Does Existence precede consciousness, or vice versa?

[Blackfire09]

?

[Carl G]

!

[baulz owt]

vice versa

[Carl G]

?

[BMcGilly07]

They arise interdependently.

[Tomas]

?

You are what you are. Nothing else matters (exists)..

[Blackfire09]

Then, something ceases to exist simply because one does not perceive it. Therefore, when one 'dies,' nothing exists?
Things will certainly exist to others, because they still possess life and consciousness. I may be missing something, but is this then not the be all end all definition of existence, just a quasi-subjective definition? What do you think?

Also, could Mcgilly perhaps elucidate a bit?

[BMcGilly07]

Then, something ceases to exist simply because one does not perceive it. Therefore, when one 'dies,' nothing exists?
Things will certainly exist to others, because they still possess life and consciousness. I may be missing something, but is this then not the be all end all definition of existence, just a quasi-subjective definition? What do you think?

The above given example is also subjective, consciousness and existence are universally subjective. But it is important to understand the terms we are each using. The most useful definition of existence that I have come across is, "existence is that which appears before the mind."

Existence and consciousness arise interdependently as the one relies on and causes the other. I am tempted to say that ultimately consciousness precedes existence because all of the world is of the mind. But to think so is to forsake the truth that all of the world comes from the mind and to secretly hold fast to materialism, secretly believing that the physical world is the sole cause of existence. But now that I think on it, I am lost. It is a mystery at heart, and foolishness to give precedence to either the one or the other. They are best viewed in the world of causation, in which case we can say and see how they arise together and perish together. Through the lens of causation we can see that Nothing-whatsoever exists in the absolute sense.

[chikoka]

The most useful definition of existence that I have come across is, "existence is that which appears before the mind."

How can you people say things like that and yet still not believe in God.

[Tomas]

.


-Chi-
How can you people say things like that and yet still not believe in God.

"How can 'you people' say things like that..."

"...and yet 'still not believe' in God."

-tomas-
Please define (in your own words) the above.

It will help me get an idea where you are at/in the present moment..

[Blackfire09]

Thanks, one more thing. I agree that nothing can inherently exist. This implies that nothing can come from nothing and there is no 'ultimate' beginning. But what about the end?

[BMcGilly07]

Thanks, one more thing. I agree that nothing can inherently exist. This implies that nothing can come from nothing and there is no 'ultimate' beginning. But what about the end?

Your implication above is that because no thing exists inherently that no one thing comes from another, and hence there is no first cause or beginning. No thing exists inherently, therefore nothing ultimately exists, how can there be an end to that which doesn't exist?

Of course, this is from an ultimate perspective. The forces of nature have conspired such that we must see things practically to continue on with the illusion of our own self existence.

[BMcGilly07]

The most useful definition of existence that I have come across is, "existence is that which appears before the mind."

How can you people say things like that and yet still not believe in God.

As Tomas as requested, please define your terms.

[Sapius]

BMcGilly07: The most useful definition of existence that I have come across is, "existence is that which appears before the mind."

Well, fine, that does make sense since something has to appear to something other than what that itself is, and according to the above, 'existence' is jsut like any other thing that appears before the mind; so before what does the mind appear? OR is that not a defined "thing"?

They (Existence and Consciousness) are best viewed in the world of causation, in which case we can say and see how they arise together and perish together.

IMO, I can’t say about consciousness, for that would actually depend on what one means by it, but it would be impossible for at least existence to perish, for I can’t seem to see the difference between causation and existence. Could this helpless process of causation cause non-existence? Which means absolutely nothing at all? And in that case, what exactly would causation be like without absolutely nothing around? What exactly will be caused and what will perish? Isn’t the dynamic sensing of that which is caused and that which perishes is what existence should mean? Otherwise what exactly is happening then?

Hence I think there has to necessarily be something that is aware of something that is not it itself, and for that a dynamic interaction is necessary, and such dynamic interaction is what anything “senses” or we intellectually deduce as causality. So, causality in my opinion is none other than existence itself, so it would be a mistake to ask which came first, (Existence or Consciousness?) for they belong to different categories. I think they call it a category mistake. Comparing apples with oranges.

Your implication above is that because no thing exists inherently that no one thing comes from another, and hence there is no first cause or beginning. No thing exists inherently, therefore nothing ultimately exists, how can there be an end to that which doesn't exist?

I can’t exactly see the logical reason to jump from ‘no things exists inherently’, which means that things do exist but in relation (relative), or say dependent on other THINGS, to “therefore nothing ultimately exists’??? To me, saying that ‘nothing ultimately exists' is synonymous to saying ‘ultimately, existence does not exist’, which seems absurd, for without things that non-inherently but however do exist, what would existence (or causality) actually be like?

[David Quinn]

The most useful definition of existence that I have come across is, "existence is that which appears before the mind."

How can you people say things like that and yet still not believe in God.

The unreality and/or unimportance of the God-concept might have already presented its appearance......

-

[David Quinn]

I can’t exactly see the logical reason to jump from ‘no things exists inherently’, which means that things do exist but in relation (relative), or say dependent on other THINGS, to “therefore nothing ultimately exists’??? To me, saying that ‘nothing ultimately exists' is synonymous to saying ‘ultimately, existence does not exist’, which seems absurd, for without things that non-inherently but however do exist, what would existence (or causality) actually be like?

You haven't made that all-important leap in understanding and you're still getting hooked up on the words.

Given the amount of time you spend on here, you should have resolved this issue long ago.

-

[Sapius]

I can’t exactly see the logical reason to jump from ‘no things exists inherently’, which means that things do exist but in relation (relative), or say dependent on other THINGS, to “therefore nothing ultimately exists’??? To me, saying that ‘nothing ultimately exists' is synonymous to saying ‘ultimately, existence does not exist’, which seems absurd, for without things that non-inherently but however do exist, what would existence (or causality) actually be like?

You haven't made that all-important leap in understanding and you're still getting hooked up on the words.

Given the amount of time you spend on here, you should have resolved this issue long ago.

-

Wow! Well, given the time that I have been here, I’m glad that you have resolved most of your own issues at least, but what makes you think that I have or ever had any issues with existence before I got here? Or that I might take issues when you pretend to be make personal remarks rather than allow BM to work it out on his own?

Further more; It is not only you who is wise enough to know that it is not just the two of us having a conversation my friend; some others like me could also have that common sense, so get wiser. There are always new eyes that read this stuff but do not have the gutts or time to question deeply enough.

On the other hand, you shouldn’t take up issues with that which in any and every case is… ‘God does it all’, now should you? Oh I forgot, your taking up issues is also "God does it all", but then so are the issues, mate.

Or are you afraid that like a devil I might lead BM away from the true path? :D Well... what worth is that understanding which can be wavered by minor jolts of doubt!

Take is easy… David… FYI I’m not the devil. It might be “all-important”, but there is nothing to actually leap for to begin with, and I think you know it.. (or is it that only you have the right to switch point of views and speak as per convenience) if you think my being here serves no purpose, just say it… it is as simple as that. I'm quite sure you are not actually getting personal with this, at least I never am.

BTW... another thing about... "You haven't made that all-important leap"... you can't ever be absolutely certain about that! So I hope you never ever be arrogant enough to actually mean it for anyone, please.

So what's for dinner... :)

[David Quinn]

So do you see yourself as some kind of enlightened facilitator or midwife?

In other words, are you saying that the doubts and misgivings you express are not your own, but rather come from the desire to help people make their own breakthroughs in understanding?

Do you see your role as being a kind of wise dunce?

-

[Sapius]

So do you see yourself as some kind of enlightened facilitator or midwife?

In other words, are you saying that the doubts and misgivings you express are not your own, but rather come from the desire to help people make their own breakthroughs in understanding?

Do you see your role as being a kind of wise dunce?

-

What expressions or desires of my own to begin with? It seems illogical coming from you that seems to be fully aware that God does it all, mate.

Correction: read that not as "coming from you that" but "who".

[chikoka]

BMcGilly07 wrote:
The most useful definition of existence that I have come across is, "existence is that which appears before the mind."

Wouldn't god be the ultimate definer of things that exist .
He thinks things into existence.
Classical physicists did not believe in god because he was supposedly magical .
Now *magical* or rather "formerly magical" things are being forced into our belief systems.

Using Occam's razor i could argue that belief in god is more sensible than belief in Quantum physics.

Don't get me wrong .
I am also an atheist ,but i am trying to question that.

[David Quinn]

So do you see yourself as some kind of enlightened facilitator or midwife?

In other words, are you saying that the doubts and misgivings you express are not your own, but rather come from the desire to help people make their own breakthroughs in understanding?

Do you see your role as being a kind of wise dunce?

What expressions or desires of my own to begin with? It seems illogical coming from you that seems to be fully aware that God does it all, mate.

Correction: read that not as "coming from you that" but "who".

I was speaking in a practical sense. If a tree looks diseased and you want to solve the problem, it won't do much good to simply say that God did it. You have to determine the immediate cause - a bacterial infection, perhaps - and treat it accordingly.

So in this practical sense, do you intentionally play the role of a wise dunce?

-

[BMcGilly07]

Sapius,

The leap is to look at things from an absolute perspective. From an absolute perspective all things arise interdependently. To break things down into categories is a practical approach to dealing with relative existence, but ultimately all such barriers between things are illusory because of causality. From the perspective of the absolute all we can ever experience of things is their appearance to our mind. As for the ultimate appearance of the mind before the mind, that's for you to see.

[Sapius]

David: I was speaking in a practical sense.

There aren’t two senses… only the sense of existence as far as I can see. Could there be an “impractical” sense from any particular point of view? Even getting enlightened is in a practical sense, for what exactly does one practically gain from it would be the question to begin with.

If a tree looks diseased and you want to solve the problem, it won't do much good to simply say that God did it.

Similarly, it is not wise to say 'God does it' when asked... why do you value truth?

You have to determine the immediate cause - a bacterial infection, perhaps - and treat it accordingly.

Well, so did Hitler. I think since if in every and all situations it is ‘God does it all’, then it actually cancels its self out, and holds no real meaning, leaving ONLY the sense of differentiation that can have any value because then thngs can be compared and logically evaluated. So saying that God creates that differentiation too, is ultimately being poetically sly, for that does not take an essential necessity into account, namely the individual thinking entity that does and can create its own particular effect, irrelevant of causality being the core processing system to it and any or all individual things, for causality by itself does not and cannot independently cause anything at all.

So in this practical sense, do you intentionally play the role of a wise dunce?

What “intention”? What does ‘intentionally play' exactly mean, and more essentially, actually entails? Free-will in a "practical" sense? If we say ‘intentions’ are caused too, then any other ‘intention’ (or individual point of view) is equally caused… hence no comparative value… so it seems that making a “God” out of causality (THAT does it all) is illogical, for then one alienates and considers “causality” to be something apart from that which is caused.

For the moment the point would be… one should avoid saying, and more importantly, stop imagining that ‘God (or whatever), does it all’, poetically or otherwise.

[Sapius]

BM: The leap is to look at things from an absolute perspective. From an absolute perspective all things arise interdependently.

I understand what you mean, but merely looking is possible by simply comprehending the facts, a leap would be a different matter, if that were not so, every other person would be...

To break things down into categories is a practical approach to dealing with relative existence, but ultimately all such barriers between things are illusory because of causality.

If you think the barrier between that which is you and that which is not you, is illusory because of causality, then any and all conclusions thence reached have to necessarily be illusory in nature, for they are all based in and off that barrier, (AKA, consciousness), and other illusory barriers as well. Try loosing that barrier from any perspective, and then tell me; or even think it for yourself.

From the perspective of the absolute all we can ever experience of things is their appearance to our mind. As for the ultimate appearance of the mind before the mind, that's for you to see.

Well, I’ll keep an open eye :)

[David Quinn]

The most useful definition of existence that I have come across is, "existence is that which appears before the mind."

Wouldn't god be the ultimate definer of things that exist .
He thinks things into existence.
Classical physicists did not believe in god because he was supposedly magical .
Now *magical* or rather "formerly magical" things are being forced into our belief systems.

Using Occam's razor i could argue that belief in god is more sensible than belief in Quantum physics.

Don't get me wrong .
I am also an atheist ,but i am trying to question that.

If we simply used Occam's Razor as a guiding principle and nothing else, then you would be right. We would invariably reach the conclusion that God (or Nature) defines all things and that would be that. It is the simplest possible explanation. Science would grind to a halt.

Naturally, scientists would regard such a conclusion to be deeply unsatisfactory, which is why they also incorporate other guiding principles into their work - such as the need for theories to have predictive power, as well as having detailed explanatory power. These principles act as a kind of brake on Occam's Razor and help direct the energy of scientists towards creating theories which have practical value.

Any philosopher worth his salt would also consider Occam's Razor pushed to extremes to be unsatisfactory. He also needs his explanations to be meaningful. Simply concluding that God defines all things doesn't mean anything unless you know exactly what God is and how it relates to all things.

-