Consciousness As Reaction

@boagie,

Allright then Boagie, I'll give it a go. Smile

Well, it seems to me that one can only percieve things through senses. What one percieves is explained by our reasonings, making use of a priori intuitions. There are certain things, however, which cannot be explained by reason; such as creation because reason is causal. So even though a priori intuitions steers one on the right track the track is bent in ways that cannot be percieved, nor predicated (correctly) by reason. Therein lies the paradox: what exists one cannot comprehend, nor percieve, but ones intuition points one to it and so one can allow that to "exist", so to speak.

What, then, is "allowing to exist"?
- Allowing to exist is not judging, nor predicating what is taking place. By not doing so the "reasoning" part is left out of the equasion and only the a priori intuition remains. That is right on track and by allowing that to take place one "accepts" all things to simply take place.

In this one can clearly see the paradox: predication excludes existance. I think this occurs becuase a certain "nothing" must exist for a cycle (or balance) to exist. I think this nothing cannot be "sensed" by anything which is something because it is exactly that which is not "something". Seeing as all beings inside creation are just that: "something" that nothing cannot be "sensed" by the senses which are made out of "something".

Well, I sure hope that clarifies something because we are getting to the point where predications cannot be made. That makes it hard to write down..

Smile

@Arjen,

Thanks Arjen,
I finally understand a priori and a posteriori!! w00t

@boagie,

An action is formulated through thought, coordinating the body to produce desired effect, which then presents a number of reactions we can then choose to execute, in accordance with the shape in which a reaction has manifested. I think an action proceeds reaction and reaction proceeds action. I could be wrong

@de budding,

de_budding wrote:

Thanks Arjen,
I finally understand a priori and a posteriori!! w00t

Now we are so happy, we do the dance of joy!

@Arjen,

I was here when the money disappeared:D

:)Consciousness as reaction, as clear as this seems to be to me, we might ask, if subject and object can never be separated, in other words the contact between is a constant, then, could what seems to be reaction simply be part of a larger process of a whole. A recent finding in neurology, in controlled experiments, nuerons started firing nano-seconds before the stimulus was introduced. :confused:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

I was here when the money disappeared:D

:)Consciousness as reaction, as clear as this seems to be to me, we might ask, if subject and object can never be separated, in other words the contact between is a constant, then, could what seems to be reaction simply be part of a larger process of a whole. A recent finding in neurology, in controlled experiments, nuerons started firing nano-seconds before the stimulus was introduced.:confused:

Try to look at it from a different perspective. You have to turn the puzzle to look at it from a different perspective as it were.

Lets start by realising that consciousness is that which can be acted upon (and ot necessarily re-action). From there we must conclude that there is a difference between the possibilty to be acted upon from reaction. The difference is much the same as potentiality and actuality. Where then, does reason exist?- Is it a quantifier?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Try to look at it from a different perspective. You have to turn the puzzle to look at it from a different perspective as it were.
Lets start by realising that consciousness is that which can be acted upon (and ot necessarily re-action). From there we must conclude that there is a difference between the possibilty to be acted upon from reaction. The difference is much the same as potentiality and actuality. Where then, does reason exist?- Is it a quantifier?

Arjen,

"Lets start by realising that consciousness is that which can be acted upon [ not necessarily reaction]." How is it then not reaction? I have never addressed, never mind denied, a difference between possiablity and actuality, reason exists as the response of consciousness to the world as object. Actually reaction is an absolute I would say, one of the very few in this world, you have many choices in this world, you have no choice reguarding reaction itself, for even inaction/non-reaction, is a reaction itself to the stimulus of the world. There is much about your biology that is consciously involentary reaction to the world, these tend to involve essential functions.

@boagie,

Boagie,

Lets focus at this part for the moment:

Quote:

I have never addressed, never mind denied, a difference between possiablity and actuality, reason exists as the response of consciousness to the world as object

There is a difference between existence and reason. It is the same difference as between consciousness and self-consciousness. While self-consciousness cannot exist without consciousness consciousness can exist without self-consciousness. So things can exist without reason, while reason cannot exist without things. Or do you think it is the other way around and self-consciousness can exist without consciousness and with that reason without existence?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie,

Lets focus at this part for the moment:

There is a difference between existence and reason. It is the same difference as between consciousness and self-consciousness. While self-consciousness cannot exist without consciousness consciousness can exist without self-consciousness. So things can exist without reason, while reason cannot exist without things. Or do you think it is the other way around and self-consciousness can exist without consciousness and with that reason without existence?

Arjen,

I would suppose your right to some degree, reason has more to do with the evaluation of a circumstance, while instinct, has incorporated the evaluation of said circumstance. I think it is highly speculative on your part to believe that anything alive is not self-conscious, if life is consciousness and consciousness is life it would seem self-consciousness is available to all. If things can exist without reason, it is difficult for me to figure how you would know that? "So, things can exist without reason, while reason cannot exist without things,"---Subject and object stand or fall together, take away one, and all reality disappears. What we can think of as existing is mind dependent, what we can think of as existing is object dependent. Consciousness is the given when considering life, understaning in the form of reason and/or self-consciousness is common I would think to all life forms. Difficult perhaps to accept, that your next steak might have written the great American novel. Wink

Great blog Arjen!!:cool:

@boagie,

Boagie,

I think you and I agree on a good deal of things, but that we use different definitions. I am going to try to help you see what I am saying above and why I think it is so important. To do that I am going to define four terms. After that I hope you will read the last few of my posts again.

1) Existence is that which is present, material or otherwise. Rocks, plants, dust, animals, stars and perhaps spirits all exist (with the possible execption of spirits).
2) Reason is that which has the possibility to deny and thereby can think up anything instead of that which was denied. Not all things have the same capacity to reason I think. The capacity varies between none and pure reason.
3) Consciousness is that which can be acted upon. Therefore anything fysical at least is conciousness. I do not know abou the unphysical although I have the impression that can be acted upon as well. In that sense existence is cousciousness.
4) Self-consciousness is the realisation of consciousness by means of reason. Not every thing can be self-conscious in the same manner (or amount) because not all bodies facilitate the same reasoning faculties. In my opinion all life is self-conscious, but in different amounts.

Coming to your subject and object duality I think from above definitions one can surmise that when object is taken away consiousness could be lost; unless there is an unphysical part to this consciousness. With the consciousness the self-consciousness would disappear. Take away the subject and the object does not go anywhere. "Reality" shows a behavior that is stays where it is no matter what. The image of reality disappears with the subject (self-consciousness) though.

This leaves the question if consciousness is aware of "all-existence". I think so. This brings to life the question what consciousness really is though. Does it have limits like actuality or does it not like potentiality?

p.s.
Thanks for the compliment on the blog.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie,

I think you and I agree on a good deal of things, but that we use different definitions. I am going to try to help you see what I am saying above and why I think it is so important. To do that I am going to define four terms. After that I hope you will read the last few of my posts again.

1) Existence is that which is present, material or otherwise. Rocks, plants, dust, animals, stars and perhaps spirits all exist (with the possible execption of spirits).
2) Reason is that which has the possibility to deny and thereby can think up anything instead of that which was denied. Not all things have the same capacity to reason I think. The capacity varies between none and pure reason.
3) Consciousness is that which can be acted upon. Therefore anything fysical at least is conciousness. I do not know abou the unphysical although I have the impression that can be acted upon as well. In that sense existence is cousciousness.
4) Self-consciousness is the realisation of consciousness by means of reason. Not every thing can be self-conscious in the same manner (or amount) because not all bodies facilitate the same reasoning faculties. In my opinion all life is self-conscious, but in different amounts.

Coming to your subject and object duality I think from above definitions one can surmise that when object is taken away consiousness could be lost; unless there is an unphysical part to this consciousness. With the consciousness the self-consciousness would disappear. Take away the subject and the object does not go anywhere. "Reality" shows a behavior that is stays where it is no matter what. The image of reality disappears with the subject (self-consciousness) though.

This leaves the question if consciousness is aware of "all-existence". I think so. This brings to life the question what consciousness really is though. Does it have limits like actuality or does it not like potentiality?

p.s.
Thanks for the compliment on the blog.

Arjen,

I shall give your point of view considerable attention-- It shall take a little time.

"This leaves the question if consciousness is aware of "all-existence". I think so. This brings to life the question what consciousness really is though. Does it have limits like actuality or does it not like potentiality?"

:)It is true, actuality does have its limitations expressed as form, unlike potentiality which has no limits, but also it has no actuality, no form.:eek: it is NOT. How can what is not, be aware of, what is, in its totality?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Arjen,

I shall give your point of view considerable attention-- It shall take a little time.

"This leaves the question if consciousness is aware of "all-existence". I think so. This brings to life the question what consciousness really is though. Does it have limits like actuality or does it not like potentiality?"

:)It is true, actuality does have its limitations expressed as form, unlike potentiality which has no limits, but also it has no actuality, no form.:eek: it is NOT. How can what is not, be aware of, what is, in its totality?

Boagie,

To create the perfect analogy, does you consciousness or self-consciousness have form? Or is it "not" as well? And what exactly is this called in logic? And how is creation explained in logic?

I think the really interesting things begin here.

@Arjen,

Are you guys aware of the consciousness problems induced by the 'fathomless abyss'? You seemed to be treading on that territory in your last post Arjen.

Bellow is Susan Blackmore describing the fathomless abyss.

"Why am I here? Who am I anyway? Why does everything feel, and look, and hurt like this? I have been asking questions like this (or they have been asking me) ever since I can remember. For many years I thought I could find out by pursuing the paranormal - a fruitless task if ever there was one. Now the questions seem to converge on one big question - one that has been called the greatest remaining challenge to science - what is consciousness?

The problem of consciousness is real, and deep, and not quite like any other. I fell happily into it yesterday, walking high on the Devon cliffs, with the seagulls crying overhead. The grass brushing against my boots was so - well - grassy. It was green and lush and glistening, and changing all the time as I strode along. This grassiness was my experience. Only I had just this vision from just this point of view. Yet - and here is the problem - I also believe that there is real green grass growing on that cliff; that I have objectively real eyes that take in light; and objectively existing brain cells in my head that make me see. But how can this be? How can objective things like brain cells produce subjective experiences like the feeling that 'I' am striding through the grass?

This gap is what the American philosopher David Chalmers calls 'the hard problem'. Victorian thinkers called it the 'great chasm' or the 'fathomless abyss'..."

from Susan Blackmore.

The fathomless abyss gives wake to problems like attention, what is attention? Who controls attention? And these questions might start to highlight useful areas and perspectives of 'subject and object duality'.

Dan.

@de budding,

de budding, Smile

:)Experience is consciousness of the totality of consciousness, and as such, it is the immortality of consciousness itself--------no, not kidding! Consciousness itself is relative to nothing, it is not in need of meaning. Think about it, subject and object are one, same thing different name. Wink

@boagie,

Lol, point taken Boagie Smile

Dan.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie,

To create the perfect analogy, does you consciousness or self-consciousness have form? Or is it "not" as well? And what exactly is this called in logic? And how is creation explained in logic?

I think the really interesting things begin here.

Arjen,

Hmm, consciousness is a function so, I guess you are right, it is not form itself, it is the constitution of form. It comes down to this is consciousness the content or the container, it is both, would you not agree. It embodies subject and object. I am unsure if this is leading to any clarity, other than to say it is an open system, and we cannot see it in its totality/entirety.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

It is true, actuality (perspective) does have its limitations expressed as (concepts) form, unlike potentiality (Mind! Quantum wave field/undifferentiated potential) which has no limits, but also it has no actuality ('actuality/form' provided by Perspective), no form.:eek: it is NOT. How can what is not, be aware of, what is, in its totality?

'Consciousness' can only be 'aware' of 'Mind' through 'we' Perspectives.
We each look at 'Mind' in a very limited and truncated way (Perspective) and 'find' patterns that we accept as the (our, by perspective) world, the omniverse. Through us (Perspectives) only can 'God' know Itself/Mind. In a sense, we are God's Enlightenment.
There ya go.
*__-

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

And how is creation explained in logic?

How is the flavor sensations of a bite of ripe banana "explained in logic"?
*__-

@nameless,

More Cookies!! Smile

That which is unknown, is unknown, and is not by defination the supernatural! :rolleyes: Consciousness is reaction in its most elemental and its most sophisticated form, as a function of earth your mother, your governor!:cool: the earth your sustenance, reaction the means of partaking of that sustenance. The earth peoples as the apple tree apples--Allen Watts. Even your biological rhythms are reactions too, the music of the spheres.

@boagie,

nameless - there are possibly two subjects in here.
One: Reaction. As with all things, including plants reacting to sunlight, we have natural responses built in. Chemical balances, memory, association.
Two: Our sense of self awareness, not purely in a reactive light. This one tends to tilt towards the discussion of free will. If we are purely reactive and have no real freedom of will our choices are set in stone and all that will be is already decided, as we simply move with the flow. Even where we think we have free will and make a choice to prove it, some argue that this choice was already made. The forces affecting us, our memories and everything else predetermined a path.

This one question answers a great many more. If there is no consciousness what is the point of life? This same question asks what is the point of religion if there is no life? If there is no life, and no point, why do people seek religion and purpose? If there is no point to us, why do we feel there needs to be? That desire to have a purpose that affects so many - is that evidence of consciousness in itself?

Philosophy Forum

Consciousness As Reaction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know