Is consciousness the fundamental reality?

[Imparcticle]

There seems to be a problem with the way we refer to the dead. For example, say there is a dead rabbit. Note that I said "there is a dead rabbit". That is the equivalent of saying "the rabbit who does not exist exists in death". That implies there is an afterlife.
OR: When when we say "there is a dead rabbit" we mean to say "the body of the dead rabbit exists." But of course, these are enitrely different statements. When we say "there is a dead rabbit" we are saying "the," (correct me on this) "spirit of the rabbit is in a state of death.". When we say "the body of the dead rabbit exists", we are saying "the body of the spirit of the rabbit exists in a state of death." So (again correct me on this) in both cases we are assuming a spirit exists.

It seems evident that there is a need for the definition of alive and death.
1.) alive - a being able to multiply and therefore posses hereditary material.
2.) death - the absence of the characteristics of alive.

Comments will be appreciated.

 

[Rader]

spirits

Alive seems to fit everything until a reclassification of its physical state of being dead. The spirit would then become a superposition of states.

 

[Evo]

There seems to be a problem with the way we refer to the dead. For example, say there is a dead rabbit. Note that I said "there is a dead rabbit". That is the equivalent of saying "the rabbit who does not exist exists in death". That implies there is an afterlife.
OR: When when we say "there is a dead rabbit" we mean to say "the body of the dead rabbit exists." But of course, these are enitrely different statements. When we say "there is a dead rabbit" we are saying "the," (correct me on this) "spirit of the rabbit is in a state of death.". When we say "the body of the dead rabbit exists", we are saying "the body of the spirit of the rabbit exists in a state of death." So (again correct me on this) in both cases we are assuming a spirit exists.

It seems evident that there is a need for the definition of alive and death.
1.) alive - a being able to multiply and therefore posses hereditary material.
2.) death - the absence of the characteristics of alive.

Comments will be appreciated.

We can say something is dead without believing that some part of it (a spirit) still exists.

 

[Imparcticle]

Alive seems to fit everything until a reclassification of its physical state of being dead. The spirit would then become a superposition of states.

So a spirit is dead AND alive? Why?

 

[Rader]

superposition of states

So a spirit is dead AND alive? Why?

Imparcticle, I am saying, that everything is alive. You wish to use the rabbit as an example. The rabbit is alive until something changes, that we observe in the rabbit. What is it,? His physical state of being a live rabbit and a conscious live rabbit ends. Now at one time, before the rabbit was a rabbit, we could say the same thing, for all the components of that rabbit, they were something else. Now we can project, the rabbit into the future, what happens to all his components? They become many new things, each component has a precise time in which, it takes on a new identity. We discussed that on another thread. The change in physical systems have a precise moment of "happening", they then "become". Now each rabbit has the quality of the live rabbit being a rabbit and the rabbit being conscious of his rabbithood. Now he has it when we observe him hopping around and when he no longer hops, he does not have it. Now if you want to equate the rabbits living life and his consciousness of being a rabbit to his rabbit spirit. OK I will say, that's the way I see it. The spirit of the rabbit became was and went. Now if you examine what has been said here, the rabbit like everything else was a probability of becoming until it became. Everything just "Is" Everything is a superposition of states until it "Becomes". Now you could apply this objectively or subjectively what ever your choice materialism or idealism it makes no difference to me. This to me is the ultimate reality, the Oneness of everything.

 

[Moonbear]

Dead doesn't mean something doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't exhibit characteristics of life after previously having those characteristics (as opposed to something that is non-living, which never exhibited characteristics of life). Though, the best wording would be to say, "There are the remains of a rabbit." Afterall, much as with life, death is also a continuum of events. While the body is decaying but still recognizable as its former state (that of a rabbit), one can refer to the recognizable bits as "remains." Once decay is thorough enough to render the former form unrecognizable, we don't have this difficulty because the components of the former organism have been incorporated into new organisms, which we refer to as whatever they are (maggot, vulture, worm, weed, etc...).

 

[Al]

Thing is, life (exception made of conciousness) can be entirely described in terms of other physical phenomena. There is no transcendental difference between a living cell and an automaton built to perform the same function and set in motion. This is particularly stressed by observation of viruses, prions, etc. and the difficulty we have to classify them as living or inert. There is no such a thing as life. It is merely a concept, with rather imprecise borders. Thus there is no death, either. What troubles me are the implications for conciousness.

 

[Imparcticle]

Thing is, life (exception made of conciousness) can be entirely described in terms of other physical phenomena.

And it may be possible to do the same for consciousness.

There is no transcendental difference between a living cell and an automaton built to perform the same function and set in motion. This is particularly stressed by observation of viruses, prions, etc. and the difficulty we have to classify them as living or inert.

You say, in your following sentence that there is no life. Thus, according to that, we can easily classify viruses, prions, etc. as inert. There would be no difficulty if there was no life.

There is no such a thing as life. It is merely a concept, with rather imprecise borders.

Life is rather a characteristic. It is, as far as I know, is not unanimosly defined. The impricise borders are due to the fact that life has not been completely defined.

There is life. How else can you justify the difference between a plant and a rock? One is alive, the other is in an opposite state, death. So there is death, there must be an end to life.

What troubles me are the implications for conciousness.

In my opinion, people think too much of consciousness. Consicousness merely implies a state of awareness. And that life is.

There is a need for a definition of life in this discussion, as is obvious.

 

[Imparcticle]

Dead doesn't mean something doesn't exist..

I said

"there is a dead rabbit". That is the equivalent of saying "the rabbit who does not exist exists in death". That implies there is an afterlife.

"The rabbit exists in death" can be attributed to a spiritual existence in a state of death, where a spiritual existence following death is life after death.

 

[Deeviant]

Or, your could consider using your brainpower on something more meaningful or useful.

 

[Imparcticle]

"Meanigful" and "useful" are subjective. Define your definition please.

 

[Mentat]

Imparcticle,
Alot of good points have been made so far, but I think AI hit on one of the most important: There is no real definition of "life".

More specifically relevant: Without a definition, "alive" and "dead" are utterly meaningless distinctions.

Having said that, however, there is a difference between a living rabbit and a dead one (one is active - even if just at the cellular level - and the other is not). But how can such a difference exist, if (as I previously stated) there is no meaningful distinction between "alive" and "dead"? That seems contradictory, but it's not. You see, there is no distinction between "living" and "non-living", because "living" is not defined. However, there are some beings which are, a priori assumed to be alive, provided they are active. Once those beings cease to be active, then they can be called dead.

As to your original question, saying that the rabbit is dead is saying that the being which was - a priori - assumed to be "living" is now inactive. The being still exists, so there is no logical error.

 

[confutatis]

"The rabbit exists in death" can be attributed to a spiritual existence in a state of death, where a spiritual existence following death is life after death.

It can also be attributed to the fact that the atoms that once made up the rabbit never cease to exist. To exist is not the same thing as being alive.

More specifically relevant: Without a definition, "alive" and "dead" are utterly meaningless distinctions.

Do you realize that without a definition, "without" and "definition" are utterly meaningless concepts?

I don't think your approach is valid. Meaning does not come from clear definitions; in fact the only things that come from clear definitions are tautologies.

Because of the need to avoid tautologies, only concepts without clear definition are capable of expressing meaning. It is precisely the fact that we don't know exactly what 'life' is that gives meaning to statements about life. Give a clear definition to 'life', and suddenly you will see the discussion about 'life' shift to another subject.

 

[Al]

Thanks, Mentat, for making my point so clear.

The difference of analyzing conciousness and any other phenomenon, as life, is the fact that the phenomena are defined by us, and they correpond to physical realities but not as we define them. "Life", "combustion", "chemical reaction" are artificial constructs, the only "real" aspects of the universe are those that we have to accept without definition as being fundamental, for exemple, mass, space, time and some of their interactions. We have come close to describing the universe solely with them, but we rely on abstractions and classifications for understanding. As they are a reduction from the pure "language" of physics, they're necessarily incomplete, and thus, any complete definition is tautological. Its particularly clear in tha case of Mathematics: it is a construct of the mind applied to describing the universe, but none of its concepts really exist.
The point then is to know if conciousness is also an artificial construct of our minds or a fundamental aspect of the universe (which can still be contained in our brains).

 

[confutatis]

"Life", "combustion", "chemical reaction" are artificial constructs, the only "real" aspects of the universe are those that we have to accept without definition as being fundamental, for exemple, mass, space, time and some of their interactions. We have come close to describing the universe solely with them, but we rely on abstractions and classifications for understanding. As they are a reduction from the pure "language" of physics, they're necessarily incomplete, and thus, any complete definition is tautological.

I was sad you took my Wittgenstein quote in the other thread as sarcasm, because my perspective happens to be very close to what you described above. I think what you said above is quite true, but the implications go far beyond what you seem to be acknowledging. For instance, one of the implications is that physics is not a description of reality, but for the most part just a large collection of tautologies.

The point then is to know if conciousness is also an artificial construct of our minds or a fundamental aspect of the universe (which can still be contained in our brains).

Well, another implication of what you said above is that everything we talk about is either a tautology or an artificial construct. So consciousness must necessarily be one of them. There is no other possibility, and that fact alone has implications for our understanding of what consciousness might be. For instance, if our aim is to provide a meaningful description of consciousness, then we cannot resort to tautological definitions, such as "what it's like to be". While those definitions are true, due to their tautological nature, they are also meaningless, for the same reason. As such, no meaningful description of consciousness will ever be accepted as true - hence Chalmers' "hard problem".

 

[Mentat]

Do you realize that without a definition, "without" and "definition" are utterly meaningless concepts?

First off, that statement is itself illogical. If there is such a thing as a term that is without definition, then "without" and "definition" cannot be meaningless. As it is, all that could be further defined is "definition", and this has been defined. Life, OTOH, is "undefined" simply because all the prospective definitions have been erroneous (they've let in things that are not considered "alive", or left out some things that are). Thus, it becomes clearer and clearer that the top-bottom approach here used (the approach of knowing that some distinction definitely exists but having no set of boundaries or even a useful explanation of what the disctinction is) is a mistake, and the next logical step is to eliminate the distinction altogether.

I don't think your approach is valid. Meaning does not come from clear definitions; in fact the only things that come from clear definitions are tautologies.

Meaning is not something to be assigned. The meaning is supposed to exist already. It is the word that is assigned. At least, that is the way that semantics are supposed to work.

On some unfortunate occasions, people come up with a term before they fully understand the meaning to which it is being assigned.

 

[confutatis]

First off, that statement is itself illogical.

I wouldn't call it illogical, I would call it nonsense. Either way, I thought the would make that clear. Apparently it didn't.

 

[Mentat]

I wouldn't call it illogical, I would call it nonsense. Either way, I thought the would make that clear. Apparently it didn't.

I hope I didn't come off as irritated or something. I didn't mean to. I knew you were probably joking, I just know how intended "jokes" can come back to bite me later in the thread, if someone didn't realize it was a joke. It's happened innumerable times in the past (it happens with analogies and illustrations too), and so I thought it wise to nip that potential irritant in the bud.

 

[Rader]

"The solution"

Life, OTOH, is "undefined" simply because all the prospective definitions have been erroneous (they've let in things that are not considered "alive", or left out some things that are). Thus, it becomes clearer and clearer that the top-bottom approach here used (the approach of knowing that some distinction definitely exists but having no set of boundaries or even a useful explanation of what the disctinction is) is a mistake, and the next logical step is to eliminate the distinction altogether.

I agree, So shall we do it this way? The problems why you can not find an origen of "alive" is because there is none. To relieve you of this dilema, of trying to caracterize a word for a nondefinable point of origen, you simple eliminate it, especially when observation fits the scenario. This realates to all macroscopic phenomenom. If you want to set a boundary, it has to be the moment of transmutation between virtual probabilities and animate particles.

A definition of alive, is anything that is in movement and transmutes information by which its physical identity changes states. Alive can only be used as an adjective.

Meaning is not something to be assigned. The meaning is supposed to exist already. It is the word that is assigned. At least, that is the way that semantics are supposed to work.

The meaning is there for all existence. Alive seems to fit everything until a reclassification of its atoms and then it behaves differently.

On some unfortunate occasions, people come up with a term before they fully understand the meaning to which it is being assigned.

The only thing to understand is that everything is what it is, when observed.

 

[xck]

Geographically challenged, but

I believe it would depends on where my feet are. If I'm in China, the response may be, "Look it is a rabbit on its way to becoming a grasshopper." If I am in the sticks, the response may be, "We got some roadkill for supper!"

Assuming the rabbit has been buried alive, I might hear something like, "Quick get the shovel something is moving." Many people have been pronounced "dead" that were not.

If you are from the valley you may believe that what kept it alive you would see in its eyes. Dead things don't stare.

~ "The only thing to understand is that everything is what it is, when observed." ~ Rader

I agree.

 

[Imparcticle]

Originally Posted by Rader
A definition of alive, is anything that is in movement and transmutes information by which its physical identity changes states. Alive can only be used as an adjective.

Also, its movement must be independent, correct?

Is it just me, or are we leading our discussion to the idea of sophism?

When we say "a rabbit", are we referring to the rabbit physically, or its spirit (if there is indeed such a thing)?

 

[Imparcticle]

Well, another implication of what you said above is that everything we talk about is either a tautology or an artificial construct. So consciousness must necessarily be one of them. There is no other possibility, and that fact alone has implications for our understanding of what consciousness might be.

Are you saying consciousness is an illusion? Something that is made up by man?

 

[confutatis]

Are you saying consciousness is an illusion? Something that is made up by man?

There is an illusion at work, but it is not restricted to consciousness. I'd say the illusion is related to language as a whole, to our inability to distinguish between the meaning of words and the entities those words are supposed to represent - in other words, between language and reality. That causes people to enter into arguments about language thinking they are having an argument about reality. And that creates a lot of confusion.

A sure sign that an argument is about language rather than reality is when no observation of reality can settle the argument. It should be obvious to anyone that an argument that can only be settled with words, instead of observation, can only possibly be an argument about language. Consciousness happens to be exactly that - a semantic problem, nothing more.

That doesn't mean 'consciousness' is an illusion; it only means the thing you are convinced is not an illusion is not the thing the word 'consciuosness' refers to.

 

[Fliption]

It should be obvious to anyone that an argument that can only be settled with words, instead of observation, can only possibly be an argument about language.

This of course makes the assumption that everything that exists is observable to humans in an objective way. Which of course is just an assumption.

 

[confutatis]

It should be obvious to anyone that an argument that can only be settled with words, instead of observation, can only possibly be an argument about language

This of course makes the assumption that everything that exists is observable to humans in an objective way. Which of course is just an assumption.

It's not as simple as that. First, you can't use language without making assumptions; any statement about anything is loaded with assumptions, some of them obvious, some less so. So just saying "your statement can be refuted because it's based on an assumption" is completely beside the point.

Second, there is an assumption in my statement, but it's not the assumption you mentioned. The assumption I made was far more mundane than a statement about what exists or not. I have no idea if everything that exists is observable to humans or not. There may be things which exist that we cannot observe, but then again there may not. I don't have information to decide by myself, and when I ask other people, they are deeply divided on this issue and I find no reason to accept one position over the other.

But I have an inquiring mind and I'm not happy with this state of affairs. It doesn't seem reasonable that we can't know reality simply because people can't agree as to what exists and what doesn't. After giving serious thought to this issue, I came to realize something very interesting: if we are unable to tell what exists and what doesn't, other than by making assumptions, then that fact alone can be used to learn something about reality.

So there's my assumption: we have no way to know what exists and what doesn't. It's an assumption about knowledge, not about reality. I'm basically assuming that there are things that we can't know. I'm completely unable to see why someone would object to that assumption.

What follows from that assumption is a rather interesting story.

(yes, I have removed you from my Ignore list)

 

[hypnagogue]

So there's my assumption: we have no way to know what exists and what doesn't. It's an assumption about knowledge, not about reality.

What do you mean by 'exist'? Under your position, presumably we must know at least that language exists. There is also the further issue of whether knowledge can exist in the absence of language. I would contend that a primate can know that its perceptual experience exists (even if the primate itself would not frame it conceptually in these terms), despite its lack of language.

 

[Fliption]

It's not as simple as that. First, you can't use language without making assumptions; any statement about anything is loaded with assumptions, some of them obvious, some less so. So just saying "your statement can be refuted because it's based on an assumption" is completely beside the point.

Overall I actually agree with your previous response about language and the tendency for people to debate semantics and think they are debating reality. I just happen not to agree that discussions of consciousness is a candidate for this (well I even agree here to some extent). The point I was making is that if something cannot be objectively observed and only subjective experienced, then it cannot be settled the way you say that non-semantic issues can be settled.

 

[Rader]

Also, its movement must be independent, correct

Ask any rabbit.

Is it just me, or are we leading our discussion to the idea of sophism?

Why is the rabbit story a fallacious argument, it reflects the way we assume things are, do you mean you see something different? What is it you see? Can we not trust our experience?

When we say "a rabbit", are we referring to the rabbit physically, or its spirit (if there is indeed such a thing)?

When you hold water in our hand and separate it into drops, of ever finer proportions, are we referring to the drops or the unfolding wave patterns?

 

[confutatis]

What do you mean by 'exist'?

Well, that's part the problem. The meaning of 'exist' is not entirely clear, which is the reason we don't know what exists and what doesn't.

Under your position, presumably we must know at least that language exists.

Not necessarily. Langauge is an abstract construct. Do abstract constructs exist? I don't know, so I won't say they do, and I won't say they don't.

There is also the further issue of whether knowledge can exist in the absence of language.

Likewise, this issue is complicated by our inability to precisely define what 'exist' means. Let alone 'knowledge'.

I'm inclined to agree with those who think the only real knowledge we can possibly have is the knowledge of logical relationships. That would imply knowledge cannot exist in the absence of language, and it would also imply that knowledge may not have much to do with reality (because it doesn't really 'exist' in the sense of being real). But please keep in mind that what I mean by 'knowledge' may not be the same thing you have in mind.

I would contend that a primate can know that its perceptual experience exists (even if the primate itself would not frame it conceptually in these terms), despite its lack of language.

I do not object to your position, I believe you may be right, but I also believe you may be wrong.

The point I was making is that if something cannot be objectively observed and only subjective experienced, then it cannot be settled the way you say that non-semantic issues can be settled.

Exactly. And that means you may be in possession of truths which cannot be proved to others. I do not object to that at all, that was the point I was trying to make when I mentioned that I deleted a letter on your reply and put it back before you saw it. The first, and perhaps the most important fact that follows from my assumption, is that sometimes you may know things without understanding how you know them, and without being able to prove to others that you do know it.

I don't know about you, but to me that opens up very exciting possibilities. Suddenly the universe becomes a far more interesting place, with lots of real phenomena that can't be explained. But it's not something my grandmother didn't know, it's just that in our scientific age we have lost sight of it and came to see our ancestors as superstitious and ignorant.

 

[Fliption]

I don't know about you, but to me that opens up very exciting possibilities. Suddenly the universe becomes a far more interesting place, with lots of real phenomena that can't be explained. But it's not something my grandmother didn't know, it's just that in our scientific age we have lost sight of it and came to see our ancestors as superstitious and ignorant.

I don't disagree with any of this. It just also seems to make for a sometimes frustrating world.

 

[Imparcticle]

What if a single memeber of a group cannot procreate?
Is it dead?

This is an inquiry presented by my spanish teacher.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No it's not dead, it just won't contribute to the future evolution of the group. Its genes will be lost.

 

[Al]

It may yet be important to the future of the group, by helping for exemple to raise progeny that share part of its genetic patrimony. That's why many species produce asexuated individuals (ants, bees...). Besides that fact, they're not fundamentally differnt from the breeding individuals. Now here is a question: is a living being dead before its conception?

 

[Rader]

It may yet be important to the future of the group, by helping for exemple to raise progeny that share part of its genetic patrimony. That's why many species produce asexuated individuals (ants, bees...). Besides that fact, they're not fundamentally differnt from the breeding individuals. Now here is a question: is a living being dead before its conception?

Your question does not compute. So I will try put it into a computational way.

What ever is "to be", is alive, at the moment of its conception, not before. Thats not to say that whatever it was before, was not alive also at the moment of conception, it was just something else.

Now dead is transitional moment, when physical properties change states. All things have a moment of creation and destruction (life-death) in space-time, what is observed, is what the mind perceives.

 

[Al]

Why would the properties of birth and death different? why would death be transitional and not birth? Would not death better be compared to the transition that ocurred when life first appeared in the universe? I confess, the question was a bit of joke, but I think that we must try to escape the structure and failures of languages and to think in terms of fundamentals entities and interactions if an accurate description of nature, including existence/conciousness is to be achieved. If an analogy might help to illustrate, and the universe were a computer, we are debating in VisualBasic, yet the computer functions in terms of logic operators and bits. I think the best proposition has been that from reductionists physicists like Penrose, by the way, even if it is not yet full.