Man and Woman's Evolution

[cousinbasil]

I understand that a finger cannot point to itself, but this metaphor doesn't cut it. I also get that the concept is not the noumenon, that in this sense the concept is an illusion. But that is my point - the thing-in-itself is not the perception, not the "thing" that arises in one's consciousness. The self-perception may be merely an illusion, but so is any other perception. As perceptions are the only reality we have, illusions or not, they exist.

[jupiviv]

But why are you assuming A cannot be aware of itself?

I've answered this quite a few times, so I won't repeat.

You have said Descartes was wrong. How so? Your view depends on his being wrong, and I don't know why you think he is wrong.

Descartes said - "I think therefore I am." But he is already assuming that he exists("I am") when he posits that he "thinks", so it doesn't follow that his existence is a result of his thinking about his existence.

A has to have something from which it can distinguish B.

It is already distinguished from B just by being "A". You said you understood and agreed with me on the point that just the fact that A exists means that there must be B at the same time, but if you did understand that point then why are you making this mistake?

Look - you and I can both distinguish ourselves from other things. I am not my keyboard, for example.

The flaw in your thinking lies in your assumption that you can distinguish yourself from other things. But you are already distinguished from things that are not you, simply by being yourself.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: A has to have something from which it can distinguish B.

jupviv: It is already distinguished from B just by being "A". You said you understood and agreed with me on the point that just the fact that A exists means that there must be B at the same time, but if you did understand that point then why are you making this mistake?

But I am not making any mistake - what I have been doing is repeating the parts where we agree so I can point out what I see as your mistake.

What we have been constructing is a hypothetical universe, jupviv. It consists of A and B. ONLY A and B, nothing else. NOT US. Therefore, if neither one is conscious (or consciousness itself), NOTHING is distinguished.

So far so good? If neither one were conscious (or consciousness itself), we wouldn't need both of them. It is only a hypothetical, abstract universe, after all. We could have a universe consisting of one thing - say a single photon. A photon is not conscious. We could even postulate an empty universe (such as what lies "before" the Big Bang.)

But we said A is conscious. Therefore it requires something it is not, which is B. We do agree on this point! But where you are not following me is when I talk about what consciousness A DOES. We agree B is the thing needed for A to be conscious of. BUT HOW DOES IT DO THIS? It does so by differentiating B from something, right? Being aware (conscious) of B means that A is distinguishing B from something B is not.

But in our hypothetical universe, there is only A and B. If we agree on this, then we MUST LOGICALLY agree that the thing A is differentiating B from HAS TO BE A ITSELF.

If A is able to differentiate B from itself (A), then does it not follow that A can differentiate itself from B? BUT THAT MEANS A MUST BE AS AWARE OF ITSELF AS IT IS OF B. Otherwise, how could it distinguish between the two?

Descartes said - "I think therefore I am." But he is already assuming that he exists("I am") when he posits that he "thinks", so it doesn't follow that his existence is a result of his thinking about his existence.

You are not following Descartes' logic, either. He is not saying that his existence is a result of his thinking, that one has caused the other. That has never been his argument. He is simply saying he could not think if he did not exist. That he can think therefore proves he exists. He pointedly DOES NOT assume he exists; rather, he uses the fact that he thinks to PROVE he exists.

If you cannot follow this, there is no point in furthering this exchange. For Descartes to prove he exists (because he is able to make any argument whatsoever, that is, that he can think) demonstrates self-awareness. Therefore, self-awareness is possible.

So I am taking our hypothetical universe (which contains only A and B so far) one step further and asserting that if either A or B is conscious (or consciousness itself), then it must be self-aware or else it could not be aware at all.

Of course, my logic here depends on the fact that we have only A and B. A would not have to be self-aware if there were something not itself and also not B (a thing C.) Then A could distinguish B from C and C from B without being self-aware. But then with the presence of C, my main point is proved - namely, that Consciousness requires at least three (3) things.

Once you accept this part of my argument, the rest (the stuff about concepts) naturally follows.

The flaw in your thinking lies in your assumption that you can distinguish yourself from other things. But you are already distinguished from things that are not you, simply by being yourself.

But that is clearly not true! I am only distinguished from other things IF SOME CONSCIOUSNESS PERFORMS THE DISTINGUISHING. In a universe with no conscious things besides myself (much like our hypothetical universe with only one conscious thing A), it would be up to me to distinguish between that which is me and that which is not me. If I were the only conscious being in the universe, I would be the only one doing the differentiating. Therefore, I would be self-aware. Now populate that universe with other sentient beings such as yourself. That does not change the fact that I am self-aware, does it?

[jupiviv]

It consists of A and B. ONLY A and B, nothing else. NOT US. Therefore, if neither one is conscious (or consciousness itself), NOTHING is distinguished.

If neither A or B is conscious, then nothing is distinguished? Then where are the non-conscious A and B coming from, or for that matter, the hypothetical universe itself?

We agree B is the thing needed for A to be conscious of. BUT HOW DOES IT DO THIS? It does so by differentiating B from something, right? Being aware (conscious) of B means that A is distinguishing B from something B is not.

You are diverting from my original example by saying that A is separately distinguishing B from something it is not. But this is not the case, since A is already distinguished from B, simply by being A. I originally said that A and B exist at the same time, so how can A distinguish B after it comes into being? - which is necessarily what must happen if we follow your line of thinking.

A is already differentiated from B, just by the very fact that we are positing A and B. It doesn't make sense to say that A differentiates B from itself, when we have just posited A and B as existing.

Unless you deal with this point(and you haven't until now), this discussion will go around in circles.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: It consists of A and B. ONLY A and B, nothing else. NOT US. Therefore, if neither one is conscious (or consciousness itself), NOTHING is distinguished.

jupviv: If neither A or B is conscious, then nothing is distinguished? Then where are the non-conscious A and B coming from, or for that matter, the hypothetical universe itself?

As soon as I noticed that we were repeating ourselves, I suspected we weren't really on the same page.

Did you notice I said "NOT US" in the quote above? Jupviv, this is a hypothetical universe. You cannot just bring us into it whenever you want! Are you actually arguing it is impossible to conceive of a [hypothetical] universe that does not contain the person(s) doing the hypothesizing? If that's your reasoning, the discussion is over. It's moot at that point.

... A is already distinguished from B, simply by being A. I originally said that A and B exist at the same time, so how can A distinguish B after it comes into being? - which is necessarily what must happen if we follow your line of thinking.

Well now I can see why you cannot grasp this. I am not saying that anything is "coming into being"!!!!! I am hypothesizing their existence!

I am IMAGINING a universe with just A in it. Then I am saying A is conscious. My argument is a thought experiment. I am saying that LOGICALLY if A is conscious it REQUIRES a B so it has something to be aware of that is not itself.

I have never said that in the hypothetical universe we have A and then B appears.

I am saying it is possible to have a universe with just a nonconscious A. It is also possible to have one with a nonconscious A and B (and C and so forth). But it is not possible to have a universe with just A if A is conscious. That is what I mean when I said conscious A requires B. So I now imagine a DIFFERENT universe that contains conscious A and non conscious B.

One more time, my entire point is this: Is this universe I have just imagined LOGICALLY possible? Or is it not logically possible, the same way a universe consisting of just conscious A and nothing else is not logically possible? Remember, I was forced to discard that universe and postulate that if A was conscious (or consciousness itself) it required B so then I hypothesized an ENTIRELY NEW universe.

A is already differentiated from B, just by the very fact that we are positing A and B. It doesn't make sense to say that A differentiates B from itself, when we have just posited A and B as existing.

Of course it makes sense. We have said A is conscious (or consciousness itself). That's what consciousness does. For you to be aware of a thing, you must first be able to differentiate that thing from what it is not.

This is the entire meaning of A=A! It is the foundation of rational thought.

Jupviv, I am doing nothing but applying logic to hypothetical scenarios and asking are these scenarios logically consistent. Then I reject the ones that are not.

I am rejecting a scenario in which we have a universe with just two things A and B if one or both of them is conscious.

My reasoning is simple - do not read into it more than is there. All I am saying is that in such a universe of two things with one of the things being conscious (or consciousness itself), there also necessarily exists at least a third thing, which is A's concept of B.

Maybe I should be using the term perception instead of concept here. As in A's perception of B is not B and cannot be A either, even if A were consciousness itself.

I say this because if A is aware of B, it MUST ALSO BE SELF AWARE.

You have argued with this last point, but logically it must be so. Because for A to be aware of B, it must be able to rationalize B=B. That means "B is B and nothing else." For A to grasp this fundamental truth, it must first be aware that there is a something else which it then sees that B is not. Since the only other thing in this universe is A itself, A must be aware of itself if it is going to be aware of B.

A cannot be aware of B in relation to nothing. If it could, then it could be aware of itself in relation to nothing and would not require a B to be aware of, that is, to be conscious (or consciousness itself.) We have already logically rejected this particular hypothetical universe as logically impossible.

Now since A must be aware of B and also be aware of itself, it has at minimum two concepts, one of which it identifies with each thing, respectively. But since the concepts (or perceptions, if that helps you see this) are not the things-in-themselves, we have more than just A and B.

Is your argument that a perception does not exist the same way the thing doing the perceiving exists?

BTW, we are not going in circles. It's more like spirals. Round and round, but hopefully we are getting somewhere.

[jupiviv]

Jupviv, this is a hypothetical universe. You cannot just bring us into it whenever you want! Are you actually arguing it is impossible to conceive of a [hypothetical] universe that does not contain the person(s) doing the hypothesizing? If that's your reasoning, the discussion is over. It's moot at that point.

Well, given that you are doing the hypothesising, you have to be considered when judging the logicality of the hypotheses. You are first creating a hypothetical universe with A and B in it, and then saying that there are no distinctions in it. That is clearly a fallacious statement.

Well now I can see why you cannot grasp this. I am not saying that anything is "coming into being"!!!!! I am hypothesizing their existence!

So you are hypothesising their coming into being - what's your point? I'm saying that your hypothesis is wrong. I don't know why you've brought this issue into the discussion....

I am saying it is possible to have a universe with just a nonconscious A. It is also possible to have one with a nonconscious A and B (and C and so forth). But it is not possible to have a universe with just A if A is conscious. That is what I mean when I said conscious A requires B. So I now imagine a DIFFERENT universe that contains conscious A and non conscious B.

What do you mean by saying - "a universe with just A"? Are you equating the universe with A(i.e, saying that the universe itself is A), or are you saying that A is in the universe? In the latter case, if there is a thing "A" in the universe, then there will necessarily also be something else in it(even if it is vacuum, etc.) A will be a part of the universe, so there must also be other parts.

A is already differentiated from B, just by the very fact that we are positing A and B. It doesn't make sense to say that A differentiates B from itself, when we have just posited A and B as existing.

We have said A is conscious (or consciousness itself). That's what consciousness does. For you to be aware of a thing, you must first be able to differentiate that thing from what it is not.

That's not really how thinking works. You are over-complicating a simple matter by trying to think of it in a flowchart-like manner, and so you are ignoring the simple logic of the matter that I've pointed out. The very fact that I am identifying something means that there is also something that it's not. The affirmation of the fact that there is something that thing is not, does not occur separately from the identification of the thing itself, which is what you are thinking. A = A, and A != B are essentially the same statement, and each may follow each other.

So the fact that A is aware of B means that B is already differentiated from A. A does not have to separately distinguish B from itself. If A had to differentiate itself from B, or B from itself, then it would have to exist before both it and B came into existence, and then create a "B" to differentiate from itself. Does that make sense?

It is impossible for A to identify itself, because it is already itself. Think about this statement before writing anything else, because this is where the crux of the whole issue lies.

[cousinbasil]

What do you mean by saying - "a universe with just A"? Are you equating the universe with A(i.e, saying that the universe itself is A), or are you saying that A is in the universe? In the latter case, if there is a thing "A" in the universe, then there will necessarily also be something else in it(even if it is vacuum, etc.) A will be a part of the universe, so there must also be other parts.

You are needlessly complicating things here, so when I explain it to you, the explanation is going to sound as complicated as the question.

Obviously I mean the first thing. If only A exists, then A is the universe. But when I speak of A and B being the only things that exists, A cannot be thought of as being the universe, so it is then proper to speak of A being IN the universe, which would consist of A and B and nothing else.

What I am giving as a hypothetical universe in each case is - or should be - unequivocally clear by now. We have been talking about it for days.

It is impossible for A to identify itself, because it is already itself. Think about this statement before writing anything else, because this is where the crux of the whole issue lies.

I have thought about it all along. I can see it is your objection, but for the life of me, I cannot see your point.

Assuming you are now completely with me when I speak of hypothetical universes, let me go back to the case where the only thing "in" the universe is A. (Yes, in this case, A and the universe are logically one and the same.) No matter if A is conscious (or consciousness itself) or if it is not, it is not possible for A to identify itself. I am assuming you use the term "identify" to mean "be conscious of." But not for the reason you give, which to me makes no sense. If it is conscious, it cannot be aware of itself because there is nothing else in existence for it to see itself in relation to. If it it not conscious, then our case is trivial - it cannot be aware of itself because it is not conscious, period.

So in the case where there is just A, it is meaningless to speak of A being conscious (or consciousness itself.) Regardless of our respective reasonings, I think we agree on this point.

But now let's examine the scenario where the universe consists of two things, A and B, and nothing else. So we are clear, "universe" is now synonymous with "A and B" (but not with "A" and not with "B," both of which can now be said to be "in" the universe.)

If neither A nor B is conscious, neither one is aware of the other or of itself, by definition of the idea "not conscious." But suppose now our universe consists of two things A nd B and A is conscious. You are maintaining in the quote above it is impossible for A to be aware of itself because it already is itself. I have not the slightest clue what you mean by this. Of what then is A conscious? You say:

The affirmation of the fact that there is something that thing is not, does not occur separately from the identification of the thing itself, which is what you are thinking. A = A, and A != B are essentially the same statement, and each may follow each other.

This is correct, except for claiming I think otherwise.

My whole point rests on the fact that A can only be conscious when it can see that B=B, which logically means there must be something B is not. This is my whole point, jup. Because then what is that thing that B is not? "Think about this before you write anything else." Do you not agree that the thing B is not MUST be A? Your argument is that it is possible to have a universe with just A nd B and nothing else and A is conscious (or consciousness itself.) (My argument is that a third thing is required, but for now I am accepting your view so that I can show you where I think it is lacking.)

But you say it is impossible for A to be self aware because it already is itself. If you are correct, that means it cannot be aware of B either, since A cannot ideate "B=B." If you are correct and A is not aware of itself, what is it saying B is not?

cousinbasil: Well now I can see why you cannot grasp this. I am not saying that anything is "coming into being"!!!!! I am hypothesizing their existence!

jupviv: So you are hypothesizing their coming into being - what's your point? I'm saying that your hypothesis is wrong. I don't know why you've brought this issue into the discussion....

You completely misread the quote you supplied. I expressly said I am NOT hypothesizing that anything is "coming into existence." Not at any time or in any of my scenarios. I brought it into the discussion because you clearly insist that this is what I am saying. This quote proves that. I bring up the point because I am trying to clear it up. But you quote me and then proceed to completely ignore what I said in the quote. You think somehow this is what I am saying, and I bring it up to disabuse you of that thought.

[jupiviv]

As I said, the discussion is going around in circles. You are repeating the same arguments and ignoring the same points that I'm making. Added to that, you've extended your hypothesis beyond its usefulness. I'll simply deal with the basic point.

You say that there must be something B is not, and that is A, and since A is conscious of B it must also be conscious of that which B is not(itself). But, as you say, A itself is the thing that B is not. What A can be aware of is that B is not itself, which as I said is the same as saying that A is aware of B.

But this still doesn't mean that it is aware of itself, because, as I said, it is already itself. An eye cannot see itself. That right there is why your basic argument is wrong. I repeatedly tried to explain this to you earlier in a more complex manner, but that wasn't of any use.

I'll even simplify it further for you to expose the basic logical structure of the argument - not being A is not the same as A, so when A is aware that B is not A, it is not aware of A.

[cousinbasil]

I'll even simplify it further for you to expose the basic logical structure of the argument - not being A is not the same as A, so when A is aware that B is not A, it is not aware of A.

But how is this possible? We agree that A is aware that B is not A. How can A know this without being aware of itself (of A)? How could A be aware that B is not A itself if A is unaware of itself? What you are saying is just impossible. A must know that A exists (self-awareness) if it is looking at B and being aware that B is not A.

[cousinbasil]

In other words, one cannot differentiate between two things without first being aware of them. That is just simple logic, no?

[jupiviv]

Sorry, but I don't want to discuss this further, because I've said everything that needs to be said about this issue. If you still don't understand my argument, then you should discuss this issue with Kelly Jones through PMs. :-)

[cousinbasil]

Sorry, but I don't want to discuss this further, because I've said everything that needs to be said about this issue. If you still don't understand my argument, then you should discuss this issue with Kelly Jones through PMs. :-)

The geniuses have not jumped in, jupviv. What about it, Kelly? I know if Diebert has followed our exchange, then I must be right because he would not miss a chance to point out any obvious logical (or other type of) inconsistency.

My interests lie in how humanity came to be, and how it came to be as it is and not some other way. To this end, I find religions and their origins particulary fascinating. Somewhere along the way during this discussion I mentioned that I find it significant that the RC Church sticks by its Trinity concept, all the while trying to promote monotheism.

In the text of the RC mass, the Trinity idea is called "the mystery of faith." I was reared as a RC, and I always found this somewhat condescending. It's as if the Church is too busy to explain why it wants you to believe what it tells you to believe. "Don't bother us with any questions."

I'll believe something if it is true. If something is true, it can withstand scrutiny.

Humans lock into the rest of the world through consciousness. Consciousness cannot be reduced below three. Not two or One.

The real question is: who gives a shit?

[DHodges]

As perceptions are the only reality we have, illusions or not, they exist.

Perceptions exist in a conventional sense, but not in any ultimate sense.

Similarly for the perceiver, the act of perceiving and the object of perception (which all arise together).

[jupiviv]

Perceptions exist in a conventional sense, but not in any ultimate sense.

Is that a perception?

[cousinbasil]

Perceptions exist in a conventional sense, but not in any ultimate sense.

What does exist in an ultimate sense, for example?

[DHodges]

What does exist in an ultimate sense, for example?

When you get down to it, nothing. "Existing in an ultimate sense" is not actually coherent, if you look closely enough at any phenomenon. "Existence" is conventional existence, nothing else.

Is that a perception?

Some people would say that perceiving with your mind (conception) is a type of perception. Conception is usually thought of as a separate category in the West, not as one of the senses. It is a convention as to whether you think of it as a perception or not. There is no "ultimate truth" to the matter; it's just what we have agreed to call it.

[cousinbasil]

Similarly for the perceiver, the act of perceiving and the object of perception (which all arise together).

Well, so I can beat it entirely into the ground, that makes three things which must arise together, although you sound even more trinitarian in this quote than I sound. We are agreed in that consciousness involves the perceiver and the perceived; I was calling the third thing the concept, but that was in an abstract argument. Perception is more accurate in speaking of what "really" goes on.

You are calling the third thing the "act of perceiving." This ties in better with my suggestion that this is identical to the Trinitarian exposition of the Godhead. The Father and Son correlate with the observer and observed, and the Holy Spirit that which "passes between them," or the very act of perception. This also is an example of AASB ("as above, so below") or quite literally, man being in God's image. Maybe God is really in man's image; philosophically, I find it matters little. I suspect the latter is the case.

My interest is as I stated above. Why would the RC Church propound a trinitarian scheme of things, when it is obviously in its interest to have the populace believe in one god? It just complicates things. Surely the great unwashed masses do not care about AASB or any other esoteric notion.

For example, take the Jehovah's Witnesses. (Please?) The concept of trinity is anathema to them. It is too complicated to work into the monotheistic bedrock of their Bible worship.

[DHodges]

See, this is where I often lose patience because I can't even tell if you are serious or not.

Assuming you are, this doesn't have anything to do with the number three. If you take something like perception, you can name any number of conditions that are necessary for it to occur. To take the example of sight, for sight to occur you need an object to be seen, you need a light source, you need the eye, you need the optic nerve, you need a brain with consciousness and attention paid in that direction. I'm sure more could be listed.

My interest is as I stated above. Why would the RC Church propound a trinitarian scheme of things, when it is obviously in its interest to have the populace believe in one god? It just complicates things. Surely the great unwashed masses do not care about AASB or any other esoteric notion.

I am not a fan of religion, and would merely suggest that the teaching of the trinity is based on the idea: "If we can get them to believe that 1=3, we can get them to believe anything."

[jupiviv]

It is a convention as to whether you think of it as a perception or not.

I define perception and conception both to be the appearance of things to mind. You have to more clear as to what you mean by convention and ultimate truth, and why you distinguish them.

[cousinbasil]

See, this is where I often lose patience because I can't even tell if you are serious or not.

Assuming you are, this doesn't have anything to do with the number three.

But it does. If you cannot bring yourself to read the argument I tried to make to jupviv above, restating fifty different ways, just think how I feel about now. I really do not want to make it fifty-one.

My point is three things AT MINIMUM are required for consciousness to "arise" as you put it. It was entirely a logical exercise, a counting exercise.

Your example of sight is nice but beside the point I was making. You use the term "any number." I am merely pointing out that it cannot be "any" number. It cannot be one. And it cannot be two.

[cousinbasil]

I am not a fan of religion, and would merely suggest that the teaching of the trinity is based on the idea: "If we can get them to believe that 1=3, we can get them to believe anything."

And you think this is being serious?

Maybe I am being too serious. I am asking why they picked 3 and not 2 or 4. Better yet, why did they not leave it at 1, since it is an offshoot of a monotheistic tradition?

[DHodges]

Maybe I am being too serious. I am asking why they picked 3 and not 2 or 4. Better yet, why did they not leave it at 1, since it is an offshoot of a monotheistic tradition?

Why do think this is important?

[cousinbasil]

Maybe I am being too serious. I am asking why they picked 3 and not 2 or 4. Better yet, why did they not leave it at 1, since it is an offshoot of a monotheistic tradition?

Why do think this is important?

I am just curious. Historically the idea of trinity wedged itself into the judeo-christian lineage. I'd like to know when that happened and why. Anything I am curious about is automatically important. I think it is without doubt important that the nature of consciousness requires three things at minimum and that an otherwise self-proclaimed monotheistic tradition asserts that the ultimate nature of its deity is also triune. To you, it is probably an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin ridiculous nonissue. I can understand that - but then anything even remotely having to do with religion must be. To me, though, this is a glaring omission if one desires to fully understand human nature, which I do.

[DHodges]

I think you can understand the importance of religion in human history without getting bogged down in the details of some particular one.

Having religious beliefs does seem to be a part of human nature. But the existence of so many competing religions with different beliefs demonstrates that the particulars of the belief are not really the point.

That said, the beliefs of the Quakers seem pretty benign, and the Quakers have been a force for progressive social change in the US.

[cousinbasil]

I think you can understand the importance of religion in human history without getting bogged down in the details of some particular one.

Having religious beliefs does seem to be a part of human nature. But the existence of so many competing religions with different beliefs demonstrates that the particulars of the belief are not really the point.

The devil, as it were, is in the details.

You are correct, but only if your interest in these things is superficial, which yours seems to be. I can just as easily say I find the differences illustrative of the various cultures which have given rise to them, and thereby gain further insight into those cultures. In addition, I can find it compelling that despite these variations in local cultures and the histories behind them, there are marked similarities in religions that might help me to better understand the nature of the religious impulse.

That said, the beliefs of the Quakers seem pretty benign, and the Quakers have been a force for progressive social change in the US

I like their oats, too.