Is consciousness nothing-in-itself?

[Straw Dog]

I have a very simplistic view. Everything is just matter changing form, therefore although there are many possibilities -- past, present, future -- none of them extend beyond the physical realm of action/reaction or cause and effect. We are bound to the physical no matter what, even if our own consciousness makes it seem otherwise.

Cause/effect relationships are much more dynamic and interchangeable than an overly simplistic materialist conception can account for. To claim oneself is merely a fact, or dictated by the situation, is objective madness. To claim pure transcendence-in-itself is also incorrect. They're both forms of self-distraction used to avoid bearing responsibility for our actions. We are the transcendence of our facticity.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Cause/effect relationships are much more dynamic and interchangeable than an overly simplistic materialist conception can account for. To claim oneself is merely a fact, or dictated by the situation, is objective madness. To claim pure transcendence-in-itself is also incorrect. They're both forms of self-distraction used to avoid bearing responsibility for our actions. We are the transcendence of our facticity.

Everything that exists, even our very thoughts, ideas and emotions are just the cause and effect or resultant of physical interactions. Our consciousness does not transcend the physical, we only think it does.


---

 

[Straw Dog]

Everything that exists, even our very thoughts, ideas and emotions are just the cause and effect or resultant of physical interactions. Our consciousness does not transcend the physical, we only think it does.

Why would this "illusion" persist? Even before thinking, there is the opening up of possibilities within situations to choose from.

Not everything that is physical is also material in the sense of ordinary gross matter. There are non-material forces, processes, etc. A person is both a subject and an object. You are only presenting the objective side of things whenever there is a more holistic view to consider. The subjective experience of consciousness needs to be reduced to collections of appearances in order to be meaningfully understood as relational and temporal.

How does knowing the scientific categories for chemical interactions help to inform us on how we should live well or why we should even choose life to begin with?

Do you believe that we are responsible for choosing anything freely among possibilities?

 

[Straw Dog]

What have understood is that so far rebirth was taken to be on similar lines but Gautama looks at it differently [possibly in this concept the past and future is taken into consideration but not the present] Gautama to my understanding is stating that one dies and something new is born There is a gap the present state which is always fresh, new.

Time (past/present/future) are all contained within the activities of consciousness as it negates undifferentiated being. Consciousness always represents in terms of what is lacking. Life is dissatisfying because we're always attempting to unite who we were with what we shall become, the past with the future. The past is no longer, the present is untraceable, and the future never comes.

It is impossible for us to ever become at one with ourselves because there is no end to the responsibility of having to choose what we become within every original situation. Although permanent satisfaction is elusive, we must continue to seek substantiality regardless. We are essentially shackled to our freedom. This is a blessing and a curse. Willpower may become its own dynamic substantiation. Freedom is the metastable foundation upon which we must constantly choose to act.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Why would this "illusion" persist? Even before thinking, there is the opening up of possibilities within situations to choose from.

Not everything that is physical is also material in the sense of ordinary gross matter. There are non-material forces, processes, etc. A person is both a subject and an object. You are only presenting the objective side of things whenever there is a more holistic view to consider. The subjective experience of consciousness needs to be reduced to collections of appearances in order to be meaningfully understood as relational and temporal.

How does knowing the scientific categories for chemical interactions help to inform us on how we should live well or why we should even choose life to begin with?

Do you believe that we are responsible for choosing anything freely among possibilities?

I don't believe in anything non-material. Can you give an example of non-material (non-physical) forces or processes?


---

 

[Desert Snake]

At times, yes.

Yep, me too.

 

[Straw Dog]

Can you give an example of non-material forces or processes?

Sure. Gravity, electromagnetism, anti-matter, quantum physics... Apparently waves can transfer energy without transferring any matter. Remember that I was comparing this level of physics with just the gross regular matter that we can normally perceive. Heck, some physicists even think that the vast majority of existence isn't even composed of regular matter. Classical materialism is dead.

 

[John Doe]

I don't believe in anything non-material. Can you give an example of non-material (non-physical) forces or processes?


---

You would need to talk to a cognitive scientist/neurophysiologist for a full explanation of this , but - some brain behaviours involve simultaneous activity in different parts of the brain, where no physical communication between those parts is possible, certainly not instantaneously.

If LegionOnomaMoi is still posting here, he can provide links.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sure. Gravity, electromagnetism, anti-matter, quantum physics... Apparently waves can transfer energy without transferring any matter. Remember that I was comparing this level of physics with just the gross regular matter that we can normally perceive. Heck, some physicists even think that the vast majority of existence isn't even composed of regular matter. Classical materialism is dead.

They are all stil physical forces or processes.

 

[Straw Dog]

You would need to talk to a cognitive scientist/neurophysiologist for a full explanation of this , but - some brain behaviours involve simultaneous activity in different parts of the brain, where no physical communication between those parts is possible, certainly not instantaneously.

If LegionOnomaMoi is still posting here, he can provide links.

Thanks John! Been gathering thoughts to try explaining the neurophysiological processes mentioned, but it would be really helpful to hear from an actual scientist in those fields as my layman's attempts would be inadequate. I haven't seen Legion posting for a while, but he made convincing arguments against popular redunctionism and materialism before.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You would need to talk to a cognitive scientist/neurophysiologist for a full explanation of this , but - some brain behaviours involve simultaneous activity in different parts of the brain, where no physical communication between those parts is possible, certainly not instantaneously.

If LegionOnomaMoi is still posting here, he can provide links.

Regardless of this, those brain behaviors are all still dependent on physical forces.


---

 

[John Doe]

Thanks John! Been gathering thoughts to try explaining the neurophysiological processes mentioned, but it would be really helpful to hear from an actual scientist in those fields as my layman's attempts would be inadequate. I haven't seen Legion posting for a while, but he made convincing arguments against popular redunctionism and materialism before.

Yes, he is a formidable intellect, and perhaps the only person who ever posted on RF with an encyclopedic knowledge of the neurophysiology/cognitive science involved.

Newcomers with an interest would be well advised to search and read the threads to which he was a major contributor.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, he is a formidable intellect, and perhaps the only person who ever posted on RF with an encyclopedic knowledge of the neurophysiology/cognitive science involved.

Newcomers with an interest would be well advised to search and read the threads to which he was a major contributor.

I have much respect for Legion, but even considering my rather simplistic views he has shown a certain level of respect for me.

 

[Straw Dog]

They are all stil physical forces or processes.

I was discerning between modern physicalism and classical materialism.

Is gravity matter? Are the natural laws material?

Have you considered John's example?

By saying that consciousness is not entirely reducible to brain activity alone, I mean that it is equally dependent upon a living temporal relationship with others and the environment. I see no contradiction between a modified Existentialist theory of consciousness and modern science. Perhaps Sartre did go a little overboard trying to justify an absolutely abstract freewill, but there is an argument to be made for concrete freedom based in the human reality.

PS: Just noticed that I've been spelling Sartre wrong this whole time! Oh, well. He probably doesn't care.

 

[John Doe]

Regardless of this, those brain behaviors are all still dependent on physical forces.


---

But this idea of 'physical forces' also needs to be examined.

From one point of view, all forces may be defined as physical. The question then becomes - "Are there physical forces of a kind about which we know nothing ?"

In other words, there is no supernatural, but that does not mean we have understood, or even noticed, all natural forces.

This is why I will not accept that 'awareness' is currently explained in terms of the physical forces which constitute our model so far. There is a fundamental difference between 'event' and 'experience', and so far science has not plumbed the depths of this. The suggestion that there is still something to discover is not a suggestion of 'the supernatural', but of 'the unknown'.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But this idea of 'physical forces' also needs to be examined.

From one point of view, all forces may be defined as physical. The question then becomes - "Are there physical forces of a kind about which we know nothing ?"

In other words, there is no supernatural, but that does not mean we have understood, or even noticed, all natural forces.

This is why I will not accept that 'awareness' is currently explained in terms of the physical forces which constitute our model so far. There is a fundamental difference between 'event' and 'experience', and so far science has not plumbed the depths of this. The suggestion that there is still something to discover is not a suggestion of 'the supernatural', but of 'the unknown'.

I agree with this completely and in fact share this same view myself. There may very well be other forces that exist which are not known to science.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I was discerning between modern physicalism and classical materialism.

Is gravity matter? Are the natural laws material?

Have you considered John's example?

By saying that consciousness is not entirely reducible to brain activity alone, I mean that it is equally dependent upon a living temporal relationship with others and the environment. I see no contradiction between a modified Existentialist theory of consciousness and modern science. Perhaps Sartre did go a little overboard trying to justify an absolutely abstract freewill, but there is an argument to be made for concrete freedom based in the human reality.

PS: Just noticed that I've been spelling Sartre wrong this whole time! Oh, well. He probably doesn't care.

I agree with this. I believe the same forces or interactions which give us our consciousness extend or in a way transcend our physical bodies or brains. The same reason why our witnessing of something happening on the other side of the world can still affect us...all things are physically connected and interact whether we realize it or not. Because this universe is One (expanded from a singular point--the Big Bang), all matter and energy are still and always will be connected in some way. Our consciousness is not confined, it expands outward and is connected and interacts with all the rest.

 

[Straw Dog]

I agree with this. I believe the same forces or interactions which give us our consciousness extend or in a way transcend our physical bodies or brains. The same reason why our witnessing of something happening on the other side of the world can still affect us...all things are physically connected and interact whether we realize it or not. Because this universe is One (expanded from a singular point--the Big Bang), all matter and energy are still and always will be connected in some way. Our consciousness is not confined, it expands outward and is connected and interacts with all the rest.

I knew that we'd find middle ground, eventually. Much of the confusion probably has to do with semantics and philosophical terminology. I just find emphasizing the notion of Oneness as an absolute to be untenable, but otherwise agree that everything is relationally connected.

Admittedly, some Existential philosophers did tend to intellectualize single sided issues for dramatic effect. Sartre lived during a time of world war and smug culture and these influences shaped his views on human conflict and philosophy. Despite overintellectualizing, he did come up with some practical insights (with the help of others). Some Existential philosophers weren't even very good at practicing Existentialism and I don't know of any who claimed to be perfectly authentic.

 

[Straw Dog]

I've come to the conclusion that philosophy is actually quite useless (edit: inadequate)...it solves nothing. ---

To address your initial objection to philosophy as inadequate, it's important to understand that different fields of study have different applications. Science would also be inadequate without philosophy.

But what is philosophy? It means the love of wisdom or truth. Personal definition is that it is also the art of thinking well. To go forwards in philosophy, you generally have to go backwards to begin with. This is because when people start thinking about anything in great depth they usually start halfway up some very shallow, muddy conceptual **** creek. They get stuck in this obscure, overgrown place where various assumptions that haven't been thought through have drifted and gathered over many years.

Philosophy is largely about dumping those assumptions overboard and carefully backing out of the shallow waters of the conceptual **** creek into the deep open ocean of the open mind. Philosophy builds by destroying assumptions. From out on the open ocean, we may finally notice the broad mouth of the estuary that leads to truth. The truth being, incidentally, that life is not a conceptual, but a very real existential **** creek, despite what the fluffy-bunny brigade wants us to believe.

 

[Runewolf1973]

To address your initial objection to philosophy as inadequate, it's important to understand that different fields of study have different applications. Science would also be inadequate without philosophy.

But what is philosophy? It means the love of wisdom or truth. Personal definition is that it is also the art of thinking well. To go forwards in philosophy, you generally have to go backwards to begin with. This is because when people start thinking about anything in great depth they usually start halfway up some very shallow, muddy conceptual **** creek. They get stuck in this obscure, overgrown place where various assumptions that haven't been thought through have drifted and gathered over many years.

Philosophy is largely about dumping those assumptions overboard and carefully backing out off the shallow waters of the conceptual **** creek into the deep open ocean of the open mind. Philosophy builds by destroying assumptions. From out on the open ocean, we may finally notice the broad mouth of the estuary that leads to truth. The truth being, incidentally, that life is not a conceptual, but a very real existential **** creek, despite what the fluffy-bunny brigade wants us to believe.

That makes sense. I can see your point.