Firstly, thank you Chili, Steve, and Londoner for responding to my so-called survey question. It appears that we all (except maybe Londoner?) agree that the consciousness-of-X, always follows X.
Steve3007 wrote:Consciously sensing an event means that the event is a "cause" and the conscious sensation is an "effect". The traditional definitions of "cause" and "effect" stipulate that effects cannot precede causes in time. So the event called "conscious sensation" must come after the event being sensed.
Yes, agreed. 'Consciously sensing'-an-event comes
after the 'event'.
To further expand/clarify on what you've said, there are 'two' components to every conscious experience; 1) the
non-conscious 'before' component; the
event itself, and 2) the
conscious 'after' component; the
conscious realization of that non-conscious event/thing. For example, there is an 'apple' sitting on the table, and then there is our conscious realization (or our "consciously sensing") of that apple. Or to put it even more simply: there is 'X', and there is the 'consciousness-of-the-X'.
Steve3007 wrote:Likewise, the event called "conscious causation" must come before the event being caused, for the same reason.
Not so. This is where we seemingly split ways.
Firstly, you have combined two words into one component. You have inserted the word "conscious" to the event X of "causation". If you truly believe that you are "conscious" of your "causation", then this consciousness can only be 'after' the causation.
Secondly, I see this two-worded term, "conscious causation", as a oxymoron. It combines two mutually contradictory words. "Conscious" implies an "effect" (or coming 'after'); and "causation" implies a "cause" (or coming 'before'). In this aspect, "conscious causation" would be just as impossible as "married bachelors" and "square circles".
Thirdly, we humans are 'experiential' beings. We can only experience 'experiences', aka "effects". We can never experience "causes" themselves (...because if we did, then it would be an "effect"!). "Causes" are only presumed to exist. We, "experiential beings", just assert (these imaginary) "causes" as the explanation for the happenings of sequential events/effects/experiences.
RJG wrote:If it is not ‘me’ pulling my own puppet strings, then I could care less!
Steve3007 wrote:You mean you do care? Since you could care less, that means there is some level of caring less than the amount that you actually care. So your level of caring is non-zero. Whereas if you'd said "I couldn't care less" it would mean that (assuming there can't be a negative quantity of care) your actual level of caring is zero, because that's the only non-negative number that couldn't be any less.
...ha, good catch, ...thanks.
Chili wrote:I notice RJG that you scoff at mental causation - at the idea of "consciousness" (whatever that is) could affect matter via mental causation.
But why do you not find it equally nutty and unlikely that things could go the other way - that matter could bring about some kind of mental affect within consciousness?
Because consciousness is an
after-effect. ...and 'effects' are not 'causers'. If we really want to take a stab at defining "consciousness", then I propose the following:
Consciousness is the singular experience of 'recognition' (of bodily experiences/reactions), made possible by memory.
Without 'memory' there can be no 'recognition', and without 'recognition, there can be no 'consciousness'. ...so it is 'recognition' that then ultimately brings 'life' to consciousness.
Londoner wrote:Because you can think you can measure the distance in time between event A (the puppet master's command) and event B (your response). You cannot measure a distance unless you know both ends of the thing you are measuring.
If I follow your implication correctly, then my response is that it is not the "distance", nor the actual amount of time-delay in CTD, that matters. It is the logical relationships of the terms. It is the realization that consciousness-of-X is always AFTER X. The actual "distance" in time between the two is of null value, to its logical conclusion.
Londoner wrote:We cannot simultaneously be 'a part of reality' and also 'experience' reality. If we experience it we must be outside it (especially since we are said to be operating on a different time line to that reality).
Not so. Can't an (internal) appleseed be part of the (whole) apple?
Londoner wrote:Again, you are introducing this mysterious thing called 'consciousness', which is not part of 'reality' but is the only means by which we connect with reality.
But it 'is' a part of reality. And it can experience reality, but never experience itself.
Londoner wrote:Fine, but yet at the same time you reject the idea of 'mind' as too mysterious.
If this "mind" is something more than just an "experiencer" then YES, I reject it.
Londoner wrote:When you write 'one is part of the other' the question is - how? How does 'consciousness' (which is not 'real'), connect to 'reality' (which presumably is)?
Consciousness is 'real', it is a real
experience. Consciousness is our experiential (and only!) view of reality.