Consciousness As Reaction

[boagie]

Hi Everybody!!

The nature of consciousness should be revealed by a linking back to its elemental beginnings. As I have tried to establish in other threads there is no human action, there are but human reactions, and it is reaction which is the essence of all consciousness, from the human being to the elements of an emergent quality in chemistry.

It is the nature of relational reality itself, that its essence is reaction, even on a wider spread of relational situtations,such as, the co-rrelational evolutionary development of organisms, reaction, reaction to the existence of another being, another situtation, another condition, the reaction of biology to its physical circumstances.

Motivations are to reactions what conditions are to objects. boagie


What is thought of as cause and effect as an example, is a human entity bringing two states , conditions or objects together so that a relational reaction can occur. This to is reaction rather than an action. As Hume has stated, what we think we know of the relation of cause and effect is gained simply by the habit of observation, bring these to conditions and/or objects together and something happens, what happens is a relational reaction on the part of both subjects in relation. The secrets of any transformation are to be found in the constitutions of the objects or conditions in relation to each other. One is not cause the other effect, a relational reaction you might say is a kind of mutualism--reaction in both directions.

Time is measured as the duration of reactions. boagie

[Arjen]

Hi Boagie

I think that what you call consciousness I call self-consciousness. That means being conscious of the self as being defined. Do you see that difference and do you agree with me?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Hi Boagie

I think that what you call consciousness I call self-consciousness. That means being conscious of the self as being defined. Do you see that difference and do you agree with me?

Arjen.

No, I do not think a distinction is at all necessary. Consciousness is the outer world, your body is object in that world, no different in its nature than any other object., it occupies both time and space. PS: I think all forms consciousness are aware of their centre, they are just not all going to make philosophical statements about it.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by boagie

Arjen.

No, I do not think a distinction is at all necessary. Consciousness is the outer world, your body is object in that world, no different in its nature than any other object., it occupies both time and space.

Boagie

What I mean is that the body "bends" the consciousness to a somewhat alternate state forming self-consciousness. Like planets "bend" the quantumfield (thus also bending space-time). An energy field is formed which has the bending effect. So the selfconsciousness is a product of potentiality and actuality. Just like metaphysical judgements are a product of transcendental categoria and empirical perceptions (according to Kant).

I hope I am making myself somewhat clear.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Boagie

What I mean is that the body "bends" the consciousness to a somewhat alternate state forming self-consciousness. Like planets "bend" the quantumfield (thus also bending space-time). An energy field is formed which has the bending effect. So the selfconsciousness is a product of potentiality and actuality. Just like metaphysical judgements are a product of transcendental categoria and empirical perceptions (according to Kant).
I hope I am making myself somewhat clear.

Arjen,

I understand the analogy with planets and the bending of space-time, it is in a way, poetic licence, which I do not disaprove of, there are times when the imagination must be set free. You state to however that selfconsciousness is a product of transcendental categoria and empirical perceptions, this makes no sense to me. I have no belief in the supernatural which is what transcendental tends to infer, whatever the unknown constitution of a given mystery it will ultimately be found to be in accordence with nature. That would be my greatist complaint as to a method of investigation, to entertain many abstract thoughts around the topic is not to infer the supernatural. If I have misunderstood you, bear with me, perhaps we can get on the same wave length with a little effort.

[Arjen]

I think that you are confusing transcendent with transcendental. Along with that I would like to say that an explanation of that which takes place by merely two ontological levels does not explain everything. In such formulations paradoxes occur which cannot be accounted for.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

I think that you are confusing transcendent with transcendental. Along with that I would like to say that an explanation of that which takes place by merely two ontological levels does not explain everything. In such formulations paradoxes occur which cannot be accounted for.

Arjen,

Yes, I think you are right, I am confusing the terms involved. The rest sounds like it is going to be beyond confusing, but, I shall try to follow you as far as is possiable.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by boagie

Arjen,

Yes, I think you are right, I am confusing the terms involved. The rest sounds like it is going to be beyond confusing, but, I shall try to follow you are far as is possiable.

Allright, where shall we start at then?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Allright, where shall we start at then?

Arjen,

Well, it does not sound like anyone who has thus far responded to the thread have any difficulty with the essence of consciousness being reaction. So, I guess the best thing we can do is try to figure out in what ways might this understanding restructure our thinking, both about ourselves, and the world we inhabit.

[Arjen]

Allow me to pauze for a moment then. Are we agreed on the consciousness and self-consciousness as relating to first and second order logic?