Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Consciousness As Reaction

Philosophy Forum
» Epistemology
» Consciousness As Reaction

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi Everybody!! Smile

:)The nature of consciousness should be revealed by a linking back to its elemental beginnings. As I have tried to establish in other threads there is no human action, there are but human reactions, and it is reaction which is the essence of all consciousness, from the human being to the elements of an emergent quality in chemistry.

It is the nature of relational reality itself, that its essence is reaction, even on a wider spread of relational situtations,such as, the co-rrelational evolutionary development of organisms, reaction, reaction to the existence of another being, another situtation, another condition, the reaction of biology to its physical circumstances.

Motivations are to reactions what conditions are to objects. boagie

What is thought of as cause and effect as an example, is a human entity bringing two states , conditions or objects together so that a relational reaction can occur. This to is reaction rather than an action. As Hume has stated, what we think we know of the relation of cause and effect is gained simply by the habit of observation, bring these to conditions and/or objects together and something happens, what happens is a relational reaction on the part of both subjects in relation. The secrets of any transformation are to be found in the constitutions of the objects or conditions in relation to each other. One is not cause the other effect, a relational reaction you might say is a kind of mutualism--reaction in both directions.

Time is measured as the duration of reactions. boagie

@boagie,

Hi Boagie

I think that what you call consciousness I call self-consciousness. That means being conscious of the self as being defined. Do you see that difference and do you agree with me?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Hi Boagie

I think that what you call consciousness I call self-consciousness. That means being conscious of the self as being defined. Do you see that difference and do you agree with me?

Arjen.

:)No, I do not think a distinction is at all necessary. Consciousness is the outer world, your body is object in that world, no different in its nature than any other object., it occupies both time and space. PS: I think all forms consciousness are aware of their centre, they are just not all going to make philosophical statements about it.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Arjen.

:)No, I do not think a distinction is at all necessary. Consciousness is the outer world, your body is object in that world, no different in its nature than any other object., it occupies both time and space.

Boagie

What I mean is that the body "bends" the consciousness to a somewhat alternate state forming self-consciousness. Like planets "bend" the quantumfield (thus also bending space-time). An energy field is formed which has the bending effect. So the selfconsciousness is a product of potentiality and actuality. Just like metaphysical judgements are a product of transcendental categoria and empirical perceptions (according to Kant).

I hope I am making myself somewhat clear.

Smile

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie

What I mean is that the body "bends" the consciousness to a somewhat alternate state forming self-consciousness. Like planets "bend" the quantumfield (thus also bending space-time). An energy field is formed which has the bending effect. So the selfconsciousness is a product of potentiality and actuality. Just like metaphysical judgements are a product of transcendental categoria and empirical perceptions (according to Kant).
I hope I am making myself somewhat clear.

Arjen,

I understand the analogy with planets and the bending of space-time, it is in a way, poetic licence, which I do not disaprove of, there are times when the imagination must be set free. You state to however that selfconsciousness is a product of transcendental categoria and empirical perceptions, this makes no sense to me. I have no belief in the supernatural which is what transcendental tends to infer, whatever the unknown constitution of a given mystery it will ultimately be found to be in accordence with nature. That would be my greatist complaint as to a method of investigation, to entertain many abstract thoughts around the topic is not to infer the supernatural. If I have misunderstood you, bear with me, perhaps we can get on the same wave length with a little effort.

@boagie,

I think that you are confusing transcendent with transcendental. Along with that I would like to say that an explanation of that which takes place by merely two ontological levels does not explain everything. In such formulations paradoxes occur which cannot be accounted for.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

I think that you are confusing transcendent with transcendental. Along with that I would like to say that an explanation of that which takes place by merely two ontological levels does not explain everything. In such formulations paradoxes occur which cannot be accounted for.

Arjen,

Yes, I think you are right, I am confusing the terms involved. The rest sounds like it is going to be beyond confusing, but, I shall try to follow you as far as is possiable.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Arjen,

Yes, I think you are right, I am confusing the terms involved. The rest sounds like it is going to be beyond confusing, but, I shall try to follow you are far as is possiable.

Allright, where shall we start at then?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Allright, where shall we start at then?

Arjen,

Well, it does not sound like anyone who has thus far responded to the thread have any difficulty with the essence of consciousness being reaction. So, I guess the best thing we can do is try to figure out in what ways might this understanding restructure our thinking, both about ourselves, and the world we inhabit.

@boagie,

Allow me to pauze for a moment then. Are we agreed on the consciousness and self-consciousness as relating to first and second order logic?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Allow me to pauze for a moment then. Are we agreed on the consciousness and self-consciousness as relating to first and second order logic?

Arjen,

I am still unclear as to what that might be, is it the fact that even selfconsciouness is dependent upon object for its sense of being at the centre of reality? Sorry Arjen, I am not purposely trying to frustrate you, do we still have a stumbling block?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Arjen,

I am still unclear as to what that might be, is it the fact that even selfconsciouness is dependent upon object for its sense of being at the centre of reality? Sorry Arjen, I am not purposely trying to frustrate you, do we still have a stumbling block?

lol

Boagie,consciousness needs no object; self-consiousness needs an object. First order logic is "existance"; second order logic is responding to what one thinks on the basis of what one percieves; psychosis. That is the human condition...unbelieveable as it may sound.

Can you follow this part?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

lol

Boagie,consciousness needs no object; self-consiousness needs an object. First order logic is "existance"; second order logic is responding to what one thinks on the basis of what one percieves; psychosis. That is the human condition...unbelieveable as it may sound.Can you follow this part?

Arjen,

I believe I understand, I just do not agree, first order logic and second order logic infers a separation of subject and object, which is impossiable if one is to have a reality. To speak of a duality here is to miss the point of reaction as consciousness, consciousness is not autonomous, is not independent, is not, separate from the world as object.

@boagie,

Boagie,

Try to look at this form a different angle:

What if the only thing that exists is consciousness? What if the only thing that exists is that paradox you are formulating?

The key is that self-consciousness cannot exist without consciousness; it is positioned on the firm basis of consciousness so to speak.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie,

Try to look at this form a different angle:

What if the only thing that exists is consciousness? What if the only thing that exists is that paradox you are formulating?

The key is that self-consciousness cannot exist without consciousness; it is positioned on the firm basis of consciousness so to speak.

Arjen,

Interesting Arjen, I will be listening!!

@boagie,

Allright then Boagie, Smile

What is it that "all" is looking at it from a human's point of view?
- A grand paradox of Transcendentality, metaphysics and empirics.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Allright then Boagie,

What is it that "all" is looking at it from a human's point of view?
- A grand paradox of Transcendentality, metaphysics and empirics.

Arjen,

You need to take a bit more time with your statements, remember you may have been with some thoughts for sometime, they may be entirely new to those you intend to communicate with. Are you saying then, that, the statement from the Upanishads, "Thou Art That", is profoundly problematic, remember to, our prefrances in terminology do not always aline with one another.

@boagie,

Boagie,

I do not think I need to take more time with my statements. Most of my posts are explaining the post before using your posts as a guidance as to what part of it was not understood.

If that does not work a new angle is needed; perhaps a new thread or a turn in these three. Perhaps you asking questions would help.

@Arjen,

Hi Y'all!

Just a point of curiousity, scientology often promises its adherents that it can subdue the reactive mind, spoken of as a negative aspect of the mind. Are there any scientologists out there, time to come to the aid of your country, tell us the nature of this reactive mind. Very Happy

"What is it that "all" is looking at it from a human's point of view?" quote Arjen

All is looking at its body! Smile

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi Everybody!!

:)The nature of consciousness should be revealed by a linking back to its elemental beginnings.

I know that from 'your' perspective, which is correct (though necessarily limited, to one extent or another), that you feel you are correct. I agree. You are as 'correct' as the blind man touching a portion of the elephant to learn about elephants. Correct, in a way, but limited.
From what I have found, I tend to agree with millennial mystical experience, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, that "Consciousness is the Ground of all Being"! It cannot be 'pared down' to fit in some comfortable mental box. It is ineffable.

Quote:

What is thought of as cause and effect as an example, is..

Obsolete!
Science has taken the clumsy and erroneous notion of a 'temporally linear' notion of 'cause and effect' and 'redefined' it as the 'mutual (synchronously) arising of two aspects of One event'!

Philosophy Forum
» Epistemology
» Consciousness As Reaction

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Consciousness As Reaction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know