Whats your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Is it something that exists even when I am not aware of it?

You are aware of the formless consciousness pervading all of reality, but not necessarily all of the forms in consciousness. For example, you're not aware of my thoughts, or your past thoughts, or your unconscious mind (thoughts and experiences that will be or may never be).

[Yimpa]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You are aware of the formless consciousness pervading all of reality, but not necessarily all of the forms in consciousness. For example, you're not aware of my thoughts, or your past thoughts, or your unconscious mind (thoughts and experiences that will be or may never be).

Precisely. You don’t want to be aware of being a cereal killer, and nobody forces you to any way.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

cereal killer

🥣🔪

[Jannes]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You are aware of the formless consciousness pervading all of reality, but not necessarily all of the forms in consciousness. For example, you're not aware of my thoughts, or your past thoughts, or your unconscious mind (thoughts and experiences that will be or may never be).

Okay so the claim is that these things exist in consciousness (in a conscious net or sea or something) when I am not conscious of them?

[Carl-Richard]

29 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Okay so the claim is that these things exist in consciousness (in a conscious net or sea or something) when I am not conscious of them?

True, but you have to qualify what type of consciousness you're talking about (transpersonal consciousness vs. personal consciousness).

Your personal self is "dissociated" from these things. They don't enter your personal field of experience, because your personal field is limited. If everything in reality occurred within your personal field of experience, then you would not be a human being staring into a computer screen right now. You would be the entire universe.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@KoryKat

On 2023-12-18 at 4:35 PM, KoryKat said:

I am on the subreddit Singularity, Consciousness , NonDuality... And I see this question coming up from time to time...

 

Now I vaguely remember Mark Solms satisfying this answer for me by reframing it, but I've forgotten the answer...

 

Maybe y'all can help me , does Leo have a definitive answer on this , or do y'all have a pretty good one?   

 

I found the answer here before : https://youtu.be/vaEhAS6P7AA?si=PE2Nsc15GMWBXShY having to rewatch it though 

 

 

   Rap and freestyle about it.

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

True, but you have to qualify what type of consciousness you're talking about (transpersonal consciousness vs. personal consciousness).

Your personal self is "dissociated" from these things. They don't enter your personal field of experience, because your personal field is limited. If everything in reality occurred within your personal field of experience, then you would not be a human being staring into a computer screen right now. You would be the entire universe.

But why does the transpersonal consciousness has to exist at all? I will never enter it because as soon as I would enter it it becomes personal consciousness.

Maybe the intuition is that is has to exist because otherwise there is no structure for the personal consciousness to move through. But why can't it manifest the second I tap into it? "Now I look at the ground so the ground manifests out of nothingness. Now I look at the sky, the ground is nothingness again and the sky becomes something out of nothing." 

A magical bubble (out of personal consciousness) that somehow moves through a non existing structure. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Jannes

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

But why does the transpersonal consciousness has to exist at all? I will never enter it because as soon as I would enter it it becomes personal consciousness.

Firstly, transpersonal consciousness exists beyond all forms, beyond all limitations, and therefore you're already in it. You cannot enter it or exit it, because it's limitless; it's everywhere. You can experience formlessness through meditation (a state of consciousness devoid of thoughts, perceptions, etc.).

When it comes to forms, it's simply the case that I as a person have my own formed experience (thoughts, perceptions, etc.), and you as a person don't have access to it. Still, our separate formed experiences do exist, and they're all part of a larger whole; trans-personal consciousness; consciousness beyond the person. Likewise, neither of us have access to every form in the universe right now (e.g. what is going on in the Andromeda galaxy), yet these forms do exist, and they're all part of a larger whole; trans-personal consciousness; consciousness beyond all persons.

 

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

Maybe the intuition is that is has to exist because otherwise there is no structure for the personal consciousness to move through. But why can't it manifest the second I tap into it? "Now I look at the ground so the ground manifests out of nothingness. Now I look at the sky, the ground is nothingness again and the sky becomes something out of nothing." 

A magical bubble (out of personal consciousness) that somehow moves through a non existing structure. 

But where does that leave my personal thoughts and experiences? Are they simply non-existent?

Edited December 20, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Firstly, transpersonal consciousness exists beyond all forms, beyond all limitations, and therefore you're already in it. You cannot enter it or exit it, because it's limitless; it's everywhere. You can experience formlessness through meditation (a state of consciousness devoid of thoughts, perceptions, etc.).

When it comes to forms, it's simply the case that I as a person have my own "formed" experience (thoughts, perceptions, etc.), and you as a person don't have access to it. Still, our separate formed experiences do exist, and they're all part of a larger whole; trans-personal consciousness; consciousness beyond the person. Likewise, neither of us have access to every form in the universe right now (e.g. what is going on in the Andromeda galaxy), yet these forms do exist, and they're all part of a larger whole; trans-personal consciousness; consciousness beyond the person.

I am just saying that I can only imagine transpersonal consciousness in personal consciousness. So how do I know transpersonal consciousness exists as a form outside of it? How do I know you exist, how do you know I exist? You can't know and because you can't know transpersonal consciousness might not exist. 

(Of course if it exists it is the superset of personal consciousness like the ocean is the superset of all waves.) 

Quote

But where does that leave my personal thoughts and experiences? Are they simply non-existent?

I am confused. I think you put transpersonal consciousness as fundamental whereas I put personal consciousness as fundamental. 

No I think my personal thoughts and experiences exist absolutely because I am conscious of them right now. Thats the only thing I can't doubt. I can doubt transpersonal consciousness though cause I dont experience it right now. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Jannes

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Jannes said:

I am just saying that I can only imagine transpersonal consciousness in personal consciousness. So how do I know transpersonal consciousness exists as a form outside of it?

Rationality, logical inferences. You seem to be looking for a hyper-empiricist ontology like solipsism which doesn't require any logical inferences. Well, analytical idealism is not hyper-empiricist like that. It relies on logical inferences. If you care about rationality, then solipsism seems incredibly absurd. But if you don't, then sure, solipsism is all you got. I've tried to show how absurd it is before (if you care about rationality that is):

 

On 7.1.2023 at 2:59 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine that you're auditioning for a play. You're sitting in the audience with the other auditionees while watching each person go up on stage and performing their rendition of the character. You're all very good actors and have practiced your lines very well. You all know the same lines and you understand the emotional appeal of the character and how the actor needs to feel during the act.

You go up on stage and deliver your rendition of the character. After you're done and the audience gives their applause, you sit back down again with the other auditionees who just delivered their act. You talk to some of them and you say: "ah, now I understand how you guys felt up there! I was very nervous in the beginning, but when I got to the very emotional part, I remembered your guys' delivery and it seemed like I managed to pull it off as well". Some of them answer: "yeah, didn't that part feel amazing once you were able to get into the zone and deeply express the pain and sorrow of the character?" And you answer: "oh yes, it was very moving!".

Now, out from those experiences, what on earth would indicate that it was only you who experienced the emotional depth of the character, or that it was only you who experienced other people delivering their rendition of the character? I believe that solipsism can only be a result of being so stuck inside your intellectual mind that it overshines any obvious clues from other dimensions of life, i.e. the more social and emotional dimensions. You have to deny all your experiences of deeply connecting with people and understanding their thoughts and feelings. Again, if this is not what you mean by solipsism, you should drop the term.

In this particular example, I highlighted the emotional aspect of how you in that situation obviously "feel" and "believe" that other people are just like you (personally conscious), but the more general point boils down to how extremely trivial it is to imagine yourself being in the other people's shoes when you're literally up on stage in the same place performing the exact same play, displaying the exact same emotional responses and feeling the same emotions from the inside (and how trivial it is to conclude that other people are therefore personally conscious). The way this ties into logical inferences is that you take the similarities of the external appearances of other people to your own external appearances (emotional expressions, anatomical, physiological, biological makeup, etc.) and you conclude that this is reasonable evidence for an internal experience in those people (just as your own external appearances correlate with own your internal experiences). That is one of the logical inferences you can make that supports the idea of an objective world outside of your own personal mind (and it's not the only one, as I've alluded to in previous comments), and of course, analytical idealism would propose that this world is not physical, but mental.

 

11 hours ago, Jannes said:

I am confused. I think you put transpersonal consciousness as fundamental whereas I put personal consciousness as fundamental. 

No I think my personal thoughts and experiences exist absolutely because I am conscious of them right now. Thats the only thing I can't doubt. I can doubt transpersonal consciousness though cause I dont experience it right now. 

Exactly, because you seem to be an ontological hyper-empiricist who doesn't rely on logical inferences. I personally find it a lobotomized way to view the world (as you're quite literally pensioning a major part of your cognitive faculties, i.e. your capability for rationality), but hey, if it floats your boat.

Also, just because you're not relying on overt logical inferences doesn't mean you're not relying on assumptions (about what "this" even is). You also can't stop relying on definitions, and that is a huge issue for defining what solipsism even is (which is arguably the perennial problem on this forum). So when you realize this, maybe relying on logical inferences is not such a big problem after all? Maybe you're just as able (if not more) to obfuscate your ontology without it.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Rationality, logical inferences. You seem to be looking for a hyper-empiricist ontology like solipsism which doesn't require any logical inferences. Well, analytical idealism is not hyper-empiricist like that. It relies on logical inferences. If you care about rationality, then solipsism seems incredibly absurd. But if you don't, then sure, solipsism is all you got. I've tried to show how absurd it is before (if you care about rationality that is):

 

In this particular example, I highlighted the emotional aspect of how you in that situation obviously "feel" and "believe" that other people are just like you (personally conscious), but the more general point boils down to how extremely trivial it is to imagine yourself being in the other people's shoes when you're literally up on stage in the same place performing the exact same play, displaying the exact same emotional responses and feeling the same emotions from the inside (and how trivial it is to conclude that other people are therefore personally conscious). The way this ties into logical inferences is that you take the similarities of the external appearances of other people to your own external appearances (emotional expressions, anatomical, physiological, biological makeup, etc.) and you conclude that this is reasonable evidence for an internal experience in those people (just as your external appearances correlate with your internal experiences). That is one of the logical inferences you can make that supports the idea of an objective world outside of your own personal mind (and it's not the only one, as I've alluded to in previous comments), and of course, analytical idealism would propose that this world is not physical, but mental.

 

Exactly, because you seem to be an ontological hyper-empiricist who doesn't rely on logical inferences. I personally find it a lobotomized way to view the world (as you're quite literally pensioning a major part of your cognitive faculties, i.e. your capability for rationality), but hey, if it floats your boat.

Very interesting thanks for clarifying. Yes I do take on a hyper-empiricist ontology at the moment as I believe it might take me to mystical experiences or on the other hand in rationality I can get lost running in circles. 

But just because I take on a solipsistic approach doesnt take rationality away. Of course I still live from a rationalistic point of view and support your explanation with the connection of the individual and the objective world highly. It's not that I am against it or find it unreasonable. I only see it not as the ultimate but as a secondary truth. But secondary truth is important. 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Also, just because you're not relying on overt logical inferences doesn't mean you're not relying on assumptions (about what "this" even is). You also can't dispense with definitions, and that is a huge issue for defining what solipsism even is (which is arguably the perennial problem on this forum). So when you realize this, maybe relying on logical inferences is not such a big problem after all? Maybe you're just as able (if not more) to obfuscate your ontology without it.

I dont get what you are saying. 

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

Very interesting thanks for clarifying. Yes I do take on a hyper-empiricist ontology at the moment as I believe it might take me to mystical experiences or on the other hand in rationality I can get lost running in circles. 

But just because I take on a solipsistic approach doesnt take rationality away. Of course I still live from a rationalistic point of view and support your explanation with the connection of the individual and the objective world highly. It's not that I am against it or find it unreasonable. I only see it not as the ultimate but as a secondary truth. But secondary truth is important.

I would say the solipsism is also a secondary truth, because Absolute Truth is beyond language. And that is exactly what I mean by solipsism relying on assumptions and definitions, because the second you open your mouth, you're indeed relying on assumptions and definitions and engaging in something that is not direct, not Truth. Absolute Truth is beyond talking about it.

 

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

I dont get what you are saying. 

For example, solipsism assumes hyper-empiricism, it assumes definitions of words, it assumes you can talk about it, it assumes assumptions, etc. More critically, it tends to assume that your more general personal knowledge about the world can be fitted into it, which again is arguably the main source of all the disagreements and confusion about solipsism (because people's ideas about relevant words like "experience", "self", "perception", "mind" or "consciousness" can be highly varied, incomplete or incoherent). In other words, what you think of as a minimalist ontology is actually heavily loaded with your own baggage. If you want to dispense with most of that, you must essentially resist the temptation to describe reality. But even here, there is a possible assumption that reality cannot be described (which may be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption nonetheless). I'm not saying assumptions cannot be reasonable, but they're not usually a given, which is a common misunderstanding among solipsists: they assume solipsism (or the way they generally practice it) is the baseline "given" truth.

If you think I'm misrepresenting you and you actually think that solipsism is just another name for Absolute Truth, then I would advise you to not associate solipsism with making statements like "but I can't know that other people have an internal experience; I only have my own experience". Such a statement is loaded with assumptions that have really nothing to do with Absolute Truth.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I would say the solipsism is also a secondary truth, because Absolute Truth is beyond language. And that is exactly what I mean by solipsism relying on assumptions and definitions, because the second you open your mouth, you're indeed relying on assumptions and definitions and engaging in something that is not direct, not Truth. Absolute Truth is beyond talking about it.

Sure I agree with that. What I mean by "solipsism" is the direct experience. When you articulate it it becomes secondary truth of course. BUT even though the is secondary truth territory solipsism should be formulated in such a way that absolute truth is articulated as direct as possible and without any detours. Thats what gives it a higher placing in secondary truth then other mind games I think. 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

For example, solipsism assumes hyper-empiricism, it assumes definitions of words, it assumes you can talk about it, it assumes assumptions, etc. More critically, it tends to assume that your more general personal knowledge about the world can be fitted into it, which again is arguably the main source of all the disagreements and confusion about solipsism (because people's ideas about relevant words like "experience", "self", "perception", "mind" or "consciousness" can be highly varied, incomplete or incoherent). In other words, what you think of as a minimalist ontology is actually heavily loaded with your own baggage. If you want to dispense with most of that, you must essentially resist the temptation to describe reality. But even here, there is a possible assumption that reality cannot be described (which may be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption nonetheless). I'm not saying assumptions cannot be reasonable, but they're not usually a given, which is a common misunderstanding among solipsists: they assume solipsism (or the way they generally practice it) is the baseline "given" truth.

Yes that's how I understand it. 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you think I'm misrepresenting you and you actually think that solipsism is just another name for Absolute Truth, then I would advise you to not associate solipsism with making statements like "but I can't know that other people have an internal experience; I only have my own experience". Such a statement is loaded with assumptions that have really nothing to do with Absolute Truth.

But that's my direct experience. In my direct experience there is nobody but me. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

Sure I agree with that. What I mean by "solipsism" is the direct experience. When you articulate it it becomes secondary truth of course. BUT even though the is secondary truth territory solipsism should be formulated in such a way that absolute truth is articulated as direct as possible and without any detours. Thats what gives it a higher placing in secondary truth then other mind games I think. 

I think solipsism is just as much a mind game an any other, demonstrated by the heavy baggage of assumptions that comes with it.

 

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

But that's my direct experience. In my direct experience there is nobody but me. 

What do you mean by "direct"? What do you mean by "experience"? What do you mean by "me"? These concepts carry a lot of assumptions.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

RAP, FREESTYLE AND POETRY!

[Jannes]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think solipsism is just as much a mind game an any other, demonstrated by the heavy baggage of assumptions that comes with it.

I think non-solipsism carries a lot of assumptions. If you deconstruct those you get to solipsism. 

Quote

What do you mean by "direct"? What do you mean by "experience"? What do you mean by "me"? These concepts carry a lot of assumptions.

What IS.

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Jannes said:

 What IS.

What does "what is" have to do with whether or not other people are conscious?

[Jannes]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

What does "what is" have to do with whether or not other people are conscious?

I answered what I mean with direct experience.

7 hours ago, Jannes said:

But that's my direct experience. In my direct experience there is nobody but me. 

 

[Yimpa]

 

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Jannes said:

I answered what I mean with direct experience.

I don't think "other people" is direct. If you're questioning whether or not other people are conscious, you're questioning things that are not direct. From the perspective of direct experience ("Absolute Truth"), other people don't actually exist. Even questioning itself doesn't exist. Everything that is to know from direct experience is directly clear; no questions needed, no "other people" involved.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Carl-Richard