(Lost rare classic from the "Not Just Another Pretty Foot" album)
Posted on 04/04/2005 9:07:44 PM PDT by Ronzo
IF A TREE FALLS IN THE FOREST
The indivisible link between consciousness and existence.
MAIN ARGUMENT:
An old rhetorical question goes: "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well, the correct answer is "no." Since "sound" is only possible given the following conditions:
1.) That there is a listener who has the ability to hear…his ears function normally.
2.) The listener knows what the definition of "sound" is, and can correctly identify a "sound" when he hears one.
If there is no "listener" then there is no sound. Sound is only given substance by a listener who can perceive sound.
Now, let's go one step further: can something exist (object) if no one exists (subject) who is aware of it's existence?
In order to answer that question, we must understand there is a strong relationship between consciousness and existence, they cannot be easily separated, if at all.
Our human sensory perception and our instrumentality is very, very limited; it is simply impossible for a single person to know of everything that exists. Nor is it possible for mankind, collectively, to know of everything that exists, and I'm speaking of just those things that are possible to detect given our limitations.
Nor can we say that we are the only conscious beings in this universe with absolute certainty, for we are simply incapable of perfect knowledge of this universe. Sadly, we are stuck, no matter how far we advance in our instrumentality, with limitations that we simply do not have the means to overcome.
But there is something we can be sure of: if we perceive that a being exists, it exists, even if that being is ourselves. Hence Descartes' axiom: "I think, there for I am." Or more accurately stated: I am conscious that I exist; I know what it means to exist (rationality); therefore I exist.
The only way we can know, for sure, that something exists is through our sense perceptions. But we already know that there are beings who's existence is not dependent upon our ability to perceive them. Most of us would not argue with the statement that "there are lions in Africa." Yet how many people reading this text are in Africa, in place where they are able to look up and see lions? You believe there are lions in Africa because perhaps you were in Africa once, and you saw lions when you were there. Or maybe you saw a television show or movie with lions, and were told that the location was somewhere in Africa. Or perhaps you saw lions at the local zoo, and the sign on the display stated that they came from Africa…
We, as human beings, rely very, very much on the testimony of others, and not on our own direct sensory perceptions. For some odd reason, we think this good enough, and it often is.
Now, back to the material world….
Imagine a non-conscious being that is completely impossible to perceive with our senses, could such a being exist? The answer is no. A non-conscious being's existence is very much dependent on it's ability to be perceived by a conscious, rational being. Why so? Because "existence" is only a concept in the mind of a conscious, rational being, and in order for existence to have any meaning what-so-ever, it is completely dependent upon the rational ability of a conscious being to think it and perceive it. Existence does not exist apart from consciousness.
Now imagine a non-conscious being that exists (object) without any conscious, rational being existing to perceive it (subject); can such a being exist? The answer is no. If there is no conscious rational being to perceive a non-conscious being, then it is not possible for that being to exist, it is a logical contradiction. The only way we can imagine a non-conscious being existing without ever being perceived by a conscious being is by our own rational consciousness. And if we are using our rational consciousness to perceive a non-conscious being, then that being is being perceived, if only in our mind's eye.
Existence only has meaning if there is a conscious, rational being who understands what "existence" means and can identify "existence" when he sees it. Surprisingly, without a rational, conscious being to perceive existence, then there is no such concept as existence! A statement like "imagine a universe where there are no conscious beings to perceive it's existence" is a logical contradiction. The only way such a universe can exist is if there is a rational, conscious being that can perceive it--if only through thinking--that such a thing exists!
This seems counter-intuitive, but it is a logical fact that existence is entirely dependent upon consciousness. However, it is not necessicarly dependent upon human consciousness. It is both possible and logical to assume other rational, conscious beings that are able to perceive things, but who we ourselves, as humans, are unable to perceive, given our tremendous limitations in sensory perception. As a matter of fact, such beings may, in fact, be a logical necessity.
For instance, we are often told that our earth, sun, and stars have existed for billions of years before the first conscious, rational human being ever perceived them. If we assume that humans are the only rational, conscious beings in this universe (which is a logical assumption given that we know of no other rational, conscious beings similar to ourselves), then we are faced with a bizarre dilemma: the earth, the sun, and even the stars never existed before the first conscious, rational human being! They literally did not exist. Why couldn't they exist before the first human? Because existence and consciousness are bound together, and cannot be logically separated.
But what about the fossil record, radio-metric dating, geological dating, and all those other measurements that point to the fact that the earth, sun, and stars were here long before us? Well, if human beings are the only conscious, rational beings in this universe, then all those measurements are utterly meaningless.
But it's not only the history of the universe that becomes suspect, but even human history! I've been told that there was once this person named George Washington who existed, but no longer does. Can I used any of my sensory perceptions to verify that George Washington existed? No I can not, because my sensory perceptions are bound to time, and George Washington, I am told, existed before I did. Hence, my only recourse is to believe the testimony of others, whether it be through their words or their art. Even if someone were to show me George Washington's bones, I could only believe it were George Washington through someone's testimony, not being able to go back in time and watch George decay for myself.
Hence, there must be something beyond our rational, conscious sense perceptions if all these historical accounts have any truth to them. This something must necessarily even be beyond a collective human consciousness. Otherwise, we face the dilemma proposed by the famous Bertrand Russell thought experiment: suppose everything we perceive were just created five minutes ago, including our perception that we've been here much longer; can we prove such a proposition wrong? The answer is no. The problem is due to our limitations as creatures of time.
In order for history to be true, in order for the earth to have existed before we did, then there must be rational, conscious beings who are able to perceive things beyond our own very limited perceptions. Such beings must necessarily live outside of the constraints of time and must be capable of perfect knowledge of everything in our universe. In fact, they would have to live beyond the constraints of our universe, as it seems our physical laws would impair their ability to know our universe perfectly. It is logical and possible to propose that their exists "something" beyond our own universe, a place where our universe can be perfectly perceived but not be bound to our laws and limitations.
These beings must necessarily be rational (capable of logic) and conscious, for beings that do not have the properties of rationality and consciousness can not possibly exist without some conscious, rational being to perceive them. It is a logical impossibility.
The reason why these beings must necessarily exist is because consciousness and existence are logically bound together, and our own world and it's history could not logically exist unless there are rational, conscious beings who are, in effect, perceiving it for us! In other words, their perception of our existence (and our universe) allows our universe to exist, and to even have a past and future. Our very limited consciousness and knowledge does not allow us to sustain our own universe.
It is also necessary for these beings to be complete in themselves: they do not need yet another set of beings beyond them to perceive them, but the are capable of perfectly perceiving each other, there universe, and our universe. Otherwise, we are just begging the question.
Surprisingly, it might be necessary for there to be more than one of these beings, otherwise a lone being, living outside of time and before our universe (or any universe), would have nothing to perceive but himself, which is a possible logical contradiction. Can a being be conscious of just itself, or must there must be something beyond yourself to perceive, even if it is just another being?
It is necessary that these beings always existed, and have never not existed. While that is seemingly impossible given our limitations, it does not violate any laws of logic.
One cannot speak of existence existing before consciousness. If there is no consciousness, there can be no existence of any kind. Surprisingly, you cannot even speak of "nothing existing", for that is a logical contradiction, for the only way "nothing" can exist is for a consciousness to perceive it, hence a consciousness would exist, therefore something exists. You either have existence or you do not.
One also cannot speak of consciousness existing before existence, since if consciousness exists, then so must existence.
And, most surprisingly, rationality must co-exist simultaneously with existence and with consciousness, and not precede nor come after them. In order for a being to know it exists and know it is conscious, it must necessarily be able to understand non-existence and non-consciousness, even if it is impossible for it to have those traits! For instance, if two of these beings co-exist, they would know there are two, and not three, or one, or twelve million. (It may even be necessary for there to be more than two of these beings, perhaps at least three or more, for if there were just two you might have a bizarre situation where the one being, seeing the other, thinks he is perceiving himself! Having three or more would eliminate that problem.)
To summarize:
1. Existence and consciousness cannot be logically divided, they are necessarily bound together due to the laws of logic.
2. Surprisingly, rationality, often described as a property of consciousness, cannot be logically separated from consciousness and existence, for you cannot even know what existence and consciousness is without being aware of non-existence and non-consciousness.
3. Since our own ability to perceive our universe is extremely limited, we, as human beings, do not have the ability to sustain our universe's existence through our own consciousness and rationality. If everything that exists must, by logical necessity, be perceived and known, then there must be a rational, conscious set of beings who are able to perfectly know our universe for our benefit. This would include both tangible (i.e. material) and intangible (i.e. laws of logic) elements.
4. Since our physical laws and limitations of our universe make it highly unlikely (if not impossible) for these beings to exist within our universe, they must necessarily exist outside of it, not bound by our limitations.
5. Since they exist outside of our limitation of time, they have always existed and have never not existed.
6. And since it is a possible contradiction for a single being to have a consciousness awareness of only himself, there might be a multiplicity of these beings.
7. Assuming our universe had a beginning, these beings must act as our "witnesses" to sustain our universe's existence. It could be rightly said that their perfect knowledge of our universe is the foundation that allows our universe to exist!
8. Whether or not these beings created this universe of ours, or even want us to know who they are, is beyond the scope of this argument. However, there is an implied causality, and if there is an effect (our existence as humans), it is logical to assume a cause.
The most important point to remember is this: consciousness and existence are inseparable, but since our knowledge as human beings of all that exists is very limited, then there must be other beings who are perfect in knowledge, and who act as the means by which our universe exists.
If one were to say that Man loses his humanity when he loses his consciousness, I might buy that.
This conception brings to mind a bit of foolishness which hits me when I fill out medical “history” forms:
Q: Have you ever been unconscious?
[I always want to answer:]
A: Yes – almost every night, and many afternoons.
_________
Although this answer is completely factually accurate,* one never knows whether that particular M.D.iety has a sense of humor.
DG
*Do you lose your humanity when you are asleep?
There is some linguistic overlap with existence and being. In short, existence is not everywhere reserved for what is finite. Your distinction may still hold, but even in common parlance, being can be said to exist. And in Aristotle, the discussion proceeds on the various meanings of being, including the being of the finite and contingent. To proceed any further, it is incumbent to first separate the linguistic problem from the metaphysical.
"*Do you lose your humanity when you are asleep?"
I think most people would not call being asleep not being conscious. Even a hibernating bear which sinks into a much lower metabolic state than a human still has some sense of its environment (birth, feeding etc.).
However, the distinction means little related to this discussion.
- Aware of one's own existence, feelings and surroundings (Funk and Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary)
That seems to the the case, at bottom. Do you have a proposal that can help us see how to accomplish such separation?
Unfortunately language is necessary to convey concepts to other minds. But unfortunately language performs its own "reduction" of reality in order to communicate insights about that reality. This is a seemingly insoluable paradox.
"Esse Est Percipi"
Toldja so....LOL!
[for some, tempus just isn't fugiting fast enough]...;)
Well w33, you would here yourself clicking, and since you are a member of the FREE REPUBLIC, you are, therefore, a rational, conscious human being (unlike those who post at the Democratic Underground, who are perhaps conscious, but certainly not rational...)
And since you heard yourself click, then of course you did click, wrote up a response, and then posted it. And of course I then read your post, clicked my mouse and then repsonded, which proves you really did post, and that, in fact you clicked your mouse.
There; isn't that simple?
(Lost rare classic from the "Not Just Another Pretty Foot" album)
So you're saying Free Republic has a lot of cliques.
:)
RONZO: Imagine a non-conscious being that is completely impossible to perceive with our senses, could such a being exist? The answer is no.Believe it or not, we are in total agreement here. I do believe that everything that exists independent of us, does, in fact exist, whether or not we ever percieve it. However, I disagree that all that exists exists apart from any conscious, rational being what-so-ever. In other words, there must be other, I would argue even superior, rational, conscious beings who are, in fact, percieving things even when we aren't.MARRON: I don’t think my existence is contingent on your ability to see me, and atoms didn’t spring into existence in this past century. I might seem deliberately obtuse here, but it isn’t deliberate (I am obtuse, as my friends will attest), but I will reject this point. Those things that exist, existed prior to and independently of my ability to instrument them.
RONZO: If there is no conscious rational being to perceive a non-conscious being, then it is not possible for that being to exist, it is a logical contradiction.MARRON: No. And if we are using our rational consciousness to perceive a non-conscious being, then that being is being perceived, if only in our mind's eye. Imagine the shock to the space-time-continuum that must occur each and every time we blink.
Here I'm speaking in absolutes. If there is absolutely no conscious being that could ever absolutely percieve a non-conscious being, then it's absolutely impossible for the non-conscious being to exist. Yes, of course, there are all sorts of things that exist apart of our own human consciousness, of that there is no doubt. But can a non-conscioius thing exist apart from any type of conscious being what-so-ever, even an all-knowing, all-seeing god-like being? Of course that's absolutely impossible, and that's the point I'm trying to make.
RONZO: The only way such a universe can exist is if there is a rational, conscious being that can perceive it--if only through thinking--that such a thing exists! No. the earth, the sun, and even the stars never existed before the first conscious, rational human being! They literally did not exist. Why couldn't they exist before the first human? Because existence and consciousness are bound together, and cannot be logically separated.MARRON: This is what happens when you shoot long range with open sights. A very tiny error in your sight picture can lead to a man-sized error at 300 yards, and a Volkswagen sized error at a thousand yards. Existence and consciousness are not bound together. Only your existence and your consciousness are bound together.
This where things get interesting. Logically speaking, things do exist apart from our ability to percieve them: our consciousness and that which exists around us are not strongly linked, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say there's no link at all. There does seem to be some sort of link, even for us humans, but it's difficult to quantify or explain.
However, it's impossible for non-conscious, non-rational things to exist; like rocks, trees, computers, liberals, etc.; apart from an absolute consciousness--a super-consciousness. If we don't presuppose a superior "all-knowing" consciousness existing before rocks, stars, planets, etc., then we find ourselves in the absurd position of saying that something existed apart from there being ANYONE who could percieve it, even a god-like being. But how is that provable? How can we prove that there was matter before there was consciousness? It's completely, totally and logically impossible. If you believe that things can come into existance without any conscious being what-so-ever around to perceive it, then you are, in fact, making a statment of faith based on your own metaphysical presuppositions. These premises can be easily shown to be logically absurd.
MARRON: I am also a platonist, I suppose, I believe that there are principles by which this universe is designed. But those principles and the universe designed by them exist separately from my ability to draw breath or conceptualize them.
On this we are agreed. The universe, how it came to be, and all that, does exist apart from our human perceptions. But it cannot exist apart from the perceptions of a super-consciousness. It's literally impossible.
Here's an interesting question for you: is it possible for non-conscious things to come into existence in our 4D universe apart from that of any consciousness at all, even that of a god-like being?
Thanks again for writing!
You inadvertently mentioned something that may not be all that easy to prove empirically:
Dreams, hallucinations, products of the human imagination: all of these can cause us to perceive “beings” which have no counterpart in objective reality.
OK, that is a logical statment. Now go ahead and PROVE, beyond a doubt, that our dreams, hallucinations and other imaginations have absolutely no counterpart in objective reality.
If an essay on existence exists, but is not read, does it really exist?
"...there must be an extra temporal dimension which unifies the various string theories. Again, an extra dimension of time would go a long way to explain non-locality and superposition - but it is vigorously resisted because it would also do injury to physical causality (time being a plane instead of a line)".
A-G, I was wondering if you could further explain how, exactly, physical causality is injured by the extra time dimension. How would adding an extra time dimension change anything that we currently percieve to be true?
"As to whether consciousness and existence are separable, consider brain dead, but otherwise "alive" people - a topic related to certain recent news. A brain dead person that is still biologically alive, exists, without consciousness.
Yes, the brain-dead person--alive physically but not mentally--does still exist.
But how do you know the brain-dead person exists? Because you perceived a brain-dead person. Ergo, consciouness and existence are inseparable.
"If a million people are killed in the Sudan, but the journalists are covering the story from Nairobi, is anyone really dead?"
Unfortunately marron, the answer to this querry is obviously no, for if the MSM doesn't cover it, it simply does not exist...
"Are we so certain that our perception level is as far as it will ever rise?"
Interesting thought...and I would say that our perception level is never truly fixed, however, there seems to be certain boundaries beyond which it cannot pass, due to our physical limitations more so than anything. For instance, can you, where you may be at this point it time, tell me what's going on in the very core of the earth? I don't want a scientific explaination, I want to know if you, yourself, can perceive it RIGHT NOW? Most likely you aren't able to clearly see, touch or otherwise investigate the goings-on in the center of the earth. Hence, our perceptions are limited by things as simple as distance, physcial barriers, and other assorted barriers.
If an essay on existence exists, but is not read, does it really exist?
Gosh Rocky, now I'm wondering if all those books in my local library actually have writing and words within, or if they are just "props" to make me think there is more to know in this life than what I've already read...
Well, I know what I'm going to be doing with my weekend...thanks a lot...
Have you ever perceived a phenomenon or event in the actual present of the occurance? ... We are arranged to perceive that which has already happened, thus we are 'in the present' perceiving 'the immediate past' (or in the case of distant stars, the remote past).
"So you're saying Free Republic has a lot of cliques."
What? there are cliques at the Free Republic? Impossible. Isn't cliques a French word? No self-respecting Freeper would ever dare say they are a part of a clique.
Now, if you were to say, "a vast right-wing conspiracy," then maybe you'd get some traction...
"Have you ever perceived a phenomenon or event in the actual present of the occurance? ... We are arranged to perceive that which has already happened, thus we are 'in the present' perceiving 'the immediate past' (or in the case of distant stars, the remote past)."
Interesting point MHGinTN. However, if I lock my gaze on the Windows "start" button on the lower-right hand side of my monitor (I'm using Windows XP on a Dell PC), and I continue to gaze at it, am I not simultaneious gazing at it in the past, present, and even--I dare say--in the future???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.