It is tiresome indeed. Some people have celebrated secularism and the statistical descent of religious affiliation as a sign of progress, but the real challenge to progress, the main source of mysticism, superstition and nonsense is philosophical idealism. Phenomenology and Eastern philosophy, the main culprits.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 7:19 pm People believing wacky **** we're "receivers" of consciousness, that consciousness persists after death, etc.--gets tiresome.
The Source of Consciousness
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: The Source of Consciousness
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: The Source of Consciousness
Is it safe to conclude then that both you and T S believe that Man is the source of consciousness rather then a receiver of consciousness?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 10:24 pmIt is tiresome indeed. Some people have celebrated secularism and the statistical descent of religious affiliation as a sign of progress, but the real challenge to progress, the main source of mysticism, superstition and nonsense is philosophical idealism. Phenomenology and Eastern philosophy, the main culprits.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 7:19 pm People believing wacky **** we're "receivers" of consciousness, that consciousness persists after death, etc.--gets tiresome.
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: The Source of Consciousness
What kind of processing translates questions into beliefs?Nick_A wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 6:50 pmOK, so you believe Man is the creator of consciousness. I was hoping to find those who believe Man is a receiver of consciousness which always was.-0+ wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 5:46 pmIf a robot describes something, does this mean it is conscious?UniversalAlien wrote: ↑April 20th, 2021, 7:02 am Just try to describe one thing, any thing, that exists without using consciousness to describe it?
What about sleep talking humans?
If it is believed that consciousness always was then, it seems that the "essential question as to the source of consciousness" referred to at the start of this discussion is not only avoided, it is dismissed? How can something that always was have a source?
Consciousness is experienced. Whether it is received exactly as it is experienced or created/generated by the experiencer (or some combination of both) may be interesting to ponder, but if the enquirer is only hoping to find people who believe in one particular answer then this discussion becomes more like a recruitment exercise than a genuine enquiry into the source of consciousness.
Before questions regarding the source of consciousness are entertained, it may help to define what qualifies as consciousness and how this can be measured ...
How can anyone tell if someone is experiencing consciousness or not?
John may say, "I am experiencing, therefore I am conscious", but, without access to his experience, how can anyone else tell if he is actually experiencing consciousness or just unconsciously reporting this?
Jane may be able to observe John's brain waves which correlate to some extent with what he reports (and also to her own experiences when she observes similar waves from her own brain), and she can observe how he responds to various stimuli. She may be able to tell that he appears to be conscious but how can she tell if he is actually experiencing consciousness or not?
John may know without any shadow of doubt that he experiencing something, but what can he know about his own consciousness (especially if he can't tell for sure whether he is dreaming or not)?
Robbie the robot can be engineered by Jane to respond to various stimuli, receive inputs, and generate outputs including information that is fed back as input like thoughts. Robbie may behave as if he is conscious and say things like, "I think therefore I am". Jane may be able to observe his internal processes and see that he synthesised this "thought" from other data, outputted this, received this back as input, and responded to this, but how can she tell if he is consciously experiencing anything or just unconsciously processing everything?
Jane can enable Robbie to input, process, and output information, and behave like he is conscious, but it is not clear how she can give him consciousness, nor how can she or anyone else can tell if he is actually experiencing consciousness. If Robbie is experiencing something then he may know this, but how can anyone else know unless they have access to his experience?
If Robbie does experience consciousness, what is the source of this? If this is something that he receives then what enables him to receive it? Could he receive this without his hardware, software, and electrical activity within him?
If the essential question as to the source of consciousness is avoided then perhaps a question regarding the source of some aspect of consciousness can be entertained ...
What is the source of suffering?
Before this question is explored it may help to explore: What is the presence of suffering? What qualifies as suffering? What do all valid cases of suffering have in common?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: The Source of Consciousness
What is the real enabler of progress and how does this overcome the real challenge to progress?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 10:24 pm Some people have celebrated secularism and the statistical descent of religious affiliation as a sign of progress, but the real challenge to progress, the main source of mysticism, superstition and nonsense is philosophical idealism. Phenomenology and Eastern philosophy, the main culprits.
- UniversalAlien
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Source of Consciousness
Theists will say the source is god. - Atheists might say it {consciousness} is what it is.If it is believed that consciousness always was then, it seems that the "essential question as to the source of consciousness" referred to at the start of this discussion is not only avoided, it is dismissed? How can something that always was have a source?
Again:
"Just try to describe one thing, any thing, that exists without using consciousness to describe it?"
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Source of Consciousness
The source of consciousness is 'memory'. Man is just the passive 'experiencer' of consciousness.Nick_A wrote:Most discussions concerning the nature of consciousness avoid the essential question as to the source of consciousness. Does Man create consciousness or is Man a receiver of consciousness? If Man is the source of consciousness, he creates his own reality with the potential through unlimited knowledge, to experience reality. If Man is receiver of consciousness, he has the potential to remember what already exists but has been forgotten as Plato describes.
Consciousness is the singular bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory. For it is recognition that converts a non-conscious bodily experience (physical bodily reaction) into a "conscious experience", that we then call “consciousness”.
When we are conscious, we are only conscious of our physical bodily experiences/reactions. That's it. Those entities that "know" (recognize) their bodily experiences, are those that are considered "conscious beings".
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: The Source of Consciousness
You are confusing the eternal unchanging unique conscious quality of the ONE with contents of consciousness which are interpreted by organic life according to their own being within the ONE. It is the hypothesis which enables person to verify the purpose of our universe and the meaning and purpose of organic life including Man within it.What kind of processing translates questions into beliefs?
If it is believed that consciousness always was then, it seems that the "essential question as to the source of consciousness" referred to at the start of this discussion is not only avoided, it is dismissed? How can something that always was have a source?
Consciousness is experienced. Whether it is received exactly as it is experienced or created/generated by the experiencer (or some combination of both) may be interesting to ponder, but if the enquirer is only hoping to find people who believe in one particular answer then this discussion becomes more like a recruitment exercise than a genuine enquiry into the source of consciousness.
If Man is the creator of consciousness, then there is no universal purpose to verify. So I look for those who have this question of universal purpose for our universe and for Man within it..
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: The Source of Consciousness
Consciousness is one thing while the contents of consciousness is another. Memory refers to the contents of consciousness. Memory is an attribute of consciousness so is a fragment within consciousness or the eternal unchangingThe source of consciousness is 'memory'. Man is just the passive 'experiencer' of consciousness.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: The Source of Consciousness
There's no need for any "source". Men (actually all sentient beings) are the bearers of consciousness, in the same sense that they are the bearers of physiological processes. If by "source" you merely mean that these processes are located in time and space within their bearers and are intrinsic to their being, then they would be the "source", but it does not seem to be the proper term to describe it.Nick_A wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 11:26 pmIs it safe to conclude then that both you and T S believe that Man is the source of consciousness rather then a receiver of consciousness?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 10:24 pmIt is tiresome indeed. Some people have celebrated secularism and the statistical descent of religious affiliation as a sign of progress, but the real challenge to progress, the main source of mysticism, superstition and nonsense is philosophical idealism. Phenomenology and Eastern philosophy, the main culprits.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 7:19 pm People believing wacky **** we're "receivers" of consciousness, that consciousness persists after death, etc.--gets tiresome.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: The Source of Consciousness
You do not understand that the bearers of consciousness receive consciousness in accordance with the quality of being they possess. This distinction is important for me since it deals with distinguishing between the animal purpose of animal man and the human purpose of conscious man. That is why I keep my eyes open on philosophy sites to meet others with this same awareness. I am referring to the human possibility for conscious evolution in the vertical direction leading to our origin.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2021, 10:37 amThere's no need for any "source". Men (actually all sentient beings) are the bearers of consciousness, in the same sense that they are the bearers of physiological processes. If by "source" you merely mean that these processes are located in time and space within their bearers and are intrinsic to their being, then they would be the "source", but it does not seem to be the proper term to describe it.Nick_A wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 11:26 pmIs it safe to conclude then that both you and T S believe that Man is the source of consciousness rather then a receiver of consciousness?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 10:24 pmIt is tiresome indeed. Some people have celebrated secularism and the statistical descent of religious affiliation as a sign of progress, but the real challenge to progress, the main source of mysticism, superstition and nonsense is philosophical idealism. Phenomenology and Eastern philosophy, the main culprits.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 7:19 pm People believing wacky **** we're "receivers" of consciousness, that consciousness persists after death, etc.--gets tiresome.
Plato understood the necessity for the GOOD and Plotinus for the ONE as the source of consciousness and the potential for Man to return to its source.
"Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison." ~ Simone Weil
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Source of Consciousness
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: April 22nd, 2021, 10:08 am
Re: The Source of Consciousness
Everything about consciousness (aside from the experience of it) is purely speculative in my opinion... though we could possibly make certain informed deductions based on our experience, I think we run into a wall when we try to discuss the experience in itself.
My personal "speculation" is that consciousness (or being in itself) is totally separate from thought... in the same way that the "what" of any thing is separate from the "how", or the "way" that thing is. You can forgive people for believing sincerely that we are purely mechanical... absolutely determined and that we have no free will. After all, the mechanics of the brain and of biology indicate that each of our decisions are traceable to an environmental stimulation and a subsequent "mechanical" reaction. Even my typing this, your reading it, and (I would argue) your particular interpretation of it are all expressions of relative action... "reaction" or being "to" rather than being in itself.
I don't think consciousness (our being) is in the brain. Thought is an extremely complex operation... that we think we are separate from our environment is a thought which we are (by natural selection) designed to think. When I say think, I don't refer to abstract ephemeral concepts with no tangibility suddenly occurring in our brain... thought is a literal physical operation that only manifests in physical action... If a person believes thoughts are passing through his or her physical mind as phantasms without definite physical cause and effect, then I think that person misunderstands thought.
Where is consciousness then? How does it behave, what does it do, what does it look like?
These are all relative descriptions. We can't describe the relative nature of being itself which (by its definition) is singular and non-relative... and, in some way, we really can't genuinely conceive (or think) of this thing if we realize that we can't have been affected by an ineffectual thing, such that we cannot contain memory or express information expressive of it...unless we consider all expression together, and therefore non relative...
Unfortunately, I think the question "where does consciousness come from" is necessarily a relative question which requires chronology and causality... therefore I think it is fallacious.. and, as I said, I think it is probably impossible to ask a question of consciousness or to make a statement on consciousness which isn't fallacious to some extent... as all statements are statements of memory, which I would argue consciousness must not exist therein...
In meditation, I try to remove myself from memory and from expression / desire, and I feel much closer to the true nature of being.
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: The Source of Consciousness
That is a rather sweeping assessment regarding support of my opinions that you can not possibly know -- you are making assumptions. You want logic? OK. Your above statement, "Consciousness does not seem to be a substance . . ." makes it clear that you do not know with any certainty what consciousness actually is. Science has the same problem, which is why there is a biology, a neurology, even a psychology, but there is no consciousnessology.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 20th, 2021, 9:17 amYou can have opinions for sure, even though they lack any support on logical arguments or evidence.Gee wrote: ↑April 19th, 2021, 10:23 pmI don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You might want to consider doing some research which may help things make more "sense" for you, before posting such disinformation.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 19th, 2021, 9:28 pmThat is no different than asking if man creates metabolism or is man a receiver of metabolism. It doesn't make much sense. Consciousness does not seem to be a substance, something that would be created or transmitted. It's a name for a set of neurological processes. There's no need for a source.
Gee
No. It reflects the ordinary beliefs, biases, and opinions of scientists -- which is not actual evidence of scientific discovery. Historically, science has had a lot of trouble dealing with many aspects of life because it does not fully understand life and/or consciousness. Consider back when doctors were bleeding people to get rid of the "bad humors". They killed a lot of people. Or look up "The Doctor's Plague" in Wiki where it is explained how doctors killed off tens of thousands of new mothers for over a century, simply because they refused to wash their hands between patients. Or look up the Dust Bowl and the American Buffalo and begin to understand how we killed off tens of thousands of people and ruined the middle of the United States because we had no idea that the buffalo and the grasses were interdependent. How were they interdependent? Through consciousness.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 19th, 2021, 9:28 pm As far as I'm concerned, my statement above reflects the ordinary consensus in scientific disciplines.
In each of the above instances, there were brilliant thinkers and scientists, who warned us of the problems, but they were the minority. The majority, who shared an "ordinary consensus" had different beliefs, biases, and opinions -- which were not based on actual science. If given the choice between a brilliant scientist and "ordinary consensus", I will choose the brilliant scientist every time.
A quote from Nobel prize winner Max Planck, "Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it."
Gee
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: The Source of Consciousness
I don't think you are being terribly honest here. You seem to be attracted to threads that deal with "religious crap or any sort of "mysticism," spiritual beliefs, new age sorta crap, etc." like a moth to a flame. You need to tell us what you think about this "crap" on a regular basis -- that denotes interest.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2021, 12:10 pm I have zero interest in any religious crap or any sort of "mysticism," spiritual beliefs, new age sorta crap, etc.
Is this thread about religion/mysticism, etc.? I haven't read it all yet, but only noted that you are talking about religion and Count Lucanor mentioned the supernatural.
Gee
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Source of Consciousness
I do? I thought I mostly commented on ontological stuff and the usual epistemic nonsense (the lure of idealism, representationalism, etc.) that engineering types with some interest in philosophy are attracted to for whatever reason (probably because they think it makes them seem "sophisticated").
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023