What Consciousness is.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

The observer is nothing, yes!
But the observer can not be denied.

edit on 10-12-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I'm not here to fight with you, but you really need to take another look at that statement. If the observer is nothing, then nothing is being observed by anything. That means that no reality can ever exist, since the observer (in your view) must exist and must be in observation for anything to exist as real. You claim that the observer is nothing (even as it cannot be denied - whatever that means), and yet it "exists" (the parentheses placed to indicate that the observer doesn't possess any real presence other than a "just is" being state, which makes your view more closely associated with theology than anything else). But that statement - if you aren't going to eventually present me with your own God-thingy as a default go-to explanation for the entire logic disaster - doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe the problem is your notion of what Metaphysics and closely associated examinations include. This field isn't for inventing stuff that'll quickly cancel itself out via cursory logical examination. Metaphysics isn't the ScyFy channel. It the examination of what can reasonably be known to exist as real in the macro sense of reality inclusion. It's not a playground for irresponsible assumptions.

reply to post by NorEaster


The observer is real because it has to be present for there to be anything seen, known. It must be first. Without you seeing the world, knowing the world, would there be any known existance to know.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Do you believe that science has stated that objects exist independantly from an observer?
Is it your belief that a world exists independantly from you?

It exists independent of my observation of it. Yes.

I am part of the whole of physical reality, but my perceptions and observations are not what determines the full nature of reality. I'd be a megalomaniac to believe otherwise.

reply to post by NorEaster


You believe it exists independent of your observation of it, yet scientists have not proved this 'fact'.
It is a question that has not been answered but is the biggest question of all so it has not been forgotten.
You believe it is a fact and say that anyone denying it is misleading people, yet it is not a fact.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

The observer is real because it has to be present for there to be anything seen, known. It must be first. Without you seeing the world, knowing the world, would there be any known existance to know.

edit on 10-12-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Known existence is not existence. Known existence is 100% perception, and nothing more. It's not reality. It is a unique translation of an individual perception of reality. It only exists within the mind of an observer, and nowhere else. It is not the basis of reality. The actual whole of reality is not affected by that individually translated and processed perception of what is real. Known existence is like a sketch of a landscape as compared to the actual physical plot of acreage that was sketched.

Whoops.

reply to post by NorEaster


Without your being what would there be?
You have to be first before there can be anything else.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You believe it exists independent of your observation of it, yet scientists have not proved this 'fact'.
It is a question that has not been answered but is the biggest question of all so it has not been forgotten.
You believe it is a fact and say that anyone denying it is misleading people, yet it is not a fact.

I'm serious. Look it up. I don't know who you're call a scientist, but that notion isn't AT ALL embraced by the scientific community as a whole. Not by a long shot. It's generally viewed as junk-physics by the mainstream scientific community, and that's just the truth of its relative stature as a "fact" within the greater scientific community. Theoretical physicists don't even - in general - defend that premise. A few do, but their opinions are very controversial and on the outer fringes of serious theoretical work being done in this field.

It's actually not a "big question". Only in the minds and books of a small subset of theorists. And none of them have done anything but say "What if it's true that the act of observing actually creates what is being observed?", or "Some believe that if you are not observing the moon, that it actually ceases to exist until you return to your observation of it." These ambiguous "question" statements allow them to suggest anything they wish without threatening their professional careers with stating them as true, plausible or factual. Check out the sentence structure next time when one of them makes those loopy claims. They always present qualifying phrases as they make them because they know that there's no widespread scientific support for those notions.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Without your being what would there be?
You have to be first before there can be anything else.

Me? What about you and the rest of the observers that we bump into all day long?

Do you have any idea how messy it gets when you really factor that idea all the way out to its own logical conclusion. It becomes completely unworkable when you factor it out involving the impact of 10 people in the same room that are discussing a specific topic - just the logical ramifications alone. It's way too convoluted to be a natural expression of the basis of reality. It ends up being a bag of cats and coathangers pretty quickly, and reality is as elegant as it is simple.

That idea complicates too much too immediately. Nothing else in reality does that. It's about successful development. Not about crippling complications.

reply to post by NorEaster


Have you heard of the measurement problem?

Please allow me to ad my two cents, since I find this topic very interesting.

Speaking of logical fallacies, let's first make clear the main points here:
1. Consciousness = awareness. Awareness about one or more things. The complications start to appear when we assume talking about a specific awareness, mine, or yours, or his.

2. For a thing to exist, there MUST be an awareness testifying it. No matter who's awareness and no matter what thing. If there is no awareness whatsoever of something, it simply doesn't exists.

3. To the user who said that he existed for 55 years outside of our awareness. Yes, you existed because YOU were aware of your existence (you and all the people you interacted with). Your awareness is the observer. Think about it: if you weren't aware of yourself, and nobody else around you, how in the world would you have know you exist in the first place? Yet in the same time you didn't exist for us, who were never aware of you.

4. If I did a good job at explaining all the above, then you must agree at this point that for something to exist, an awareness is essential. Yet awareness can exist without a specific thing to be aware of. So I think the logical conclusion is that all things must exist within an awareness, or consciousness. Just like all physical things exists in space; without space nothing would be possible.

5.Awareness is not a thing, but ratter a process. Or even more correctly a state of being. My awareness is exactly the same as yours; the things that we are aware of may be different. So I think that this is the one thing common in every one of us: the consciousness. When people say "we all are one" is not that my toes are your toes, or my hunger is your hunger. It's this state of awareness that is the same in every one of us, just like the space within different empty vases is the same, and also the same with the space outside those vases. They are separated, yet exactly the same. Expanding this state of awareness is equivalent to breaking the vases and then all that space it's inseparable. But here we cross over into the realm of metaphysics.

So far, I don't see any logical fallacy. Yet, there is a huge difference between logically understanding something, and experiencing it first hand.

You guys are blowing my mind, in a good way. I'm going to have to take some time to re-read a lot of these posts and sit on them for a little before I add my opinion.

reply to post by NorEaster


the problem is in what noone wants to assume its relative responsability, while everyone is driven willingly to abuse absolute facts in order to feed their free relativity before stating its constancy as a right to act for

and since those extremes are confused totally, relative freedom and absolute objects, the open door is widest way for lies and unbearable insolence constancies moves against the least obligation to respect common sense that all know

like everyone know that relative free sense is from knowing urself relativity to absolute objective constancy

but then everyone want either to profit from that freedom to live through or want to profit from objective knowledge to abuse for powers as existing superior freedom over all

and usually everyone try both, according to even same situation to gain from both ways
out of their relative free fact possible moves

that is how it is obvious that women love powers more then being free livings
and men love free life more then being in powers through objective knowledge

the problem then is what noone care about truth, bc noone want to respect truth
everyone want truth to abuse, so they wait to know some truths through else ways or objective revelations as they would keep their free sense out of it as not their business while ready for jumping on any occasion or opportunity offer from truth knowledge abuse that only gods can do by creating fallacies constancy life as refering to

now to end my post here from where i started it, i would say,

the surprise will b soon from true knowledge

relative freedom reason is not absolute objective knowledge

and absolute objectivity reason is not relative freedom

they are related only from what they are both relative to truth existence, but in opposites senses equally that prove no relation between them directly at all, while only truth exist

only what is absolutely objectively superior and subjectively absolutely free exist, as then it is constant certainty

only what is constant exist and only truth is constant

relative freedom reason in not absolute objective knowledge, since obviously the more u know out of ur objective perspective the more u morn being nothing to

absolute objectivity reason is not relative freedom, since obviously the more u r free the more u have to invent things to b objective, as obviously only powers force over relative weak objective is a source of objective forms

but relative freedom exist bc truth is relatively free

what is true is constant while what is constant is out free from truth relatively as out of constant conception, but since it is the truth then it is fine true free nothing to its fact existence knowledge, while always meaning truth only existence

the issue my guess was when also it appears that freedom independancy to objective truth constancy exist as true too like before truth objectivity, while meaning never to exist, so when truth constancy became objective it also started to exist through meaning truth objective existence

while also it is never an issue for its fact since meaning its freedom reason for truth considerations so never an issue

but the issue is when they could have met and perceived each others from different angle meaning the same object truth constancy conception

then it is like that what is objectively constant had a relative sense to mean absolute freedom truth consideration as superior to its fact constancy true existent, as an issue since u cant mean two superiority while u cant mean relative but u and surely never relative is superior

same the other side, absolute freedom out of truth considerations in concept of, had a sense to mean objective true constancies superior while different from truth conception it consider as absolute superior

but all that is nothing that matter at all, only truth matter and they always act in exclusive those terms, so all what we should expect is truth objective existence that noone do while any would b at its place back

the problem is what noone seem to conceive its right fact or state from superior perspective or superiority conception

everyone jump from knowing that superior to it exist, to the conclusion that superior will feed it to stay constant as absolute source

while it is not true, superiority is never a source on the contrary it is always more far high

but superiority is only what exist then it will break all of its absolute ends terms
in one shot absolute end

one dont get any from true superiority, but if it conceives its fact result right it will know how it can profit from truth constancies to build itself relativity freely, since superiority is always far so dont care about ur freedom and when freedom is sure out of truth constancies space kind environment of ur mind or conscious free nothing objectively

so free right is only to truth love