RoR: Forum

I think that saying existence is prior to consciousness is more helpful. Or even better, that any specific instance of consciousness is dependent upon some causlally prior state of existence. The problem with using an unqualified statement is that there are future states of existence that are the causal consequences of prior states of consciousness. Existence and consciousness are temporal and manifold, and it is not very helpful to talk of each as if they were some simple single all-or-nothing indivisible whole.

But I am at least glad to see everyone is so far following the party line.

Post 1

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 8:33pm

Eliminate all consciousness and existence would still exist. Eliminate all existence and there could be no consciousness.

Post 2

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 8:56pm

An eloquent statement.

Post 3

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 7:12am

Is existence independent of consciousness?

Is this debatable?
("You fool! Do you think I consider the question debatable?" she yelled exiting the car at the next intersection.)

Why should we consider this question as an opinion poll? If we all answer in the negative -- if agree that existence is dependent upon consciousness -- what then?

Is this a trick question? Anyone who answers "Yes" is relegated to Dissent?

Is the existence of what independent of consciousness of what? The opinion poll question on this website existed before I became aware of it, but my reply here did not -- in fact, I am still crafting it even though the last line was written ... and then deleted....

Post 4

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:22pm

I look forward to the next, equally controversial poll, "Is snow white?"

Post 5

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 1:10pm

"Is snow white?"

Not really, but she pretends to be when she hangs around with those prejudiced dwarfs.

Post 6

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 2:13pm

In fairness to person who posted this poll, the more radical interpretations of modern physics say, "No, existence can be reshaped by the mere consciousness of it without a physical causal chain."

Rather than take my word for it, do a Google search on "quantum+consciousness+existence" or see this article for an example:

Quantum theory is open to different interpretations, and this paper reviews some of the points of contention. The standard interpretation of quantum physics assumes that the quantum world is characterized by absolute indeterminism and that quantum systems exist objectively only when they are being measured or observed. David Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum theory rejects both these assumptions. Bohm's theory that quantum events are party determined by subtler forces operating at deeper levels of reality ties in with John Eccles' theory that our minds exist outside the material world and interact with our brains at the quantum level. Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/21, 2:15pm)

Post 7

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 2:27pm

So, there you go Jim. Snow is ambiguous (and the version you were thinking of isn't really white - if you try to paint an image of snow on a canvas you need to mix in a little purple, and real snow, after it sits around it gets brownish, and then there is yellow snow - we won't go there - and look at a flake of the stuff under a microscope and it isn't white) and Quantum physics isn't sure what existence means, much less what relation it has to consciousness - which is also a term that physicists won't likely say anything about that you'd want to hear.

And you thought it was too simple to poll :-)

Post 8

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 3:54pm

Actually....

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/21, 6:02pm)

Post 9

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 9:30pm

Reshaping something isn't the same thing as predating it though.

Also, If I read a poll on the internet, bang my head into the monitor, and go unconscious. Does it make a sound?

Post 10

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 7:24pm

I didn't vote because the poll didn't contain every necessary option.

The limited (purely mental) existence of unicorns depends on consciousness. The fantasy existence of unicorns depends on someone imagining them. Also, the existence of concepts depends on the differentiation and integration of a mind -- though not on any one mind in particular -- like imagined fictions do.

Ed

Post 11

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 7:37pm

Ed, I'm not sure you're right that another option is needed.

"Is existence (as such, i.e., 'all that is') independent of (able to exist without) consciousness? In other words, is consciousness (any single one, or all as such, or the concept thereof) needed for existence to exist?

Somebody can point out if that is an unwarranted or improper interpretation.

Post 12

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 8:14am

Ed,

Could the concept unicorn exist without the actual existence of horns and horses, or horse like entities?

Nope. Take your wildest fantasy conception, and you'll find elements that actually exist which one can perceive, integrate, and therefore imagine about. The Wright Brothers never could have imagined humans flying without birds, or leaves blowing in the wind.

It isn't possible to conceptualize something from nothing.

Post 13

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 10:08pm

It isn't possible to conceptualize something from nothing.

Unless you're a politician making promises before an election. :o)

Post 14

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 10:40pm

You guys,

If a toothache is something that "exists" and a concept is something that "exists" -- then NOT ALL existence is independent of consciousness (i.e., some things which exist depend on consciousness for their existence).

My question to you all is: Are toothaches and concepts real?

Ed

Post 15

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 10:51pm

I don't know. Are toothaches and concepts possible apart from the mass of existent human brain matter that sustains them? In the event of a mass human dieout, does the concept of unicorn live on in the ether? How?

Post 16

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 12:22am

Ed can you have a toothache without there ever being a tooth?

Can you have a concept with no referents, no units subsumed? Even if the units are other concepts you will eventually get to the level where those concepts subsume units that depend upon something outside of consciousness - can you think of any concept that doesn't?

You said, "...NOT ALL existence is independent of consciousness (i.e., some things which exist depend on consciousness for their existence)"

"NOT ALL existence" is a way of saying "some things that exist, but not all of them" - and I would agree with some things are products of consciousness, but that is NOT the same statement as "Existence, as such, is independent of consciousness." There is a massive difference there! Two completely different nouns.

Post 17

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 3:40pm

So, that makes three sockpuppets this weekend?

Post 18

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 3:45pm

sockpuppets?

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 4:35pm