I suppose having a collective consciousness would take on all sorts of manifestations/implications. For example if 100 people go to a concert and 95 of them say it was aweful, what does that tell us?

One thing that it might tell us is that the subjective experience(s) can evolve into an objective truth.

NICE!!!

Okay, our work is done here, next issue... !!!!

Hahaha ! Good one Ov! But I've got one even better:

Learn to build a human with a human consciousness and you will become... ?

As an aside.....Kant didn’t know about fields, his natural science having to do with forces alone, without the conception of field associated to them.** So I wonder if he would have considered a field as a thing-in-itself, given what he actually did consider that way of things in general. I suspect not, for things-in-themselves are real objects of sensation to which our representations relate, but fields in and of themselves have no such reality of that phenomenal nature, in as much as their representations are actually representations of something else that is phenomenal, such that the conception of them becomes empirical. And, as we understand, representations of representations, are more commonly known as abstractions. — Mww

Excellent point Mww. Could one argue that abstract things have their own independent existence?

Yep, a few simple tools can go a long way. One take away from this, is that there is a sense of creativity in all walks of life. That, arguably, is what separates excellence from the average.

At the end of the day, it is all too easy to discover what you are already looking for in a book. People can hold you to a higher standard. — Pantagruel

Another case in point. Ever hear the slang phrase: 'that person has a lot of book smarts, but no common sense'. In a way there's another example of dichotomizing. Ideally, the person who is educated both in principle and practice, arguably makes for a better end result/well rounded individual... .

Should one believe the ethical philosopher who used to be a practicing psychologist, over the one who does not have the practical experience? Should one choose the music teacher who just knows music theory, but sucks at musical performance and cannot improvise? Should one choose the priest who never had a wife to relate to? Should one choose the coach who never played?

The lists are endless. Now, are there exceptions within, sure. In theory or practice, there can still be nuggets of truth regardless. And I have seen players who make lousy coaches. Or great musician's who can't teach or explain things. The art of living suggests which of parts need to be balanced in order to achieve whatever end-goal. Integrating opposing forces is an intriguing subject...

Or does every philosophical work stand on its own merits as something true, or possessing elements of truth? — Pantagruel

Very perceptive on your part. In my opinion, each domain as it were, possesses elements of truth. Ever since I learned (from cognitive science) that dichotomizing is a virtual sin, the sky opened up. Meaning, I try to cherish each tenant of knowledge, and then create my own sense of truth out it. Kind of like writing music; influence's in your compositions.

The frustration rears it head when one chooses to exclusively paint oneself in a box. The person feels they must support an all-or-nothing campaign of sorts. They feel that incorporating and integrating both sides, is somehow a sell-out for whatever reason. The resulting frustration is usually an indicator that something is wrong and they might be dichotomizing too much. In ethics, it really manifests itself. Pragmatism, stoicism, etc.., you can find nuggets of truth in all of them... .

It pretty much happens in all of life. Life is not like engineering. You must apply the right formula to size the structural beam correctly; thus it's A or B, there is no middle ground. Yet, cognitive science teaches us that living life/the human condition is more like A AND B. That's why some folks are not cut-out to do, say, personnel management, coaching, etc.. There are many gray area's within the human condition that we find ourselves trapped in. And I submit, more gray's than not...each person must learn to navigate through them. It almost has an Existential theme... .

It's all good LOL

As Kant noted long ago, we never know the ding an sich. only our ideas about them. "Reality" is the name we give to our beliefs about ding an sich based on our mental images of them. Reality is mathematical relationships, not physical objects. — Gnomon

Well said Gnomon. We are barred from such knowledge about the true nature of our existence; things-in-themselves. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't speculate... !

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the fact that we can't help but wonder about it. Here, the irony is that we know that we will never know, yet we keep seeking answers.

The metaphysical property of our sense of wonderment is wonderful. Or, it is a love-hate relationship LOL.

qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg

Qualia, (as Dennett described it) is basically non-physical/Metaphysical abstract phenomenon.

There is really nothing else it could be... . The common examples include any type of human sentience, love, will, intuition, and so on.

Consider mathematical abstracts which are non-physical/metaphysical languages. Yet at the same time they are imbedded into the physical world. Similarly, love for example, is an abstract feature/language of consciousness, and it is also embedded in the physical world through manifestation of human aesthetics'.

So, if I look at a roof truss, I know that one way to describe it is multiplying rise over run to get the roof pitch. When I look at a woman, I know there is [potentially] an abstract feeling of love somewhere in my consciousness.

Underlying the physical, there exists abstract metaphysical properties and phenomena, yes?.

Ever read Catch 22? — ovdtogt

...thanks. No, but I remember it was popular even a few decades after its release, both in movie and book form.

Back to the topic, generally speaking, all anyone has to remember about liar's paradox is the common theme of self-reference and negation of same... . I think there is only one exception outside of self-reference where paradox appears, but can't remember right now....maybe fdrake knows

'I am a liar'
is already a paradox. Tell me if you know I am a liar or not? — ovdtogt

Godel' would say: It is not 'syntactically complete', since there are sentences expressible in the language of first order logic that can be neither proved nor disproved from the axioms of logic alone.

'I am a liar' then is considered incomplete or indeterminant.

Kind of like : The girl ran. The girl is a liar. (Or otherwise a simple sentence structure of subject-verb, which is actually syntactically correct, but not according to Godel's incompleteness rules.)

In either case, one does not know whether the girl ran, or whether she or you are a liar. It's indeterminant or incomplete. It cannot be proved or disproved.

Again, to make it a paradox you would have to change it to: This statement is a lie. Because if it's true, it's a lie. But if it's a lie, it's not true.

I think the more practical implication here is the fact that deductive logic (formal logic/mathematics) has inherent limitations in the world of experience. To that end, one could argue that 'I am a liar' is a synthetic proposition. It would require empirical evidence/experience to determine it's truth value.

'I am a liar'.

Is this sentence/statement true or false? — ovdtogt

The syntax is correct, but the true meaning is indeterminant. You could say it's 50% true. It wouldn't make it a contradiction or paradox though.

(But, Godel' would say: It is not syntactically complete, since there are sentences expressible in the language of first order logic that can be neither proved nor disproved from the axioms of logic alone. )

To make it a paradox you would re-word to say: This statement is a lie.

Neither of them are contradictions. I said they were paradox's; not contradictions.

Godel's theorem speaks to the un-computable, undecidable, middle ground or gray area in logical deduction. Another axiom in life that is illogical, if you will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems#Truth_of_the Gödel_sentence

Otherwise, a contradiction is A and-A. This ball is red and not red. But there are also conscious phenomena that breaks that rule, including the limitations of language/descriptions about a thing, thus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence

Read 'Vagueness" halfway down.

Sure from an ethical standpoint ( how to live a purposeful happy life ) volitional existence would provide for some answers. Meaning the partially blank canvas we inherit from childbirth can be filled with much knowledge and experience as we navigate through life.

And as pointed out, the how's of conscious existence can be inferred from the various emergent property metaphors (including the esoteric's of a Metaphysical Will as a driving force). But the why's of self-awareness I think, presents an even more nebulous type of challenge in that there is less information to extrapolate from.

Great question! Short answer is yes (to a greater or lesser degree), because we are always changing.

Case in point; ever ask yourself, when looking back from a past happenstance "...why did I do that..." and come away with no answer? You are not the same as you were... .

Of course, many things change when it comes to human motivations, goals, ways of being, physiological changes, etc..

Maybe one other obvious question is: should one embrace or even welcome change, or resist it? If one believes that at birth, we are born 'primarily' (with exceptions) with a 'blank slate' it would suggest a hopeful anticipation of change... .

Well, I suppose one could interpret that as a form of Metaphysical Will in nature. Perhaps much like the swarming effect from emergent properties. The ant colonies, the birds, and other biological creatures (lower life forms) know a priori viz a genetic code where to go and what to do to sustain their existence, as well as plant life, etc. etc...

Unfortunately, it still leaves us with the all of the existential questions about the nature of such existence; the why's of higher consciousness, the metaphysical features of consciousness itself, so on and so forth.....

although finding empirical support from things like organisms and their tendency to find homeostasis is supportive for the claim that every being tries to achieve stability by logical necessity. — Qmeri

Maybe there is hope in making your theory inclusive, and not mutually exclusive, not sure. But it is important to at least draw distinctions. For instance, if you are making a claim that happiness is an intrinsic human need, you would want to explore say, the hierarchy of needs from a cognitive science point of view. Or Philosophically, you could pick any number of domains relative to ethics that makes happiness a universal objective goal.

Otherwise, I think all logical necessity would tell us is that it [happiness] exists a priori in human consciousness. And in turn, that could lead to Kantian metaphysical questions which might be interesting...

Is that like Schopenhauer's Metaphysical Will in all of nature?

Thanks ...but I must have missed something, it doesn't explain how consciousness came from matter ?

Except these LEGOs also assemble themselves, so the best is to ask the bricks. — Zelebg

If matter makes the clay that makes the bricks, what consiousness made the matter?

(Or maybe the easier question is how did matter make consciousness?)

In fairness too, Homeostasis, in psychology, also has a static component to it. In the context of the human condition, if a person tries to change certain behavior's, but seemingly can't, it can be said that they then revert back to their natural state of ' homeostasis'. Has much to do with genetics, etc..

So, if the context is happiness, is it fair to say humans typically revert back to a state of homeostasis? I think so.... . From there I suppose one could also try to argue for selfishness, stoicism, pragmatism, utilitarianism (ala Sophisticat) so on and so forth...

You are correct. it's not a contradiction, but rather, an unresolved paradox. Any self-referential statement represents the un-computable in nature. It stems from self-awareness/consciousness. It's also found in mathematics (Godels theorem).

Another example would be:

Socrates: What Plato is about to say is false.
Plato: Socrates has just spoken truly.

↪Qmeri The word you are looking for is homeostasis. — ovdtogt

Yep...you beat me to it. Since the OP is dealing with ethics, I tend to default to cognitive science/psychology most of the time anyway... .

Otherwise, invoking logic, suggests that Happiness is static rather than dynamic ( like it really should be in an Ontological way ). This seems more compatible with Being; time dependent creatures.

So in my mind re-wording it to something like : "Emotions and Ethics based on Homeostasis" seems a bit more appropriate/intriguing.

I wish you would have wrote that in Bb minor, then maybe I would have understood it...LOL

Welcome John! Looking forward to your thread on the abstract's of time... .

Be really cool, though, to get to a similar eco-system, evolved from a similar set of conditions.....and see no evidence of life at all. In which case, I guess we would indeed be special — Mww

So, if you are thinking consciousness evolved from mindless, purposeless forces; how did self-awareness evolve from the universe?

….thanks Mww, those were all good answers to my questions!

Since I see you're a movie buff, I suppose one central issue is:

Do you believe we were relegated to an incidental and seemingly pointless role in an indifferent cosmic drama, like unscripted extras that have accidentally stumbled onto a vast movie set? Or do you see science suggesting that the existence of conscious organisms is a fundamental feature of the universe?

Granted, but still raises the question.....why would we care about what we are not? — Mww

Hey Mww, that's an important question. We are hard-wired to care-by default-when doing philosophy. We know that the many philosophical inquiries involving declarative statements (or Kantian propositions and judgements) about our existence involve experience. And in phenomenology, if I experience something that you don't, how then do I know it exists (or vise versa)?

Said another way, how does one know if that experience exists if one doesn't experience it himself? One obvious answer is the objective/subjective truth dichotomy. But all that tells us is that there are different ways of knowing something. It doesn't explain the experience. I think it is another problem of consciousness.

For example, a musician doesn't know what it's like to be a Doctor. And even if he becomes a Doctor, he still cannot experience everything any other Doctor experiences. And the opposite is true in this sense: if a musician claims they had an ineffable experience, who would believe them?

Or, even say, if the layperson hears voices in a pre-dream state (pre-lucid state) that tells him/her to do something extra-ordinary, what should they do; who should they consult to verify its truth value? Anyway, the lists (phenomena) are endless...

I'm thinking you kinda' already know that stuff :)

Ha! Throw-in a little 'ineffable' cognitive science from Maslow: "What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you."

Existential Phenomenology.

Sure, I'm totally on-board with the mystery associated with conscious existence. Some of the
takeaway's that I'm seeing, as you just suggested is, logical necessity. And then combine that with consciousness being able to break the rules of non-contradiction, then you get logical impossibility.

Conscious existence: Both logically necessary and logically impossible. It is logically necessary for any thought to occur at all; it's logically impossible when we experience it (sensory experience/bivalence-vagueness/physical paradox/phenomenology).

If that's true, what are the implications I wonder...

and is therefore false. — Harry Hindu

If it is false, then it's true. So you are incorrect.

Just sayin'.

I did not say there are no true propositions — Bartricks

Ok got it. Are you saying then if there exists at least one true proposition, then, they must be logically necessary/ logical necessity?

Well the obvious question has to be, if there are no true propositions, then how does this forum exist?

So are you saying that it is logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions?

Ha! I appreciate your sense of humor, dammit!!

Well in your last paragraph I'm glad you mentioned that....I was going to bring that up later; that so-called morphing effect between two realities. It's like radio waves fading in and out from one station to the next as one travels closer to the frequency... . I'll come back to that

The A and -A issue, is occurring in one's mind. And yes I must have missed your argument, I'll go back and look...you may have talked about conscious and sub-conscious distinctions though... . In the meantime, the reason why I am arguing that it's logically impossible ( driving and not driving at the same time) is because also, of the individual's perception of what they are actually doing.

Using the surfing example, all the person knows is they are surfing and not driving. Their awareness is on the Beach surfing. Their awareness, of course, is not driving.

And that leads us back to the fact that they are not aware that they are not aware. So how else should we put that phenomenon in words? How do we describe the fact that the person was driving but yet not really driving at all because they crashed and killed themselves? They thought they were on the beach.

Similarly, how about the sleepwalker who was sleeping and walking at the same time?

Seems to me one would have to drop the law of excluded middle since in order to describe the conciousness phenom correctly, you would say that he's in the middle somewhere doing two things at once. Kind of like the radio frequencies playing two songs at once.

Or kind of like propositions of self-reference. For example: This statement is false. It's both true and false at the same time; an unresolved paradox. Because if the statement is true, then it is false And if it is false, then it is true.

The other component we did not talk about yet is volition. The sleepwalker seemingly has no control over anything whereas the driver, what control did they have? For example initially, the driver chose to drive, but at some point during the act of daydreaming likewise they have no control over anything. Is that not logically impossible?

My question remains; how can consciousness be logically possible (?).

Ha! Well your point is very well taken!

And accordingly, I would say it was more based upon inductive reasoning, not really deductive reasoning (inference based on empirical observation of cause and effect, randomness, et al.).

But back to the main point of consciousness. I believe the key distinction here is the fact that the individual experiencing that so-called illogical phenomenon believes that they are in a different reality. They are not aware that they are not aware. How can that be?

Your serve

Mmm, let's see in the context of this thread, I would say the natural swarming effect found in Emergence, might suggest that eventually, you will receive "the hand " that is dealt to you.

And intriguing question. And speaking of context, I haven't checked to see where that other thread was located. So without that information I would have to first define the premises.

Assuming a transaction has occurred, or in the law of contracts-promise for a promise, what then was the promise made?

In other words was there a promise to receive a specific amount or type of cards, or was it a promise of chance or randomness (?).

Sorry I couldn't be specific on that one for now...

Is it true that the statement is false?
1h — Harry Hindu

If the statement is true, then it is false; and if it is false, then it is true.

Ok. Driving but not driving is very much an argumentative improvement over driving and not driving. — Mww

Hey Mww!

Sure but I would just caution against splitting semantic hairs. Driving and not driving, or driving but not driving in our context means the same.

1. Sleepwalking: the person sleep walking has an empaired self- awareness.
2. Daydreamer: the person daydreaming has an empaired self-awareness.

1A. A person speaking with the sleepwalker, concludes that they're both sleeping and walking at the same time.

2B. A person speaking with the daydreamer who survived an accident, concludes that they were simultaneously driving while dreaming they were surfing.

If A and -A holds ( law of non-contradiction/LEM ), one could reasonably conclude that consciousness is logically impossible.

It seems absurd to the layperson. (As a Christian Existentialist, that does not seem so absurd.)

That is, truth is the property of being a proposition that Reason asserts to be the case. When Reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case. Her asserting it, and its being true are one and the same — Bartricks

What if, as you say, someone asserts this proposition:

1. This statement is false.

Using your words, our Reason enables us to assert such proposition. ' When reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case.' In that case, is the proposition true or false?