I quite like that. Is it a definition or a theory? if you were a lexicographer, would you consider writing that in your dictionary you are authoring? — bert1

Well, it's a definition I had yesterday. It may not be suitable for a dictionary, but perhaps add it to a daily definition of consciousness app for phones.

I know that it's almost impossible to pin down a definition, but my current one I think is quite simple: The most fundamental unit of consciousness is a reflection of the outside from on the inside, and vice versa. There is an " in here" and an "out there".

I do not have any idea of where evidence could be found though.

I believe God wants me to probe as far as my intellect has the capacity for, as far as my imagination can imagine.

There is absolutely no disrespect in asking such questions. I believe that Jesus inhabited a human body, so yes, He experienced everything we experience.

I don't pretend that there are no logical problems. I understand the objections.

The logical problems run quite deep. For instance, if God is a spirit, the what is the Holy Spirit? Is it the Spirit of a Spirit?

Dualism states that there are only two substances in all of existence: the physical and the non-physical (the mental). What then is the spirit made of? Some quintessential 3rd substance? Or is it too made of the non-physical, mental substance? The way it's referred to it seems even more non-material than mental.

If I die, all 3 of members of that triune die to. I die, myself dies and me dies. — universeness

The same law may not apply to Divinity.

Does it directly communicate with you in a personally very convincing way, regularly, repeatedly?
If not, why not? if it is your benevolent creator? — universeness

Good question. Let me get back with you on that. I will say though that I have never heard an audible voice, or any voices in my head...no burning bushes, etc.

Can the persons of the Trinity disagree with each other?
— GRWelsh

:grin: Well, they seemed to, on the cross, when Jesus is supposed to have exclaimed,
"Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" — universeness

I wouldn't say that it's schizophrenic, but rather conflict within one's own self. We have all experienced this in our own minds. I've wrestled with my higher self many times in pursuit of what I think is the greatest good. If Jesus believed that His mission was to suffer and die, I can see how that would create no small amount of inner turmoil.

The JCI deity is conceived of as 'eternal' which imples that all of the modes – personas – of its being simultaneously exist (like 'experiential time tense' in a block universe). 'One face, three masks' – from the believer's temporal perspective. — 180 Proof

It could very well have something to do with this. I'm not one to bring stuff like this up to fellow believers, nor do I try to nail it down to certainty, but I have thought before that the Trinity could very well be an abstract personification of the various ways God interacts with man.

Good morning UV!

I'm not so sure that we could make any progress here. You and I have discussed this before at length, and my position really hasn't changed.

In a very very simple nutshell, I do not believe that something came from nothing. It is the greatest absurdity imaginable (if one can even imagine nothingness). All of my other worldviews are then built upon that.

I really don't know, and all I can do is self report what I feel. Intellectually, it's all over my head and when you go back that far, the history of it all gets really murky, the etymological roots run this way and that. Personally, I worship the Great I Am.  That is the name given in the Bible that I most identify with, or that most resonates with me. Whether that was El or Jehovah or Yahweh, I really don't feel the need to make absolute certain. 

All I know is that there is a being who exists and was not created. Jesus is the intermediary, as i'm sure you know, so all prayers sort of default to Him. These beings are ineffable in nature, and myself being a mere mortal with limited ability to comprehend such transcendent truths, I have learned over the years to keep it simple. 

I've spoke with a few friends of mine who are well educated in all this, and they all pretty much lay out historical theories of how these names evolved. I really don't feel that the ultimate God, the Great I Am, is too much concerned with whether or not I get these facts hammered out. I do know Jesus though, and I have His Words and His Acts that I can learn and meditate on in my heart. Other than that, any contemplation that I do is on the wonder and awe of an ineffable God that is the all encompassing definition of existence and being. 

What's the Father's Name? I really don't know. I understand that the ancient Hebrews wouldn't speak or write His Name. I know little factoids like that that add up to me concluding that it's not a big deal for me to know this stuff, and there are simply too many conflicting views and conclusions on the matter that suggest I am not alone. 

So as far as my focus goes when praying or worshipping, I guess it may go back and forth between the man Jesus and the ineffable force that is the Father. They're one and the same anyway, in a sense. As I said, all of this I believe is not really to be rationally understood, but rather contemplated in the Spirit, so that we may remain humble before the Almighty.

Things that aren't too clear, I don't believe God really wants me to put a whole lot of energy into investigating. There are some things that are clear and plain as day to me, and other things that are dark and murky. I want to stay in the Light and not wander too far in to the dark. Now that may be just where I am at the moment, at this time of my life, but there is a personal unction for me from God to keep it simple. God's Word is a light unto my path and a lamp unto my feet, and right now, the only place that is illuminated and where I feel safe is underneath the Shadow of His Wings. 

There is a mind that is self existent, eternal. That much I know for certain. There is a being that sees and knows all. It would also seem to me that this being is triune in some sense, and is reflected in the fundamental triune nature of reality.

As far as the story of Lilith goes, that may or may not be true. Again, I can't really see what bearing that has on the story of Jesus. I think it's interesting though!


Here's an interesting response I got from someone:

"Actually, El was the generic name for any heavenly being. The "sons of 'el (bene elohim) were "el " in their own right. Had a great discussion with former Mormon apologist Kevin Graham on the origin of the word "el" and he taught me quite a bit about pre-Hebrew assimilation of terms like YHWH. It was his assertion that the YHWH who was the consort of Ashera and the brother of Ba'al was not the same YHWH as the Hebrews worshipped, but that the name YHWH was assimilated from one to the other."

Things get assimilated by ancient cultures, then the evolution goes this way and that way and it's like trying to look at pre-history through a kaleidoscope.

I know the story of Lilith from a Neil Gaiman comic book actually. Adam rejected her because he witnessed all her innards coming together and was grossed out by it.

Thanks for the info. I really don't have a response at the moment. I'll consult with a few wise men I know on the matter and get back with you.

The solution to the incel problem would be to settle for lesser attractive, often times plus size women. Incels don't just feel entitled to p%$$y, they feel entitled to good looking women.

"Yahweh is, of course, proposed to be the same god as the Christian Jehovah.
What is your understanding of the proposed connections between Yahweh and Jehovah?"

That they are the same? I've never looked into this nor have I ever been compelled to wonder. There may or may not be some truth there, I don't really know.

I know of El, and Yaweh and Jehovah, and i've always heard and assumed they were the same. I always address God as "Heavenly Father." Whatever the truth may be on the matter, I believe God is understanding of the limitations we have in ascertaining the truth.

With God being a loving Father, none of this causes me any sort of wonder or doubt regarding the matter.

Frank said something very interesting and enigmatic:

"It's not two entities. It's two different vocalizations of the Tetragrammaton."

I've seen the movie Pi...

Hello there UVness!

I really have no background in any of this, although I realize there is much debate.

What we have now is a swipe left society. Women can simply swipe left anytime even the slightest bit of disagreements arise. Just keep swiping left, and be assured that Mr. Right is somewhere out there on the horizon. Just keep on swiping left for a better tomorrow. The pool of potential dates is no longer one's immediate geographic area, but rather the entire internet, the entire globe. This has profound impact on the dating game, changing it into something unprecedented.

As a Christian myself, I think the Trinity is something to be contemplated rather than rationally understood. Throughout the Bible, there are references to 3 distinct persons, even if those references are metaphorical in nature. It also could be simply 3 distinct ways in which God interacted with man. I've never understood how there could be a son without a mother. I have once posited that perhaps God is a quaternity rather than a trinity: Father, Mother, Son, Holy Spirit.

There are many possibilities, but in keeping with my faith, I do accept the Trinity in all it's incomprehensible mystery. It's nothing that I think any Christian should get tripped up on and become troubled because it doesn't make sense.

One poster, 180 Proof made the comment : 'One face, three masks' – from the believer's temporal perspective

One can get creative with the underlying esoteric philosophy, and if it helps to stimulate reflection on the divine, then that's a good thing. Whatever it may be, the Christian religion holds there is an underlying 3 fold-ness. One could also contemplate all of this in light of the underlying three fold-ness of reality itself: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. You have to choose your intellectual battles, and this is not a battle I think that is worth the fight, nor do I believe it has any eternal consequences if your theology isn't exactly correct.

Obviously, we will need consciousness to explain consciousness. We will need consciousness to transcend it's own consciousness and become 1st, 2nd and 3rd person simultaneously.

Maybe. Suppose you are looking at the computer screen before you. It is devoid of imagery, but is a continuously changing color from yellow on the left to red on the right. If you allow your eyes to move from left to right there is an element of time change involved. But if you simply move back a bit and look at the entire screen what you see is yellow changing to red as an entity of its own, not requiring a period of time. — jgill

Your thought experiment read simply, but the instructions were not that clear to me.

Is this color scheme, this shift from yellow to red on the computer screen a static gradient? What am I supposed to be imagining here? "Continuously changing color" is throwing me off.

Now if I move back from the screen far enough, I can kind of see where you might be going. Colors can blur together, and from that distance away, one could see things as the same.

Do you happen to have an image or a gif that you could post for this example that might help?

Is it possible to explain it simply?

How does change happen without time?

Changes may happen unperceived. We just do not know about them. — Banno

That makes sense.

What about time though? How can things change without time?

Is this all theoretical or are there examples of things that change without time?

In truth, the discussion should have finished at @jgill's δxδy — Banno

I've never studied math beyond basic trig. I've only touched on a little calc.

I assume that this person's math proves that the image we're discussing changes over distance, from right to left, with no respect to time.

As it has been stated before several times, that is true...but only If we take all perception out of the equation. Once perception is introduced, then change only has meaning in the context of time, e.g. it takes time for my eyes to scan the image and process changes in the patterns.

That's simple enough to grasp.

It definitely appears to be a duality of sorts. Does this relate in any way to dualism, the idea that the physical and mental are distinct substances?

I can see the image change, but as it has been stated multiple times already, that perception requires time.

However, from a meta perspective, if we can imagine such, then the image is what it is, all at once. There is no happening per se, e.g. no changing. It's just a static image beyond any possible perception.

Why can't both be true?

Willing participants.

"Local excitations of a field" sounds immaterial to me. Is it not? A field of what exactly?

If we assert the primacy of existence, then we are asserting that something exists, and that whatever that thing is, it's existence is non-contingent. We are talking about this non-contingent chair...what would be the difference between the chair existing and the chair not existing in this non-conscious possible world?

Maybe not reducible, but rather the same exact thing? It's just that we have two different words making us think that these are actually two different things.
I'll try and explain very briefly what I mean here. It has already been touched on in this thread, but that line of thought seemed to trail off.

There can be no consciousness without existence. That much can be agreed upon by everyone. That one is quite simple. If there is consciousness, then it implies that consciousness exist.

There seems to be at first blush a primacy of existence, but is there really?

We can't imagine there being a consciousness without existence.
Flip the coin now : Can we imagine there being existence with consciousness?

This is where it gets a little tricky:

You might say " I can imagine a possible world where a chair exists, yet there is no consciousness in any form". Basically, this is saying that in this possible world, the only thing in existence is this self existent and eternal chair. Nothing is in this world that could perceive the chair. It's only the chair.

But is it a violation here to to suggest this, since I am using my consciousness to even ask the question? Are there any implications that it's a universal that chairs are made by people who have consciousness?

The chair implies consciousness. Who made the chair? Someone at some point was conscious and they made a chair.

You see, we can't escape using consciousness to fill in every single conceptual gap in this thought experiment. From the chair, to the act of imagining this possible world where the chair exists all implies consciousness existing. If no consciousness ever existed, then that chair would not be there.

Maybe the two are the same in the same sense that space and time are said to be space/time.

So basically, i'm suggesting that you cannot suggest existence if your are not suggesting consciousness existing as well.

If you want to suggest existence without consciousness, you would have to suggest an object that possesses existence. In this example, we used a chair. But you can't do that. You have to use something that did not require consciousness at some point for that thing to exist. It's stalemate the other way as well, because you could suggest something like "A Rock". This rock is the sole existent in this possible world. That might work, but when we turn around , we're faced with the fact that we just used our consciousness to imagine this possible world where only a rock existed.

Just to let you know, I'm the type that likes throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. I think there could be some sticky stuff in this one though, and it could shine some light on the subject for me. There may be some sticky shiny stuff in here.



Thanks for your replies!

"The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system."

Is it possible then, that consciousness and existence are ontologically reducible to each other?

It is possible that existence and consciousness are two sides of an infinitely thin plane.

Wouldn't a materialist proof for the existence of God would equate to panpsychism?

Do you think that this semiotic dimension that all living things possess emerged from nothing, or was it enfolded somehow into the fabric of the Universe?

At some point in the evolution of things, dualism must have emerged. At some point, there was a spark that produced an "inside" and an "outside", a perception that perceived a subject and a verb. It's hard to think about this, but what do you think could have been that first primordial and irreducible unit of consciousness?

What do you mean that it's a process? That it's a byproduct, or an emergent?

I thought it was also worth adding that the theists have the same problem as in, where did god come from. An infinity of earlier gods?
Why should we accept their 'special plead' of no the regression stops at god.- Universness

Hi Universeness. To further our conversation:

You can ask where did God from from, but as you say, that invokes an infinite regression. I personally think that an Eternal, self existing Mind, that is the very essence of Being, is far more parsimonious.
However, I have just recently had the thoughts of the infinite regression of the things this Being has done, and has thought. So even within a theistic framework, there is no way to escape an infinite regression of sorts. Either we have an infinite regression of this God made this God made this God ad infinitum, or we posit One self existent God with an infinite regression of the acts, thoughts (i.e. what was the first thought God had...what was His first act?) I am not so sure that I am looking at this correctly though. I guess the question for me has become: which infinite regression is most simple, sensible?

Relating all this to Panpsychism, it would seem that whatever view one has, consciousness in some form, is fundamental. Even from a purely physicalist/naturalist perspective, the mere fact that it happened, that consciousness and self awareness (identity) emerged from the cosmic soup, means that the materials needed already existed (which is obvious, right?). It is also obvious that these materials arranged in some configuration to give rise to consciousness. If these materials are void of any raw conscious property, then to me, it just makes intuitive sense, that no possible arrangement could have brought forth such a reality. The nature of consciousness just strikes me as so fundamental, so irreducible, that it has the same status in my map of reality as does existence. Something self existed...I think we all would agree with that, whether that was God or the quantum vacuum. Whatever the ultimate, transcendent reality is, the stuff of thought was mixed in there. Even given trillions and trillions of epochs and aeons, I can't see any reason as to why consciousness would have necessarily sparked unless it is eternally entwined in the fabric of space time, perhaps a space/time/consciousness continuum, if you will.

I can appreciate that. Again, much of this is way over my head. That is a lot to think about!

I'll get back with you next week, Lord willing.

What/who combined the combiners?

Hmmm. What would be the great "combiner", then?

I read before that the mind is a mirror that mirror that mirrors man's mind.

Does that tie into what you're saying here at all?

Your post sounds intriguing. I can't really make any sense of it though. Would you mind simplifying all that please? Try to make as simple as you possibly can, as though you were trying to explain it to a 6 year old.