Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1269
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Present awareness » October 17th, 2017, 10:37 pm

I’m not sure why everything here and now, would imply no space? Everything seems to be in a state of constant motion, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, so one would think there needs to be empty space for things to move thru. The emptiness of space would be absolute, so it’s hard to talk about space as if it exists, as if it is something. Nevertheless, without nothing, we could not have something, just as without dark, we could not have light. Opposites produce each other.

I agree with you when you say “everything in the universe is simply here and now, period”.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1724
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Atreyu » October 18th, 2017, 8:34 pm

When I said "space" I was thinking of "empty space", as in the space between objects.

When I try to visualize Everything being in the same place it's hard for me to imagine a corresponding idea of space. I can't imagine the concept of "space" having any meaning if Everything is in the same place as Everything else.

Can you?

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1269
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Present awareness » October 18th, 2017, 9:34 pm

When I say that everything is here, now, I don’t mean in the exact same space, but rather spread out throughout the universe, so that wherever you are in the universe, it will still be now. Whether in the next room or in the next galaxy, it is the present moment everywhere.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1724
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Atreyu » October 23rd, 2017, 6:24 pm

Present awareness wrote:When I say that everything is here, now, I don’t mean in the exact same space, but rather spread out throughout the universe, so that wherever you are in the universe, it will still be now. Whether in the next room or in the next galaxy, it is the present moment everywhere.
What about the past and the future? Do they not also exist everywhere?

After all, the past and the future are the present, if taken from a certain pov. What is past, present, or future depends upon the perceiver, does it not?

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1269
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Present awareness » October 26th, 2017, 12:19 am

In the “natural order” topic, Steve made this comment: “The trouble with time is that just like other concepts that we've created as a result of our observations of the real world, it's deeply tied to our actual experience of it here and now.”

In order for time to exist, there needs to be a reference point, and here and now is the only reference point that we have. Because it’s always now, you would never be wrong in saying it’s now, if someone asked what time it is. “Now” makes a great reference point because it doesn’t move. That which “will be” is already “here now” in its present form and that which “has been” is “here now” in its current form, so you are right Atreyu, when you say the past and future ARE the present and it all depends on the perceiver.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Namelesss » November 18th, 2017, 9:23 pm

Papus79 wrote:Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
I don't even have to read your attempt to define Consciousness!
It is not possible!
All 'definition' is dualistic, limited, egoic/thought! All 'duality/definition' is conditional, dependent on conditions!
'Consciousness is One Universal Consciousness, completely transcendent, unconditional, impossible to fit into the little limited box of your dualistic, lying thoughts.
That is why there has been no (Universal) 'definition' of anything, ever, that is unconditional; unconditional Love, for instance, or it's unconditional Virtues.

"To speak is to lie! To teach is to lie with conviction!"

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 156
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Papus79 » December 24th, 2017, 2:50 pm

I've had maybe a few more insights in the last couple days and this is how I might tweak my original statement:

Human beings, and really anything conscious enough in the universe to be self aware, is - itself - something like the unfolding of a mathematical monster or possibly an entire constellation of them.

In a way I admit that the above statement will seem after the fact because it's obvious that we're complex. At the same time though, considering as I do that free will is really something of a complex illusion (ie. we mistake agency for libertarian freedom from the universe on an intuitive level) what comes out of us is also the same stuff behind us feeding into us - ie. chaos mathematics.

In a way our conscious minds are, like I said before, likely the product of uncollapsed fields of a sort where those uncollapsed fields act as an optioning engine or really a complex probability engine which is holding a big ring of keys (such as food, water, shelter, sex, and all kinds of other needs that need to be resolved) and searching for different places in both the external and internal landscape where those keys can be resolved.

At the same time the conscious mind is a bit like the bleeding edge of a chaos mathematical equation. Part of why we seek novelty is that it's what we're made of.

A lot of this also helps me understand, at a much more intuitive level, why you just won't have a lot the more etherial elements of consciousness or the 'supernatural' (I hate that word but unfortunately it's the only thing expedient enough here) perform well in a laboratory setting. Most laboratory setting are about shrinking the field of variables and, if the things being studied are based on chaos you'll find your object of study receding from view with every step that you attempt to ingress toward it.

I have to go back to Sean Carrol's explanation of the double-slit experiment. The guy may be a raving materialist but I think he said something that made more sense than anything I've heard to date - ie. that the double slit experiment works the way it does because particles, in their natural state, are fields and only become particles when measured. The natural state of unentangled things is fields, much like the natural state of a lightning globe is to have the tendrils of static electicity arrayed out all over the globe and panning around whereas they unify in one point if the globe gets touched.

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 156
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Papus79 » December 24th, 2017, 2:52 pm

As for claims that insight into these things is impossible - I'm sorry but I really have to just look at that as social politics. People have been saying things like that to one another since time immemorial and our physics would be the four elements and our medicine would still be Galinas if we all capitulated to that sort of criticism.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Namelesss » December 24th, 2017, 7:52 pm

Papus79 wrote:
December 24th, 2017, 2:52 pm
As for claims that insight into these things is impossible - I'm sorry but I really have to just look at that as social politics. People have been saying things like that to one another since time immemorial and our physics would be the four elements and our medicine would still be Galinas if we all capitulated to that sort of criticism.
First, if you use the quote button, we'd know who you are talking to.
Segundo, if you are speaking to me, the OP asked for an "incisive definition for consciousness", which is impossible (for the reasons enumerated).
On the other hand, "insights into these things" are obviously possible, and numerous, as evidenced by my/Our insight (that a definition is not possible)! *__-

Of course, if a 'definition' were possible, it would necessarily consist of an amalgam of the sum total of all (attempts at) definition. Completely unKnowable to any single Perspective (us).

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 156
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Papus79 » December 25th, 2017, 12:03 am

I am the OP. In my first post I was offering a possible lens on the topic which I at least found insightful in terms of how it matched up to the behavior of awareness and attention.

Right above what you just quoted I was giving an update on my considerations. I didn't quote you because I've seen it before, you're not the only person in this thread to say something along those lines, and I wanted to reiterate my stance on mysterianism as related to the roots or essence of consciousness. People are free to express their beliefs as such but because its more of a belief claim rather than a direct criticism that interacts with the content of what I said I don't feel like I'm evading anything if I by and large to ignore it or not bother coming up with a counter criticism, aside to say that I tend to see them as progress-stoppers.

Post Reply