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

[GrayArea]

What I'm saying is that words are mere illusions. When we say the word "apple", we don't suddenly create an apple out of nowhere inside the brains of people who see the word "apple". Reserve the words for describing physical existence and how that may create something that we call "Conscious Experience", and let the real Conscious Experience be defined not through us defining it, but instead through us. That's all I can say at the end of the day.

And no, as far as I'm concerned, physical existence is not an illusion. They are simply more suited for description by words than Conscious Experience.

Physical existence doesn't create conscious experience, they are one and the same thing. Of course 100% of what we say is in metaphor (including this sentence), some people realize this some people don't.

I can get behind the idea that physical existence creates conscious experience as a product of itself, thus satisfying the relationship Physical Existence = Conscious Experience

So wouldn't that mean, if Physical Existence / Physical Experience is "what we call" Conscious Experience, that we as Conscious Beings can somehow figure out our nature via the naturally occuring investigation of Physical Existence?

What are your thoughts for the second paragraph, then?

[Atla]

And no, as far as I'm concerned, physical existence is not an illusion. They are simply more suited for description by words than Conscious Experience.

Physical existence doesn't create conscious experience, they are one and the same thing. Of course 100% of what we say is in metaphor (including this sentence), some people realize this some people don't.

I can get behind the idea that physical existence creates conscious experience as a product of itself, thus satisfying the relationship Physical Existence = Conscious Experience

So wouldn't that mean, if Physical Existence / Physical Experience is "what we call" Conscious Experience, that we as Conscious Beings can somehow figure out our nature via the naturally occuring investigation of Physical Existence?

What are your thoughts for the second paragraph, then?

I didn't understand the second paragraph. A conscious being is usually an organism with a mind, a being, but this meaning of "conscious" has nothing to do with "conscios" as in conscious = physical. These are two different things.

[Atla]

What are your thoughts for the second paragraph, then?

One of the biggest problems with Western philosophy is that it uses "conscious" for two different things that have nothing to do with each other. We think they are one and the same thing but they aren't. But this fatal error goes unnoticed, it's one of the main reason or the main reason why the Western philosophy of mind is at a dead end since centuries.

There is "THE Consciousness", aka the world, aka the physical world, aka existence itself, aka phenomenal consciousness, aka consciousness in the Hard problem sense. This thing is "omnipresent", it's just existence itself really.

And then there's the individual mind, aka the conscious being or conscious machine etc., aka consciousness in the Easy problems sense. This is a local thing, usually in the head of an advanced organism, it's the mind. And it's always part of "THE Consciousness" because everything is.

But Western philosophy takes it for granted that these two are one and the same thing. They usually take "THE consciousness" and try to put it inside the organism mind. So people believe that when they were born, consciousness started, and when they die, consciousness will end. "Their" consciousness. But that's only true for consciousness in the second sense. The first one was never theirs to begin with, the first one has always been eternal, it's been there all along and people were simply born into it. And it will still be there after those people died.

Hence the insanity of trying to solve the Hard problem using science. Everything is already part of Consciousness in the first sense, including the entire scientific process, all the scientists and all the instruments. All the things they use to search for it, are also it.

[GrayArea]

What are your thoughts for the second paragraph, then?

One of the biggest problems with Western philosophy is that it uses "conscious" for two different things that have nothing to do with each other. We think they are one and the same thing but they aren't. But this fatal error goes unnoticed, it's one of the main reason or the main reason why the Western philosophy of mind is at a dead end since centuries.

There is "THE Consciousness", aka the world, aka the physical world, aka existence itself, aka phenomenal consciousness, aka consciousness in the Hard problem sense. This thing is "omnipresent", it's just existence itself really.

And then there's the individual mind, aka the conscious being or conscious machine etc., aka consciousness in the Easy problems sense. This is a local thing, usually in the head of an advanced organism, it's the mind. And it's always part of "THE Consciousness" because everything is.

But Western philosophy takes it for granted that these two are one and the same thing. They usually take "THE consciousness" and try to put it inside the organism mind. So people believe that when they were born, consciousness started, and when they die, consciousness will end. "Their" consciousness. But that's only true for consciousness in the second sense. The first one was never theirs to begin with, the first one has always been eternal, it's been there all along and people were simply born into it. And it will still be there after those people died.

Hence the insanity of trying to solve the Hard problem using science. Everything is already part of Consciousness in the first sense, including the entire scientific process, all the scientists and all the instruments. All the things they use to search for it, are also it.

I think that whether it's THE consciousness, or just consciousness in the easy problem sense that one is trying to understand, when it is DEFINED or THOUGHT of by someone, it automatically becomes just consciousness either way. THE consciousness cannot be defined to begin with. It is what we define WITH.

[Atla]

What are your thoughts for the second paragraph, then?

One of the biggest problems with Western philosophy is that it uses "conscious" for two different things that have nothing to do with each other. We think they are one and the same thing but they aren't. But this fatal error goes unnoticed, it's one of the main reason or the main reason why the Western philosophy of mind is at a dead end since centuries.

There is "THE Consciousness", aka the world, aka the physical world, aka existence itself, aka phenomenal consciousness, aka consciousness in the Hard problem sense. This thing is "omnipresent", it's just existence itself really.

And then there's the individual mind, aka the conscious being or conscious machine etc., aka consciousness in the Easy problems sense. This is a local thing, usually in the head of an advanced organism, it's the mind. And it's always part of "THE Consciousness" because everything is.

But Western philosophy takes it for granted that these two are one and the same thing. They usually take "THE consciousness" and try to put it inside the organism mind. So people believe that when they were born, consciousness started, and when they die, consciousness will end. "Their" consciousness. But that's only true for consciousness in the second sense. The first one was never theirs to begin with, the first one has always been eternal, it's been there all along and people were simply born into it. And it will still be there after those people died.

Hence the insanity of trying to solve the Hard problem using science. Everything is already part of Consciousness in the first sense, including the entire scientific process, all the scientists and all the instruments. All the things they use to search for it, are also it.

I think that whether it's THE consciousness, or just consciousness in the easy problem sense that one is trying to understand, when it is DEFINED or THOUGHT of by someone, it automatically becomes just consciousness either way. THE consciousness cannot be defined to begin with. It is what we define WITH.

But then there's the art of trying to eff the ineffable anyway.

[GrayArea]

What are your thoughts for the second paragraph, then?

One of the biggest problems with Western philosophy is that it uses "conscious" for two different things that have nothing to do with each other. We think they are one and the same thing but they aren't. But this fatal error goes unnoticed, it's one of the main reason or the main reason why the Western philosophy of mind is at a dead end since centuries.

There is "THE Consciousness", aka the world, aka the physical world, aka existence itself, aka phenomenal consciousness, aka consciousness in the Hard problem sense. This thing is "omnipresent", it's just existence itself really.

And then there's the individual mind, aka the conscious being or conscious machine etc., aka consciousness in the Easy problems sense. This is a local thing, usually in the head of an advanced organism, it's the mind. And it's always part of "THE Consciousness" because everything is.

But Western philosophy takes it for granted that these two are one and the same thing. They usually take "THE consciousness" and try to put it inside the organism mind. So people believe that when they were born, consciousness started, and when they die, consciousness will end. "Their" consciousness. But that's only true for consciousness in the second sense. The first one was never theirs to begin with, the first one has always been eternal, it's been there all along and people were simply born into it. And it will still be there after those people died.

Hence the insanity of trying to solve the Hard problem using science. Everything is already part of Consciousness in the first sense, including the entire scientific process, all the scientists and all the instruments. All the things they use to search for it, are also it.

I think that whether it's THE consciousness, or just consciousness in the easy problem sense that one is trying to understand, when it is DEFINED or THOUGHT of by someone, it automatically becomes just consciousness either way. THE consciousness cannot be defined to begin with. It is what we define WITH.

But then there's the art of trying to eff the ineffable anyway.

In a way, we are both doing so. I keep saying that "THE consciousness" can't be described in words, but here we are, talking about it, using words. We're both effing the ineffable in two different ways.

Anyway, I'd say my main point here is that physical existence should be embraced because it's all our Conscious Experience (As in, "the" consciousness/the actual one) ends up doing at the end of the day.

[Sy Borg]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

[Atla]

One of the biggest problems with Western philosophy is that it uses "conscious" for two different things that have nothing to do with each other. We think they are one and the same thing but they aren't. But this fatal error goes unnoticed, it's one of the main reason or the main reason why the Western philosophy of mind is at a dead end since centuries.

There is "THE Consciousness", aka the world, aka the physical world, aka existence itself, aka phenomenal consciousness, aka consciousness in the Hard problem sense. This thing is "omnipresent", it's just existence itself really.

And then there's the individual mind, aka the conscious being or conscious machine etc., aka consciousness in the Easy problems sense. This is a local thing, usually in the head of an advanced organism, it's the mind. And it's always part of "THE Consciousness" because everything is.

But Western philosophy takes it for granted that these two are one and the same thing. They usually take "THE consciousness" and try to put it inside the organism mind. So people believe that when they were born, consciousness started, and when they die, consciousness will end. "Their" consciousness. But that's only true for consciousness in the second sense. The first one was never theirs to begin with, the first one has always been eternal, it's been there all along and people were simply born into it. And it will still be there after those people died.

Hence the insanity of trying to solve the Hard problem using science. Everything is already part of Consciousness in the first sense, including the entire scientific process, all the scientists and all the instruments. All the things they use to search for it, are also it.

I think that whether it's THE consciousness, or just consciousness in the easy problem sense that one is trying to understand, when it is DEFINED or THOUGHT of by someone, it automatically becomes just consciousness either way. THE consciousness cannot be defined to begin with. It is what we define WITH.

But then there's the art of trying to eff the ineffable anyway.

In a way, we are both doing so. I keep saying that "THE consciousness" can't be described in words, but here we are, talking about it, using words. We're both effing the ineffable in two different ways.

Anyway, I'd say my main point here is that physical existence should be embraced because it's all our Conscious Experience (As in, "the" consciousness/the actual one) ends up doing at the end of the day.

I really don't understand your main point. "THE" consciousness doesn't do anything it just is. And it's the same thing as physical existence, so even if it was doing something, it couldn't be physical existence.
Unless you simply are saying that whatever is happening is what is happening, that's what existence is and we should embrace it. Although even then, I don't like many things that are happening.

[Atla]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

The general sense of being is also shaped by the nervous system, and is therefore ultimately an Easy problem. It mostly seems to stem from the natural self-awareness of humans, which is the most difficult Easy problem as it doesn't seem to be connected to any specific brain regions.
Though we keep talking about "THE" consciousness, it doesn't feel like anything by itself.

Unless someone can show that there indeed is a universal "sensation" going on.

[Sy Borg]

Unless someone can show that there indeed is a universal "sensation" going on.

If there is, it would require a broadening of the definition of "sensation", and it would be far too subtle for us humans to detect, just as we can't detect Brownian motion as microbes do. I suppose, if a universal sensation exists, it would be a vibration. Ommm ...

https://youtu.be/TqaEE9vzV2M?t=400

[GrayArea]

I think that whether it's THE consciousness, or just consciousness in the easy problem sense that one is trying to understand, when it is DEFINED or THOUGHT of by someone, it automatically becomes just consciousness either way. THE consciousness cannot be defined to begin with. It is what we define WITH.

But then there's the art of trying to eff the ineffable anyway.

In a way, we are both doing so. I keep saying that "THE consciousness" can't be described in words, but here we are, talking about it, using words. We're both effing the ineffable in two different ways.

Anyway, I'd say my main point here is that physical existence should be embraced because it's all our Conscious Experience (As in, "the" consciousness/the actual one) ends up doing at the end of the day.

I really don't understand your main point. "THE" consciousness doesn't do anything it just is. And it's the same thing as physical existence, so even if it was doing something, it couldn't be physical existence.
Unless you simply are saying that whatever is happening is what is happening, that's what existence is and we should embrace it. Although even then, I don't like many things that are happening.

I could have worded my point wrong. Here's a fixed version: I'd say my main point here is that physical existence should be actively sought for because to do so is an inevitable product of existing as our Conscious Experience (As in, "the" consciousness/the actual one). It's not like something we ought to do but also can choose not to do. It's just something that we do.

[Atla]

Unless someone can show that there indeed is a universal "sensation" going on.

If there is, it would require a broadening of the definition of "sensation", and it would be far too subtle for us humans to detect, just as we can't detect Brownian motion as microbes do. I suppose, if a universal sensation exists, it would be a vibration. Ommm ...

https://youtu.be/TqaEE9vzV2M?t=400

Maybe, I think it's more likely that the OM "just" has to do with the Schumann resonances of the Earth's atmosphere. Those resonances may act like a tuning fork for organisms. People could tune into the OM for thousands of years, but it may not exist outside the planet.

[Atla]

But then there's the art of trying to eff the ineffable anyway.

In a way, we are both doing so. I keep saying that "THE consciousness" can't be described in words, but here we are, talking about it, using words. We're both effing the ineffable in two different ways.

Anyway, I'd say my main point here is that physical existence should be embraced because it's all our Conscious Experience (As in, "the" consciousness/the actual one) ends up doing at the end of the day.

I really don't understand your main point. "THE" consciousness doesn't do anything it just is. And it's the same thing as physical existence, so even if it was doing something, it couldn't be physical existence.
Unless you simply are saying that whatever is happening is what is happening, that's what existence is and we should embrace it. Although even then, I don't like many things that are happening.

I could have worded my point wrong. Here's a fixed version: I'd say my main point here is that physical existence should be actively sought for because to do so is an inevitable product of existing as our Conscious Experience (As in, "the" consciousness/the actual one). It's not like something we ought to do but also can choose not to do. It's just something that we do.

Sorry but I've no idea what this means.

[Sy Borg]

Unless someone can show that there indeed is a universal "sensation" going on.

If there is, it would require a broadening of the definition of "sensation", and it would be far too subtle for us humans to detect, just as we can't detect Brownian motion as microbes do. I suppose, if a universal sensation exists, it would be a vibration. Ommm ...

https://youtu.be/TqaEE9vzV2M?t=400

Maybe, I think it's more likely that the OM "just" has to do with the Schumann resonances of the Earth's atmosphere. Those resonances may act like a tuning fork for organisms. People could tune into the OM for thousands of years, but it may not exist outside the planet.

That makes sense. Or the universal vibration is too subtle, though some would argue that undetected subtleties are not part of phenomenal consciousness.

[GrayArea]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".