GENIUS FORUMS

From a thread in the Worldly Matters forum, "Actual Faces and Actual Names" (or whatever it was):

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in. We can of course decide that some things are not capable of "interfering", and call them "unconscious".

E: If there were no humans, streams would still run, and the air would probably be much better.

KJ: If there is no consciousness, then there are no things. For there to be any things, there needs to be consciousness.

E: I think I see how you arrive at this conclusion, but I want to be sure. Perhaps it would be helpful if you described to me exactly what a thing is, including its nature. Do you believe a thing is only your perception of it?

A thing is an appearance or form of some kind. It exists in relation to whatever it is not, so it's nature is finite.

Being an appearance, a thing always has some kind of observer's perspective. Thus, without a perspective, or a perception, there is no thing.

Elizabeth wrote:Our perception of "what is" though is imperfect because humans have limitations of perception. For example, when we look at something, we can not see the other side of it.

Although the senses are limited, there is no possibility of experiencing things without limitations of some kind. The reason is that it is impossible to experience absolutely everything. Even "stasis" is limited by what it is not.

Even a creature with an infinite number of antennae extending like tentacles in all directions from its body, would still only experience "one thing": that of all directions from that particular location in space.

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: The Infinite is made up of whatever appears. When there are no appearances, the Infinite has no forms. Yes, it continues, and we can say it "is", but it isn't any particular form that we can imagine.

E: This would be true if it were true that there were no things unless there was a consciousness to perceive it. You logic is circular here.

My definition given above, that a thing has a form or appearance of some kind, should help here.

Elizabeth wrote:E: I agree with you Kelly that humans with the level of consciousness they have are tremendous factors in the way of anything within their extended reach.

KJ: Human consciousness does not have a location, that can "reach". We cannot with certainty say that there is anything at all "out there". We might assume that consciousness produces "content" within one's field of awareness after a few seconds' processing, but that is pure speculation.

E: You misunderstood me here. I did not mean within the reach of human consciousness, I meant within the physical reach of human influence

It is essentially the same thing. A human's influence can only be surmised at. Whatever happens beyond actual experience is an "extension" beyond consciousness.

I cannot know if my actions right now have an influence on billions of people, or if they go unknown. I guess that certain things are likely to be causally related, but can never be sure of specific relationships.

All I can know for sure is that what I do is caused "from whatever is beyond" me, and continues to be causal "beyond" me. By "me", I just mean whatever I am conscious of.

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Things don't exist prior to anyone observing them. Why do you believe they do?

Elizabeth: Because I am taking a non-egocentric perspective.

If one believes that things can have an appearance, and also that things do not have an observer's perspective of some sort, then one has taken a deeply egocentric perspective. Namely, that one exists in a small part of one's consciousness, separate to the rest of one's environment, like a rabbit in a burrow.

Such a perspective of consciousness needs to accept that one is absolutely everything that one experiences. Also, that one has absolutely no evidence that anyone else exists "outside" of one's own consciousness.

Elizabeth wrote:It is just not logical that conscious perception would be the cause of anything other than thoughts.

Conscious perception is automatically present with any experience, including thought, senses, imagination, anything at all.

It is not a cause, in the sense of being a separate part of a thing. It is "there" whenever there is some appearance.

Consciousness is of things.

If I see a clock and it says 9:00, then go away and come back in an hour, and it says 10:00, it is far more logical that the clock remained, it's gears moved by its power source, and came to read 10:00 by these causes. It is less logical that the clock was there because I saw it, it went away when I left, and magically came to exist and read 10:00 just because I saw it again an hour later.

Time is created by consciousness, by relating different things to each other, and all these things to an abstraction: a consistent pattern of gradual alteration.

In your example, one remembers a whole bundle of different things, and synchronises the appearance of the clock with these things. One assumes that the clock is in pace with one's memories. However, one cannot be certain that the clock is actually measuring time in pace with one's memories. One assumes that the hour it represents as having passed, is the same as the hour one has measured with one's memories.

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Things only exist because they have meaning and use for human consciousness. If streams did not run, and if air stopped being created as we'd like it, we'd soon interfere.

E: There is much of the Infinite that is beyond the reach of humans.

KJ: What if you alter "humans" to "consciousness"? Do you hold your statement still to be true?

E: Perhaps on the quantum level, consciousness of something can alter it. I just don't have enough information to know for certain if this is so, to what extent, and whether the effects are congruent with wishes or intent.

If we alter your statement to read "There is much of the Infinite that is beyond the reach of consciousness", we must rely on logic rather than science, because the Infinite is not a scientific concept, but a logical one. The Infinite is absolutely not-finite. Therefore, the concept of "what" is beyond the reach of consciousness, is equal to "Infinite minus consciousness". Given my definition that consciousness is of things, and that things are appearances, therefore "what" is beyond consciousness is definitely without any appearance whatsoever.

In conclusion, one cannot say that there is "not much" or "much" of the Infinite beyond consciousness. One can only say, "What is beyond consciousness is hidden to consciousness".

Elizabeth wrote:E: very much indeed exists because of unconsciousness and non-consciousness. Humans don’t want tornados, but they happen.

KJ: This reaffirms my point, namely, that consciousness only takes an interest in what affects it, whether that is based on conscious valuing or from subconscious hardwiring.

E: If there were no tornados, then how would consciousness take an interest in them?

It can't if there aren't any.

Elizabeth wrote:If a thing only exists because consciousness is aware of it, the awareness would have to come before the thing. Cause comes before effect.

We can assume that advanced bodily organisation is necessary for consciousness to arise, but cannot be sure of that.

However, we can be certain that consciousness arises with things. Therefore, we can rely on the definition that things and consciousness arise together, and are signs of each other.

We can't ever prove that consciousness arises before things, or that things arise before consciousness.

If one perceives something that is not there, it is a delusion.

No, I'd call that a hallucination. But really, it is there. If it proves later to be a dream, hallucination, imagination, or false conception of an appearance, then one can make a fairly reliable estimate that it was so. One cannot be sure, however. It may prove later to really be there in a more consistent fashion, than earlier supposed.

I tend to define a delusion as believing that an appearance isn't an empty whim of causation. This is merely a foible of mine.

If the thing happens to be there later does not negate the point where something was perceived to be there that was not there.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. But yes, any appearance that seems consistent and likely not to be a hallucination, doesn't mean that a prior appearance that did seem to be a hallucination, was not. One just relies on experience to decide whether an appearance is likely to remain relatively stable, or whether it is some kind of psychological product.


-
Kelly

For those who want to see the original in its entirety:
Link to original context.

Kelly Jones wrote:A thing is an appearance or form of some kind.

I agree that a thing is a form of some kind, but I do not agree that a thing is its appearance. Appearances can be deceiving. A thing is a unit unto itself.

Kelly Jones wrote:Even a creature with an infinite number of antennae extending like tentacles in all directions from its body, would still only experience "one thing": that of all directions from that particular location in space.

Yes. But that would not change whether an object were solid or hollow.

KJ: The Infinite is made up of whatever appears. When there are no appearances, the Infinite has no forms. Yes, it continues, and we can say it "is", but it isn't any particular form that we can imagine.

E: This would be true if it were true that there were no things unless there was a consciousness to perceive it. You logic is circular here.

KJ: My definition given above, that a thing has a form or appearance of some kind, should help here.

For just a moment, please detach from the subject matter and just look at the logic structure. If a thing is only its appearance, without an appearance there is no thing. You are attempting to prove something by a definition you defined. Although that works for naming things, it is insufficient for a logical proof. My clock example gives a probable listing of the causality involved, which is practical logic.

(I'm taking the next part out of order of the original thread to improve the flow of this thread)

E: If I see a clock and it says 9:00, then go away and come back in an hour, and it says 10:00, it is far more logical that the clock remained, it's gears moved by its power source, and came to read 10:00 by these causes. It is less logical that the clock was there because I saw it, it went away when I left, and magically came to exist and read 10:00 just because I saw it again an hour later.

KJ: In your example, one remembers a whole bundle of different things, and synchronises the appearance of the clock with these things. One assumes that the clock is in pace with one's memories. However, one cannot be certain that the clock is actually measuring time in pace with one's memories. One assumes that the hour it represents as having passed, is the same as the hour one has measured with one's memories.

No, I was stating that one hour had passes as an empirical truth. If you like, we can change the example to the clock and the watch were synchronized. This eliminates the perception of time through memory.

Kelly Jones wrote:KJ: Things don't exist prior to anyone observing them. Why do you believe they do?

Elizabeth: Because I am taking a non-egocentric perspective.

You separated the qualifier from that statement. Here is a more complete quote:

Because I am taking a non-egocentric perspective. It is just not logical that conscious perception would be the cause of anything other than thoughts. (continued here with clock example)

Consciousness is thought. It is made of thought and makes other thoughts. The perception of things can influence thought, therfore influence consciousness, but the things are not the consciousness itself.

By "a non-egocentric perspective" I meant that there is an inner world which is entirely made of perceptions and an outer world that is what it is. The things that are not appearances that I am referring to are in the outer world - which is a non-egocentric perspective. The things that are only appearances are in the inner world, which is where your perspective is.

Kelly Jones wrote:If one believes that things can have an appearance, and also that things do not have an observer's perspective of some sort, then one has taken a deeply egocentric perspective. Namely, that one exists in a small part of one's consciousness, separate to the rest of one's environment, like a rabbit in a burrow.

No, it is the opposite. If one assumed that one's consciousness was the reason for the things, then that limits one to perceiving that their inner world is the only world. That person ends up "in a world of his/her own." If a person recognizes that they are both in their inner, subjective world and in an outer, objective world - then they are no longer separate from their environment.

Kelly Jones wrote:the Infinite is not a scientific concept, but a logical one. The Infinite is absolutely not-finite. Therefore, the concept of "what" is beyond the reach of consciousness, is equal to "Infinite minus consciousness". Given my definition that consciousness is of things, and that things are appearances, therefore "what" is beyond consciousness is definitely without any appearance whatsoever.

I will agree that consciousness is of things, but I do not agree that consciousness is things because things are more than appearances.

E: very much indeed exists because of unconsciousness and non-consciousness. Humans don’t want tornados, but they happen.

KJ: This reaffirms my point, namely, that consciousness only takes an interest in what affects it, whether that is based on conscious valuing or from subconscious hardwiring.

E: If there were no tornados, then how would consciousness take an interest in them?

KJ: It can't if there aren't any.

Tornados arise, then die down. Before the tornado arose, there was no tornado. If there was no tornado, then consciousness would nto be aware of a tornado. If a thing only is because consciousness is aware of it, there would never be a tornado.

Kelly Jones wrote:we can be certain that consciousness arises with things. Therefore, we can rely on the definition that things and consciousness arise together, and are signs of each other.

We can't ever prove that consciousness arises before things, or that things arise before consciousness.

We can't prove that consciousness arises before things because it does not, but consciousness could have arisen after things.

Kelly Jones wrote:No, I'd call that a hallucination.

You are right - I used the wrong term.

Kelly Jones wrote:I'd call that a hallucination. But really, it is there. If it proves later to be a dream, hallucination, imagination, or false conception of an appearance, then one can make a fairly reliable estimate that it was so. One cannot be sure, however. It may prove later to really be there in a more consistent fashion, than earlier supposed.

If a hallucination of a dog is there, then a hallucination is there - not a dog. Appearance=Thing violates A=A just as Hallucination=Dog would.
.

I agree that a thing is a form of some kind, but I do not agree that a thing is its appearance. Appearances can be deceiving. A thing is a unit unto itself.

A thing is what causes a certain appearance by interacting with causes held by an entity. A thing therefore is a two way process whose appearance or form of existence is dependent on the nature of the entity observing it.

A thing is not a unit unto itself, though part of its causal nature is For Itself. The For Itself portion of a thing is the dominant overall pattern of the thing, and those parts which are in causal synergy or balance with the rest of the universe, and thus a thing has the (coincidental) power to add to, reflect or limit causes that would alter the pattern of its flow, depending on how these parts are relative to the most direct external cuases attempting to impact upon the thing.

Jamesh,

Your definition of "For Itself" is the same as my "unto itself." Is there a reason for your particular term, that you felt the need to differentiate it?
.

I think the important point of the matter is that a thing cannot be known beyond its appearance. Our concepts reflect appearances without fail. It can be said that appearances are deceiving, but the only evidence we have for such a thing comes by way of appearance.

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: A thing is an appearance or form of some kind.

E: I agree that a thing is a form of some kind, but I do not agree that a thing is its appearance. Appearances can be deceiving.

Just think of the idea of an appearance. An appearance cannot deceive, and stop appearing as an appearance.

That is all I mean by a thing: just "appearance", regardless of any boundaries projected onto it.

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Even a creature with an infinite number of antennae extending like tentacles in all directions from its body, would still only experience "one thing": that of all directions from that particular location in space.

E: Yes. But that would not change whether an object were solid or hollow.

Ok. So let's make up a creature who has all imaginable sensory faculties. Whatever its senses produce is still an appearance of some kind. This creature is still in the same boat as any other conscious being.

Even if it could detect whether things are solid or hollow, it still only experiences appearances.

Now let's make up another creature, who is rather impoverished on the sensory side of things. Nevertheless, it is a rational creature. So, it may think, "What do all possible appearances have in common? That would tell me what is the nature of all things." So, its sensory limitations do not prevent it having an enlightened insight about the essential "stuff" of the Universe.

KJ: The Infinite is made up of whatever appears. When there are no appearances, the Infinite has no forms. Yes, it continues, and we can say it "is", but it isn't any particular form that we can imagine.

E: This would be true if it were true that there were no things unless there was a consciousness to perceive it. You logic is circular here.

KJ: My definition given above, that a thing has a form or appearance of some kind, should help here.

E: For just a moment, please detach from the subject matter and just look at the logic structure. If a thing is only its appearance, without an appearance there is no thing. You are attempting to prove something by a definition you defined. Although that works for naming things, it is insufficient for a logical proof. My clock example gives a probable listing of the causality involved, which is practical logic.

The example of a clock validates my definition that a thing is a form or appearance of some kind. As soon as there is a clock, then there is an observer's perspective. Hence, consciousness.

The only way you could prove that a thing can have a form or appearance of some kind, and there be no consciousness, is to imagine right now, using your own consciousness and observer'sperspective the existence of something occurring with no other conscious beings within the imagined scenario, such as the Big Bang, or your clock example (if you define it thus).

E: If I see a clock and it says 9:00, then go away and come back in an hour, and it says 10:00, it is far more logical that the clock remained, it's gears moved by its power source, and came to read 10:00 by these causes. It is less logical that the clock was there because I saw it, it went away when I left, and magically came to exist and read 10:00 just because I saw it again an hour later.

KJ: In your example, one remembers a whole bundle of different things, and synchronises the appearance of the clock with these things. One assumes that the clock is in pace with one's memories. However, one cannot be certain that the clock is actually measuring time in pace with one's memories. One assumes that the hour it represents as having passed, is the same as the hour one has measured with one's memories.

No, I was stating that one hour had passes as an empirical truth. If you like, we can change the example to the clock and the watch were synchronized. This eliminates the perception of time through memory.

I like how you reordered the flow of the discussion. Good idea.

But, let's not change the example yet, as it's a good one.

We say, "The clock measures time". But really, it is a machine that helps us conceptualise a certain brand of duration. Namely, a brand that relates to particular consistent events in our local solar system.

Now Reality is inherently timeless, with no inherent divisions or durations. We humans decided that highly consistent events could be labelled, in contrast with our own rational conception of "timelessness". For instance, we came up with "day", and later on, "rotation of the earth", and so forth. I'm assuming here, of course, events in human history, based on my own observations.

The majority of clocks seem to match this human convention. I suppose there are many others, that match different brands of duration. Each clock is interpreted by an individual, using his own individual concept of "timelessness", "duration", "individual things do not last eternally", and "what is most valuable and permanent to me". It is the individual's own memory that creates time.

Similarly, the individual creates the distinction between the empirical and the timeless.

KJ: Things don't exist prior to anyone observing them. Why do you believe they do?

Elizabeth: Because I am taking a non-egocentric perspective.

You separated the qualifier from that statement. Here is a more complete quote:

Because I am taking a non-egocentric perspective. It is just not logical that conscious perception would be the cause of anything other than thoughts. (continued here with clock example)

Your understanding of ego needs working on. At the moment, you're displaying the very common belief that there is an inherent division in the mind, with an Inner area and an Outer area. This is egocentrism, because it is founded on the ego: the belief that the self exists inherently in the world, and is inherently separate from everything it isn't.

Let's go on to examine why you believe this separation between thoughts/perceptions and things exists:

E: Consciousness is thought. It is made of thought and makes other thoughts. The perception of things can influence thought, therfore influence consciousness, but the things are not the consciousness itself.

Here you are displaying the belief that things are different to the perception of them.

This is not correct, because a thing always has some unique identity, which requires consciousness to create.

But, if you can think of a thing without the observer's perspective involved in the identity of the thing, go for it.

Notice I wrote "the" (observer's perspective) rather than "an" (observer's perspective).

Next you wrote about this imagined division in the mind:

By "a non-egocentric perspective" I meant that there is an inner world which is entirely made of perceptions and an outer world that is what it is. The things that are not appearances that I am referring to are in the outer world - which is a non-egocentric perspective. The things that are only appearances are in the inner world, which is where your perspective is.

Ok, you'll need to give examples of things that have no appearance whatsoever.

KJ: If one believes that things can have an appearance, and also that things do not have an observer's perspective of some sort, then one has taken a deeply egocentric perspective. Namely, that one exists in a small part of one's consciousness, separate to the rest of one's environment, like a rabbit in a burrow.

Elizabeth: No, it is the opposite. If one assumed that one's consciousness was the reason for the things, then that limits one to perceiving that their inner world is the only world. That person ends up "in a world of his/her own." If a person recognizes that they are both in their inner, subjective world and in an outer, objective world - then they are no longer separate from their environment.

I think you may have missed the definition for "consciousness", which was "is of things", and "arises automatically with things". I also wrote that one cannot prove that things arise before consciousness, or consciousness before things.....

Here it comes again:

KJ: the Infinite is not a scientific concept, but a logical one. The Infinite is absolutely not-finite. Therefore, the concept of "what" is beyond the reach of consciousness, is equal to "Infinite minus consciousness". Given my definition that consciousness is of things, and that things are appearances, therefore "what" is beyond consciousness is definitely without any appearance whatsoever.

By beginning with the false premise that consciousness is perceptions and thoughts, and that things exist separately to consciousness, one is forced to take the logical conclusion, that whatever one experiences is split into "inner mental environment" and "outer not-mental environment".

The premise is false, because forms or appearances are experienced directly in consciousness -- and all the identities that consciousness superimposes on these appearances are experienced just as directly.

The ego is basically the function of consciousness that superimposes psychological identities, which are related to the unique human self. It says, "How nice! It smells good! Some yummo food for me!"

You might recall the idea of "character" that I mentioned in the Weininger thread, here?

E: I will agree that consciousness is of things, but I do not agree that consciousness is things because things are more than appearances.

Well, and why?

E: very much indeed exists because of unconsciousness and non-consciousness. Humans don’t want tornados, but they happen.

KJ: This reaffirms my point, namely, that consciousness only takes an interest in what affects it, whether that is based on conscious valuing or from subconscious hardwiring.

E: If there were no tornados, then how would consciousness take an interest in them?

KJ: It can't if there aren't any.

E: Tornados arise, then die down. Before the tornado arose, there was no tornado. If there was no tornado, then consciousness would nto be aware of a tornado. If a thing only is because consciousness is aware of it, there would never be a tornado.

I think what you're saying is, humans have identified the existence of a thing called "tornado", including the property that these things might happen when no human is around to see them. See again my explanation for the idea of the Big Bang. Such are things which appear and are defined within consciousness.

If we imagine things that exist without anyone around to see them, then that's the appearance they take. They don't have this identity "on their own".

----

Before I go on, I'll slip in a little flag.

About what happens while thinking of other people.

If one's thoughts are oriented to the ego, then while interacting with others, there will be emotions about what others mean to the unique human self. The mind will be split into two regions: things pro me, things contra me. For the ego, things pro me will be "my thoughts", and "things I like" and "people who are nice to me". And things contra me will be "things I don't know", and "things I don't like" and "people who aren't nice to me". And naturally, because things are always changing, yet consciousness remains exactly where it is and unmoving, such a one falls for the delusion: I am constant, and my environment is changing.

In that state of mind, it is impossible to experience anything without categorising them, into one or the other. Are they for me, are they against me? One reads "you" or "me" or "I", and does the same categorising.

I'm flagging this, in the hope that this will stimulate thought about the seamlessness of all experiences.

----

KJ: we can be certain that consciousness arises with things. Therefore, we can rely on the definition that things and consciousness arise together, and are signs of each other. We can't ever prove that consciousness arises before things, or that things arise before consciousness.

E: We can't prove that consciousness arises before things because it does not, but consciousness could have arisen after things.

Where are those promised "best thoughts"? You'll need some reasoning to support your claims, if you're going to convince anyone.

KJ: No, I'd call that a hallucination.

E: You are right - I used the wrong term.

KJ: I'd call that a hallucination. But really, it is there. If it proves later to be a dream, hallucination, imagination, or false conception of an appearance, then one can make a fairly reliable estimate that it was so. One cannot be sure, however. It may prove later to really be there in a more consistent fashion, than earlier supposed.

E: If a hallucination of a dog is there, then a hallucination is there - not a dog.

So, you actually do believe that a "real thing" is an appearance to consciousness?

Appearance=Thing violates A=A just as Hallucination=Dog would.

No, it's correct to say Hallucination=Non-hallucination is a violation of A=A. It would also be a violation to say Appearance=Hallucination.

Do you get what I'm saying?

To make it clearer:

A hallucination appears to mind in the same way a non-hallucination does. Since both of these are things in their own right, A=A is not violated.



-

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:I think the important point of the matter is that a thing cannot be known beyond its appearance. Our concepts reflect appearances without fail. It can be said that appearances are deceiving, but the only evidence we have for such a thing comes by way of appearance.

no matter what we consider belonging to the inconceivable is your Ego, as conceived.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Our concepts reflect appearances without fail.

Only when they're accurate. For instance, the concept of the ultimate nature of all appearances has not always been accurately reflected in this thread. That would be evidence of failing to reflect.


-
Kelly

Kelly,

That's pretty long, so it will take me awhile to answer - but I just want to make a couple of points right now. In the clock example, I was pointing at the clock itself, the machine - not time, which it does only measure artificial divisions of. Furthermore, it seems to me that you are using the word "appearance" as Weininger used the term "element." I was using the term "appearance" as "interpreted stimulus of the senses by an observer." Since our definitions of these terms were mismatched, that would account for some of our miscommunication.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:That's pretty long, so it will take me awhile to answer

Take your time. There's no hurry. I'd much rather this discussion be founded on taking time to reflect, experience, and explore..... to savour and test.

- but I just want to make a couple of points right now. In the clock example, I was pointing at the clock itself, the machine - not time, which it does only measure artificial divisions of.p

The meaning of the machine, is how it functions as a measurer of a "brand" of time.

The value of the example is to show that this machine, which may mistakenly be taken as evidence of an inherent physical law to a universe existing beyond consciousness, is actually meaningful only within one's own mind.

Furthermore, it seems to me that you are using the word "appearance" as Weininger used the term "element."

Not at all.

Take this absolute truth: "Something is appearing".

Whatever is being experienced in consciousness is such a something. It could be a sound, a thought, a smell. It is still an "appearance".

I was using the term "appearance" as "interpreted stimulus of the senses by an observer." Since our definitions of these terms were mismatched, that would account for some of our miscommunication.
.

No, I didn't mean it as "interpreted" either. Or only in a very basic sense, such as "something". And this too is only the most basic idea of an observer, or interpreter.




-
Kelly

consciousness is things

when is a thing born?
when it has reality and meaning.
when has it reality and meaning?
when it has associations and affinities;how complicated,infolded,entangled,etc. it may be.

of what is consciousness resulted?
of impacts on the flesh

everything is as flesh;God,Soul,etc.
nothing will have reality for us without the impacts on the flesh,for it gives all emanations.

bert,

no matter what we consider belonging to the inconceivable is your Ego, as conceived.

I apologize, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Could you clarify?


Kelly,

Only when they're accurate. For instance, the concept of the ultimate nature of all appearances has not always been accurately reflected in this thread. That would be evidence of failing to reflect.

I didn't mean to suggest that concepts couldn't be composed of pieces of various different appearances, and thus are always properly reflective of reality; but rather that the words in our heads that make up concepts are composed of sounds we've heard, the pictures in our head of things we've seen, etc.

Lets look at all the definitions presented:

Your original statement (and title of this thread):

Kelly Jones wrote:Consciousness is things.

and then:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Furthermore, it seems to me that you are using the word "appearance" as Weininger used the term "element."

Kelly Jones wrote:Not at all.

Take this absolute truth: "Something is appearing".

Whatever is being experienced in consciousness is such a something. It could be a sound, a thought, a smell. It is still an "appearance".

Okay, with this definition you are stating it as such that appearance definitively has to be in consciousness for it to count as an appearance.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I was using the term "appearance" as "interpreted stimulus of the senses by an observer." Since our definitions of these terms were mismatched, that would account for some of our miscommunication.
.

Kelly Jones wrote:No, I didn't mean it as "interpreted" either. Or only in a very basic sense, such as "something". And this too is only the most basic idea of an observer, or interpreter.

I know that you were not meaning it as “interpreted” – but I was. Hence “difference.”

Kelly Jones wrote:A thing is an appearance or form of some kind.

You are in a circle here. You say consciousness is things, things are appearance, and appearance is in consciousness. This is the full circle.

Defining something based on the definitions you defined is the equivalent of saying “because I said so.” You have not presented any support.
.

Elizabeth wrote:you are stating it as such that appearance definitively has to be in consciousness for it to count as an appearance.

Not "in consciousness". Appearances are evidence of consciousness.

Any thing at all is evidence of this truth.

Any thing at all that I suggest will reveal it as truth.

There's nothing I can suggest that can disprove this truth.

Would you like to try? It is really up to you to disprove it, since you are still not convinced it is true.

ironic:

Quote:
no matter what we consider belonging to the inconceivable is your Ego, as conceived.


I apologize, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

what this means is that the Soul is unknowable because we can only realise by finite form in Time-Space.

that the great thought-stream of the mind permit all things conceivable as possible ,for it determines everything.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:you are stating it as such that appearance definitively has to be in consciousness for it to count as an appearance.

Not "in consciousness". Appearances are evidence of consciousness.

Kelly Jones wrote:Take this absolute truth: "Something is appearing".

Whatever is being experienced in consciousness is such a something. It could be a sound, a thought, a smell. It is still an "appearance".

(bold added)

This looks like a contradiction.

If a sound is a vibration that is heard, yes, it requires consciousness to exist. If a sound is the vibration itself and does not require a hearer - then it does not require consciousness. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, the vibration can still cause an avalanche if the other circumstances for an avalanche exist. All of this would happen through non-conscious causality.

A thought would require consciousness, because a thought requires a conscious thinker.

A smell would require consciousness (and a functioning olfactory system) to be a smell.

Logically, a rock would be a rock with or withourt an observer. There is no reason for it to cease to exist without consciousness.
.

E,

If a sound is a vibration that is heard, yes, it requires consciousness to exist.

A smell would require consciousness (and a functioning olfactory system) to be a smell.

Are you saying that any creature that has senses is conscious? Would you apply the same to any being, alive or not, who takes input and produces output?

.

There are two kinds of consciousness: the mundane kind and the philosophical kind. In the mundane kind, a squirrel would have consciousness. In the philosophical kind, only a very few humans have consciousness. It seems to me that Kelly is referring to the mundane kind, so that is the consciousness I was referring to.
.

Yes, ordinary consciousness is the given, while true awareness is what comes with spiritual/ philosophic awakening.

In the mundane kind, a squirrel would have consciousness.

I agree that a squirrel is conscious, but what about much simpler creatures, such as ants, or even bacteria? They have senses too.

And what about a thermostat?

[ David Chalmers made an argument for thermostat consciousness, btw. And he is a highly-respected academic philosopher. ]

.

Shahrazad wrote:he is a highly-respected academic philosopher.

Well, that would explain why he thought thermostats were conscious.

In a mundane sense, anything with a brain could be conscious - unless it were asleep or knocked unconscious. So, an ant coud be conscious, but bacteria could not.

Personification is a literary device. One could make an argument that a thermostat was conscious, or that a computer had a personality, or make the statement that their car did not like them that morning if it would not start - but that isn't really consciousness.
.

Well, that would explain why he thought thermostats were conscious.

Ah, another one that enjoys putting down academics. Great.

In a mundane sense, anything with a brain could be conscious - unless it were asleep or knocked unconscious. So, an ant coud be conscious, but bacteria could not.

I am trying to show you that no matter how you define it, you'll have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. If your requirement for consciousness is a brain, you still have to define how complex a brain has to be to be considered such. Animals without a brain have been known to learn, btw.

Remember the double slit experiment in QM? It showed that an observer causes the collapse of the wave function. But the observer being used in the experiment was a measuring device! Not any more complex than a thermostat.

In the examples you were using about sound and smell requiring an observer, I disagree that the observer needs to have a brain to perceive them.

.

Shahrazad wrote:I am trying to show you that no matter how you define it, you'll have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere.

That's what a definition is Sher.

Yes, things without a brain can perceive things. An amoeba can perceive food, wrap itself around it, and digest it - all without a brain. You were asking for a mundane consideration of consciousness, not for what can or can not perceive. There are robotic vacuums that can perceive dirt, but they are not mundanely considered conscious.
.

You totally missed my point, E. You weren't even in the ballpark. I don't have the energy right now to pursue it further, though. However, I reserve the right to come back to this if I have the time and energy later.

I will leave you with one question, though. Please define observer, and give me a definition that draws the line between observer and non-observer.

.

Yes, I was aware that you might stumble on what looks like a contradiction, Elizabeth. Thanks for pointing it out.


Think of it this way:


There are two circles.

One is called "things". It has a few marks inside its circumference.

The other is called "consciousness". It has a few marks inside its circumference, too.

Now, think about your own consciousness. It clearly has no such circumference marking it off.

So it would be false to say that the things you experience are "in consciousness", since they can't well be "outside consciousness".

Nevertheless, if we wish to compare the concept of things that might appear outside consciousness, with things that appear within it, then the term "in consciousness" can be useful.



-