If you want to say that the thing in itself is an evolving process that co-evolves with us in inextricable fashion , then I would agree. — Joshs

:up: I agree. It is not a one way street. All natural objects are self organizing in relation to each other, in an evolving process. Self organization is ubiquitous!

It means self organization ( consciousness ) is the thing causing a differentiated self, where all naturally integrated objects are differentiated selves. I even suspect phenomenology is relevant to all such objects , but I haven't fully articulated that argument - yet! :smile:

Thanks for the link, Ill check it out later.

That is, must consciousness always only occur, or exist, in a first person, present tense mode? — charles ferraro

This seems tautologically true: the notion of "first person perspective" is derived from the notion or experience of consciousness.

What is it about consciousness that it must always be personified, or require personhood? — charles ferraro

Just that persons are the only conscious things we know of?

Is there a Consciousness in General? — charles ferraro

Abstracting consciousness out of the limitation of personal perspective might be the essence of the concept of God.

Husserl actually began in vol. 1 of Logical Investigations as a "realist" or even as an "objectivist". Namely as an "ideal-realist" (not as a physicalist of course). In vol. 2 he then investigated how the objective idealities are given (appearing to us) in an experience (ontology became thus related to "phenomenology". Or something like that.)

Does not every object of experience I encounter in the world that surrounds me, from the most simple to the most complex, have something inherently "mysterious" about it that has nothing to do with me or my ways of trying to describe, explain, or getting to know it; something that goes beyond, and will always transcend, whatever kinds of simple or complex interpretations I might give to it, or any ways I might claim to participate, epistemologically, in its partial or complete creation (e.g., Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel)?

Husserl actually began in vol. 1 of Logical Investigations as a "realist" or even as an "objectivist". — waarala

Husserl may have changed his terminology over the years but I don’t believe he ever treated reality as mind-independent.

Does not every object of experience I encounter in the world that surrounds me, from the most simple to the most complex, have something inherently "mysterious" about it that has nothing to do with me or my ways of trying to describe, explain, or getting to know it; something that goes beyond, and will always transcend, whatever kinds of simple or complex interpretations I might give to it, or any ways I might claim to participate, epistemologically, in its partial or complete creation (e.g., Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel)? — charles ferraro

Absolutely. But experiences can be utterly novel in one sense and yet be recognizable as similar to what one has known. A new experience can belong to a prior theme and at the same time subtly redefine that theme. Events can surprise us and yet be identifiable.

Thanks for the link. However I noticed nothing new. Still its always interesting to see dualists tangling themselves up in their paradigm.

“Out there, in front of your eyes, there is just an ocean of electromagnetic radiation, a wild and raging mixture of different wavelengths” (Metzinger 2009: 20)

They rightly construe the external world as energetic fluctuation and vibration, but, it seems, they forget to construe themselves as something of the sort. In my understanding we are an entangled construction of energetic frequency and vibration. When external energetic frequency and vibration meets with us, it is the most natural union possible! It is a one to one connection. It is a like with like interaction, and modulation.

The frequency and vibrations are converted to anthropocentric symbols, the symbols are related ( neural network style ), and a big anthropocentric picture is constructed.

The symbology is doing the heavy lifting. It is translating energetic frequency and vibrations to a symbol understood by a socially constructed anthropocentric paradigm, or something of the sort. So mind dependent for sure, but, I believe, the Chinese whisper is occurring in consciousness from patterns of energy to paradigm, not from external world to consciousness. Which puts a slightly different twist on the argument. :smile: in contrast to the below:

"Helmholtz found an important source of inspiration for this claim in the work of the physiologist
Johannes Müller, who had claimed that the properties of the external causes are not transmitted in a
faithful and accurate manner to consciousness by our nerves. Indeed, so many intermediary steps and
transformations occur on the way between the external cause and the experienced effect that any
similarity or resemblance between the two can safely be ruled out. "

A correct definition of consciousness is required. Consciousness is the awake state of "I" during which "I" can exercise it's functions such as mentality, experience feelings and be aware, etc. Another consciousness is unconscious, difficult to define.

For obvious reasons, consciousness has been defined as thinking (about something) i.e. it's understood as awareness (of something) and there's a lot of debate about whether consciousness survives death or not. There seems to be a problem with this particular question, "does consciousness survive death?" because that's like asking will the image inside the camera persist after the camera's been deatroyed?

If anything, there's a real possibiity that there's an immaterial mind that has the potential for awareness (of something). We're conflating thoughts/thinking with mind when we assert that there's no mind when thinking ceases. That's like saying the eye ceases to exist in the dark when no images are formed on the retina.

The French philosopher and tax collector, Lavoisier, said before he lost his head that nothing is ever gained or lost but changes do result. If that is the case, perhaps our consciousness and memories are preserved somewhere. The one immaterial that I am almost convinced is real is space. I look at the absence of visible material every day and think about space. It cannot be made of atoms. Neutrinos and particle-waves pass through it everyday unhampered. Immaterial space is perfect for the universe. Dark matter, like the ether, is a myth.

Where's the logic in this? It's more like asserting that there is reason to believe the donut hole survives even after the donut has been eaten.

I just offered that post as a hope. Our understanding of reality is deficient. You might be interested in this: If death is annihilation, all of eternity is a one night's dreamless sleep. And some people still believe in God. I have heard it said that over immense periods of time even the complete works of Shakespeare can recur, but I think that the outlook is bleak for an indestructible body.