Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Terrapin Station »

There is a lot of questionable stuff in your last paragraph.
RogerSH wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:00 am However, there is a major caveat. Consciousness is unique in being the means by which explanations are understood, which makes certain kinds of explanation inapplicable.
I'm not sure if the sentence following this one is supposed to provide more detail here (in which case just skip to that comment I guess), but a pet peeve of mine is that so many arguments about the mind/body relationship hinge on critiques of whether there are explanations or not, and you even comment that "certain kinds of explanation [are] inapplicable, all while not well-defining just what's to count as an explanation or not and why.

If debates about this topic are going to hinge on explanations and whether we have them, then we'd better damn well have a plausible, agreeable, thorough, rigorous philosophy of explanations at hand before we go down that track. In your post you suggest a definition of "explanation" that would have something to do with making predictions (utilizing mathematics, etc.), but you don't really set out an explicit set of criteria or a justification of why those should be the criteria.
The output of an objective theory is necessarily objective,
I'm not sure what this would be saying. First, I wouldn't say that any theories are objective, or that they can be. Theories can be about objective stuff, but that doesn't make the theory itself objective. You seem to be using "objective" in a manner that's different than how I use it though.
. . . so that to seek a direct explanation of “what consciousness feels like” is a confusion of categories. Nevertheless, consciousness has many objective attributes, such as the capabilities it provides,
I'm also not sure what this is saying. Again, it seems to be using "objective" oddly. And what capabilities are you talking about?


At any rate, as I often remark, the properties of EVERYTHING are a factor of the matter, relations and processes that obtain with and even "around" the thing in question, and those properties are different from different points of reference, with there being no "reference point-free point of reference." So that would seem to be emergence as you're describing it, and consciousness is simply just another thing in this regard.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:34 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:22 pm
RogerSH wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:00 am Almost all of science - all except for the physics of space-time and fundamental particles - deals with “emergent” entities and properties, but the significance of this concept is, it seems to me, often misrepresented or misunderstood. Here is a brief summary of what I think are the key points, and the relevance for the suggestion of emergence as an “explanation” of consciousness.
Congratualtions - now all you will have to do is EXPLAIN emergence.
When you disappear up your own omphalos, please consider that all you are actuall doing is using emergence to DESCRIBE consciousness.

There are no explanations, except in the case of intentionality. Thus, I can explain my actions. For everything else there is only description; a system of metaphors to describe other metaphors.
I agree that all concepts for that which is not directly perceived is largely metaphors and analogies, but it can't all be metaphor, can it? It has to start somewhere.
Please state the "it" in the last sentence! What is that "it", exactly?
It is s ure sign of a breakdown in description when we resort to "it"; the generalised and indefineable descriptor.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

RogerSH wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:00 am Almost all of science - all except for the physics of space-time and fundamental particles - deals with “emergent” entities and properties, but the significance of this concept is, it seems to me, often misrepresented or misunderstood. Here is a brief summary of what I think are the key points, and the relevance for the suggestion of emergence as an “explanation” of consciousness....
Nicely written OP, RogerSH.

Just for clarity sake (for me, anyway), do you personally believe that the emergence of consciousness can be (will be) explained (eventually) as being nothing more than some kind of mechanistically-derived epi-phenomenon that can be attributed to the interactions taking place between a unique arrangement of molecules, atoms, nuclei & electrons, protons & neutrons, quarks, etc., that make up a brain?
_______
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

RCSaunders speaking to RogerHS wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:42 pm Questions like, "why is there something rather than nothing," or yours, "why is there consciousness," are based on an assumption that things like existence, life, and consciousness, are contingent on something. Without that assumption there is no basis for the question. What is certain is that there is existence, there is life, and there is consciousness else there would be nothing aware of existence. What is, just is. It does not require some explanation.
The bolded part is pure and total nonsense.

Those are the words of someone who, because he has personally tried and failed to discover the answers to the deepest mysteries of reality, has simply "given up" (surrendered/waved the white flag) and declared the mission to be unnecessary.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:42 pm If you assume there must be an expanation for everything you meet an endless regress. Whatever you provide as the explanation becomes the basis for the next question, "what is the explanation for that."
So what?

To me, that's no excuse for assuming that explanations literally do not exist in any context whatsoever.

Due to its extremely limited level of consciousness, it is impossible for an amoeba, for example, to understand the reason for the existence of the petri dish that contains it. Yet, clearly, the explanation for the dish resides in the higher context of the humans who created it.

And the point is that humans are in a similar situation as amoebas, in that we are simply not conscious enough to understand the true nature and reason for the existence of this "petri dish" we call a universe, and that there is no doubt a higher context of reality in which the explanation resides.

The bottom line is that "somewhere" within the context of the "All-That-Is" there exists an explanation for literally everything, including not only what consciousness is, but why there is something rather than nothing (which I deem to be the biggest mystery of all).
_______
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:41 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:34 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:22 pm

Congratualtions - now all you will have to do is EXPLAIN emergence.
When you disappear up your own omphalos, please consider that all you are actuall doing is using emergence to DESCRIBE consciousness.

There are no explanations, except in the case of intentionality. Thus, I can explain my actions. For everything else there is only description; a system of metaphors to describe other metaphors.
I agree that all concepts for that which is not directly perceived is largely metaphors and analogies, but it can't all be metaphor, can it? It has to start somewhere.
Please state the "it" in the last sentence! What is that "it", exactly?
It is s ure sign of a breakdown in description when we resort to "it"; the generalised and indefineable descriptor.
Sorry. "It," refers to the, "everything else," in your sentence: "For everything else there is only description; a system of metaphors to describe other metaphors."
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:41 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:41 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:34 pm
I agree that all concepts for that which is not directly perceived is largely metaphors and analogies, but it can't all be metaphor, can it? It has to start somewhere.
Please state the "it" in the last sentence! What is that "it", exactly?
It is s ure sign of a breakdown in description when we resort to "it"; the generalised and indefineable descriptor.
Sorry. "It," refers to the, "everything else," in your sentence: "For everything else there is only description; a system of metaphors to describe other metaphors."
Well indeed.
If you have an example of a true "explanation" for a natural phenomenon perhaps we can chew it over. But eventually the why questions can only end in a description. of what is the case. And whilst some things look like explanation in the end they just decribe the universe we live in.
Perhaps you want to start with an example?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:35 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:41 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:41 pm

Please state the "it" in the last sentence! What is that "it", exactly?
It is s ure sign of a breakdown in description when we resort to "it"; the generalised and indefineable descriptor.
Sorry. "It," refers to the, "everything else," in your sentence: "For everything else there is only description; a system of metaphors to describe other metaphors."
Well indeed.
If you have an example of a true "explanation" for a natural phenomenon perhaps we can chew it over. But eventually the why questions can only end in a description. of what is the case. And whilst some things look like explanation in the end they just decribe the universe we live in.
Perhaps you want to start with an example?
Well, OK. I was not getting on your case. You were making a point that I have always made, that language is largely metaphor and analogy, because everything beyond what we are directly conscious of must be described in terms of what we can be directly conscious of.

Your original statement was about, "description," but now you are using the word, "explanation." If what you meant by, "description," was actually, "explanation," I agree.

Referring to description, when I use the words, "in," "on," "near," or, "heavy," for example, I can actually see things which are "in," the house, "on," the stove, "near the window, and, "feel," heavy, but most of my use of such terms are by analogy, as "in that case," "on further consideration," "the number nearest six," and, "a heavy atmosphere." Most scientific descriptions or totally metaphorical from atoms and sub-atomic particles, to concepts like fields and electromagnetic waves. I was just making the point that while light is described both as a, "particle," (photon) and a wave (lightwave), those analogies only work because I've seen actual physical particles and waves of water and vibrations in strings. One of the problems with most people's understanding of science is to confuse the metaphorical descriptions of science with physical facts.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by bahman »

RogerSH wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:00 am Almost all of science - all except for the physics of space-time and fundamental particles - deals with “emergent” entities and properties, but the significance of this concept is, it seems to me, often misrepresented or misunderstood. Here is a brief summary of what I think are the key points, and the relevance for the suggestion of emergence as an “explanation” of consciousness.

The natural world largely consists of a hierarchy of things made up of smaller things – take for example: a foam made up of, in turn, soap bubbles, liquid films, molecules, atoms, nuclei & electrons, protons & neutrons, quarks….

A key observation is that the rules of behaviour at each level may be entirely and often strikingly different from those at the level below. Indeed, in general there is a sense (to be described next) in which the higher level behaviour cannot even be strictly derived from that of the lower level. This is what is meant when the higher level behaviour is described as “emergent”: it “emerges” as a novel attribute from the assembly of the elements. Another key observation is that the actual nature of the ingredients is often of secondary importance; it is their arrangement that dominates the higher level behaviour. Many different liquids make very similar bubbles.

The behaviour of any single instance of a higher level assembly – such as a particular soap bubble at a particular instant - can, evidently, be derived in principle from the behaviour of all the elements acting together, even though in practice the simultaneous solution of trillions of equations describing the interaction of each pair of molecules is something that one would never attempt. However, when we turn from a single instance to a type, we are by definition eliminating the distinction between one instance and another, a process of approximation known to scientists as “coarse-graining”, and this is why higher level behaviour of types cannot be derived just from lower level behaviour. There also needs to be an informed guess as to how to approximate that behaviour – the next thing to be considered.

In practice, the rules of higher level behaviour can be found in one of two ways. One is to observe many cases, either of the real thing or of a simulation, to form hypotheses about the rules, and to test the hypotheses under enough different conditions to provide adequate corroboration. This doesn’t properly serve as an “explanation”, though. The other method is to guess how to approximate the rules of the lower level (which themselves will usually be approximations, of course) in such a way that higher levels rules can be derived by a mathematical analysis. Thus in the case of a soap bubble, approximations to the rules of intermolecular attraction enable the phenomena of thin-film stability and surface tension to be derived, and then with further approximations and a theorem of solid geometry, the phenomena of spherical bubbles can be predicted. Given that this phenomenon is observed, the guessed approximations may be presumed to be sound. This counts as a true “explanation”. In practice, most scientific knowledge is a hybrid of these two approaches. For example, crystallography convincingly explains many of the characteristics of metal fatigue – the emergent behaviour of assemblies of flawed crystals – but numerous tests are needed to provide the actual data on which statistical fatigue life prediction depends.

Emergence is not at all the same as evolution (since it applies equally to inanimate entities such as bubbles), although the potency of emergence does explain the enormous plethora of novel types of entity that have emerged in the living world, and natural selection then explains how many of them have come to endure. In recent years in such fields as microbiology, quite extraordinary and wholly unforeseeable behaviours of complex molecules have been discovered, and substantially explained by their extraordinarily complex molecular structure.

Many emergent entities (even soap bubbles) can be described as “self-organising” structures, a phenomenon that reveals the limits of “toppling domino” models of causality which disregard the hierarchic nature of the material world. A self-organising structure that emerges behaves like an initial cause at its own level in the hierarchy.

How does all this apply to the phenomena of consciousness? The fact that the brain is the most complex and dynamic compact structure known to science shows that there is scope for a hierarchy of structures of logical relationship to form that has far more levels even than that of a single cell, and with each level introducing new types of structure with new kinds of behaviour, it would be sheer stupidity to rule out any kind of behaviour as a priori “inexplicable” on such a basis merely because we haven’t the imagination to guess what the explanation might be.

However, there is a major caveat. Consciousness is unique in being the means by which explanations are understood, which makes certain kinds of explanation inapplicable. The output of an objective theory is necessarily objective, so that to seek a direct explanation of “what consciousness feels like” is a confusion of categories. Nevertheless, consciousness has many objective attributes, such as the capabilities it provides, so continuing the search for emergent structures that explain these attributes is an entirely rational way to proceed.
No, unless you believe in magic.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:31 pm
RCSaunders speaking to RogerHS wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:42 pm Questions like, "why is there something rather than nothing," or yours, "why is there consciousness," are based on an assumption that things like existence, life, and consciousness, are contingent on something. Without that assumption there is no basis for the question. What is certain is that there is existence, there is life, and there is consciousness else there would be nothing aware of existence. What is, just is. It does not require some explanation.
The bolded part is pure and total nonsense.

Those are the words of someone who, because he has personally tried and failed to discover the answers to the deepest mysteries of reality, has simply "given up" (surrendered/waved the white flag) and declared the mission to be unnecessary.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:42 pm If you assume there must be an explanation for everything you meet an endless regress. Whatever you provide as the explanation becomes the basis for the next question, "what is the explanation for that."
So what?

To me, that's no excuse for assuming that explanations literally do not exist in any context whatsoever.

Due to its extremely limited level of consciousness, it is impossible for an amoeba, for example, to understand the reason for the existence of the petri dish that contains it. Yet, clearly, the explanation for the dish resides in the higher context of the humans who created it.

And the point is that humans are in a similar situation as amoebas, in that we are simply not conscious enough to understand the true nature and reason for the existence of this "petri dish" we call a universe, and that there is no doubt a higher context of reality in which the explanation resides.

The bottom line is that "somewhere" within the context of the "All-That-Is" there exists an explanation for literally everything, including not only what consciousness is, but why there is something rather than nothing (which I deem to be the biggest mystery of all).
While not the biggest mystery, one that has always interested me is why any sane person (unless their mind is corrupted by some academic philosophy or religion) could possibly entertain that question. To both our consciousness and to reason, there is no alternative to existence. To be conscious, one must exist and there must be something to be conscious of. We are conscious (and therefor exist) and there is existence (else there would be nothing to be conscious of). Logically, it cannot be any other way, because it would violate the law of non-contradiction. Nothing can both be and not be. There is existence, therefore it is not logically possible that there not be existence.

It is also not logically possible that existence be anything other than it is. Consider the fact of the immutability of history. The past is the past and can never be anything other than what it was. It is not possible at any time in the past that what now is could have been anything different than it is. It has nothing to do with, "cause," or, "determinism," it is simply a fact, not an explanation of why it is.

I'm only explaining why I regard such questions as, "why is there something rather than nothing," and, "why is there consciousness," absurd. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you. I'll only say, if your question had been, "what is the nature of consciousness," or, "what is the nature of existence," I would have regarded those as both necessary and important questions which can both only be answered by assuming they exist.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:00 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:35 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:41 am
Sorry. "It," refers to the, "everything else," in your sentence: "For everything else there is only description; a system of metaphors to describe other metaphors."
Well indeed.
If you have an example of a true "explanation" for a natural phenomenon perhaps we can chew it over. But eventually the why questions can only end in a description. of what is the case. And whilst some things look like explanation in the end they just decribe the universe we live in.
Perhaps you want to start with an example?
Well, OK. I was not getting on your case. You were making a point that I have always made, that language is largely metaphor and analogy, because everything beyond what we are directly conscious of must be described in terms of what we can be directly conscious of.

Your original statement was about, "description," but now you are using the word, "explanation." If what you meant by, "description," was actually, "explanation," I agree.
No. I am using the terms very clearly. Science is descriptive.

Referring to description, when I use the words, "in," "on," "near," or, "heavy," for example, I can actually see things which are "in," the house, "on," the stove, "near the window, and, "feel," heavy, but most of my use of such terms are by analogy, as "in that case," "on further consideration," "the number nearest six," and, "a heavy atmosphere." Most scientific descriptions or totally metaphorical from atoms and sub-atomic particles, to concepts like fields and electromagnetic waves. I was just making the point that while light is described both as a, "particle," (photon) and a wave (lightwave), those analogies only work because I've seen actual physical particles and waves of water and vibrations in strings. One of the problems with most people's understanding of science is to confuse the metaphorical descriptions of science with physical facts.
In the case above we have "emergence" which is not actually a reductible scientific phenomenon; but an abstration, a way of describing what we feel might be an underlying phenomenon, and then this is used to "explain" the hard problem of consciousness?
It's all a bit too convenient.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:32 pm No. I am using the terms very clearly. Science is descriptive.
I didn't mean to imply you weren't clear. I just didn't which you meant. I agree that science is descriptive.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:32 pm
In the case above we have "emergence" which is not actually a reducible scientific phenomenon; but an abstraction, a way of describing what we feel might be an underlying phenomenon, and then this is used to "explain" the hard problem of consciousness?
It's all a bit too convenient.
I was not referring to any of that, only the use of metaphor in concepts for what is not tangible, demonstrable, or palpable.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:31 pm The bottom line is that "somewhere" within the context of the "All-That-Is" there exists an explanation for literally everything, including not only what consciousness is, but why there is something rather than nothing (which I deem to be the biggest mystery of all).
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:46 pm While not the biggest mystery, one that has always interested me is why any sane person (unless their mind is corrupted by some academic philosophy or religion) could possibly entertain that question. To both our consciousness and to reason, there is no alternative to existence...
What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:46 pm ...I'm only explaining why I regard such questions as, "why is there something rather than nothing," and, "why is there consciousness," absurd.
The only thing absurd here is the fact that you think that a so-called "sane person" must have been "...corrupted by some academic philosophy or religion..." simply because they are "curious" as to how the vast material reality of this universe came into existence.

My own sense of curiosity has me wondering if it is possible that at some moment in the infinite depths of past eternity...

(as in infinitely prior to the alleged Big Bang inception point of this universe)

...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute "nothingness"?

Yet, the problem is, if it truly was "pure and absolute nothingness" then it contained absolutely no precursory conditions or properties that could have given rise to the "somethingness" of the "reality" that we are presently experiencing.

So that makes no sense.

On the other hand, it is almost impossible to fathom that there was never a point in all of past eternity when the "somethingness" did not exist.

And despite the problem of infinite regress that the following questions imply (of which there are others), there's just no avoiding the multifaceted mystery of...
  • 1. How and from what source did the "eternal somethingness" acquire its being and properties?
  • 2. Why are the properties of the "eternal somethingness" so amenable to being shaped into pretty much anything imaginable - as is witnessed in the near infinite phenomenal features of the universe?
  • 3. How did the "eternal somethingness" manage to "wake up"? In other words, how did it manage to organize its constituent properties in such a way that would allow consciousness to "emerge" from the fabric of the "eternal somethingness" - especially if that consciousness might have been an initial Creator Being who then brought order to the "eternal somethingness"?
Sure, because the questions are so daunting, we could all just lie around like cud-chewing cows in a pasture and simply adopt your "...what is, just is..." attitude,...

...(which, btw, is reminiscent of the physicists' surrendering lament of "shut up and calculate").

But not only will that not answer the above questions, it is antithetical to the very spirit of philosophy itself.

However, with all that being said, if you are "content" with this approach...

Image

...to the mysteries of reality (as in your "...what is, just is..." acceptance of it all without any need to question anything),...

...then by all means, enjoy the view (and the free munchies).
_______
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Dubious »

Not just consciousness can be explained by emergence but the entire universe and whatever it contains from inanimate to animate. The "emergence" derives from quantum fields and its interactions which underpins ALL existence. This has less to do with philosophy than physics.

Increasing entropy increases complexity of which the human brain itself is a model manifesting extreme spectrums of both brilliance and incomprehensible stupidity - not so rarely within the same person...though most remain sovereign in their own domain of gobbledygook.

Intelligence has its downside.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
To, "be," means, "to exist." "Non-existence," means to, "not be." If something does not exist, it cannot be, else it would exist. Therefore non-existence cannot be.

What you just said, ala circumlocution, is, "existence does not exist."

The denial of existence is a kind of insanity. Existence exists and it cannot be any other way, else you would have make the contradictory assertion you made, that, "existence does not exist." There is no alternative to existence.

"To be," means, "to be something." "Nothing," cannot be.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Can consciousness be explained by “emergence”?

Post by Dontaskme »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:26 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:12 pm What do you mean there's no alternative to existence? Obviously, the alternative would be the "non-existence" (of anything whatsoever).
To, "be," means, "to exist." "Non-existence," means to, "not be." If something does not exist, it cannot be, else it would exist. Therefore non-existence cannot be.

What you just said, ala circumlocution, is, "existence does not exist."

The denial of existence is a kind of insanity. Existence exists and it cannot be any other way, else you would have make the contradictory assertion you made, that, "existence does not exist." There is no alternative to existence.

"To be," means, "to be something." "Nothing," cannot be.
To be more precise....

When you know you exist...then you can also know the opposite of existence... by association.

For example: when your close relative dies of old age, that person in your knowledge no longer exists, and yet that person did exist in your knowledge of their existence. But when the person dies, your knowledge switches to no longer existing.

This knowing, comes solely from your knowledge and conceptual understanding of every known word.

And while concepts are known by association, they can never be your ''direct experience''.

One can never experience one's 'own presence' or one's 'own absence'. This KNOWING is ONE appearing as the many.

In reality, ONENESS is everything that was, is, and ever will be, forever, infinitely for eternity. There is no break, life is a one way street, it's seamless, timeless, and without begining or ending. It's the knowing that cannot be known, in other words, knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of existence...no one knows anything. And knowledge is a fiction upon the not-knowing.

As Oneness appears as the many, each appearance is but an illusory manifestation of oneness itself, one without a second.

And that is the correct philosophical answer to the question of ''Who's'' existence or non-existence is it.

In reality, no thing ..aka you...is being born or dying, except in this conception. . aka knowledge, the illusion appearing real, the real unreal...or the unreal real...same idea.



.
Post Reply