Free Will

[Leyla Shen]

I'm not disputing the suggestion that consciousness does arise from matter; I have little doubt that it does. But I'll be buggered if I can imagine how.

More philosophy, less science.

[Troglodytes]

Would you care to elaborate?

[Leyla Shen]

Nope.

:)

[Kevin Solway]

. . . consciousness and physical matter seem like such fundamentally different things that it's hard to imagine one causing the other.

I'm not disputing the suggestion that consciousness does arise from matter; I have little doubt that it does. But I'll be buggered if I can imagine how.

It is difficult indeed to trace the infinitely complex paths within the incredible complexity of the Universe, yet they are necessarily there. For all of our science, we still don't understanding how basic cells, like amoeba, work - yet they still work by the simple mechanics of material things.

If we don't even know how a cell works, it's not surprising that we don't yet know how the mind works, or the exact details of its physical formation.

[David Quinn]

Troglodytes wrote:

I'm not disputing the suggestion that consciousness does arise from matter; I have little doubt that it does. But I'll be buggered if I can imagine how.

To me, it's no more mysterious than trying to imagine salt coming from sodium and chlorine. It's a case of one particular thing emerging from other things that are entirely different. It is what we call change.

The "chasm" between consciousness and non-consciousness is essentially no greater than the "chasm" between salt and non-salt. But we tend to fall into the trap of imagining a bigger difference because we instinctively believe that consciousness is somehow a unique property in the universe. In reality, it's no more unique than anything else.

Consciousness might be a complex phenomenon, but that's no drama either. Evolution by natural selection adequately explains how such complexity can come into being. So, other than dotting the i's and crossing the t's with scientific theory, there's no real mystery there.

-

[Troglodytes]

To me, it's no more mysterious than trying to imagine salt coming from sodium and chlorine. It's a case of one particular thing emerging from other things that are entirely different. It is what we call change.

The "chasm" between consciousness and non-consciousness is essentially no greater than the "chasm" between salt and non-salt.

But my point was that salt, chlorine and sodium are clearly not "entirely different" things. They can all be observed to contain electrons, protons, and other such particles. They can all be compared to one another by virtue of having common properties such as mass, density, molecular weight, charge, and so on. They are clearly different manifestations of the same stuff, if we look closely enough.

But where do we begin comparing the properties of consciousness to those of material things? What are the parallels? What are the 'common particles', if you will? I'm sure we'll discover them one day, but to do so we will require a much deeper understanding of the physical world than we have today.

I see that what you are ultimately saying is that the emergence of consciousness and the emergence of salt represent differences in degree, not in kind. In that sense, there is no big mystery, and certainly no obstacle to understanding free will. But it still bugs the hell out of me sometimes. I feel a bit like someone who believes (i.e. has faith) in a God whilst having absolutely no idea how one could exist. But I guess the key difference is that such a God is entirely superfluous and unnecessary, whereas I can conceive of no alternative explanation for consciousness other than a materialist one.

[Beingof1]

Kevin:

Evolution is more than just these things, otherwise there wouldn't be any evolutionary science, it would be just chemistry and physics.

It is just only chemistry and physics.
It tries to explain what cannot be duplicated, defined, or known in total by fossils, conjecture, and bone fragments ie: consciousness. You have to connect all the dots, not just fill in the greatest mystery of existence with a blind guess and claim 'eureka' -- I have found the source of my consciousness.

I am in a continuous state of evolving so I understand that all things evolve - that is a long, long way from say, a rock sprouting legs. That is the conclusion of evolution (as the total theory) because the obvious answer is trying to be avoided at all cost.

What do you mean by "inert matter"? All matter is dynamic and changing. It is all just as alive as we are, although some of it has a longer lifespan.

It means; at the moment, a rock is not being used by your state of awareness or life.

Kevin - I understand what you are saying about matter.
"And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
- Jesus
But to say a rock posted on this board is a stretch of that thought a might wouldn`t you say? Your consciousness animates your body, not the other way around.

BO: consciousness and life that is aware is unique in and of itself without comparison.

Kevin: It is no more unique than anything else. Any piece of dirt is unique. And just as there are billions of unique pices of dirt, there are billions of unique conscious lives.

There is only one life, one consciousness, and one awareness that you know, that is yours and yours alone. There is no other comparison you can make.
You can say that another person has conscious life; that is still just you experiencing your own perception through comparison, it is your awareness and none other.

BO: We must use logic and plain common sense. My consciousness arrived by and through previous consciousness ie: cause and effect. If we follow this now dusty little trail back to its source we come to one reasonable conclusion.

Kevin: Using that reasoning salt can only come from previous salt.

That is not what I am saying.
If you find a watch would you say that logic and reason dictates that a watchmaker made it? We live in a universe of all possibilities but why make leaps of faith in gigantic assumptions when the answer is in plain sight.
If you are outside on a sunny day, why draw the conclusion that the light you experience is coming from deep space vacuum? Why not just look up at the sun and say "there it is".

I am not that which is not conscious; I know which knows not.
Are you experiencing reality and are you aware of it?

It is just simple logic that says "your life came from your parents". Follow that simple train of thought and you come to the reality of cause and effect.

Kevin said in another thread:

Any purpose you have has been given to you by the whole of Nature, so it's not nothing. Secondly, you should try to ensure that there is as much truth in your purpose as possible.

Absolutely -- we should not hide from truth, we should embrace it; even if it overturns or expands our past conclusions. This is very difficult for most as they attach their standing with self value.


David:

The conscious mind is a reality; it can reflect, ruminate, cogitate, and come up with considered decisions through its own inner workings. We are considerably different from, say, cars and rocks in that we aren't simply passive objects buffeted about by circumstances.

[David Quinn]

Your responses are pretty disappointing, Beingof1. It's evident that your understanding of evolutionary theory is very shallow - on a par with Christian fundamentalists. You need to study the theory properly before dissing it.

-

[David Quinn]

Troglodytes wrote:

DQ: To me, it's no more mysterious than trying to imagine salt coming from sodium and chlorine. It's a case of one particular thing emerging from other things that are entirely different. It is what we call change.

The "chasm" between consciousness and non-consciousness is essentially no greater than the "chasm" between salt and non-salt.

T: But my point was that salt, chlorine and sodium are clearly not "entirely different" things. They can all be observed to contain electrons, protons, and other such particles. They can all be compared to one another by virtue of having common properties such as mass, density, molecular weight, charge, and so on. They are clearly different manifestations of the same stuff, if we look closely enough.

But where do we begin comparing the properties of consciousness to those of material things? What are the parallels? What are the 'common particles', if you will?

As you probably know, there has been plenty of research done which demonstrates the way in which an individual's consciousness is shaped by changes in the brain's chemistry and physiology. Scientists have mapped the chemical processes which occur when we sleep, dream, wake up, emote, fall in love, experience altered states, and so on. So there are indeed plenty of parallels/commonalities between consciousness and physical matter.

If you want to say that consciousness is fundamentally different from matter because we cannot directly observe any particles or molecules in the phenomenon of consciousness itself, then we can equally say that of "saltiness" as well. Where are the molecules and particles in the direct experience of saltiness (as a taste)? They're not there. The phenomenon of saltiness is a consequence of certain kinds of molecules (sodium chloride) forming, just as the phenomenon of consciousness is a consequence of other kinds of moleceules (such as those which comprise neurons, hormones, etc) forming. There is no essential difference.

Or take light, for example. Scientists say that light is composed of photons, supposedly a form of energy/matter. But how, we can ask, are photons created from non-photons? And how do photons, which seem to be nothing more than lumps of energy/matter, relate to the etheral phenomenon we know as light? There doesn't seem to be any connection there. But nevertheless, we nowadays accept there is a connection between them through force of habit and continual prompting by scientists. In my view, it is only through force of habit that we fail to extend the same courtesy to consciousness itself.

I'm sure we'll discover them one day, but to do so we will require a much deeper understanding of the physical world than we have today.

No, I don't think that chasm will ever be closed in that way. Consciousness will always appear, to our direct perception, to be fundamentally different from physical matter, no matter how deep or detailed our theories become. It is only by changing our underlying philosophic view of consciousness that we can bridge that gap, just as we have, over the years, changed our underlying perception of light. Don't forget that the human race used to equally puzzle over the phenomenon of light and attribute its existence to supernatural forces.

In short, the "chasm" that we perceive between consciousness and matter is an illusion created by our own false habits of thought. That's why Leyla Shen had the good sense to stress philosophy over science in response to you earlier.

I see that what you are ultimately saying is that the emergence of consciousness and the emergence of salt represent differences in degree, not in kind. In that sense, there is no big mystery, and certainly no obstacle to understanding free will. But it still bugs the hell out of me sometimes. I feel a bit like someone who believes (i.e. has faith) in a God whilst having absolutely no idea how one could exist. But I guess the key difference is that such a God is entirely superfluous and unnecessary, whereas I can conceive of no alternative explanation for consciousness other than a materialist one.

That's right. Where else can consciousness come from but the rest of Nature (the Totality)? Really, there's no issue here at all.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin:

Evolution is more than just these things, otherwise there wouldn't be any evolutionary science, it would be just chemistry and physics.

It is just only chemistry and physics.

Natural selection, combined with millions of years, is a big part of it, and I don't think that falls neatly into the category of "chemistry and physics".

It tries to explain what cannot be duplicated, defined, or known in total by fossils, conjecture, and bone fragments ie: consciousness.

In this regard consciousness is no different to anything else, since nothing in the Universe can be perfectly duplicated, or "defined", as such, or known in total.

You have to connect all the dots, not just fill in the greatest mystery of existence with a blind guess and claim 'eureka' -- I have found the source of my consciousness.

That Nature is the source of all things is necessarily true. And the fact that things exist, or cease to exist, because of natural selection is also necessarily true.

I am in a continuous state of evolving so I understand that all things evolve - that is a long, long way from say, a rock sprouting legs. That is the conclusion of evolution (as the total theory)

Where else do you think the legs came from, if they weren't sprouted from the material existing there at the time?

. . . because the obvious answer is trying to be avoided at all cost.

Well I have no idea what "obvious answer" you are talking about, other than what I have put forward.

What do you mean by "inert matter"? All matter is dynamic and changing. It is all just as alive as we are, although some of it has a longer lifespan.

It means; at the moment, a rock is not being used by your state of awareness or life.

I have no idea what you mean. A rock could be conscious and just as intelligent as we are, for all we know. And even if it isn't, why does it matter?

All things have different properties and characteristics. Rocks are far superior to yourself at a whole host of things, just as you are superior to rocks when it comes to other things.

Kevin: It is no more unique than anything else. Any piece of dirt is unique. And just as there are billions of unique pices of dirt, there are billions of unique conscious lives.

There is only one life, one consciousness

There are as many different consciousnesses as there are conscious beings. But there is only one category, ie, "consciousness" to group them all.

Similarly, there is only one category "rocks", even though there are countless individual rocks.

They are on the same plane, being simply different things, with different properties, and talents for different things.

BO: We must use logic and plain common sense. My consciousness arrived by and through previous consciousness ie: cause and effect.

You haven't explained why you believe consciousness can only come from previous consciousness, while salt can come from something other than salt.

If you find a watch would you say that logic and reason dictates that a watchmaker made it?

If you find a rock, would you say that a rockmaker made it?

All things are necessarily made by Nature.

We live in a universe of all possibilities but why make leaps of faith in gigantic assumptions when the answer is in plain sight.
If you are outside on a sunny day, why draw the conclusion that the light you experience is coming from deep space vacuum? Why not just look up at the sun and say "there it is".

Some of the light comes from the sun (we presume), while the remainder for the light comes from elsewhere in the Universe.

It is just simple logic that says "your life came from your parents". Follow that simple train of thought and you come to the reality of cause and effect.

A person is caused by their causes. That is all you can say for certain, since you can never know for certain precisely what your causes are.

[Troglodytes]

Scientists have mapped the chemical processes which occur when we sleep, dream, wake up, emote, fall in love, experience altered states, and so on. So there are indeed plenty of parallels/commonalities between consciousness and physical matter.

These provide clear evidence that consciousness has material causes, but they are not the kind of commonalities that I am seeking -- as you probably realise. I guess I want to see something that can 'join the dots' from matter to consciousness, rather than just evidence that the dots are indeed joined.

If you want to say that consciousness is fundamentally different from matter because we cannot directly observe any particles or molecules in the phenomenon of consciousness itself, then we can equally say that of "saltiness" as well. Where are the molecules and particles in the direct experience of saltiness? They're not there. The phenomenon of saltiness is a consequence of certain kinds of molecules (sodium chloride) forming, just as the phenomenon of consciousness is a consequence of other kinds of moleceules (such as those which comprise neurons, hormones, etc) forming. There is no essential difference.

The phenomenon of saltiness is just a particular state of consciousness, so I don't see much point in comparing it to consciousness in this way. That is, unless I'm missing something . . .

And how do photons, which seem to be nothing more than lumps of energy/matter, relate to the etheral phenomenon we know as light? There doesn't seem to be any connection there. But nevertheless, we nowadays accept there is a connection between them through force of habit and continual prompting by scientists. In my view, it is only through force of habit that we fail to extend the same courtesy to consciousness itself.

I again fear that I may be misreading your analogy. As I see it, photons become the phenomenon we know as 'light' when they interact with the receptors in our eyes and are 'translated' by our brain into a visual phenomenon that we experience. So the relationship between photons and "the etheral phenomenon we know as light" is essentially the same as that between salt molecules and the phenomenon of saltiness. One is a property of the material world, the other is a property of the mental world, and the nervous system is the mediator or translator. The "force of habit" that you speak of is a fairly simple step when we take this translation process (consciousness) for granted, but, I think, not as easy when we turn our attention to consciousness itself.

As for how photons are created from non-photons --- now that is a more illuminating thought!

No, I don't think that chasm will ever be closed in that way. Consciousness will always appear, to our direct perception, to be fundamentally different from physical matter, no matter how deep or detailed our theories become. It is only by changing our underlying philosophic view of consciousness that we can bridge that gap, just as we have, over the years, changed our underlying perception of light.

You're probably right. It is said of the problem of consciousness that not only does no one have an answer; no one even has the slightest idea of what an answer will look like. So the shift will probably have to occur in our minds as much as in our scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, I'll live in the (small) hope that someone in my lifetime will propose a bio-electro-mechanical(?) explanation that will at least provide --- insofar as science can --- some idea of "what an answer will look like"!

[Beingof1]

David:

Your responses are pretty disappointing, Beingof1. It's evident that your understanding of evolutionary theory is very shallow - on a par with Christian fundamentalists. You need to study the theory properly before dissing it.

How fortunate that I am not capable to keep up with the conversation. That way it does not require an answer (he just doesn`t get it) - just mere dismissal, my posts are not worth answering, problem solved.

I did not want to get bogged down in all the details of the theory, I asked how consciousness began? Are three questions that I posted to much to ask for you to answer?

I said:

You cannot know (experientially) anything or anyone in total. You can only experience you and your awareness. You cannot define yourself nor compare yourself as you defy all descriptions and definition. The only comparison that can be made is you and this. You are experiencing life and as you already stated it is "reality".

This reality that you experience is it a partial reality or a whole reality?
Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?
Can you remember when you began to be aware?

You know by golly, I think I understand what you said to Troglodytes. Mind if I have a crack at answering?

Where are the molecules and particles in the direct experience of saltiness (as a taste)? They're not there. The phenomenon of saltiness is a consequence of certain kinds of molecules (sodium chloride) forming, just as the phenomenon of consciousness is a consequence of other kinds of moleceules (such as those which comprise neurons, hormones, etc) forming. There is no essential difference.

You are using an example of conscious experience (taste) that is unique to awareness - then saying it is not a conscious experience (as if taste could be known without consciousness) - and then saying it is just like consciousness as a comparison.

Of course there is no essential difference - you are saying consciousness is consciousness.

And how do photons, which seem to be nothing more than lumps of energy/matter, relate to the etheral phenomenon we know as light?

Consciousness relates everything without exception including light and photons. You can experience light and matter and be aware of the experience.
There is no example, comparison, or duplication of your consciousness, it is one of a kind and the singularity that is the universe.

Scientists keep looking for a singularity, they should try looking right between their eyes.

In short, the "chasm" that we perceive between consciousness and matter is an illusion created by our own false habits of thought. That's why Leyla Shen had the good sense to stress philosophy over science in response to you earlier.

Exactly what I am saying, perhaps you did not understand me or made assumptions because I came to a different conclusion.
There exists nothing else but consciousness, that is all there is, has been, or ever will be.

That's right. Where else can consciousness come from but the rest of Nature (the Totality)? Really, there's no issue here at all.

Where else can the totality come from but from consciousness.
If there is no consciousness - there is no totality.
There is no issue because without your awareness - what exists?


Kevin:

Natural selection, combined with millions of years, is a big part of it, and I don't think that falls neatly into the category of "chemistry and physics".

You are right, it still does not explain "The Origins of Life".

In this regard consciousness is no different to anything else, since nothing in the Universe can be perfectly duplicated, or "defined", as such, or known in total.

You can only be aware of 'your' universe. Where does that lead us?

That Nature is the source of all things is necessarily true. And the fact that things exist, or cease to exist, because of natural selection is also necessarily true.

You can only be aware of nature by and through your consciousness. Your consciousness is the source of all things and the reality you experience.

Where else do you think the legs came from, if they weren't sprouted from the material existing there at the time?

You misunderstand me, I was talking about a rock becoming sentient life.

I have no idea what you mean. A rock could be conscious and just as intelligent as we are, for all we know. And even if it isn't, why does it matter?

I was answering your question. You asked what I mean`t by inert. It means to be at a less or lower vibration, awareness, or use.

All things have different properties and characteristics. Rocks are far superior to yourself at a whole host of things, just as you are superior to rocks when it comes to other things.

I am aware of the rock, the rock exists within my conscious awareness. Nothing that exists is outside of your consciousness.

There are as many different consciousnesses as there are conscious beings. But there is only one category, ie, "consciousness" to group them all.

There is only one consciousness - how many do you experience?

They are on the same plane, being simply different things, with different properties, and talents for different things.

And they all exist within your single consciousness. Can you have more than one consciousness?

You haven't explained why you believe consciousness can only come from previous consciousness, while salt can come from something other than salt.

Because you came out from within the single consciousness that exists. You can only be one awareness.

If you find a rock, would you say that a rockmaker made it?

All things are necessarily made by Nature.

If I find a rock - I would say I made it.

[David Quinn]

Beingof1 wrote:

Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?

Other people have existed before I existed and they have had their own experiences.

Can you remember when you began to be aware?

Does it matter?

DQ: Where are the molecules and particles in the direct experience of saltiness (as a taste)? They're not there. The phenomenon of saltiness is a consequence of certain kinds of molecules (sodium chloride) forming, just as the phenomenon of consciousness is a consequence of other kinds of moleceules (such as those which comprise neurons, hormones, etc) forming. There is no essential difference.

T: You are using an example of conscious experience (taste) that is unique to awareness - then saying it is not a conscious experience (as if taste could be known without consciousness) - and then saying it is just like consciousness as a comparison.

Of course there is no essential difference - you are saying consciousness is consciousness.

Molecules and matter are also experiences of consciousness, as is consciousness itself. In this way, you are equating consciousness with matter and thus undermining your own argument.

I'm not sure there is any point in discussing this issue with you because it is evident that you steadfastly adhere to an article of faith which has no evidence supporting it - namely, the existence of a disembodied meta-consciousness, of which each individual consciousness is an expression. Because of this, I feel like I'm talking to a fundamentalist Christian. It doesn't exactly excite me.

But I'll persevere nonetheless. Before the human race came into existence, before consciousness on earth evolved, what do you think existed?

DQ: In short, the "chasm" that we perceive between consciousness and matter is an illusion created by our own false habits of thought. That's why Leyla Shen had the good sense to stress philosophy over science in response to you earlier.

B: Exactly what I am saying, perhaps you did not understand me or made assumptions because I came to a different conclusion.
There exists nothing else but consciousness, that is all there is, has been, or ever will be.

When the human race dies out, who remains to be conscious?

DQ: That's right. Where else can consciousness come from but the rest of Nature (the Totality)? Really, there's no issue here at all.

B: Where else can the totality come from but from consciousness.
If there is no consciousness - there is no totality.
There is no issue because without your awareness - what exists?

I agree there can be no existence without consciousness, but the Totality is something which transcends existence (and non-existence). It doesn't depend on the existence of consciousness. I think you've taken a valid, but limited, insight - namely, that existence and consciousness arise together - and mistakenly concluded that it is the final truth. It is important to keep pushing forward and search out even greater truths.

-

[David Quinn]

Troglodytes wrote:

DQ: Scientists have mapped the chemical processes which occur when we sleep, dream, wake up, emote, fall in love, experience altered states, and so on. So there are indeed plenty of parallels/commonalities between consciousness and physical matter.

T: These provide clear evidence that consciousness has material causes, but they are not the kind of commonalities that I am seeking -- as you probably realise. I guess I want to see something that can 'join the dots' from matter to consciousness, rather than just evidence that the dots are indeed joined.

I think you may be wanting something which doesn't exist.

DQ: If you want to say that consciousness is fundamentally different from matter because we cannot directly observe any particles or molecules in the phenomenon of consciousness itself, then we can equally say that of "saltiness" as well. Where are the molecules and particles in the direct experience of saltiness? They're not there. The phenomenon of saltiness is a consequence of certain kinds of molecules (sodium chloride) forming, just as the phenomenon of consciousness is a consequence of other kinds of moleceules (such as those which comprise neurons, hormones, etc) forming. There is no essential difference.

T: The phenomenon of saltiness is just a particular state of consciousness, so I don't see much point in comparing it to consciousness in this way. That is, unless I'm missing something . . .

Molecules and matter are states of consciousness too, so I'm not sure where you going with this line of thought. The core point is that anything which comes into existence will always seem to be discretely different from its causes. Consciousness is nothing special in this regard.

DQ: And how do photons, which seem to be nothing more than lumps of energy/matter, relate to the etheral phenomenon we know as light? There doesn't seem to be any connection there. But nevertheless, we nowadays accept there is a connection between them through force of habit and continual prompting by scientists. In my view, it is only through force of habit that we fail to extend the same courtesy to consciousness itself.

T: I again fear that I may be misreading your analogy. As I see it, photons become the phenomenon we know as 'light' when they interact with the receptors in our eyes and are 'translated' by our brain into a visual phenomenon that we experience.

Sure, but it is still a case of dark matter "mysteriously" producing light. When we strike a match in the dark and a flame flares into being, it's as though light is suddenly being produced from nowhere.

So the relationship between photons and "the etheral phenomenon we know as light" is essentially the same as that between salt molecules and the phenomenon of saltiness. One is a property of the material world, the other is a property of the mental world, and the nervous system is the mediator or translator.

You're being arbitrarily selective here. Salt molecules are as much a mental property as saltiness is.

As for how photons are created from non-photons --- now that is a more illuminating thought!

Well, that's a matter for science to deal with. Philosophically, it has already been resolved as a standard process of change.

DQ: No, I don't think that chasm will ever be closed in that way. Consciousness will always appear, to our direct perception, to be fundamentally different from physical matter, no matter how deep or detailed our theories become. It is only by changing our underlying philosophic view of consciousness that we can bridge that gap, just as we have, over the years, changed our underlying perception of light.

T: You're probably right. It is said of the problem of consciousness that not only does no one have an answer; no one even has the slightest idea of what an answer will look like. So the shift will probably have to occur in our minds as much as in our scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, I'll live in the (small) hope that someone in my lifetime will propose a bio-electro-mechanical(?) explanation that will at least provide --- insofar as science can --- some idea of "what an answer will look like"!

You will probably have to decide first, in your own mind, what sort of answer will satisfy you. As I say, I think you're searching for something which can never be found.

-

[DHodges]

Because of this, I feel like I'm talking to a fundamentalist Christian. It doesn't exactly excite me.

But I'll persevere nonetheless.

Damn, David.

Your patience here is inspiring.

[Beingof1]

David:

BO: Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?

David: Other people have existed before I existed and they have had their own experiences.

And I take it you cannot recall these experiences that any one of them had. So when did you begin to experience to be able to compare yourself to these "other people"?
This is you comparing your own experience with others. These other people still exist by means of you conceptualizing their experiences. Ergo; they exist in your single consciousness.
It is still just your very own consciousness making comparisons.

BO: Can you remember when you began to be aware?

David: Does it matter?

Of course it does, it is paramount, can`t you see that?
If you can single out the moment consciousness begins, it points to the answer of when awareness has the gate of entry.



I notice you skipped the most important and critical question.
I said:

This reality that you experience is it a partial reality or a whole reality?

If we are going to find truth we need to answer all the questions.
The three questions I asked are intrinsic and linked.

Molecules and matter are also experiences of consciousness, as is consciousness itself. In this way, you are equating consciousness with matter and thus undermining your own argument.

How can consciousness be included in consciousness?
How many supplemental conscious realities do you experience?

I am saying matter and experience exist within my consciousness.

I'm not sure there is any point in discussing this issue with you because it is evident that you steadfastly adhere to an article of faith which has no evidence supporting it

So far; all I am using is logic and reason to make my points. Perhaps I gave my conclusion a bit to quick, I can see why you might think that is an article of faith. I have already connected all the dots.

You need to point out a blind conjecture I have made where all of us can see it, or expand and grow your experience and thought.

Because of this, I feel like I'm talking to a fundamentalist Christian. It doesn't exactly excite me.

I can see why you are not 'excited' you skip over the critical questions that would resolve the dilemma in a direction that you may not like.
Expansion of experience and thought is not always 'comfy' but it is rewarding.

But I'll persevere nonetheless. Before the human race came into existence, before consciousness on earth evolved, what do you think existed?

I already asked you this question. "Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?" and "Can you remember when you began to be aware?"
You are assuming because you can conceptualize a time before consciousness that this concept is more than just a thought that exists within your own mind. That is like thinking of an interplanetary alien and believing it exists because you can think of it. It is just a concept within your mind.

It is easy to confuse reality with concepts because of our immense power of reason and predictive abstract thought. It is like believing in national boundries between countries. They only exist within the mind.

When the human race dies out, who remains to be conscious?

That is like asking - when I am no longer existing, what will I be?

You are experiencing reality in a non- linear consciousness. You defy all linear thought, though it can be conceptualized and confused with actual existence.

I agree there can be no existence without consciousness, but the Totality is something which transcends existence (and non-existence). It doesn't depend on the existence of consciousness.

You are thinking about the totality as if your concept transcends the reality that you are experiencing of this singularity of consciousness.
That is an article of faith in that a concept trumps reality by projection.

You will never know anything but your own consciousness. If you take the time to get to know this, you will know everything.

[David Quinn]

Beingof1 wrote:

BO: Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?

David: Other people have existed before I existed and they have had their own experiences.

BO: And I take it you cannot recall these experiences that any one of them had. So when did you begin to experience to be able to compare yourself to these "other people"?
This is you comparing your own experience with others. These other people still exist by means of you conceptualizing their experiences. Ergo; they exist in your single consciousness.
It is still just your very own consciousness making comparisons.

When you say "your single consciousness", are you refering to my individual consciousness as David Quinn, or are you refering to some kind of larger universal consciousness? If the former, are you saying that other people have their own "single consciousness"? Or is this simply a figment of my imagination?

BO: Can you remember when you began to be aware?

David: Does it matter?

BO: Of course it does, it is paramount, can`t you see that?

I can't remember the exact moment I went to sleep last night. Is that important too?

If you can single out the moment consciousness begins, it points to the answer of when awareness has the gate of entry.

We don't need to be aware of the exact moment when we first became conscious, since we already know there was indeed such a moment. My consciousness had a beginning at some point in the past, and before that I was unconscious. It doesn't matter that these things are now perceived realities currently occuring in my consciousness. The fact remains that for almost the entire history of the Universe the consciousness of David Quinn was non-existent. Or do you dispute that?

I notice you skipped the most important and critical question.
I said:
Quote:
This reality that you experience is it a partial reality or a whole reality?

If I say that I experience the whole reality, then I am saying that other people are not conscious. Is that what you believe?

DQ: Molecules and matter are also experiences of consciousness, as is consciousness itself. In this way, you are equating consciousness with matter and thus undermining your own argument.

BO: How can consciousness be included in consciousness?
How many supplemental conscious realities do you experience?

What we call "consciousness" is actually a conceptual abstraction that we infer from our other experiences. It as much an object of experience as anything else is.

I am saying matter and experience exist within my consciousness.

It's all a matter of perspective. Sometimes, it seems as though matter and experience exist within my consciousness; at other times, it seems as though my consciousness exists within matter and experience. Both of these perceptions, however, are subjecive in nature and have no fundamental reality. Nothing truly exists, in the end. Not even my consciousness.

At some stage, you are going to have leave all this conceptualizing behind and take a leap of faith into the Infinite itself.

DQ: I agree there can be no existence without consciousness, but the Totality is something which transcends existence (and non-existence). It doesn't depend on the existence of consciousness.

BO: You are thinking about the totality as if your concept transcends the reality that you are experiencing of this singularity of consciousness.
That is an article of faith in that a concept trumps reality by projection.

Not really. The Totality is non-dual by definition, which means that it transcends all dualistic categories. It cannot help but transcend the dualities of consciousness and unconsciousness, as well as the dualities of existence and non-existence. The logic of this point is very simple. There's no blind faith involved.

What you're trying to do is squeeze the Totality into a limited dualistic branch (i.e. consciousness) and at the same time pretend that consciousness is somehow non-dualistic in nature. It's a classic case of confusing the identities of things, of violating the principle of A=A, which is the essence of all irrational thinking.

You will never know anything but your own consciousness. If you take the time to get to know this, you will know everything.

You've made a good beginning, but you've only stopped half-way. You're in danger of settling down in a limited insight and closing up shop to what is even higher.

-

[Beingof1]

David:

When you say "your single consciousness", are you refering to my individual consciousness as David Quinn, or are you refering to some kind of larger universal consciousness?

There is no difference as you experience only one consciousness.

If the former, are you saying that other people have their own "single consciousness"? Or is this simply a figment of my imagination?

This is God having a conversation with himself.
I am not a figment of your imagination. I am being experienced by you in your very own "single consciousness".

I can't remember the exact moment I went to sleep last night. Is that important too?

Ever remember your dreams?

We don't need to be aware of the exact moment when we first became conscious, since we already know there was indeed such a moment.

While you sleep do you always recall your thoughts while you were dreaming? Does this mean you were not conscious?
Could it be while you are sleeping you are still experiencing your very own consciosness just in another or expanded awareness?

You cannot say you "already know" there was a "moment" in time you became existence. You cannot recall it nor has anyone ever winessed it.

Lets do a thought experiment that has been done with the universe.

If you can throw a ball at the edge of your conscious awareness and it keeps going, it is infinite. If the ball bounces back your consciousness is finite.

BO: This reality that you experience is it a partial reality or a whole reality?

David: If I say that I experience the whole reality, then I am saying that other people are not conscious. Is that what you believe?

That is not the only conclusion, take the thought all the way to the end of the trail. You are experiencing ground zero or the critical mass of the total of all reality right now as you are reading this post. There is no more of the universe that you can possibly experience in this present moment. Yet at the same time the Ultimate Reality is not confined nor restrained by having your experience.

If not; tell me what you are not aware of and what you are not experiencing? If you cannot; that by definition as well as experience makes it irreducible as it is a singularity and carries with it 'ultimate or total' characteristics.

What we call "consciousness" is actually a conceptual abstraction that we infer from our other experiences. It as much an object of experience as anything else is.

Do you mean that is how you are defining it?

You are performing an infinite number of actions of awareness (and tasks - but that is another subject) and all done in a finite amount of time (as if time were finite ;). This present moment is infinite in its experience ergo your consciousness is infinite.

Look around in the room you are in and start counting the objects. You will quickly find you will never stop counting and yet aware of the 'total'.

At some stage, you are going to have leave all this conceptualizing behind and take a leap of faith into the Infinite itself.

Hey - did you just turn into a fundamentalist -- Joke David

David: I agree there can be no existence without consciousness, but the Totality is something which transcends existence (and non-existence). It doesn't depend on the existence of consciousness.

BO: You are thinking about the totality as if your concept transcends the reality that you are experiencing of this singularity of consciousness.
That is an article of faith in that a concept trumps reality by projection.

David: Not really. The Totality is non-dual by definition, which means that it transcends all dualistic categories.

Exactly how are you aware of this 'totality' that reaches far beyond and transcends your consciousness? Can you tell me at what point it laps over so we can see the duality?
As I have already pointed out numerous times - there is no duality in your consciousness nor in your awareness. Can you tell me how many you have?

What you're trying to do is squeeze the Totality into a limited dualistic branch (i.e. consciousness) and at the same time pretend that consciousness is somehow non-dualistic in nature. It's a classic case of confusing the identities of things, of violating the principle of A=A, which is the essence of all irrational thinking.

I think you are pretending to have multiple experiences of awareness. I can assure you - there can be only one. You are experiencing it this very moment. It is non- dualistic in nature, experience, logic and just plain common sense.

Your idea of the Totality is continuum of infinitesimal quantity and magnitude. The number of the chain of events is so minute and multiplied that it evaporates into nothingness. That is division without limit one might say. That exceeds duality in its infinite division and separation.

Your consciousness is carrying out at this moment the hypertask of transcendance. It can never exaust itself in experience, thought, or expansion it is just as infinite as the universe. Learn to love it.
As Kierkegaard said "subjectivity is the truth".

"How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp" -- T. H. Huxley

You've made a good beginning, but you've only stopped half-way. You're in danger of settling down in a limited insight and closing up shop to what is even higher.

Ditto and right back at ya

[Troglodytes]

DQ: Molecules and matter are states of consciousness too, so I'm not sure where you going with this line of thought.
[. . .]
Salt molecules are as much a mental property as saltiness is.

Is it really very helpful here to lump all things together on the basis that they are all states of consciousness? Surely we're headed down Beingof1's road if we do that. Whilst concepts (such as molecules and matter) are just as much states of consciousness as are sensations (such as light and saltiness), they nonetheless refer to things that are not states of consciousness. Ok, I'm skating on thin ice here: you'll probably tell me that ultimately all things are products of our minds drawing boundaries and so forth, but surely there is a distinction worth making within the context of this discussion.

T: As I see it, photons become the phenomenon we know as 'light' when they interact with the receptors in our eyes and are 'translated' by our brain into a visual phenomenon that we experience.

DQ: Sure, but it is still a case of dark matter "mysteriously" producing light. When we strike a match in the dark and a flame flares into being, it's as though light is suddenly being produced from nowhere.

The sudden emergence of light from 'dark matter' when a match is struck only seems mysterious because of how my visual system (eyes, visual cortex, etc) 'reads' or 'displays' the events taking place. If the events are 'seen' through other means (such as scientific instruments and theories), the mystery vanishes as we discover that nothing is being created or destroyed: all that is happening is that the atoms, photons, electrons, energy etc comprising the match and surrounding air are moving about, rearranging and recombining, and some of them radiate at certain wavelengths towards my eye, triggering the sensation of bright light. So the 'discrete difference' that is perceived can be revealed as a trick of the eye/mind, and the mystery can be dissolved. To me, the discrete difference between matter and consciousness seems to be of a different level entirely. As with the striking of the match, I'd like to be able to say, "The sudden emergence of consciousness from matter only seems mysterious because _________" . . . but I just can't fill in the blank. Suggestions are welcome!

T: These provide clear evidence that consciousness has material causes, but they are not the kind of commonalities that I am seeking -- as you probably realise. I guess I want to see something that can 'join the dots' from matter to consciousness, rather than just evidence that the dots are indeed joined.

DQ: I think you may be wanting something which doesn't exist.

Perhaps. So would you say that the path from matter to mind is a causal process that might never be mapped? Going further, could it be that this process can never be mapped --- that for the human mind (or any other mind) to grasp it would actually be impossible? If so, what would be the reasons for this? What other phenomena, if any, fall into this same category?

[Leyla Shen]

DQ: Salt molecules are as much a mental property as saltiness is.

T-man: Is it really very helpful here to lump all things together on the basis that they are all states of consciousness?

Hm, let me see:

T-man: "The sudden emergence of consciousness from matter only seems mysterious because _________" . . . but I just can't fill in the blank. Suggestions are welcome!

Mm-hm - yep. I reckon it might be.

[Leyla Shen]

But I wouldn't exactly say that consciousness arises from matter as much as I would say with it.

[Troglodytes]

But I wouldn't exactly say that consciousness arises from matter as much as I would say with it.

Hmm, interesting thought. But ultimately, all things must arise from other things, mustn't they? Ahh, or maybe not: perhaps you mean 'arise with' as in the black silhouette arising co-dependently with the white paper.

At any rate, you've given me something to chew on for a while.

(PS. COME ON, BABY, LIGHT MY FIRE???)

[Leyla Shen]

At any rate, you've given me something to chew on for a while.

Great. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

(PS. COME ON, BABY, LIGHT MY FIRE???)

Naturally. All this talk about whizzing molecules, flashy photons, light, dark and the like -- coupled with the unabashed attempt to separate consciousness from it all (as well as a recent reference to The Doors by the One I Love) -- it's no surprise, really.

Did the comment alter your state of consciousness in any way?

[Kevin Solway]

What other phenomena, if any, fall into this same category?

I don't believe a direct causal link between smoking and cancer has yet been proven, although there is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence.

Sometimes it is extremely difficult if not impossible to trace causal links, and even when we find the causal links we are only guessing.

[David Quinn]

The same doubts are often expressed on the causal links between human pollution and global warming - usually by rich consumerist types, oddly enough.

You can mentally divorce the causal links between anything at all if you're motivated enough, if you have an underlying agenda or if you are trapped into looking at things in a certain fixed way. The link between consciousness and matter is no different.

There is no question that consciousness arises from non-consciousness (i.e. matter). This is an indisputable fact. It's up to people to change their perceptions of consciousness and matter to accomodate this fact. Continuing to puzzle over it as though it were some kind of inherent mystery is really nothing more than self-indulgence.

-