The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Conciousness as the definition of existence

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 798
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by The Beast » January 8th, 2019, 12:26 pm

Obviously, it is called splendour Saxon like. An original Indo-semitic proposition that has evolved in some as a symbolic sacrifice or a door to the Unknown that had no name. Abraham’s son impasse or Jacob’s rituals or Christ in an evolved Form. Splendor.

Alias
Posts: 2630
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Alias » January 8th, 2019, 12:47 pm

EventHorizon wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 8:11 pm
[ you can only become something that does exist.]

Ok but that's what I"m saying, that Consciousness can not become nothing.
Why? What does a drip "become" when you turn off the tap?
I think you are saying it "winks out" or "stops" or any other variation of does not become.
I'm saying that when a machine breaks down, its functions cease. When an organism dies, its throbbings, gurgles, wheezes, impulses and all other processes stop. They do not "become" anything. They just stop.

Most children outgrow the notion that they are the center of the universe. Some become philosophers.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1259
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by RJG » January 8th, 2019, 1:30 pm

Tamminen wrote:A universe without subjects is so huge a paradox that it must be impossible, and I would dare say, logically impossible.
Yes, this is very daring of you! :) ...there is NO logical impossibility here, (...nor paradox). Although a subject requires an object, an object (existing in the universe) does not require a subject.

For a subject, to be a subject, it requires an 'action' (the 'experiencing' of some-'thing').
But for an object, to be an object, it requires nothing, no action, just plain 'ol existence.

Tamminen
Posts: 897
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Tamminen » January 8th, 2019, 2:03 pm

RJG wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 1:30 pm
But for an object, to be an object, it requires nothing, no action, just plain 'ol existence.
Object: A thing external to the thinking mind or subject. (Oxford Dictionary). Note "the thinking mind or subject".

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1259
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by RJG » January 8th, 2019, 2:32 pm

RJG wrote:But for an object, to be an object, it requires nothing, no action, just plain 'ol existence.
Tamminen wrote:Object: A thing external to the thinking mind or subject. (Oxford Dictionary). Note "the thinking mind or subject".
This does not mean that an object 'requires' a thinking mind or subject. ...or am I missing something?

An object can be can object without a subject.
But a subject cannot be a subject without an object (to experience).

Tamminen
Posts: 897
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Tamminen » January 8th, 2019, 3:50 pm

RJG wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 2:32 pm
RJG wrote:But for an object, to be an object, it requires nothing, no action, just plain 'ol existence.
Tamminen wrote:Object: A thing external to the thinking mind or subject. (Oxford Dictionary). Note "the thinking mind or subject".
This does not mean that an object 'requires' a thinking mind or subject. ...or am I missing something?
Yes, because if an object is a thing external to the thinking mind or subject, it requires the existence of the thinking mind or subject to be external to it. And this is not playing with words.

Alias
Posts: 2630
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Alias » January 8th, 2019, 4:39 pm

Tamminen wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 3:50 pm
Yes, because if an object is a thing external to the thinking mind or subject, it requires the existence of the thinking mind or subject to be external to it. And this is not playing with words.
Sure it is.
How would you like it if the sidewalk under your feet ceased to exist when you're not thinking about it?
In fact, you take the continuing objecthood of objects so much for granted that you're not even surprised to find your clothes in the closet when you wake from not having been aware of them all night. The relationship between objects and subject is a grammatical one: is purely semantic; not at all requisite to existence. In the dictionary, another word for 'object' is 'thing'
An inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

In the real world, you, too, are an object among many, which all exist independently, regardless of how many or which of them are aware of how many and which of the others. There were billions and billions more objects of which no sentient being will ever be aware than objects that are experienced by sentient beings; after all, sentience is pretty thinly spread throughout the universe - at least, if this galaxy is representative.

User avatar
EventHorizon
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: January 5th, 2019, 12:14 am

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by EventHorizon » January 9th, 2019, 12:40 am

Alias wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 12:47 pm
EventHorizon wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 8:11 pm
[ you can only become something that does exist.]

Ok but that's what I"m saying, that Consciousness can not become nothing.
Why? What does a drip "become" when you turn off the tap?
I think you are saying it "winks out" or "stops" or any other variation of does not become.
I'm saying that when a machine breaks down, its functions cease. When an organism dies, its throbbings, gurgles, wheezes, impulses and all other processes stop. They do not "become" anything. They just stop.
I assume the analogy is comparing consciousness to the dripping and not the drops themselves. I again have an issue with time here. The dripping of the faucet is a time-driven phenomena that exists only within consciousness. Being-in-itself is not subject to temporality.

I think even from the point of view that the world exists independently of consciousness, it must be acknowledged that death is a time-phenomena and so it is very curious as to what is reallyhappening.I will say I don't like my own line of thought here and think it's somewhat. It's like saying the dripping is an illusion maaaan!.
Most children outgrow the notion that they are the center of the universe. Some become philosophers.
Heh fair point, I think I am basically questioning object-permanence.

User avatar
EventHorizon
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: January 5th, 2019, 12:14 am

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by EventHorizon » January 9th, 2019, 12:54 am

Alias wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 4:39 pm
Tamminen wrote:
January 8th, 2019, 3:50 pm
Yes, because if an object is a thing external to the thinking mind or subject, it requires the existence of the thinking mind or subject to be external to it. And this is not playing with words.
Sure it is.
How would you like it if the sidewalk under your feet ceased to exist when you're not thinking about it?
In fact, you take the continuing objecthood of objects so much for granted that you're not even surprised to find your clothes in the closet when you wake from not having been aware of them all night. The relationship between objects and subject is a grammatical one: is purely semantic; not at all requisite to existence. In the dictionary, another word for 'object' is 'thing'
An inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

In the real world, you, too, are an object among many, which all exist independently, regardless of how many or which of them are aware of how many and which of the others. There were billions and billions more objects of which no sentient being will ever be aware than objects that are experienced by sentient beings; after all, sentience is pretty thinly spread throughout the universe - at least, if this galaxy is representative.
I think It's been pointed out that we aren't quite saying that we create what we see. It's not that the closet doesn't exist until I look at it, but that it exists only by it's relation to me. In a way similar to Donald Hoffman's Multimodal User Interface (MMUI) theory. I'm not well read into it but from his abstract:
Donald Hoffman wrote: .The multimodal user interface (MUI) theory of
perception states that perceptual experiences do not match or approximate properties of
the objective world, but instead provide a simplified, species-specific, user interface to
that world. Conscious realism states that the objective world consists of conscious agents
and their experiences; these can be mathematically modeled and empirically explored in
the normal scientific manner. Together these theses provide a solution to the mind-body
problem. They also entail epiphysicalism: consciousness creates physical objects and
properties, but physical objects and properties have no causal powers.

Tamminen
Posts: 897
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Tamminen » January 9th, 2019, 9:42 am

EventHorizon wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 12:54 am
I think It's been pointed out that we aren't quite saying that we create what we see. It's not that the closet doesn't exist until I look at it, but that it exists only by it's relation to me.
Yes, and me, and the ants. Even if the definition of 'object' were
an inanimate material thing as distinct from a living sentient being
its being still presupposes the being of "a living sentient being".
And if the definition were "a thing without any connection with subjecthood", also this presupposes the being of subjecthood, which would make the definition self-contradictory. So we cannot get rid of the subject in our definitions or in reality.

I have discussed this with Halc, RJG and Fooloso4, starting here:
viewtopic.php?p=315483#p315483
They missed the point, but I think you can follow my reasoning there, although I am sure you do not need that kind of "dialectic" to see what is obvious by intuition, as it is for me.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1259
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by RJG » January 9th, 2019, 12:03 pm

EventHorizon wrote:I think It's been pointed out that we aren't quite saying that we create what we see. It's not that the closet doesn't exist until I look at it, but that it exists only by it's relation to me.
Tamminen wrote:Yes... ...its being still presupposes the being of "a living sentient being".

And if the definition were "a thing without any connection with subjecthood", also this presupposes the being of subjecthood, which would make the definition self-contradictory. So we cannot get rid of the subject in our definitions or in reality.
Tam, you are using flawed logic here (i.e. it's called "paradoxical thinking" fallacy).

Your (false) assertion, that the claim itself - "objects exist (without a subject)" - implies - "a subject is required to make this claim - "that objects exist (without a subject)"" - fallaciously (falsely) convinces yourself, that - objects require subjects to exist. This is a flawed conclusion from a flawed implication. You have set up a false paradox, based on a false conflation, which results in the flawed conclusion.

...or as the late great Obvious Leo would say "You have falsely conflated the 'map' as the 'territory' itself", to yield your flawed conclusion.


Again...

1. An object can be can object without a subject.
But a subject cannot be a subject without an object (to experience).

2. When one is conscious, they are conscious of 'something' [object 'X']. Without this 'something' to be conscious of, one is conscious of 'nothing'. If one is conscious of 'nothing', there is no consciousness; no subjectivity. (e.g. without something to see, there is no seeing).

3. 'Bodily reactions' are the experiences (the object; the 'X') that we (the subject; aka the conscious "experiencer") then may, or may not, become conscious of. The 'consciousness-(knowing)-of-a-bodily-reaction (i.e. the 'consciousness-of-X') is itself a unique/singular bodily experience called 'recognition'. For it is this 'recognition' that converts the 'non-conscious' experience ('X') into the 'conscious' experience ('consciousness-of-'X'). Again, without an 'X' (bodily experience) to be conscious of, there can be no 'consciousness-of-X'; hence no consciousness at all!

4. Furthermore, 'recognition' is not possible without a 'means' to store and match (i.e. to "recognize") past experiences. 'Memory' provides the means, and the capability, to store and match past experiences with present experiences.

5. To put it simply, there is no 'magic' here with consciousness. Those with eyeballs can see. Those with ears can hear. And those with memory can 'know' (be 'conscious').

Alias
Posts: 2630
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Alias » January 9th, 2019, 12:51 pm

EventHorizon wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 12:40 am
I assume the analogy is comparing consciousness to the dripping and not the drops themselves.
The process of dripping, of course. Water has an actual, non-consciousness-dependent existence. Dripping is what happens to water. Dripping has no 'existence' independent of the mechanism that produces it and does not 'become' anything when the mechanism stops producing it.
What's so hard about this?
I again have an issue with time here. The dripping of the faucet is a time-driven phenomena that exists only within consciousness. Being-in-itself is not subject to temporality.
Everything that happens, happens in time. Dripping is an action: a happening. It's not driven by time; it's driven by hydraulics, but it happens in time. It's nothing to do with being-in-itself - which also can't be timeless, unless you observe it in a frozen instant ... except, you can't, because if you shut down your time-dependent life process you can't observe anything, since observing is also a process performed by a mechanism.
I think even from the point of view that the world exists independently of consciousness, it must be acknowledged that death is a time-phenomena
It's an event, not a phenomenon; and it's only a notable event from the point of view of a conscious entity to whom this is a significant stage in the processes that materials undergo during their transformations into living matter and back again to inertia.
and so it is very curious as to what is reallyhappening.
In reality, death is just part of an ongoing biochemical process. The life processes of that lump of matter cease: it doesn't wheeze, throb, gurgle, sweat, digest, sing, desire, hurt or think anymore, but the matter never for a second stops changing.
Only a subjective conscious being delimits parts of the process as significant changes in the interactions of matter.
It's like saying the dripping is an illusion maaaan!.
No, it's a perception. This is how creatures with a particular kind of sensory equipment and language interpret the slow release of water from an imperfectly closed valve.

Tamminen
Posts: 897
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Tamminen » January 9th, 2019, 12:57 pm

RJG wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 12:03 pm
An object can be can object without a subject.
An object can be an object without being an object of experiencing for anyone, but its being is not possible without the being of some subject with which it has an ontological relationship of being.
But a subject cannot be a subject without an object (to experience).
True.
When one is conscious, they are conscious of 'something' [object 'X']. Without this 'something' to be conscious of, one is conscious of 'nothing'. If one is conscious of 'nothing', there is no consciousness; no subjectivity. (e.g. without something to see, there is no seeing).
True.
Your (false) assertion, that the claim itself - "objects exist (without a subject)" - implies - "a subject is required to make this claim - "that objects exist (without a subject)"" - fallaciously (falsely) convinces yourself, that - objects require subjects to exist. This is a flawed conclusion from a flawed implication. You have set up a false paradox, based on a false conflation, which results in the flawed conclusion.
There is no conflation. Everything is deliberate and is based on a clear intuition. I do not demand that anyone else has the same intuition, but I can see there are those who have.

Alias
Posts: 2630
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Alias » January 9th, 2019, 12:59 pm

EventHorizon wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 12:54 am
I think It's been pointed out that we aren't quite saying that we create what we see. It's not that the closet doesn't exist until I look at it, but that it exists only by it's relation to me.
So, if a burglar broke into your apartment, he wouldn't find your leather jacket - only an empty space? Well, that's a relief!
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Alias
Posts: 2630
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Conciousness as the definition of existence

Post by Alias » January 9th, 2019, 1:05 pm

Tamminen wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 9:42 am
Even if the definition of 'object' were
an inanimate material thing as distinct from a living sentient being
its being still presupposes the being of "a living sentient being".
Its being doesn't presuppose anything. The dictionary presupposes two different kinds of thing to make a distinction. The inanimate object does not require any words to communicate its nature; only the sentient being does.
This is about language, not about existence.
Dictionaries are all about semantics.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Post Reply