The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

[RJG]

Consciousness/subconsciousness works out of logical impossibility by virtue of the logical proposition: He was driving and not driving his car.

Sorry, this is non-sensical to me. Either he was driving his car or he wasn't, ...unless you are implying "he" is two different people?

Descartes was correct by using Modus Tollens.

Descartes did not use "Modus Tollens" in his logic. If you believe he did, then spell out the A and B terms.

Modus Tollens: "If A is true, then B is true. B is not true. Therefore, A is not true."

Either way, it's a given that we must first exist to think.

...you mean we (physical experiential bodies) must first exist to "experience thoughts"? ...right?

I'm glad to see now you understand that we only know our self consciousness/self-awareness through logical impossibility.

Huh? We know of our existence through logic! (...not through logical impossibility).

It's an important distinction. Much like Time itself, this is a kind of paradox or contradiction that is part of reality.

Sorry 3017Meta, but this seems to be pure non-sensical-ness to me. Can you show the logic (in a syllogism) that makes this so? I would love to see your logic.

Or said another way, our thinking and/or self-awareness, logically, is logically impossible.

True, but this does not mean that a paradox, or a contradiction therefore exists. -- Logical impossibilities couldn't be logical impossibilities if they were not logical.

[3017Metaphysician]

Consciousness/subconsciousness works out of logical impossibility by virtue of the logical proposition: He was driving and not driving his car.

Sorry, this is non-sensical to me. Either he was driving his car or he wasn't, ...unless you are implying "he" is two different people?

Descartes was correct by using Modus Tollens.

Descartes did not use "Modus Tollens" in his logic. If you believe he did, then spell out the A and B terms.

Modus Tollens: "If A is true, then B is true. B is not true. Therefore, A is not true."

Either way, it's a given that we must first exist to think.

...you mean we (physical experiential bodies) must first exist to "experience thoughts"? ...right?

I'm glad to see now you understand that we only know our self consciousness/self-awareness through logical impossibility.

Huh? We know of our existence through logic! (...not through logical impossibility).

It's an important distinction. Much like Time itself, this is a kind of paradox or contradiction that is part of reality.

Sorry 3017Meta, but this seems to be pure non-sensical-ness to me. Can you show the logic (in a syllogism) that makes this so? I would love to see your logic.

Or said another way, our thinking and/or self-awareness, logically, is logically impossible.

True, but this does not mean that a paradox, or a contradiction therefore exists. -- Logical impossibilities couldn't be logical impossibilities if they were not logical.

Hey RJG! Happy Friday!

Thank you for the continued discourse. There is a lot to unpack. Let's summarize your/our first argument, then we can discussion the intent behind why one would even posit Modus Tollens viz. Descartes, as well as the illusion of Time (which is even a broader subject) all in our context of self-awareness and the nature of reality.

First, the proposition: He was driving and not driving, was used as a simple example (actually not so simple) that not only does a priori logic fail within the scope of metaphysics (the nature of reality), but provides for at least, a reasonable method to illustrate how one can become self-aware. Allow me re-state the scenario quickly:

"For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind? The answer is a little of both (which is not allowed in formal logic). In that descriptive case, the logically impossible proposition/judgement/explanation would be: I was driving and not driving my car. Though that proposition on its face is objectively logically impossible/not sound, it remains subjectively true for the individual and their experience of driving. And that’s because he didn’t know if he was on the beach or consciously/physically driving the car at the same time. He was confused, it was a little of both. His body was somewhere else at the same time his mind was somewhere else. "

This analogy serves two purposes. It proves that consciousness and self-awareness cannot be explained logically (slightly off-topic of course) a priori, without violating the rules (non-contradiction/bivalence). And it also provides for a way of understanding self-awareness, itself. In laymen's terms, our brains are amazingly able to multi-task. We can even recite, say, the pledge of allegiance from memory, and think about something totally different at the same time. To emphasize:

1. The conscious and subconscious (and unconscious) mind working together operates through logical impossibility. Simply, if we were forced to explain/describe consciousness through a priori logic, our judgements, statements, propositions would result in logical impossibility. Further, one could also argue that much like Time itself, there is an illusionary quality/feature to consciousness.

2. That scenario also supports the idea that self-awareness in itself, which is also metaphysically abstract, can be understood through 'your' argument of 'memory'. Meaning, if we were driving that car while daydreaming, and had survived the accident, hopefully our memory of it would tell us that we were not self-aware. As such, we can reasonably infer that we have self-awareness in some form or another. Again, we do not understand the nature of consciousness or its existence (how it develops from primordial soup, etc.) or if you prefer, Kantian things-in-themselves.

And so if you care to agree that the nature of self-awareness itself is a mystery, unknown, unexplainable, illusionary, paradoxical, transcending logic, etc. etc. that would be more germane. Otherwise, please feel free to poke holes in my argument there.

[RJG]

"For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind?

Minds can't drive.

[3017Metaphysician]

"For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind?

Minds can't drive.

RJG!

Ironically enough, yet another phenomenon that is logically impossible or shall I say, metaphysical and/or transcends logic

Let me know when you're ready to avenge your loss!!! In the alternative, I hope you're not throwing in the towel!?!

[RJG]

Ironically enough, yet another phenomenon that is logically impossible or shall I say, metaphysical and/or transcends logic

Let me know when you're ready to avenge your loss!!! In the alternative, I hope you're not throwing in the towel!?!

Lol, ...nice try, ...have a good day my friend.

[3017Metaphysician]

Ironically enough, yet another phenomenon that is logically impossible or shall I say, metaphysical and/or transcends logic

Let me know when you're ready to avenge your loss!!! In the alternative, I hope you're not throwing in the towel!?!

Lol, ...nice try, ...have a good day my friend.

RJG!

Thank you! Self-awareness and consciousness is such an intriguing topic. The esoteric and abstract nature of Being, as it were, is a fascinating subject. It covers a lot of ground. Thanks for the dialogue. And remember, tell yourself: Self, I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dagnabbit, people like me!

Have a great weekend

[popeye1945]

The self beyond thought, sensation and experience is death, oblivion, nothingness, as a cold echo through the cosmos, never to be heard.

[Sy Borg]

The self beyond thought, sensation and experience is death, oblivion, nothingness, as a cold echo through the cosmos, never to be heard.

While I agree with you in a practical sense, I see "the self beyond thought, sensation and experience" as a unique complex, dynamic pattern that degrades over time, although probabilities suggest that somewhat similar patterns may emerge from time to time.

[popeye1945]

The self beyond thought, sensation and experience is death, oblivion, nothingness, as a cold echo through the cosmos, never to be heard.

While I agree with you in a practical sense, I see "the self beyond thought, sensation and experience" as a unique complex, dynamic pattern that degrades over time, although probabilities suggest that somewhat similar patterns may emerge from time to time.

I find your thought of a self beyond thought, sensation and experience to be meaningless, could you elaborate, how could you be seeing anything without those qualities? I have experienced being without memory, and that leaves one just experiencing what it is to be alive, quite wonderful actually, with nothing to interfere with that experience, until shortly the stress of disorientation sets in. By what means are you understanding this unique complex or dynamic pattern?

[Sy Borg]

The self beyond thought, sensation and experience is death, oblivion, nothingness, as a cold echo through the cosmos, never to be heard.

While I agree with you in a practical sense, I see "the self beyond thought, sensation and experience" as a unique complex, dynamic pattern that degrades over time, although probabilities suggest that somewhat similar patterns may emerge from time to time.

I find your thought of a self beyond thought, sensation and experience to be meaningless, could you elaborate, how could you be seeing anything without those qualities? I have experienced being without memory, and that leaves one just experiencing what it is to be alive, quite wonderful actually, with nothing to interfere with that experience, until shortly the stress of disorientation sets in. By what means are you understanding this unique complex or dynamic pattern?

That's what we are - unique complex, dynamic patterns - forms that the Earth has exuded. These patterns shape experiences, along with external factors, when we are alive. When we die, aspects of these patterns persist after death for a time - fossils, memories and creations.

[popeye1945]

The self beyond thought, sensation and experience is death, oblivion, nothingness, as a cold echo through the cosmos, never to be heard.

While I agree with you in a practical sense, I see "the self beyond thought, sensation and experience" as a unique complex, dynamic pattern that degrades over time, although probabilities suggest that somewhat similar patterns may emerge from time to time.

I find your thought of a self beyond thought, sensation and experience to be meaningless, could you elaborate, how could you be seeing anything without those qualities? I have experienced being without memory, and that leaves one just experiencing what it is to be alive, quite wonderful actually, with nothing to interfere with that experience, until shortly the stress of disorientation sets in. By what means are you understanding this unique complex or dynamic pattern?

That's what we are - unique complex, dynamic patterns - forms that the Earth has exuded. These patterns shape experiences, along with external factors, when we are alive. When we die, aspects of these patterns persist after death for a time - fossils, memories and creations.

Patterns in energy forms, but this is not what we naively perceive. Ours is a world of objects, can one say for certainty that those objects exist in the absence of subjective consciousness? The self, if there is indeed a self, has to be an emergent quality of subject and object as one, take one away and the other ceases to be. Without an object there is no consciousness, without a subject there is no object/world.

[Sy Borg]

While I agree with you in a practical sense, I see "the self beyond thought, sensation and experience" as a unique complex, dynamic pattern that degrades over time, although probabilities suggest that somewhat similar patterns may emerge from time to time.

I find your thought of a self beyond thought, sensation and experience to be meaningless, could you elaborate, how could you be seeing anything without those qualities? I have experienced being without memory, and that leaves one just experiencing what it is to be alive, quite wonderful actually, with nothing to interfere with that experience, until shortly the stress of disorientation sets in. By what means are you understanding this unique complex or dynamic pattern?

That's what we are - unique complex, dynamic patterns - forms that the Earth has exuded. These patterns shape experiences, along with external factors, when we are alive. When we die, aspects of these patterns persist after death for a time - fossils, memories and creations.

Patterns in energy forms, but this is not what we naively perceive. Ours is a world of objects, can one say for certainty that those objects exist in the absence of subjective consciousness? The self, if there is indeed a self, has to be an emergent quality of subject and object as one, take one away and the other ceases to be.

The objects of reality objectively exist for sure IMO, but they are filtered by the senses and brain. The same world will seem completely different, depending on whether you are a human, whale, bat, snake, bee or microscopic worm.

When it comes to the self, I vacillate. On one hand, yes, it's an emergent property. OTOH, all life can be thought of being one and the same, but broken up and expressed via different morphology and senses (patterns).

Without an object there is no consciousness, without a subject there is no object/world.

The first is a good point. As a thought experiment, if you were left in sensory deprivation indefinitely (but somehow still received sustenance), how long would you last? First you would remember past events. In time, you would be remembering your memories of events, rather than the memories. I can imagine this process running in ever-decreasing circles until the mind gives way. Your mind would devour itself just as the digestive system eats itself if denied food for long enough.

Your latter point - "without a subject there is no object/world" - no. The Earth and the Sun had to exist before we did. They are deeper, more fundamental to reality, than consciousness as we know it.

[Tegularius]

Without an object there is no consciousness, without a subject there is no object/world.

Without consciousness an object cannot be perceived. Without a (conscious) subject objects exist which cannot perceive themselves. As rendered, objects precede subjects the former usually being the cause of the latter.

[popeye1945]

Without an object there is no consciousness, without a subject there is no object/world.

Without consciousness an object cannot be perceived. Without a (conscious) subject objects exist which cannot perceive themselves. As rendered, objects precede subjects the former usually being the cause of the latter.

That would be a common thought, but one could never prove it to be so. We cannot escape our subjective consciousness, and cannot disprove that object/world is not subject dependent. Science now tells us that all is energy. Spinoza informed us as to how we become consciously aware of objects/world through the alterations those objects make to our bodies. Perhaps the energies altering our bodies then produce objects or the physical world as a biological readout. A reality played on the subject, heard only by like subjects.