And IT – “just existence” -- would then just be a “natural machine,” of which we would simply be so many cogs. There is “just existence” – but there is also consciousness observing it: Yours or mine. If your consciousness were indistinguishable from “just existence” (whatever that is), then by what principle do you become self-aware, or aware of that which is beyond you?
You speak of an “artificial split of the mapping of reality.” I think you attribute this notion to me. So I’ll play along: I strongly doubt there is a way for “dogness” to grasp “beingness.” This isn’t an artificial split – this is a question of trying to capture a particular empirical observation in words. (Of course, the words and what they refer to are not the same thing, so in this sense the exercise is derivative, "artificial.")
Obviously both humans and dogs are bodily creatures. We are both mammals, etc. But though there is much we do not know about animal consciousness – and human consciousness, for that matter – I suspect you would never find a dog doing a systematic analysis of his own consciousness. Which, believe it or not, some human beings have done, and do – more to the point, are able to do. (A rather common ability, I suspect.)
Why don’t you try that (if you haven't already)? Then maybe you’d see that sometimes one needs “conceptual handles,” especially in those cases where there is nothing analogous to what one discovers about pure conscious awareness, any place else in the world outside of one’s own consciousness. People who have had this insight generally assume their “discovery” is a property pertaining to other human consciousnesses as well as their own.
What I’m speaking of here – a meditative, structured analysis of consciousness – does not appear to me as something identical to brain function per se. This is a something that can intend brain function itself as a subject for investigation, as if consciousness understands itself as being somehow a principle in its own right, one sufficiently “separated” from brain so as to be able to conduct such an inquiry in the first place.
There is something more than “brain function” to this; for brain seems to be all about computational functions. In simple, direct awareness (if the goal of a particular form of meditation is achieved), we discover there’s more to consciousness than simple computational ability, that it can range everywhere while not itself being spatially extended in any way (i.e., is “intangible,” since you dislike the use of the word “immaterial”), not instrumental to the achievement of any particular pragmatic purpose.
You can laugh at “the ghost in the machine,” the force vital, the soul, psyche, whatever you want to call it -- or rather, don't want to call it. Call it nothing if you like, or a fantasy. But that doesn’t make it “go away.” IMHO FWIW
The discussion brings me back to the observation that, absent the element of free will, existence is strongly deterministic. And along with that goes the choice of being materialist, atheist or whatever along with all sense of responsibility, ethics, etc.
You could be right, but history is against you. Ghosts and spirits are the age old animators of just about everything in nature, from sunsets to earthquakes.
I find it odd to see such a vehement disconnect between humans and animals, a kind of Imaginot line designed to resist invaders rather than to clarify thought. What can possibly motivate you to deny that animal brains are like human brains, only simpler and less capable? Do you deny that animals dream? Have you ever watched a dog or cat sleep?
What's going on there? (Actually, this has been studied, using MRI and comparing scans done during wakeful activity with those done during sleep.)
I need to have something clarified about your position. Are you asserting that humans, and only humans, have some sort of non-tangible gizmo interacting with the brain?
And IT – “just existence” -- would then just be a “natural machine,” of which we would simply be so many cogs.
There are no cogs. The machine analogy only extends so far. I reject it, it doesn’t work when talking about existence. There is “just existence” – but there is also consciousness observing it: Yours or mine. If your consciousness were indistinguishable from “just existence” (whatever that is), then by what principle do you become self-aware, or aware of that which is beyond you?
There is a line from the I Ching, ‘everything that exists must extend beyond itself from the realm of the visible to that of the invisible.’ The principle (of consciousness) exists, so it exists as part of the Universe. For me, for you, for everything else for all I know. Who’s to say it isn’t an inherent property of the Universe? You speak of an “artificial split of the mapping of reality.” I think you attribute this notion to me.
Yes, your ‘purely material basis’ is an artificial split. You ultimately admit as much. (Of course, the words and what they refer to are not the same thing, so in this sense the exercise is derivative, "artificial.") I suspect you would never find a dog doing a systematic analysis of his own consciousness. Which, believe it or not, some human beings have done, and do – more to the point, are able to do. (A rather common ability, I suspect.)
Actually, I find such analysis rather rare. There are schools of philosophy that focus precisely upon this point, and they demonstrate that while most people believe they have this ability, they do not. Most people don’t really know what they think, believe or why. It is all second-handed hand me downs. A fallacy is almost a dead give away to a belief adopted without analysis. Why don’t you try that (if you haven't already)?
I know you’re not trying to be as insulting as you sound, but you try my patience. Then maybe you’d see that sometimes one needs “conceptual handles,” especially in those cases where there is nothing analogous to what one discovers about pure conscious awareness, any place else in the world outside of one’s own consciousness.
I wasn’t saying we don’t need conceptual handles. If you’ve paid attention to anything I’ve every said you’d know that I think we, as thinking creatures, can only do so by the use of conceptual handles. But to mistake the ‘handle’ for actually existing in the manner by which we create the ‘handle’ is probably the most common error there is in human thinking. People who have had this insight generally assume their “discovery” is a property pertaining to other human consciousnesses as well as their own.
That is a reasonable, unprovable assumption. But any conclusions drawn from this as a premise are just assumptions as well. What I’m speaking of here – a meditative, structured analysis of consciousness – does not appear to me as something identical to brain function per se. This is a something that can intend brain function itself as a subject for investigation, as if consciousness understands itself as being somehow a principle in its own right, one sufficiently “separated” from brain so as to be able to conduct such an inquiry in the first place.
What does ‘not appear to you’ to be, and what are facts, are two entirely separate things. We can conjecture all day long, but that ultimately leads nowhere. That consciousness is ‘separate’ from the brain is not to say it isn’t dependent on, or derived from it. See the I Ching quote above. There is something more than “brain function” to this; for brain seems to be all about computational functions.
Sorry dear, assertion without proof. You don’t have anything more than a feeling that there is more than ’brain function’ to this. The brain is about a whole lot more than just computational functions, and I find this assertion mired in myopic modern metaphors. Do you paint, do you draw, have you ever felt your chest expand and feel overwhelmed by the beauty of a song? Have you ever sat in Zen contemplation until all the words that fill your mind fall away and all there is, is the eternal mystery of existence? I could wax like this for hours, (I’m in that sort of mood.) Computational functions factor exactly where in the tears of unrequited love?
Funny, by your following quote you can see that after I read it through, when I respond I don’t read ahead. In simple, direct awareness (if the goal of a particular form of meditation is achieved), we discover there’s more to consciousness than simple computational ability, that it can range everywhere while not itself being spatially extended in any way (i.e., is “intangible,” since you dislike the use of the word “immaterial”), not instrumental to the achievement of any particular pragmatic purpose.
Yeah, that‘s my point. This doesn’t demonstrate that it is separate from existence but is an inherent part of all of it. Especially since, “it can range everywhere while not itself being spatially extended in any way.” This is why I complained about the ‘artificial split.’ You keep wanting to insist that the ‘intangible’ is something that is somehow ‘apart’ from reality, which you keep separating into ‘material’ existence and ‘immaterial’ (i.e., consciousness) when everything you say demonstrates it is all HERE. It is all part of this (necessarily redundant) reality. You can laugh at “the ghost in the machine,” the force vital, the soul, psyche, whatever you want to call it -- or rather, don't want to call it.
I wasn’t laughing. I was objecting to the faulty metaphor, the faulty division it implies. Call it nothing if you like, or a fantasy. But that doesn’t make it “go away.”
And now you’re being illogical. I can verify for myself that my consciousness exists. Further, everything I experience, everything that I come to know exists, cannot be separated from this fact of consciousness in the act of knowing it exists. So how can I assume a separation, on what basis? There is no reason to think one can make it ’go away.’ But there is no reason to think it is separate from existence either. This is an unprovable assumption since no one can stand outside existence, consciousness intact. Just take the evidence as it is. Just as ’material’ exists, consciousness exists.
I have a beautiful 2 year old niecelet (once removed) named Zoe, so I'm kind of partial.