I can't speak to "consciousness" or "being conscious" as a noun but it is more akin to a verb. I don't think one can say "I see his consciousness" or "I can see my consciousness". I use the term "see" in a general multisensory ability .

"I see the tree" is a dynamic and in this "I am conscious of the tree". "I am conscious of the spoon, of the slug, of the potato pancake " .

To look for the "what of consciousness" in the same manner in which we posit the atom as the underlying current of matter is the intellectual fallacy .

I would suppose the real question is "who am I" ? If I study who "I Am" the the question of consciousness will present itself in proper manner.

I , am paraphrasing William James who states that the "tear glands contract and then we feel sadness" . The psycho spiritual activity, to James, is secondary to the material .

Of course the other is that "I feel sad and then I cry" where the psycho spiritual is causal to the physical . In essence the physical is the external expression of the psycho spiritual.

Yes, Berkeley. You can't know of an object's 'primary qualities' without knowing of its 'secondary qualities'. His conclusion being immaterialism. He was a theist and bishop so in his view God was the ultimate observer allowing things to exist if no one at all was looking but that isn't a necessary introduction.

----

Some thoughts on what has being written in this thread without any more quoting:

A few pages ago, someone proposed the idea of consciousness being fundamental; and whether the moon is there when not looked at.
Consciousness being fundamental doesn't necessarily imply that there isn't an objective reality. No one said there wasn't mind you.

Actually by the definition of fundamental, of course consciousness is just that, to us.
In the scenario where consciousness is the only thing that exists: reality is purely mind-dependent, it still leaves questions like - what is the moon??

The other thing, is that, humans not evolving to see truly is not the consensus among evolutionary biologists. The consensus is that those who saw more truly were more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

Donald Hoffman argues and demonstrates very convincingly that this is not actually the case. And it's catching on.
He thinks our senses are way off the truth, and that we learned to sense well enough so as to survive, while he believes in an objective reality.

Hoffman thinks what's going on, is, that, reality is analogous to a desktop graphical user interface. The purpose of which is to dumb down the truth so we can navigate through it more easily. He uses the example of how we don't need to know about the electronics underneath in order to send an email, or remove a file from a hard rive and so forth.

The reason he wouldn't jump in front of a train, he says, is because you don't need to take a train literally in order to take it seriously. In the sense he doesn't take a word document literally, but if he were to drag it to the trash can he could lose valuable work. The moon is an icon like the files and folders on the desktop, he says.
And so to look at an object at the microscopic level, and say that that's the true reality is analogous to looking at the pixels of the trash can and saying the same thing, regarding a computer.

The problem with this then, if anyway accurate is that it may not be possible to know objective reality for the same reason we can't know of the underlying hardware by examining the desktop icons with a magnifying glass or in terms of reality, any instrument we use, when we can't rely on ours senses. You can never find out about the hardware by examining the desktop pixels. No reason to not try.

Personally, I don't subscribe to either view. I don't know. Does it have to be either or? Well, no, you needn't have to subscribe to hardcore materialism to acknowledge the existence of atoms, for example. Or to know that a blunt object hitting you on the brain is going to alter your consciousness. Or to have your cornea re-shaped by a laser so that light falls on the retina and your eyesight improve.

The problem is that all of those things require consciousness, as Witten said.
The reason understanding consciousness is inconceivable, how being pointed out already: Where do you look to in the electrical schematic we talked about and say 'Aha'. Inconceivable.
What is an aha moment but a conscious one.

And that is the hard problem, not to be confused with the easy problems.

Nice post Mac. Helping with some of the confusion - to be expected with this topic.

Are there many examples of conciousness without brains? No? Maybe? Unlikely not.

This suggests the importance of brains - to conciousness.

However, this doesn't preclude the possibility that the reason for the evolution of conciousness-supporting brains IS conciousness. It supports itself. It finds a way. Perhaps.

This also doesn't preclude the possibility that conciousness has nothing to do with brains and that our observations are wrong.

“There are hues.”

Something to that effect is all we can say in a purely phenomenological sense. The idea of a conscious me here occupying some volume in three-dimensional space seeing a tree over there likewise occupying three-dimensional space is just that—an idea. With the visual realm what we’re seeing is two-dimensional, like a perpendicular flat-land. The idea of three-dimensional space along with the notion of mass/matter ("I," "the tree") occupying it is conjecture.

Cool but the development of Man and his senses does speak to 3 dimensional space. The eyes (2) are exactly those organs through which we appreciate the 3 dimensions. Lose one of the eyes and there will be problems with depth perception. the focus of the eyes to a point is exactly that ability which presents the 3rd dimension.

There is an amazing side light as look at the eyes of the horse which look out at angles , not having the ability to focus, and yet they do not run over the side of a cliff.

If you want to say 'all is maya" then you can, but you should have a replacement or some insight as to what exactly we are looking at which is another story.

In evolution there was a state of the 2 dimensions much like if not exactly like our "dream consciousness". the 2 dimensional state is relevant in strength to our dreams but we have evolved from that state to which the percepts were"dream like". this also means that in evolution the dream state has regressed to the inner man as ancient ability.

Our senses do not lie and I'd like to speak to your use of the word "idea". In our age of nominalism the "idea" is the creation of an individual but not "real", so to speak.

Of course the realists denied this and stated that the "idea" is real such that in that realm of the "idea" the concept "lion" exists within the ideal realm (realm of ideas) with the individual lions as projection of this state of being (lion state).

Plato's land of forms also speaks to this; the lion idea which includes all lions in the realm of forms, that realm to which man can enter through his thinking and thoughts.

Oh yea, the nominalist denies the "idea" lion as real but only individual lions .

Its easy to separate Man from his surrondings due to our present intellectual capabilities but know that in evolution Man is "first born" and that we "see", speaking metaphorically and realistically, is the external condensation of his progression.

According to the Brahmins "thou art that".

Well worth the read, imo: http://www.imprint.co.uk/the-role-of...consciousness/

Even skimming the text gives a hint these guys are working on the issue regarding brain vs consciousness and are making progress. From the conclusion:
Higher dimension is mentioned!

A little short on details but interesting. Wonder what they propose for hearing, smell, taste and touch. Hearing could be somewhat analogous with an audio system, but smell and taste? They're not like anything I can think of. And touch seems predicated on inertia, acceleration, etc. which opens up a whole can of worms.

I don't have a problem with my depth perception while dreaming.

Evolution does not explain why consciousness is possible to begin with. You can't evolve an impossible trait.


PairTheBoard

However, can an impossible trait evolve? Why? How? Into what? A possible trait is a reasonable answer. Is that an hypothetic explanation? Consciousness is possible to begin with because of evolution of impossible into possible. Or so it seems.

And then snakes didn't have legs, possibly seems impossible when they did-from the snakes supposable perception.

Instead of as an explanation, consider elasticity is a trait of what is evolving. Consciousness.

Well, enjoyable to consider anyway.

It seems like "you" are the in the drivers seat, interacting with the world and other consciousnesses through the body. Over the years you learn more and more about how the world works and how to better operate your body through this space. "You" are making decisions all along the way and figuring things out. On a conscious level the current "you" is shaped by memories of these interactions and your decisions and I guess unconsciously by patterns formed through them. But there's still that original "you" somewhere deep in there separate, yet at the same time, a part of the learned "you". At least it feels that way. Others itt have mentioned things you know but cant prove. It's like "you" (your consciousness) come into the world and, though your brain and senses, develop a character to interact with your surroundings. So it's like a meld of this worldly physical consciousness of learned things and memories AND a consciousness which is separate from the physical.

I once heard an analogy about God that kinda makes sense. It's like trying to explain up and down to a 2d person. Could our original consciousness (the drivers) come from a higher dimension that does not adhere to the physical laws we are familiar with? Is there anything in QM to support or disprove such a notion? I remember hearing about particles "coming in and out of existence". Is that really a thing?

The brain enables everything, at least mainly through already known physical laws. The feel of self is more real than it is. Is what happens on a TV-screen real? It kind of is, but…

"We" are the whole package, not an isolated part. We become new versions of a person all the time.

This. Heiddeger's "throwness". It is like you're "thrown" into the world. Famously alluded to by the Doors in Riders on the Storm. "Into this world we're thrown like a dog without a bone".

According to this...
https://youtu.be/Blz2LEdt9Is

Consciousness is a wave and a plague, and a threat to cruel system’s weakness, expressly a consciousness that which loves.

I enjoy that.

More on this on The Other:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy)

P.s. the link is being a c**t.

Anyway.

The Other invites you to participate. Asks you questions. Makes you curious. Makes you self-concious.

Ok when I said "..interacting with other consciousnesses..." i meant "other" in the traditional sense; Other consciousness meaning other conscious actors. Like i am interacting with you.

The philosophical "other" seems much different. I had to read it several times because I'm so used to the word in the former way and not in the way which is described in the article. Maybe you can help clarify my understanding?

The Other as described in the article is what i was referring to in my previous post as the "original you" separate from the physical self and personality. And the Constitutive Other is what i referred to as the meld.

Is that correct?
Do you think some might call that the soul?

It seems like the Other would somehow remain even if neuro-physiological changes took place as in the case of brain damage. Those changes could impact ones temperament, intelligence, etc, but they'd still be in there. Maybe like being inside a faulty machine or something. I imagine that would be pretty scary and/or frustrating.

Yes and no.

Sartre has a good example.

Young boy peeking through a hole in the wall that separates the Male changerooms from the Female changerooms. Innocent teenage curiosity. He thinks he's on his own. He then hears the floorboard behind him make a noise, as if someone's there. Immediately, the Other becomes a part of his experience. He thinks - oh damn, someone's here. He now, in this immediate moment, sees his activity and himself not as innocent. The Other changes how he sees himself. Whether the other is real or not; whether it's just a rat or an actual person behind him, is unimportant - for the most part. The Other is not differentiated or identified on the basis of whether it exists. What matters more is its influence on the self.

[My Bold]


Think of the above but with a deaf young boy.


As to the second bolded, I recommend reading: One, No One and One Hundred Thousand by Luigi Pirandello.

OHk. Samsonite. I was way off.

That’s a good example, thanks. Couple beers last night may have muddled the waters. Read the article again with fresh eyes after the Satre example and I think it makes more sense, but perhaps I’m still a little off the mark.

So the Other is one’s self-perceived identity as impacted by a compilation of differences between the self and that which is not self (other people).

The Constitutive Other is the relation between external characteristics-height, weight, personality etc. and the internal sense of self.

Is that more accurate?

Back to the Satre example: That seems like a sort of superficial conscience. Would it be different if instead of innocent teenage curiosity it were something you consider to be not so innocent?

There is no fear of scrutiny or repercussion yet still a sense of guilt due, not to his own views, but to the perceived views of others. Again, even more so with the deaf boy, it seems like a sort of superficial conscience.

I will give the book a go. From the synopsis I gather it is about how we can be perceived entirely different from one person to another and how no one really sees the self as we do.
What’s really strange about that is the impact it seems to have on behavior. I suppose that is more psychological than philosophical. I can’t recall if I read about this somewhere or if I just happened to notice it in myself and others. Sometimes the expectations of someone else seem to have an effect on their personality.

As an extreme example, take a guy like Tom. He is typically the straight laced no-nonsense type. He has an off day- a total aberration from the norm. Maybe he breaks a finger, goes to the hospital, and gets a pain killer. On the way home Tom stops off at the pub and has his typical one glass of wine with dinner. Only this time instead of going directly home, since hes feeling a little loose from the combo, he stays for another glass. He ends up befriending a group of people, getting a little crazy, and having a wild night out on the town.

Tom is not the straight laced type in the minds of these people. He’s a wild man. I think if he were to hangout with his new friends again the wild man would seep out a little. Not necessarily because he wants that, but because the expectations and actions of the others almost back him into a corner.
The effect is usually much much more subtle.

Yea. You become inauthentic when your self perceived identity has little difference to that of how the Other perceives you. Some would say that this is good, meaning that you're likely perceiving yourself accurately, or close to. Existentialists disagree. When defined by the Other, you seize to be.
Not sure what you mean by different here? Of course it would be different.
Good example of the Other in the self. Interesting to think that the Other is in one sense - not the self- and in another sense - it is the self. It has a sort of dual existence. Kind of like how your fingers exist as objects in the world, but also exist to you from a subjective perspective as instruments of your will.

So the other is like a child?

I trade my Other in for the latest model every year.


PairTheBoard

If you're a boring prude, maybe. If you're wild man, then it'll be more like a mature adult or parent.

On average though, I'd say it's the mature parent that goes on and on about morals and the importance of treating the Other well.

Yeah. but you described child-like qualities, not prudish qualities. Anyway, could just be vernacular.

A parent can recognize child-likeness just by parenting presently. The classic ‘pay attention to children’ action.

You've said in the past that you sometimes make it a point to battle your conscience. I was wondering if you view the conscience to be, in totality, part of the Other. (I do not think it is.) That would make more sense to me as to why you'd want to go to battle. But by your answer it doesn't seem you think that is the case. Do you only do battle with the Other part of your conscience, or do you go all the way?

In my view the Other is mostly a nuisance. It's the spazz telling me not make a joke because it's not PC. Or not to look at a girls ass when she walks by. The Other has probably saved my ass enough to let it live though.