The Causes of Consciousness

[Cory Duchesne]

To get the most out of this thread, I recomend reading the first few posts of this thread, if not the entirety of it.

I'll open this up by quoting David Quinn:

A thing only finds its existence in the perspective generated by an observer. As soon as you try to think of an objective world existing beyond the mind, you are immediately generating a perspective for such a world to exist in. Even things like "the topography of an objective world" requires a perspective to provide shape, definition and existence to it.

Can anything exist without this perspective? That is the question you need to ponder deeply. I have concluded that it is impossible. The idea of a thing existing without a perspective generated by an observer is meaningless to me. I place it in the same same category as a square circle. You can conceive of it in a loose sense, but at its core it is too self-contradictory and incoherent to be meaningful.

Self contradictory? Tell me then, how exactly is this following statement uttered by you, not self contradictory as well?

Cory: I don't see any reason why what I percieve with my senses, cannot continue to act beyond. For instance, bread that I forgot about in the cupboard now has mold on it. The last time consciousness cast itself on the bread (a week ago) there was no mold. Now there is plenty of mold. Obviously there was something happening to the bread during the time when consciousness was not cast upon it. In other words, we take what our senses tell us, we reason about that empirical data, and we use logic to extrapolate our way to the conclusion that objective reality continues beyond the senses.


David Quinn: Imagine you are having a dream at night, wherein you place a piece of bread on a table and then come back to it some time later to find there is mold on it. Are we to conclude from this that the dream-bread slowly accumulated mold outside of the dreaming state while you were away doing something else?

Cory: Don't you think this is a bad analogy? The images in our dreams are mainly the result of accumulating and replaying the data of our waking life. Comparing the dream world to waking life, at least in the way you are trying to, does not seem reasonable.

David Quinn: I think it's apt. It illustrates that the experience of a particular world doesn't have to be generated by a similar world existing independently of the mind. It can be generated, for example, by neurons and chemical firings alone.

I think it's pretty obvious how self contradictory the above is. David, you're basically saying: "It's inconceivable to think that the tree is being generated by the sunlight radiating from above it because that would imply there is something existing outside of the tree - the truth is that the tree is being generated by the activity of the soil! "

In otherwords David, using neurons and chemicals to argue that conscious is not generated by things apart from consciousness, is highly absurd.

(edited to fix grammar)

[David Quinn]

The main point is that a world can conceivably be generated in zillions of different ways. The idea of an independent world existing beyond the mind which resembles the one we experience within the mind is just one of them. In other words, there is no logical necessity for what is beyond the mind to mirror, in any shape or form, the world we experience with our minds.

And when you think about it more closely, it is literally impossible for the world beyond the mind to resemble our own. This is because our own world is dependent upon consciousness to bring it into being. Without consciousness, the world we experience couldn't possibly exist, just as without a spark a fire can't spring into being.

This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

The main point is that a world can conceivably be generated in zillions of different ways.

Instead, why don't we say, "a world can be reflected in zillions of different ways"

There is no logical necessity for what is beyond the mind to mirror, in any shape or form, the world we experience with our minds.

Can you give me any examples to help me understand why this is so? Is there any scientific evidence suggesting this?

And when you think about it more closely, it is literally impossible for the world beyond the mind to resemble our own.

Evidence strongly suggests the contrary. As I said before, a Kitten raised in pitch black, exposed periodically to horizontal strips of light, grows up into a cat that cannot detect vertical motion, but only horizontal. The mental world of the cat, resembles the 'portions' of outer world it was exposed to.

Our own world is dependent upon consciousness to bring it into being.

Our unique mental representation of the world is dependent on the brain. Our unique mental rep is also, of course, dependent on the outer stimuli from the obective world that impinges upon and is recorded by the brain.

Without consciousness, the world we experience couldn't possibly exist, just as without a spark a fire can't spring into being.

Without our consciousness, the world 'as we subjectively experience' couldn't possibly exist. But the world as we subjectively experience is generated by an objective world (albeit, unknowable in it's entirety).

This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.

And what are these causes! You see, whether you like it or not, the very way in which you are using your language implies an objective world.

[clyde]

It doesn't matter how conscious a person becomes, his knowledge and awareness of his own causes will always be miniscule compared to his ignorance of them. The infinite array of causes which led to his formation will always stretch infinitely beyond his horizons, no matter how large his mind becomes.

This is the Unknowing. I would only add that this applies to the cause of all things, including consciousness.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Leyla Shen]

Can you give me any examples to help me understand why this is so? Is there any scientific evidence suggesting this?

Scientific evidence doesn't suffice, since it is necessarily part of the same "system" as the mind. You would have to show that the inference "mind" doesn't exist in order to make a logical case for an objectively existing universe.

Can you do that?

[David Quinn]

Cory,

DQ: The main point is that a world can conceivably be generated in zillions of different ways.

C: Instead, why don't we say, "a world can be reflected in zillions of different ways"

Because that would be misleading. When a cloud forms in the sky, it isn't a reflection of some other cloud somewhere else. Instead, it is a unique creation of that moment, with no other counterpart elsewhere.

The world we experience in each moment is just like this. It is like a cloud which comes into being when the circumstances are ripe - such as when our consciousness arises - and doesn't have a counterpart anywhere else.

DQ: There is no logical necessity for what is beyond the mind to mirror, in any shape or form, the world we experience with our minds.

C: Can you give me any examples to help me understand why this is so? Is there any scientific evidence suggesting this?

As Leyla says, scientific evidence is of no use in this issue, as it is part of the system being explained.

However, science can provide us with illustrative analogies - for example, a surreal simulated world programmed into a computer, generated entirely by algorithms. This is an example of a world being created in the absence of an "objective" mirror world.

DQ: And when you think about it more closely, it is literally impossible for the world beyond the mind to resemble our own.

C: Evidence strongly suggests the contrary. As I said before, a Kitten raised in pitch black, exposed periodically to horizontal strips of light, grows up into a cat that cannot detect vertical motion, but only horizontal. The mental world of the cat, resembles the 'portions' of outer world it was exposed to.

Again, you're missing the point with these appeals to empirical evidence. For example, if our world is a computer simulation (and it could easily be so), then the phenomenon you describe would be a product of the underlying algorithms, and not of any kind of mirror world.

DQ: Our own world is dependent upon consciousness to bring it into being.

C: Our unique mental representation of the world is dependent on the brain. Our unique mental rep is also, of course, dependent on the outer stimuli from the obective world that impinges upon and is recorded by the brain.

That is true, with the proviso that the "objective world" you are speaking of here, together with the brain, is part of the system we are trying to explain. They are part of the construction of consciousness we experience from moment to moment.

DQ: This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.

C: And what are these causes! You see, whether you like it or not, the very way in which you are using your language implies an objective world.

I'm not denying there is reality beyond the mind. I'm only denying it has a form which resembles anything that we experience in our consciousness construct. It cannot have this form because the all-important ingredient of consciousness, which is integral to the world we experience, is absent beyond the mind.

What lies beyond the mind is "unformed", if you like. It is real, it has the power to generate the world we experience, it is not nothingness. But it is entirely without form as we know it.

So it isn't the case that it does have a form and we just can't know it. Rather, it literally doesn't have a form for us to know.

-

[keenobserver]

Cory, food for thought: consider two dissimilar perspectives of the one only universe, the first perceived with ordinary senses on, the second experienced with senses off.

[Cory Duchesne]

DQ: The main point is that a world can conceivably be generated in zillions of different ways.

C: Instead, why don't we say, "a world can be reflected in zillions of different ways"

Because that would be misleading. When a cloud forms in the sky, it isn't a reflection of some other cloud somewhere else.

Hmmm, I don't get it. I don't know what you're trying to say there.

I'm just saying the mind is like a mirror, reflecting the cloud. You havent given me a convincing reason for why this can't be true.

But there are cases where two people express astonishment over the same sunset. Or likewise, the fishermen and the fish see the same lure, albeit in different ways. What confuses me (the stumbling block of many, presumably) is the plurality of minds all responding and reacting to the same, seemingly 'outer' objects and stimuli.

The world we experience in each moment is just like this. It is like a cloud which comes into being when the circumstances are ripe - such as when our consciousness arises - and doesn't have a counterpart anywhere else.

But David, if what you are saying is true, don't you see that the big stumbling block for an unenlightened soul like me is the sense that there are cases where two people express astonishment over the same sunset? Or likewise, the fishermen and the fish see the same lure, albeit in different ways. IOW, what confuses me (the stumbling block of many, presumably) is the sense of there being a plurality of minds all responding and reacting to the same, seemingly 'outer' objects/stimuli. I think that if you're trying to enlighten someone on this, you are going to have to address the bizzareness of that.

DQ: There is no logical necessity for what is beyond the mind to mirror, in any shape or form, the world we experience with our minds.

Maybe so, but it doesn't seem to me like there is a logical neccessity for the world we experience with our minds, to be generated by allogrithms either. Or is there? Obviously I don't, in my present state, see it. (but even if it is generated by allogrithms in another dimension, the world we experience is nonetheless supplanted by a mirror world, albeit, a radically different world than what our senses indicate.

Science can provide us with illustrative analogies - for example, a surreal simulated world programmed into a computer, generated entirely by algorithms. This is an example of a world being created in the absence of an "objective" mirror world.

Ok, but Quinn, was there ever a time in your life where you asked yourself - but these algorithms......what is generating them?

DQ: And when you think about it more closely, it is literally impossible for the world beyond the mind to resemble our own.

I would like to see the logical proof. I don't get the sense that I understand why this is certain. Furthermore, notice how you just said that there is a 'world beyond the mind.'

Cory: Kitten raised in pitch black, exposed periodically to horizontal strips of light, grows up into a cat that cannot detect vertical motion, but only horizontal. The mental world of the cat, resembles the 'portions' of outer world it was exposed to.

Quinn: Again, you're missing the point with these appeals to empirical evidence. For example, if our world is a computer simulation (and it could easily be so), then the phenomenon you describe would be a product of the underlying algorithms, and not of any kind of mirror world.

if? What else could it possibly be, according to you?

DQ: Our own world is dependent upon consciousness to bring it into being.

C: Our unique mental representation of the world is dependent on the brain. Our unique mental rep is also, of course, dependent on the outer stimuli from the obective world that impinges upon and is recorded by the brain.

That is true, with the proviso that the "objective world" you are speaking of here, together with the brain, is part of the system we are trying to explain.

It's part of the system we are trying to explain in the same way that the roots of a tree are part of the fruit hanging off the tree's branches.

DQ: This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.

C: And what are these causes! You see, whether you like it or not, the very way in which you are using your language implies an objective world.

I'm not denying there is reality beyond the mind. I'm only denying it has a form which resembles anything that we experience in our consciousness construct. It cannot have this form because the all-important ingredient of consciousness, which is integral to the world we experience, is absent beyond the mind.

The problem though David, is that you keep telling me that without helping me see why this is an absolute certainty. I want to understand the logic, not just dogmatically believe what you keep repeating.

What lies beyond the mind is "unformed", if you like.

But my understanding of formlessness has always been based on apprehending (not picturing) the implications of an infinite objective world without begining or end.

It is real, it has the power to generate the world we experience, it is not nothingness. But it is entirely without form as we know it.
So it isn't the case that it does have a form and we just can't know it. Rather, it literally doesn't have a form for us to know.

But then you say it's perhaps generated by algorithms....
I'm curious, was there a time in your life when you found what you are saying to me contradictory and nonesensical?

My position is: the totality in it's entirety does not have a form because it has no boundaries, yet its infinite parts are absolute forms. Maybe I have some serious deficits in my thinking ability <shrug>

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory, food for thought: consider two dissimilar perspectives of the one only universe, the first perceived with ordinary senses on, the second experienced with senses off.

Well, by analogy I can imagine two different mirrors, each with a reflective surface warped in a unique way. Both reflect the one universe.

Now, to imagine 'senses off', I picture covering the second mirror with a black cloth or smashing it.

In other words, I think 'senses on' is a requisite for experiencing (reflecting). Experiencing without senses, by my logic, is impossible.

[Cory Duchesne]

Can you give me any examples to help me understand why this is so? Is there any scientific evidence suggesting this?

Scientific evidence doesn't suffice, since it is necessarily part of the same "system" as the mind. You would have to show that the inference "mind" doesn't exist in order to make a logical case for an objectively existing universe.

Can you do that?

Like I said to David, the objective world seems to me like it is the roots of a tree and subjective experience seems like branches of that tree. In that sense, subjective and objective are really one undivided whole.

My analogy of the roots and branches of the tree work quite nicely I think, whereas all of David's examples seem self contradictory.

[Nick]

Here's an essay I wrote on consciousness a couple months ago. Opinions on it are encouraged and welcome.

Infinite Consciousness
Who are we, where are we, and what are we doing? Is there really anyone to call you at all? Well, our minds are thinking, and we are constantly analyzing our surroundings, so something must be going on. Still, what exactly is going on? Is the source of this consciousness we experience really just a result of our brain firing of electro-chemical signals? Last but certainly not least; is there something we should be aspiring towards aside from the mundane worldly activities we actively or passively take part in? These are the kinds of questions I will be exploring and hopefully answering within this piece of writing, unlocking the secrets of Nature, so to speak.

What is the individual comprised of? For starters he has his own unique mind, body, and experiences. All of which are constantly changing through one’s own efforts, and the efforts of others, but ultimately we are being reshaped rather effortlessly by the hand of Nature. Nature’s tool in this seamless process can be broken down to the most fundamental aspect of this perceived duality, which is causality. Causality is the relationship of cause and effect, for every action there is a reaction of some sort. Just the way a drop of water lands in the center of a lake and ripples out towards every edge of the shore, so too do our thoughts and actions ripple out into the infinite shores of Nature. All entities, no matter how we choose to divide them are born from this causal chain of events, except for Nature itself. So when we reflect on ourselves we see that we are only one tiny piece of this infinite chain, determined to do whatever it is that we do.

With that said, let’s take a closer look at consciousness. When most scientists think about why we are conscious, they point to the brain as either the main or sole piece that attributes to this phenomenon. In all actuality there are a number of things allowing our consciousness to exist at any given moment. Some things that come to mind are the process of evolution which might result in a mind capable of consciousness, our body parts that pump and cleanse our blood, air that contains enough oxygen, a survivable temperature, water and food, genetic inheritance, as well as one’s own unique experiences. All these things come together in an equally significant way that shapes our individual consciousness. The list of causes is literally infinite, and truth be told our bodies don’t stop at the edge of our skin, no; our bodies are comprised of the infinite magnitude of Nature itself.

Now we may not be aware of everything that is happening in Nature, just like we aren’t aware of what every cell in our body is doing, but never-the-less if we can accept this Absolute Truth we literally become the mind of God. Exploring consciousness a bit further, we begin to see that it is constantly changing and has no absolute dwelling to which we can point to and say “there it is!” We are truly a different person each and every moment, physically and consciously. Every moment our cellular structure is changing, our memories add and forget new information, with new thoughts and experiences constantly changing who and what we are. We are being reborn each and every seamless moment. The only difference between these moments is just how drastic each rebirth is. Sometimes it might seem too subtle to even take notice; sometimes it may end our consciousness all together. Still no matter if we are aware of it or not, our consciousness lives on forever in the ways that we affected others and our surroundings, in other words, how we affect our “greater body”.

My hope is that this piece of writing inspires people to realize how much responsibility each of us has in the greater scheme of things, and just how important it is for us to be as honest and thoughtful as possible about everything we do no matter how painful it may seem at the time. Die the great death and be reborn a Buddha, a sage, or simply a man of Truth, a person who lives not for the moment, but for the Infinite, the true nature of our consciousness.

[Cory Duchesne]

Nick, your essay was very clearly written and conforms to my view of how things are. However, I found it was like drinking water when I already have plenty of it, and am really in need of food. Your essay doesnt challenge conventional notions of physicalism (a.k.a, monism, materialism), but rather seems only to support it, and you don't really explore or go into why it is that the objective world is an illusion (maybe you don't believe or understand how such is so) or why it is certain that the interactions that comprise our sense of existing must extend infinitely through infinite interaction/transformation. These are all things that I intuitively sense are true, but presently I don't sense I'm able to present logical truths in a way that proves them with certainty. And this is what I'm hungering for.

[Steven Coyle]

...and you don't really explore or go into why it is that the objective world is an illusion (maybe you don't believe or understand how such is so) or why it is certain that the interactions that comprise our sense of existing must extend infinitely through infinite interaction/transformation. These are all things that I intuitively sense are true, but presently I don't sense I'm able to present logical truths in a way that proves them with certainty. And this is what I'm hungering for.

Cory,

I'd like to attempt to answer some of your questions concerning the more logical components of the Infinite. It's also a good opportunity for me to strengthen some of my own thinking on the subject.

It's my understanding that the world is an illusion based on the knowledge that we are only ever experiencing our own minds. We are only ever within our own sense structure. This allows for Reality to conform to both the chemical functioning of our brain, and the even more enigmatic processes of the hidden void. The combination of the hidden void, and the human mind, makes for a fairly interesting combination: As their continuous interaction leaves room for the mind to also potentially communicate with the hidden void. I think this is largely the reason that particle physics has discovered that at the source of emperical reality, there is nothing, as it is impossible for the nature of what lies outside of the mind to be known emperically. There is also the notion of the objective world as illusion when the conception of emptiness is brought into play. With emptiness and logic, the world is an illusion, as their is no place for objective truth to reside. All is relative. Not to say that there is no truth, just many truths, as Nietszche points out.

Our sense of existing extends infinitely due to the fact that something can't arise out of no-thing: As causality requires a cause as well as an effect.

Hope this helps shed some light on the matter.

Peace,

Steven

[Cory Duchesne]

...and you don't really explore or go into why it is that the objective world is an illusion (maybe you don't believe or understand how such is so) or why it is certain that the interactions that comprise our sense of existing must extend infinitely through infinite interaction/transformation. These are all things that I intuitively sense are true, but presently I don't sense I'm able to present logical truths in a way that proves them with certainty. And this is what I'm hungering for.

Our sense of existing extends infinitely due to the fact that something can't arise out of no-thing: As causality requires a cause as well as an effect.

I'll just deal with this chunk for now ^

Steven, what if both the cause and effect were always present simultaneously, and as a body was limited to a a sort of cyclical recurrence that was in some way finite?

[Steven Coyle]

...and you don't really explore or go into why it is that the objective world is an illusion (maybe you don't believe or understand how such is so) or why it is certain that the interactions that comprise our sense of existing must extend infinitely through infinite interaction/transformation. These are all things that I intuitively sense are true, but presently I don't sense I'm able to present logical truths in a way that proves them with certainty. And this is what I'm hungering for.

Our sense of existing extends infinitely due to the fact that something can't arise out of no-thing: As causality requires a cause as well as an effect.

I'll just deal with this chunk for now ^

Steven, what if both the cause and effect were always present simultaneously, and as a body was limited to a a sort of cyclical recurrence that was in some way finite?

Kind of like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence.

An infinite circle.

But this would still violate the law of causality, with a kind of reverse causal function - instead of causality functioning in a logical, continuous, a/b manner - your example says that causality, the basis of everything, functions with an underlying independent logorithm of some kind, allowing for an effect to also be its own cause. Since the mind creates the bounderies of cause and effect through observance, your example is really describing the natural state of existence, so in way, cause and effect were always present simultaneously - just not in the manner in which you illustrate.

A cyclical model of existence also dictates that something can potentially arise out of nothing, which still violates the physics of causality. Your being too kind to the nature of existence. :)

[David Quinn]

Cory,

It all hinges on the basic premise that existence is appearance, that existence cannot occur outside of a perspective generated by an observer. Everything else follows logically from this.

So it all boils down to whether you accept this premise as being true or not.

I can't really help you with this. You have to inwardly discover this in your own mind. It's a bit like A=A. It is too fundamental to explain. You either see it or you don't.

You have to think about what the very concept of existence means. What do we really mean by existence? Can there be any kind of existence outside of the realm of the observer's perspective?

Also keep in mind that it is a non-empirical issue. It is not a cosmological or metaphysical issue, in the sense of attempting to create a theory that rivals the Big Bang or God. It is more fundamental than that.

For example, when I refer to the possibility that the world is a computer simulation generated by algorithms, I'm not really affirming this as a belief that should be taken seriously. I'm merely using it to undermine the idea of a physical world existing beyond the mind which mirrors our own. It exposes the truth that there is no logical necessity for there to be such a world, which is important to understand. But that's the extent of it. The algorithm idea has no other use beyond this.

Obviously, from my perspective, the idea of algorithms generating our world is just as untenable as the idea of a mirror world generating it. Algorithms can no more exist beyond the perspective generated by the observer than a mirror world can. So I'm not proposing the algorithm theory as a replacement for the mirror world theory. They are both in the same basket. They both have to be rejected.

Again, in all of this, I am not advancing any kind of cosmological or metaphysical theory at all. I am simply highlighting the logical consequences of the truth that existence is appearance.

-

[yahooyoda]

Conceptually speaking, from a purely materialistic standpoint, "objective reality" seems true enough, that we should not question it; but in truth, our objective realities are merely virtual reality creations of the mind and are actually subjective reflections, or shadows, of an ostensible *absolute world* beyond our senses. The only verification of this absolute reality is via consensus with other minds. Hence, the objective reality becomes an assumption, which relies on the confirmations of other observers. That means that in accordance with the scientific method, our objective reality, cannot be proved to be an independent absolute - only inferred to be an absolute, as possibly playing a particular role, in accordance with the statistical status quo.

We then come to the reductive realization that our ostensible - concensible objectification, assumes there exists a separation between object and subject, - "perceived and perceiver", but in truth, there isn't any separation. The only reality that we can ever know is the reality of perception, which is the reality of mind. Of course you may stub your toe, pronouncing to yourself that "it is satisfactorily refuted thus!"
But pain is also a perception of mind.

All objects of perception require a uniform logically consistent substrate OF perception, meaning that all objects of perception require a uniform[consciously aware] mental template of subjectification. Thus if the objective world stability is perceived as it truly is then the stability of the subjective is the same as the stability of the objective. Ergo, the objective and subjective reality forms a duality, reflecting the two sides of the same coin called awareness or consciousness. Raw awareness and consciousness forms the most basic aspect of reality. Pure existence becomes pure thought/consciousness.

[Cory Duchesne]

You have to think about what the very concept of existence means. What do we really mean by existence? Can there be any kind of existence outside of the realm of the observer's perspective?

Yes. Existence as appearance seems to be a different kind of existence, one which is an incidental effect of a more primary mode of existence. The former is subjective experience, the later is the unknowable roots of that subjective experience. 'Objective' might not be the best word for it, but nonetheless, it seems obvious that a type of existence extends beyond the existence of mere appearance.

Also keep in mind that it is a non-empirical issue.

I disagree - it's not soley an empirical issue. We are reasoning about the empirical. The empirical hinges on our reasoning about the non-empirical. The empirical is compelling us to justify it it via logic. So this is partly an empirical issue.

For example, when I refer to the possibility that the world is a computer simulation generated by algorithms, I'm not really affirming this as a belief that should be taken seriously. I'm merely using it to undermine the idea of a physical world existing beyond the mind which mirrors our own.

Although it certain does shake things up a bit, I don't think you're approach really is that effective, because the whole analogy of an alogrithm generated simulation is based on the duality of an objective world generating an illusionary one.

[the alogrithm computer simulation analogy] exposes the truth that there is no logical necessity for there to be such a world, which is important to understand.

The analogy merely suggests that our subjective experience is indeed governed by a mirror world, albeit, drastically different than how our subjective experience appears to us.

Obviously, from my perspective, the idea of algorithms generating our world is just as untenable as the idea of a mirror world generating it. Algorithms can no more exist beyond the perspective generated by the observer than a mirror world can. So I'm not proposing the algorithm theory as a replacement for the mirror world theory. They are both in the same basket. They both have to be rejected.

I realize that any sort of system we imagine, is merely an imagining - ultimately reality beyond what is 'appearable' to us is unknowable.

Again, in all of this, I am not advancing any kind of cosmological or metaphysical theory at all. I am simply highlighting the logical consequences of the truth that existence is appearance.

Ok, well, how about this: If existence is appearance, and appearance is limited, how is it that you know for certain that reality is infinite?

[Cory Duchesne]

Conceptually speaking, from a purely materialistic standpoint, "objective reality" seems true enough, that we should not question it; but in truth, our objective realities are merely virtual reality creations of the mind and are actually subjective reflections, or shadows, of an ostensible *absolute world* beyond our senses.

Yes, this is what I can't help but to presume - but some people on this forum, the moderators for one, disagree. I've reached a point now where I am teetering between doubting myself and doubting the sanity of the moderators.

[yahooyoda]

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psych ... stapp.html

Conclusions

Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, considered as conceivable descriptions of nature, are structurally very different. According to classical mechanics, the world is to be conceived of as a simple aggregate of logically independent local entities, each of which interacts only with its very close neighbors. By virtue of these interactions large objects and systems can be formed, and we can identify various 'functional entities' such as pistons and drive shafts, and vortices and waves. But the precepts of classical physics tell us that whereas these functional units can be identified by us, and can be helpful in our attempts to comprehend the behaviour of systems, these units do not thereby acquire any special or added ontological character: they continue to be simple aggregates of local entities. No extra quality of beingness is appended to them by virtue of the fact that they have some special functional quality in some context, or by virtue of the fact that they define a spacetime region in which certain quantities such as 'energy density' are greater than in surrounding regions. All such 'functional entities' are, according to the principles of classical physics, to be regarded as simply consequences of particular configurations of the local entities: their functional properties are just 'consequences' of the local dynamics; functional properties do not generate, or cause to come into existence, any extra quality or kind of beingness not inherent in the concept of a simple aggregate of logically independent local entities. There is no extra quality of 'beingness as a whole', or 'coming into beingness as a whole' within the framework of classical physics. There is, therefore, no place within the conceptual framework provided by classical physics for the idea that certain patterns of neuronal activity that cover large parts of the brain, and that have important functional properties, have any special or added quality of beingness that goes beyond their beingness as a simple aggregate of local entities. Yet an experienced thought is experienced as a whole thing. From the point of view of classical physics this requires either some 'knower' that is not part of what is described within classical physics, but that can 'know' as one thing that which is represented within classical physics as a simple aggregation of simple local entities; or it requires some addition to the theory that would confer upon certain functional entities some new quality not specified or represented within classical mechanics. This new quality would be a quality whereby an aggregate of simple independent local entities that acts as a whole (functional) entity, by virtue of the various local interactions described in the theory, becomes a whole (experiential) entity. There is nothing within classical physics that provides for two such levels or qualities of existence or beingness, one pertaining to persisting local entities that evolve according to local mathematical laws, and one pertaining to sudden comings-into-beingness, at a different level or quality of existence, of entities that are bonded wholes whose components are the local entities of the lower-level reality. Yet this is exactly what is provided by quantum mechanics, which thereby provides a logical framework that is perfectly suited to describe the two intertwined aspects of the mind/brain system.

[xpsyuvz]

Cory,

Ok, well, how about this: If existence is appearance, and appearance is limited, how is it that you know for certain that reality is infinite?

Good point. It seems like my experiences/appearances didn’t go on back infinitely, but started around birth. If all that exists are appearances, then it seems at least possible that all that exists could be finite.



David Q.,

I'm not denying there is reality beyond the mind. I'm only denying it has a form which resembles anything that we experience in our consciousness construct. It cannot have this form because the all-important ingredient of consciousness, which is integral to the world we experience, is absent beyond the mind.

What lies beyond the mind is "unformed", if you like. It is real, it has the power to generate the world we experience, it is not nothingness. But it is entirely without form as we know it.

So it isn't the case that it does have a form and we just can't know it. Rather, it literally doesn't have a form for us to know.

Yes, if there is a reality beyond the mind, then that reality isn’t knowable and has no form (and yet, it is something that isn’t Totality).

It all hinges on the basic premise that existence is appearance, that existence cannot occur outside of a perspective generated by an observer. Everything else follows logically from this.

First you were “not denying that there is a reality beyond the mind”, then you seem to suggest your absolute truths (e.g. “that all things have a cause”), depend on the assumption that all existence is appearance. Meanwhile (from the quote above) you don’t sound too absolute when you make this assumption.
(You earlier even said, “This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.” And this seems to imply that not everything that “exists” (i.e. “something that causes appearances to exist“) is an appearance itself.


My point here (as I’ve discussed with you and Kevin on another forum before) is that if there could exist something that is intrinsically unknowable, then you can’t assume that it must necessarily have a cause. (So the idea that all things have a cause is not absolutely true, as I see it.)
Plus, in the normal sense of the word “cause”, we usually don’t think the appearances that occur in our mind are the causes of the following appearances -- we think of the causes of the apearances to be outside of the mind. E.g. When we see water start to boil, we don’t think the appearance we have in our mind are the causes of the water starting to boil. (But of course, most people don’t seem to notice that whatever is outside of the mind is formless either…)


Anyway, I wasn’t intending to get in a big discussion, but was just passing through and was curious to how you’d respond (since it does look like you just contradicted yourself).
Aside from that, hi, nice forum. :) (I’ve usually only had time for lurking these days…)

[David Quinn]

Cory,

DQ: You have to think about what the very concept of existence means. What do we really mean by existence? Can there be any kind of existence outside of the realm of the observer's perspective?

Cory: Yes. Existence as appearance seems to be a different kind of existence, one which is an incidental effect of a more primary mode of existence. The former is subjective experience, the later is the unknowable roots of that subjective experience. 'Objective' might not be the best word for it, but nonetheless, it seems obvious that a type of existence extends beyond the existence of mere appearance.

I don't have any disagreement with the general thrust of this, only with your application of the term "existence" to what is beyond the mind. Neither "existence" nor "non-existence" can adequately describe what is beyond the mind.

We can't really apply any of the terms that we use to describe what we experience within the mind to what is beyond it. As soon as we try to do so, we immediately transform what is utterly beyond the mind into just another piece of mind.

DQ: Also keep in mind that it is a non-empirical issue.

Cory: I disagree - it's not soley an empirical issue. We are reasoning about the empirical. The empirical hinges on our reasoning about the non-empirical. The empirical is compelling us to justify it it via logic. So this is partly an empirical issue.

The fact that we can never empirically investigate what is beyond the mind means that the issue cannot be resolved by empirical means. We can only make logical deductions about it.

For example, we can deduce that the order and regularity that we experience in our world cannot be generated out of nothing whatsoever, that there is not absolutely nothing beyond the mind.

DQ: For example, when I refer to the possibility that the world is a computer simulation generated by algorithms, I'm not really affirming this as a belief that should be taken seriously. I'm merely using it to undermine the idea of a physical world existing beyond the mind which mirrors our own.

Cory: Although it certain does shake things up a bit, I don't think you're approach really is that effective, because the whole analogy of an alogrithm generated simulation is based on the duality of an objective world generating an illusionary one.

No other approach is possible.

DQ: [the alogrithm computer simulation analogy] exposes the truth that there is no logical necessity for there to be such a world, which is important to understand.

Cory: The analogy merely suggests that our subjective experience is indeed governed by a mirror world, albeit, drastically different than how our subjective experience appears to us.

I was using the term "mirror world" to specifically denote an objective world that resembles the one we subjectively experience.

DQ: Obviously, from my perspective, the idea of algorithms generating our world is just as untenable as the idea of a mirror world generating it. Algorithms can no more exist beyond the perspective generated by the observer than a mirror world can. So I'm not proposing the algorithm theory as a replacement for the mirror world theory. They are both in the same basket. They both have to be rejected.

Cory: I realize that any sort of system we imagine, is merely an imagining - ultimately reality beyond what is 'appearable' to us is unknowable.

Fortunately, this isn't a problem as far as becoming enlightened and comprehending the nature of reality is concerned. There is plenty enough reality in what we do experience!

DQ: Again, in all of this, I am not advancing any kind of cosmological or metaphysical theory at all. I am simply highlighting the logical consequences of the truth that existence is appearance.

Cory: Ok, well, how about this: If existence is appearance, and appearance is limited, how is it that you know for certain that reality is infinite?

Three points:

1) There is no reason to think that appearances and observers are limited in number.

2) Reality is infinite in the sense that it is formless. It has no particular form and thus cannot be contained within dualistic, finite categories such as "existence", "thingness", "birth", "death", etc.

3) That reality is infinite, or that it is finite, are both momentary realities which spring spontaneously out of the Void. Neither are ultimately real.

-

[Ataraxia]

I'm not denying there is reality beyond the mind. I'm only denying it has a form which resembles anything that we experience in our consciousness construct. It cannot have this form because the all-important ingredient of consciousness, which is integral to the world we experience, is absent beyond the mind.

What lies beyond the mind is "unformed", if you like. It is real, it has the power to generate the world we experience, it is not nothingness. But it is entirely without form as we know it.

But as man evolves,the brain gets larger,the consciousness expands.21st century man's 'consciousness' is larger than 500B.C man's.Perhaps the eye improves to begin seeing into the infra red spectra etc.

Aren't new things moving from the 'unformed' to the 'formed' evermore?

If there are beings on other planets is it not conceivable they have expanded or different consciousness to us-Or is that not relevant?

Rather, it literally doesn't have a form for us to know.
-

I must admit I struggle to ascertain how this is useful information.Is this not just stating the obvious?

akin to saying "We know there's things we don't or can't know"

[David Quinn]

xpsyuvz,

DQ: I'm not denying there is reality beyond the mind. I'm only denying it has a form which resembles anything that we experience in our consciousness construct. It cannot have this form because the all-important ingredient of consciousness, which is integral to the world we experience, is absent beyond the mind.

What lies beyond the mind is "unformed", if you like. It is real, it has the power to generate the world we experience, it is not nothingness. But it is entirely without form as we know it.

So it isn't the case that it does have a form and we just can't know it. Rather, it literally doesn't have a form for us to know.

xpsyuvz: Yes, if there is a reality beyond the mind, then that reality isn’t knowable and has no form (and yet, it is something that isn’t Totality).

That's right. The formlessness of what is beyond the mind has some superficial similarities to the formlessness of the Totality. Both involve an inability to be contained within a form, but for different reasons. What is beyond the mind cannot be contained within a form because forms can only occur within the mind. The Totality cannot be contained within a form because a form is necessarily limited in extent and depends on what is not it for its very existence.

DQ: It all hinges on the basic premise that existence is appearance, that existence cannot occur outside of a perspective generated by an observer. Everything else follows logically from this.

xpsyuvz: First you were “not denying that there is a reality beyond the mind”, then you seem to suggest your absolute truths (e.g. “that all things have a cause”), depend on the assumption that all existence is appearance. Meanwhile (from the quote above) you don’t sound too absolute when you make this assumption.

Only my thinking on this particular issue depends on this assumption (or logical truth, as I would have it.) The rest of my thought is unaffected by it.

For example, the truth that all things have causes doesn't depend on the assumption that existence is appearance. Logically speaking, causality would still be a universal reality even in a completely objective world. Objective things and events are still dependent on their parts for their own existence, and by external things like time and space.

(You earlier even said, “This isn't to say that consciousness is the sole creator of our experiences, but it is a necessary element to them. It is part of an array of necessary causes.” And this seems to imply that not everything that “exists” (i.e. “something that causes appearances to exist“) is an appearance itself.

I was thinking here of an object's parts and the like. An object's existence is not only dependent upon a perspective generated by an observer, but also upon the object's parts being assembled together in the proper manner. These parts are still existences which only find their reality in their appearing to an observer.

My point here (as I’ve discussed with you and Kevin on another forum before) is that if there could exist something that is intrinsically unknowable, then you can’t assume that it must necessarily have a cause. (So the idea that all things have a cause is not absolutely true, as I see it.)

Even if a thing is intrinsically unknowable, it is still governed by the laws of logic. For example, if the unknowable thing in question is finite in extent, it will necessary be caused. This is because a finite thing necessarily depends on what is not it to give it definition.

Plus, in the normal sense of the word “cause”, we usually don’t think the appearances that occur in our mind are the causes of the following appearances -- we think of the causes of the apearances to be outside of the mind. E.g. When we see water start to boil, we don’t think the appearance we have in our mind are the causes of the water starting to boil. (But of course, most people don’t seem to notice that whatever is outside of the mind is formless either…)

The stove, electricity, pot, water faucet, and all the other countless things which contribute to the water boiling are all existences which only find their reality in their appearing to the mind.

-

[David Quinn]

Ataraxia,

But as man evolves,the brain gets larger,the consciousness expands.21st century man's 'consciousness' is larger than 500B.C man's.Perhaps the eye improves to begin seeing into the infra red spectra etc.

Aren't new things moving from the 'unformed' to the 'formed' evermore?

If there are beings on other planets is it not conceivable they have expanded or different consciousness to us-Or is that not relevant?

Not relevant, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter how expansive a consciousness becomes and how many zillions of senses it might acquire, it will always be trapped within its own subjective experience. By default, it is impossible for anyone or anything to go beyond its own consciousness and peek at what lies beyond.

DQ: Rather, it literally doesn't have a form for us to know.

Ataraxia: I must admit I struggle to ascertain how this is useful information.Is this not just stating the obvious?

akin to saying "We know there's things we don't or can't know"

I'm putting it much more strongly than that. I am saying that there is literally nothing to know about what is beyond consciousness, due to the fact that what is "there" can never be reduced down into a form. When you understand this point, the issue becomes utterly resolved. All mystery vanishes. Everything that can ever be known about what is beyond the mind is now known.

-