Thank you for bringing up this topic, I too have been scratching my head about this for some time.

I have found, and been told on a number of occasions, that there exists a cultural aversion to engaging with consciousness, in the west. Engaging with consciousness for idealists is not a problem, but for materialists it is a major issue.

My still evolving understanding is:
In the West, for the past 2000 years, consciousness has been the domain of the soul, - In the possession of the clergy - and as such has been off limits to philosophy. I wonder if Descartes would have gone further if he could have? That he could have gone further seems likely, given Buddha managed to some 2000 years before him. I think therefore I am begs the question why / how do you think? But he stops there, just short of consciousness! – and consciousness remains off limits – in some peoples minds – the unknowable – ineffable - deniable!

This is the tradition of Cartesian dualism / materialism. It seems to be rooted in political expediency rather then open minded philosophy - hence difficult to defend - but it is a belief system! And it persists - It is the basis of western sanity.

Perhaps just answer my original query - I would be interested in what your perspective on the matter is.:smile:

My thinking is Idealistic in the vein of Shiva and Buddha, but far from solipsistic, if that is what you are intimating?

The clergy were too powerful.

How many of your toys have provided you with enduring happiness?

Yes that is a very good point. If history was different here and there, we might be very different people - with a very different consciousness.

Thanks Brett, That could easily be the case. I'm hoping to get a few opinions, and then I need to think long and hard about it.

Yeah, something like that.
Why do you think it is?

I think the tradition is not to engage with it, so when somebody dose, it seems crazy! Uncomfortable?

Freud and Jung put forward theories of consciousness. They proposed Brain working took a certain form.

According to the doctrine, impermanence isn't the cause of suffering but ignorance. Ignorance of our true nature (emptiness). If we could realize our true nature or 'make emptiness real' then we wouldn't suffer, — praxis

it's not ignorance in and of itself that's the obstacle but ignorance of certain truths, e.g. the four noble truths and impermanence, that lead to suffering. — TheMadFool

I think you both bring up excellent points.

Would you say that it was consciousness that Adiyogi and Buddha engaged with some 5000 years ago?

When we speak of our true nature, would that not reside in our consciousness?

In the West, for the past 2000 years, consciousness has been the domain of the soul, and as such has been off limits to philosophy. I wonder if Descartes would have gone further if he could have? That he could have gone further seems likely, given Buddha managed to some 5000 years before him.I think therefore I am begs the question why do you think? But he stops there, just short of consciousness! – and consciousness remains off limits – in some peoples minds – the unknowable – ineffable.

It wasn’t until Jung and Freud, that consciousness was first dealt with in the west, and lately there has been some progress, but there still remains a cultural aversion to engaging with consciousness.
I wonder what your thoughts are on the matter?

IMO
Consciousness defines thinking.
To understand thinking you have to understand consciousness.
Until you do, you cannot define thinking.
Except as a function of consciousness

I suppose its not impossible, so it should be balanced with love.

What if you desire that which you hate in equal proportion? — Brett

Your suffering is no more.

Yogic Logic:

Happiness results from an enjoyment of life.

Desire exists on a spectrum, with hate at one end and desire on the other.

If you can hate that which you desire in equal proportion, then you effectively annihilate them both.

This leaves you free to simply enjoy life.

The brain mind issue is a problem for materialists. For idealists not so . Whether consciousness arises in the brain or foot, or is a whole body phenomena, will not change what it is. It is enough to know consciousness deals with information in order to build some sort of model of it.

Roger Penrose and Co, seem to be on to something with Cellular microtubules, however finding form and location for the material that creates consciousness, will not explain any individual consciousness, though it might give weight to the integrated information view by nailing consciousness to a particular state of quantum permutation / entanglement, and revealing it to be a body wide phenomena - where brain is an organ of extracellular awareness, whilst Liver , heart, etc would be organs of intracellular awareness. - my speculation / understanding.

This would support a model of consciousness, but not give insight into any particular consciousness.

It seems simpler to say a mind empty of information is not conscious!

Sorry about that - very impressive.

Thanks for engaging.

I was very impressed by your: You can use reason to justify reason of course. What you cannot do logically is use reason to debase or disprove reason.
I have copied it to my notes, I hope you dont mind.
I will not debate this further at the moment.You should have a theory in front of you, so you can attack the weakest points. I hope to put something together soon, so perhaps we can continue this then.

I originally misunderstood what you meant. I think I get it now and can respect your aversion. I'll talk to the admins and see if I can post something somehow in a non confrontational way such that it can be ignored. :smile:
I'm of the impression there is a convergence from many fields around this Information and consciousness issue. IIt and GW have been around for quite a while, Physics and science are probing, Chalmers is pushing for a science of consciousness, so I think it will be mainstream some time this century:cry:
I have an interpretation of it, but I do not know how much of it I can say is mine. I'll compare If / once I put something together. From an idealists perspective one arrives at integrated information naturally - if everything is reducible to information, then so must consciousness be! - figuratively speaking.

Nope, not buyin’ that. Reason is the ground of everything mental in a rational agent with respect to what is or may be, including the exposition and subjective validity of consciousness.

Consciousness = experience + emotion. Consciousness is the state of my being conscious, the unity of that of which I am conscious. I am not conscious of my reason, but only the manifestations that represent it. — Mww

How can reason be the ground if you re not conscious of your reason, but only the manifestations that represent it? Surely the ground then is that which you are not conscious of - the subconscious?

My understanding is:
Consciousness = thought + emotion
Experience = thought + emotion

Consciousness is equivalent to experience. I assume this is what you meant.
If they are equivalent, then we can swap them out.
If I did this to your last sentence, it would read:

I do not experience my reason, but only the manifestations that represent it

A slight shift in perspective - curious isnt it? Especially when we add emotion to the equation.

Consciousness is a state of (entangled, integrated, and unified) information. Consciousness is personally constructed from information - each individual consciousness is unique and subjective as it is personally constructed, but they all share this characteristic of integrated information.

The input is information, and the output is integrated information. please consider.

( the unity of that of which I am conscious ). - What can this be in mind other then unified information + emotion?

That information just is the material world. — Pfhorrest

I'm an idealist - peace brother!

Now what the problem really is, as I see it, is how the materialist can demonstrate the being of abstraction/conception by purely physical means — aRealidealist

Dose a computer do this?
Cellular microtubulles look promising :

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

Still not sure what a principle of reason is; ALL principles are given from reason, so saying “principle of reason” is redundant on the one hand, and leads to the notion that reason needs a principle to justify itself, which is quite absurd. — Mww

Try this:

Consciousness = reason + emotion
Consciousness - emotion = reason

I do not think we can understand reason until we have a reliable model of consciousness, since it is a function of consciousness. I think, if we had a model, we would see how unreasonable reason can be:

@Banno illustrates this point with: A belief that is not subject to doubt is a certainty.

Delving into consciousness is highly problematic, in many different ways, so I can understand / respect peoples reluctance to do so.

This thread has strayed a little off topic. Oh well - its to be expected.:smile:

Consciousness = thought + emotion

But which has the greater weight?

Do we ever conclude a deliberation in a non self interested way?

In my experience on this forum, the prevailing view of the ‘mind-matter’ question is still largely shaped by Cartesian dualism and its consequences. But I think many of the implications of that have been absorbed by our culture, and therefore by us, without us being necessarily aware of what they mean. — Wayfarer

Point taken, I do not wish to upset anybody. but it is a philosophy forum.
What I state aligns with Integrated Information Theory, and Global workspace Theory - these are fairly mainstream today.
Look at the world around you - do you really think Cartesian dualism / materialism is worth defending?

Fair enough. Thanks

As far as ‘theories of consciousness’ are concerned - that’s really what we’re talking about here - I think we need to situate the whole discussion in relation to some school, approach or domain of discourse, rather than trying to develop an entire system de novo. — Wayfarer

Thats no fun at all!

Re Husseri - fair enough.

I believe the below statement is true and defendable. On its own it says quite a lot:

Consciousness arises at the same time as a thought is formed, and this is the fundamental first step of all thinking.

Believe is different to know.
It requires rigorous scrutiny.
Pls point out your concerns and Ill try to answer them.

I believe time is an illusion. But for those who believe it is a physical property of the universe, and who accept that a planck length of time exists, would accept that time is composed of individual planck lenghts. If you examined time fundamentally at the smallest scale you would find it is composed of individual planck lenghts strung together - like the frames of a movie reel.

This would mean we pop in and out of existance!

Maths is not my area, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Once the thought is formed a qualia arises.
— Pop

It may be a question of terminology, but this does not seem right to me. You can have sensations (called in philosophy impressions or qualia) whether you think about something or not. Not only the reception of sensations, but the formation of perceptions is a spontaneous procedure that can precede or follow the formation of a thought based on them. A simple example: you bite into the fruit, feel a strange taste and at the time or later you think "This cherry is over-ripe". Of course, what there is not is first a thought and then an impression/qualia. — David Mo

Consciousness = thought + emotion - this I take to be the prevailing understanding. The details, and permutations of how this might work are numerous indeed! There are difficulties and problems for sure.

However, I believe the below statement is true and defendable. On its own it says quite a lot:

Consciousness arises at the same time as a thought is formed, and this is the fundamental first step of all thinking.

Sense input can be substituted for thinking, and this fills our consciousness from the moment we wake. There seems to be many modes of consciusness - environmental awarenes and at the same time focus , and multi focus. There is a difference in individuals - its not all regular. Some people do not posses an internal dialogue, or inner vision. They project their thoughts - they see diagrams and lists, they must speak their thoughts to themselves.

Right. I think this draws on Husserl’s understanding of ‘umwelt’ and ‘lebenswelt’ which are likewise very basic or foundational and for that reason very difficult to discern. And why? Because ‘to discern’ is to bring into focus, to make of it the figure against a background, where the lebenswelt is the background against which we discern particulars. So in that sense, to speak of it is already to misunderstand it. — Wayfarer

There is a logical flaw with Husseri's statement.
If you cannot discern the difference of two materials then you cannot say they are different.
If you know them to be different, then you already posses that knowledge, so there is no need to discern.

Please engage with my consciousness proposition and point out the flaws.

Thank you for your considered and thoughtful response.

That consciousness arises at the same time a thought is formed seems correct.
Once the thought is formed a qualia arises.
The time in between is when the subconscious is dealt with.

This is my best understanding at the present time. Its highly speculative, so thank you for bearing with me and for your valuable input.

Is a concern about whether time is discrete or continuous a truly substantive issue, or is it akin to other debatable subjects that have little relevance to the physical world, like the existence or non-existence of irrational numbers? — jgill

It is TRUELY substantive, if you believe time exists. As, if there exists a planck length of time, then time is a procession of discreet points like the frames of a movie reel. It is not continuous.

This would mean anything that exists over time also exists as a procession of discreet points - including ourselves :)

You continue to evade the proposition.Obviously I am challenging the prevailing view. If I could pose my proposition to wikipedia or to the 20,000 odd authors you hide behind I would, but I cannot. So its up to you, or anybody else who has an interest, to defend the prevailing understanding.

I will state my case one last time:

Consciousness = thought + emotion

Thought = ( entangled + integrated + unified ) information

Emotion = hard problem

For consciousness to take place a thought must form. The basis of any thought is a state of entangled, integrated, and unified information. Prior to this occurrence all is ineffable - its not possible to state anything about a thoughtless state. As a thought takes form, consciousness occurs. - this is the beginning of any and all thinking.

It follows that consciousness ( a state of integrated information ) is fundamental, as nothing can occur before this dose!

If consciousness is fundamental, then it cannot be part of the set of mind as described below. Mind must be a subset of consciousness.

As a consequence the following wikipedia quote would be misinformation:

" Mind: The mind is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion."

It is close, but just misses the mark, and the result is a confused understanding..
It should read :

Consciousness is the set of thinking faculties including cognitive aspects such as , imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion.

Please respond to the pertinent part of my proposition : That consciousness arises at the same time as a thought is formed, and that this is the fundamental first step of all thinking.

PS: I would appreciate anybody's input

What proposition? I don't find it. Repeat it, please. — David Mo

Mind is a state of consciousness.


Consciousness is fundamental. A state of entangled, integrated, and unified information must exist for any thought to arise. It is all ineffable until this happens.

The idea that consciousness is a subset of mind is a nonsense ,as the basis of any thought is a state of entangled, integrated, and unified information ( consciousness ) — Pop

You continue to evade the proposition posed to you, this is getting tiresome.

Confused? Try to tell me what is on your mind right now that is not experiences, emotions and thoughts about experiences and emotions or ideas based on experiences and emotions. — David Mo

You are bound to stay confused whilst you continue to use outdated concepts such as mind.

Mind is a state of consciousness.


Consciousness is fundamental. A state of entangled, integrated, and unified information must exist for any thought to arise. It is all ineffable until this happens.

The idea that consciousness is a subset of mind is a nonsense ,as the basis of any thought is a state of entangled, integrated, and unified information ( consciousness )

But they are not minds. — David Mo

Yet you take instruction from them!

How can you separate experience and consciousness?
— Pop

As used in this thread the term "consciousness" (as equivalent to "mind") cannot be. Experience is one of the elements that form consciousness. — David Mo

No, experience is equivalent to consciousness.

You have a conscious experience.

Experience = Thought + Emotion
Consciousness = Thought + Emotion

When you look into your consciousness you find thought plus emotion - this is your experience.

The below is all confused:

What is consciousness then? If you introspect into your consciousness you will find experiences and emotions. Nothing more. Remove the experiences and emotions and your consciousness will be empty. — David Mo

There, no doubt you will now agree
— Pop
There are a lot of objects that offer entangled, integrated, and unified information. A schedule board, a newspaper page, a puzzle book, my hat tag... I don't think any of them have a consciousness. — David Mo

These are expressions of consciousness

And the basic fact is that, with the brain gone, we find no trace of that consciousness anywhere, — David Mo

The below link leads to a video: Making Decisions without Brains.

https://youtu.be/1LyeWQZ7ZR0

What is consciousness then? If you introspect into your consciousness you will find experiences and emotions. Nothing more. Remove the experiences and emotions and your consciousness will be empty. — David Mo

How can you separate experience and consciousness?

You make it sound like consciousness is stuff. I don't believe that consciousness can be accurately be described as "stuff". It doesn't matter how spooky you describe the "stuff", I still don't think it is consciousness. — Wheatley

I'm sorry you find it spooky. I don't find it spooky at all. I believe humanity is part of the flora and fauna of the planet, is a complex biological system , but not special. We share attributes with everything else, and everything else shares attributes with us. We have the most complex consciousness of course.

What i posit is highly speculative, and If it dose not resonate with your understanding, i can respect that you wont believe it :)

↪Pop Put what do mineralogist say about rocks? — Wheatley

This was a hypothetical suggestion contingent upon accepting that consciousness arises from entanglement, integration and unification. You will accept, I'm sure, that rocks are entangled, integrated , and unified. Obviously they are nowhere near as conscious as we are. But a spectrum of consciousness would be a way to attribute consciousness to them.

The issue is that consciousness is part of the fabric of the universe, so it should be distributed in some way throughout the universe.