The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism

[Alumno deVerum]

The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism.

[Kevin Solway]

All that was a bit too long for a discussion forum, so I reduced it to a URL.

So what is your conclusion?

That God is the "ground of being"? Is that the same as the All? Nature itself?

[Alumno deVerum]

That according to my interpretation of the evidence available to me I must conclude consciousness seems to be the basis for all existence.

[Kevin Solway]

That according to my interpretation of the evidence available to me I must conclude consciousness seems to be the basis for all existence.

Whose consciousness? My consciousness, or the consciousness of everyone who is conscious?

[Alumno deVerum]

That according to my interpretation of the evidence available to me I must conclude consciousness seems to be the basis for all existence.

Whose consciousness? My consciousness, or the consciousness of everyone who is conscious?

If you had read the post before you reduced it to a url (in effect deleting it) you would know the answer to that question.

[divine focus]

The observer is logic manifest.

LOL I like that one.

[DavidHenry]

Consciousness and existence interact.

[David Quinn]

Trees sway in the breeze and birds chirp.

-

[DavidHenry]

Trees sway in the breeze and birds chirp.

-

Existence is primary, but we still interact with reality, ie, we have to create language, numbers, concepts and knowledge about reality.

[David Quinn]

Men build schools and factories, women hang up the washing and natter.

-

[Jason]

Yeah I was just building a factory the other day. The school is tomorrow.

[DavidHenry]

If the key to being a genius is being unintelligible, you guys have succeeded IMO.

[Dan Rowden]

I think that's actually what David has been trying to say about you the last couple of posts.

[DavidHenry]

I think that's actually what David has been trying to say about you the last couple of posts.

Are you telling me that you don't accept that consciousness and existence interact?

[Dan Rowden]

I think you need to say more than you did about how that happens for your intention to be clear. To say that consciousness "interacts" with existence implies it is distinct from it somehow. Is there a sense in which the two are, in fact, distinct?

[DavidHenry]

Alumo said consciousness seems to be the basis for all existence, I said that reality/existence is primary, but we also use our consciousness to know and interact with reality, eg, the basis of mathematics is the unit of "one", and the basis of the concept "one" is any object of reality.....so it takes 2 to tango.

[Dan Rowden]

Can you define existence in such a way that it does not require or imply consciousness?

[DavidHenry]

Can you define existence in such a way that it does not require or imply consciousness?

Every act of cognition requires consciousness.....but if you're suggesting that consciousness creates reality, then I disagree, ie, we use our consciousness both interactively and deductively to know reality, but we cannot defy reality without suffering the consequences, IOW, I can't dodge bullets just by putting my mind to it.

[Dan Rowden]

I wasn't suggesting consciousness creates reality. I was trying to see the extent and nature of the relationship you perceive. I view consciousness and existence as equivalent rather than a state where the former engages the latter.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

IOW, I can't dodge bullets just by putting my mind to it.

Here you're suddenly introducing the concept of will as an argument in a discussion about consciousness. You do realize the idea of creating a world inside consciousness doesn't necessarily mean a free will is created as well?

In other words: we could easily imagine the creation of a world where bullets cannot be dodged, one where 'we' are not in control. This is because we cannot control consciousness either - it happens as long it's caused to by a combination of the imaginable and the unimaginable.

The broader point is that 'world' is purely an ontological issue and therefore a product of consciousness. What causes us to create the world and the apparent rules and regularities cannot be given a meaningful context outside consciousness. So we end up of having no choice but to assert that consciousness and reality, the whole universe, arises simultaneously and as such will disappear simultaneously. But who would be there to witness it arise from the beginning or witness disappearing completely? Here the concept of 'other' is born.

By the way, the URL you supplied doesn't give home.

[DavidHenry]

I wasn't suggesting consciousness creates reality. I was trying to see the extent and nature of the relationship you perceive. I view consciousness and existence as equivalent rather than a state where the former engages the latter.

My view is that there is such a thing as objective reality whereby reality makes all the rules and our goal is to learn and abide by them aka wisdom{this includes understanding human nature and random individuals}, so from my POV reality is the primary, ie, it's there and always has been.
Even dumb animals and young children learn to respect realities rules/power to some degree, and obviously, higher intelligence is the key to a greater level of understanding, so there's no doubt that a proper grasp of knowledge/reality requires a certain amount of intelligence/consciousness.

Reality and consciousness work in concert to form knowledge, and that includes the most basic knowledge that reality is as it is, or existence exists.

[DavidHenry]

The broader point is that 'world' is purely an ontological issue and therefore a product of consciousness. What causes us to create the world and the apparent rules and regularities cannot be given a meaningful context outside consciousness. So we end up of having no choice but to assert that consciousness and reality, the whole universe, arises simultaneously and as such will disappear simultaneously.

We don't create the rules, we learn them, they're already there.....they're attributes of reality and its parts.
Until we reach a certain stage of consciousness, we have a limited appreciation for reality, but once we have sufficient intelligence to form complex concepts and bodies of knowledge, we can safely declare reality as objective in that it does things the way it wants, our efforts can't alter the basic underlying laws, ie, we can't dodge bullets, certainly not consistently or outside of the movies, lol.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

We don't create the rules, we learn them, they're already there.....they're attributes of reality and its parts.

That's no argument really. Rules and learning can be part of an 'objective' reality 'outside' just as easily as they could be part of an imagined one, a computer simulation or even a dream. My own dreams are often way more complex and rule based than the world in which I wake up every day. I close my eyes and the dream world unfolds as if it's "already there" complete with dream specific memories, histories, goals and situations.

Now the question arises: how to distinguish between the world of my dreams and the world I'm perceiving now? It's not a change in image clarity or consistency that makes me signify one as 'dream' and the other as 'awake'. I remember almost every dream I have and that's really not the way to determine it.

It's only the clarity of my own reflecting self-inquiring mind that makes me think in terms of 'awake' or 'asleep'. Since this seems to be the determining factor the case can be made that the principle of reality is directly related to reflection and not to perception.

[DavidHenry]

We don't create the rules, we learn them, they're already there.....they're attributes of reality and its parts.

just as easily as they could be part of an imagined one, a computer simulation or even a dream. My own dreams are often way more complex and rule based than the world in which I wake up every day. I.

It's not complicated, if you doubt you're in the thick of reality, stick your hand in the fire....reality will confirm whether you're dreaming or not.

[Jason]

It's not complicated, if you doubt you're in the thick of reality, stick your hand in the fire....reality will confirm whether you're dreaming or not.

Why do you believe that pain is a signifier of reality?