context was a vipassana retreat, and the method was 'sweeping' - this is observing the arising and passing away of physical sensations, as suggested by Buddha in the Satipatthana Suta.

What can be said is that the attempt to be 'here and now' and observe the arising and passing of sensations can suddenly and dramatically precipitate the discovery of a transcendent awareness - that is to say, an awareness which is fundamentally different to the usual involvement in 'moments' and reactions to perceptions.

Not much you can sensibly say about that - but it is delightful.

I agree with this.

 

[John Doe]

I agree with this.

So, has this changed your 'way of being' much ?

It has for me. I get what Sartre said about temporal flight. Much of my earlier life could be characterised that way. It is still true to some degree. But the adaptation associated with the 'meditative awareness', which I referenced in the previous post, has attenuated that tendency (temporal flight) considerably.

Now, a 'good day' is likely to involve finding a comfortable place under a tree and 'dissolving' in awareness without a specific object. Life goes on of course - there is no end to the process of eating, sleeping, social behaviour etc (until I die).

The experience of oceanic, non-specific awareness is simply way more enjoyable than 'wanting' and 'getting' and 'having'. So rather than a temporal flight from the past to the future, it is about releasing oneself from past or future insofar as possible.

How about you ?

 

[Runewolf1973]

So, has this changed your 'way of being' much ?

It has for me. I get what Sartre said about temporal flight. Much of my earlier life could be characterised that way. It is still true to some degree. But the adaptation associated with the 'meditative awareness', which I referenced in the previous post, has attenuated that tendency (temporal flight) considerably.

Now, a 'good day' is likely to involve finding a comfortable place under a tree and 'dissolving' in awareness without a specific object. Life goes on of course - there is no end to the process of eating, sleeping, social behaviour etc (until I die).

The experience of oceanic, non-specific awareness is simply way more enjoyable than 'wanting' and 'getting' and 'having'. So rather than a temporal flight from the past to the future, it is about releasing oneself from past or future insofar as possible.

How about you ?

I tend to just do whatever comes naturally. Sure I have wants and desires and what not. I think about the future and reflect on the past. You know that saying..."Those who fail to remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." The critical point is not to dwell on these things because they are just things.

 

[Straw Dog]

The human brain is a complex unit and it does all sorts of complex things. My mind creates all sorts of possibilities, not just future possibilities. Humans have evolved in such a way that planning ahead is a very important part of survival. The ability for consciousness to transcend the present situation may be simply a survival tactic, like thinking ahead before crossing a street. Other than that, I don't know if I really gave a good explanation or not. This is just my opinion, but I think philosophers over-think these things. ...and to what avail?

Over-thinking can get in the way of thinking well. Existentialism considers action to be more important. The theory of consciousness leads to an understanding of choice and action. Consciousness is temporal transcendence of our facticity (situation) and the perpetual opening up of the possibilities of situations that may be actualized. This means that consciousness escapes the world of mechanical cause and effect events through its flight towards the future. It is necessarily free to choose between possibilities and responsible for those choices.

 

[Straw Dog]

More specifically, it seems to be involved in dividing our perception of the world into subject and object. And if that's the case, then it is involved in the creation of the ego, the "I", the psychological self -- however you want to describe the "subject" in subject/object perception.

It is possible for consciousness to come to an abrupt end while some form of experiencing or awareness remains. When that happens, subject/object perception comes to an end, the "I" comes to an end, and there is a sense of all things being one.

Why does it divide our perception? Could it be because we have unique desires and needs that must be met through intentional relationships? Does consciousness create a situation (and maybe time) in otherwise undifferentiated being?

Oneness is overrated. It is our freedom that defines us.

 

[Straw Dog]

My views on Existentialism more closely resemble those of Simone de Beauvoir. She shared many of the same ideas as Satre, and they were lovers even, but she was more optimistic and inspiring regarding the overcoming of conflict. She practically started feminism. It might be difficult to summarize the philosophy. Essentially, it involves choosing meaningful action being-with-others being-in-the-situation.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Straw Dog,

Is consciousness nothing-in-itself?

You speak of Jean Paul Satre.
Though I tried reading his books but somehow could not read few pages even, though have no biases.
However personal understanding is that unless one experiences 'the state of 'consciousness', one cannot point towards it and it appears very clearly that JeaPaul Satre could not transcend his mind and mind has past-future attached.
Here the consciousness he speaks appears to be not 'consciousness' but being 'conscious' and similarly friend Sunstone too started a thread on consciousness wherein actually he too is in fact referring to being conscious. One starts by being conscious of THAT 'consciousness' and finally only pure 'consciousness' remains not the observor or the observed.

Love & rgds

 

[Straw Dog]

Greetings,

However personal understanding is that unless one experiences 'the state of 'consciousness', one cannot point towards it and it appears very clearly that JeaPaul Satre could not transcend his mind and mind has past-future attached.
Here the consciousness he speaks appears to be not 'consciousness' but being 'conscious' and similarly friend Sunstone too started a thread on consciousness wherein actually he too is in fact referring to being conscious. One starts by being conscious of THAT 'consciousness' and finally only pure 'consciousness' remains not the observor or the observed.

Are we ever really conscious of pure consciousness? To be conscious is to be conscious of something. It seems to be relational and temporal. This temporality is exactly what allows freedom though. We need the opening of 'future' possibilities in order to choose what we become.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Straw Dog,

Are we ever really conscious of pure consciousness?

That is the problem with every enlightened soul that the experience is not there at the moment when its ONE and so the "I" or mind cannot speak of IT.
The only way is personal experience and if it does not happen then such arguments remain and continue to the extent of Aldous Huxley who went to do what not to experience IT through religion, drugs etc. but finally ...

Love & rgds

 

[Straw Dog]

That is the problem with every enlightened soul that the experience is not there at the moment when its ONE and so the "I" or mind cannot speak of IT.
The only way is personal experience and if it does not happen then such arguments remain and continue to the extent of Aldous Huxley who went to do what not to experience IT through religion, drugs etc. but finally ...

Would you say that IT is undifferentiated being?

Seeking Oneness is a preference, not an imperative. Did Huxley try freedom?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Would you say that IT is undifferentiated being?

Seeking Oneness is a preference, not an imperative. Did Huxley try freedom?

It's not about seeking oneness, it is a realization that everthing is already One. It is neither a preference, nor is it an imperative. It is a matter of fact.

 

[Straw Dog]

It's not about seeking oneness, it is a realization that everthing is already One. It is neither a preference, nor is it an imperative. It is a matter of fact.

From what view are you proclaiming that everything is One? One what?

Realize that you are the one choosing this meaning for everything that is.

 

[Runewolf1973]

From what view are you proclaiming that everything is One? One what?

Realize that you are the one choosing this meaning for everything that is.

From a physical view, everything is "star-stuff". All matter in the universe is connected. Consider the formation of the universe...the Big Bang. It started out as a single ball of energy, but that one ball of energy contained all of the energy that exists now in the universe. It did not explode into millions of pieces, rather it expanded and to this day is still that One only much larger. The forms of matter may change and give the appearance of being separate pieces, but nothing is really separate. All matter, along with all the energy in the universe, is One.

Guess I could be wrong though...


---