GENIUS FORUMS

Cory wrote:If there wasn't a single brain having the sense of existing, then there would be no change,

If there was no consciousness whatsoever, there wouldn't be change or not-change. There wouldn't even be stasis, or absolutely nothing.

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.

It's a bit muddled, but the conclusion is right. Change and existence go hand-in-hand.

There would only be a simultaneousness infinte, without begining or end, without cause or effect.

The Infinite is always without beginning or end. But we couldn't say that it'd be "simultaneousness", because it wouldn't have anything to show it isn't.

We couldn't say this regardless of the imagined presence or absence of consciousness.

If there wasnt a single brain having the sense of existing, then everything would be happening spontaneously.

If the scenario you're painting is of absolutely no consciousnesses ever arising, then there would be nothing at all that could be imagined. No spontaneity or non-spontaneity. No happenings or not-happenings.

In other words, the nature of the hidden void.

This is something I can logically deduce right now, within my own consciousness.

In an absolute sense, everything is happening spontaneously without cause.

False conclusion from false premise.

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

False extrapolation from false conclusion.


-

Kelly, lets start from scratch and try to agree on a basic premise.

1) It's not possible for there to be "appearance" independent of an observer.

However,

2) The totality determines consciousness and it's objects independently from consciousness. So whether we confuse the earth for being flat, or round, the totality has already determined the truth of the matter independently from how the situation appears to our consciousness. If this weren't true, then our consciousness could never have emerged. Our consciousnses never could have emerged without an independent-from-perception energy, an energy unobservable and unknowable by consciousness. It is presumably there, independent from our perception, and unknowable by any perception.

Cory, give yourself a shake, man!

If this weren't true, then our consciousness could never have emerged. Our consciousnses never could have emerged without an independent-from-perception energy, an energy unobservable and unknowable by consciousness. It is presumably there, independent from our perception, and unknowable by any perception.

An "independent-from-perception energy, unobservable and unknowable by consciousness"?

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone here is actually thinking about what they're saying!

With what have you come to know this unknowable and independent-from-perception energy?

[I knew I should've pushed him off that mountain when I had the chance and told him, "It wasn't me! Everything you're thinking and feeling is and was caused by this unknowable-by- and, independent-from-perception energy--the Shadow of Zeus. So much so that it's an energy you can simply postulate into existence." Heh, that's consciousness for ya! Isn't it?]

Cory,

I haven't been following this discussion much, but I'm going to jump in here to address one of your points.

It's not possible for there to be "appearance" independent of an observer.

When we talk of "appearances" we generally talk of things that are an aspect of conscious experience. Or, much more frequently, a subset of things within conscious experience that aren't thoughts or feelings. The term "appearances" doesn't commit us to an observer as such, but we infer such a thing from how the term is used in typical speech. Nevertheless, it isn't difficult to see how this inference is faulty. Consciousness it characterized by intentionality: which is to say that it is always directed towards something. It is impossible to separate pure conscious experience from the thing it experiences. It is the the things within it.

You may object that things have an objective reality: that they exist outside of our consciousness. Nevertheless, as Kant rightly pointed out, we can't know anything about such a hidden essence. If you posit an observer who hides essentially beyond observation, you need to provide grounds for such a belief beyond the fact that the term "appearance" seems to imply such a thing. One could easily scrap such a term and use something like "phenomenal being" without any significant loss in meaning (save for where day-to-day speech is concerned). The "observer" posited to be behind the "appearance" is what philosophers often refer to as a homunculus: an imaginary tiny man who sits behind our eyes to truly see that which we see. Such a notion is ridiculous.

Leyla Shen wrote:Cory, give yourself a shake, man!

If this weren't true, then our consciousness could never have emerged. Our consciousnses never could have emerged without an independent-from-perception energy, an energy unobservable and unknowable by consciousness. It is presumably there, independent from our perception, and unknowable by any perception.

An "independent-from-perception energy, unobservable and unknowable by consciousness"?

With what have you come to know this unknowable and independent-from-perception energy?

I'll give you a hint - what way can a person know other than using sense perception?

ExpectantlyIronic wrote: Cory,

I haven't been following this discussion much, but I'm going to jump in here to address one of your points.

Cory wrote:It's not possible for there to be "appearance" independent of an observer.

When we talk of "appearances" we generally talk of things that are an aspect of conscious experience. Or, much more frequently, a subset of things within conscious experience that aren't thoughts or feelings. The term "appearances" doesn't commit us to an observer as such, but we infer such a thing from how the term is used in typical speech.

Ok, so in other words you are saying that most people would believe that an appearance depends on an observer. Without an observer, there can be no appearance. This makes sense to me.

Nevertheless, it isn't difficult to see how this inference is faulty.

Ok, so you think that there are a select few who can see the more difficult truth: that there can be appearances without an observer. This makes no sense to me. I guess you have a very unique definition of appearances.

It is impossible to separate pure conscious experience from the thing [consciousness] experiences.

So in other words, if consciousness isnt experiencing things, then there is no consciousness.

It is the the things within it.

In other words, consciousness is things?

You may object that things have an objective reality: that they exist outside of our consciousness. Nevertheless, as Kant rightly pointed out, we can't know anything about such a hidden essence.

My stance is that, from an empirical standpoint, we can only know mere appearances, and not the actuality of what the appearances merely represent. And so, aside from that form of empirical knowing, the only alternative form of knowing is the knowing of logical truths, but they are also incapable of giving us complete knowledge of an object we percieve.

If you posit an observer who hides essentially beyond observation, you need to provide grounds for such a belief
beyond the fact that the term "appearance" seems to imply such a thing.

Ok, so I guess your going to help me out with that?

One could easily scrap such a term [observer who hides essentially beyond observation?] and use something like "phenomenal being" without any significant loss in meaning (save for where day-to-day speech is concerned).

The "observer" posited to be behind the "appearance" is what philosophers often refer to as a homunculus: an imaginary tiny man who sits behind our eyes to truly see that which we see. Such a notion is ridiculous.

I guess not.

I honestly don't what it is you are trying to say. It seemed like you were refuting me, but you never made your point clear. Care to elaborate?

Cory,

I honestly don't what it is you are trying to say. It seemed like you were refuting me, but you never made your point clear. Care to elaborate?

Sure. Think about what happens in the brain that causes me to say "I see an apple". A bunch of light particles stimulate my retinal nerves which send a signal down through my neurons, causing a chain reaction which eventually results in the movement of my lips. Where is the observer in all this? The neurons that fired as a result of light particles stimulating my retinal nerves? Fair enough. Nevertheless, the apple that appears in my conscious experience is the process that those neurons undergo. Or, perhaps, it isn't only that process, but it certainly isn't the light particles or the particles of the apple.

When we talk of an appearance, we generally talk of a thing as it appears to consciousness. From this point-of-view an observer doesn't make sense. It is like saying that an apple-as-phenomena isn't a bunch of neurons firing, but rather a thing separate from that. There is some reason to suspect that conscious experience isn't reducible to the physical. Nevertheless, positing a non-observable "observer" doesn't help to solve the problems that arise from that. Only from a purely third-person perspective does it make sense to posit an observer: which would be the brain. If by observer you meant "brain", and by appearance you meant "noumenal thing", then I have no objections to what you said. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that you were positing an observer that would much more accurately be described as a "soul".

Cory Duchesne wrote:Kelly, lets start from scratch and try to agree on a basic premise.

If it sounds logical.

1) It's not possible for there to be "appearance" independent of an observer.

Because anything that appears is in focus to some degree. There's no observer "outside" the appearance "looking in" as if through a window, though.

However,

2) The totality determines consciousness and it's objects independently from consciousness.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

See below.

So whether we confuse the earth for being flat, or round, the totality has already determined the truth of the matter independently from how the situation appears to our consciousness.

I think you're saying that the Totality is a kind of perfect consciousness that sees all things in all their perspectives.

The problem I can see with this is that the Infinite is Infinite, by definition. It doesn't have a boundary. So, once we say that it can be experienced, then it has a boundary: "what" isn't being experienced. Appearance contrasts always with non-appearance.

If this weren't true, then our consciousness could never have emerged.

If you're saying that consciousness is caused by "what" is beyond consciousness, then I'll agree.

But if you're saying that consciousness is a dumping ground for a preconceived selection of appearances, then I'll disagree. It has the same flaw as explained in my reply above: namely, that whatever experiences (or conceives) still has the limitation of not being able to experience (or conceive) what isn't being conceived.

So, there could be an infinite number of preconceivers, which I find to be a rather pointless speculation.

Our consciousnses never could have emerged without an independent-from-perception energy, an energy unobservable and unknowable by consciousness. It is presumably there, independent from our perception, and unknowable by any perception.

You can presume there is an "unknowable" energy all you like, but it doesn't sound logical to me.


-

Oh, cut the bollocks, Cory--you are in no position to patronise me! You don’t even exist, remember?

1. The totality determines consciousness and it's objects independently from consciousness.

That is, emptiness is bullshit. In other words, “I, Cory Duchesne, having made this assumption on some other basis known only to myself but aside from perception, do hereby declare that the meaning of emptiness is that reality is a bunch of independently existing objects of consciousness causing other independently existing objects of consciousness to exist independently of that consciousness and since no-one can prove otherwise (not even with logic, apparently) and since said assumption is not based on perception, it is true, even though I am using a perceptible thing (energy) to describe it.

I'll give you a hint - what way can a person know other than using sense perception?

That is…. Disclaimer: I am not responsible for logically contradicting myself in order to get out of a tight, (il)logical spot

You, Cory, are talking about nothing more than the Christian God, minus the emotional bluster--as if the Totality is a thing that has will. Talk about anthropomorphism--and, mental Neanderthalism!

2. So whether we confuse the earth for being flat, or round, the totality has already determined the truth of the matter independently from how the situation appears to our consciousness.

That the Totality (I am sure you mean “causality” here, and not Totality--there is an imperceptible difference here, apparently) “determines” some of us think the world flat and others think the world round is not the “truth of the matter” because these views are contradictory yet both based on experience of some sort. The truth of the matter therefore; (1) exists independently of the things the Totality determines, and (2) can never be known by the things the Totality determines. (Wow. How religious of you.)

3. Our consciousnses never could have emerged without an independent-from-perception energy, an energy unobservable and unknowable by consciousness.

Oh, an imperceptible energy, eh? Hm…

4. It is presumably there, independent from our perception, and unknowable by any perception.

Ah, of course--not logically, "presumably"...

Kelly,

You have misunderstood much of what I have said. Please re-read it with fresh eyes.

Summary: Consciousness is only the fulfilled ability to have awareness of things and to have awareness of the implications of those things.
.

Kelly wrote:

Cory wrote:
2) The totality determines consciousness and it's objects independently from consciousness.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

See below.

Kelly wrote:

Cory wrote: So whether we confuse the earth for being flat, or round, the totality has already determined the truth of the matter independently from how the situation appears to our consciousness.

I think you're saying that the Totality is a kind of perfect consciousness that sees all things in all their perspectives.

The problem I can see with this is that the Infinite is Infinite, by definition. It doesn't have a boundary. So, once we say that it can be experienced, then it has a boundary: "what" isn't being experienced.

Yes, but what I meant was that the totality's experiencable parts are determined independently from consciousness. And no, I'm not implying that I literally believe the totality is conscious, however, metaphorically it might help to see it that way.

Kelly wrote:

Cory wrote:If this weren't true, then our consciousness could never have emerged.

If you're saying that consciousness is caused by "what" is beyond consciousness, then I'll agree.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Consciousness, along with every object we see, is caused by what is beyond conscious perception.

Everything exists in someway independently from consciousness, however, it is empirically impossible to know a thing in it's entirety. We can only know the mere representation, a mere impression of an energy that does in someway exist independently from our consciousness, an energy that cannot be known in it's entirety.

Kelly wrote: But if you're saying that consciousness is a dumping ground for a preconceived selection of appearances, then I'll disagree.

The barrier of our senses can never tell us how something that we are experiencing really is, science will try it's hardest, but it will never totally succeed. Nonetheless, the totality has created both our consciousness and the object of our consciousness, and so, despite we can never totally know ourselves or the objects of consciousness - God himself knows the truth of his parts, metaphorically speaking.

Kelly wrote: experience still has the limitation of not being able to experience (or conceive) what isn't being conceived.

Right, but that doesnt mean that what isnt concieved, isnt there.

I am both that which I can concieve as well as that which I cannot concieve.

Kelly wrote: So, there could be an infinite number of preconceivers, which I find to be a rather pointless speculation.

Well, the point that I wish to make is that just because something is not concieved by consciousness, doesnt mean that it is not a part of what you concieve. Ultimately, you can't know what you concieve (empirically speaking) you can only know the mere impression that it has left on your consciousness. Logically though, you can deduce that the impression you concieve is the tip of an iceberg that cannot totally be concieved by consciousness.

Kelly wrote:

Cory wrote: Our consciousnses never could have emerged without an independent-from-perception energy, an energy unobservable and unknowable by consciousness. It is presumably there, independent from our perception, and unknowable by any perception.

You can presume there is an "unknowable" energy all you like, but it doesn't sound logical to me.

Ok, how about this: do you believe that rationally deducing the fact of there being a totality, is the equivilant to concieving the totality in it's actuality?

My contention is that you cannot literally concieve of the totality in it's actuality, but rather, you can only have an abstract symbol that points to what can only be presumed as an energy that is beyond fathomability.

Leyla, everything that I have to say to you in response to your last post is in my above reply to Kelly.

Expectantly Ironic,


[quot="Expectantly Ironic"]
Think about what happens in the brain that causes me to say "I see an apple". A bunch of light particles stimulate my retinal nerves which send a signal down through my neurons, causing a chain reaction which eventually results in the movement of my lips. Where is the observer in all this? The neurons that fired as a result of light particles stimulating my retinal nerves? Fair enough. [/quote]

I get the sense that you are suggesting that the human self, the observer is 'a mere sensation' generated by a sufficiently advanced nervous system, one which is analagous to a computer. And that I would agree to, on the grounds that it appears as the most logical hypotheses.

Nevertheless, the apple that appears in my conscious experience is the process that those neurons undergo. Or, perhaps, it isn't only that process, but it certainly isn't the light particles or the particles of the apple.

There is the appearance of apple in consciousness, or the appearance of any distinction in consciousness for the very reason that distinctions registered by the mind, reflect, or are co-created by, an unknowable actuality, an actuality that occupies it's own space distinct from the brain observering/registering it.

When we talk of an appearance, we generally talk of a thing as it appears to consciousness. From this point-of-view an observer doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't personally believe in any inherently existing observer. If I go by appearances, which is the only logical thing to do, I can only presume that the self is analagous to a computer. But a hypothesis is all I have, and it certainly isnt regarded as the absolute truth.

It is like saying that an apple-as-phenomena isn't a bunch of neurons firing, but rather a thing separate from that.

I would say that the entity with it's neurons firing and the object which is registered as an apple, are two distinctions occupying different regions of space, however undivided. The appearance of the apple in consciousness is merely a representation, as the mind cannot totally know the object it concieves. It knows only impressions made in part by things (but also made by what the nervous system is capable of registering) and not the things as they truly are. The senses are a door, yet also eternally a barrier.

There is some reason to suspect that conscious experience isn't reducible to the physical.

I don't know what you mean by 'physical'. How is that you find making distinctions between physical and spiritual any less confusing than leaving it at a single substance? Physical, spiritual, these words hardly seem meaningful when I reflect on the inherent lack of existence in all things.

Only from a purely third-person perspective does it make sense to posit an observer: which would be the brain. If by observer you meant "brain", and by appearance you meant "noumenal thing", then I have no objections to what you said.

No, I was making a distinction between the actuality sensed by consciousness (yet unknowable by consciousness), and the mere mental construct.

Nevertheless, it seemed to me that you were positing an observer that would much more accurately be described as a "soul".

No, I certainly wasnt doing that. The observer, like anything, isnt totally knowable, but only definable. The definition is not the actuality, but rather it is just a hypotheses. The actuality is unfathomable, as our senses will never be able to empirically know any object in its entirety.

Oh, Cory!

S-t-t-t-t-t-rike three! And you're out. Better luck next time you come up to bat.

You wrote:

Physical, spiritual, these words hardly seem meaningful when I reflect on the inherent lack of existence in all things.

(Heh--this just gets better and better, doesn’t it?)

Then, I don’t know why you objected when millipodium called you a nihilist--that’s probably the most useful definition for such an idea. But, obviously and ultimately, you're not big on definition.

And, Emptiness has a new, completely opposed meaning!

From "all things lack inherent existence" we get "the inherent lack of existence in all things.”

What things?

(PS: Hint: you can’t reflect on “the inherent lack of existence in all things” -- you can only reflect on the idea/false conclusion. Also, if all things inherently lack existence, how can you make any sense whatsoever out of the idea that they have an unknowable existence. You are not making any sense, god damn it! Back to basics with you, Cory! 1+1=2 -- A=A.)

Leyla Shen wrote: From "all things lack inherent existence" we get "the inherent lack of existence in all things.”

What I meant was: the minds sensory conception of a thing is an incomplete construct, a fiction - any distinction as it appears to consciousness is merely a face of an unfathomable totality, which is not a thing. Any apparent constituent of the totality is in itself, empty.

Things do exist, insofar as there is consciousness creating boundaries, beginings and ends. 'Things' are a utilitarian function, illusionary.

Ultimately a thing has no beginging or end. We realize formlessness by reflecting on what a form truly is.

Relatively though, for the sake of functioning in the world of illusion, we can say a thing exists.

you can’t reflect on “the inherent lack of existence in all things” -- you can only reflect on the idea/false conclusion.

A things lack of inherent existence can be reflected upon, doing so is the means to realizing formlessness.

Also, if all things inherently lack existence, how can you make any sense whatsoever out of the idea that they have an unknowable existence.

A thing as it appears to consciousness, is not totally knowable, empirically speaking, and this is because the totality is not knowable, empirically speaking.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Summary: Consciousness is only the fulfilled ability to have awareness of things and to have awareness of the implications of those things.
.

It still sounds like you believe things exist beyond the mind.

As if consciousness is a decipherer of streams of data that pour in from remote sources.

Is that what you're getting at?

Things are distinctions. Consciousness is the process of making distinctions. Therefore, things are created by consciousness.

This is not to say that reality is created by consciousness. The modern New Age movement makes this critical mistake. Reality is self-existent, but it is ultimately without distinctions beyond those created by its conscious (distinction-making) aspects. Of course, to say that there are "aspects" of reality which make distinctions is itself a distinction. This is why dialectical monism holds that while reality is ultimately monistic, it can only be thought about, conceptualized, or spoken of in dualistic terms.

Therefore, traditions such as Taoism, Zen, and Advaita teach that thought and intellect must be used to transcend themselves and arrive at a post-conceptual awareness. They also teach, correctly, that any attempts to describe this process within the very dualistic context it is supposed to transcend are doomed to inedequacy, which is why I'll end this post now. This essay explores these issues a bit more, for those who are interested.

Hi Kelly,
You had a lot of events, lets not describe them as good or bad because the strugle between good and bad is a sickness of the mind. Lets walk beyond the event of your birth and run through time and you will soon learn that you never did begin just like you never will end. The sense of self you hold so dear is time itself. Its only a small change to see that you never had a begining. You see there is only one self and it is in all of us.
Neither your birth or death can change that fact. The secret to a peaceful life is being able to let go of life itself.

Kind Regards

Kieran