proposition (1)

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: proposition (1)

Post by waechter418 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:36 pm

Nothing wrong with subjecting Consciousness to mind games and intellectual exercises, as long as it is not stuffed in a box and thus made disappear from sight.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:03 pm

Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:47 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:42 am
Atla wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:34 am

Not my problem and I just did.
What the hell are you talking about?
If you can't state a problem, then there is no problem.
Science is not about the "whys" but about the "hows". All we can do is describe what we find and have such explanations as emerge to satisfy.
But this is true about everything. And I mean everything without exception, there is no full explanation of any phenomena, that does not have a gap somewhere.

PS. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what "half" of philosophy considers the mind different from the consciousness.

:roll:
If you do not know about / understand the Explanatory gap problem, which is as basic in philosophy as it gets, then we are once again ignoring half of the rest of philosophy so we are at 1/4 now. This forum can see too that you have no idea.

In that 1/4 I agree that obviously mind/consciousness can be seen as what the brain "does", that's been confirmed by all neuroscience and psychology beyond any reasonable doubt.
There is no problem except in your mind because you do not understand what is at stake here.

You are mentally incapable is stating a problem.

PS. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what "half" of philosophy considers the mind different from the consciousness.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Sculptor » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:10 pm

Ramu wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:06 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:37 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:18 am
Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of the brain is a conceptual known knowledge known absolutely.

All knowledge is a fiction known by no thing...aka the absolute.

A thing is known but the known thing knows nothing. All claims to know is a fiction within absolute knowing the only knowing there is.

No thing can know the absolute. No thing is the absolute.

Consciousness /mind is a PROPERTY of NOT-A-THING

THINGS are the property of Consciousness..WHICH IS NOT-A-THING...appearing to thing.

.
Not only does this post contain grammatical ambiguities, and logical ambiguities, it is also a jumbled collection of irrelevances and non sequiturs.
You end up saying nothing and meaning nothing.
Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of brains. Brains and neuroscience occur in Consciousness
There are two standard definitions for epiphenomenon.

1) a secondary symptom, occurring simultaneously with a disease or condition but not directly related to it.
2) a mental state regarded as a by-product of brain activity.

The first definition undermines that value of the second which is close, depending on what you mean by "by-product".
Since consciousness is only a small part of what the brain does, one might be tempted to use such a phrase. However I think consciousness is considered to be such an important part that "by product" does not quite do it for us.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by bahman » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm

AlexW wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 am
By mind, I mean the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
Sounds a lot like what I would call consciousness (even it doesn't "do" anything as you seem to propose), but if you prefer to call it "mind".. ok..
Ok.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 am
I have an argument for the existence of mind: Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist therefore A has to vanishes before B is caused. There is however nothing when A vanishes and B cannot possibly be caused by nothing. Therefore, there should exist a mind which experiences A and causes B.
You are looking at this the only way you can - via and as thought.
Its only ever thought that identifies states A and B, it requires memory aka thought to state that A has been here before and now state B has been reached. It also requires thought/memory to detect causation.
No thought means: no state A, no state B, no causation.
Thought is a part of A and B.

AlexW wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm
But mind/consciousness IS whether there is thought or not - and what if (in reality) there is ONLY mind/consciousness?
There would be no experience, Darkness.
AlexW wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm
What happens to causation, state A, B etc if there is only one "thing" (which is not really a thing)?
What do you mean?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm
Do states or causation make any sense at all if there is only mind? Obviously not... it only makes sense once thought gets involved and introduces duality/separation - when it attempts to cut mind/consciousness into pieces... only then can you have state A, B and causation.
What do you mean with make sense?
AlexW wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:38 pm
Mind/consciousness itself is perfectly independent of any states, it is uncaused - only apparent things can be caused and appear/vanish.
What do you mean with things? The stuff that we experience. I agree that mind is uncaused.

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by AlexW » Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:51 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
Thought is a part of A and B.
Thought is an interpretation of a part of mind/consciousness, a concept or idea that says "this is state A" or "this is state B".
It requires limits, separation to work its "magic".
Without thought no "state" could be recognised/interpreted at all.
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
There would be no experience, Darkness.
No, thats not the case. This moment IS - consciousness is - wether thought arises or not. Thought doesn't change anything, it only provides an interpretation. The question is: Is it the interpretation correct? Or rather: Can any interpretation be truely/absolutely correct?
If you ask me, the answer is no.
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
What happens to causation, state A, B etc if there is only one "thing" (which is not really a thing)?
What do you mean?
What I mean is that if "in reality" there is only one thing in existence (which is not really a thing --> mind/consciousness is not a thing) then all separation is ultimately not true - it is thought up, it is believed in and then argued about, but its actually only a game of words/concepts.
You try to prove something (e.g. the existence of unlimited mind) using thought up separation - this can not and will never work!
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
Do states or causation make any sense at all if there is only mind? Obviously not... it only makes sense once thought gets involved and introduces duality/separation - when it attempts to cut mind/consciousness into pieces... only then can you have state A, B and causation.
What do you mean with make sense?
Causation only makes sense if there are separate things that are not mind/consciousness - if all is mind/consciousness then causation has no meaning (outside the thoughts that appear in mind/consciousness and dream up limited existence)
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
Mind/consciousness itself is perfectly independent of any states, it is uncaused - only apparent things can be caused and appear/vanish.

What do you mean with things? The stuff that we experience. I agree that mind is uncaused.
With "things" I mean the concepts we wrap around undivided experience with the aim of limiting it, to cut experience into parts that we can talk about.
This is what you do when you refer to a state A vs state B - you interpret/limit experience and (attempt to) turn it into a thing (which it is not).

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by bahman » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:55 pm

AlexW wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:51 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
Thought is a part of A and B.
Thought is an interpretation of a part of mind/consciousness, a concept or idea that says "this is state A" or "this is state B".
It requires limits, separation to work its "magic".
Without thought no "state" could be recognised/interpreted at all.
I call whatever that is experienced and caused as A and B. Therefore thoughts are also a part of A and B.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:51 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
What happens to causation, state A, B etc if there is only one "thing" (which is not really a thing)?
What do you mean?
What I mean is that if "in reality" there is only one thing in existence (which is not really a thing --> mind/consciousness is not a thing) then all separation is ultimately not true - it is thought up, it is believed in and then argued about, but its actually only a game of words/concepts.
You try to prove something (e.g. the existence of unlimited mind) using thought up separation - this can not and will never work!
What is important for now is that what appears to mind is subject to change. The things that mind experiences and causes, however, cannot be one thing as your thought belongs only to you until you share it with me.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:51 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
Do states or causation make any sense at all if there is only mind? Obviously not... it only makes sense once thought gets involved and introduces duality/separation - when it attempts to cut mind/consciousness into pieces... only then can you have state A, B and causation.
What do you mean with make sense?
Causation only makes sense if there are separate things that are not mind/consciousness - if all is mind/consciousness then causation has no meaning (outside the thoughts that appear in mind/consciousness and dream up limited existence)
I think that there is a separation between the mind and what mind experiences and causes. I think we agreed on the definition of mind/consciousness.
AlexW wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:51 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 pm
Mind/consciousness itself is perfectly independent of any states, it is uncaused - only apparent things can be caused and appear/vanish.

What do you mean with things? The stuff that we experience. I agree that mind is uncaused.
With "things" I mean the concepts we wrap around undivided experience with the aim of limiting it, to cut experience into parts that we can talk about.
This is what you do when you refer to a state A vs state B - you interpret/limit experience and (attempt to) turn it into a thing (which it is not).
I can do that because change exists in what we experience.

barbarianhorde
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:46 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by barbarianhorde » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:06 am

waechter418 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:58 pm
All our deeds, emotions, thoughts, creeds – and whatever else we are trying to relate ourselves with – are expression of Consciousness which exercises its possibilities in order to realise itself.
so consciousness is self-caused?

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by AlexW » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:55 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:55 pm
The things that mind experiences and causes, however, cannot be one thing as your thought belongs only to you until you share it with me.
A thought does not belong to a "you" or a "me" - its much rather the case that "you" and "me" are thoughts.
An experience doesn't belong to anyone either - thus you cannot share a thought and you also cannot share an experience.
Every experience is unique - it arises in/as consciousness/mind, is perfectly free and doesn't belong to "you" (even "you" might think this is the case...)

If a thought would belong to you, then this "you" would have to be in perfect control about its own thoughts and experiences - are "you" in control?

AlexW
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: proposition (1)

Post by AlexW » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 am

barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:06 am
so consciousness is self-caused?
No, it's un-caused - meaning: it doesn't do anything to cause itself (or anything else) - there is no causation "in" consciousness

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6962
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:49 am

barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:06 am
so consciousness is self-caused?
Consciousness is Acausal.

There is no known original causer of the cause & effect phenomena because only phenomenal unoriginal effects are known.. aka ideas about what is thought to be happening but not happening.

Effects are caused by previous effects, as every effect is an effect of some other effect in-effect.

Effects can only be caused by previous effects effecting upon the effect causing more effect.

The word cause is the effect and the word effect is the cause.

Cause and Effect are different apearances of the same unitary action within Acausal consciousness.

.

User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: proposition (1)

Post by waechter418 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:08 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:49 am
barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:06 am
so consciousness is self-caused?
Consciousness is Acausal.

There is no known original causer of the cause & effect phenomena because only phenomenal unoriginal effects are known.. aka ideas about what is thought to be happening but not happening.

Effects are caused by previous effects, as every effect is an effect of some other effect in-effect.

Effects can only be caused by previous effects effecting upon the effect causing more effect.

The word cause is the effect and the word effect is the cause.

Cause and Effect are different apearances of the same unitary action within Acausal consciousness.

.
In Oriental philosophies and religions causality is called Karma and considered to be self(auto)perpetual until there is no more cause, or rather reaction, since Karma is essentially a reaction chain.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6962
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:17 pm

waechter418 wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:08 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:49 am
barbarianhorde wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:06 am
so consciousness is self-caused?
Consciousness is Acausal.

There is no known original causer of the cause & effect phenomena because only phenomenal unoriginal effects are known.. aka ideas about what is thought to be happening but not happening.

Effects are caused by previous effects, as every effect is an effect of some other effect in-effect.

Effects can only be caused by previous effects effecting upon the effect causing more effect.

The word cause is the effect and the word effect is the cause.

Cause and Effect are different apearances of the same unitary action within Acausal consciousness.

.
In Oriental philosophies and religions causality is called Karma and considered to be self(auto)perpetual until there is no more cause, or rather reaction, since Karma is essentially a reaction chain.

I like that.

There are only reactions, no one is responsible for an action.

To know you know is a reaction to what's already happened without you knowing. Action is always one unitary action...reactions are what you haven't done coming back to bite you on the bum.

Davyboi
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:56 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Davyboi » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:50 pm

What if it's all just a dream? Lol

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by bahman » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:58 pm

AlexW wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:55 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:55 pm
The things that mind experiences and causes, however, cannot be one thing as your thought belongs only to you until you share it with me.
A thought does not belong to a "you" or a "me" - its much rather the case that "you" and "me" are thoughts.
An experience doesn't belong to anyone either - thus you cannot share a thought and you also cannot share an experience.
Every experience is unique - it arises in/as consciousness/mind, is perfectly free and doesn't belong to "you" (even "you" might think this is the case...)

If a thought would belong to you, then this "you" would have to be in perfect control about its own thoughts and experiences - are "you" in control?
I can consciously control my thoughts. I can give them direction, create them, pause them etc.

Davyboi
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:56 pm

Re: proposition (1)

Post by Davyboi » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:01 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:58 pm
AlexW wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:55 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:55 pm
The things that mind experiences and causes, however, cannot be one thing as your thought belongs only to you until you share it with me.
A thought does not belong to a "you" or a "me" - its much rather the case that "you" and "me" are thoughts.
An experience doesn't belong to anyone either - thus you cannot share a thought and you also cannot share an experience.
Every experience is unique - it arises in/as consciousness/mind, is perfectly free and doesn't belong to "you" (even "you" might think this is the case...)

If a thought would belong to you, then this "you" would have to be in perfect control about its own thoughts and experiences - are "you" in control?
I can consciously control my thoughts. I can give them direction, create them, pause them etc.
So in that case we are just by products of a universe trying to understand itself gain consciousness?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests