Truly, What Is Consciousness?

[Belindi]

Tamminem, I took to Spinoza's description of natural naturans , and natura naturata, like a duck to water. But I do have difficulty understanding your theory regarding the Subject.

To help me, would you tell me if the Subject transcends this relative world?

If the Subject does transcend this relative world then does it not follow like the night the day that the Subject is either nature or transcendent God?

My conclusion is that the Subject can be construed as both the human subject, and God, and that the human subject and transcendent God are one and the same.

I don't happen to believe in transcendent, supernatural, God . I believe in Spinoza's god , nature, for which natura naturans is immanent in nature. However I am curious about your theory of the Subject, and I wish I could understand it, not least as you say it is espoused by Wittgenstein.

[Tamminen]

Tamminem, I took to Spinoza's description of natural naturans , and natura naturata, like a duck to water. But I do have difficulty understanding your theory regarding the Subject.

To help me, would you tell me if the Subject transcends this relative world?

If the Subject does transcend this relative world then does it not follow like the night the day that the Subject is either nature or transcendent God?

My conclusion is that the Subject can be construed as both the human subject, and God, and that the human subject and transcendent God are one and the same.

I don't happen to believe in transcendent, supernatural, God . I believe in Spinoza's god , nature, for which natura naturans is immanent in nature. However I am curious about your theory of the Subject, and I wish I could understand it, not least as you say it is espoused by Wittgenstein.

To get a picture of my thoughts, I suggest that you read these posts on Epistemology and Metaphysics:

Post #2 on "Could separateness and death be illusions?"
Post #96 on "Is conscoiusness fundamental?"
Post #654 on "What happens to us when we die?"
Topic "Who are the Others?"

and topic "What does it mean to be in the world?" on this subforum.

I am not sure they clarify anything, but I hope they express some of my thoughts in their own way.

But to the point. I understand that transcendent God transcends immanence by being somewhere beyond or above nature, whereas the transcendental subject transcends empirical consciousness by being "behind" it, as the precondition of its being. We are it, in addition to being empirical subjects.

Of course it is possible to argue, like Consul does, that subjects are part of nature, or like you and Spinoza seem to do, that God is nature itself, but I do not think so. I am in nature only as my body, not as the transcendental subject, and not even as the empirical consciousness that I am. The transcendental subject is a point of view to the world, and my empirical consciousness is the way the world appears or presents itself to me as I am this peculiar individual here and now.

This fundamental status of the transcendental subject in the center of reality has important metaphysical consequences. Material organisms die, and with them the empirical subjects the being of which those organisms have made possible. But the transcendental subject does not die, because it is not committed to any material structure. It adopts all possible empirical modes of existence, and leaves them when it is time to do so. We are one, and we are eternal.

The pantheistic approach is beautiful, and I have always thought that its views coinside with mine, but now I find that it lacks the most important principle we need: the unity of subjectivity, which makes us eternal though not immortal as individuals. Or what does Spinoza think about eternal life?

[Belindi]

I don't know what you mean by "the union of subjectivity"; union is applicable only to the union of two or more things or concepts, and subjectivity is only one concept.

Spinoza's idea of how we can come to know eternal truth arises from the necessity of all events in addition to the power of human reason. We are immersed in time and evidence from our fallible senses, but deductive reason makes it possible for us to know the perspective from eternity, that is to say, eternal truths.

[Sy Borg]

I don't know what you mean by "the union of subjectivity"; union is applicable only to the union of two or more things or concepts, and subjectivity is only one concept.

Deep love and empathy come to mind.

[Tamminen]

I don't know what you mean by "the union of subjectivity"; union is applicable only to the union of two or more things or concepts, and subjectivity is only one concept.

I wrote unity of subjectivity. I do not know if it is the proper word, but I meant something which connects subjective experiences so that there is only one present experience wandering through the world and adopting all possible contents of consciousness. This is what I think of eternity.

Spinoza's idea of how we can come to know eternal truth arises from the necessity of all events in addition to the power of human reason. We are immersed in time and evidence from our fallible senses, but deductive reason makes it possible for us to know the perspective from eternity, that is to say, eternal truths.

I did not mean knowing of eternal truths, whatever they may be, but our eternal being. Has Spinoza anything to say about it?

[Belindi]

Tamminem wrote:

I did not mean knowing of eternal truths, whatever they may be, but our eternal being. Has Spinoza anything to say about it?

I don't believe in life after death and neither did Spinoza .

[Tamminen]

A little speculation: two ways of seeing the relation of subject and matter.

1. Consciousness is a reflexive relation of the material world to itself. This is the materialistic point of view, and the reflexive relation gets interpreted as a property of matter.
2. The material world is a reflexive relation of the transcendental subject to itself. This might be the point of view of transcendental idealism, although I have not seen anyone propose such an idea.

Which one is more plausible? Or are both of them pure metaphysical speculation and not worth considering? Opinions.

[Felix]

Tamminen: 1. Consciousness is original, indeed, being always there already, as the precondition of all being, but it is not self-existent, because its being presupposes the being of the world and vice versa.

In Franklin Merrill Wolff's conception, Consciousness transcends the world so the being of the world is not presupposed.

it (consciousness) is not self-existent, because its being presupposes the being of the world and vice versa.

This is only true of the common subject/object awareness, not of consciousness itself, or what Wolff calls "consciousness without an object," which unlike subject object awareness, is prereflective.

-- Updated Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:10 pm to add the following --

Which one is more plausible?

It would depend on one's experience: To the mystic or one who has known so-called cosmic consciousness, the idea that "self-awareness is a property of matter" is absurd. Conversely, to the scientist who is trapped in subject/object awareness, viewpoint #2 would appear absurd.

[Belindi]

Tamminem, I misquoted you. I apologise . You wrote "unity of subjectivity".

-- Updated May 1st, 2017, 4:16 am to add the following --

Greta then wrote:

Deep love and empathy come to mind.

I agree that empathy and love are connected and I think that empathy is one form that love takes. I remind Greta of Michael Leunig's cartoon where little manikins are each of them in a separate box, and the caption is that there is love and fear. This cartoon lastingly impressed me. I think that unity of subjectivity is impossible because at any given time either love or fear is in the ascendant for each subject . Only an absolute looser feels fear and its derivatives all the time. Only an absolute saint feels love and its derivatives all the time.

-- Updated May 1st, 2017, 4:19 am to add the following --

http://www.leunig.com.au/works/prayers

Michael Leunig

[Tamminen]

..."consciousness without an object," which unlike subject object awareness, is prereflective.

I think "consciousness without an object" would vanish into nothingness. In fact it would be precisely the transcendental subject, a point of view to the world without any properties, a point along which the world is coordinated, to remind of Wittgenstein again. But what I mean by consciousness, even prereflective, is something that has some sort of content, and it can get its content only from the world. So, in my view, 'subjectivity' and 'consciousness' have a bit different meanings.

Otherwise, his views seem to be much similar to mine.

-- Updated May 1st, 2017, 9:59 am to add the following --

I don't believe in life after death and neither did Spinoza .

I think most agnostics and atheists don't. But although I do not believe in transcendent God or my personal rebirth, I would still say this: If, as I think, the subject and the world "dance together", then if my death means that I cease to exist for good, also the world would cease to exist for good. But beause, obviously, my death does not mean the end of the world, I will necessarily be born as another individual, probably with no memories of my present life. Perhaps I am such "another" individual just now. This is what I meant by the unity of subjectivity.

[Felix]

Tamminen: I think "consciousness without an object" would vanish into nothingness.

No, not nothingness (there is no such thing) but pure subjectivity....

From Bernadette Roberts book, The Experience of No-Self:
"Unlike ordinary consciousness that knows an endless array of objects, pure subjectivity has but one object, namely the subject. Thus it makes no difference where we look or what we do, whether we are asleep or shopping, engrossed in a book or adding up the bills, the object of the eye seeing itself (which is itself) is the same day and night, moment by mement. This is no transient experience or game of now-you-see-it, now-you-don't; it is a new way of knowing not comparable to the subject-object method of ordinary consciousness."

[Consul]

In Franklin Merrill Wolff's conception, Consciousness transcends the world so the being of the world is not presupposed.

So consciousness is a spiritual substance like God?

As for the guy's spiritualist philosophy: http://www.franklinmerrell-wolff.com/st ... hilosophy/
Oh boy…

-- Updated May 1st, 2017, 1:48 pm to add the following --

I think "consciousness without an object" would vanish into nothingness.

There is an important distinction between the (perceptual) object of consciousness and its (sensational, experiential) content. Objectless consciousness is possible, whereas contentless consciousness is not, only the latter being "nothingness". For example, a hallucination is objectless, since it is a perception of nothing, there being nothing that is perceived. But a hallucination qua sensation or sensory experience is itself something rather than nothing, being a real content of consciousness.

I know that mystics have postulated a state of "pure consciousness", i.e. one which is experientially contentless or empty but different from non-consciousness, the absence of consciousness. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/#5

I think there can be no difference between "empty consciousness" and "non-consciousness", simply because consciousness (in the basic, first-order sense) is nothing over and above (the occurrence of) experience. That is, consciousness is not a container of experiences but the experiences themselves: it is them and they are it! So you cannot remove all experiential content and keep consciousness as an empty container. The phrase "content of consciousness" is acceptable only as long as one doesn't forget that there is no real difference between the content of consciousness and consciousness: consciousness is constituted by and identical to its content.

Note that, as I already remarked in brackets above, I'm using "consciousness" in the basic, first-order sense and not in the higher-order sense of consciousness of consciousness, i.e. knowledge of or thought about one's consciousness, introspective or reflective awareness of one's consciousness.
What I say above about the impossibility of experientially contentless consciousness in no way implies that conscious states cannot occur without being accompanied by higher-order cognitive states (whose objects they are). On the contrary, I do think that being conscious, i.e. having subjective experiences, doesn't require being aware of being conscious, thinking or knowing that one is conscious. To say that experienceless consciousness is impossible is not to say that thoughtless consciousness is impossible.

[Tamminen]

"Unlike ordinary consciousness that knows an endless array of objects, pure subjectivity has but one object, namely the subject. Thus it makes no difference where we look or what we do, whether we are asleep or shopping, engrossed in a book or adding up the bills, the object of the eye seeing itself (which is itself) is the same day and night, moment by mement. This is no transient experience or game of now-you-see-it, now-you-don't; it is a new way of knowing not comparable to the subject-object method of ordinary consciousness."

Looks like zen or something like that. But I still think that consciousness needs the material world for its being, because the transcendental subject that lies "behind" it, has no properties, being only a point of view to the world.

People may have strange and crazy thoughts, but at the same time some of their thoughts may be fruitful.

-- Updated May 1st, 2017, 3:45 pm to add the following --

Objectless consciousness is possible, whereas contentless consciousness is not, only the latter being "nothingness".

You are right, epistemologically. But ontologically, of course, any kind of consciousness needs its material basis, which is at the same time a potential object of consciousness. I only wanted to oppose Wolff's thesis that consciousness is self-existent.

[Consul]

Objectless consciousness is possible, whereas contentless consciousness is not, only the latter being "nothingness".

You are right, epistemologically.

Yes, but no: ontologically/metaphysically.

But ontologically, of course, any kind of consciousness needs its material basis, which is at the same time a potential object of consciousness. I only wanted to oppose Wolff's thesis that consciousness is self-existent.

We have four different questions here:

1. Is objectless consciousness possible?
2. Is contentless consciousness possible?
3. Is subjectless consciousness possible?
4. Is substrateless consciousness possible?

Consciousness can be said to be self-existent either in the sense of being a spiritual substance (and substrate) itself, or in the sense of being a spiritual event or process lacking, not inhering in a substantial substrate, i.e. a material or spiritual substance. (Such substance- or substrate-independent events or processes have been called "pure", "absolute", "objectless", "subjectless", or "free" by philosophers.) I think consciousness is self-existent in neither sense: consciousness is neither a substance nor an absolute event/process. Rather, it is an event/process inhering in and depending on a material substance (as its substrate and subject).

[Woodart]

We have four different questions here:

1. Is objectless consciousness possible?
2. Is contentless consciousness possible?
3. Is subjectless consciousness possible?
4. Is substrateless consciousness possible?

Consciousness can be said to be self-existent either in the sense of being a spiritual substance (and substrate) itself, or in the sense of being a spiritual event or process lacking, not inhering in a substantial substrate, i.e. a material or spiritual substance. (Such substance- or substrate-independent events or processes have been called "pure", "absolute", "objectless", "subjectless", or "free" by philosophers.) I think consciousness is self-existent in neither sense: consciousness is neither a substance nor an absolute event/process. Rather, it is an event/process inhering in and depending on a material substance (as its substrate and subject).

I think you are moving this thread forward – finally. Or at least, I hope you are moving this thread forward. However, the language is still confusing – to me. I will try to answer your four questions; as I understand them.
1. Is objectless consciousness possible? Do you mean having consciousness without being cognizant of an object? I take this as a still mind; one without focus of the external world. Consciousness is aware but without any direction, focus or intention. A Zen state of inactivity or nirvana.
2. Is contentless consciousness possible? I think this is the same or similar to number 1 above. There are no thoughts – only awareness; no intention or places to go and things to do. There is awareness of awareness; but that is all – nothing more.
3. Is subjectless consciousness possible? This sounds to me like being unconscious. Not aware of self or anything. Existing in a body, but not being aware of it.
4. Is substrateless consciousness possible? I think you interpret substrateless to mean without a physical body. I think human consciousness is attached to a physical body. If there is consciousness after my body dies – I do not know. I do not think anyone on this planet does know for sure. I am not talking about wishful thinking or pie in the sky – and – I am not contributing to yours or anyone else’s church. Although, I do accept donations – large cash please – unmarked bills. I do think astral projection is possible; but in the end it is still connected to a body. Are there being that exist only in consciousness without a body? I do not know. God does not answer my telephone calls. Superior non-corporal being have not contacted me personally. Although, I am waiting patiently.

I think these are good questions. I would like to hear other commentary. Please stay on point with the thread – what is consciousness.