And also, hamsters can sit. And they have no concepts. That is because sitting is one thing; and referring is another. — Cuthbert

Do you damn that they can experience themselves
performing this action, or that this is something they do whether they are aware of it or not? If the latter, we’re back to the original problem, which is that it is we who are conceptually defining what the anima is doing. If the former, hamsters have no linguistic concepts, but they have sensori-motor pattens that make up body schemas. These body schemas act like concepts in the sense that they produce a perceived world for the animal which is defined by the animal’s particular needs. Actions ( like sitting) and objects may take on very different meaning to a hamster than to a human.

Isn’t scientific understanding also provisional, limited, conditioned, imperfect and ofc not ultimate? — Benj96

Yes. Science is not in the truth proclamation business (unlike, say religion) it holds tentative models based on the best available evidence at the time.

You know I never thought of that, when the people in the thread talk about stuff not existing even that is a concept itself. In fact everything he mentions in that is a concept, infinity itself is purely a concept as well. Which now that I think about it just makes all this sound like nonsense.

In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

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.

(1) Constant change implies that there is a never-ending action, because if action would cease to exist, then change would be at some point impossible and therefore it will not be constant. Thus infinity is an inevitability.

(2) The concept of a thing is distinguished by the concepts of other things through the concept of not that thing. Thus, discreteness can exist, so that all experience does not merge into a single point, which allows dimensions to exist.

(3) The fact that a thing is defined by a set of conditions, reflects the state of the conscious system, which further determines the next state of the system but also forces it to never be in (experience) the same state twice, because that would put the system in a loop which contradicts buttonion's first proposition as it would cause a stable organization in the system (that is all that is) and therefore no more change.

Thus far I have asserted that all that exists is an infinite non repeatable experience.

So when we say that a thing exists, we are really saying that the experience of everything that can exist, has existed or will exist if it does not now. Which sucks.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/2268080/fpart/1/vc/1

There's some truth in that, but there are better sources for those kinds of ideas. Look at the first paragraph of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Idea.

The OP is considering, inter alia, the possibility of a cosmic p-zombie!

Do you damn that they can experience themselves
performing this action, or that this is something they do whether they are aware of it or not? — Joshs

No, I don't damn. It would be rather extreme. I'm more inclined to bless. But I don't think either is particularly called for.

"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?

Do you damn that they can experience themselves
performing this action, or that this is something they do whether they are aware of it or not?
— Joshs

No, I don't damn. It would be rather extreme. I'm more inclined to bless. But I don't think either is particularly called for. — Cuthbert

Oh shit.. I meant ‘deny’

But then wouldn't non existence also be rendered a null concept without existence? I just shows how absurd the argument being made it. To argue against the notion of existence is to argue against it's opposite as well rendering your point moot.

I don't really take anything that me writes seriously. Dude sounds like he just had a bad day when forming this stuff.

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!

Not really, the fact that you said there can't be consciousness without existence pretty much cements the primacy of existence, the reverse would just be absurd and not follow for if consciousness were primary we'd essentially be in a void of reality.

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. — Watchmaker

This doesn't follow. You don't need any other parameters to suggest an existence without consciousness, it would just be the same as the current one without people there to experience it. Everything would go on.

People keep trying to attach some kind of importance or magic to consciousness when it's nothing more than just taking in information.

People keep trying to attach some kind of importance or magic to consciousness when it's nothing more than just taking in information. — Darkneos

It is more than that though.

EDIT: Whenever you are conscious, it's now isn't it? Is that how it is for you? That's how it is for me. — bert1

It comes down to even, "What is an event?".. Whitehead had a lot to say on that, as you probably know.

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?

It's really not.

As someone said the chair would still exist, but our concept of it won't. Without the concept of the chair it's not as though it will just evaporate, not literally though the guy I quoted might say so.

It doesn't really make sense to say there was nothing because nothing is an abstraction that depends on existence to mean anything. When we say something doesn't exist we are referring to it's absence from a given set that does exist. It is "not" by being the opposite of what "is". So for someone to say a world without concepts nothing would exist would be an illogical statement. Nonexistence would be negated as soon as you take away existence.

Well I know that I am aware and yet I'm not aware of how my body is staying alive and yet it is

It seems like a very small percentage of existence is actually aware or "conscious" as they say

As for why? I'm not sure but I'm dieing to know.

Physics would suppose that the universe can and has indeed existed before consciousness arose — Benj96

Just to mention that some philosophers believe the opposite: that it is consciousness that has created the universe. I personally have no cognition or enough data or logical reason why and how this could be the case.
Anyway, these things are like sailing in uncharted waters. And I have better and more useful things to do! :smile: