GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth wrote:
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.

Being a vibration, it is identified as "vibration".

So, we are back to the observer's perspective, and the ability to identify.

Thus, 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.

Do you see the contradicton between these two statements? Namely, that the former requires consciousness to "think it up".

Remember the example of the Big Bang that has the property of no consciousnesses being around? Its existence has been "thought up".

All things are thoughts, because all things are identified.

Making sense yet?

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.

This reminds me of several sayings:


A man amassed great wealth, houses, livestock, servants, sons and daughters. Then he died.


Beautiful vistas, galaxies, great orbiting planets taking millions of years to return to view. But when you close your eyes, what do you see?


A man travelling to the city to take his official examination stopped at an inn for the night. He dreamt that he took the examination, received a high degree, and great praise; that he met his wife on returning home to the village, and with a surprise: his eagerly-hoped-for firstborn son in her arms; that his life was prosperous, his health excellent, his reputation as a good leader, and later, as a sagely elder, enviable..... Then he woke up, and wondered. Having experienced all that life had to offer, he broke off his journey, and returned home.



-

Shahrazad wrote: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?

Consciousness requires memory.

If a volcano erupts, do we say that the air above senses the heat of the volcano? If the air responds belatedly and actively, then there's a fair bet that it is conscious. We cannot know for sure, though.

Memory and reason go hand-in-hand.

-

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:
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.

Being a vibration, it is identified as "vibration".

So, we are back to the observer's perspective, and the ability to identify.

Thus, 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.

Do you see the contradicton between these two statements? Namely, that the former requires consciousness to "think it up".

Remember the example of the Big Bang that has the property of no consciousnesses being around? Its existence has been "thought up".

All things are thoughts, because all things are identified.

I don't see that as a contradiction because I was contrasting them.

What I am seeing is that you are not accepting that any example will illustrate anything contrary to your point simply by fact of it being an example, which must be thought up to be presented. You are not making the connection that such specific occurrences happen without anyone thinking of them - and other events which are not even thought of also occur. I logically deduce that physical laws hold true whether or not there is, or ever was, consciousness present to conceive of these occurrences - or even the physical laws themselves.

Your position seems to be that consciousness is vital to the existence of all things.

In the progenerate thread, your position was that if the air was not the way consciousness liked, or streams did not run the way that consciousness wanted, we would soon interfere. That is valid, so consciousness is not inert. However, consciousness is not a vital component of the Infinite. It is only a caused component. Consciousness is in the ultimate chain of causality, but it is not in all the branches of causality. We can conceive of chains that are not directly effected by consciousness, or even not effected at all by consciousness, but the thinking of it is not a causative event.

I will even accept the quantum changes possible of thinking about something, if we are to take what was presented in the movie What the Bleep do We Know? as true, but that still does not indicate to me that consciousness is imperative to the rest of the universe.
.

Shahrazad wrote:Please define observer, and give me a definition that draws the line between observer and non-observer.

observer - one who directly perceives a thing

non-observer - one who does not directly perceive a thing
.

Kelly,

Consciousness requires memory.

An elevator has memory, and processes data. Is it conscious in your view?

E,

Not detailed enough. Now you'll have to define to perceive.

But if I assume that perceive just means to take input, why isn't a thermostat an observer?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:E: 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.

KJ: Do you see the contradicton between these two statements? Namely, that the former requires consciousness to "think it up".

E: I don't see that as a contradiction because I was contrasting them.

Does not the tree in the forest have an identity that is thought up, requiring consciousness?

Also, since things are caused, there is no cause and effect where there are no things. So, no such thing as non-conscious causation.

I realise you won't accept that conclusion, but I have no problem with it.

What I am seeing is that you are not accepting that any example will illustrate anything contrary to your point simply by fact of it being an example, which must be thought up to be presented.

But you haven't thought up any examples at all.

If you could give some rational example of a thing that exists beyond consciousness, I'd quickly grant that consciousness is utterly unnecessary.

Come on, then.

You are not making the connection that such specific occurrences happen without anyone thinking of them - and other events which are not even thought of also occur.

I'm guilty as charged.

You keep claiming these "beyond the mind" things exist, but so far have been avoiding specific examples. If you keep doing that, I'll have to end the discussion, as it's fruitless and boring.

I logically deduce that physical laws hold true whether or not there is, or ever was, consciousness present to conceive of these occurrences - or even the physical laws themselves.

So where does the identity of a thing come from?

Does it falls from the -- oops! Can't even say where it comes from!

Your position seems to be that consciousness is vital to the existence of all things.

No, it's not a cause. It is the existence of things.

However, consciousness is not a vital component of the Infinite. It is only a caused component. Consciousness is in the ultimate chain of causality, but it is not in all the branches of causality. We can conceive of chains that are not directly effected by consciousness, or even not effected at all by consciousness, but the thinking of it is not a causative event.
I will even accept the quantum changes possible of thinking about something, if we are to take what was presented in the movie What the Bleep do We Know? as true, but that still does not indicate to me that consciousness is imperative to the rest of the universe.

Let's try another image. One big circle, labelled "the Universe".

Everything is "in" this circle. Not even "nothing" outside.

Since there is not even nothing outside the circle, therefore the absolute cause for things must be in the circle. So, we can divide the contents of the circle up, into "Things" and "Unimaginable".

Following me?

I.e. Things are caused by the Unimaginable.

Now we can ask the question, what causes consciousness? It cannot be caused by some thing imaginable, because that in turn would have another imaginable cause, ad infinitum. So, the answer comes with logical deduction: consciousness is caused by the Unimaginable.

Now, since the Unimaginable causes Things as well as consciousness, one half of the circle is both Things and consciousness.

What good reason do you propose for separating them?



-

Elizabeth wrote:

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.

Non-conscious causality? What the heck is that? Oh, an independently existing objective universe, right?

Proving that consciousness is not part of the circumstances of an avalanche's existence is like proving there is life after death.

Shahrazad wrote:E,

Not detailed enough. Now you'll have to define to perceive.

But if I assume that perceive just means to take input, why isn't a thermostat an observer?

Under a mundane definition, because it is not a "one" - it is not a being.

When we are defining something, we must also look at the context. Otherwise, we might as well just look it up in the dictionary.

I'm not going to go further with this until I understand the point that you are trying to get at, otherwise I am just wasting my time.
.

Shahrazad wrote:Kelly,

Consciousness requires memory.

An elevator has memory, and processes data. Is it conscious in your view?

I speculate that it's likely to be responding "belatedly and actively" (ie. using reason).

Reason being that its program could include any number of action-delaying parameters, such as to check for earthquake tremors, or the possibility of terrorist-hijacked aeroplanes in the near vicinity, or to create subclasses of typical actions to assist in responding more quickly to demands. I can't be certain, but if it's capable of learning, storing, and processing data, then it's probably conscious.

If it's programmed to remember its own actions, to have a self-image that it can coordinate, and to be able to create abstract and adjustable plans involving other things, then it has a relatively high level of consciousness.

-

Kelly,

From what you're describing, my elevator is not conscious. It was just a simple elevator, with memory to remember where you and everyone else inside wants to go, and very simple logic. It stores and processes data, but it doesn't learn or modify itself. But imo, it counts as an observer.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Proving that consciousness is not part of the circumstances of an avalanche's existence is like proving there is life after death.

Then prove that consciousness is a requisite for existence in an objective universe.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Proving that consciousness is not part of the circumstances of an avalanche's existence is like proving there is life after death.

Then prove that consciousness is a requisite for existence in an objective universe.

I could do that, but I'd have to kill you first--and then I wouldn't even get the satisfaction of telling you, "I told you so!"

Actually, for evidential proof you would have to kill all conscious beings, including yourself - and even then, there would be no consciousness to see the evidence. Try using logical proof instead. Can you do that?
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Actually, for evidential proof you would have to kill all conscious beings, including yourself - and even then, there would be no consciousness to see the evidence. Try using logical proof instead. Can you do that?
.

Don't need to. You just did it for me.

Shahrazad wrote:From what you're describing, my elevator is not conscious. It was just a simple elevator, with memory to remember where you and everyone else inside wants to go, and very simple logic. It stores and processes data, but it doesn't learn or modify itself. But imo, it counts as an observer.

Remember that this is speculation. To be certain, one would have to be it (and then if it isn't conscious, one still wouldn't know).

Same, to know that it is an observer.

I'd say it's likely that, if the elevator can identify and contrast things, then it is observing.

-

Here's an example from real life. A lady in my area died in her house, and no one discovered her body for over a year. Her social security check was on automatic deposit, her bills were on automatic payment, and when her lawn never got mowed, the neighbors thought the house had been abandoned. No one thought that she was dead. It wasn't until her property taxes were so overdue that someone came to take possession of the house that her body was discovered. There was a dead body with no consciousness of the dead body until after the dead body was found. Neither the body nor the contents of the house ceased to exist simply because there was no consciousness of it. The coroner was able to determine approximately how long the body had been dead due to the causal agent of decay that works at a specific rate in time.
.

Good try, but I've covered this more than once already.

Namely, creating an identity of the type: "no conscious people around".


-

Divisions of time are only artificial constructs for our convenience of measurement, but time itself is not an artificial construct. Time and causality are woven into the fabric of the Infinite. The Infinite itself is not conscious. It does not experience time, nor does it experience anything - it is experience, amongst other things. If it were to experience time, it would experience it all at once because it is all things, including all time.

We are not important to the Infinite. Time is not here for us to experience things, nor are we here to cause time or causality. Time is necessary for causality, but our perception of time is not necessary for causality to exist. Take a human without a brain, but only a brainstem. This human perceives experiences as random, but we can see from the outside that his experiences are not in fact random. To him, time does not exist - but in the larger sense, time exists - and in the largest sense of all, nothing exists, not even time.

But this does not mean that consciousness is things. Consciousness is of things, and without things such as thoughts or ideas there would be no consciousness because there would be nothing to be conscious of - but that proves my point right there. Consciousness can not be the cause of things because without things there would be nothing to be conscious of.
.

My response above was in response to Cory's post which is between this post and my response to it.

Cory Duchesne wrote:The way the totality manifests to consciousness (as distinction) is very arbitrary and relative to conditions.

For example, birds have a capacity for temporal recognition eight to ten times more rapid than we do. For them, pictures flashing at twenty-four frames per second, which appear to us as a continuous, moving picture, remain still photos until the velocity of 240 frames per second is reached. Also, sounds which are to us a continuous whistle are to birds separate and distinct peeps. In other words, birds are able to record ten times as many granulated perceptions as we can in any given temporal interval, which accounts for the acute rapidity of their reflex responses.

So given the evidence, one can logically extrapolate and deduce that consciousness can potentially vary infinitely - - what is known as 10 years to us, could pass in a matter of seconds for another creature of a higher order that we can't imagine. The sense of time, is related to the rate of change in phenomenal experience, and the rate of change in phenomenal experience is determined by our brains - and thus, time, the rate of change, is an arbitrary construct.

If there wasn't a single brain having the sense of existing, then there would be no change, and if there was no change, then there would be no cause and effect, and if there was no C & E, then there would be no existence. There would only be a simultaneousness infinte, without begining or end, without cause or effect. If there wasnt a single brain having the sense of existing, then everything would be happening spontaneously. In an absolute sense, everything is happening spontaneously without cause.

And so without consciousness, there would only be nothingness - - - but not nothing.

I mean this post, which is still below this. Cory, how are you posting in the future?
.

The way the totality manifests to consciousness (as distinction) is very arbitrary and relative to conditions.

For example, birds have a capacity for temporal recognition eight to ten times more rapid than we do. For them, pictures flashing at twenty-four frames per second, which appear to us as a continuous, moving picture, remain still photos until the velocity of 240 frames per second is reached. Also, sounds which are to us a continuous whistle are to birds separate and distinct peeps. In other words, birds are able to record ten times as many granulated perceptions as we can in any given temporal interval, which accounts for the acute rapidity of their reflex responses.

So given the evidence, one can logically extrapolate and deduce that consciousness can potentially vary infinitely - - what is known as 10 years to us, could pass in a matter of seconds for another creature of a higher order that we can't imagine. The sense of time, is related to the rate of change in phenomenal experience, and the rate of change in phenomenal experience is determined by our brains - and thus, time, the rate of change, is an arbitrary construct.

If there wasn't a single brain having the sense of existing, then there would be no change, and if there was no change, then there would be no cause and effect, and if there was no C & E, then there would be no existence. There would only be a simultaneousness infinte, without begining or end, without cause or effect. If there wasnt a single brain having the sense of existing, then everything would be happening spontaneously. In an absolute sense, everything is happening spontaneously without cause.

And so without consciousness, there would only be nothingness - - - but not nothing.

Weird problem. I wonder if it will work for you now, E.

Cory,

For example, birds have a capacity for temporal recognition eight to ten times more rapid than we do. For them, pictures flashing at twenty-four frames per second, which appear to us as a continuous, moving picture, remain still photos until the velocity of 240 frames per second is reached. Also, sounds which are to us a continuous whistle are to birds separate and distinct peeps. In other words, birds are able to record ten times as many granulated perceptions as we can in any given temporal interval, which accounts for the acute rapidity of their reflex responses.

I have thought about this before. Our perception of time is related to our brain processing speed. If we were faster, time would seem to elapse slower, and viceversa.

So given the evidence, one can logically extrapolate and deduce that consciousness can potentially vary infinitely - - what is known as 10 years to us, could pass in a matter of seconds for another creature of a higher order that we can't imagine.

You have it backwards. The "higher-order creature" would live ten of our years in what we call one day.

And not only can we imagine such a creature; we have created them. They are called computers.

The sense of time, is related to the rate of change in phenomenal experience, and the rate of change in phenomenal experience is determined by our brains - and thus, time, the rate of change, is an arbitrary construct.

To that (rate of change in phenomenal experience) I would add thinking speed.

.

Elizabeth wrote to Cory:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Divisions of time are only artificial constructs for our convenience of measurement, but time itself is not an artificial construct. Time and causality are woven into the fabric of the Infinite.

No. The Infinite does not have "fabric" to weave, because the Infinite has no particular form. If it did, it would be finite.

Similarly, time is not intrinsic in the Infinite.

Time is created by consciousness, because it requires the ability to conceive of timelessness.

The Infinite itself is not conscious.

Yes.

It does not experience time, nor does it experience anything - it is experience, amongst other things.

No, the Infinite is not experience, for the same reason given above. Namely, that it would have a form of some kind, and be finite.

That is illogical, because it contradicts the definition of Infinite.

The Infinite is made of things, and of what is responsible for things. But is not itself a thing.

If it were to experience time, it would experience it all at once because it is all things, including all time.

So this is false.

There is no experience without consciousness.

The Infinite is neither time, nor consciousness, nor experience. All of these are things.

We are not important to the Infinite.

Well, ultimately speaking the Infinite itself does not value, because it has no consciousness.

Consciousness values.

So, since I am conscious and evaluate, and since I am a manifestation of the Infinite, then whatever is important to me is important to the Infinite.

But I am not the Totality.

Time is not here for us to experience things, nor are we here to cause time or causality.

Consciousness creates time, but ultimately causation is responsible for both.

Time is necessary for causality,

False. This is impossible.

but our perception of time is not necessary for causality to exist.

Causality doesn't exist, as it is not a thing.

So, true, time makes no difference to what cannot possibly exist.

Take a human without a brain, but only a brainstem. This human perceives experiences as random, but we can see from the outside that his experiences are not in fact random.

Beats me how you can "see from the outside".

I have no idea what this example is aiming to achieve.

To him, time does not exist - but in the larger sense, time exists - and in the largest sense of all, nothing exists, not even time.

The concept of randomness requires a concept of time.

That "nothing exists" is false. Things exist, for only things can exist.

But this does not mean that consciousness is things.

What else can it be?

Consciousness is of things, and without things such as thoughts or ideas there would be no consciousness because there would be nothing to be conscious of - but that proves my point right there.

Without any content, there is no evidence of consciousness. Content just means absolutely anything that can appear.

The same ability to distinguish thoughts as thoughts, is used to distinguish thoughts from things, and thoughts from smells, and so on.

So, you see, all things are identified "in" consciousness.

Consciousness can not be the cause of things because without things there would be nothing to be conscious of.

You are still trying to imagine things that exist before and beyond consciousness of them.

Do you see the contradiction with the definition for consciousness? I take it you are accepting the definition, "consciousness is of things"?



-