Why is Consciousness

Too much rationalism leads pairs of opposite, yet coexisting together strands stretched and swapped overboard makes the voyage out of bounds, from secure cross-hairs in video games that angle and position your head in line of sight offer ruling spots to dictate and necessitate what causes the mind to unlock grails of treasure stocked up about landing illustrious chess positive colors ranging around a codex, an arcanum of secret knowledge and stolen flashes of silver threaded pillows bring us dreaming over the line and axis of arrows to point or space fissures of the chasm opening storage in memory cause awareness surrounded by outer controlled processes switching presentation for skins and scattered dots that illuminate plastic see-through windows gathering the dawn greeting fast stops to casts of clairvoyant dream balls shattered and brought to bear upon an imaginary sanctuary of where we stoop down, or how high and superior our ladder is creates enveloping madness and histrionic travel flying and wandering afar.

Where the mind travels, how it got its origination, where we are destined to soar or slip through by the fence to the gateway of tomorrow remain showering inspirations to spur and yucky muddy lighting tumble us through the curtain and out to the mountainside!

In the conventional Western paradigm, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter in the form of a human/animal brain. In the Eastern metaphysical schools based upon the Upanishads (most saliently within the Hinduism school of Advaita Vedānta and within schools of Mahayana Buddhism (such as Zen and Yogacara), Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology) is the fundamental ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. All is a manifestation of Consciousness just as dream characters and ambience are manifestations of brains as mental processes. Thus, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the visa versa view of Western materialism.

This is a fundamental form of idealism, variants of which can be found in minority viewpoints of Western philosophies. It is also basically a form of solipsism which I personally term “corporate solipsism” as opposed to that which I term “radical solipsism,” the belief held by an individual that he or she is the only one and thing that actually exists with all others and all other things being manifestations of one’s imagination. If I believed the latter, then I wouldn’t be wasting my time here.

For those who dismiss idealism out of hand, ask yourselves this: What is the fundamental (metaphorical) arena of existence where everything occurs and without which nothing could be attested to exist?

Also, since the idea that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness is opposed to the seemingly common sense visa versa viewpoint, how could the ancient sages who wrote the Upanishads have ever come up with such a seemingly counterintuitive paradigm in the absence of some empirical proof now lost to us or unrealized by the great bulk of us? Why would it ever have even occurred to them?

The seemingly insurmountable obstacle to discovering ultimate truth is that the human intellect is incapable of fathoming the concept of “no beginning.” How can anything fundamental and foundational exist without an antecedent cause unless one appeals to an infinite regress? With idealism, an answer is at least proffered. An understanding of the absolute cannot be had through the intellect; rather, it can only be obtained on an empirical basis. How does one learn to ride a bike? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand or rather by mounting, falling, trying again until ultimately one…understands? The ultimate goal is unification with the absolute; the route is called mysticism, “Yoga” in Eastern metaphysical terminology, “to yoke.” Presumably, then the question of how something can exist timelessly and eternally (“I am who am”) can be fathomed from the experience; a logic alien to the intellect’s understanding.

I also appreciate that idealism solves all paradoxes inherent within materialism such as Zeno’s renowned offerings. (We can discuss that further if anyone is interested.)

To the Western, scientific, rationalist scientific mind, this is all, of course, nonsense. But I believe they are like video game characters who have somehow gained sentience and intelligence. They strive to understand all the metaphorical algorithms of the program that they are—unbeknownst to them—trapped within without having access to the universe of the programmer without. Therefore, they live in ignorance. Even if one adheres to a materialistic paradigm, I belief that scientific theory can be used to deduce the existence of something without our realm of existence as exhibited within my philosophical proof of a creator (at least of some kind) posted here.

An appropriate diversion here, to tie down the role of the various isms, inherent in consciousness, as in the previous post, the idealism, creating through and for the logical base of materialism; the question of infinity comes to mind, as relational to the paradoxical issues of Zeno, Canter, and many others. Canter went insane, for reasons over and above his predisposition to depression, and the main one pointed to by analysts have to do with the uncertainty surrounding the nominal versus the approximate nature of the infinite, and consequently the very idea of limits, of boundaries.

Nominally, how can there be a limitless infinity, if there were no limits? As it is , it is only the idea of a limit, which makes the limitless conceivable , and not the other way around.

The idea of the limitless cannot be conceived without it. Therefore the ideal is the congruence of further and further reductions of more specific limited spatio-temporal limits. Idealism passed the nominal picture of reality, passed into the phase, the Machianelli phase of uncertainty, whereupon, a transcendence had to be created, to verify and assure the nominal picture.

More and more uncertainty broke this picture of the ideal of a limited, nominal representation, and had to figure a way to understand boundaries in a different way.

The Einsteinian way of curving space time, is simply represented by a Moebius effect of convolutions surfaces, where the surfaces do not limit each other, and they merely fold in upon themselves. In this way limits, infinities and space-time can be understood as unnecessary concepts. In fact space-time itself is only a mode of conflating movement through time and creating space.

That is not to say that nothing exists, because the idea of no thing is contingent upon some thing, therefore, no duality there, as well.

The only conclusion which can be made is that there is always an absence that is both it’s very copresence, not that they exist or not.

It takes consciousness to create this chimera, the ideal of of which is the idea of the ground, the point-reason for IT, without which IT would, could not be.

This consciousness is not no thing either, nor is IT a thing, but without IT at the very least, awareness would stymie at the very minimal level of pre reflexive automatically instinctual level where even an inorganic/organic conflation would ,could not manifest.

Don … welcome to ILP :slight_smile:

Thanks to Mags I just read a quote from George Santayana that seems relevant:

[b]

[/b]

Are the terms Consciousness, Brahman and Spirit pointing to the same ineffable reality?

Meno wrote:

"It takes consciousness to create this chimera, the ideal of of which is the idea of the ground, the point-reason for IT, without which IT would, could not be.

“This consciousness is not no thing either, nor is IT a thing, but without IT at the very least, awareness would stymie at the very minimal level of pre reflexive automatically instinctual level where even an inorganic/organic conflation would, could not manifest.”

This is in perfect accordance with Eastern metaphysics. Zen, in particular, positions ultimate reality (sometimes referred to as “Mind” or “the Void”) as nothing, i.e., "No thing.” From my understanding of their philosophy, it is both nothing yet everything as infinite potential. The root of the word “Brahman” means “to grow.” That is its nature and why the universe we perceive exists as “Lila,” the play of God.

There is a Zen anecdote in which a Zen abbot encounters two students debating about a flag blowing in the wind. One student argues that the flag is in reality moving while the other maintains it is the wind. The master ends the discussion by stating definitively: “Mind moves.”

If one contemplates this, one will discover that the answer nicely resolves Zeno’s paradoxes. Purported mathematical answers to them employing calculus merely manipulates the unit and ignore the underlying existential issue.

questia.com/library/journal … doxes-miss

Pilgrim, thank you so much for your kind welcome.

My mental image of ultimate reality: Consciousness; Spirit; Brahman, is like a Rubik’s cube, constantly rotating its faces, exhibiting changing patterns, while all the while maintaining its structural integrity as one. So my answer to your question is yes.

It changes in accordance with the metaphorical algorithm termed “karma” (work): “So as you sow so will you reap.”

Human manifestations of Consciousnes came to believe that the material existence was real and forgot their true nature as eternal spirit after “eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Thus dualism (“Maya”, the illusion of separateness) was born and with it the existential anxiety that virtually defines our very existences. "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked.” (They came to fear death.)

I appreciate your quotation from Santayana, “the philosopher who denies there is a God and believes that Mary is His mother.” :smiley:

Dan … your comment concerning Santayana is even more interesting … it strikes a personal chord.

Apparently Santayana was a respectable intellectual … I certainly respect his decision to abandon the academic community … turning down a job offer at Harvard speaks volumes. Apparently he felt life in the academic community required the adornment of a '“straight jacket.”

Seems logical that Santayana was trying to tell us something … reflected in your comment.

While speculation is most often futile … sharing how he struck a chord with me may help.

My “watershed” moment involved Jesus … yet about two-three years after my Jesus experience I believe He sent me to His mother Mary for guidance … protection and so on.

Perhaps Santayana’s attitude towards “God” was a commentary on the “God” of the Western psyche??

Don Schneider wrote, …“This is in perfect accordance o Eastern Metaphysics”…

The final Zen posture can be best desrived as no calculus between the Eastern and the Western t
raditions, shown by koans such as:

If, it is claimed that one is enlightened, is proof of the
falsity of that claim.

There is no need to seek out context or a holy shrine to seek it, anyplace will do.

These very loosely phrased koans illustrate the hidden ontology of the East, against the overt epistemology of the West. The hiddenness pre-empts the coming of Occidental doubt.

It, as it were, an intentional covering, as illustrated in the incident between a novice and the master, of a rice-bowl. As I do not remember it, I will try to find it and get back.

Here is one koan:

Joshua was a master who started to study Zen when he was sixty.

When he was eighty he found enlightenment.

They say that he thought for forty years thereafter.

Once a student asked old Joshu: “You teach that you must empty our minds. I have nothing in my mind now what shall I do?”

“Throw it out said Joshu.”

“But I have nothing,how could I throw it out.”

"If you can’t throw it out, drive it out,

but don’t stand there in front of me with nothing

On your mind."

Why is consciousness is a vague and unusual question.

If you are asking why there is consciousness or what purpose does it serve, I can only reply by asking; Can life exist without consciousness?

If you are asking what is consciousness, you need to be more specific because there are many types of consciousness and many levels within each type.

If your query is neither, you need to precisely state it.

Wouldn`t it be great to be able to nail everything down ?

Dear Don
allow me to quote your wonderful interpretations in Ontic-philosophy.com - a new forum for lovers of as above so below games
:dance:

waechter418: wrote:

"Dear Don

“allow me to quote your wonderful interpretations in Ontic-philosophy.com - a new forum for lovers of as above so below games”

waechter418:

Thank you. Of course, if you think anyone will be interested

Best regards,

Don

It’s easier to judge and criticize something instead of taking it upon yourself to EXPERIENCE the validity or falsehood of it.

Everything needs a mirror or something other than itself to see itself. So, what is able to see and observe thought? How is it different from thought?

If you compare thought against what observes it, you will see that thought is fragmented and incomplete.

What you discover DOING this is NOT based on belief or disbelief, it is based upon personal EXPERIENCE. The latter is vastly different from the former.

Criticize something you have never experienced is like the child looking at something new on his dinner plate that his mother fixed and saying, “I don’t like this.”

Consciousness exists because even the simplest life needed some way of interacting actively with its environment, in order to achieve the ability to successfully differentiate between one thing and another. Consciousness can be boiled down to the process of sensation plus response. Throw in a huge memory bank that we are also sensing and responding to, and make human brains sensitive and complex enough to actually sense not just physical sensations but also things like ideas, facts, meaning, complex relationships and abstractions, and you arrive at human consciousness. Our consciousness is simply the sensing and responding to of this vast field of possible stimuli, possible for us humans because we have a far better and more acute sense organs than other life (because we not only use our five senses but we also use our thoughts and reason, and from the interplay of these comes also what we call emotions, another ‘sense’ that we use – reason, thought, and emotions being things which we are taught and that we acquire over time, rather than being entirely or mostly inborn genetically. We are born with a genetic capacity to learn these things, but not these things themselves; we must still be taught them as children, and really we keep learning and teaching them to ourselves throughout our entire life).

Think of any moment of your own consciousness – of what does it consist? It consists of stimuli which you are sensing, and your reactions to those stimuli. That’s all it is. Now, pick a moment of consciousness, maybe this one as you read this, and do it for yourself. Analyze this moment for yourself and see what are you sensing, and how, and why, and what are your reactions to what you are sensing? How is the processing occurring, and why? Do this deep introspection enough times and you will see that consciousness is just a process of sense and response. And this is why it is a “mystery” because it is just a process that sits between two real or tangible, easy to discern things, namely that which is sensed and your response to it.

What you sense, the object, and how you are responding to it, your self, seem to be the tangible, concrete real objects, while consciousness as the mediating process in-between those objects seems to be intangible or unreal/mysterious by comparison. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Consciousness is very easy to understand, once you grasp that it is just a process mediating sensed objects and your responses to them. None of this mumbo jumbo nonsense about mysticism and universal consciousness and “ooh it is so mysterious how the ancients knew so much!” and blah blah whatever else, none of that is needed.

I take it that, without naming me, this is your rebuttal to my stated views here. Therefore, here is my rejoinder.

The problem with what you suggest is that the processes you indicate could be had without consciousness. If we manage not to annihilate ourselves first, then I have little doubt that our technological geniuses will eventually manage to achieve a level of sophistication with artificial intelligence comparable to that of the android Data on Star Trek, the Next Generation. If Data accidentally placed one of his fingers into a candle flame, his sensors would immediately indicate to his CPU a rapid increase in the topical temperature of his artificial skin. In reaction, he would immediately recoil, the same as you. However, the experience would be most decidedly different.

With every process you named, the effect could be achieved without consciousness. An android could be programmed to “love” or “hate“ based on sensory input emanating from humans and react accordingly. “If this person does that, then I love or hate him or her and shall respond accordingly towards that person.”

As for lost or unrealized today knowledge of ancient sages, you react to such a proposition as nonsense (“mumbo jumbo”), exactly as I said people like you would. If one receives a blow on one’s head of sufficient force, one will lose consciousness. The same blow to one’s stomach would not have that result. Therefore, the common sense view is that consciousness emanates from the human/animal brain. Therefore, I merely ask, why would it even have occurred to the ancient sages who wrote the Upanishads to assert that the opposite is true, that the brain, like all matter, is a manifestation of universal, undifferentiated consciousness, let alone be able to convince countless others from time immemorial to adopt such a seemingly bizarre, counterintuitive perspective? I think it’s a valid consideration. No civilization ever developed the concept of a square wheel, after all.

BTW, how exactly do you resolve Zeno’s paradoxes within your paradigm of material realism? If you’re interested, I’ll be glad tell you how they are easily solved within my paradigm of idealism which was exactly their point per Zeno’s mentor Parmenides (who antedated Socrates as do the Upanishads), the denial that motion and change are possible in a material universe.

Also, BTW, what would you guess I do for a living? You’d probably be wrong. I’m an accountant. Can you envision a more conventional, mundane and prosaic occupation than that? Accountants are not noted for having profound philosophical interests. After I got out of the Navy (a, er, wee spell ago), it dawned on me that one has to do something in life. My father before me had been an accountant, and I found the idea less objectionable than, for example, loading and driving trucks as I did one summer while in college. However, I never had any great affinity for the field. It simply pays the bills.

I’ve been a voracious reader since childhood and always had a philosophical bent. In young adulthood, I started reading the great philosophers of Western civilization, from Plato (and before) to Sartre and many in-between. When I moved on out of curiosity to reading about the Eastern metaphysical philosophies, knowledge of which I was then virtually totally bereft, I first encountered the term “Brahman.” One day, I thought to myself: “Could ‘Brahman’ be a name for consciousness?” as I was always intrigued by the concept of consciousness. I was astonished to learn that that is exactly correct as formulated within the Upanishads. The fact that I had independently deduced this from those who formulated the idea greatly impressed me; i.e., I hadn’t been influenced as I had been as a child being indoctrinated into Catholicism.

But many if not most people believe that their beliefs are already reality, things set in stone.

Why is it, do you think, that people like to believe ~~ have a need to believe?
Is it just lazy thinking? Are they afraid to take that leap or the dive into what could become the unknown to them, shattering their stronghold, their mental edifice?

What do you mean by ~~~~

…as it doesn`t exist anymore either?

Heraclitus’ thought?

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.

Nothing endures but change.

But it is still true - Rome wasn’t built in a day. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: or what was Rome back then.

eaglerising

Does the experience itself necessarily speak of its validity or falsehood? Meaning does that no? And isn’t meaning different for all of us?

What is observing it? Consciousness? Can’t consciousness also be fragmented and incomplete?

Aren’t our beliefs and lack of beliefs capable of affecting/influencing our experience and how they are interpreted and sensed?

Will reply when I can.