GENIUS FORUMS

Or perhaps broadly: existence is consciousness, consciousness is existence.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:And since you are so enamored of the conventional dictionary sense of "exist", can you please explain what "have being" or "be" means.

To me it means the same thing.

To laugh or to cry. Being a Libran, you know I hate making decisions.

Leyla Shen wrote:
This is how I essentially understand David's argument:

1. Things exist.
2. Every thing that exists has a form.
3. Thus, there cannot exist any thing without form.
4. Form exists in consciousness as the observation by an observer of a thing.
5. Thus, all things are objects
6. Thus, the object cannot exist without the observer nor the observer without the object.

So what can be said to exist prior to consciousness?

Presumably "the Totality"( but not things.)

We are still left with the question "What gave rise to the observer?", in the absense of form.

Presumably the answer again is "the Totality"

*shrug* it hasthe distinct wiff of sleight of hand through definition.

guest_of_logic wrote: In the first half of the sentence you assert the impossibility of "appearances prior to consciousness".

That is correct. Appearances require consciousness.

In the second half, you assert that "appearances prior to consciousness" can nevertheless present an "appearance".

You are confusing the event of an appearance (in consciousness) with what is appearing (the thing that appears).

There cannot be the event of an appearance prior to consciousness. However there do indeed appear to us to be things prior to consciousness.

We cannot imagine the event of an appearance prior to consciousness, since appearances happen in consciousness. However we can imagine a time prior to consciousness.

As Dan Says, physical existence is something that appears to us.

Also, let's look more deeply at your "correction". We can rephrase it as: "existence (QRS definition) prior to consciousness, can not exist

No, the event of an appearance in consciousness, by which a thing "exists", cannot happen prior to consciousness. However, a physical world prior to consciousness does appear to us. Our current consciousness grants existence to all things in all time.

something "appears to the mind beyond the mind". This is obviously incoherent

We are saying that it appears to the mind that there are things that are not the mind (such as the cause of the mind). Is that so difficult to grasp?

Physical existence, or things existing beyond the mind, is something that appears to the mind.

Ataraxia wrote:So what can be said to exist prior to consciousness?

Presumably "the Totality"( but not things.)

You can mentally subdivide the Totality, and therefore have things.

We are still left with the question "What gave rise to the observer?", in the absense of form.

If we imagine a "past" then there is form.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:So what can be said to exist prior to consciousness?

Presumably "the Totality"( but not things.)

You can mentally subdivide the Totality, and therefore have things.

Prior to consciousness there was no"mentally" going on, by definition

A: We are still left with the question "What gave rise to the observer?", in the absense of form.

K: If we imagine a "past" then there is form.

hmmm.It is form in hindsight though,not actuality.Can you elaborate?

Surely we can imagine a past 'totality'that potentially had no consciousness.In this scenario are not forms or things still interacting(for example a star exploding and causing a planet)?

Ataraxia wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:You can mentally subdivide the Totality, and therefore have things.

Prior to consciousness there was no "mentally" going on, by definition

That's right. We do the sub-dividing now.

If we imagine a "past" then there is form.

hmmm. Can you elaborate?

Surely we can imagine a past 'totality' that potentially had no consciousness. In this scenario are not forms or things still interacting (for example a star exploding and causing a planet)?

Yes, if we imagine a past in which there was no consciousness, we can also imagine all kinds of forms interacting (stars, planets, etc).

"In the beginning was the Word" is a line from the Bible which has significance here.

Dan Rowden wrote:To laugh or to cry. Being a Libran, you know I hate making decisions.

Haha, I was expecting you to object to that. You want me to acknowledge that the dictionary (at least the one that I've consulted) defines "exist" and "be" circularly? Fine, I acknowledge that. That doesn't change the fact that we can examine common usage to find out what the words mean, and it doesn't change the fact that your definition is discordant with common usage. Are you prepared to accept that?

Bear in mind, too, that I have already provided a definition of "exist" that I think reflects common usage, so I at least am not leaving the definition unspecified. Here it is again for your comment, remembering that I'm willing to revise it should it be shown to be inadequate: "to exist is to possess properties or attributes".

Kevin Solway wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:In the second half, you assert that "appearances prior to consciousness" can nevertheless present an "appearance".

You are confusing the event of an appearance (in consciousness) with what is appearing (the thing that appears).

How do you get that confusion out of what I wrote? I was simply paraphrasing you. There was no confusion at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:There cannot be the event of an appearance prior to consciousness. However there do indeed appear to us to be things prior to consciousness.

Given your second sentence above, the first sentence in this post (a quote of my own words) is completely accurate, and you have achieved nothing by introducing this concept of "the event of an appearance" (your first sentence is irrelevant). Way to write a "non-event" of an explanation...

Kevin Solway wrote:We cannot imagine the event of an appearance prior to consciousness, since appearances happen in consciousness. However we can imagine a time prior to consciousness.

And, by your own admission, we can imagine appearances prior to consciousness, which, as I've pointed out, implies that "appearances prior to consciousness" is a coherent notion, whereas by your definition it is not: to you, an appearance necessarily occurs in consciousness.

Kevin Solway wrote:

something "appears to the mind beyond the mind". This is obviously incoherent

We are saying that it appears to the mind that there are things that are not the mind (such as the cause of the mind). Is that so difficult to grasp?

Dan's already explained that my assumption - that by "physically exist" you meant "exists beyond the mind" (rather than, as you explain now "appears to exist beyond the mind") - was incorrect, so I withdraw my remarks.

Anyway, I've had enough of the discussion of whether or not you guys equivocate on the meaning of "exist". I'm satisfied that I've shown that you do, and you guys don't seem to accept that showing, so let's move on to the other issues that I raised in my critique.

Ataraxia wrote:So what can be said to exist prior to consciousness?

I think that might be like asking 'What existed before existence?' (in terms of the QSR perspective that's being discussed.)

guest_of_logic wrote:

You are confusing the event of an appearance (in consciousness) with what is appearing (the thing that appears).

How do you get that confusion out of what I wrote? I was simply paraphrasing you. There was no confusion at all.

When I said that "there can't be any appearances prior to consciousness" I was speaking of the event of an appearance in consciousness.

But when we're talking about the appearance of "a world before consciousness" we're obviously not talking about any event, called "an appearance", that happens before consciousness. Rather, we're talking about that which appears - which, in this case, is "a world before consciousness".

That which appears is "the world before consciousness". It is called an "appearance" because it appears. It is not the appearance of an appearance.

And, by your own admission, we can imagine appearances prior to consciousness

No we can't. See above. The event of an appearance requires consciousness.

We don't have the appearance of appearances (except for when a thing appears to be but an appearance).

Kevin, as I wrote in my last post, I've had enough of this discussion, so I won't respond substantively, except to say that I found your last post to be tortured, and that your introduction of the "event" of an appearance is spurious, and that the distinction that you are trying to make between the events of appearances and the appearances themselves doesn't save you from the fact that you contradicted yourself on the possibility of existence beyond the mind.

guest_of_logic wrote:. . . you contradicted yourself on the possibility of existence beyond the mind.

Definitely not. There appears to be a cause to mind, and this exists, by definition. There's no contradiction. It's not the appearance of an appearance, which you seem to think it is.

Kevin, does a thing necessarily appear? (I'm not looking for an explanation, just a simple yes or no)

Yes

Yeah. That's consistent with what you all have previously written, and it's the answer that I was expecting. I'm trying to wind down this discussion on the QRS equivocation on the meaning of "exist", because I've demonstrated it as best I can, and I don't think that the discussion's particularly productive at the moment, and anyway, it was the least important of the problems that I raised in my original post, and I'd rather that we turn our attention to those, but I just can't resist demonstrating one last time that Kevin can't help contradicting himself:

In an earlier post, Kevin wrote: 'There can't be appearances prior to consciousness, but there can be an appearance of "things prior to consciousness".' Dan has just confirmed that a thing necessarily appears, so we can replace "things" in that quote with "appearances", hence we get (taking the second half only) 'there can be an appearance of "appearances prior to consciousness"', or, to simplify, there can be an "appearance of appearances". And yet in Kevin's last post, he chastises me "It's not the appearance of an appearance, which you seem to think it is." No, Kevin, I don't think that - I don't even define existence in the same way that you do - but you don't seem to know what you think.

As I said, though, I'd like for us to turn to the other problems that I raised, and, coincidentally, Kevin's last post provides an opportunity to do that, because one of the other things that he said was: "There appears to be a cause to mind, and this exists, by definition." Under the conventional definition of "exist", we would understand this to mean that something external to the mind caused it to come into existence, which makes perfect sense. It's a little stranger under the QRS definition. There we have to understand that what seems to be a cause of the mind, actually resides within the mind, and therefore cannot really have caused the mind (since it cannot have preceded the mind's existence). It's a little strange, but it's consistent, so I'm not going to criticise it beyond what I just said: that it's strange. What I am going to point out is two things, the first one more minor:
a) QRS claim that things are only an appearance within the mind, then simultaneously claim that the mind exists, but the mind isn't an appearance within itself, so how can it exist? The only way that it can be made to make sense is to argue that minds exist by virtue of their appearance in other minds, but the obvious counter to this is "What if there was only one mind left in the universe?"
b) As explained above, QRS deny the reality of a cause for the mind: any perceived cause is really only just an appearance within the mind. This leaves open the question: what is the origin of consciousness? As I pointed out in my original post, QRS equivocate on this. On the one hand, David asserts in WOTI that neither he nor anyone else knows, and on the other hand QRS argue that consciousness evolved. If consciousness evolved, then something must have existed outside of the mind for it to evolve in, and there truly are causes external to the mind, which as we've just seen, QRS deny. It's all very messed up.

I know that I've repeated stuff from my original post, but the guys have been slow to respond to it, so hopefully this will spur them to put on their thinking caps.

guest_of_logic wrote:Dan has just confirmed that a thing necessarily appears, so we can replace "things" in that quote with "appearances"

No you can't. I'll give my previous explanation again:

You can't just replace the word "thing" with "appearance", because these words mean different things. Things appear, but appearances don't appear. If appearances appeared then we would get in an infinite loop, since appearances are of things, so you would then have "the appearance of appearances of appearances", and so-on, forever. We don't experience this doubling, tripling, and quadrupling-up. And that's why you can't replace "things" with "appearances". It would be a category error.

, hence we get (taking the second half only) 'there can be an appearance of "appearances prior to consciousness"'

No, we don't get that. See above.

There we have to understand that what seems to be a cause of the mind, actually resides within the mind

That's nothing to do with our philosophy, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

a) QRS claim that things are only an appearance within the mind, then simultaneously claim that the mind exists, but the mind isn't an appearance within itself

If "the mind" didn't appear to us, we wouldn't be able to talk about it. So it does appear.

so how can it exist?

In the same way anything else does.

b) As explained above, QRS deny the reality of a cause for the mind: any perceived cause is really only just an appearance within the mind.

No. There is a cause to the mind that is obviously not the mind. Appearances happen in the mind, but many things appear to be outside the mind.

This leaves open the question: what is the origin of consciousness? As I pointed out in my original post, QRS equivocate on this.

No we don't.

On the one hand, David asserts in WOTI that neither he nor anyone else knows, and on the other hand QRS argue that consciousness evolved.

We don't know specifically what caused our particular consciousness. For example, it may have been created by a computer programmer. But we know that consciousness had a cause.

If consciousness evolved, then something must have existed outside of the mind for it to evolve in

That's right.

and there truly are causes external to the mind, which as we've just seen, QRS deny.

No we don't.

Kevin Solway wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:Dan has just confirmed that a thing necessarily appears, so we can replace "things" in that quote with "appearances"

No you can't. I'll give my previous explanation again:

You can't just replace the word "thing" with "appearance", because these words mean different things.

If a thing necessarily appears, then it necessarily presents an appearance, therefore everytime there is a thing there is necessarily a corresponding appearance, therefore every time you write "thing" you could equally write "appearance" - yes, you're right that the meaning changes, but it's logically justified.

Kevin Solway wrote:Things appear, but appearances don't appear.

According to your logic, they can, as I demonstrated in my last post, where you implied the appearance of appearances outside of the mind.

Kevin Solway wrote:If appearances appeared then we would get in an infinite loop, since appearances are of things, so you would then have "the appearance of appearances of appearances", and so-on, forever.

I don't understand your logic, but if it's correct, then you're simply contradicting yourself by on the one hand claiming that appearances of appearances are impossible, and on the other hand referring to them by implying the appearance of appearances outside of the mind.

Kevin Solway wrote:And that's why you can't replace "things" with "appearances". It would be a category error.

Brush up on the meaning of category error.

Kevin Solway wrote:

There we have to understand that what seems to be a cause of the mind, actually resides within the mind

That's nothing to do with our philosophy, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

How can you deny that statement? You define "exist" as "appear to consciousness" or in other words "appear within the mind": nothing lies beyond the mind (again, repeating for the second time David in WOTI, emphasis mine: 'The objects that we perceive within the construction are not mere replications or simulations of "real objects" that exist beyond the mind. There are no objects beyond the mind.' as well as 'There is literally no "out there", apart from what we experience in our consciousness.'). Now by your words: "There appears to be a cause to mind, and this exists, by definition." Since according to you, an appearance is necessarily within the mind (and according to David, there is nothing beyond the mind), then the "cause to mind" which is "appearing" is necessarily appearing within the mind (hence my alternative phrasing that it "resides within the mind"). Ergo my statement is completely justified.

Discussions of your philosophy with you are beyond a joke. One minute you'll make a particular assertion, and then another minute you'll make a competing assertion that has contradictory implications.

Kevin Solway wrote:

a) QRS claim that things are only an appearance within the mind, then simultaneously claim that the mind exists, but the mind isn't an appearance within itself

If "the mind" didn't appear to us, we wouldn't be able to talk about it. So it does appear.

Aha, so the mind exists because it appears to itself. Riiiight. That makes a lot of sense. Or rather, it would if you were to simultaneously acknowledge that it really exists by the conventional definition of "existence" which has nothing to do with appearing to consciousness but is objective, but you don't, so we are left with a circularity: the mind exists within itself.

Kevin Solway wrote:

so how can it exist?

In the same way anything else does.

Ergo, within itself, which is circular and no explanation at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:

b) As explained above, QRS deny the reality of a cause for the mind: any perceived cause is really only just an appearance within the mind.

No. There is a cause to the mind that is obviously not the mind. Appearances happen in the mind, but many things appear to be outside the mind.

"There is a cause to the mind that is obviously not the mind", but as your philosophy asserts, this cause is necessarily internal to the mind (since it is merely an appearance), and therefore cannot have caused the mind. "[M]any things appear to be outside the mind" (emphasis mine) - yeah, but so what? They aren't really outside the mind, are they? (refer back to David's quotes earlier in this post for proof of that)

Kevin Solway wrote:

This leaves open the question: what is the origin of consciousness? As I pointed out in my original post, QRS equivocate on this.

No we don't.

Own your contradictions, Kevin. That's the first step in resolving them.

Kevin Solway wrote:

On the one hand, David asserts in WOTI that neither he nor anyone else knows, and on the other hand QRS argue that consciousness evolved.

We don't know specifically what caused our particular consciousness.

So David was incorrect to write in WOTI, affirming the truth of the evolution of consciousness: "If, as I maintain, existence can only occur within consciousness, then it follows that nothing could have existed before consciousness evolved"?

Kevin Solway wrote:For example, it may have been created by a computer programmer. But we know that consciousness had a cause.

Was that cause an appearance?

Kevin Solway wrote:

If consciousness evolved, then something must have existed outside of the mind for it to evolve in

That's right.

I meant "exist" by the conventional definition - the sense in which David wrote "There are no objects beyond the mind." Do you still agree with me (in which case you are disagreeing with David)?

Kevin Solway wrote:

and there truly are causes external to the mind, which as we've just seen, QRS deny.

No we don't.

Yes you do. Reread the quotes from David that I've presented in this post. David specifically denies that there is anything beyond the mind. Of course he then goes on to claim that there are other minds beyond the mind, which is another contradiction...

Those that argue that things "exist" beyond consciousness are the ones being counterintuitive, because all things that are asserted to exist are either perceived or products of perceptions. Every time such a person postulates an existent entity beyond consciousnesses, they postulate something for which there is, of necessity, no evidence and for which there, of necessity, can be no evidence.

What such people really require is an iron-clad logical argument that proves that consciousnesses itself must have a cause or source that itself exists. i.e. they must provide a definition of "exist" that in no way involves, requires, or even tacitly implies consciousness; they must provide a definition that does not imply perception or an observer.

"have being" or "be" don't satisfy this criteria. If you find one that does, let me know.

How do you define "consciousness" as used in your above post, Dan?

Dan Rowden wrote:Those that argue that things "exist" beyond consciousness are the ones being counterintuitive, because all things that are asserted to exist are either perceived or products of perceptions. Every time such a person postulates an existent entity beyond consciousnesses, they postulate something for which there is, of necessity, no evidence and for which there, of necessity, can be no evidence.

You are aware that with this you advocate solipsism, right?

Dan Rowden wrote:What such people really require is an iron-clad logical argument that proves that consciousnesses itself must have a cause or source that itself exists.

To falsify your position, all they have to do is to recognise that - if they accept the likelihood that other people's consciousnesses are ontologically equivalent to their own (as David does in WOTI) - then the position that "nothing exists beyond consciousness" leads to a contradiction: their consciousness only exists within another peron's consciousness but by the same reasoning, that other person's consciousness only exists within their own consciousness, to say nothing of the fact that if there is only a single consciousness, then it can't truly exist, since things only exist within consciousness, which leads to another contradiction: that consciousness exists within itself. This proves the position to be logically untenable, meaning that things - at least other consciousnesses - really do exist beyond consciousness, and thus opening the door to the possibility of causes for consciousness that exist in themselves.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Those that argue that things "exist" beyond consciousness are the ones being counterintuitive, because all things that are asserted to exist are either perceived or products of perceptions. Every time such a person postulates an existent entity beyond consciousnesses, they postulate something for which there is, of necessity, no evidence and for which there, of necessity, can be no evidence.

You are aware that with this you advocate solipsism, right?

It's not as simple as that. It might make me a quasi-solipsist or a specific form of solipsist. One of the problems with a term like that it that it has multiple meanings and scope, none of which that I've known qualify as a proper characterisation of my views.. I deny being a solipsist where that means denying any sort of reality beyond the mind. Am I a metaphysical solipsist, a epistemological solipsist or a methodological solipsism do you think?

Dan Rowden wrote:

What such people really require is an iron-clad logical argument that proves that consciousnesses itself must have a cause or source that itself exists.

To falsify your position, all they have to do is to recognise that - if they accept the likelihood

"accept the likelihood"? That sounds like code for "choose to believe". It's certainly a long way from providing a proper definition of "exist" that enables consciousness to have been caused by something that exists but does not involve or imply consciousness.

that other people's consciousnesses are ontologically equivalent to their own (as David does in WOTI) - then the position that "nothing exists beyond consciousness" leads to a contradiction: their consciousness only exists within another peron's consciousness but by the same reasoning, that other person's consciousness only exists within their own consciousness, to say nothing of the fact that if there is only a single consciousness, then it can't truly exist, since things only exist within consciousness, which leads to another contradiction: that consciousness exists within itself. This proves the position to be logically untenable, meaning that things - at least other consciousnesses - really do exist beyond consciousness, and thus opening the door to the possibility of causes for consciousness that exist in themselves.

Hang on, I don't believe in my consciousness, let alone that of others! But that will probably make your head explode, so let's just say I don't see how what you said meets my challenge. Do you not agree that for the claim that things can exist beyond consciousness (whomever's it is) to be true, one requires a definition of "exist" that does not involve consciousness in any sense whatever?

Jason wrote:How do you define "consciousness" as used in your above post, Dan?

If I answer that just now, Guest's head will explode. It'll be on you, man.

Yeah right, whatever, just tell me.