Solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness

@G H,

Nice quote ! The "problem" is in my opinion a pseudo-problem. It assumes the "scientificism" of prediction and control is the essence of explanatory adequacy.

1 Reply

Quote:

Schopenhauer: "If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must vanish, as this world is nothing but the phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of our own subject, and is a species of the subject's representations."

but for this to be true , means that , the thinking subject , knows all the indepth constituents of the object , quantum etc. with no experiments needed

that is not the case , obviously

2 Replies

@fresco,

That quote is a two edge knife if you look closer...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No doubt !

A central issue in this and also the current "truth" threads is that we are tending not to distinguish between "its world", "shared world",and "the world". Naive realists (like North) show no understanding of those distinctions, nor of the inaccessibility or even the "existence" of "the world".

2 Replies

@fresco,

...similarly "our world" is yet another interpretation on the experience of being there...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

No doubt !

A central issue in this and also the current "truth" threads is that we are tending not to distinguish between "its world", "shared world",and "the world". Naive realists (like North) show no understanding of those distinctions, nor of the inaccessibility or even the "existence" of "the world".

LOL! I'v put north on ignore long ago, he's a babbleing fool at best.

0 Replies

@north,

North, I agree. That's why humans have a linguisticallly drenched consciousness for the communication needed to develop and maintain societies for the ultimate end of survival.

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

but for this to be true , means that , the thinking subject , knows all the indepth constituents of the object , quantum etc. with no experiments needed that is not the case , obviously

The material world that Schopenhauer was referring to is not an inferred realm represented by abstract models, entities, and technical descriptions. It's the one of concrete bodies manifested in everyday perceptions with an observer's POV ("I can see it, touch it, smell it, etc."). Which, even in many or most physical schemes, is an appearance: A simulation, virtual reality, or hallucination produced by the brain from environmental effects on receptive body tissues. To quote a different chap in the next century:

Erwin Schrodinger: The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence. Its becoming manifest is conditional on very special goings-on in very special parts of this very world, namely on certain events that happen in a brain. That is an inordinately peculiar kind of implication, which prompts the question: What particular properties distinguish these brain processes and enable them to produce the manifestation? Can we guess which material processes have this power, which not? Or simple: What kind of material process is directly associated with consciousness? --What is Life? Mind and Matter

IOW, what a "material universe" would be like in itself (as opposed to a human's cognitive representation of it) is what we supposedly encounter after death: The absence of everything. It doesn't consciously experience itself or exhibit phenomenologically to itself except as those manifestations that certain biological organisms generate. That is, unless it concerns some kind of panpsychic materialism like Galen Strawson advocates. Needless to say, one seldom needs to worry about running into one of those as an objector to common philosophical definitions of materialism. The rest are still in the influential grip of Descartes' legacy of a completely non-mental material substance (the lingering influences of the once surviving half of his chopped-off dualism, to form a monism).

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

Quote:
Schopenhauer: "If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must vanish, as this world is nothing but the phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of our own subject, and is a species of the subject's representations."
What Schopenhauer had to say was accurate, however, when you jumped to
north wrote:
but for this to be true , means that , the thinking subject , knows all the in depth constituents of the object , quantum etc. with no experiments needed
you jumped to a wrong conclusion.

What Schopenhauer was really saying is that "the thinking subject" accumulates a combination of characteristics and hangs a 'concept' on to it which is why Schopenhauer said:
Schopenhauer wrote:
the phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of our own subject, and is a species of the subject's representations.
The only way you can determine all the "in depth constituents of the object" is because you are the one combining the characteristics which is what Schopenhauer meant by
Schopenhauer wrote:
is a species of the subject's representations.
Each one of us chooses the characteristics we end up combining together. In this sense, "the thinking subject," DOES "know all of the in depth constituents of the object".

However, you should be very careful here. Schopenhauer was very careful to make the distinction between “the phenomenal appearance” and “the subject's representations” and you should make sure you make the distinction also. “Subject” and “consciousness” are “the subject's representations” of “the phenomenal appearance”. The “representations” ARE NOT the “phenomenon”. We live life as if who we are is the 'representation' and not the 'phenomenon”, which is why JLNobody said:
JLNobody wrote:
North, I agree. That's why humans have a linguistically drenched consciousness for the communication needed to develop and maintain societies for the ultimate end of survival.
”Consciousness” is not some 'thing' that you can have which can be “linguistically drenched”. It is a combination of characteristics that each one of us accumulates (for our own purpose) and hangs the concept “consciousness” on.

“Consciousness” doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is 'you' noticing the characteristics (the phenomena) and defending the conceptual representations you've created.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein, my perception is the opposite. As I see it "you" and "I" do not exist but consciousness, experience, life does. There is no subject (hence no object), no do-er behind our words and deeds. There is only that experience which is segmented into subjects (agents) and objects.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein, my perception is the opposite. As I see it "you" and "I" do not exist but consciousness, experience, life does. There is no subject (hence no object), no do-er behind our words and deeds. There is only that experience which is segmented into subjects (agents) and objects.

1 Reply

@G H,

GH, when Schopenhauer asserted that the world is his idea I don't think he was saying that it is his theoretical/hypothetical model of a world. He was
referring more to something like weltanshaung (worldview), more of a cultural phenomenon, consisting of everyday experiences. His Idealism was dualistic, not denying a reality "out there". His Will is IN nature, working on mankind via his instincts. For the vitalist, Nietzsche, the Will to Power is in the nature of all things. He rejected the self and dualism. His monism is much more "mystical" than Schopenhauer's dualism, even though the latter claimed some descent from Hinduism.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

GH, when Schopenhauer asserted that the world is his idea I don't think he was saying that it is his theoretical/hypothetical model of a world. He was referring more to something like weltanshaung (worldview), more of a cultural phenomenon, consisting of everyday experiences. His Idealism was dualistic, not denying a reality "out there". His Will is IN nature, working on mankind via his instincts. For the vitalist, Nietzsche, the Will to Power is in the nature of all things. He rejected the self and dualism. His monism is much more "mystical" than Schopenhauer's dualism, even though the latter claimed some descent from Hinduism.

Confusion arises from that quote because it's actually Schopenhauer quoting Kant. That is, he's almost always the source for it rather than compilers and philosophical historians either becoming aware of it or interested in it directly from Kant. In addition to that, the translations of course vary. A lengthier version of it:

But when later I read Kant's great work in the first edition, which is already so rare, I saw, to my great pleasure, all these contradictions disappear, and found that although Kant does not use the formula, "No object without a subject," he yet explains, with just as much decision as Berkeley and I do, the outer world lying before us in space and time as the mere idea of the subject that knows it. Therefore, for example, he says there without reserve (p. 383): "If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must disappear, for it is nothing but a phenomenon in the sensibility of our subject, and a class of its ideas." But the whole passage from p. 348-392, in which Kant expounded his pronounced idealism with peculiar beauty and clearness, was suppressed by him in the second edition, and instead of it a number of remarks controverting it were introduced. In this way then the text of the "Critique of Pure Reason," as it has circulated from the year 1787 to the year 1838, was disfigured and spoilt, and it became a self-contradictory book, the sense of which could not therefore be thoroughly clear and comprehensible to any one. --The World as Will and Representation, translated by R B Haldane and J. Kemp

From The Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysics, below is one of Kant's references to material bodies as being part of appearances or phenomenal experiences in his TI, rather than the nature of things-in-themselves:

"Whatever is given us as object, must be given us in intuition. All our intuition however takes place by means of the senses only; the understanding intuits nothing, but only reflects. And as we have just shown that the senses never and in no manner enable us to know things in themselves, but only their appearances, which are mere representations of the sensibility, we conclude that all bodies, together with the space in which they are, must be considered nothing but mere representations in us, and exist nowhere but in our thoughts. You will say: Is not this manifest idealism?

Idealism consists in the assertion, that there are none but thinking beings, all other things, which we think are perceived in intuition, being nothing but representations in the thinking beings, to which no object external to them corresponds in fact. Whereas I say, that things as objects of our senses existing outside us are given, but we know nothing of what they may be in themselves, knowing only their appearances, i. e., the representations which they cause in us by affecting our senses. Consequently I grant by all means that there are bodies without us, that is, things which, though quite unknown to us as to what they are in themselves, we yet know by the representations which their influence on our sensibility procures us, and which we call bodies, a term signifying merely the appearance of the thing which is unknown to us, but not therefore less actual. Can this be termed idealism? It is the very contrary.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I would tend to support your "Eastern" interpretation with respect to Schopenhauer's reported leanings, whether or not he was paraphrasing Kant. I think Derrida is looking over our shoulders here with respect to his point that "text" (like any other "object") never stands "in its own right".

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Why do you post your replies twice?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Dasein, my perception is the opposite. As I see it "you" and "I" do not exist but consciousness, experience, life does.

Who is this 'my' you speak of? Who is this 'my' which is capable of having a perception? How can you continue to ignore the “my” which you used to “indicate” ownership of the perception you referred to? If only 'consciousness', 'experience', and 'life' exists, then you should stop using 'my', 'I', 'you' and 'our' when you speak or write.

I'm not playing word games here. What I'm saying is right in front of all of us, yet, we continue to ignore it and present a misdirection to our 'self' and others.

“My”, “I”, “you” and “our” are undefinable indicators. They “indicate” that 'your' existence is prior to perception, consciousness, experience, and what you call life. You can theoretically (in your own head) ignore your existence, but you can't communicate with others and not use 'my', 'I', 'you', and 'our'.

JLNobody wrote:

There is no subject (hence no object), no do-er behind our words and deeds. There is only that experience which is segmented into subjects (agents) and objects.

Absolutely accurate! However, I am curious. How can you tell me in this post that there is no subject and that there is no object and then in another discussion (What is truth?) tell me that

JLNobody wrote:

Sometimes I make the distinction between subjective truths and objective truths. The former has to do with "wisdom", the latter with conclusions following some kind of logical or scientific methodological "rules."

What you have created is a fantastical illusion. The everyday language you use tells us that what is indicated by 'my', 'I', 'you' and 'our' exist prior to perception, consciousness, experience, and life, however, you choose to pretend that what is 'indicated' by 'my', 'I', 'you' and 'our' doesn't exist.

I am getting curious again. Whether you agree with me or not, it is becoming pretty obvious that what is indicated by 'my', 'I', 'you' and 'our' exists prior to perception, consciousness, experience, and life. However, the 'illusion' you have created allows you to arbitrarily 'skitter' off to a safe place when confronted by the mirror. How can you have intimacy when the 'escape hatch' is always there? Isn't your communication with others another 'illusion' if you always have a 'way out'? How can you have 'relationship' without accountability?

From what you're telling me I can only surmise that the way you have it 'wired' tells me that you are dictated to by perception, consciousness, experience, and life, and that what 'my', 'I', 'you' and 'our' indicates is not accountable for any of it. If that is true, then why aren't the words contained in your posts in random order? Why do you take the time to make sure they make sense?

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein, I don't know why my laptop repeats itself, But I don't really care. It's far more importanat that I understand why some A2K followers of Heidegger use the idea of be-ing as an invitation to indulge in the sensation of ego. When I look for ego, for the objectified subject of sensations of an "external" world, I find only "sensations" of selfness, sometimes it's a feeling behind the area between my eyebrows. But as I look for the subject of THAT sensation I fall into a regression of the same thing again. Ultimately I get (actually "I" don't get) an intuition (not a sensation) of a Self that's on a very different scale, a Self that's "witnessing" this entire process. I believe it's what Hindus call Atman, an expression of Nature, a grand Subject that is not ego (little mind) but is true Self (Big Mind). (notice I'm trying to not use a first person pronoun--very awkward).
I cannot refer to It in its "emptiness" since the grammar of language is committed to a tacit dualism (i.e., a "me" inside and "all else" outside). In a word, grammar is dualistic, and a realistic view of the World is monistic. There is no "ownership" of experience, just experience. Atman--which is not small me; it is large "no-me"--is the owner. And Atman is the same as Brahma (something like a Universal Consciousness) which is also Dasein.
All language consists of "indicators", but some of what it indicates are fictions, some useful some not. Just because I use the terms "my", "I", "you", and "our", that doesn't mean that such objects exist; they are culturally shared conveniences. They enable us to share orientations, as fictitious as they are. In reality there are no subjects, and for that reason no objects, but we can't talk without using the distinction. Idealists say there is only subject, and materialistic objectivists say there is only a world of objects. Both are half-wrong (or half-right). They require the non-existence of the opposition for the hegemony of their side. They must either exist together as complements ( yins and yangs) or only as an "empty" monism. I think both are viable perspectives.
Culture, consisting as it does largely of our world of non-existent things, IS , as such, mostly a "fantastical illusion", but on the whole viable: we have survived so far because of its utility.
But let me be preachy and suggest that if you can come to a place, most likely in meditation, where you sense a one-ness with "all else" (where you ARE and don't just HAVE experiences) you'll wonder why you took pleasure with the ego sensation of be-ing.
Am I skittering off again?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

It's far more important that I understand why some A2K followers of Heidegger use the idea of be-ing as an invitation to indulge in the sensation of ego.

"Ego" is a combination of characteristics accumulated by Sigmund Freud that are identified by the concept "ego". "Ego" doesn't exist. Like I said, it's just a collection of characteristics. However, "ego" is what I call a power word. Because of it's overwhelming acceptance as reality, it is used to have 'power' over others. I have noticed that it can be used tactically to 'fend somebody off' by accusing them of having an ego. It can also be used to "educate" someone of the differences between "identifying your 'self' with the world" (identity) and what you may call "true self". Ultimately, the only thing the concept "ego" gives us is more confusion. All there is is 'you', living alongside of the 'world'. Either you are identifying 'you' with your 'self', or you are identifying 'you' with the world's criteria.

JLNobody wrote:

Ultimately I get (actually "I" don't get) an intuition (not a sensation) of a Self that's on a very different scale, a Self that's "witnessing" this entire process.

Which is it? Do you get an intuition or not? If you do, that 'intuition' is you calling 'you' back to 'Be'-ing-there (Dasein). That's who you should be listening to.

JLNobody wrote:

I cannot refer to It in its "emptiness" since the grammar of language is committed to a tacit dualism (i.e., a "me" inside and "all else" outside). In a word, grammar is dualistic, and a realistic view of the World is monistic.

Words, words, and more words. There is no such thing as "grammar is dualistic". You are dualistic. You are the 'self' (above) living alongside of the world and identifying your 'self' with the world's concepts (combinations of characteristics) and sometimes knowing that you are not a 'thing' of this world you live alongside of.

JLNobody wrote:

There is no "ownership" of experience, just experience. Atman--which is not small me; it is large "no-me"--is the owner. And Atman is the same as Brahma (something like a Universal Consciousness) which is also Dasein.

"Atman", "Brahma", "Universal Consciousness", and "Dasein" are all concepts that indicate 'Be'-ing-there. All religion attempts to get you to "be there now". Christianity attempts to accomplish this feat one day a week and in 1 hour. Other religions like Hinduism and Buddhism hold open the promise that you can "be there now" through meditation. Ultimately, religion is calling you back to 'Be'-ing-there, however, they are trying to accomplish it by using the world's criteria (concepts). It ain't never gonna happen that way.

JLNobody wrote:

All language consists of "indicators", but some of what it indicates are fictions, some useful some not.

Just because what 'indicators' indicate don't fall within the parameters of length, width, depth, and mass and are not provable according to the world's criteria doesn't mean they are a 'thing' called fiction.

JLNobody wrote:

Just because I use the terms "my", "I", "you", and "our", that doesn't mean that such objects exist; they are culturally shared conveniences.

What you just said is brilliantly accurate. "My", "I", "you", and "our" don't exist as provable 'objects'. "God", "spirit", "soul" and "self" don't exist as provable objects either.

JLNobody wrote:

They enable us to share orientations, as fictitious as they are. In reality there are no subjects, and for that reason no objects, but we can't talk without using the distinction.

Your 'orientation' is not fictitious.

JLNobody wrote:

Idealists say there is only subject, and materialistic objectivists say there is only a world of objects. Both are half-wrong (or half-right).

They are both wrong! The subject/object world doesn't exist unless you say so. You don't need to keep referring to an "opposite force" to attempt to prove that which is un-provable, 'Be'-ing.

JLNobody wrote:

Culture, consisting as it does largely of our world of non-existent things, IS , as such, mostly a "fantastical illusion", but on the whole viable: we have survived so far because of its utility.

There is only 'you' living alongside of the 'world'. Sometimes you represent 'you' with the world's criteria and sometimes you are 'Be'-ing your 'self'. If you represent your 'self' by using the world's criteria of length, width, depth, and mass, then all of it is a "fantastical illusion".

JLNobody wrote:

But let me be preachy and suggest that if you can come to a place, most likely in meditation, where you sense a one-ness with "all else" (where you ARE and don't just HAVE experiences) you'll wonder why you took pleasure with the ego sensation of be-ing.

First off let me say that there is no "place" to come to, no "right" you have to earn, and no cross for you to bear. You and I are already there and we have been there since the moment of our birth. We just periodically lie about it and create "fantastical illusions". Currently, I walk around this world 'Be'-ing-there and not "having experiences".

Sometimes I chuckle in these dialogs because what I am attempting to do is let you know that you are already where you want to get to through meditation (otherwise there would be no “there” to get to) and what I get back from you is but, but, but.

If you look closely you will see that meditation works because during meditation you disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of the world. You can only "meditate" for short periods of time unless you go and live in an Ashram. If you have chosen to participate in the world, you can't live in an Ashram.

What I am attempting to "let you in on" here is that it is possible to disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of the world and live alongside of the world 99.999% of the time and I'm not talking about an event to be 'looked forward to" or something to be scheduled on Sunday. I HAVE disentangled my 'self' from the labyrinth of the world and I take my "Ash"-ram with me everywhere I go.

One last thing. You will “skitter off” for the rest of your life, the question is how soon you notice it and put in the needed correction.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Thank you, Dasein. Your words are obviously sincere and intended to help me. I think that's true of my efforts toward you as well. I think your words are worth studying, but it will take some time before I take your stance effectively. That's what this is all about: A2K members exchanging ideas, or at least laying out our thoughts for whatever benefit they make provide others. Your ideas help me to refine mine. There are no winners and losers, only constructive participants.

0 Replies

1 Reply

Solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know