Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

Other philosophical concerns resulting from the limitations of 'pure reason' might include the questions about the paradoxical apperceptions of reality. Is "I think therefore I am" proof of a reality that exists only in one's mind? How can logic and rationality save us from this nightmare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

"not not" doesn't have a word, perhaps it is indicative

Hello psyr!!

My quandary there is from a metaphysical perspective. If the materialist believes that the nature of one's existence is apperceived as being not real by virtue of claiming that consciousness is an illusion, then how can the materialist reconcile their own physicalist position knowing or similarly claiming that their own consciousness is not real or an illusion(?). The self refuting part seems to be the materialist is believing that their apperception of reality (the conscious experience) consists only of things that are physical. Yet an illusion is not physical (?) Hence they are believing in something (their own consciousness) that appears as not being real/physical; an illusion. And that seems to exclude (I'm not a 'materialist') the dualist arguments and/or other qualities (Qualia) of conscious existence and sentient experience (Affect Consciousness)...

By contrast, the idealist (Subjective Idealism), I think would be more consistent in his belief that an illusion is reality. But to the materialist, he seems to be saying that his own consciousness is an illusion yet it still exists as such. I could stand corrected there.

With respect to the logically impossible aspect of conscious existence, yes, the 'not not' is like saying I'm driving and not driving. From language, that's the 'illogical' or logically impossible explanation from an experience of driving while daydreaming. Our minds our wonderful things-in-themselves!

You raise an intriguing possibility relative to 'meaning'! Can you elucidate a bit on that?

My reply to the new topic by @JackDaydream on Descartes his assertion "I think, therefore I am" provides additional details. Essentially, in my opinion, it concerns the free will vs determinism debate.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17707&p=400860 (Who am.'I'?)

Got It, thanks!

I think the free will v. determinism debate has been pretty much settled. With the modern day discovery of quantum coherence (Heisenberg/Gödel/Turing) there exists 'uncertainty' as well as 'incompleteness' at the most fundamental level. Using some sense of logic, the analogous bridge can be built at that physical/metaphysical level of existence.

Accordingly, the Will itself, is a metaphysical conscious phenomena that provides for that sense of "I". And I could agree that the notion or concept of 'meaning' would correlate to one's free Will to be. In thinking about the volitional/emotive need to be or to not be (to die), Existentially (existential angst), one is always free to choose from those alternatives... .

[Consul]

Robots, protozoa, etc. have no consciousness, and there's no reason aside from some very, very loose, anthropomorphic analogizing, which has no place in doing philosophy, to say that they do.

The have no experiential/phenomenal consciousness, but it doesn't follow that they are also incapable of being perceptually conscious or aware of something.

[Terrapin Station]

Robots, protozoa, etc. have no consciousness, and there's no reason aside from some very, very loose, anthropomorphic analogizing, which has no place in doing philosophy, to say that they do.

The have no experiential/phenomenal consciousness, but it doesn't follow that they are also incapable of being perceptually conscious or aware of something.

First off, as of yet, you've not at all successfully supported that non-phenomenal consciousness makes the slightest lick of sense, or at least that there would be any evidence at all of it.

[SteveKlinko]

Hello Philosophers!

I have always taken that they mean Conscious Experience does Not Exist when they say it is an Illusion. First of all, I don't think there is any such thing as some generalized and vague Consciousness concept. For me, there is only Conscious Experience. The whole reason why Illusionism exists is for Physicalist/Materialists (P/Ms) to try and get rid of the problem of Conscious Experience. But Conscious Experiences refuse to be ignored. Conscious Experiences serve a survival purpose for life on this planet. The P/Ms have Zero Explanation for that beautiful, High Def, Wide Screen, Conscious Visual Experience that is embedded in the front of their faces letting them move around in the World without bumping into things and walking off cliffs. So not only does the Visual Experience exist, but it also has a purpose. The P/Ms should ask themselves: How can something that has this kind of vital purpose not Exist?

[Belindi]

I agree with Steve Klinko as far as his last two sentences .

that beautiful, High Def, Wide Screen, Conscious Visual Experience that is embedded in the front of their faces letting them move around in the World without bumping into things and walking off cliffs.

Is too much analysed into a set of meaningless entities. Experience is what SteveKlinko describes ; the whole is more than its parts.

The gestalt experience is not teleologically biological as Steve seems to claim:( "So not only does the Visual Experience exist, but it also has a purpose. The P/Ms should ask themselves: How can something that has this kind of vital purpose not Exist?")The gestalt experience is the same as what we usually call consciousness, and is the ground of being itself. Not forgetting that a lone consciousness( if it ever existed) would wither and die without its environment of other consciousnesses, other gestalts, from which it paints its own subjective gestalts .

[The Beast]

A paradigm of life is that started at sea under photonic bombardment. Molecules desired an enhanced energetic level. At such early stage, the proposal of life being intrinsic to the photonic stream or of life achieved in the depths of matter or of both by inducing a potential difference and therefore the first wave of intelligence depends on the philosophical POV. The thing in itself or the duality are equally hopeless. Outside and inside are properties of Space. In the reality of Spaceless and Timeless, consciousness just is. First or later is Time. How could I imagine this duality being real? My POV is that it is the reality/duality of Universal Time in Space.

[SteveKlinko]

A paradigm of life is that started at sea under photonic bombardment. Molecules desired an enhanced energetic level. At such early stage, the proposal of life being intrinsic to the photonic stream or of life achieved in the depths of matter or of both by inducing a potential difference and therefore the first wave of intelligence depends on the philosophical POV. The thing in itself or the duality are equally hopeless. Outside and inside are properties of Space. In the reality of Spaceless and Timeless, consciousness just is. First or later is Time. How could I imagine this duality being real? My POV is that it is the reality/duality of Universal Time in Space.

My thinking over the years is in agreement with you that Conscious Experience and the Conscious Mind exist in an Abstract Place that is Spaceless (Dimensionless) and Timeless.

[Consul]

My thinking over the years is in agreement with you that Conscious Experience and the Conscious Mind exist in an Abstract Place that is Spaceless (Dimensionless) and Timeless.

That's incoherent, because experiences are temporal occurrences, events or processes; and the concept of a timeless or atemporal event or process is self-contradictory. Nothing can happen or take place in a timeless world. Moreover, the experiential items in one's field of consciousness are organized both temporally and spatially. For example, the colors in my visual field are spatially extended and stand in spatial relations to one another.

There are three basic aspects of consciousness:

1. content = the sum total of one's subjective experiences (qualia, sensa, "impressions and ideas" [Hume]) at a time

2. form = "The concept of form describes the spatiotemporal organization and structuring ('putting together') of the contents in consciousness."

(Northoff, Georg. Unlocking the Brain, Vol. 2: Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. xlviii)

2. level = "The concept of level refers to the different degrees of arousal and awakeness and thus to the state of consciousness. The level or state of consciousness is related to global metabolism and energy supply which are found to be impaired and highly reduced in disorders of consciousness like vegetative state and coma."

(Northoff, Georg. Unlocking the Brain, Vol. 2: Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. xlviii)

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"I proposed that the level or state of consciousness is predisposed by the degree of spatial (and temporal) continuity of neural activity. This means that (the level or state of) consciousness can ultimately be traced back to the constitution of the intrinsic activity’s spatial (and temporal) continuity.

How is such spatial (and temporal) continuity of the brain’s neural activity related to the physical space of the world? The constitution of the intrinsic activity’s spatial (and temporal) continuity by the brain takes place within the physical space (and time) of the world the brain is part of. This means that, ultimately, consciousness and the intrinsic activity’s spatial (and temporal) continuity are constituted within the physical space (and time) of the brain and the world. In short, there is constitution of an “inner space consciousness” in (physical) space (and time).

Such constitution of consciousness in (physical) space (and time) must be distinguished from the experience of space (and time) in consciousness. The experience of space (and time) in consciousness is expressed by the term “inner space consciousness” (and “inner time consciousness”). Here, unlike in the constitution of consciousness in (physical) space (and time), we no longer refer to space (and time) as physical but rather as phenomenal. One may thus say that (phenomenal) space (and time) are constituted in consciousness. Accordingly, we have to distinguish between the “constitution of (phenomenal) space (and time) in consciousness” and the “constitution of consciousness in (physical) space (and time).”

Both are closely linked, however: since the “constitution of (phenomenal) space (and time) in consciousness” presupposes consciousness itself, it can be considered the output or result of the “constitution of consciousness in (physical) space (and time).” The focus in this (as in the preceding discussions with regard to time) is therefore on how the “constitution of consciousness in (physical) space” leads to the “constitution of (phenomenal) space in consciousness,” that is, “inner space consciousness.”

One may even further specify their relationship. The constitution of phenomenal space and time lays the very basis of the subsequent constitution of consciousness in general. Phenomenal space and time provide the spatial and temporal grid into which any content must be integrated and linked in order to become associated with consciousness. Metaphorically speaking, phenomenal time and space can be considered the skeleton of consciousness without which consciousness itself would remain impossible altogether.

This means that the constitution of phenomenal time and space provide the bridge between the physical space and time of the physical world on one hand and the phenomenal features of consciousness on the other. To put it slightly differently, the transformation of the different discrete points in the physical time and space of the physical world into the spatial and temporal continuity of the brain’s intrinsic activity predisposes the subsequent constitution of consciousness and its various phenomenal features. Therefore, I speak of a neurophenomenal account of space and time, which I believe mediates the transition from the physical world of nonconsciousness to the phenomenal world of consciousness."

(Northoff, Georg. Unlocking the Brain, Vol. 2: Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. 70)
<QUOTE

[Sculptor1]

This is like saying is water wet, or sodium chloride salty.
Illusions is consciousness; consciousness is an illusion.
If an illusion is a deceptive appearance or impression., then being clearly since we cannot be fully aware of the universe exactly as it is, and our conscious experience is an impression of our place in it, then our whole perception is illusory.
That is not to say that we cannot trust much of our understanding, but an acknowledgement that we cannot trust all of it, since we have, of necessity to construct "reality" within ourselves.

[SteveKlinko]

My thinking over the years is in agreement with you that Conscious Experience and the Conscious Mind exist in an Abstract Place that is Spaceless (Dimensionless) and Timeless.

That's incoherent, because experiences are temporal occurrences, events or processes; and the concept of a timeless or atemporal event or process is self-contradictory. Nothing can happen or take place in a timeless world. Moreover, the experiential items in one's field of consciousness are organized both temporally and spatially. For example, the colors in my visual field are spatially extended and stand in spatial relations to one another.

There are three basic aspects of consciousness:

1. content = the sum total of one's subjective experiences (qualia, sensa, "impressions and ideas" [Hume]) at a time

2. form = "The concept of form describes the spatiotemporal organization and structuring ('putting together') of the contents in consciousness."

(Northoff, Georg. Unlocking the Brain, Vol. 2: Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. xlviii)

2. level = "The concept of level refers to the different degrees of arousal and awakeness and thus to the state of consciousness. The level or state of consciousness is related to global metabolism and energy supply which are found to be impaired and highly reduced in disorders of consciousness like vegetative state and coma."

(Northoff, Georg. Unlocking the Brain, Vol. 2: Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. xlviii)

Redness is a concept that has no particular shape or time aspect. When there is a Red Ball it does not mean that Redness is a Ball any more than a Fire Truck means Redness is a Fire Truck. Redness is a Dimensionless Conscious Experience Phenomenon. Redness will adapt itself to whatever Dimension Universe the Conscious Mind is Connected with. In our 3D case we see 2D patches of Redness in our Conscious Visual Experience. If we were in a 4D Universe our Visual field would be 3D and we would see 3D patches (even though that is hard to understand) of Redness in our Conscious Visual Experience. But the Redness itself has no Dimensions. We think the Redness can have dimensions because We and our Universe has Dimensions. Similarly, we think that Redness comes and goes and has time spans. But Redness exists in the Conscious Universe regardless if you are Experiencing it or not at any point in Time. Redness as a Thing does not go away when you close your Eyes, just like the room you are in does not go away when you close your Eyes. You have to come out of the confines of your 3D existence to properly understand something so different from the Physical World as Redness. It is not a Physical Thing so you will never understand it by looking at the Physical Neurons in your Brain.

A little something more about Time: There are much faster things and slower things than our Consciousness. The Conscious Mind (CM) Experience of the world is as fast as the Physical Mind (PM) will allow. We can't perceive a speeding bullet because it is faster than the PM can operate. Some people will argue that this means Consciousness is a PM limited phenomena. This does not mean that the CM itself is limited but just that when the CM is correlating with a PM it is limited to what the PM can do. The CM might be capable of much more and since I am suggesting that the CM is not even in Physical Space (PSp) but in Conscious Space (CSp) we don’t know what the limits really are.

[Sy Borg]

Redness is a concept that has no particular shape or time aspect. When there is a Red Ball it does not mean that Redness is a Ball any more than a Fire Truck means Redness is a Fire Truck. Redness is a Dimensionless Conscious Experience Phenomenon.

Colour, as a subjective phenomenon, exists in time for the period during which it is perceived. This is the case for all experience. Generally speaking, No time = absolute zero = nothing happening.

[Consul]

Redness is a concept that has no particular shape or time aspect.

Color-experiences are always experiences of spatially extended patches of color.

[Consul]

Color-experiences are always experiences of spatially extended patches of color.

Wrong, because phenomenal colors are either two-dimensional (as apparent qualities of surfaces of material things) or three-dimensional (as apparent qualities of transparent volumes of matter).

[Sy Borg]

Consul, have the above two posts said what you want to say? Would you like any editing done?