I see the points that you're making in several succinct ways. The how's and why's of existence, as well as explaining and/or describing conscious existence.

1. How do you build a human being with consciousness.
2. Why do human beings have a consciousness that provides for self-awareness.
3. Explain consciousness; is consciousness logically possible.
4. Describe conscious existence.

Arguably I think the best we can do is posit number 4.

Otherwise, you and your subconscious must be identical, in the exact same way you and your consciousness are identical, which is quite absurd. — Mww

But one does not know the difference. All the person knows is he or she is in another reality and that's why they crash and kill themselves.

Hence their driving but not driving. Otherwise why would the person want to accidentally kill themselves?

Think of it as a person exercising and getting an endorphin high. They're not aware of the biological and physiological brain states; all they know is they are running feeling good.

And so the person daydreaming is not aware that they're daydreaming otherwise they would avert the accident. ( Some say sleepwalking is the equivalent... during which, are you sleeping or walking or both? )

Excellent points on both fronts!

Here's the irony! It goes back to the metaphysical sense of wonderment in our consciousness. It goes back to why you contemplated the mysteries of consciousness in this thread.it goes back to wondering why we do what we do. And perhaps the greatest wonderment of all (aside from love) it goes back to understanding our existence (trying to).

So it's also perfectly fine to wonder why we wonder. And as you suggested, it's more than fine to attempt any measurement of same. How we measure it's important no doubt.

To that end, I also go back to what you said in an earlier thread that there is much value to analogizing existing phenomena and to make appropriate inferences accordingly...

So you intend a falsification of A = A, insofar as some occasions permit A = not-A? I submit that if you’re daydreaming you’re not driving — Mww

Mww, precisely! As far as our consciousness is concerned, we are not driving, which is why we have the potential to crash and kill ourselves.

Cognitive science says that our subconscious is driving. Hence, I'm driving and not driving at the same time. Therefore, consciousness is beyond our logical understanding.

Same with metaphysical truths, per se: the principles of them may be found in reason a priori, and the possible objects given from those principles may be exemplified by experience, but that is not sufficient in itself to allow truths of any kind to reside in consciousness. Truth is where cognition conforms to its object, and no cognition is possible that is not first a judgement. Therefore, it is the case that truth resides in judgement, and if there is such judgement we are then conscious of that which is cognized as true. — Mww

I'm saying two things: 1. forms of qualia are essentially Kantian innate noumena, that are fixed properties in consciousness a priori. (Or metaphysical phenomena/existential phenomena that just is, and cannot be explained.) They can be described, beyond ineffable phenomena, but their nature can't be explained, particularly in the context of xnihilo.

2: I believe you are essentially saying intellect precedes the (Metaphysical) Will. And I'm saying saying that the Will precedes intellect. In either case both are, insoluble. Yet another hard problem with consciousness.

Why would it have one? — Mww

Consciousness would have a nature to its existence. I use the word nature because it's mutually exclusive in our abilities to logicize its existence. The nature of our existence is unknown.

A priori truths are proved by pure logic (transcendental logic from one methodology), but a posteriori truths are proved from observations — Mww

Agreed. That is why the ontological argument for God's existence doesn't provide for adequate meaning. The God of experience is simply that, an experience. But of course we're talking about Cosmology here... .

If the a priori truth doesn’t hold, we are inclined to say the a posteriori truth cannot hold eithe — Mww

Do you have an example of that? I actually tend to believe the opposite; we experience things first and then we try to figure them out. Barring some exceptions, examples include; running calculations subsequent to avoiding falling objects (as I've alluded), as well as running calculations to design a roof truss, and playing music first then figuring it out later through music theory and written notation.

If A does not equal A, I am well and truly screwed!!!! — Mww

I believe we are indeed screwed! Driving a vehicle daydreaming and thus having an accident suggest s I'm driving and not driving at the same time. Consciousness and subconsciousness breaks the rules of logic.

we limit a priori to the rational and use logical proofs, which turn out to be necessary. — Mww

I agree that there are metaphysical truths that are necessary. In consciousness examples would be our sense of wonder, intuition, love, sentience and other various forms of qualia.

In summary, a priori necessary truths are existential in that they just are without meaningful explanation. The dichotomy is unresolved. And that is because, in part, mathematical truths, while they describe the aforesaid physical conditions in the natural world, they cannot explain nature and account for existence ex-nihilo.

The closest we get to a posteriori truth 's in this context, is once again, the synthetic a priori; all events must have a cause.

What is the true nature of consciousness, could mathematcal (or metaphysical) abstracts help us (?).

Great questions. One thought is if metaphysical abstracts (mathematics) exist independently, and their existence is both physical and non-physical (consciousness) it's entirely possible that the idea of unicorn's could exist in another realm or reality.

By the sheer fact that consciousness cannot be explained, and metaphysical abstracts exist, that logically leaves the door open for (absurd) possibilities...

Similarly; qualia, sentience, and 1st person experience goes beyond Subjectivity (subjective truth's) in trying to understand their nature. Other than relegating them to metaphysical phenomena, we have nothing to describe them.

And so I am thinking that leaves the door open for all sorts of odd or absurd notions existing in another reality.

Maybe another take away viz mathematcal abstracts or metaphysical phenomena is the question of what does it mean to exist (?).

So we notice there is some space where two lines meet and we call it an "angle". Then some thousands of years later we somehow forget that thing we call angle is our own construct and start thinking it is actually the angle that makes the lines and not the other way around. — Zelebg

Sure. Likewise, one decides to design a roof truss, and using simple arithmetic, in order to determine rise over run (roof pitch), it is thus created. Could it have been created otherwise, sure it could. Man could use spatial-perceptive abilities to build it. (Just like we don't-or need to- calculate the laws of gravity in order to avoid falling objects in the jungle.)

Metaphysical abstracts are alive and well! Next question could be, why do we have two ways to know the world when one is not needed(?).

They can argue the a posteriori truth of “the sun is in the sky”, but none of them can argue the a priori truth “no figure is possible with two straight lines”. — Mww

I think the dichotomy rears its head when we try to reconcile a priori truth's with a posteriori truth's.

Meaning the fact that a priori/mathematical truth's describe the physical universe (a posteriori/cause and effect) so effectively, remains an unsolved mystery of sorts.

I don’t think anyone with a half-metaphysical brain doubts the reality of abstract mathematical objects. I mean, mathematics itself doesn’t even exist in Nature; it is a science constructed by humans in response to a need to facilitate talking about quantities. — Mww

Interesting comment. Seems one could make a case for the opposite occurring in nature. Meaning, if the language of mathematics (metaphysical abstracts) is encoded into all of the physical/natural world, what does that infer? To me, it infers that a metaphysical reality exists.

The next question would be here, did that metaphysical truth/reality always exist independently, or did humans invent it(?). Objectively, not sure anyone knows...

Yeah, not to drop book titles again, but Paul's 'The Mind of God' is a pretty awesome read! I refer to it often. You guys are inspiring me to pick-up another one of his books....

According to the Wiki definition below, mathematics is not a physical thing, but simply "knowledge", "number", "structure", "geometry". All of these are forms of generic Information. So wherever you find mathematical "structures" you have Information. — Gnomon

If physics describe the natural world, that would suggest that there is a metaphysical language ( mathematical abstracts) encoded into all of nature.

When you say our sense of wonder is a priori, innate, and unrelated to experience, do you ever question that? — DanielP

Sure. One could say it's Existential, in that, it just is. There is no explanation. Certainly, one could speculate and theorize that this innate sense of wonder, as a feature of our conscious existence, could be a Metaphysical component of Being. Just as other metaphysical components of our consciousness; love, colors, ineffable experiences, the will, intuition and/or to some extent other unexplained phenomena that lack complete physical properties to adequately describe same.

Kant gave it a name, in the realm of Noumenon - unknowable through the senses. The nature of a thing; nature of Being, nature of consciousness, nature of existence. It's all beyond logical explanation. It is partially derived from the question: why is there something and not nothing. Or, some call it the question of creation ex-nihilo.


-

Do you think that when we discover and explore things, two things are going on - we are curious and filled with wonder, and the universe is wanting us to discover things about it? — DanielP

Interesting...reminds me of Einstein's and Spinoza's various forms of Pantheism.

Homeostasis, Emergence, Taoism/Yin Yang and other related concepts, suggest your notion of 'Balance' remains alive and well. Thus one should not dichotomize their thinking; but instead try to integrate, where possible.

It can not be denied that at least part of the consciousness is an emergent system or entity simply due to the fact there is this unification of elements, seemingly independent and autonomous agents, working together as a whole to achieve a common goal, which they individually might not even be aware of. — Zelebg

Absolutely. That speaks to the existential piece relative to Schopenhauer's Metaphysical Will in nature.

My takeaway there is that another concept of self-awareness deserves inclusion... meaning lower forms of consciousness would then be not self-aware. Seems obvious.

Yet a genetic code makes those natural things (lower life forms) work appropriately. However, the bridge that still has to be built is, how does higher life-forms emerge or evolve from the lower life-forms?

Metaphysical Will is one explanation. But unfortunately it's not a purely empirically based theory.

So back to your 'analogies' that help us come close to 'plausibility' here... which of course is still worth exploring...

You mean if we take all the bees that compose an emergent whole, so that their "collective consciousness" is parallel to brain consciousness? — Zelebg

What I meant was the swarming effect reminds us of observing quantum mechanics/randomness, and EM moving particles associated with the conscious energy analogy. Or brain waves as it were.

Obviously something supernatural has to explain our stream of consciousness and connect the dots, but the point is to posit concepts that seem relevant:

1. Metaphysical Will- causation
2. Emergence- natural phenomena
3. Panpsychism- consciousness

Are those things still relevant as starting points in the discussion? Or did we say that they were not all that helpful...it seems there are bits and pieces of those concepts to everyone's theory... .

Thumbs up

As an extension of Aristotle's and Kant's ethics, the short answer would be yes.

You mentioned Charles Manson. Consider politically and ethically a consistent across-the-board theme of being opposed to killing of any kind, with some exception. What would that look like?

As a broad brush; it means no capital punishment, no abortion, no wars, et al.. Is that an extreme form of idealism that one could theoretically aspire to with some exceptions? Sure why not.

Ask yourself the question of, when humans contemplate the act of procreation, whether they're thinking about killing other humans and whether their motivations would be against the sanctity of life. I think it's safe to say their logic would be relative to life being sacred and having intrinsic value. Could that be part of the reason why you and I exist (why our parents had us whether planned or unplanned)?

And is that too idealistic, unrealistic, or something else? Maybe I'm missing something obvious not sure...

Or perhaps a metaphysical question would be, does one have an intrinsic will to live or a will to die?

NOS4A2 could actually be a paid Russian troll, but even if that's true, his posts still meet that good-faith "effort" requirement, and he otherwise colors inside the aforementioned hostility lines, — VagabondSpectre

Wow, call me niave, but that's plausible...

So instead of explanation at this time I'm looking for good analogies — Zelebg

I think it's worth taking a quick step back at Emergence/Panpsychism, and rather than accept all of their respective tenants, take pieces that have merit or at least have a more aligned analogy.

To analogize each individual's stream of consciousness to merit's of emergence then I see two things:

1. In Nature: Swarming is a well-known behavior in many animal species from marching locusts to schooling fish to flocking birds. Emergent structures are a common strategy found in many animal groups: colonies of ants, mounds built by termites, swarms of bees, shoals/schools of fish, flocks of birds, and herds/packs of mammals.

An example to consider in detail is an ant colony. The queen does not give direct orders and does not tell the ants what to do. Instead, each ant reacts to stimuli in the form of chemical scent from larvae, other ants, intruders, food and buildup of waste, and leaves behind a chemical trail, which, in turn, provides a stimulus to other ants. Here each ant is an autonomous unit that reacts depending only on its local environment and the genetically encoded rules for its variety of ant.

So in that respect, my thinking is that the swarming as it were, has a strange parallel to a description of how conscious thoughts appear randomly (stream of consciousness). Meaning conscious and subconscience (EM fields of consciousness) seem to know how to interact as a whole system in our brain to produce thoughts. And, it may even have parallels to QM as we pick from these random fields/ thoughts that we apprehend through volitional existence, as we make choices everyday.

2. Schopenhauer's Metaphysical Will in Nature, generally, seems to suggest Panpsychism:

"Everything presses and strives towards existence…Let any one consider this universal desire for life, let him see the infinite willingness, facility, and exuberance with which the will to live presses impetuously into existence under a million forms everywhere and at every moment…In such phenomena, then, it becomes visible that I am right in declaring that the will to live is that which cannot be further explained, but [yet] lies at the foundation of all explanation…”

As Zelebg put in an earlier question about 'a force' , that is just one synopsis of a broader view about consciousness without detail.

What is synthetic a priori? — DanielP

Daniel, we have an a priori (innate/fixed) metaphysical sense of wonder that helps us discover stuff. It emanates from our consciousness; we can't control it. It's a fixed feature of our consciousness (conscious existence). And it's a priori, because it's unrelated to experience; it's existential in that it just is.

In the context of your question about discovering secrets of the universe, when we speak logic in words only, we can utter judgements about that sense of wonderment through making assumptions about our existence here.

Hence the judgement: every event must have a cause. That's an example of logic that physicists use to test theories that they might have about possible discoveries (hypothesis). To answer your question, technically that's also a Kantian synthetic a priori judgement that occurs naturally with our so-called sense of wonder that we have. You can research that if you will.

It's synthetic because it's not of a pure logical nature, unlike mathematics ( a priori- an objective truth that doesn't change) or, likewise in the case of making judgments/statements about something different: all bachelor's are unmarried men. That's true because it's truth is derived from the meaning of the words themselves, not experience. It's objectively true, no matter what anyone says about it.

The synthetic a priori judgement is then a 'synthesis' of innate a priori intuition, and a posteriori perceptions/sense experience that we have. Some people just call them synthetic judgements.

In summary, you have a priori objective truths/judgements: 2+2=4, or 'all bachelor's are unmarried men', which again are both a priori truth's. And then you also have a metaphysical sense of wonderment/intuition from consciousness that just is. When you combine the two ( a synthesis) you get something that's not of a pure logical nature (all events must have a cause).

Back to your OP, one could argue then that in this context, 'belief in balance' in the form of words and logic, represents the synthetic a priori phenomenon.

Stay tuned there was bombshell testimony today from Fiona Hill and others... It could be the start of some Republicans turning on the President.

My thoughts exactly! I wanted a moderate John Kasich to get the nomination...I think most people will end-up doing a protest vote just to get the guy outa there....sad.

Being an Independent Moderate is tough....and nowadays the Republican party is a far cry from the party of Lincoln…. .

22. Ambassador Sondland testifies 11/20/19 on Ukraine:

"Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” he said. “Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of [claims Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election] and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

“But I never received a clear answer,” he said. “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.”

Ambassador Sondland later concluded that at the time, and in spite of a subsequent telecom directly with President Trump to the contrary, that a quid pro quo was nevertheless implied.

Namely that the universe started out unconscious, and then, as a result of non-conscious stuff doing things, consciousness arises. — bert1

Indeed. Great discussion nonetheless!

I think if the emergentist can somehow connect, say, [just as a crude example] Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will in Nature to the micro system of consciousness, then perhaps the broad-er bridge can be built....

What do you guys think of this? — Enrique

One minor point that I don't think was addressed relates to the practical application or analogy to cognitive science's view of our 'stream of consciousness'. These concepts seem analogous.

QM, indeterminacy, randomness, occurring in physics has a strange parallel to how the stream of consciousness is perceived/apprehended. Random thoughts that occur during everydayness closely resemble indeterminacy in physics relative to our experiencing that conscious phenomena.

Is there not a possible reality where that statement is actually the answer, and what exactly would be missing from that description to make it fully satisfying? — Zelebg

I think what is missing are the metaphysical elements of existence.

For example:
1. Sentience
2. Wonder
3. Purpose

In other words, why does one care if the color is red, yellow or black? Red makes one feel excited, while yellow makes one feel happy, while black makes one feel... .

Great questions

Thank you. My interpretation is that Emergence/Panpsychism (which is a wonderful paradigm/metaphor for consciousness) would explain the cognition phenomena itself, but it wouldn't explain the actual true nature of conscious existence itself. In other words it's not explaining truly novel phenomena. Or maybe I'm not understanding.

In that way, I don't feel you got the gist of my questions. I don't know if you could logicize your thoughts/theory in this way, but can you explain the hard/soft problem viz Emergence/Panpsychism in a syllogistic bullet-point style?

For example,
1. The metaphysical properties of consciousness work:...…
2. The true nature of consciousness is made from:.....
3. The human sentience is made from:.....
4. Mental properties can be reduced to physical properties by way of:....
5. There are truly no emergent properties of complex systems because:....

What I'm trying to parse is the distinction between a micro v macro view of consciousness. For example, in a micro view, it's conceivable emergence explains EM fields of conscious cognition alone, but to make the leap to a macro view of evolution would require more work.

No. Simply another emergent phenomenon within a nested-hierarchical system of complex-adaptive systems (CAS). Explicable with respect to the properties of top-level system. — Pantagruel

Okay, just a few questions for now:

1. What is your interpretation of a 'top-level' system?
2. A process that creates complex systems out of pre-existing properties but yet cannot make "entirely novel" properties, is what?


Great topic BTW!

Guys, Emergence in itself, as a description of how the cognition works (parts working together to comprise the whole), is one very plausible theory. Emergence that would explain the nature of our conscious existence (cognition) is yet another altogether.

To that end, you would still be left with the metaphysical mystery of causation (or Will), right?

was a trichotomy. And it wasn't false. Failed again.
9h — Bartricks

Agreed again, and like others have advised, we failed to see your logic.
LOL

Be well

And you have passed the false-dichotomy test.

The ironic thing, is cognitive science/psychology 101 warns against dichotomization.
LOL

A true philosopher uses reason to discover the truth regardless of whether there are any therapeutic benefits to doing so. — Bartricks

Gibberish and patently false. As self-directed individuals, humans use reason to discover and uncover truths about themselves in the world. Those motivations provide for goals and personal pleasure.

If realizing Truth was not personally pleasurable, why would one pursue it, for the agony of it?

Philosophy is not a mutually exclusive exercise for people....don't dichotomize.

my reason for pursuing that hypothesis is because all materialistic explanations ignore Qualia, which is of more significance to living humans than dead Matter and aimless Energy. — Gnomon

Agreed, well said. It warrants a refresher:


ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.

intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.

private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

If qualia of this sort exist, then a normally sighted person who sees red would be unable to describe the experience of this perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of 700-nm wavelength is directed at you", supporters of this kind of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing a complete explaination.....

It's not independent, that's the concern/problem. It is perceived as independent yet not independent. Further, it's dependent on each other to function properly in the broader context of cognition viz the human condition.

If you are ascribing some kind of independence to subconscious phenomena that's a pretty large leap. — Pantagruel

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I was merely talking about the hard problem of consciousness. Or, the unexplained illogical nature of same.

Now 'independent existence' is another question. For example, the metaphysical Will in nature (Schopenhauer), or the 'independent' language of mathematics, and/or other metaphysical phenomenon that we experience/percieve in life....is that what you mean?

Isn't this just a lot of rationalization to account for distracted driving? I'm having a hard time seeing this as exemplifying a cognitively significant phenomenon. — Pantagruel

There is a distinction between distraction and daydreaming, yes?

Consider yourself driving to work while your subconsciousness is putting you in an island by the beach. Then, all of a sudden you crash as a result. At that moment of daydreaming about the island, were you at the beach while driving at the same time? Was it your consciousness driving, while your subconsciousness was dreaming? Or, was your subconsciousness driving and your consciousness dreaming?

Hence; I'm driving and not driving.

Technically those are different things. Non-contradiction says it can’t be both true and false. Excluded middle says it can’t be anything but true or false. The two together are the principle of bivalence.


When consciousness, as a mysteriously emerging property in itself, morphs into subconscious, creates part of the unexplained hard problem. The daydreaming while driving example is one phenomenon. Two brains are acting as one to create the same or 'one' sense of awareness level.

Hence a person could crash because one thinks they're not driving at all. So I'm driving, but yet not driving.

What is LEM? — Pantagruel

Law of Excluded Middle or commonly referred to law of non-contradiction.

Because Being is in the state of becoming [human beings] there is always 'middle ground' in consciousness. Formal ( a priori) logic doesn't like middle ground. It's like saying both A and B are true at the same time. Like morphing between consciousness and subconsciousness while driving a car daydreaming.

Also, when one is in the state of daydreaming, what is one's conscious reality(?). Similar to the idea of sleepwalking...

Good point. Throw in Metaphysical/Phenomenology into the mix. Like explaining the color red, or the phenomena of Love, or the sense of wonder, or the Will, et al.

But back to logic; the subconscious and conscious mind working together seems to defy LEM. Of course the infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming and having an accident, rears its ugly head again there... .

Indeed, it's beyond all logic. It's a little more difficult for say, the atheist, to square the circle too.
(That is because most atheists believe logic can solve or explain the nature of our conscious existence.)

I submit that Stoicism is either the label for a therapy and not a philosophy,


The short answer is yes. Stocism is indeed a Philosophy.

Unless you are thinking that Philosophy does not include cognitive science (Psychotherapy), then in your case it would not be a philosophy.

The entire point of the philosophy is its therapeutic benefits — Pantagruel

Sure, a self-empowering therapy!