A New Logical Proof for how Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Grant Henderson
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:53 pm

A New Logical Proof for how Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by Grant Henderson »

While there is no established definition of consciousness by which to prove that consciousness is fundamental to reality, there is general consensus among most professionals that any definition of consciousness must account for the hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness suggests that consciousness cannot be fully explained in terms of physical systems, because this would not account for how and why we have subjective experience. Even if consciousness/subjective experience could be measured or replicated through physical interactions, how subjective experience occurs would still remain a mystery, as what it is like to subjectively experience would not be demonstrated by the physical interactions themselves. Therefore, It is only through personal reflections of our own thinking, about our own thinking, that we can define the subjective experience of consciousness.

The basic empirical fact about our subjective experience realized by those who undertake personal reflections of their own thinking is that our subjective experience is that which gives meaningful qualities to properties. Our subjective experience isn’t merely the computational processing of facts or procedures from sensory stimuli. Nor is it, inversely, the processing of “qualities” without any reference to sensory stimuli. Our thinking, rather, is the organization of sensory information into qualitatively meaningful content/properties. This is the basic inner observation of our subjective experience which we can claim as fact, as it is evident in all thinking. For example, when we observe water flowing through a river, we attach the qualitative idea of a flowing river to the sensory stimuli which interacts with our field of perception. This fact alone most certainly does not explain all of our subjective experience. However, it is from this basic fact that we infer all additional phenomena of our subjective experience, of which ultimately relates back to this basic fact. Thus, the fact that we give qualitative meaning to properties is by all accounts the defining characteristic of our subjective experience/consciousness.

Axiom 1: Consciousness/experience = That which gives qualitative meaning to properties.

To demonstrate that consciousness is fundamental to reality, the definition of consciousness must equate to the definition of reality, or be implied by the definition of reality. Consciousness = reality if and only if it is true by definition.

Axiom 2: Reality has a definition: The definition of reality is “all that is not nothing”.

This definition of reality is a tautology. Reality cannot solely be defined as “all that is real” because such fails to define what is real, or thereby what is reality. Rather, reality is all that is real because all that is real is all that is not nothing.
How this definition of reality directly implies the proposed definition of consciousness will be explained throughout the remainder of this proof.

Axiom 3: Reality has essential properties & non-properties

For the sake of argument, realities properties could either be mind dependent (idealism, conceptualism) or mind independent (realism). The prospect that reality has properties — irrespective of whether they are general or abstract qualities — is almost a universally held claim. What may further consist of realities essential properties is not of concern for the purposes of this proof procedure.

The only property posed by the definition of reality -- “all that is not nothing” -- is “realness”. However, this definition of reality also references “nothingness”. While nothingness is actually the absence of property, it is still required to define reality with. The non-property “nothingness” is essential for defining the property “realness”, and is thereby equally essential as the property “realness” for defining reality. Thus, “nothingness” can be regarded as an essential non-property of reality. Furthermore, the definition of reality imposes the essential property “realness”, and the essential non-property “nothingness”. This is certainly not to say that nothingness can properly exist, or that it is possible for their to be absolutely nothing. But rather, that the term absolute nothingness has conceptual meaning, and that conceptual meaning is required to define reality.

Axiom 4: The definition of reality informs the essential properties & non-properties of reality.

The definition of reality informs the essential properties/non-properties of reality because they are posed by the definition of reality. If, rather, the essential properties/non-properties of reality were contrary to that which is posed by the definition of reality, they could not be used to define reality, and the definition of reality would have no bearing on its properties.

With these 4 axioms in place, consider the following:

The definition of reality poses the property "realness" and the non-property "nothingness". Additionally, without considering what this definition means, what is implied is that reality is both "real" and "unreal", as these are the properties/non-properties posed by the definition of reality. Of course, this contradicts the definition — reality cannot both exist and not exist. By depriving the meaning from the definition of reality, while maintaining the properties/non-properties posed by the definition (“realness” and “nothingness”), it is implied that reality has the property “realness” and the non-property “nothingness”. Evidently, this would contradict the meaning/definition of reality — all that is not nothing. Realness and nothingness are indeed essential properties/non-properties for defining reality as “all that is not nothing”, but only in terms of that definition upon which they are posed. In other words, as per the definition of reality, reality is the meaningful configuration of the property “realness” and the non-property “nothingness” in a qualitative manner that only means “realness”. Thus, the essential properties/non-properties of reality are subject to the qualitative meaning reality gives them.

Thus, reality cannot just be its properties/non-properties. Reality must be that which gives qualitative meaning to its properties/non-properties. This is equivalent to the proposed definition of consciousness (Axiom 1). Therefore, consciousness is fundamental to reality.

In summary:

Axiom 1) Consciousness has a conventional definition -- “That which gives qualitative meaning to properties”

Axiom 2) Reality has a conventional definition — “All that is not nothing”.

Axiom 3) Reality has essential properties & non-properties.

Axiom 4) The definition of reality informs the essential properties & non-properties of reality.

With only the first three axioms amounting to a definition of reality, reality runs a contradiction by implicating to be both real and unreal. However, these three axioms happen to implicate one more axiom, amounting to a definition of consciousness. With all four axioms amounting to a definition of consciousness, reality is properly real, as per its definition.

Therefore, consciousness is fundamental to reality.

Side note: One may object to this deduction with the claim that, for the essential non-property of “nothingness” to coincide with the definition of reality, an object distinction must be conceptualized, thereby conceptualizing “something” instead. While we as experiencing agents are unable to conceptualize nothingness without in fact conceptualizing something instead, there’s reason to claim that mind-at-large can, because it isn’t obscured by the conceptual contents of perception that we are. Mind-at-large, or reality-at-large, can conceptualize nothingness because all that’s required is the absence of concept (non-concept).
alan1000
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

Re: A New Logical Proof for how Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by alan1000 »

Grant Henderson wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:58 pm While there is no established definition of consciousness by which to prove that consciousness is fundamental to reality, there is general consensus among most professionals that any definition of consciousness must account for the hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness suggests that consciousness cannot be fully explained in terms of physical systems, because this would not account for how and why we have subjective experience. Even if consciousness/subjective experience could be measured or replicated through physical interactions, how subjective experience occurs would still remain a mystery, as what it is like to subjectively experience would not be demonstrated by the physical interactions themselves. Therefore, It is only through personal reflections of our own thinking, about our own thinking, that we can define the subjective experience of consciousness.

The basic empirical fact about our subjective experience realized by those who undertake personal reflections of their own thinking is that our subjective experience is that which gives meaningful qualities to properties. Our subjective experience isn’t merely the computational processing of facts or procedures from sensory stimuli. Nor is it, inversely, the processing of “qualities” without any reference to sensory stimuli. Our thinking, rather, is the organization of sensory information into qualitatively meaningful content/properties. This is the basic inner observation of our subjective experience which we can claim as fact, as it is evident in all thinking. For example, when we observe water flowing through a river, we attach the qualitative idea of a flowing river to the sensory stimuli which interacts with our field of perception. This fact alone most certainly does not explain all of our subjective experience. However, it is from this basic fact that we infer all additional phenomena of our subjective experience, of which ultimately relates back to this basic fact. Thus, the fact that we give qualitative meaning to properties is by all accounts the defining characteristic of our subjective experience/consciousness.

Axiom 1: Consciousness/experience = That which gives qualitative meaning to properties.

To demonstrate that consciousness is fundamental to reality, the definition of consciousness must equate to the definition of reality, or be implied by the definition of reality. Consciousness = reality if and only if it is true by definition.

Axiom 2: Reality has a definition: The definition of reality is “all that is not nothing”.

This definition of reality is a tautology. Reality cannot solely be defined as “all that is real” because such fails to define what is real, or thereby what is reality. Rather, reality is all that is real because all that is real is all that is not nothing.
How this definition of reality directly implies the proposed definition of consciousness will be explained throughout the remainder of this proof.

Axiom 3: Reality has essential properties & non-properties

For the sake of argument, realities properties could either be mind dependent (idealism, conceptualism) or mind independent (realism). The prospect that reality has properties — irrespective of whether they are general or abstract qualities — is almost a universally held claim. What may further consist of realities essential properties is not of concern for the purposes of this proof procedure.

The only property posed by the definition of reality -- “all that is not nothing” -- is “realness”. However, this definition of reality also references “nothingness”. While nothingness is actually the absence of property, it is still required to define reality with. The non-property “nothingness” is essential for defining the property “realness”, and is thereby equally essential as the property “realness” for defining reality. Thus, “nothingness” can be regarded as an essential non-property of reality. Furthermore, the definition of reality imposes the essential property “realness”, and the essential non-property “nothingness”. This is certainly not to say that nothingness can properly exist, or that it is possible for their to be absolutely nothing. But rather, that the term absolute nothingness has conceptual meaning, and that conceptual meaning is required to define reality.

Axiom 4: The definition of reality informs the essential properties & non-properties of reality.

The definition of reality informs the essential properties/non-properties of reality because they are posed by the definition of reality. If, rather, the essential properties/non-properties of reality were contrary to that which is posed by the definition of reality, they could not be used to define reality, and the definition of reality would have no bearing on its properties.

With these 4 axioms in place, consider the following:

The definition of reality poses the property "realness" and the non-property "nothingness". Additionally, without considering what this definition means, what is implied is that reality is both "real" and "unreal", as these are the properties/non-properties posed by the definition of reality. Of course, this contradicts the definition — reality cannot both exist and not exist. By depriving the meaning from the definition of reality, while maintaining the properties/non-properties posed by the definition (“realness” and “nothingness”), it is implied that reality has the property “realness” and the non-property “nothingness”. Evidently, this would contradict the meaning/definition of reality — all that is not nothing. Realness and nothingness are indeed essential properties/non-properties for defining reality as “all that is not nothing”, but only in terms of that definition upon which they are posed. In other words, as per the definition of reality, reality is the meaningful configuration of the property “realness” and the non-property “nothingness” in a qualitative manner that only means “realness”. Thus, the essential properties/non-properties of reality are subject to the qualitative meaning reality gives them.

Thus, reality cannot just be its properties/non-properties. Reality must be that which gives qualitative meaning to its properties/non-properties. This is equivalent to the proposed definition of consciousness (Axiom 1). Therefore, consciousness is fundamental to reality.

In summary:

Axiom 1) Consciousness has a conventional definition -- “That which gives qualitative meaning to properties”

Axiom 2) Reality has a conventional definition — “All that is not nothing”.

Axiom 3) Reality has essential properties & non-properties.

Axiom 4) The definition of reality informs the essential properties & non-properties of reality.

With only the first three axioms amounting to a definition of reality, reality runs a contradiction by implicating to be both real and unreal. However, these three axioms happen to implicate one more axiom, amounting to a definition of consciousness. With all four axioms amounting to a definition of consciousness, reality is properly real, as per its definition.

Therefore, consciousness is fundamental to reality.

Side note: One may object to this deduction with the claim that, for the essential non-property of “nothingness” to coincide with the definition of reality, an object distinction must be conceptualized, thereby conceptualizing “something” instead. While we as experiencing agents are unable to conceptualize nothingness without in fact conceptualizing something instead, there’s reason to claim that mind-at-large can, because it isn’t obscured by the conceptual contents of perception that we are. Mind-at-large, or reality-at-large, can conceptualize nothingness because all that’s required is the absence of concept (non-concept).
Grant, a full reply to your post would require a 5000-word essay (or a tutorial-room discussion). There is much which is provocative and interesting. But you attempt too much. I would recommend taking a philophy 101 course, or at least studying the textbook thereto. This would save you from re-inventing a few wheels (eg, Wittgenstein's assertion that "the universe is everything which is the case" and the Sartrean "reflexive consciousness"). Your axioms, I suspect, are not sufficiently fundamental and your amplifying comments do not clarify them properly. I don't think many scientists or mathematicians would agree that "nothing" is exactly "unreal". Otherwise, fine!
alan1000
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

Re: A New Logical Proof for how Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by alan1000 »

A small amplification to my previous with regard to axioms: philosophically speaking, these are very dangerous and deceptive entities! For example, even the great Einstein was once guilty of asserting that it was an axiom of geometry that "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points". He was wrong: it's a theorem, the proof of which depends upon another theorem, that the sum of any two sides of a triangle must be greater than the third side.

On the other hand, the parallel postulate is logically more complex, and yet it is an axiom; in two and half thousand years, nobody has succeeded in proving or disproving it.
Grant Henderson
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:53 pm

Re: A New Logical Proof for how Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by Grant Henderson »

alan1000 wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 2:53 pm A small amplification to my previous with regard to axioms: philosophically speaking, these are very dangerous and deceptive entities! For example, even the great Einstein was once guilty of asserting that it was an axiom of geometry that "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points". He was wrong: it's a theorem, the proof of which depends upon another theorem, that the sum of any two sides of a triangle must be greater than the third side.

On the other hand, the parallel postulate is logically more complex, and yet it is an axiom; in two and half thousand years, nobody has succeeded in proving or disproving it.

Hello Alan, thank you for your comment. I confess that indeed I have hardly any formal knowledge on philosophy. Regardless, do you believe that this idea at least has potential, and is worth perusing further/properly?

By the way, here is a more updated version of the manuscript: https://qr.ae/pvKaGU
Post Reply