Some thoughts on consciousness

[PureX]

When you say, "... at this level of existence ..." do you mean the existence of life on earth, or do you mean the existence of Homo Sapiens? Perhaps it would be helpful to know what all your levels of existence are.

I was referring to the source. The most basic level of existence, where existence begins.

I am interested to know the different levels of existence, but for this post I will assume we are talking about the difference between inanimate matter as one level of existence and living organisms as another level of existence.

Existence is an explosion of increasing complexity, and with it transcendent realms of possibility. From energy to interactive matter, from interactive matter to animate matter (life), from life to self/other awareness, from awareness to ...?

As rough numbers, the best we can say from the data is that for the first 9 billion years, the inanimate matter level of existence was the only level at play. You seem to indicate by the quote above that my descriptions of how the matter formed and the cosmos developed is an accurate description of this 9 billion year period of solely inanimate matter. Is this correct? Do you agree that for the inanimate matter period, if we conducted multiple Big Bangs, the distribution of matter would not be exactly the same for each of them?

No, it would not be exactly the same. Chance plays a role. But so long as the rules that govern (limit) the expression of energy remain, a similar result would manifest. The timeline of transcendence from energy to matter to life to conscious self-awareness is not known, nor necessarily relevant.

 

[wellwisher]

Human consciousness has two centers; inner self and ego. The inner self is much older and is the center of animal consciousness. This center is connected to instinct. The ego is much newer; about 6-10K years old and is only found within humans. Adam evolved the original ego at a time humans only had the inner self.

These two centers are like two eyes in the sense they give a 3-D affect to consciousness. The inner self is the center of the unconscious mind while the ego is the center of the conscious mind and both see the same things but in different contexts; instinct and cultural knowledge.

One of the difficulties in defining consciousness is this phenomena is best explored from the inside; introspection. However, the philosophy of science is designed for things outside ourselves, so they can be verified directly by others. Religion and philosophy have more data about consciousness, than science, since they are more based on introspection and are not as limited by the philosophy of science in terms of accepting self observation data.

Let me explain this difference with an example. We all dream. However, dream details is not something that would be recognized by the philosophy of science since there is no way to directly view dreams from the outside, nor can they be reproduced exactly by you or by others. The philosophy of science hits a wall based on its own philosophy. It has to wait for technology to catch up. Dreams and vision, which are the tip of the iceberg, which often come from the inner self, are more likely to be addressed via religion; angels and evil spirits. Jesus and Buddha both make a distinction between the inner and outer man; inner self and ego.

Jesus is often called the New Adam; before the fall. He sacrificed the ego center and became an inner self; tree of life or instinct in paradise.

 

[MikeF]

.....

I understand. Nevertheless ...

When I was in my 20s, I read the Tao Te Ching for the first time, and it made me a bit angry. Because it seemed to me to be deliberately contradicting itself in every statement it presented.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things."
​

And so on, verse after verse. I read it, but I threw it away afterwards.

But then some ten years later I had occasion to come across a copy of it, and remembering how frustrated I was with it years before, I couldn't help taking a new look. And to my surprise, this time some of it began to make sense to me. I understood that it was not contradicting itself just to frustrate me, it was presenting it's message through sets of opposites. Sort of like presenting both sides of the coin as a way of conveying the coin's 'fullness'. Still, though, I was unable to decipher a lot of the verses, and eventually I gave up and moved on to other things.

And another ten years passed, with all the requisite life experiences that tend to come with time, here. And I decided to go get a copy of the book, and look into it, again. And this time, to my surprise, I not only understood it, but I found it funny in many places. I saw that the author was not only very wise, but had a keen sense of humor about himself and the world.

My point is that sometimes these things take a long time to digest.

Here are a couple of quotes from the Tao Te Ching that I think are especially applicable to this conversation, that you might try to consider.

"When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad."

"Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other."

"Colors blind the eye.
Sounds deafen the ear.
Flavors numb the taste.
Thoughts weaken the mind.
Desires wither the heart."
​

And finally this:

"There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao."

"It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things."

"The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers."

"Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself."​

The passages you quote of the Tao Te Ching are very reminiscent of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Your quotes not only cover the origin of the cosmos, but also have elements of psychology/human behavior. These early thinkers are trying to make sense of all these big questions with the limited tools at their disposal. For most it comes down to trying to make sense of their macroscopic environment through simple gross examination/observation.

Whenever we look at ancient authors, we must always keep in mind the base of knowledge and understanding Humanity possessed at the time of their writing. When we evaluate these writings today, we do not evaluate them within the limitations of the timeframe in which they are written, but in relation to everything we know about the cosmos and ourselves today. And everything we know continually grows and improves over time, which means that any past conclusions about the cosmos and ourselves must be continually tested and reevaluated with our ever increasing understanding. Some ideas stand the test of time, some do not.

Many past philosophers, thinkers, and scientist miss the mark entirely, while others we can't help but be impressed with how well their ideas conform with our current understands of the world. Epicurus is one example.

It is important to look back to previous thinkers and understand them within the context of their limited understanding, but we cannot look backward to find "The Answer" to these questions that lie on the boundary of our collective understanding. We can only look forward, ever refining and improving our base of knowledge, expanding it into the unknown.

 

[PureX]

The passages you quote of the Tao Te Ching are very reminiscent of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Your quotes not only cover the origin of the cosmos, but also have elements of psychology/human behavior. These early thinkers are trying to make sense of all these big questions with the limited tools at their disposal. For most it comes down to trying to make sense of their macroscopic environment through simple gross examination/observation.

Whenever we look at ancient authors, we must always keep in mind the base of knowledge and understanding Humanity possessed at the time of their writing. When we evaluate these writings today, we do not evaluate them within the limitations of the timeframe in which they are written, but in relation to everything we know about the cosmos and ourselves today. And everything we know continually grows and improves over time, which means that any past conclusions about the cosmos and ourselves must be continually tested and reevaluated with our ever increasing understanding. Some ideas stand the test of time, some do not.

Many past philosophers, thinkers, and scientist miss the mark entirely, while others we can't help but be impressed with how well their ideas conform with our current understands of the world. Epicurus is one example.

It is important to look back to previous thinkers and understand them within the context of their limited understanding, but we cannot look backward to find "The Answer" to these questions that lie on the boundary of our collective understanding. We can only look forward, ever refining and improving our base of knowledge, expanding it into the unknown.

Science has only advanced our understanding of functionality. It has revealed very little in terms of fundamental causality. I am struck by how perceptive these ancient writings are. Not just the ancient Chinese writings in the Tao Te Ching, and the I-Ching, but also the ancient Greek concept of 'logos'. And science has neither advanced, nor contradicted either of these conceptual paradigms. And as to the biblical stories, I think they are more about the nature of humanity than the nature of existence. Not unimportant, but not necessarily a part of this discussion.