Causality and Consciousness

[guest_of_logic]

If we stick to the definition of the hidden void that means 'whatever is beyond consciousness', then I mean that no matter what the method is for detecting this mental activity, any activity through the hidden void will be imperceptible, by definition. You couldn't prove, but only argue through logic, that anything is propagating through the hidden void.

Aren't proofs logical arguments by definition?

Nevermind, I'm just being a smart-aleck - I understand what you mean.

[Animus]

Here is something you might want to look at.

It's a mathmatical equation for determining the "quantity" of a consicous system, it's a rough measure of "how" conscious something is and is based on causation and integral complexity.

It suggests that consicousness is an inherent part of causation but doesn't attain the quantity or quality of our own experience without sufficient integral complexity.

Thus a desktop PC has non-zero consciousness, but not even close to our own experiences.

http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/reprint/215/3/216

As of yet the equation cannot be run because our PCs aren't good enough, according to Neuroscientist Christoph Koch 100,000 of Google's supercomputers couldn't run this equation on a roundworm.

[guest_of_logic]

Thanks for that - I've downloaded it but I don't know if/when I'll get onto reading it in full.

[Animus]

np, Laird, I don't understand the math myself, I just read about this in Sciam Mind July/Aug '09.

[Sapius]

Rpbert: 3. it (the ‘hidden void’) neither exists nor doesn't exist.

S: I can’t understand why this is not vague, Robert?
How do you actually understand or are able to accept it as logically coherent?

R: In the same sense as the Tao that you referred to yourself a few posts back, it's a question of perpsective and language (and "that old chesnut" that GOL was talking about).

Yes, I did refer to the Tao, but I never said that I personally believed in it, since that too is as illogically conceived as this ‘hidden void’ for me.

So how exactly does ‘the hidden void neither exists nor doesn’t exist’ make coherent sense to you?

Personal perspective and language is one thing, but that does not mean it is necessarily logical; the TRUTH of a born-again Christian is a matter of “perspective and language” too you know. I could see such a thing only as an acceptance through personal belief without any logical justification, but then taking about “understanding” the Truth of the ‘hidden void’ as a matter of ‘perspective and language’ seems to be a pretty lame excuse in my opinion, no different than any good Christian I suppose.

Ultimately, for me, I understand the term 'hidden void' to be just another catch-all for the infinite. All these names, the Hidden Void, Tao, The Absolute, God, point back to this illusory nature of things (including consciousness) and their infinite causes, the illusory nature of causality itself and it's emptiness, it's lack of inherency.

Firstly, among all those names, way isn’t ‘the infinite’ included? You are simply giving existence yet another “name”, isn’t it? And Isn’t “the infinite” dependant on all those ‘things’, including yourself, that ponders over the nature of those things, and concludes the infiniteness of existence? What exactly would “the infinite” be without that which makes it ‘the infinite’? So it seems ‘the infinite’ is as dependant on things as the things are dependent on “it”. Would that be correct?

Secondly, what do you mean when you say causality and consciousness are illusory in nature? Do you mean that they too are dependant on other things, ad infinitum, or something else? And what exactly is the problem for any thing to be dependant (illusory in nature) on other things, infinitely? Is it the regress that scares one into looking for something permanent, be it even a non-thing like ‘the infinite’?

If we could trace all causes, then nothing would be hidden, would it?

O! I see. I didn’t know that was the reason for calling “it” the “hidden void”. So it is our incapability of tracing all the causes that lead to a particular event that justifies the existence of a ‘hidden void’? I’m not sure as to what role does this ‘hidden void’ actually play... Could you please elaborate on its role?

It seems you are saying that since I do not have the capability to trace all the causes to how a cherry landed in my mouth, I should conclude that it is ‘the infinite’, or the ‘hidden void’, or that which ‘neither exists nor doesn't exist’ that made it possible, or say is the mother of all the causes. Is that correct?

[Robert]

Sapius, this term 'the hidden void' is David's, I'm only responding here to how I see things and how I understand what they may mean. I'm not consciously making claims "through personal belief without any logical justification", if I am then I would like them to be corrected.

So how exactly does ‘the hidden void neither exists nor doesn’t exist’ make coherent sense to you?

In the same way that when describing the Infinite as neither existing nor not existing. Existence is a relative term, and since the Infinite is all there is - there is no other Infinite to which it is relative to - we can't logically say it exists. Yet, we are here, there is this, so something does exist. Describing this quality in words breaks down somewhat, which is why I referred to "perspective and language", meaning that depending on which viewpoint you take we can't really talk of the Infinite in this relativistic sense, it goes beyond this use of language.

Firstly, among all those names, way isn’t ‘the infinite’ included? You are simply giving existence yet another “name”, isn’t it? And Isn’t “the infinite” dependant on all those ‘things’, including yourself, that ponders over the nature of those things, and concludes the infiniteness of existence? What exactly would “the infinite” be without that which makes it ‘the infinite’? So it seems ‘the infinite’ is as dependant on things as the things are dependent on “it”. Would that be correct?

I agree, with my response above as a qualifier.

O! I see. I didn’t know that was the reason for calling “it” the “hidden void”. So it is our incapability of tracing all the causes that lead to a particular event that justifies the existence of a ‘hidden void’? I’m not sure as to what role does this ‘hidden void’ actually play... Could you please elaborate on its role?

It's "role"? You can ask the coiner of the term it's "role".

It seems you are saying that since I do not have the capability to trace all the causes to how a cherry landed in my mouth, I should conclude that it is ‘the infinite’, or the ‘hidden void’, or that which ‘neither exists nor doesn't exist’ that made it possible, or say is the mother of all the causes. Is that correct?

It makes logical sense to me to conclude that since we cannot trace with certainty all causes for any particular event, the causes are in this sense 'hidden'. To my mind, 'the hidden void' is a descriptive term that simply refers back to these infinite unknowable causes.

[Sapius]

Sapius, this term 'the hidden void' is David's, I'm only responding here to how I see things and how I understand what they may mean. I'm not consciously making claims "through personal belief without any logical justification", if I am then I would like them to be corrected.

Fair enough, Robert.

In the same way that when describing the Infinite as neither existing nor not existing. Existence is a relative term, and since the Infinite is all there is - there is no other Infinite to which it is relative to - we can't logically say it exists. Yet, we are here, there is this, so something does exist.

Well, if we are talking about relative terms, then what about ‘the finite’ as against ‘the infinite’? Did you read Jehu’s thread “The Fundamental Unity of Being”? I know its quite long but soon enough you should see that ‘existence’ is not as relative a term as you think, because even when thinking about non-existence, existence IS. So, in my opinion, ‘existence’ is all that there is, and is already a good enough word to help explain or understand, and if that does not make sense, or does not sound profoundly philosophical enough, then one can call it or describe is as one personally deems fit, but one will have to necessarily fall into contradictions trying to explain it, since it will always fall into the relative dreaming of the non-relative. If “the infinite” or "the hidden void" is all that special, as I think you understand it, then what’s wrong with absolutely any other word accompanied with the personal acceptance of the idea as “ ‘neither exists nor doesn’t exist’, (at the same time) “ ???

Describing this quality in words breaks down somewhat, which is why I referred to "perspective and language", meaning that depending on which viewpoint you take we can't really talk of the Infinite in this relativistic sense, it goes beyond this use of language.

Nor, given the right context, can you really talk about ‘existence’ in a relative sense, nor say ‘being’, and it seems that language can already handle it surprisingly well, but most probably those words are not profound enough for some.

It makes logical sense to me to conclude that since we cannot trace with certainty all causes for any particular event, the causes are in this sense 'hidden'. To my mind, 'the hidden void' is a descriptive term that simply refers back to these infinite unknowable causes.

So what if we can’t trace all causes…? at least we KNOW THAT! Don’t we?? And why isn’t ‘cant’ trace’ or “don’t know’ good enough for us I ask? In my opinion that is the root cause that the so-called “ego” dives into an endless pit to only give it a name in exchange for a false sense of personal wishful permanency, for then it equates its self to this Totality… “there is no beginning or end to ME, I am ONE with ALL” and the likes.

The ancients also “logically” concluded as to why or who strikes their balls with lightening, we have only replaced that with the hidden void, or the infinite, or the absolute, and so on… Good luck to us all :D

[Robert]

Did you read Jehu’s thread “The Fundamental Unity of Being”?

Some, not all of it.

I know its quite long but soon enough you should see that ‘existence’ is not as relative a term as you think, because even when thinking about non-existence, existence IS. So, in my opinion, ‘existence’ is all that there is, and is already a good enough word to help explain or understand, and if that does not make sense, or does not sound profoundly philosophical enough, then one can call it or describe is as one personally deems fit, but one will have to necessarily fall into contradictions trying to explain it, since it will always fall into the relative dreaming of the non-relative.

Is it just my writing style that makes you think I'm trying to come over profound?
The concept of non-existence has it's use, and obviously it can seem contradictory. That doesn't make it meaningless though.

If “the infinite” or "the hidden void" is all that special, as I think you understand it, then what’s wrong with absolutely any other word accompanied with the personal acceptance of the idea as “ ‘neither exists nor doesn’t exist’, (at the same time) “ ???

Call it whatever you want. And what's to accept? Either you see it or you don't. End of.

Nor, given the right context, can you really talk about ‘existence’ in a relative sense, nor say ‘being’, and it seems that language can already handle it surprisingly well, but most probably those words are not profound enough for some.

Are you for real? I haven't been around here long, not as long as you at least, so how about you let me know what words are and aren't ok... ? Maybe there's some list you can't point me towards.

So what if we can’t trace all causes…? at least we KNOW THAT! Don’t we?? And why isn’t ‘cant’ trace’ or “don’t know’ good enough for us I ask?

Good enough for me.

In my opinion that is the root cause that the so-called “ego” dives into an endless pit to only give it a name in exchange for a false sense of personal wishful permanency, for then it equates its self to this Totality… “there is no beginning or end to ME, I am ONE with ALL” and the likes.

Like you said, a false sense.

The ancients also “logically” concluded as to why or who strikes their balls with lightening, we have only replaced that with the hidden void, or the infinite, or the absolute, and so on… Good luck to us all :D

Shit logic they had though, eh?

[Sapius]

Is it just my writing style that makes you think I'm trying to come over profound?

Not at all; although we discuss on one on one basis, please do not take any of it personally. This is an open forum and there are others reading this too. I have tremendous respect for individuality, even if I might not agree with their ideas.

The concept of non-existence has it's use, and obviously it can seem contradictory. That doesn't make it meaningless though.

Absolutely, I agree, but lets be fair then, and not give “divine’ status to certain particular words/ideas.

S: If “the infinite” or "the hidden void" is all that special, as I think you understand it, then what’s wrong with absolutely any other word accompanied with the personal acceptance of the idea as “ ‘neither exists nor doesn’t exist’, (at the same time) “ ???
R: Call it whatever you want. And what's to accept? Either you see it or you don't. End of.

You see… what exactly do you mean by “see it or you don’t”? I’m sure you don’t mean the act of looking out the window.. do you? If you mean ‘understand’ it, then again, it should be logically explainable then. The key word is ‘accepting’ in my opinion. The ‘seeing’ IS essentially ‘accepting’ that “something” (by definition since one IS talking/thinking about ‘something’) ‘neither exists nor doesn’t exist’.

Are you for real? I haven't been around here long, not as long as you at least, so how about you let me know what words are and aren't ok... ? Maybe there's some list you can't point me towards.

We are discussing just that… aren’t we? And I’m sure you know it is never the words really, but essentially what they mean, but not mean this AND that at the same time.

Shit logic they had though, eh?

Sure… but that was not how they thought of it then. Like it or not, we have always been a bit "arrogant" when it comes to Absolutes, and it seems we will, at any given time.

[Robert]

Like it or not, we have always been a bit "arrogant" when it comes to Absolutes, and it seems we will, at any given time.

What do you mean exactly? Arrogant in what way? The way, say some Xians for example, think it's "arrogant" to attempt to reason your way to a definition of God?

[Sapius]

Robert: What do you mean exactly? Arrogant in what way?

False pride… flase ego... as in ‘I have the answer to the ultimate question’, where the question itself is a self-created one to begin with, and then one wallows in a false sense of achievement. This has been happening in the past and will happen for a long time to come I imagine.

The way, say some Xians for example, think it's "arrogant" to attempt to reason your way to a definition of God?

Not really, but be it reason or faith, isn’t it illogical to presume God first, and then try to define (actually, justify) what one is trying to express? And then it comes out all contradictory, in any case.

[Robert]

False pride… flase ego... as in ‘I have the answer to the ultimate question’, where the question itself is a self-created one to begin with, and then one wallows in a false sense of achievement. This has been happening in the past and will happen for a long time to come I imagine.

I'm sure it will, someone guilty of wallowing in a false sense of achievement hasn't really achieved all that much. Arrogance can be perceived differently depending on how conscious you are of what the person is trying to say and their way of saying it, especially on message boards where concise language can often appear arrogant. And I for one I'm not a big fan of smilies... ;)

[Sapius]

Robert: I'm sure it will, someone guilty of wallowing in a false sense of achievement hasn't really achieved all that much.

Absolutely, but generally speaking, the one in such a state is hardly aware of it, otherwise that wouldn't be the case to begin with.

Arrogance can be perceived differently depending on how conscious you are of what the person is trying to say and their way of saying it, especially on message boards where concise language can often appear arrogant.

True, and hence I believe that a face-to-face talk is far more descriptive/expressive. Half of the meaning is conveyed through facial expressions, and at times, no words are needed to express a state of mind, or even a complete response.

And I for one I'm not a big fan of smilies... ;)

Neither am I… but at times it helps to convey the light heartedness of a situation :)

PS: Won’t be around for a while.