Consciousness As Reaction

@boagie,

boagie;16276 wrote:

So, the only consciousness you are familar with is your own, and you assume...

Not necessarily. During periods when the 'ego' is not 'coloring' awareness (during some meditations, for example), there is no "your own" as there is no longer an individual autonomous 'I'.

Quote:

a great deal about others in order to conclude they are applying the same process to acheive the same results, the concept of cause and effect raises its ugly head.

Only if you insist on accepting an illusion based on an illusion. Science is supporting the 'obsolescence' of 'cause and effect linearity'. It is only an 'ugly head' due to it's darkly fantastic nature.

Quote:

The physical world dictates that you are a reactive creature, no ifs, ands or buts,

Always a dangerous thing to assert, as it is so easy to refute asserted 'universals'. But, from a cartain perspective, you can certainly assert that, from 'your' perspective. (Whats with the 'need' for universality?)
Sorry, I have no choice...
Peace

@nameless,

nameless,

It is quite simple nameless, give me one example of a human action, context inclusive, which is not in reality, reaction.

Nameless, If there is philosophy written about this folly of cause and effect would you direct me to it. I have looked but found nothing that really deals with this, there is apparently something of this nature in Hinduism but I have found nothing else.

@boagie,

boagie;16393 wrote:

It is quite simple nameless, give me one example of a human action, context inclusive, which is not in reality, reaction.

It is simply semantical perspective. If you conceed 'motion' in the first place, one can, mentally, using the notion of 'cause and effect', attribute any and all 'motion' as 'reactive'.
"An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force." One can translate the "acted upon" as a 'stimulous' and all 'action' can be seen as a 'reaction' to some stimulous, somewhere. So, from that perspective, you are correct, all 'action' would be 'reaction', a response to something (action, force, etc...)
It IS "in 'reality', reaction", but a small perspectival 'reality'.
Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime is an interesting read.
If you have a mathematical bent, perhaps you can understand this; On the Impossibility of Motion
Theres lots of reading matter on the subject.
No 'motion' = no 'action' or 'reaction'.
Only in (some of) 'our' dreams...

Quote:

Nameless, If there is philosophy written about this folly of cause and effect would you direct me to it.

Start with science, it is more 'their' area of examination. Philosophy must deal with science's findings...
The first time that I heard the new definition of 'cause and effect' to be called 'clumsy at best', and revised as "mutually arising features of a single 'event'" was from K.C. Cole. Written for the layperson, I forgot the name of the particular book, but a search will find her works. Well written and cogent...

Do a search on 'cause and effect' and you will find all sorts of works in evidence of it's obsolescence. Evidence is also exhibited by quantum's 'finding' that 'space/time' is quantised. Little 'Planck' moments, all existing synchronously. If quantum is correct here, and the evidence is that it is correct, so far; 1/4 of the US economy is based upon the quantum theory, and everything that qm has predicted has manifested!
Think, if every moment is so 'small' that there is no 'time' for anything to 'move', then 'movement' is an illusion of perspective. That which is based on an illusion, in this case the linear notion of 'time' and 'cause and effect', is just as 'illusory', ultimately, unreal. Within the perspective of linearity, 'time' and 'cause and effect' are inherent, and have sole 'validity' within that Perspective. It it not 'universal', as you claim, nor is it 'true' of the basic nature of existence.

Quote:

I have looked but found nothing that really deals with this, there is apparently something of this nature in Hinduism but I have found nothing else.

Try a search for the 'impossibility of motion' and 'motion is impossible' for starters. If you find that 'motion' is impossible (but by perspective), then, I'm sure that you'll feel differently about your 'universal assertions'.
Peace

@nameless,

Nameless,

:)Very interesting, I am not entirely new to the idea of a holistic approach, it seems this theory though is breaching what has been called ultimate reality, fascinating!! I cannot say that I understand it however, but some of the discoveries are indeed mind blowing. We however have to continue to function in what might be called apparent reality or the illusion if you like. I think you will agree that both cause and effect and my premise of an utterly relational world both fall under this concept of illusion. Even if we become aware of just what this ultimate reality is, the chances are that we will still have to function within the illuison. Nietzsche touched on this, when he suggested that our adaptation just may be adaptation to our own illusions. At anyrate I wish to thank you for your efforts, they were not futile.

:)So, for the functionality of it I still think it is a better approach this relational world than the linear understanding of cause and effect. Perhaps I can reciprocate in introducing relevant material. I noticed in our dialogue that you did not seem familar with the concept of and open and a close system. I think you might find the following delightful reading, "General systems theory, systems theory also cybernetics, or holistic science. These are the new science as oppossed to the reductionism of traditional science. Again thanks for the info, I shall attempt a greater understanding of said materials and perhaps we could have future dialogues on the topic.

@boagie,

boagie;16535 wrote:

Nameless,
Very interesting, I am not entirely new to the idea of a holistic approach, it seems this theory though is breaching what has been called ultimate reality, fascinating!! I cannot say that I understand it however, but some of the discoveries are indeed mind blowing. We however have to continue to function in what might be called apparent reality or the illusion if you like. I think you will agree that both cause and effect and my premise of an utterly relational world both fall under this concept of illusion. Even if we become aware of just what this ultimate reality is, the chances are that we will still have to function within the illuison. Nietzsche touched on this, when he suggested that our adaptation just may be adaptation to our own illusions. At anyrate I wish to thank you for your efforts, they were not futile.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Quote:

So, for the functionality of it I still think it is a better approach this relational world than the linear understanding of cause and effect.

As far as 'functionality' within this 'dream', I find that the better understood the 'dream' (our apparent reality) the greater the (apparent) ability to 'control' (yes, ego) it, vastly improving on the 'experience'. With common understanding, one can work and earn ten dollars. With some understanding of the 'dream mechanics of our dream reality', we can 'find' that ten dollars falling from the sky at our feet! No 'work' today. 'Magic' (quantum applications) is a deeper understanding of the true basic nature of existence, and dealing from that level. It is still a 'dream', but a new and 'powerful' one. A joy to 'play' and behold, but a 'dream' nontheless.

Quote:

Perhaps I can reciprocate in introducing relevant material. I noticed in our dialogue that you did not seem familar with the concept of and open and a close system. I think you might find the following delightful reading, "General systems theory, systems theory also cybernetics, or holistic science. These are the new science as oppossed to the reductionism of traditional science. Again thanks for the info, I shall attempt a greater understanding of said materials and perhaps we could have future dialogues on the topic.

open system
Definition: a changeable and alterable set of doctrines, ideas, or things; a system that is affected by outside influences

closed system
Definition: a complete and seemingly unchangeable set of doctrines, ideas, or things; a self-contained system that is unaffected by outside influences

I am familiar witht the concepts, though, I do not see/acknowledge any such 'belief' in 'outside influences'. No 'outside' has ever been evidenced but via 'naive realism', much less it's 'influence'.

Thank you, though, for the references. I have 'brushed by them' in my travels, but I'll take another look next time i'm in the neighborhood.
Peace

@nameless,

Come on my fellow associates, Smile

Just on a common sense basis, give me an example of cause and effect which is most definately NOT a reaction. Even in your personal interactions, they are not interactions, they are inter-reactions. Wink

Maybe God does actions, you, you do reactions.

@boagie,

I finally read this thread, though I skipped the holistics because some people can't think hard enough to enjoy that fancy stuff when its midnight.
Firstly, in terms of self conscious and conscious, I always thought that being conscious was implying self awareness.

Also, "Freedom is the ability to act independently of the will, or at the best develop your own will" - somebody from the start of forum.

Yeah well developing my own will is the most freedom that I want. Life would not be interesting without something thrown at me.

Edit: Also, what is that linearality thing you were all discussing earlier in the thread.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

I finally read this thread, though I skipped the holistics because some people can't think hard enough to enjoy that fancy stuff when its midnight.
Firstly, in terms of self conscious and conscious, I always thought that being conscious was implying self awareness.

Also, "Freedom is the ability to act independently of the will, or at the best develop your own will" - somebody from the start of forum.

Yeah well developing my own will is the most freedom that I want. Life would not be interesting without something thrown at me.

Edit: Also, what is that linearality thing you were all discussing earlier in the thread.

Holiday,

One cannot react to the world without a will behind it, behaviour is dependent upon the will. Linear simply means one directional as far as I know, the arrow of time, the process of cause and effect ect..,.Your question about selfconscious and consciousness I leave to nameless.

@Arjen,

The arrow implies that causality 'flows', the flow of time right? So the premise gives reason for the action or reaction, whatever you want to call it.
What if, the smaller the pieces of matter, the less of an effect causality has on it. Say leptons and quarks being less effected by causality and planets and stars more effected by causality. More randomness in the smaller scope, and more causality, reason, for the broader scope of things. Never though would pure randomness or pure reason exist through the 'scope'. Causality is like gravity, they both have less of an effect on the smaller scope, but a larger effect on the broader scope.
Causality is to reality as gravity is to its actuality.

So there is no arrow, it is all relative to your perspective. The conscience just allows for perception, making the illusion of an arrow, because we are able to piece together events being forced through causality.

What I want to know is what was the start of causality, the beginning of time, why was there a beginning. If there is a cause for every effect then the start or beginning must have happened by a complete random occurrence, because then causality was not of influence upon the beginning. Causality would imply the need for a constant prelude for an instance in time. So I could say that time's beginning was by a purely random instance, or time did not always exist. If time did not always exist then nor would causality. But causality is linked to gravity and Einstein saw time and gravity as linked, so perhaps at one point gravity and time or causality and time were separated. Therefore making time not a force upon reality at all because time's force depends on causality which depends on the actuality of gravity.
Say time requires gravity to have causality. Then we could say that the two were once separated, perhaps due to gravity being separated or combined with a different force.
So if the two were separated then that could account for the beginning of the universe because that would explain the pure randomness once existing if need be.:painting:

:deep-thought: :confused: :depressed:

Relation to conscience and reaction.

So if you understood my post here, basically reaction only exists with perception, but action which has no causal basis does not require conscience. We as a conscious being are reactions to the surroundings just as Boagie suggested.

:a-thought:Whatever reaction we perceive the reasoning to is conscience. We do 'act' but that is not to be construed with conscience, because an action does not require control.
[CENTER]:popcorn:
[/CENTER]

@Holiday20310401,

Time, Time, Time:dots: I think its time I got some sleep! I can't think sanely anymore. :sleeping:

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Time, Time, Time:dots: I think its time I got some sleep! I can't think sanely anymore. :sleeping:

Holiday,

Sorry if my response to you was simplistic, guess I was a little tired too.

@boagie,

No I wasn't implying that, just sort of went on a rant about causality and other such matters. Hopefully you can interpret what I just wrote (post) with the painting smilie in it.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday,

I reread your post on gravity, time and causation, but I must admit I do not understand it quite, that gravity is essential to causation? I remmember thinking at one time that time itself was dependent upon consciousness, that it is not in fact something substantial. Now however it seems that time travel is considered a possiable reality, well, it would then need be substantial would it not? At anyrate you are saying that cause is not a necessity in this scheme, or is not dependent upon consciousness, yet reaction is dependent upon consciousness? Without understanding fully the above I would say, for living things this is true, as consciousness is reaction, but there is also reaction in the physcial world, thus indicating where the seed or spark of consciousness is utterly common to the living and inanimate world in degrees.

@boagie,

Basically, I had a thought that occurred to me. What if consciousness alters the nature of time itself. I mean think about it.. if every bit of matter and energy was conscious what causal (causality) state would we the universe be in. Maybe there is a proportional relationship between the ratio of potential energy of conscious matter and potential energy of unconscious matter to that of the flow of time. Time perhaps doesn't actually flow, and all actions are 'actions', not reactions, until you construe actions with conscious beings, then they become reactions. The nature of the universe has the fundamental forces of nature; singularized as a being)
The more an action is a reaction the more time flows during the duration of the cause and effect. The more an action is an 'action' the less time flows during the duration of the cause and effect.
[relativistically to the universe (defined by the limits of Olber's bubble of course)]

I believe that in order for time to exist the universe must be closed in some way, perhaps Olber's bubble is the answer.

What would be interesting is once beyond the bubble, perhaps time is no longer linked to gravity. It would be interesting to prove.

Consciousness is like a force driven by intellect, the more intellect we have the more conscious we become, in a sense, I'm speculating here so I'm probably wrong. It could mean the application of action to reaction. But perhaps there's a more actual side to it.

The movement of matter, it's organization is affected by the fundamental forces right? Gravity, strong, etc.

So while I feel it would be insane to imply that without a conscious being present the universe would be in utter chaos perhaps the fundamental forces of nature only allow for that, but I had another less apt conclusion that I can't seem to piece together, dang brain.. WORK, 12:30 am. ... stupid:brickwall:.

@Holiday20310401,

Oh yes

back to the essential point, connecting causation to gravity, knew there was a link to the web I was missing.

Causality, cause and effect; principle between cause and effect.

Critical explanation tomorrow, plz :asleep: tired.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday,

Marvelous spectulations Holiday, but I am afraid you are losing me. I thought to discuss the problem of consciousness as reaction in the relatively familar territory of what now occupies the common understanding of cause and effect. However I have learn with starting these threads that one cannot control always where others wish to take the topic, but it does seem entirely theoretical and little in the way of a common sense understanding.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Holiday,

Marvelous speculations Holiday, but I am afraid you are losing me. I thought to discuss the problem of consciousness as reaction in the relatively familiar territory of what now occupies the common understanding of cause and effect. However I have learn with starting these threads that one cannot control always where others wish to take the topic, but it does seem entirely theoretical and little in the way of a common sense understanding.

Well let me push your buttons further by mentioning to Holiday that I had the thought that conscious beings keep the order of the earth before. While looking for reasons to explain the innate feeling that we are in control (I think it is universal that humans want to control.) What I ended up describing was a world which we built in our heads though with us at the center.

Here is what I concluded that reminds me of ...

Quote:

So while I feel it would be insane to imply that without a conscious being present the universe would be in utter chaos perhaps the fundamental forces of nature only allow for that

The chaos which existed before consciousness, still does exist, but just beyond our perception. We draw and convert choice information from the chaos via our senses; we create our own world of order- order only for our perspective, hence why quantum mechanics only works in probability to us, and perhaps why unifying theories are so vastly abstract and confusing. But still, yes we create this world of light, form, matter, forces, distance and time and then start to categorize this world into objects, differentiating between them when there values vary (e.g distance, color, texture.)

Is it possible that we have created a human only world- apparent-reality, by extracting and converting information from actual-reality; this apparent-reality allows the stability for consciousness, and consciousness allows the mental stability and learning potential for the categorization, which goes on to allow self-conscience.

We filter and manipulate the information of chaos via a complex chain of conversions (e.g. the pivot of our elbow and biceps reading the effect of gravity on objects, giving rise to a new invented value- weight.)

So without a conscious being the universe is in utter chaos, and with it- still is! We build our world around our minds giving the illusion of order.

Dan.

@de budding,

The first axiom of triunity is that knowledge of anything requires at least three elements.

The concept of a cause as an existent with no other existents is meaningless at best. To identify an existent cause requires, at the very least, the identification of a (potentially) existent effect.

Note: I included the parenthetical modification (potentially) to avoid a
discussion of first cause(s) at this time.

The conception of both a cause and an effect is still inadequate to provide any meaningful understanding of either. What's missing is the third element of understanding: i.e., the relationship between the two.

Corollaries:
1) The conception of cause necessarily includes an implicit or explicit
understanding of a relationship, or process, that produces, or creates,
an effect. As simple as 1 2 3.

2) The conception of an effect necessarily includes an implicit or explicit understanding of a relationship, or process, it was produced by, or created by, a cause. As simple as 3 2 1.

3) The conception of a relationship, or process, necessarily includes an
implicit or explicit understanding of a cause, or stimuli, as part of the relationship, or process, that is producing or creating an effect or a response. As simple as 2 1 3 or as 2 3 1.

Also:
1) There could be no stimulus without a mechanism or process that could
produce a response.

2) There could be no response without a mechanism or process that receives some stimuli.

3) The could be no observable mechanism or process that does not have input and output.

Cor ad cor loquitor.

_____________________
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/

So many misconceptions, so little time.

@de budding,

de_budding wrote:

Well let me push your buttons further by mentioning to Holiday that I had the thought that conscious beings keep the order of the earth before.

Sorry, I never actually read the forum:o, I was speculating without your influence. Also, I don't mean just the Earth but as far as perception can go.

de_budding wrote:

(I think it is universal that humans want to control.)

I don't think that humanity wants to control the universe, it seems to me that a lot of people in the world allow the figure of God or an omniscience to control them rather. People just want to know the universe, it is in our nature to want to know why, sometimes there is simply no reason; or perhaps its all about rationalizing all things that interact with our perception.

de_budding wrote:

The chaos which existed before consciousness, still does exist, but just beyond our perception.

Isn't it better that we can establish patterns and give it cogency to our perception, meaning that chaos is below our perception:lol:

de_budding wrote:

We draw and convert choice information from the chaos via our senses; we create our own world of order- order only for our perspective, hence why quantum mechanics only works in probability to us

I haven't taken quantum mechanics yet, do we get to do that sort of thing in highschool? So is quantum mechanics like a theoretically understandable to any perception's cogence?

de_budding wrote:

But still, yes we create this world of light, form, matter, forces, distance and time and then start to categorize this world into objects

But the values of the mind of a different intellect would still remain the same. It is perception that changes, not the universe.

de_budding wrote:

which goes on to allow self-conscience.

I still don't understand why you wish to catagorize a difference between self conscience and conscience.

de_budding wrote:

So without a conscious being the universe is in utter chaos, and with it- still is! We build our world around our minds giving the illusion of order.

What if perception was so keen, so apt to understanding the universe the way it is that to that person the universe would appear very much in a single pattern, easily discerned; as if the universe is 'fated' because it became potentially just a linear display. All anomalies accounted for as part of the discernable pattern due to the perception's high understanding, perhaps due to great intellect or whatever you may want to call it. :rolleyes:

By comparison we realise that the universe has unlimited potential, as if it were 'meant' for conscious beings contained in it. But that would imply that the container has a conscious, thats something I can't accpet, so perhaps the universe only exists through experience, and that conscious beings add some actual force to its entropy just as a society must reach entropy at one point or change its structure. The universe can only be gauged by conscious beings present in actuality, the delineation would contempt the universe to an end that parallels that of conscience, but also of the inevitable.The end justify's the means thus leading back to causality, and intentions that only exist as reactions.

Philosophy Forum

Consciousness As Reaction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know