So... you do not arrive where you started? Then it was a step forward! — Heiko

In the context of the times, I think it was a step forward, though ultimately it was the wrong step.
In the east they landed on consciousness, and I think this resulted in a much better understanding.

In the context of the times, I think it was a step forward, though ultimately it was the wrong step.
In the east they landed on consciousness, and I think this resulted in a much better understanding. — Pop

I cannot help but associate the "thinking oneself" with Heidegger's Nietzsche Lectures in Nazi-Germany. I'm sorry.

I'm not familiar with those. I read Nietzsche at 14, and haven't found the need to read him again. I'm mostly interested in eastern philosophy.

I'm not familiar with those. I read Nietzsche at 14, and haven't found the need to read him again. I'm mostly interested in eastern philosophy. — Pop

Really? I wouldn't think of his works as literature for under-aged. But I guess that doesn't matter if it was useful... As for the eastern philosophy - I'm afraid I cannot help you with that: I barely know the yin-yang principle.

In my theory, consciousness = self organization. That everything that can happen dose happen, given enough time, is due entirely to self organization. — Pop

If you change the definition of words, it's going to be hard to communicate... It takes a lot of time and chance to get to true consciousness. It doesn't come with just a few Lego bricks... For me, the early universe was not conscious in any way, and consciousness emerged progressively from it, through life.

If you change the definition of words, it's going to be hard to communicate... It takes a lot of time and chance to get to true consciousness. It doesn't come with just a few Lego bricks... For me, the early universe was not conscious in any way, and consciousness emerged progressively from it, through life. — Olivier5

I think, ultimately a philosopher has to answer how inanimate matter becomes animate, and there is no solution from the paradigm that you pose. Not even a hint of a solution, even after several hundred years of effort. However, a panpsychist solution exists.

If you accept that the universe is in a process of self organization, then you will accept that all of it's component parts are as a result in a process of self organization. That life arose from self organization is overwhelmingly supported by abiogenesis theory. What is the purpose of the Euclidian space that you see, other then self organization? Every instance of consciousness is an instance of self organization.
My claim goes beyond normal philosophical conjecture, in that it can be easily disproven by providing an instance of consciousness that is not in some way self organization, which I believe is logically impossible.

Consciousness = an evolving process of self organization.

ultimately a philosopher has to answer how inanimate matter becomes animate, and there is no solution from the paradigm that you pose. Not even a hint of a solution, even after several hundred years of effort. However, a panpsychist solution exists. — Pop

Not to be pedant, but panpsychism doesn't actually provide a solution to this problem. It rather explains how animate matter becomes ever more animate. In doing so it trivializes the problem, it underplays the radical novelty and importance of life, in my view. Life is information bossing matter around. It radically changes the rules of the game. And the centuries of effort you mentioned were inspired by mechanics. That was the wrong track, the wrong metaphor. Seeing biology as infused with meaning is a better way to solve the hard problem and explain how consciousness emerged.

Seeing biology as infused with meaning is a better way to solve the hard problem and explain how consciousness emerged. — Olivier5

Biology agrees with self organization.

Biology agrees with self organization. — Pop

Why yes. It's where the idea comes from, in fact.

Why yes. It's where the idea comes from, in fact. — Olivier5

Yes, the idea comes from abiogenesis theory, and the phrase life is an expression of consciousness, which I take to be logically impeccable. Considered together I came to the conclusion that self organization leads to life, and in turn life expresses self organization. I then connected that self organization is consciousness. It works as a definition of consciousness within monism / panpsychism. Hence my objection to your stupid universe comment. I don't believe the universe is self aware, but it is involved in the same process of self organization as we are, to the best of my understanding.

The only alternative to self organization in abiogenesis theory is god. But god the creator, comes up against the question of who created god? If we are to avoid an infinite regress, we would have to say god created itself. So we are back at self organization. That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization will stick, I believe. I am not aware of it being described this way before, but @Pantagruel
has given me some related leads, so I will check them out.

According to Sartre, there is a Pre-Reflective Thinking activity (Thinking in the First Degree) which is the ontological condition for Descartes' Reflective Thinking activity (Thinking in the Second Degree).

The Pre-Reflective Thinking activity, which is oriented exclusively to that which is not thinking activity, does NOT posit a Transcendental Subject, when and while it occurs. When and while it occurs it is Ego-less and can only be defined as an occurrence without an essence. Pre-Reflective Thinking has only a non-positional self-consciousness, but no consciousness of an objective, essential self.

By contrast, Descartes' Reflective Thinking activity, which is oriented exclusively only towards itself, always does posit itself as a Transcendental Subject, when and while it occurs. When and while it occurs it posits the Ego-Subject as Object. But, in doing so, Reflective Thinking activity is constantly misrepresenting itself as an objective essential entity..

So, I suspect that Sartre would say that in one sense you are right, but in another sense you are wrong.

The Cogito ergo Sum is not, inherently, an inferential argument.

It is, instead, a performative argument. It must be executed by each person, in the first person, present tense mode, to experience it, and the full force of its indubitable certainty, correctly.

Its truth is not inferred, its truth is intuited as an immediate insight imbedded in and resulting from the performance itself.

It is not a Cogito “ergo” Sum, but simply, and immediately, a Cogito Sum.

The “When and while I am Thinking, I must be Existing” intuitive insight, is not synonymous with an “I Think, therefore I am” logical inference.”

The intuitive insight is not about “an A, therefore a B,” an inferring “I must be Existing (B)” from a “because I am Thinking (A).”

Instead, it is about my intuiting with indubitable certainty, in the first person, present tense mode, how my Existing only occurs, necessarily occurs, and always occurs simultaneously with the occurrence of my Thinking.

In fact, as Descartes so aptly put it, “For it might indeed be that if I entirely ceased to think, I should thereupon altogether cease to exist.”

Unless of course, I can experience, in the first person, present tense mode, that someone, or something, other than myself is doing the thinking while I exist???????