Consciousness Is A Sense?

[oborden2]

My conjecture that consciousness is a sense arises from the nature of consciousness. To be conscious means to be capable of forming conceptual distinctions or be aware in some way of boundedness of other things. It is an active process. Not a discrete unit. Nothing exists when consciousness is not present. That is to say consciousness creates things. Thus it is the case that nothing cannot exist because it cannot be perceived.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My conjecture that consciousness is a sense arises from the nature of consciousness. To be conscious means to be capable of forming conceptual distinctions or be aware in some way of boundedness of other things. It is an active process. Not a discrete unit. Nothing exists when consciousness is not present. That is to say consciousness creates things. Thus it is the case that nothing cannot exist because it cannot be perceived.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Sure it makes sense. Consciousness as reality generator, it's a bit like Descartes really: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (doubting, therefore thinking about, therefore existence). Here thought is equaled with conceptual distinctions or awareness of things. But if the word "thing" is defined as being a conceptual distinction, it's obvious things are created by consciousness, by definition.

But is it enough to make something real? There's a difference between dreaming and being awake. Or imagining and actuality. What is the factor that gives one thing this status over another? There must be some kind of relation-ability factor to distinguish between all these classes of things. One thing is not the other and they are certainly not all created equal. So there's another aspect to creation here to figure out.

[oborden2]

My conjecture that consciousness is a sense arises from the nature of consciousness. To be conscious means to be capable of forming conceptual distinctions or be aware in some way of boundedness of other things. It is an active process. Not a discrete unit. Nothing exists when consciousness is not present. That is to say consciousness creates things. Thus it is the case that nothing cannot exist because it cannot be perceived.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Sure it makes sense. Consciousness as reality generator, it's a bit like Descartes really: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (doubting, therefore thinking about, therefore existence). Here thought is equaled with conceptual distinctions or awareness of things. But if the word "thing" is defined as being a conceptual distinction, it's obvious things are created by consciousness, by definition.

But is it enough to make something real? There's a difference between dreaming and being awake. Or imagining and actuality. What is the factor that gives one thing this status over another? There must be some kind of relation-ability factor to distinguish between all these classes of things. One thing is not the other and they are certainly not all created equal. So there's another aspect to creation here to figure out.

Yes it's like you're reading my mind. I've been thinking a lot lately about how A = A may be the "origin" of cause and effect? But it seems, in my mind, I'm stuck with what I might call a "problem of motion" or why is the nature of reality "processual" or "procedural" in nature. I think I finally understand that I am what I am not. But why do things change?

I can only come up with this. Nothing exists when it is not being observed. So nothing gives rise to something. I often say irony is the nature of existence... So the nature of nothing is perpetual change. That's why it has no form.