Journey to Nothing

[sujaykc-01]

@LastThursday I read what you wrote and found it as if you saw the limitations of the material world and believe in Consciousness being the ultimate reality, but are still unsure how materialism and consciousness coincide together. As far as I know, Consciousness is a higher reality. It's not a derivative process. Sense perceptions, body, mind, and physical world as such don't exist on their own, but are the expressions of Consciousness itself. And it's far more real than anything else. Its reality is rich, fine, unifying, and more joyful than anything else. Its structure and coherence are far stronger than those of the material world. Consciousness, as such doesn't need physical structures to function. Its creativity is inherent. All the knowledge and its ruling principles are of first order. 

Something which I would like to pull out from online to express what I have to say:

AI Overview:

In his Timaeus, Plato posits that the universe is a product of a divine craftsman (Demiurge) who imposes order and beauty on a pre-existing chaos, imitating an eternal, unchanging model, and that the universe is a living, intelligent organism, much like an organism. 

Here's a more detailed explanation of Plato's view on the order of the universe:

The Demiurge and Creation:

Plato's cosmology, presented in the Timaeus, introduces the concept of a "Demiurge" or divine craftsman who shapes the universe from a pre-existing, chaotic state. 

Imitation of Forms:

The Demiurge doesn't create from nothing, but rather imposes order and beauty on the pre-existing chaos, using the "Forms" as models for the sensible objects in the world. 

Teleological Explanation:

The governing principle of Plato's account is teleological, meaning the universe, as a whole and in its parts, is arranged to produce a vast array of good effects. 

Organicism:

Plato views the universe as a living, intelligent organism, much like an organism, where life is better than non-life and intelligent life is better than mere life. 

The World-Animal:

Since the created gods imitate the creator, mortal animals are also copies of the world-animal. 

Mathematical Order:

The Demiurge imposes mathematical order on the pre-existing chaos, leading to the creation of the ordered universe (kosmos). 

The Forms:

Plato's theory of Forms posits that the physical world is a copy of a higher, more real world of eternal and unchanging Forms, and the Demiurge uses these Forms as models for creation. 

The Form of the Good:

Plato's theory of Forms introduces a hierarchy of abstract entities, with the Form of the Good at the top, which is the ultimate source of existence and understanding. 

Platonic Solids:

Plato linked the elements (earth, air, fire, and water) to certain geometric shapes, such as the cube for earth, the octahedron for air, the icosahedron for water, and the tetrahedron for fire. 

The Soul:

Plato also discusses the creation of the body, as well as the causes of bodily and psychic diseases, and the soul, anatomy, perception, and transmigration of the soul. 

[LastThursday]

Thanks for reading @sujaykc-01. My ideas are kind of fluid. I have a few intuitions about how reality could be, but I don't hold on to anything particularly strongly. Here are some of my heuristics:

• What I'm conscious/aware of is the only thing I've got. In that sense I should have no choice but to be an idealist. 
• I find the word "consciousness" very problematic. The reason is that a word always has limited scope in capturing a thing, and also because two different people may have different ideas about what the word means. It's also problematic because what I'm experiencing can be viewed either as a unity or as a composite thing. The word "consciousness" normally implies an all encompassing unity, but if what I'm experiencing is actually a composite experience then consciousnesses (plural) may be more apt. If it's composite, then there is the problem of comparing different consciousnesses to each other. It's also very possible that your consciousness is completely incompatible with my consciousness.
• I can see that all the arguments against materialism can be flipped and equally applied to idealism. Materialism struggles to explain how consciousness arises from matter. I think idealism struggles to explain how matter arises from consciousness, but nobody ever seems to notice that. Why shouldn't consciousness be chaotic and completely structureless? There seems to be no reason at all for structure, time, persistence etc.
• I can see that all you need for consciousness to work is awareness. If you collapse the observer and observed into one, then consciousness is really about awareness of "stuff". ChatGPT had a problem with this saying it was a circular argument, but it came at it from the wrong angle, because it "believes" that the observer and observed are separate. I see conscious awareness like a bar magnet with only one pole (monopole), which seems like an impossibility. The modus operandi of consciousness is awareness, and therefore it must be aware of something, and that awareness is what "populates" reality with appearances. I can see "consciousness" itself arising like the flicking of the "awareness" switch, as soon as that switch is flicked then the whole of reality pops out.

Anyway that's some of my thoughts.

Edited April 2 by LastThursday

[sujaykc-01]

@LastThursday I think you will find the works of George Berkeley interesting. George Berkeley, an Irish philosopher, championed idealism, arguing that reality consists of minds and their ideas, famously stating "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi), meaning objects only exist when perceived. 

Here's a more detailed explanation of Berkeley's idealism:

Mind-Dependent Reality:

He argued that objects and qualities are merely ideas in the minds of perceivers, not material entities existing outside of perception. 

"Esse est percipi":

Berkeley's core concept, "to be is to be perceived," emphasizes that the existence of something is contingent on its being perceived. 

Challenging Materialism:

Berkeley's idealism challenged the prevailing materialistic views of his time, particularly those of philosophers like John Locke and David Hume. 

Key Works:

Berkeley's most famous works, "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" and "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous," defended his immaterialist views

Immaterialism:

Berkeley's philosophy, often called immaterialism, posits that the physical world doesn't exist independently of minds or perceptions. 

His work, especially, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, helped me make a breakthrough concerning the understanding of immateriality and answered many of my sticking questions regarding it. 

[LastThursday]

Thanks @sujaykc-01 I've come accross George Berkeley, but haven't investigated his ideas deeply, I'll have to dig a bit deeper.

[sujaykc-01]

@LastThursday  Awesome. All the best to you! 

[LastThursday]

How do you know you really understand a thing? Is it that you can write down or recount it or reason around it? It's not quite that I don't think.

What makes a carpenter a carpenter is not the knowledge s/he has but the fact that they can make things with that knowledge. Is knowledge or intelligence or anything mental useful or really understood without application in the world? Although, I admit "application" can have a wide scope, which includes just imparting knowledge to others. It's also the difference between explicit and tacit knowledge or, knowledge taken on versus knowledge embodied.

I thought about this in relation to consciousness. How could I prove to myself that I really understand consciousness? It seems in the same way a carpenter does: by making stuff. Can I, create a new consciousness from first principles? Is it enough for me to have sex, and bring a new child into existence, did I then create a new consciousness de novo? Is it only the tacit knowledge encoded in my body that is able to do this? It feels like cheating, that I'm none the wise as to how it fundamentally works.

Ok, what about imagination? This is somewhat closer I think. I am able to conjure up thoughts and images and sounds and maybe even smells through mental effort, I have strong memories of my past. I mean it's a weak sauce version of consciousness unlike every day wakefulness or even dreaming, but nevertheless it's something. But the mechanism is inscrutable: the "urge" arises randomly for me to try to create something in my mind's eye, and then I try. Nowehere in that process is it clear how consciousness gets created. But there is something quite fundamental about these thought forms, precisely because they are both ephemeral and not quite like everyday consciousness. There's a platonic simplicity to them. As an example try and recall a face you see every day (your partner's or a family member), and then actually go find them and look at them - what a difference! We inhabit both worlds.

So to truly understand consciousness you at least would have to conjure a concrete reality from scratch and interact with it. How would you do it?